Talk:Langah Sultanate

Reason of undoing my edit

Hey @Sutyarashi! I just want to ask you on which basis you undid my edit?

If the census can be used for Rajput reference why the 1911 official census can not be cited for Jat reference?

Similarly they are several historical sources of their Jatt origin out of which I added one but you removed it?

Punjab has several tribes which can be found in both Jats and Rajputs. As far Langah some even attributed them an independent tribe. Even in the Ain e Akbari they are mentioned along with Jatts, not with Rajput. However the point is on which basis you undid the revision when they same category of sources/citations are linked for Rajput reference?

Please explain it otherwise I am going to open case with someone else with better rights than you Jee Fateh (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

They are rajpoots obsessed hahaha Islamichistorian1 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you should open a case. It's been over a year and he hasn't responded. @Jee Fateh Shogunenjoyer3234 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Infobox map

@पाटलिपुत्र: Hi Pat, just wanted to ask about the map in the infobox where you have set out the territory of the Langah sultanate. From having a look at the source, it doesnt detail the exact limits of the territory held by the Sultanate. I believe Schwatzberg's general outline would be more appropriate as little other information has been provided but just wanted to know your thoughts as well. Ixudi (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ixudi:, you may be right, but I guess I did not find the Sultanate of Multan in Schwatzberg's maps. Do you have a specific page number where it appears? पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Not the Sulatnate of Multan exactly but the Langas are shown on page 139. Link: https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/pager.html?object=076

I believe you've already made a map with this information in a appropriate form so it may be worth adding that to the infobox instead. See Template:South Asia in 1525 CE. Ixudi (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Schwartzberg only gives a general area, but on the other hand the History of civilizations of Central Asia details the specific cities they held (p.305). This information allows for a certain understanding of the outline of their territory, although possibly minimalistic. Template:South Asia in 1525 CE is rather intended as a general depiction of the political situation in South Asia at that point of time, but is not very informative regarding the precise territory of the Langahs... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

From having a read of page 305, there is little to no information regarding the westernmost or eastermost extent of the sultanate. The only information I can find on its territory comes from the following quote:

"He wrested the principality of Shorkot from Ghazi Khan and extended his control up into Chiniot."

So all we can really say for sure is that the sultanate was based in Multan and expanded into Chiniot. From my perspective, this is not enough information to create a map from. Ixudi (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Whenever possible I like to use Schwartzberg, but in the absence of better material, it is common practice to establish an illustrative map based on literary material, i.e. based on cities known to have belonged to the realm in question (here especially Multan, Shorkot and Chiniot). We also know that D.G. Khan and D.I. Khan were under the jurisdiction of the Langahs (see article). Of course it would be better to have a map to copy directly from, but Schwartzberg apparently overlooked them. You can of course use my other map Template:South Asia in 1525 CE if you think it is better, but I'm afraid it would not be an improvement for the basic reader. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Please review sources for the origin carefully!

Please review the attached sources carefully, especially when it comes to origins. The claims for the Baloch origin are inherently faulty, given that Abd al-Haqq misidentifies Budhan Khan as the founder of the state, when in reality he was the grandson of the actual founder, Rai Sahra Langah. And as far as I know, Baloch rulers haven't historically taken the title of "Rai". Shogunenjoyer3234 (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from engaging in original research, see WP:OR. If you wish to demonstrate that the source is inaccurate then please find a reliable secondary source that specifically calls it as such. Ixudi (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, but the misidentification of Budhan Khan is present in the very sources that are already listed. That should still be mentioned. Shogunenjoyer334 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please let me know if the edits are acceptable. I've placed the full quotation of the source already mentioned, showing the misidentification. And I did not include anything beyond that. @Ixudi Shogunenjoyer334 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources say that Abd Al-Haqq was incorrect. You pointing out that he is seems to again be a case of WP:OR. Ixudi (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it disputed whether Rai Sahra was the first sultan? If so, then yeah I agree that there needs to be a source specifying that Abd al-Haqq is wrong. But it seems like it's consensus that Sahra was the first in his line, so is it really original research to point out any conclusion which points to another ruler, like Budhan, being the founder is false? Genuine question, do advise. @Ixudi Pindari022 (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Origins

Can we stop adding afghans again and again pls. Their only source is ferishta which isn't even contemporary and reliable. Further more the name of founder of the Sultanate "Rai Sahra/Sehra"isnt Afghan or Baloch the title "rai" is exclusively is Jat/Rajput. The original manuscript of the baloch claim claims them as sindhi speakers which has nothing to do with them being baloch.The baloch tribe with a similar name is Lagove/lango which is the root of the confusion. WarriorBlood1 (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

1. There is no reason to remove that text since it's not given in wikivoice, it is attributed and disputed in the text. Unless you think it isn't relevant, but I think even misidentification is interesting for these topics as they can help clear up misundertandings readers have.

2. Do you have a source for the Lagove/lango confusion? That would be a great addition to the page.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 14:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

We should add it, but specify then that Ferishta is the only source, and he is not a contemporary.

Also, he does have a point with the "Rai" title almost always being used exclusively by Indic groups. I can't think of a single example of an Afghan or Baloch ruler (Nawab, Jagirdar, etc) using "Rai" instead of "Khan" or "Shah" instead. This might fall under personal research, but I do think it's kind of self-evident. Maybe worth mentioning? Fortuitus20 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

It is definitely WP:OR if no source mentions it. I do believe them, but if there is no source to support it it cannot be added according to the rules. Maybe there is a reason they are the exception. There probably isn't, but we as editors aren't allowed to make that call, only reliable sources.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 20:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

One more thing "Ain e akbari" written by Abu fazl in 16th centruy mentions Langahs as jatts.The shorkot Fort belonged to Langahs at the time of Emperor akbar. someone did add that in but baloch / afghan trolls keep removing it. WarriorBlood1 (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Add the Abu Fazl reference again. If it gets removed, ask why. If no one responds, then report it. Fortuitus20 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

U can refer the [Langaw] tribe of balochs wikipage. WarriorBlood1 (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Langaw (tribe) says nothing about the Langah Sultanate though? Meanwhile Langah (clan) states

"Langahs are mostly known for establishing the Langah Sultanate, which ruled Multan and the surrounding regions in south Punjab from 1445 to 1540, before being overthrown by the Arghuns. However this is disputed and other sources describe the Langah Sultanate as being formed by the Langah tribe of the Baloch."

So here too both sides of the argument are presented.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 10:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"Langaw,[1] Langhow or Lango" imo it doent even sound the same. WarriorBlood1 (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It is British colonists who "translated" it, just look at old versions of english names for Chinese places, they were not the best in being accurate to the original name. XD

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 10:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm from southeastern pakistan punjab. We have Langah Jats all over Bar region and southern punjab as well as a minority in sindh.The two clans/tribes aren't even close to each other in pronunciation. In saraiki/punjabi The baloch tribe is pronounced "Langhoo" while the jat clan is pronounced "Langah". And I recently read the "ain e akbari" manuscript in persian and its pronounced "Langah". Same in the "Tarikh e haq". WarriorBlood1 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Reformat the 'Origins'

Can we reformat the 'Origins' part? Mention the founders, then ethnic origins, then regional origins?

I would do it myself, but I don't want to prematurely edit. If I don't get a response after a while, I'll assume it's fine.

I kept the citations as is. This is what I mean:

---

There is much uncertainty about the ethnic origins and even the chronology of the Langah rulers, as primary accounts differ among them widely.

Abd al-Haqq, author of Tārīkh-i ḥaqqī, states that the founder of the dynasty was one Buddhan Khan Sindhi. However, Firishta, Nizamuddin, Mir Ma'sum, Abbas Sarwani and Sujan Rai all consider the founder to be one Rai Sahra (or Sehra).

The ethnic origins of the Langah rulers are unclear. Suhail Zaheer Lari, who specialises in the history of Sindh and southern Pakistan, calls the tribe as Baloch. Dr. Mahmudul Hasan Siddiqi notes that the local traditions of Multan ascribe a Rajput origin to the Langahs, although contemporary Langahs are classed as Jats now.

The place of origin for the Langah rulers is similarly disputed, with Siwi (modern Sibi) and Rapar (in Mailsi tehsil, near Multan) being usually suggested. According to Siddiqi, it seems more than probable that Langahs were initially settled near Rapar, and their association with Siwi is probably a transcription error as they have never been noticed near it.

---

Let me know what you guys think. Fortuitus20 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's fine as no one brought up an objection. I'll edit it now. Fortuitus20 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2025

Change 'abducted in favour of his son' to 'abdicated in favour of his son' Saurabhjmadan (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Changes

@Jatwadia please discuss your changes here before engaging in a edit war. Ixudi (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jatwadia Your addition has no relevance to the article. The article section is discussing the origins of the Langah Sultanate specifically which is disputed between the Langah (clan) and the Langaw (tribe). How they were classified in the Ain-e-Akbari long after the Sultanate ended has no relevance here. Ixudi (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Reformat Origins

Any content about the founder of the Sultanate should to be at the top. The founder has to be made clear in order to proceed to thier ethnic origins. Let me know of anyone disagrees. Jatwadia (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I believe the current layout of the article is fine. Also note that you seem to be using misleading edit summaries to remove sources you disagree with here:

Which calls into question your motivations. Ixudi (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I still disagree with the layout bit.The misleading bit I've answered on my talk page. Jatwadia (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Why are you adding colonial era sources which are misleading? I advise you to remove these as per WP:RAJ. Ixudi (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You removed the other one as well which wasn't colonial era source. Jatwadia (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Which one? Post it here and if it’s not a colonial era source I’ll re-add it. Ixudi (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=IOljAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Langah+Jat Jatwadia (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It’s still there. Check reference 7 of the article. Ixudi (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

@Ixudi sorry but I can't understand your exact objections. A number of sources (again relying on Tarikh-i-Haqqi) give his name as Buddhan Khan Sindhi. Why you want to keep it removed? Sutyarashi (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please share those sources here. The UNESCO source beats them all in terms of reliability anyway. You can perhaps add a line saying "Some sources call him Buddhan Khan Sindhi" but do not remove the original statement. And stop rearranging the origins section as it makes everything look distorted. Plus you removed Andre Wink's reasoning and reduced it to just a mention of his name. Ixudi (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

See my reply below. And no, unesco isn't inherently "beating" or is better than other sources. Insisting on a single line mention by André Wink looks overemphasizing at best or POV pushing at worst to me than anything. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

A very weak argument unfortunately. A reliable source states something about the topic matter and you believe it shouldn't be mentioned? What POV is being pushed here? Why are you placing some sources as more important over others and what is your criteria for doing so? Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no particular importance for any particular ref. However as the page creator you should have some good faith in me that I know a thing or two regarding this topic. What I wanted was to mention contemporary accounts first followed by what modern historians have to say. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately as the page creator you do not have ownership of the article (WP:OWN). You cannot just pick and choose which sources you want to place emphasis on and which you do not. Ixudi (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I would have opposed the mess which this article has become long ago had I any sense of ownership over it. You remark is frankly unwarranted and uncalled for. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Also it's interesting that you mentioned what's the criteria for one source being more inherently reliable than the other. Suhail Zaheer Lari's book was published by Oxford University Press and Andre Wink's book was published by Brill Publishers, both of which are heavily respected in academic fields.

Shall we take this to Reliable Sources noticeboard to discuss how the other sources stack up against them in terms of citation count, reliability etc? Ixudi (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You are free to go ahead. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't removed any content, Ixudi. Below was my version, what exactly you have objection on? Also for future please try using talk page instead of edit warring as first resort.

As noted by the scholar Nabi Bakhsh Baloch, the 16th-century writer and author of the Tārīkh-i ḥaqqī, Abd al-Haqq, calls the founder of the dynasty as one "Buddhan Khan Sindhi", chief of the Langah tribe of the Baloch. Another origins is given by Nurul Haq, the son of Abd al-Haqq, who (writing during the reign of Jahangir) in his Zabdat al-Tawarikh gives the name of the founder as Badan Khan and calls him Sindi Jat chief of Lahri. The 17th century Deccan-based historian Firishta on the other hand gives the name of the founder as "Rai Sahra" and calls him leader of Afghans of Langah, an account which is discredited by Dr. Mahmudal Hasan Siddiqi since their mention is absent in the Afghan genealogies. He also notes that the local traditions of Multan ascribe a Rajput origins to Langahs, although contemporary Langahs are styled as Jats now. In addition to Firishta, Nizamuddin, Mir Ma'sum, Abbas Sarwani and Sujan Rai also call the dynasty's founder as Rai Sahra (or Sehra), however, provide no further information regarding his ethnic origins. According to the historian Dr. Hameed-ud-Din the title Rai prefixed to Sahra's name suggests a Rajput origin. The historians such as Suhail Zaheer Lari and André Wink describe the tribe as Baloch; other sources have assigned the tribe as Rajputs or as Jats. According to the historians Mafizullah Kabir and Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi Sihrah Langah was a Rajput chief who had converted to Islam on the hands of Bahauddin Zakariya or one of his successors. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The statement you removed was "André Wink describes the Langahs as being one of a number of Baloch tribes which moved eastwards into the region of Multan."

Like I said, you reduced the statement and reasoning of probably the most reliable historian cited here to just a mention of his name. If anything, he should be mentioned near the top.

Also, you seem to be engaging in WP:OR here because the quote to cited states:

"According to the scholar historian Abdul Haqq, the author of Tarikh-i-Haqqi (composed in 1005/1592-93), with the decline of the power of Sultans of Delhi, Budhan Khan of Sindh, the chief of the Baloch tribe of the Langah, assembled his force at Uch and invaded Multan."

How did "Buddha Khan of Sindhi" become "Buddha Khan Sindhi"? We cannot use the primary source directly as I am sure you are aware. Ixudi (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The link you removed was "André Wink describes the Langahs as being one of a number of Baloch tribes which moved eastwards into the region of Multan." Like I said, you reduced the statement and reasoning of probably the most reliable historian cited here to just a mention of his name and removed the reasoning. If anything, he should be mentioned near the top.

I am going to need your source for how come he's "most reliable historian cited here". Unless you can show it how, I see no reason for overemphasizing over his single statement over what other RS have to say.

Also, you seem to be engaging in WP:OR here because the quote to cited states: "According to the scholar historian Abdul Haqq, the author of Tarikh-i-Haqqi (composed in 1005/1592-93), with the decline of the power of Sultans of Delhi, Budhan Khan of Sindh, the chief of the Baloch tribe of the Langah, assembled his force at Uch and invaded Multan."

Had you bothered checking you would see I had cited another ref, which goes more into detail s regarding Langahs, calling him Buddhan Khan Sindhi. If objection persists I can provide more refs. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia unfortunately. No one is over-emphasising anything but it is a sourced statement from a reliable source and should not be removed. You cannot just remove something you do not feel is important or disagree with unilaterally.

"Had you bothered checking you would see I had cited another ref, which goes more into detail s regarding Langahs, calling him Buddhan Khan Sindhi. If objection persists I can provide more refs."

So wait, we have a variety of sources describing him by different terms "Buddhan Khan", Buddhan Khan of Sindh" and "Buddhan Khan Sindhi" so why are you only including one such term? What is the justification for this? Ixudi (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have a very poor understanding of Wikipedia unfortunately.

Please give a good read to WP: PERSONAL

No one is over-emphasising anything but it is a sourced statement from a reliable source and should not be removed. You cannot just remove something you do not feel is important or disagree with unilaterally.

I have no intentions of wasting time over it. If you want to keep the statement sure. But then details from rest of sources must be included.

So wait, we have a variety of sources describing him by different terms "Buddhan Khan", Buddhan Khan of Sindh" and "Buddhan Khan Sindhi" so why are you only including one such term? What is the justification for this?

Again, no intentions of hovering over it. All forms of names can be included. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

"But then details from rest of sources must be included."

I don't believe anyone has a problem with that. But that is not what your last edit did. Instead certain sources were emphasised and certain sources were demphasised without a proper explanation. Ixudi (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I still believe that is unnecessary emphasis. He doesn't go into details and moves on after a one liner mention without any discussion on tribe's origins (or even giving name of its ruler). But I have no intentions of wasting more of my time here. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

​ I would suggest you to revert your addition in violation of WP3R until we reach a consensus for the addition and phrasing of the statement. The phrasing and content is clearly disputed and so your readding content is edit warring. Note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It was not a revert nor have I crossed 3 reverts. If you disagree then please report it as so. Please also be aware of WP:STABLE and also not that you cannot unilaterally decide what the stable version of the article should be. Ixudi (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:STABLE: It is important to note that outside of the limited administrative context, a "stable version" or "status quo version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute.

Give a read to policies before invoking them, perhaps? Sutyarashi (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Ironic because here you are trying to enforce a stable version of the article here while seemingly dictating that other editors should not make changes to the article:

Now shall we get back on topic? Why shouldn’t Andre Wink be included in the article? Ixudi (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

My point was of achieving consensus for the content you have been adding on for months, not a particular stable version.

Now shall we get back on topic? Why shouldn’t Andre Wink be included in the article?

I nowhere said that he should be removed. However he doesn't go into details regarding Langahs at all, as a matter of fact he doesn't even name a single ruler or duration about Langahs. There's grand total of one mention of Langahs in his copious volume. Why it should be given more weightage than André Wink himself is willing to? Your preferred wording would not add anything additional.

Moreover, he's a recent author. You can make so to mention primary accounts first (a pattern which present article also roughly follows) followed by modern scholars. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi I will also note possible attempts to WP:STONEWALL here as you seem to have mentioned repeatedly that you don’t want to discuss the topic anymore while also saying that you wish to achieve “consensus” in your edit summary. So please can you advise why the source should not be included? Ixudi (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I am open to your suggestions, that is, if you give them so. I am open to your preferred phrasing as well, but I don't agree that it belongs to top of the section, something which you seem to have been insisting on. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

So far you have you simply chosen to remove the source in its entirety. Can you expand on your concerns? Do you have concerns over André Wink's credentials? Do you have concerns over the work in his books? Do you feel the other sources are more reliable and if so which of them are so that we can get a third opinion to look over it.

You're being a bit vague here. Ixudi (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

See my reply above. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

None of your arguments hold any weight. I will need something more convincing. Ixudi (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You are taking it wrong. You need to convince how the present statement is adding meaningful to article since it was added by you and you're insisting on its inclusion. If you can't do so I will go ahead with removal of it and other disputed content per WP:VNOT and WP: CONSENSUS. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It really does not work that way. There are many aspects of the article I disagree with but at the moment there are just two parties engaging in the content dispute. There has not been any attempts to achieve consensus by yourself other than vague statements. If we were to both go ahead with removing things we do not like about the article, there would be very little left.

Please familiarise yourself with WP:CONSENSUS again and follow the various dispute resolution mechanisms in place:

When talk page discussions fail—generally because two editors (or two groups of editors) simply cannot see eye to eye on an issue—Wikipedia has several established processes to attract outside editors to offer opinions. This is often useful to break simple, good-faith deadlocks, because editors uninvolved in the discussion can bring in fresh perspectives, and can help involved editors see middle ground that they cannot see for themselves. The main resources for this are as follows:

Third opinion (3O)

A neutral third party will give non-binding advice on the dispute. Reserved for cases where exactly two editors are in dispute.

Noticeboards

Most policy and guideline pages, and many wikiprojects, have noticeboards for interested editors. Posting a neutrally worded notice of the dispute on applicable noticeboards (or in some cases only their talk pages) will make the dispute more visible to other editors who may have worthwhile opinions.

Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

For disputes involving more than two parties, moderators help the parties come to consensus by suggesting analysis, critiques, compromises, or mediation, but generally limited to simple disputes which can quickly be resolved.

Requests for comment (RfC)

Placement of a formal neutrally worded notice on the article talk page inviting others to participate which is posted on the RfC noticeboards.

Village pump

Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional editors who may help.

Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another; but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. Ixudi (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It really does not work that way.

It work exactly like this. That's what WP CONSENSUS says: Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Here the phrasing of the statement you added is clearly disputed, and you have repeatedly re-added it against what consensus building says. You have no right to readd it until resolution occurs.

There are many aspects of the article I disagree with but at the moment there are just two parties engaging in the content dispute. There has not been any attempts to achieve consensus by yourself other than vague statements.

Which of my statements you find vague? I have clearly explained it multiple times I don't think Andre Wink's statement should be given undue weight. I even suggested if you still disagree we can keep the present phrasing but move it down with other modern historians, something which you ignored or refused.

If we were to both go ahead with removing things we do not like about the article, there would be very little left.

Go ahead and remove content you find objectionable. It should be added back only after achieving consensus. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ixudi, @Sutyarashi, here to give a 3O. Looking through the recent page edits, it seems as if this dispute centers on both the comparative reliability of some of the sources at play and how to characterize their contents. Based on those edits I gather that the sources in question are these:

• Baloch, N. A. (1998). "The Rulers of Sind, Baluchistan and Multan (750–1500)". The Regions of Sind, Baluchistan, Multan and Kashmir: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting (PDF). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Vol. IV. UNESCO. p. 305. ISBN 978-92-3-103467-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 October 2016.
• Baloch, Nabi Bakhsh Khan (1995). "Independent Sultanates of Uch, Multan and Sindh". Lands of Pakistan: Perspectives, Historical and Cultural. Islamabad: el-Mashriqi Foundation. p. 110. OCLC 34962301. According to the scholar historian Abdul Haqq, the author of Tarikh-i-Haqqi (composed in 1005/1592-93), with the decline of the power of Sultans of Delhi, Budhan Khan of Sindh, the chief of the Baloch tribe of the Langah, assembled his force at Uch and invaded Multan.
• Wink, Andre (2025). Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World Volume IV: The Age of the Great Mughals, 16th-17th Centuries. Part Two: The Rise of Islam from the Indus to the Malay-Indonesian Archipelago. BRILL. p. 78. ISBN 9789004729216. Towards the close of the fifteenth century, the Baluchis were once again on the move in Sind and one of their tribes, the Langahs, became the rulers of Multan
• Kumar, Raj (2008). Encyclopaedia of Untouchables Ancient, Medieval and Modern. Gyan Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-7835-664-8. Meanwhile the Langah Rajputs had established themselves on the throne of Multan.
• Qanungo, Kalika Ranjan; Kānūnago, Kālikā Rañjana (1965). Sher Shah and His Times. Orient Longmans. p. 286. Under the shadow of Rajput Langah dynasty of Multan...
• Wagha, A. (1990). The Siraiki Language: Its Growth and Development. Dderawar Publications. p. 107. In the first quarter of the 16th century A.D. the Langah Jat rulers of Multan encouraged the Balochs to be settled in Derajat by granting Jageers in return for which they were to render as military service.

Let me know if I'm leaving anything out.

I'm getting the impression that we're trying to use these sources, as well as others that don't seem under dispute between the two of you(?), to answer

• how to refer to the founder of the dynasty, and
• the names and identities of the tribes he ruled over.

Again, let me know if I'm failing to catch anything here.

This is my feeling about how well these sources could be used to answer these questions:

• Nabi Bakhsh Baloch is clearly a notable figure among 20th century Pakistani scholars and many people in Pakistan seem to regard his work highly, although I can't tell how well-regarded he is outside of Pakistan. Nevertheless, given his notability I can understand using him as a source here, although I think it might be a good idea to explicitly attribute material we source from him in the article (e.g. "Nabi Bakhsh Baloch claimed…") so that people recognize the source of the information. Reading his work a little, I have some reservations about his approach—he writes in a rather breezy, fast moving and high-level style that makes it a little hard for me to understand where his conclusions are coming from, although he does seem well-studied. You might call this approach rather old-fashioned as history goes.
• Andre Wink is a contemporary academic historian associated with the University of Wisconsin–Madison who did his Ph.D. in Indian history at Leiden University in the early 1980s. He specializes in the medieval and early modern history of the lands around the Indian Ocean, and his work seems to be well-respected internationally. Reading the cited source, he seems like a responsible historian, treating his primary sources with appropriate skepticism and not asking you to take too much on faith. I definitely think he would be good to use here, and it seems fine to me attribute material we use from him explicitly in the article as well since he's well-known.
• Gyan/Kalpaz/ISHA claims that Raj Kumar is a senior historian in the Department of Higher Education Government of Jammu and Kashmir and that he received a Ph.D. in history from the University of Jammu in 2003. However, I have not been able to find any independent sources that verify this, and Kalpaz (the specific imprint) is more-or-less a self-publisher. Gyan/Kalpaz/ISHA has also been called out on RSN for doing things like plagarizing Wikipedia in violation of its license for some of their books. All of this means we should tread with caution; the source may not be useless (especially if that bio is true) but it deserves special scrutiny—you have to wonder on some level why he can't find a better publisher. As for the actual writing, it's also in a kind of old-fashioned breezy style, with a kind of poetic touch that reminds me a bit of Hamlet's Mill at times, but in any case it's really hard for me to tell why he's coming to the conlusions he's coming to because he doesn't really stop to defend them. I'm reluctant to use this for anything that isn't also backed up by a stronger source.
• Kalika Ranja Qanungo was a historian who did his Ph.D. at Rajshahi College in the 1920s, with a disseration on Sher Shah; Sher Shah and His Times is apparently a 1965 "freshing-up" of this disseration. The full text of it can be found online if you look (I won't link to it in case of copyvio). He is more explicit about his sources than Baloch and Kumar, which puts me more at ease, but even there he doesn't really explain why he considers one author he cites better than another (he just tells you they're great or a prominent authority or whatnot). Apparently he promised a Vol. 2 where he was going to go into detail about his sourcing and methods but never published it, which is regrettable. I found a 1967 academic review of this work (page 1, page 2) which takes him to task for these things, and for a lack of rigor in places especially with regards to his treatment of Hindi sources, but acknowledges that it's not without use. I'd call this a decent source but one we should probably apply a bit of scrutiny to as we use it.
• I'm not quite sure what to make of the Ahsan Wagha source; I haven't been able to find a copy of it online or even much information about it or Wagha himself. There are some videos on YouTube of his lectures that suggest that he's a professor of linguistics, which makes sense given the title of the source, but I'm not sure in what capacity. If either of you have a copy, it would be great to see more than a single sentence from it. In any case, these are more questions for historians than linguists, I think it's fair to say, but I would need to see more of the source itself to really weigh it.

All in all, I have to say that I understand Ixudi's assertion that Wink is arguably the strongest source among these. I haven't touched on the others in that paragraph since these are the ones that seemed to be involved in the text y'all were reverting each other over and things, but I'm happy to give my take on any of the others there if it's desired. Ixudi, I know you brought up the Suhail Zaheer Lari source in the conversation above as well—the full text is available online (again I won't link to it to be careful about copyright) and I found an an academic review of it by Sarah Ansari if you'd like to see her take. I could go into more detail there if that source is in question.

Anyway, before we go further, do both of you feel like I'm in the right so far? Once we're all in agreement about sources we can consider what they each have to say about the issues under dispute in light of that. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 07:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Mesocarp for responding to my request and for taking the time to go through the sources which I am in full agreement with.

The main thrust of my argument has always been that primacy should be given to the more reliable sources. I think we should also look at removing the Wagha source per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) as he is most likely a linguist. Ixudi (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing! I'm glad you're of a similar mind in this case. My feeling about Wagha is that, if we can actually get a copy, we might as well take a look at it in more detail and judge it based on that—determining whether something is a good RS for a given claim is hard to truly evaluate without looking directly at its contents. Failing that, though, I kind of agree that based on what we do know it may not be worth including. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 12:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mesocarp first of all thank you for giving time. I was intending to give a brief note for any editor interesting in providing 3O about what exactly (as far as I could understand Ixudi's objections) is the conflict here but was caught on something else. To keep it precise I have no objections over reliability of André Wink or other sources (Gyan is definitely self publishing source so no objections over its removal. Moreover Wagha is a linguist not historian so I doubt that he can be considered RS as well)

The issues I was having were:

1. placing André Wink and other modern historians in the top of section. I was of opinion that first primary accounts should be mentioned (please see my suggested version in the above comment) followed by André Wink, Qanungo and rest of modern historians.

2. Second I was of opinion that mentioning that The historians such as Suhail Zaheer Lari and André Wink describe the tribe as Baloch;... [followed by other suggested origins] was more than enough; there was no need to go into what I consider useless verbose in present version: André Wink describes the Langahs as being one of a number of Baloch tribes which moved eastwards into the region of Multan. The historian, Suhail Zaheer Lari, who specialises in the history of Sindh and southern Pakistan, also calls the tribe as Baloch..., which appears as undue weight to me as both don't go into details about the Baloch origins after a one liner mention. It is notable that the sources which do discuss their origins (Mahmudal Hasan Siddiqi and Hameed-ud-Din, both already cited) don't even mention or suggest any Baloch origins. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

When you say "I was of opinion that first primary accounts should be mentioned", what are you basing that on? As a general rule, we should prefer secondary sources across the board (WP:PSTS) simply because this is an encyclopedia; we can use primary sources in a limited way to support statements of bare fact in some cases, but we need to lean on secondary sources for any interpretation or weighing of them, which generally means that we should probably be quoting from them in the context of a larger section covering one or more secondary sources that treat the primary source. To me, for a page like this, the "gold standard" for sources would be works by academic historians who make careful, well-reasoned arguments with rigorous and transparent sourcing. As a general rule, it's hard to find history sources like that pre-60/70s or so because of changes that took place in the field in that era, although more recent sources aren't always that careful necessarily; ultimately you have to just read the text and see. A historian that writes in a way where you can't really tell where their conclusions are coming from and you have to take their word for a lot of things is generally one I trust less.

It's not necessarily wrong to quote from 16th/17th century sources or the like, but those are old enough that I would really prefer to talk about them through the lens of modern historians; if we lean on them on their own very much it starts to skirt the line into OR.

To be honest, my preference would be more to quote directly from the sources in the article, because this provides more direct information to the reader and leaves less in doubt. I would also go into significantly more detail, honestly, because we can—there's no reason to leave good material in the sources unused, I would say. For example:

According to André Wink, working from early modern period accounts like that of Masum Shah as well as those of other contemporary historians such as Mahmudal Hasan Siddiqi, Baloch "mountain tribesman as well as nomads from the eastern desert" began to arrive in Sind in increasing numbers in the 14th century following the introduction of the saqiyah and the resulting expansion of agriculture in the region, "motivated not only by the usual prospect of plunder but equally by the prospect of being able to settle down permanently in the valley and thereby escape from the cycles of drought and famine." The region in this era was generally part of the Delhi Sultanate. However, in 1443, during a period when the rule of Delhi faltered temporarily, the neighboring province of Multan passed under the control of a local shaykh known as Shaykh Ismail Shahid. In the late 1400s, the Baloch were "once again on the move" and arrived in the area, and "one of their tribes, the Langahs, become the rulers of Multan" after they pledged allegiance to Shaykh Ismail Shahid and he married into the tribe, with the Langahs ultimately wresting power from the shaykhs and ruling directly. The resulting Langah sultans granted conditional jagirs in the Derajat to Baloch leaders, encouraging Baloch to settle in this area.

I would continue through the other sources we want to use and summarize their contents like this, trying to capture their full account of the origin of the dynasty. When we have good sources like this I don't think there's any reason to keep the material from them to just a sentence. Where there's significant overlap between sources, we may see opportunities to consolodate their accounts. For example, the above chronology is fairly similar to the one from Nabi Bakhsh Baloch at the beginning of the "History" section, so ultimately it might make sense to combine the two and simply note where they differ.

I have to say, also, to be honest, I know this might seem like kind of a drastic suggestion, but I question where there's really a good rationale for an "Origin" section as separate from the "History" section. It seems artificial to me to try to draw a separate account of the "origin of the Langahs" out of a source like this Wink text, at the very least. Maybe we should re-examine what the other sources say about the beginning of the Sultanate and then consider whether or not it really makes sense to keep that section at all. I'm not entirely sure what we would end up with but it might make sense to have it all be the first chapter in the Sultanate's history instead of parcelled out into two different sections like this.

As a side note, looking at Appendix A in the Mahmudal Hasan Siddiqi source, he almost entirely discusses their rise to power only (along similar lines to Wink and Baloch, probably because all of them are working from a similar set of primary sources; as mentioned Wink cites him repeatedly). The "Origin of the Langahs" section at the end there is very short and murky owing to the paucity of evidence available; I think it could easily be worked into the chronicle of the Sultanate's beginning in general in this article. I need to go to bed but I can try to track down the Hameed-ud-Din source tomorrow and have a look at that. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 12:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Given the variety of theories about their origins, I was thinking about making sub-sections in alphabetical order with each of the different ethnic groups e.g. "Afghan-origin theory", "Baloch-origin theory". Wasn't sure what others think though. Your proposed para looks good. I would be happy for something like that to be added. Ixudi (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me a few days to respond here. That's an interesting proposal. It's hard for me to say what I think would be best ultimately at this point; I feel like I still need to read more. On that note, today I finally got a hold of the Majumdar/Hameed-ud-Din source so I can at least comment on that too.

Siddiqi only spends a few brief paragraphs on the origins of the Langahs as a people compared to the pages he spends discussing the dynastic origins and lines of descent and how the available primary sources on that conflict and so on. Those few paragraphs basically say that the Langahs aren't mentioned in the Afghan genealogies, various local traditions have them as descended from Rajputs but with conflicting accounts about what sort and other details, that they are considered Jats nowadays, that it's not clear when they first accepted Islam but it may have been at the hands of Shaikh Makhdum Baha ad-Din Zakarya Quraishi or one of his descendants, and that they probably first settled down in Multan with an unclear history before that time.

Hameed-ud-Din actually spends even less space on it—basically just a sentence. He says that Rāi Sahra, whom he says some sources cite as the founder of the dynasty, had "rather an unusual name," and that the prefix Rāi "suggests a Rajput origin" he thinks, whereas he says Firishta claims they are Afghans. Other than that he also just discusses the dynasty.

Some of this information is in the article already of course; I think everything from Hameed-ud-Din on this topic is.

Anyway, I can definitely think of a way to start out the history section with a discussion of these points; at the same time it is true that both of these texts have a section called "Origin of the Langahs" basically. If both of y'all want to keep the separate "Origins" section apart from the history section, I can see rationale from that from how these texts are organized. If we do split it up into subsections by ethnic group as you're saying, I think it might end up being pretty brief for all of them, but I guess that's not necessarily a problem.

I'm glad you like my Wink paragraph by the way, thank you. I feel like I should read more of the sources before I actually put anything in the article but I'm getting there. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 08:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mesocarp, would you be happy for me to proceed with adding your proposed paragraph to the article? Ixudi (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Note that I'm not suggesting we should cite WP: PRIMARY directly, rather what secondary sources have to say about them (like N. A. Baloch about Abd al-Haqq's account etc.). There are very few sources discussing their origins at all (I found only two) so I don't know how meaningful giving preference to modern historians, who go on after simply mentioning their origins (Baloch, Jats, Rajput etc.) would be.

I found rest of your reply to be a little confusing, can you please explain again how do you think origins section should be written as? Sutyarashi (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, if that's all you want to do with the primary sources I'm in agreement there. Right now the way the origins section starts out does just quote a couple 16th-century writers basically apart from/on the same level as the modern historians that come after, which to me isn't really giving the secondary perspective on them enough, but if you think the same then I have no issue of course.

I definitely share your sense that what information there is out there is scanty from what I've read so far. That was actually the main reason I said what I did about the origins section. Sorry if that was confusing. What I'm basically trying to get across is that instead of having a separate "Origins" section apart from the "History" section, we could instead just start out the history section with a paragraph or so about their origins as a people, since the amount of information available, especially specifically about their ethnic origins, is so limited. I will say though that, now that I've read both what Siddiqi and Hameed-ud-Din say at this point, I do recognize that both of them have special "Origins of the Langahs" sections in their books, so that does give us some motive to do the same in this article (i.e. as it's currently structured).

Both of them do mix in their discussion about the ethnic origins in the midst of much more extensive discussion of the founding of the dynasty, though, apparently since there's a lot more primary source material about that (albeit conflicting). Wink is the same as you can see from what I've written above. That's the other reason I guess for my suggestion that we work it all into the "History" section. All of these writers discuss their ethnic origins in the same breath as they discuss the founding of the dynasty, and the founding of the dynasty is a totally reasonable way to start out the "History" section of course (it basically already does this). So, you could also argue that we would be following the secondary sources we have by working it all into the "History" section.

Ultimately it will be easier for me to talk about this when I've read more. I can actually give examples then of how I would do it one or the other way, and that will probably make more immediate sense than just me talking about it in the abstract like this.

As a side note, my preference for recent historical scholarship is shared by a lot of the editors that work on history articles (as you can see from WP:HISTRW). As that essay says in WP:HISTRH, recent sources generally use the most up-to-date methods, which is exactly my reason for preferring them. As it also notes though, the date the source was published isn't a perfect guide to what constitutes "recent"; ultimately you just have to read the sources and become familiar with the topic area to evaluate things like that, which is what I'm trying to do right now for this page basically. I will say from personal experience that often sources from even the 1950s–60s have often been supplanted by much better material published in the decades after; historical methods have evolved a lot in the last half-century or so. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 09:00, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see your point, but how would you reconcile all various origins? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

References

remove debunked origins

@Sutyarashi i think afghan origin should not be included here as it has been debunked by Dr. Mahmudal Hasan Siddiqi which is the latest source from 2014 while afghan sources are much older from 2003 and 1960. The section is already cluttered and unorganized it would be good to minimize it WareWolf665 (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

also someone added arabic and saraiki in other languages section using a source which clearly not reliable it is some unknown story writer. saraiki "language" didnt even exist before 1962 so please remove that as well WareWolf665 (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:CT/SA. You cannot edit topics related to South Asian ethnicities and you shouldn’t even be trying to circumvent them by discussing on the talk page. Ixudi (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

buddy there is a lock on the page i cant edit even if i wanted to, i am just giving my input WareWolf665 (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

You don’t seem to understand. You are not even allowed to discuss topics related to South Asian ethnicities on article talk pages. Trying to influence edits is seen as “Gaming” the system. Please refrain from doing so or it will be escalated. Ixudi (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

and what is the source of your claim?? WareWolf665 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if WareWolf665 isn't personally barred from working on South Asian topics (which I don't see any sign of at least at a glance), it's fine for them to make suggestions on the talk page. That's typically how things work if a page is semi- or extended-confirmed protected; editors that don't have the privileges required to edit the page make requests and suggestions on the talk page about what they'd like done with the article and editors with the necessary permissions can make them for the person if they want to.

I will say that we're very actively discussing the origins section above and its contents are pretty up the air right now. I really need to go to sleep, I'm up too late at this point, but maybe someone else can consider the language stuff. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 12:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

yes thanks WareWolf665 (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@WareWolf665 I think it can be mentioned as a discarded theory. Regarding Saraiki/Arabic source I agree, the author is an advocate not a historian so should be removed. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

on closer inspection i have found that Dr. Hameed-ud-Din's 1967 source has been incorrectly used to cite afghan origin as in reality he clearly suggests a rajput origin (due to Sahra having "rai" title) and only brings up Firishta in contrast to dispute or even debunk his account (read here and decide for yourself). i believe this would also make the afghan origin a fringe theory as there is only 1 source of peter jackson which calls langahs as afghans that too in passing without detail. it would be better to remove it fully as per WP:UNDUE it is already debunked by 2 sources no point in giving undue weight to it as there are already 3 other theories (rajput, jatt and baloch) with much more sources cited.

another thing i would like to point out is that Dr. Hameed-ud-Din does not mention "langah tribe of the baloch" anywhere yet he is cited in the 5th line supporting baloch origin, his reference should be removed.

moreover the wikilnk for langah tribe in 4th line redirects to a langaw/lango tribe which is incorrect as every source calls them as Langah not lango/langaw. please fix that as well. thank you. WareWolf665 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes that theory is debunked but since it's a primary account so unless the origins section is reorganized I think it can stay. Dr Hameed-ud-Din is used to support the name and title of founder not Baloch origins, it might be better to move ref inline to avoid confusion. Thanks for mentioning the incorrect linking, will fix that. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

sure welcome WareWolf665 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)