Talk:List of converts to Hinduism from Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

From Former Muslim Article

Harilal Gandhi converted to Islam, adopted the name "Abdullah Gandhi", but later reverted to Hinduism.

• Aasish Khan, the son of sarod maestro Ustad Ali Akbar Khan
• Annapurna Devi (born Roshanara Khan) – Surbahar (bass sitar) player and music teacher in the North Indian classical tradition
• Asha Gawli – (born Ayesha) Wife of Arun Gawli, notorious gangster turned politician from Mumbai, India.
• Bukka I – King of Vijayanagara empire who converted to Islam, then reconverted. The early life of Bukka as well as his brother Hakka (also known as Harihara I) are relatively unknown and most accounts of their early life are based on theories.
• Chander Mohan – Former Deputy Chief Minister of Haryana State in India.
• Harihara I – King of Vijayanagara empire who converted to Islam, then reconverted
• Haridas Thakura – Prominent Vaishnavite saint born in 1450, instrumental in the early appearance and spread of Hare Krishna movement. His Muslim name remains unknown to this day.
• Hassan Palakkode Muslim scholar
• Harilal Gandhi – He was the son of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and converted to Islam. He was in Islam for a few months, before reverting back to Hinduism.
• Ifa Sudewi – Chief judge for the 2002 Bali bombing trials in Indonesia.
• Khushboo Sundar (born Khushboo Khan) – Tamil movie actress
• Netaji Palkar – Maratha noble and commander-in-chief of the army of Shivaji, June 19, 1676.
• Shanti Devi born Ashgari – Mother of yesteryear Bollywood Actress Tabassum. She was daughter of a Maulvi but converted to Hinduism after marriage and even underwent Hindu religious education.
• Zubeida – Hindi film actress, on whose life story the film Zubeidaa was based

References

Unexplained Revision

DemocraticLuntz, you recently reverted my changes and you did not properly justify it. My reasons for removing them were given on the edit summaries. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Xtremedood (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you did (it didn't come up on STiki, I've undone my revert. Sorry. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Each of the name has reliable references, what are you missing xtremedood? Even Stiki says that you were vandalizing. Delibzr (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: I have to express concern, too. It looks like you removed a bunch of sourced material and when others restore it you're telling them to take their concerns to the talk page. If that's indeed what's happening, that's the opposite of the way it's supposed to work, which is roughly according to a "Bold/Revert/Discuss" process (someone -- you in this case -- makes one or more bold edits, someone else reverts, and you take it to the talk page to discuss it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I have provided my reasons in the edit summaries. Many of them are dead links. You may take a look here [1].

Bukka I - Sourcing a Wikipedia article does not suffice. Also for the second source no page number is given which goes against WP:verifiability

Vavar - There is no source.

Khusro Khan - There are conflicting reports on Khusro Khan's religion. It is a debated issue.

Nafisa Ali - This is clear BLP violation. In this video [2] she said at 0:15 she went to hajj (although I do not agree much of what she said).

Harilal Mohandas Gandhi - deadlink

Asha Gawli - deadlink

Harihara I - No page number on source, I can't find it so it violates WP:verifiability

Netaji Palkar - Horrible sources, check for yourself.

Sarmad - Deadlinks. Also, Not true. Sarmad never converted to Hinduism. Sarmad's last words are to have been "The Mullahs say Ahmed went to heaven, Sarmad says that heaven came down to Ahmed." This is in clear reverence to the holy Prophet Muhammad ( ﷺ/blessings of Allah and peace be upon him).

Ifa Sudewi - Deadlinks.

Khushboo Sundar - Link not working also not a reliable source.

Haridas Thakura - mythology.

Nalini Patel - deadlink.

Sonam Rai - no source.

My reasons to remove them are sound and clear. Xtremedood (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your other point, I said that to Delibrz who has a history of ignoring stuff on the talk page. Look at the talk page for this article [3], he is clearly avoiding the main issues. Xtremedood (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: Some of them are sound. But many are not. For example, not having a page number is not a reason for removal. A dead link is not typically a reason for removal (WP:Linkrot: "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."). Other specifics:

• Bukka I - Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, no, but if there are sources available at the Bukka I article, you should check that and pull them over before removing the content. Also, not having a page number is not a valid reason for removal.
• Khusro Khan - If there are conflicting reports, discuss them here. There is a source cited which is sufficient for inclusion in such a list until which time as a consensus is reached to the contrary
• Nafisa Ali - the bigger problem appears to be that the source cited does not support inclusion here. BLPs require a higher level of sourcing. I agree with this removal.
• Harihara I - when you say you cannot find it, do you mean you have read the book and do not see where it supports Harihara I's inclusion here? Otherwise, that you can't find it is not reason for removal -- it's reason to ask for clarification.
• Netaji Palkar - the sources indeed look poor
• Nalini Patel - whether or not there is a source is inconsequential here because Nalini Patel does not have a Wikipedia article, so shouldn't be on the list to begin with
• Sarmad - if you have sources which contradict these sources, that's a good thing to bring up on the talk page.
• Khushboo Sundar - agreed the source is poor
• Haridas Thakura - I'm not sure what you mean by mythology
• Sonam Rai - agreed this should be removed

I would strongly urge you to restore all those other than Nafisa Ali, Netaji Palkar, Khushboo Sundar, and Sonam Rai, then to address the others on the talk page. That people have reverted you suggests that people disagree.

If you raise concerns here about particular sources, conflicting reports, etc. and nobody responds, I would not object to removing the names again. I also want to add that I do not have strong feelings about this material. You definitely know more about the subjects than I do -- I just noticed the edits back and forth, which is usually a sign that something is amiss. I don't think anyone did anything wrong here -- I just think perhaps you did not know that deadlinks/missing page numbers are not alone sufficient to remove sourced content and the others who restored the material did not look closely enough to see that you are indeed correct to remove some of them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I believe they are sound reasons. As for not having a page number, the bigger issue is that the source cited [4] shows up as having 667 pages which is a lot of material to go through. As stated in WP:Verifiability "verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." If I can't find it than how can I verify it? There are other questions pertaining to the veracity of the publisher as well that I would have to look more into.

However, since you have brought up the idea that other may oppose my changes and since it seems that 1 or 2 users (Delibzr and 65.220.10.3 ) may oppose these changes I have restored the page minus Nafisa Ali, Netaji Palkar, Nalini Patel, Khushboo Sundar and Sonam Rai. I have already waited in the past, however if they wish to bring any relevant information I guess I may leave it as it is for the time being. Xtremedood (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the user [5] seems to have been blocked. Xtremedood (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith restoration of that content. Regarding access to sources, there is a very strong consensus that sources people can access online is preferable but not required (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). For example, there are many books that have simply never been digitized and are long out of print. That doesn't mean they aren't reliable sources. I understand the frustration, though. Hopefully it was an active user who added that book citation to begin with and you can reach out to them to ask for a page number.

I should've listed Vavar with the others that should be removed since there was no source. It seems like this list is potentially controversial enough that anything added should have a source. I went ahead and removed the name.

I also added inline citation tags to those sources which you've helpfully pointed out are dead or missing page numbers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: Here's one reason dead links are not cause for removal: I was able to easily find archived versions of pages for three of the dead sources. If you just go to archive.org and paste the URL, you can often find them. I've updated the list with those archived versions where they exist, leaving only two deadlinks. Note that I did not read the sources to ensure they verify inclusion here -- or to verify they're reliable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that, according to the Bukka I article, he was "forced to convert to Islam [but] eventualyl escaped and retained their Hindu traditions...". That doesn't strike me as something that would belong on a list like this? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Although it is unsourced and unverified I see that it is sufficient grounds to remove Bukka I as well as Khusro Khan.

According to the two sources indicated for Sarmad, nowhere did I find that he converted to Hinduism. I have checked the archived version of both the sources.

For Haridasa Thakur, the source is very weak and seems to come from a self-published source. I have checked the article of Haridasa Thakur and it references the following JSTOR article [6] pages 340-344 for the claim he was a Hindu convert. I skimmed through these pages and did not find mention of Haridasa Thakur in this JSTOR article and I therefore think that this claim should be removed from the list and from his personal article as well. Xtremedood (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: I removed Bukka I per reasons above. I also looked for additional sources to verify the inclusion of Khusro Khan, but was not able to. There are brief mentions here and there of conversion, but because there was also a "superficial" conversion to Islam at some point, I'm not able to make a clear determination and am content to agree it should be removed for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, its been several days and I have removed the following:

Sarmad - For the above reasons.

Haridas Thakura - horrible source.

Let me know if you disagree, so we may work things out. Xtremedood (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I also think that Asha Gawli should be removed, since she is non-notable. Xtremedood (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes by D4iNa4

user:D4iNa4, your recent changes in this articles do not take into consideration a lot of Wikipedia's strict policies.

1) First of all, Sarmad did not definitively convert to Hinduism according to the source you post. It is simply speculated. Rather according to some sources his beliefs probably became eclectic. The last statements he is reputed to have stated before being executed was:

"The Mullahs say Ahmed [ﷺ] went to heaven, Sarmad says that heaven came down to Ahmed[ﷺ]." This is from

Which is clear reverence towards the holy Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. The source you posted [7] never states that he definitively convert to Hinduism.

2) Second, according to the source concerning Netaji Palkar by author Bhawan Singh Rana, Palkar was forced to convert. Which I doubt even happened. However, according to the source you posted, this is the case. As you can see in our above discussion, forced conversions are not to be included in the list.

3) Third, see above discussion for Khusro Khan, it is the same issue.

4) Fourth, for Bukka I, it is the same issue as with Netaji Palkar and Khusro Khan. According to Hindu author, Balaji Sadasivan, in this source [8] on page 191 he states that "Harihara and Bukka, the former officials of Kampili and Warangal, were forced to convert to Islam." Although I doubt the accuracy of this statement since ideas of forced conversions in this context are often rumours spread by Hindutva organizations like RSS, original research is not allowed in Wikipedia so we have to work with this information. Therefore BOTH Bukka I and Harihara I should not be included due to forced conversion issues.

5) Fifth, for Harihara I, see fourth point.

6) Sixth, sources for Hassan Palakkode do NOT contain a direct quote from the person. This violates BLP policy in Wikipedia. Therefore, unless you have a direct statement from him, it should not be included. Xtremedood (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Those are one of the most reliable sources for the information and they confirm conversion. You can look up same information elsewhere, you can refute them only if you have as reliable source for claiming that they never converted to Hinduism. This is reliable enough for Hassan Palakkode and it includes the statement of Palakkode that he converted and he wouldn't be forcing his family, the report itself says that he converted from Islam, and that is enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

So you only have an issue with Palakkode it seems. Therefore we should be in agreement that the others should be removed? As for Palakkode, as per Wikipedia's guidelines, for BLP you MUST have a direct and strict quotation from the person. See here, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The source you indicated does NOT have a direct quotation from the person and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. Xtremedood (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I said that all of them are sourced with reliable sources and supports the data about conversion and there is no refutation that they didn't converted. That's what I said. The policy that you have linked is not actually saying that we need "quotation" of living person, an interview without quotation marks is also enough when it comes to self-identificaiton. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

WP policy is not based around refutations. You need a direct quote, or otherwise it is not allowed as per BLP policies. Xtremedood (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting a policy that you were violating at List of converts to Islam from Hindu.[9] Many people of that other list would needed to be removed due to lack of quoting but obviously we are not going to adopt new policies for you. All of these sources are reliable enough to include that they converted,[10] your WP:OR needs to be backed by a source if they never converted. You claim that we should not include something that you "doubt even happened, remember that WP:IDONTLIKE doesn't apply. Quotes are not limited to quotation marks but self identification and Palakkode in his interview he has affirmed that he converted to Hinduism from Islam. Source provides his statement. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did you revert the removal of sources claiming "forced conversions" when you did not provide a single argument to keep those? Xtremedood (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@user:Rhododendrites, clearly we discussed previously that issues of "forced conversions" should not be on the list. Also, what is your take on the Palakkode? I do not see a single reference that includes a direct quotation, which violates Wikipedia's strict BLP rules. Xtremedood (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

For the time being I'll abstain from commenting on any of the particular examples beyond what I've said elsewhere on this talk page. I do just want to point out that Wikipedia has pretty strict rules about WP:BLPs. WP:BLPCAT addresses religion in a similar sense that Xtremedood is talking about and says it applies to lists. Ultimately, if there's some uncertainty about what to do, it's usually best to default to what the subject himself or herself would say is most accurate. I'm more or less certain that if it went to WP:BLPN, consensus would be to exclude conversions which are reliably sourced as having been forced. A more straightforward way forward, however, would be to include that explicitly in the inclusion criteria for this list. I frankly don't think that would be very controversial. I'll propose it informally here, but it may require an WP:RFC if there are objections. ...are there objections? (to an inclusion criteria that excludes forced conversions) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up: Ah, I see part of the problem. WP:BLP is about living persons. For others the key is what reliable sources say (if the best sources give conflicting stories, that's when it gets more complicated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply user:Rhododendrites. Sorry I did not get back earlier, I was busy. I have no opposition to such an inclusion criteria. Xtremedood (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As per article history, these names have been here for many many years and finally there is only one editor, Xtremedood, who has problems with them. I have told him before that the only way he would be allowed to remove these names, if he can provide refutation. This list is about converting to Hinduism, whether the previous conversion was forced or not, it is not really a matter for this list, what really matters is that they still converted to Hinduism and previously adhered to some other religion. Sarmad was not a forced convert to any religion, then why he is being removed? Other articles like List of converts to Christianity from Islam also involvement of recognize forced conversions. TheRedPenOfDoom can you also review? D4iNa4 (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

how long someone has been on the list is pretty irrelevant - what matters is reliable sources documenting the change (and for living people that the sources are self identification) . If the conversion was forced as documented by the sources, that is something to be included in the Notes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that length of time in an article is irrelevant. If there had been past discussions of the matter, that would be one thing, but we're not working with any such precedent. As a list with no qualified inclusion criteria, it would indeed just be the name of the list ("conversion"). But the issue of forced conversation hadn't been raised before, which is why it's time to discuss it now rather than try to force one way or another. It should be telling that our BLP policy requires self-identification, which places a qualification on the inclusion criteria (i.e. perhaps inclusion criteria which would violate BLP need some attention and modification). That other articles allow forced conversions is not relevant and might suggest the same discussion should happen there. Let's say someone is forced to convert, then doesn't practice that religion, circumstances change such that the conversion was meaningless and he/she returns to his/her own/old religion, the person converts and is then killed, or one of the other scenarios that should lead us to question inclusion on this list.

How about this. I suggested an inclusion criteria which ruled out forced conversions. I would still support that (though I'd be open to listen to counter arguments other than "that's how it's been done"), but how's this for another alternative: a separate section and table for forced conversions or a separate color/shading within the same table? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not think this is the right place for that. Many of the allegations of forced conversions do not come from neutral sources. For example, it is a common practice of Hindu groups like RSS and BJP to claim that Muslims in India are simply the byproduct of Hindus who were forcefully converted. This is however a fallacious and incorrect allegation. Since there are no neutral sources, it should not be included. For example, we see in the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb, a great example of how propaganda has altered the perceptions and history books published in India. Hindutva organizations like RSS and BJP claim that Aurangzeb forcefully converted many people, however this is unfounded and not true. According to neutral Western sources, we see many reputable historians state that there is no proof that Aurangzeb ever forcefully converted anybody. See here (two Western sources included): family or local tradition should not dictate whats on Wikipedia, as Walker states. Xtremedood (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Going back on topic, list of convert articles have typically focused on sincere conversions, which include notable personalities who have made a sincere decision to convert to a specific religion. There should either be a separate article for such allegations, rather than include them here. Xtremedood (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Starting over, and breaking it down

First I need to apologize for some confusion. There were a couple times above that my wires clearly got crossed and I was thinking of this list as a list of converts from Hinduism to Islam, which is why I felt so strongly about the examples of forced conversion being inappropriate. I would feel the same way if this list included forced conversions to Hinduism (though I don't see claims that such is the case for any of these).

In the absence of list list including forced conversions to Hinduism from Islam, the question about forced conversions is thus whether one who is forced to convert and comes back should be included in the list. I have to think that if I were held captive and told to convert, anything that came out of my mouth would be because I was captive (rather than actual belief). So in other words, is disavowing a coerced conversion itself really a conversion? This is a fraught question, I know, and I apologize if my framing is offensive -- that's surely not my intent.

Regardless, let's break down the controversial items and give them separate sub-sections. Edit warring isn't going to help anybody. This is not all-or-nothing, after all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging: Xtremedood D4iNa4 — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bukka I and Harihara I

Combined these two brothers since it looks like their story overlaps.

The source for Bukka I having been forced to convert o Islam, then converting back to Hinduism looks pretty mediocre (this), but this book presents a clearer case you can see in the abstract on page 300: The brothers converted to Islam, and, although there are "conflicting versions of Muslim historians and Hindu tradition", they "are agreed...that [Bukka and his brother] very soon gave up Islam...and proceeded to set up an independent Hindu state." The question of their actual conversion, however, looks to be debated ("Then, the Hindu tradition avers, the brothers met the sage Vidyaranya and, fired by his teaching, returned to the Hindu fold..."). "The Hindu tradition avers" sounds like it's in contrast to "Muslim historians".

Also worth noting that in our article on the Origin of Vijayanagara Empire, there is this quote:

According to the historians Saletore, P.B. Desai and Henry Heras, the theory of capture of Harihara I and Bukka Raya I by the Sultan of Delhi and conversion to Islam is false and that the testimony of epigraphs proves that the area around Hampi constituted their homeland. The empire never had a Telugu origin. The patron saint of the early kings was saint Vidyaranya, the 12th Shankaracharya of Sringeri in Karnataka, and this is proof enough of their unquestionable identity with the Kannada country.[22] About the Muslim records that claim a Telugu origin of Harihara I and Bukka Raya, these historians feel, the records are neither unanimous nor reliable in their claims. In those days of religious rigidity, it is too far-fetched to accept a theory of conversion to Islam and re-conversion to Hinduism while still managing to win the trust and loyalty of Hindu subjects in an hour of impending invasions

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

for Bukka I and Harihara I it seems that the reports are very conflict from what you have posted. The statement "P.B. Desai and Henry Heras, the theory of capture of Harihara I and Bukka Raya I by the Sultan of Delhi and conversion to Islam is false" alongside what else you have written seems to be a clear indication that there simply is not enough information to conclude the nature of the conversion if it even happened at all. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That there are conflicting reports does not mean we need to ignore it. It just means that additional sources are needed. These conflict, it's true, so at very least if they're included it should be noted that there are conflicting reports. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Summary: More good sources needed for inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Khusro Khan

The claim is that he was forced to convert to Islam, then converted back to Hinduism later. Clearer sources needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For Khusro Khan I agree that clearer sources are needed. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Summary: More good sources needed for inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hassan Palakkode

Article was deleted

A WP:BLP needs a quote. This source looks to suffice. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC) For Hassan Palakkode, as per WP:BLP, the article does not give a direct quote for him saying that he converted. I was under the impression for living persons that a direct quotation from the person directly and strictly indicated that he/she converted is needed. This source does not meet that. However, I may be wrong about the policy. If Wikipedia allows for BLP cases to not include direct quotations then the source may be used. There are also issues pertaining to notability. Although there seems to be a page about him, there are no good sources. I think that notability also is a factor. I have since added for this article to be deleted as per notability requirements. Here is the article deletions listing [11]. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC) WP:BLPCAT doesn't actually require a "direct quote", just that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief...". I think this suffices. Is there a reason to think otherwise? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Okay, but I still think that notability is an issue. I have also put it up for article deletion here: [12]. Xtremedood (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Certainly possible. I don't have an opinion about that at this time, but that would surely simplify this one. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Update: Article was deleted. Collapsing section to simplify. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Netaji Palkar

Another example of forced conversion followed by re-conversion. Sources: "Netaji+Palkar"+conversion&hl=en&sa=X Chhatrapati Shivaji (book, Diamond Pocket Books), "Netaji+Palkar"+conversion&hl=en&sa=X Converting Cultures: Religion, Ideology and Transformations of Modernity (book, BRILL), "Netaji+Palkar"+conversion&hl=en&sa=X Surprising Bedfellows: Hindus and Muslims in Medieval and Early Modern India (book, Lexington Books). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Summary: Forced conversion followed by converting back to Hinduism. The sources support this, so until a consensus emerges about the exclusion of forced converts/reconverts, we should include. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarmad

There look to be conflicting reports. This says there's an "inclination to surmise he converted from Islam to Hinduism" after converting to Islam from Judaism. Also says the conversion from Judaism to Islam was superficial/nominal. Other sources are less conclusive (if you can call that conclusive). I see the conversion from Judaism to Islam repeated far more than I do the conversion from Islam to Hinduism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For Sarmad the initial source given does not indicate a conversion. There are varying conflicting reports as you have stated. His views may have been influenced by Kabir. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Summary: More/clearer sources needed for inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nargis

I see a lot more talk of her parents' religion than her conversion. We'll need something better than a photo caption. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nargis is also another one with a really bad source, which does not give much insight and should be avoided. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@D4iNa4: For this and the one or two others with sourcing issues above, could you provide better citations for their inclusion? As a separate question (and maybe it's better to answer in specific sub-sections), what do you think we should do when there are conflicting reports? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Read.[13] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That one looks ok. Are you going to respond to the others or should they proceed on their current trajectory? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Summary: Woulds till benefit from more sources, but the two above look to me to be sufficient for inclusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up

@user:Rhododendrites, its been about a month and it is clear that the user who is disputing the claims is not interested in discussing. So do you think that we should remove all of these stated? Also, do you think that source is good enough for Nargis? Xtremedood (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Xtremedood: it looks like FreeatlastChitchat restored your earlier edit. I did restore two names, however, based on the findings/sections above. It's been more than a month now since the last comment, which, especially after past attempts at discussion and a trip to dispute resolution were not fruitful, seems like plenty of time to conclude that there's no reason not to go with the summaries I've just posted above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't reply to your direct question. As I wrote above, I think the sources aren't ideal but unless we have other reliable sources which challenge the accuracy of those two, I don't see a reason to exclude Nargis. If you've linked to conflicting sources and I missed them, I apologize -- I'm just going by what I turned up when I looked and what's linked above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I did edited these articles before,[14] I would say that we are having problem with conduct of Xtremedood here who has disregard for anything except Islam and Freeatlastchitchat who came to this article only by wikihounding D4iNa4. Unless they have something better to prove with source, I would say that entries should remain. Capitals00 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00: I don't know anything about the other disputes and, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't been involved in any disputes with users on either side of this previously. While I appreciate that bad behavior can taint a user's edits, the evaluations above are my own. I looked at each of the sources and even searched for others. If you would like to restore some of the names (other than Palakkode, whose article was deleted), I would invite you to challenge the various "summary" statements I added above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rhododendrites. My not discussing this further on the TP should be considered my agreement with their edits. He/she has put a lot of effort in analyzing these sources, so @Capitals00: please do not undo his work without any valid arguments. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I will find sources about Khusro Khan later, found and added for rest. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 The sources you added are not reliable. A publishing house for kids, and one in new dehli for 12 graders. Please get some WP:RS FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have used four sources, they are from The Rosen Publishing Group, Har-Anand Publications, Northern Book Centre, APH Publishing. They are reliable academic sources. I can't assume good faith on your part since you picked this article to WP:WIKIHOUND my contributions. If you have nothing better to add and your only motive is to disrupt, I would tell you to move on. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@D4iNa4 those are not "academic", they are just normal publishing houses, many of whose books fall under the self published category. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

APH, Rosen, Har Anand, Northern Book, seem academic though and not self-published. Capitals00 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 Yes a bookseller who publishes books for PRE 12 CLass is highly reliable for academic discourse. I almost cracked a rib laughing. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That's still not a definition of unreliable source or self publishing, thus you can keep laughing on your incompetence. What really matters is that Rosen are affiliated to Britannica, as per the second paragraph. Why you have to remove every other entry when you can find any other source for this information? WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Capitals00 (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources for these entries, because it is more of a general information and not controversial. Just added a source from Tata McGraw-Hill Education,[15] which is no doubt highly reliable. Capitals00 (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Capitals00 you just added Memoirs of an Egotist as a "reliable source" on Harihara I. What sort of WP:BULLSHIT is this? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain this[16] attempt to WP:GAME system? If you are believing that we need a specific book covering nothing but "conversions" then you are kidding. Capitals00 (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed books that were not WP:RS You said Rosen publications was affiliated with Brittanica, I took your word for it and pending further investigation into the source, I removed only the ones which were blatant violations. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say they are not RS? (being specific) They don't have to be academic publishers to be reliable. I see you mentioned self-published. Can you link to where you see that? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 07:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason either to claim that they are not reliable sources, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, he was simply trying to WP:GAME system by misrepresenting those reliable sources as self published. Capitals00 (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

When I first read the page It says that many people who converted to Islam ,were converted back to Hinduism , and that's not true .it seems that this article is willfully design to discourage conversion to Islam Sohelahmedtrp (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)