Talk:Delhi

GAR

Delhi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No response to issues; thus delisting on basis of silent consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

A GA made in 2012. Now has multiple unsourced claims that need to be addressed for this article to remain a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is a mess right now. I'm gonna try to remove blatantly bad sources and content out of the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, do you intend to continue? Also pinging potential contributors for their opinions: RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler, Vanamonde93, Kautilya3. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality, Scope, and Accuracy in the Lead

@Fowler&fowler and other editors,

I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding the neutrality, accuracy, and scope of the lead and certain statements made by User:Fowler&fowler about the Delhi article. It is believed that Fowler is the owner of the article, and I respect his work, though the user repeatedly asserts that this article is about “Delhi city,” the content and structure of the article itself contradict this claim. My goal is to clarify these points to ensure historical and demographic accuracy.

1. Misrepresentation of the article’s scope Fowler has stated: “This article is about Delhi city in its various historical incarnations. It is not about the history of the region that is today Delhi, or was Delhi territory earlier, otherwise, lord knows, we'd be including Gurgaon, Rohtak and whatnot.” “As I have already said below, this article is about the city of Delhi… What changed in 1947 was not a mere demographic or ethnic change. It was a change in the character, the perceived and experienced character of the city. This is what various authors have referred to.”

Response: The article lead clearly defines Delhi as the National Capital Territory (NCT): “Delhi, officially the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, is a city and a union territory of India containing New Delhi … The NCT covers an area of 1,484 square kilometres … According to the 2011 census, Delhi's city proper population was over 11 million, while the NCT's population was about 16.8 million.” Section headings and content throughout the article consistently reference the NCT, its population, governance, and urban planning. If the article truly focused solely on “Delhi city” historically, references to the NCT would not exist. Implication: Fowler’s repeated claims that the article is “about Delhi city only” misrepresent the article’s scope. The article clearly covers more than Shahjahanabad or a single Mughal-era city, and clarifications regarding Partition-era demographics within the NCT are fully within scope. In short, the article cannot be accurately described as covering only a historical Mughal city when it explicitly addresses the entire NCT, including New Delhi, which was a distinct British-era city (I will get to this point in 2.)

2. Historical misrepresentation: Delhi was never a single continuous city

Fowler’s claim that the article focuses on the “city of Delhi” historically ignores the fact that Delhi has never been one continuous city. Delhi has always been a succession of distinct urban centers: Lal Kot, Siri, Tughlaqabad, Firozabad, Shahjahanabad, and later New Delhi. Each city had its own political, cultural, and demographic identity. Conflating the entire 1300-year history of Delhi as a single city, as Fowler implies, is historically inaccurate. Treating Shahjahanabad as representative of the whole NCT erases centuries of layered, discontinuous urban history.

3. Historical inaccuracy: 1947 changes

Fowler asserts that 1947 represented a “change in character” rather than demographic reality. The lead currently states: “Delhi changed from a Mughal city to a Punjabi one.” Problems: Conflates Shahjahanabad with the entire NCT, which includes New Delhi and surrounding areas unaffected by Mughal-era urban structures. Treating Delhi as a single “Mughal city” erases distinctions between Shahjahanabad, New Delhi, and earlier medieval cities, each with different populations and urban structures.

4. Demographic misrepresentation

Fowler’s interpretation excludes refugees from Sindh and East Bengal, implying Delhi became exclusively “Punjabi.” In reality, Partition-era migration included Punjabis, Sindhis, and East Bengalis, making the demographic transformation more complex and diverse than the lead suggests. Ignoring non-Punjabi refugee groups distorts historical accuracy and oversimplifies Delhi’s post-Partition social composition.

5. Scope and consistency with the NCT

Fowler claims the article should exclude surrounding regions (“otherwise we’d be including Gurgaon, Rohtak, etc.”). My clarifications do not extend beyond the NCT. All references and edits I proposed remain within the area and population of the NCT, fully consistent with the lead and article scope. This demonstrates that Fowler’s repeated claim that the article is “city-only” is inconsistent with the article content, which repeatedly references the NCT as the defined territory.

6. Suggested neutral and accurate wording

“During Partition, Delhi experienced a dramatic demographic change, with the influx of Punjabi, Sindhi, and East Bengali refugees.” This phrasing: Maintains historical accuracy, as future rural areas became Punjabi colonies. Acknowledges all major refugee groups Distinguishes Shahjahanabad from the broader NCT Avoids overgeneralization and preserves neutrality

7. Wikipedia policy considerations

While tertiary sources are important, Wikipedia policy does not require reproducing oversimplified interpretations that misrepresent historical facts. Editors can clarify, qualify, or add nuance with reliable sources. Reverting edits based solely on prior “consensus” or prior lead versions does not override the need for accuracy and neutrality, especially when the lead misrepresents historical and demographic facts.

Conclusion Fowler’s claims that the article is about “Delhi city only” ignore the lead and headings, which explicitly reference the NCT. The lead overgeneralizes and conflates historical entities (Shahjahanabad vs NCT) and misrepresents demographic reality (excluding Sindhi and East Bengali refugees). Delhi was never a single continuous city; it has historically been a series of distinct urban centers. Any lead language that conflates Shahjahanabad with the entire NCT is historically inaccurate. Clarifying that Shahjahanabad experienced demographic changes during Partition, while the NCT includes multiple distinct areas, preserves accuracy, respects sources, and maintains neutrality. I request that moderators and editors review the lead to ensure it reflects both the NCT scope and Delhi’s complex urban and demographic history, rather than relying on an oversimplified narrative about “Delhi city” alone.

WP:NEUTRALITY (WP:NPOV) – All content must present information fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias. Presenting the entire National Capital Territory (NCT) as a “Mughal city” or characterizing it exclusively as “Punjabi” misrepresents historical and demographic realities. Doing so assigns undue emphasis to one part of Delhi’s history (Shahjahanabad) while ignoring others (New Delhi, surrounding rural areas, and other refugee groups such as Sindhis and East Bengalis). Neutrality requires acknowledging all significant aspects of Delhi’s urban and demographic development, particularly the diverse communities and historical phases that shaped the NCT.

WP:VERIFIABILITY (WP:V) – All material must be verifiable against reliable, published sources. Partition-era demographic changes in Delhi, including the arrival of Punjabi, Sindhi, and East Bengali refugees, are well-documented in scholarly works (e.g., census records, migration studies, and historical analyses). Omitting these groups or emphasizing only certain interpretations (like “change in character”) without source support constitutes a verifiability issue. Editors must ensure that statements about Delhi’s history are backed by reliable sources and not inferred or assumed.

WP:WEIGHT (WP:WEIGHT) – Wikipedia content must reflect the relative prominence of viewpoints in reliable sources. Giving undue weight to tertiary sources that emphasize a perceived “change in character” without adequately reflecting the actual demographic changes of 1947 skews the article’s representation. The article should balance the narrative by including the factual, historically documented diversity of Delhi’s post-Partition population while acknowledging interpretive sources. Proper weight ensures that no single interpretation dominates the lead or misleads readers about the city’s history. WP:SCOPE (WP:SCOPE) – The topic of the article, as defined in the lead and headings, is the National Capital Territory of Delhi, which includes multiple urban and suburban areas, governance structures, and historical sites. Edits addressing demographic changes, Partition-era migration, and urban development fall squarely within this defined scope. Claims that the article should exclude these areas or focus solely on Shahjahanabad or “Delhi city” misinterpret the scope and contradict the article’s own introduction and structure.

WP:CONSENSUS (WP:CONS) – While prior consensus or a lead version may guide editorial decisions, it does not override the fundamental need for accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability. Reverting edits solely to maintain a previous version, especially if that version misrepresents demographic or historical facts, is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies. Editors may correct inaccuracies, update context, and refine wording, provided the changes are supported by reliable sources and maintain a neutral point of view. Consensus cannot justify perpetuating misleading or oversimplified claims.

Please address this issue ASAP! HockeyFanNHL (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/iday-special-how-partition-reshaped-delhi-and-its-soul-101755191126995.html#google_vignette HockeyFanNHL (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: It would probably help if you didn't use AI to make the arguments for you – WP:NICETRY and WP:AITALK^{just saying}. نعم البدل (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I did not use AI to make the arguments, I used AI to proofread my sentences.

  I have many arguments I can use without the help of AI. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sure. Much like how Blackadder changed a tiny aspect of the Prince of Wales's moving poem. نعم البدل (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't get the joke.

  But I am not here for jokes. I am here to address a specific issue. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Could you please clarify what the specific issue is? CMD (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I want to specify the specific issue.

  1. Article scope and mischaracterisation

  User:Fowler&fowler reverted my edits with the explanation that “the article is only about the city of Delhi.”

  However, this is inconsistent with the article’s own scope and framing, which clearly treat Delhi as the National Capital Territory (NCT) — a wider administrative and geographic entity that includes multiple urban districts, rural areas, and the New Delhi capital zone.

  The first sentence of the article itself defines Delhi as “officially the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi,” and the infobox provides NCT-level data (area, population, and governance). Therefore, editorial decisions based on the assumption that the article covers only a single historical “city of Delhi” are not aligned with its defined subject.

  Edits and clarifications about Partition-era demographics within the NCT (including both Old and New Delhi areas) are therefore on-topic and policy-compliant.

  2. Delhi’s historical continuity

  My concern is not with how any era is labelled (e.g. “Mughal Delhi”) but with the oversimplification in the lead that implies a single, continuous city existing over 1,300 years.

  Scholarly consensus recognises Delhi as a succession of historically distinct urban centres, each with its own demographic and political context. Conflating these discrete settlements into a single uninterrupted “city” misrepresents the historical record and diminishes the diversity of Delhi’s evolution.

  The major historical cities commonly recognised in scholarship include:

  Qila Rai Pithora / Lal Kot (early medieval Tomar settlement)

  Siri (Alauddin Khalji, c. 1304)

  Tughlaqabad (Ghiyath al-Din Tughlaq, 14th century)

  Jahanpanah (Muhammad bin Tughlaq, mid-14th century)

  Firozabad (Firoz Shah Tughlaq, 1354)

  Shergarh (Sher Shah Suri, 16th century)

  Shahjahanabad / Old Delhi (Shah Jahan, 17th century)

  New Delhi (British imperial capital, 1911–1931; Lutyens & Baker)

  By the time of Partition (1947), Delhi functioned primarily around two major hubs: Shahjahanabad (Old Delhi) and New Delhi.

  Treating Shahjahanabad as if it alone represents the entire NCT oversimplifies Delhi’s urban reality and historical complexity.

  I would appreciate a direct response to this specific point, rather than shifting the discussion back to the question of scope.

  3. Demographic representation at Partition

  Even if Punjabi refugees formed the largest group numerically, reliable sources also document significant settlements of Sindhi and East Bengali migrants in post-Partition Delhi.

  Excluding these groups from the lead is selective and risks violating both Neutrality and Verifiability.

  NPOV requires that all significant, reliably documented demographic contributions be represented — not solely those of the numerically largest community.

  4. Suggested neutral wording

  To improve balance and accuracy while maintaining clarity, I propose the following lead revision:

  “During Partition, Delhi experienced dramatic demographic change, with the influx of Punjabi, Sindhi, and East Bengali refugees.”

  This formulation:

  distinguishes Shahjahanabad from the broader NCT, talks about how refugees settled in colonies emerged on previous rural areas,

  acknowledges the major documented refugee groups, and

  remains neutral, concise, and verifiable.

  5. Policy context

  My edits and comments are guided by WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SCOPE, and Consensus.

  Consensus cannot justify maintaining factual or conceptual inaccuracies.

  My aim is simply to ensure the lead reflects the article’s stated topic (the NCT) and the documented complexity of Delhi’s urban and demographic history. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Btw, you might want to remove the UNESCO "citation." It is merely the Indian government's submission. It hasn't been vetted by anyone, let alone granted the World Heritage status, or what is more relavant here, become the subject of scholarly sources. Aware that the page might be misinterpreted, the link has "tentative" in its URL (https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5743), and in addition, there is a bold disclaimer on the right of the linked page. Submissions can stay in that stream for years, and even decades, without attaining recognition by the UNESCO. This particular one already has for 13 years, which doesn't bode well for its future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  The Mughal World Heritage sites of Delhi, on the other hand, did not just trailblaze new architectural styles on the subcontinent, but were also forerunners of masterpieces of the world's heritage.

  Tourists don't flock to Delhi to view its pre-Islamic "heritage," despite the much shoring up of its crumbling remnants by Indian authorities. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why are you making this a religious issue? This has nothing to do with religion, and never had.

  As I have already pointed out, your concept of Delhi is misleading, as it reduces the region to a single city, when in fact different dynasties established separate settlements across what is now Delhi.

  You are framing this as if I am opposing a particular historical period or dynasty — which I am not.

  I suggest consulting any historian or a well-researched source on Delhi’s urban and rural evolution to understand the multiple layers of settlement over time. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  My issue has absolutely nothing to do with the Mughals, and I am frankly astonished that this keeps being brought up in response to my edits.

  If you actually look at my edits on the Delhi article, it is clear that I was specifically addressing the post-1947 Partition phase. I was trying to correct the grossly oversimplified portrayal of Delhi, which treats it as a single monolithic city, when in reality it consisted of two major urban hubs — Old Delhi and New Delhi — with the remainder being rural village lands.

  I carefully added historically sourced information on the urbanization and expansion of Delhi after Partition, yet the discussion has now been derailed completely to talk about the Mughals, which is entirely irrelevant to the period I was editing. The reality is that Delhi’s urban areas did expand post-Partition, and my edits were meant to reflect that historical fact, not to engage in any unrelated historical debates.

  At this point, I am escalating this issue to higher-level Wikipedia editors, because it is utterly pointless to argue with someone who refuses to engage with the actual topic and keeps diverting the discussion to unrelated matters. This is not about religion, dynasties, or any past rulers — it is about presenting a factually accurate picture of Delhi in the immediate post-Partition period, and that deserves to be treated seriously. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Can someone actually help here, or are we just going to blindly take the side of editors who happen to have a longer history with this online establishment? HockeyFanNHL (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Your first argument was about whether or not Delhi could be called a Mughal city. I replied that it is what the sources say about the period preceding the partition of India. There was already Talbot and Singh's Partition of India, CUP, 2009, being cited, in the lead no less, and quoting those very words, "from a Mughal city to a Punjabi city." The book, by the way, has been cited 459 times in scholarly sources. It's no mean achievement.

  You then argued that you do concede Delhi was a Mughal city before the partition, but disagreed about it becoming a Punjabi city thereafter. Again, the sources marshalled for the argument and cited in the lead, use those very words. One historian, even says, "very emphatically become a Punjabi city." You may examine the citations, all of which have quotes.

  Next, you countered: But it was not only a Punjabi city, as Partition migrants from East Pakistan (formerly East Bengal, and now Bangladesh) and those from Sind (now Sindh) had also come to Delhi. But they had not come during the Partition years in anything beyond miniscule numbers. That is because in times of trauma and duress humans (and even animals) seek familiar and easily reached shelters. From Sind, it was the adjacemt provinces in the newly minted Dominion of India, i.e. northwestern Bombay State (now Gujarat) and Rajpootana (now Rajasthan). That is where the bulk of the Partition refugees went from Sind, not to faraway Delhi, which was chock full of newly arrived and angry, and sometimes violent, Hindu and Sikh Punjabi refugees from the Western Punjab. East Bengal was even farther away. There was no question of the poor, helpless, and oftentimes sick, refugees traveling across the subcontinent to Delhi. Again the sources state that. Wikipedia's Partition of India page says that in its Resettlement of refugees 1947–1951 section's second and third paragraphs, which describe the resettlement of refugees from Sind and East Bengal. Delhi is not mentioned even once.

  You have now changed tack again: in part to say that you had never really conceded the Mughal city argument (and you off-handedly alluded to—in this very thread–not to sources, but to proposals by the Indian government to UNESCO) and in part to question the validy of my arguments, to propose that the dispute needs a discussion on what constitutes validity, moving into the shifting sands of meta arguments.

  In tandem, you have posted repeatedly on my user talk page. I have not only requested very conspicously at the top that page that users not post disagreements there, especially about reverts. Yet you posted there three or four time, despite my removing your long walls of text each time.

  In my view, you have not only given short shrift to Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, but are now also inching closer to forms of disruption that I see maybe once every other year.

  For your own good, you should take a break from this argument, and come back to it, if you'd like, in a couple of weeks, or months. And if I were you, I'd remove the disputed tags. They seem to display the makings of WP:Pointy. I don't want to have to request administrative help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  @User:Fowler&fowler: Thank you for the detailed response. However, I believe this discussion is being slightly misrepresented. My concern is not about whether Delhi can be called a “Mughal city,” but rather about scope, framing, and oversimplification.

  1. Article scope and mischaracterisation

  You reverted my edits with the explanation that “the article is only about the city of Delhi.”

  However, this is inconsistent with the article’s own defined scope and framing. The very first sentence describes Delhi as “officially the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi,” and the infobox provides NCT-level data on population, area, and governance.

  Therefore, editorial decisions made under the assumption that the article refers only to the historic walled city are not aligned with its stated subject. The article, as structured, covers the National Capital Territory as a whole — which includes Old Delhi, New Delhi, and over a hundred villages that have been absorbed as “urban villages.”

  Edits discussing Partition-era demographics within this wider NCT — encompassing the walled city, New Delhi, cantonment areas, and rural villages — are thus entirely on-topic and policy-compliant under WP:SCOPE.

  2. Oversimplification of Delhi’s historical and demographic identity

  I fully recognise that Talbot and Singh (2009) is a respected work, widely cited in scholarly publications (459 times, as you noted). However, the number of citations does not automatically make every phrase within it definitive or universally accepted.

  For example, many earlier academic works described the Ghurid dynasty as “Buddhist converts to Islam,” but later research corrected this to “pagan converts.” Scholarly consensus evolves, and citation frequency alone cannot make a single phrase the only authoritative representation.

  Numerous urban historians, planners, and geographers — such as Narayani Gupta (Delhi Between Two Empires), K.C. Sivaramakrishnan (Re-visioning Indian Cities), and Ravi Sundaram (Pirate Modernity) — describe Delhi not as a monolithic city but as a composite urban formation.

  In 1947, Delhi was a mosaic of overlapping zones:

  – the historic walled city (Shahjahanabad/Old Delhi),

  – New Delhi (the colonial capital),

  – cantonment zones, and

  – over a hundred rural and agrarian villages later urbanised by the DDA.

  The statement that Delhi transformed “from a Mughal city to a Punjabi city” is therefore a drastic oversimplification of a far more layered reality. Delhi was not a singular “Punjabi city,” especially given that:

  – Many indigenous families of Old Delhi continued to reside there after Partition.

  – Dozens of historic villages (now “urban villages”) have continuously existed within Delhi’s boundaries.

  – Refugee settlement patterns varied widely across these urban and peri-urban zones.

  My edits were never intended to contradict reliable sources, but to contextualise them alongside others that recognise Delhi’s diverse urban and demographic composition. In other words, Talbot and Singh’s phrasing should be presented as one scholarly interpretation, not as an all-encompassing conclusion about Delhi’s identity.

  3. Reliability, neutrality, and scholarly balance

  Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE policies make clear that articles must reflect the balance of views in reliable scholarship — not privilege one author’s framing, however respected.

  While Talbot and Singh is undoubtedly reliable, multiple other historians offer complementary perspectives on Delhi’s transformation after Partition — highlighting, for instance, the city’s spatial expansion, the survival of pre-Partition populations, and the absorption of multiple refugee and local communities.

  Integrating these perspectives proportionately ensures the article does not present a flattened narrative, but instead aligns with Wikipedia’s requirement of due weight and neutrality.

  4. On refugee demography and scope

  It is correct that the majority of Partition refugees in Delhi were from Western Punjab. However, the demographic scope of Delhi (the NCT) also included smaller yet significant populations of Sindhi, Bengali, and local North Indian groups, many of whom settled in specific colonies or market sectors.

  Studies such as Ravinder Kaur’s Since 1947: Partition Narratives among Punjabi Migrants of Delhi and Joya Chatterji’s The Spoils of Partition provide evidence that while Punjabis formed the majority, Delhi’s refugee population and post-Partition identity were not exclusively Punjabi.

  Recognising this nuance does not undermine Talbot and Singh — it simply situates their argument within a broader and more representative historical context.

  5. Policy and conduct context

  These concerns fall directly under WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:SCOPE. NPOV requires that significant and reliably sourced perspectives be included proportionately, while scope requires consistency between the article’s stated subject (the NCT) and editorial decisions.

  My edits were made in good faith to ensure accuracy and neutrality within that defined scope. I also wish to note that my intention in communicating was solely to discuss content — not to violate user page boundaries. I’ve since confined all discussion to this article’s talk page, in full adherence to WP:TALK and WP:CIVIL.

  6. Constructive path forward

  To move toward consensus, I propose the following:

  Retain Talbot and Singh (2009) and its phrasing in the article.

  Add a short clarifying line, supported by additional academic sources, noting that Delhi’s post-Partition demography also included Sindhi, Bengali, and long-settled local populations, making its identity more plural and layered.

  Ensure the lead and relevant sections remain consistent with the article’s defined scope as the NCT, not merely the historic city core.

  These changes would strengthen the article’s accuracy, neutrality, and policy compliance without removing any reliably sourced material.

  I’ll be stepping back from this discussion for a while, and not make any edits regarding the intro of Delhi, but I wanted to ensure my position is clearly and respectfully recorded for future editors’ reference. Thank you for the engagement. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  If it might help future communication, the position is not clear. The llm text is long and muddled. The potential distinction between actual cities and legally defined cities can make scoping articles a bit tricky at times, but that is not at all unique to Delhi. CMD (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @Chipmunkdavis,

  Thank you for this. You've perfectly identified the core of the issue: the "distinction between actual cities and legally defined cities." I apologize for my previous muddled text; let me clarify my position simply.

  My concern is that the current lead blurs this exact distinction, which creates a misleading narrative.

  Legally Defined City (The Article's Scope): The article is explicitly about the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. This is our defined subject.

  The respected senior user Fowler has reverted my edits regarding factual information with sources about the history of the Delhi NCT, citing this article is only about the "city of Delhi it has been for 1300 years"- when this statement itself is historically inaccurate as Delhi is known to have been a succession of seven major medieval cities, not a single, continuous urban entity.

  Actual City Lead's Wording): The phrase "Mughal city to a Punjabi city" historically refers specifically to the urban core of Shahjahanabad (Old Delhi). It does not accurately describe the broader NCT, which included the distinct city of New Delhi and numerous rural villages.

  The problem is twofold:

  Oversimplification: Using Shahjahanabad's experience to define the entire NCT is an imprecise generalization. It would be like using the transformation of Manhattan's Lower East Side to summarize the entire history of New York City.

  Demographic Inaccuracy: Framing the result as a "Punjabi city" ignores other significant refugee communities (Sindhis, East Bengalis) and the continuity of pre-existing populations, which risks violating WP:NPOV.

  My goal is not to remove the well-sourced insight from Talbot & Singh, but to ensure it is applied precisely. We can acknowledge this major cultural shift while accurately reflecting that it was most transformative for the historic core, not the entire NCT. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  I love other editors are being involved, but I don't want to extend this debate.

  I will rest my case from now onwards and not bother about the changes. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  Again, the major migration into Delhi during the Partition was of Hindus and Sikhs from Western Punjab. East Bengalis migrated to West Bengal, and Hindu Sindhis to Rajasthan and Gujarat during that period. The paragraph is not about demography, but culture and history. Unlike the Muslims from the United Provinces who migrated in reverse to Sindh, createda a cultural renaissance, and turned Pakistan into a major center for Urdu literature known the world over nothing comparable in the cultural realm was wrought or spawned by the incoming Punjabis into Delhi, entrepreneurial thought they certainly were.

  As for Sindhis, I have added some very recent articles which show that the predominant migration of Sindhis during the Partition was to the adjoining provinces of Gujarat (then Bombay State's northwestern portion) and Rajasthan.

  That the major migration out of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) during the Partition was into West Bengal, with most of the remaining into Assam and Tripura, is the stuff of settled history. That doesn't mean that later migrations from Bengal into Delhi did not take place, only that they did not in anything but miniscule proportions during the crucial Partition years under discussion.

  Finally, the history of a city X for me is what is covered in the history sources about X.

  I will now be removing the disputed tags. I don't see that you have made a case for a dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  I will keep the disputed tags, but won't make edits. HockeyFanNHL (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Please give me time,

  I am not going to instantly reply, as you said "For your own good, you should take a break from this argument, and come back to it, if you'd like, in a couple of weeks, or months." HockeyFanNHL (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, especially on this Armistice Day, on which my late mother in her childhood used to cut out red paper poppies to wear to school. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

---

Add all the district name is delhi wikipedia

i hope whoever is reading my message is well, i want to give a suggestion that in wikipedia of delhi there should be proper coloumn for delhi district as this is the majory that confuse most of the people. I would also suggest to add on the the district that come under delhi NCR with the name of their state respectively. Thankyou yours faithfully Miza Khan Mizba Khan (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the sugggestion, but a list would take too much space. What we can do has already been done. It is in the first sentence of Delhi#Civic_administration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Why removing information

@User:Mahmud Amiruddin Kapoor Why are you removing information Delhi is a union territory Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@User:Fylindfotberserk Please see this please corrects this Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I had removed the information from the establishments section, because adding each and every small event to the establishments section of the Infobox causes some later events to be omitted because the table has a maximum capacity of "eight entries". That's why after my edit only the main establishment events were included.

Mahmud Amiruddin Kapoor (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but we are also giving recent information, not ancient information, as you insist.

Also, Delhi was not only a part of British Punjab but also of various provinces before it became part of Punjab of British India. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid point. I wish that we could have some kind of extended limits so that we were able to show all the events without removing from between. Mahmud Amiruddin Kapoor (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you know that Delhi was part of Ceded and Conquered Provinces,Agra Presidency and North-West Provinces before becoming part of Punjab. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure what exactly is the content being removed. Please explain it here. However, the maximum capacity of entries, as pointed out by Mahmud Amiruddin Kapoor is correct, hence we have to keep them within limits. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The last information is not coming after 1947; that's what I talking about. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I have fixed that. can you check? Mahmud Amiruddin Kapoor (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but I am removing "from Punjab" since Chief Commissioner's Province are separate provinces, not a part of another province. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

From Punjab I meant that it was separated from it, but it's okay to remove it if it sounds vague. Mahmud Amiruddin Kapoor (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It was not clear what you had meant. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I have made some changes so that it makes sense. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@User:Fylindfotberserk Why are you removing information? Let the 19th-century information of Delhi be there; you are only providing information till the 1500s and then jumping to the 20th century, which is wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi&diff=prev&oldid=1371845175

Please provide information properly. Delhi is not like Mumbai, Mumbai is British-built European city with British-built buildings and wide roads and streets. Delhi has a history of its own because of users like you. Delhi never gets good tourism, and do you expect foreigners to say nice things about India?

Mumbai gets good tourism: the only problem they have is Dharavi slum otherwise, nothing is a problem in Mumbai. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

• Comment by Fowler&fowler This is an article that has remained stable for a very long time. As far as I remember, the lead was written and the pictures in the infobox were chosen under administrative supervision. We are not at liberty to add random pieces of information. I know about Delhi Territory, a map of mine is displayed on that page. I created the articles on Ludlow Castle, Delhi (where you can find mention of the Chief Commissionership), Samuel Ludlow, Ceded and Conquered Provinces, North-Western Provinces, List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57. But Delhi isn't a page about Delhi Territory. The info box is already very long. We can't really make it longer. Perhaps we could add a reliably sourced sentence in the relevant history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  At least let the 19th-century information about Delhi be there in the infobox since that is recent history; don't skip that and just add few import information. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Let me think about it. I can't promise anything. I have my plate full right now. But please don't reinstate your edits.

  I uploaded maps of the Delhi territory. The map, File:CededConqueredProvincesDelhiTerritory.jpg is also mine; most likely someone removed my map from the English Wikipedia and uploaded it under their own name on Commons. Compare with File:Ceded Conquered Provinces details.jpg (which is mine). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Please do not add anything. I have told you I need to think about it. Delhi Territory was not Delhi; it was a division of British India, lying in Punjab. Union Territory of Delhi, or National Capital Territory of Delhi redirect to Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  If you make that edit again, I will consider it a violation of WP:ONUS, which requires those adding something, especially when disputed, to seek a consensus on the talk page. It is Wikipedia Policy. I will call for administrative help. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  User:Fowler&fowler Please provide information. Don't say your not going to not do that. The representation of Delhi has never been nice. Please, please, I beg you, Delhi is not like Mumbai; in fact, Delhi has a lot in common with Lahore. At least learn from the Pakistanis how they have been editing Wikipedia, my friend.

  You seem absolutely not interested. Delhi is a historic city, not a British-built city. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Wikipedian reader 1234567: Are you sure you had to ping me and not Fowler&fowler? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  Oh sorry, I made a mistake; I didn't see. I will ping my reply to him. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  @User:Fowler&fowler I hope you can see this. Can you make a quote box similar to Kandahar where you can record the information clearly instead? I think that's a good idea since the infobox capacity of entries is very limited. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

  We can't really do that on Delhi. If we do, there will be many more additions than Delhi's history reliably attests to. People will add the various pre-1199 kingdoms; they will add the Marathas, Ahmad Shah Durrani, even List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–1857, when the Mughal Empire was theoretically still around but its limits not much more than from Dehli to Palam as the old Persian couplet went.

  It will become a big headache. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

  Those quote boxes are oversimplifications which do great disservice to their topics. CMD (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)