Talk:Slavery in India

Censored quotes

Quotes added recently were not moved to talk. I am moving them here for MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to save him this work, since he repeatedly refuses to do it despite being asked MANY times by many users.

But MonsterHunter32 still needs to give full reasoning (for each removed quote) on the talkpage.

• All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

• All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

• As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved. --Jedi3 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Here you see an overview with the current status (which does not even include all of the deleted quotes):

Article Discussion page	Number of censored quotes	MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk?	MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk?	Current status
* Talk:Aurangzeb	Almost 40 quotes.	The quotes added on 23 March were NOT moved to talk. The previously added quotes were added to talk.	Reasoning for ONE quote (Will Durant quote) given, but no consensus achieved.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the rest of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Somnath temple	2 quotes.	Started deleting quote on 7 January, moved ONE quote to talk on 21 January. Second quote not moved to talk by MH32.	Reasoning given for ONE quote, but no consensus achieved. Second DELETED quote needs reasoning. Comments from other editors needed.	Comments from other editors about the Wilkie Collins quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Swami Vivekananda	1 quote.	No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the DELETED quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Historical negationism	1 quote.	No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Slavery in India	3 quotes.	No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim	About 15 quotes.	No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Malabar rebellion	1 quote.	No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times.	No reasoning given on talk.	MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

True account of Jedi3's edit-wars and disruption

Article	Number of non-notable quotes removed	Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert?	Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk?	Template:Remove requires moving?	Satisfactory reason given?	Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb	Almost 30 quotes, not 40. As already explained to Jedi3 some of his new quotes keep getting removed due to his own edit-warring which I revert, see [1].	No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed on talk page since 23 March.	Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES.	NO
Somnath temple	2 quotes.	No. Still edit-warring: [2]. Last date of talk before today. 5 March	One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES. Other given too in edit-summary.	NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda	1 quote.	No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March.	Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES. Reason given in edit summary.	NO
Talk:Historical negationism	1 quote.	No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March.	Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES. Reason given in edit summary.	NO
Talk:Slavery in India	3 quotes.	No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March.	Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES. Reason given in edit summary: [3], [4], [5]	NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim	About 15 quotes.	No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March.	Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES. Reason given in edit summary: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially.	NO
Malabar rebellion	1 quote.	No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March.	Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped.	NOT ALWAYS.	YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [19]	NO

This person is clearly not interested in "cooperation" or any real "discussion". he has edit-warred dozens of times even recently despite being warned by administrators. Please have him blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Quotes

−

• Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries.

−

• • Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar Pakistan or The Partition of India (1946) (p. 228-230)

• When Muhammad bin Qasim mounted his attack on Debal in 712, all males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved.

−

• • Lal, K. S. (1994). Muslim slave system in medieval India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.

−

• Arrian mentions with admiration that every Indian is free. With them, as with the Lacedemonians, he says, no native can be a slave; but unlike the Lacedemonians, they keep no other people in servitude.

−

• • The History of India, by Mountstuart Elphinstone (Ephinstone's India p. 239)

MonsterHunter32's deletions

As was told to you multiple times by mulitiple editors, you have to have move quotes to the talkpage that you want to blank from the article, with an explanation. See Template:Remove --Jedi3 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Remove: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning. Otherwise the deletions can be reverted on that ground alone. But deleted quote is highly relevant and particularly apt as a definition of the concept of negationism. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Due to the continued refusal of User:MonsterHunter32 to move deleted quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning, as was told to him by many users many times, I am copying them here in one place (they are all India-related), so that others interested in the same topic area can comment on it in one place.

He was warned many times by multiple users that per Template:Remove the following is valid and must be observed:

• All censored quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

See Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32

He has done dozens of blankings of my additions, most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary). .He refuses to discuss to discuss his censorship on talk, and just continues edit-warring.

• The quote was deleted under the poor excuse that it " Doesn't focus on india" with no talkpage discussion. This proves that MonsterHunter has not read the quote in context. Ambedkar writes about the situation in India in the book and passage from where this was quoted.--Jedi3 (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Ambedkar quote

The quote is from chapter 10 in Ambdkars Pakistan book. This chapter talks about the situation in India:

First sentences of this chapter: The Hindu-Muslim problem has two aspects to it.... The social evils which characterize the Hindu Society, have been well known. ...., the Muslims in India were free from them, and as compared to the Hindus, were a progressive people. That such an impression should prevail, is surprising to those who know the Muslim Society in India at close quarters. ....

Therefore in the context of the book and the chapter, it seems to be about India. Do you agree with that? Anyways, I will look at it again in more detail when I have some time.--Jedi3 (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Removed quotes

These quotes I removed because I found them non-notable:

• At home Amir Khusrau, the sufi poet, writes in his Nub Sipehr that "the Turks, whenever they please, can seize them, buy them and sell them at will... The Hindu happens to be a (wretched) slave in all respects.
  • Amir Khusrau, Nub Sipehr, Wahid Mirza ed., Calcutta, 1998, Sipehr II, pp. 89, 130-131. [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [20]]

• From the seventh century onwards and with a peak during Muhammad al-Qasim's campaigns in 712-713 a considerable number of Jats [Hindus] was captured as prisoners of war and deported to Iraq and elsewhere as slaves.
  • André Wink, Al Hind, Vol. I, p. 161 [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [21]]

• Enslavement, however, could be a substitute for death, and invariably the numerous dependent followers and women and children of killed opponents were enslaved. The sources insist that now, in dutiful conformity to religious law, 'the one-fifth of the slaves and spoils' were set apart for the caliph's treasury and despatched to Iraq and Syria. The remainder was scattered among the army of Islam....
  •  Al Hind, André Wink, Vol. I, p. 172 [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [22]]

• The pressure of new circumstances led initially to large-scale slave-trading and the emergence of slave labour during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The numbers of slaves in the Sultans' establishments were very high (50,000 under Alauddin Khilji, and 180,000 under Firuz Tughluq). Barani judges the level of prices by referring to slave prices, and the presence of slaves was almost all-pervasive.
  • Irfan Habib: Essays in Indian History, quoted in Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Rupa 2001, p. 417 [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [23]]

• When Muhammad bin Qasim mounted his attack on Debal in 712, all males of the age of seventeen and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved.
  • Lal, K. S. (1994). Muslim slave system in medieval India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [24]]

• Akbar had prohibited enslavement and sale of women and children of peasants who had defaulted in payment of revenue. He knew, as Abul Fazl says, that many evil hearted and vicious men either because of ill-founded suspicion or sheer greed, used to proceed to villages and mahals and sack them.
  • Lal, K. S. (2012). Indian muslims: Who are they. [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [25]]

• The process of enslavement during war went on under the Khaljis and the Tughlaqs. Alauddin had 50,000 slaves some of whom were mere boys, and surely many captured during war. Firoz Tughlaq had issued an order that whichever places were sacked, in them the captives should be sorted out and the best ones (fit for service with the Sultan) should be forwarded to the court. Soon he was enabled to collect 180,000 slaves. Ziyauddin Barani’s description of the Slave Market in Delhi (such markets were there in other places also) during the reign of Alauddin Khalji, shows that fresh batches of slaves were constantly replenishing them.
  • Lal, K. S. (2012). Indian muslims: Who are they. [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [26]]

• In the preceding pages it has been seen how women and children were special targets for enslavement throughout the medieval period, that is, during Muslim invasions and Muslim rule. Captive children of both sexes grew up as Muslims and served the sultans, nobles and men of means in various captives. Enslavement of young women was also due to many reasons; their being sex objects was the primary consideration and hence concentration on their captivity..... Forcible marriages, euphemistically called matrimonial alliances, were common throughout the medieval period. Only some of them find mention in Muslim chronicles with their bitter details...It is therefore no wonder that from the day the Muslim invaders marched into India to the time when their political power declined, women were systematically captured and enslaved throughout the length and breadth of the country.
  • K.S. Lal, Lal, K. S. (1994). Muslim slave system in medieval India. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan. ch. 12. [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [27]]

• Conditions became intolerable by the time of Shahjahan as attested to by Manucci and Manrique. Peasants were compelled to sell their women and children to meet the revenue demand. Manrique writes that "the peasants were carried off... to various markets and fairs (to be sold) with their poor unhappy wives behind them, carrying their small children all crying and lamenting to meet the revenue demand". Bernier too affirms that "the unfortunate peasants who were incapable of discharging the demand of their rapacious lords, were bereft of their children who were carried away as slaves."
  • Quoted in K.S. Lal, Muslim Slave System in medieval India. Reference to: Manrique, vol. II, p. 272 Manrique, Fr. Sebastian Travels of Frey Sebastian Manrique, trs. by Eckford Luard, 2 vols., London, 1927.; Bernier, p. 205. Bernier, Francois, Travels in the Mogul Empire (1656-1668), revised by V.A. Smith, Oxford, 1934. [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [28]]

• Writing about the days of Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlaq (1325-51), Shihabuddin al-Umari writes: "The sultan never ceases to show the greatest zeal in making war upon the infidels... Every day thousands of slaves are sold at a very low price, so great is the number of prisoners .... (that) the value at Delhi of a young slave girl, for domestic service, does not exceed eight tankahs. Those who are deemed fit to fill the parts of domestic and concubine sell for about fifteen tankahs. In other cities prices are still lower... " Probably it was so because Ibn Battutah while in Bengal says that a pretty kaniz (slave girl) could be had there for one gold dinar (or 10 silver tankahs). "I purchased at this price a very beautiful slave girl whose name was Ashura. A friend of mine also bought a young slave named Lulu for two gold coins." It is very difficult to establish a relationship between the prices of Delhi market and those of the provinces. Umari continues, "but still, in spite of low prices of slaves, 20000 tankahs, and even more, are paid for young Indian girls. I inquired the reason... and was told that these young girls are remarkable for their beauty, and the grace of their manners."
  • Masalik-ul-Absar, E.D. vol. III, pp. 580-81. (Shihabuddin al-Umri, Masalik-ul-Absar fi Mumalik-ul-Amar) Quoted from Lal, K. S. (1994). Muslim slave system in medieval India.[Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [29]]

• Arrian mentions with admiration that every Indian is free. With them, as with the Lacedemonians, he says, no native can be a slave; but unlike the Lacedemonians, they keep no other people in servitude.
  • The History of India, by Mountstuart Elphinstone (Ephinstone's India p. 239) [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources [30]]

---

I am checking most of the quotes that were removed by user:MonsterHunter32, and most of them, if not all, fails to meet standards of notability and/or quotability. Quotes have to be widely repeated in reliable secondary and tertiary sources to be included on a page. Reliable secondary sources are a valuable way to demonstrate notability and quotability by showing that a statement is actually quoted outside the primary source. [See my comments in brackets] --Xsaorapa (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your claim [Not found in reliable secondary and tertiary sources] is irrelevant because:

1. Your internet search was very limited and we do not know how you evaluated the results
2. Most of the quotes are translations of words or entire phrases or entire content from other languages (like Arabic or Persian) with many translation variations in the English language. We do know from your links that you did not check all the possible variations (which would be an arduous task)
3. You did not search books and journals and other media which are not found online, or are only found behind paywalls.
4. And most importantly, they are already all reliably sourced and all have proper citations to published sources. WQ:Q does not mandate a specific number of citations, and many WQ editors even oppose the inclusion of more than one source for a quote (when I added more than one source for a quote, the additional source were often removed by other editors). It is not mandatory at all that all quotes need to be widely repeated in other sources, this is only one of many factors to be considered. All the quotes are verifiably sourced, original to the author, from a notable author or source, and/or they the artfulness factor to be here, that means that is an eloquent and poingnat expression, a main rationale to add quotes in WQ. There is no single ultimate factor of quotability on WQ.
5. You seem to confuse wikipedia with WQ, but the link to wikipedia is here. Wikiquote strives to cite PRIMARY sources for the origins of quotations "straight from the horse's mouth", while Wikipedia articles usually cite SECONDARY sources of information on a subject for objective coverage. Wikiquote allows original research; Wikiquotians are encouraged to search for primary sources.
6. This seems motivated by a desire for censorship of quotes critical of Islam as noted here [31]. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The simple fact that most of these quotes cannot be found beyond a few websites is already telling that they are hardly notable. This seems motivated by a desire to promote a anti-muslim political agenda as noted here. --Xsaorapa (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. I am not anti-Muslim, and I don't have a political agenda. I also did not say that you are promoting an anti-Hindu or a radical pro-Islamist political agenda.

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.

--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Policy

The NPOV policy states: "Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist." --Xsaorapa (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)