Talk:Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

POV
I am honestly tired of relentless POV promotion around the somewhat fraudulent themes of religious/language syncretism in India. I happened upon this page a little while ago. It seems to have grown out a need to find a stomping ground for the Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani language and its attendant Hindu-Muslim culture. As the expression of the title is Ganga-Jamuni, i.e. a reference to Ganges and Yamuna, two rivers, the stomping ground has been determined to be the doab (the interfluve or tongue of land) between the two confluent rivers. In reality, as you will see on the page, the expression has nothing to do with the rivers, but has always meant "mixed," applied to alloys (half-brass, half-copper), mixed colours (grey); mixed pleasures: half-opium half-marijuana; mixed lentils and so forth)  I have added citations. The full expression "Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb" was invented in the Indian nationalist movement in the first half of the 20th century, after the Khilafat movement, I've been told. I don't know which editors have edited this article; I did not investigate, but this is the sort of thing I am worried about.  There is synthesis in the Hindi-Urdu topics; there is now also synthesis in the attendant cultures. This has nothing to do with Pakistani editors.  It is all Indian or India-POV editors, who are relentlessly promoting this sort of nonsense.  I don't want to know who, but I am tired.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PS For evidence before 1900, see Ganga-Jamuni, and Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb (in all its spellings) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Fowler, I can't support your edits because Wikipedia is a not a dictionary. Plenty of sources make it clear that what is meant here is the Hindu-Muslim syncretism, especially in Awadh, e.g., . When the term was coined, I have no idea. But there is plenty of evidence from medieval times to modern period of such syncretism functioning. I can't really understand your objection. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the term, only the culture, but I have to give its meaning. It has nothing to do with Awadh or the Doab.  I'm not even sure it has anything to do with Hindu-Muslim culture, even though I've left that in for now, only a mixed, composite, Muslim culture in North India, throughout its heartland from Delhi (which is not in the Doab or Awadh) to UP (including Agra (not in the Doab or Awadh), Kanpur (in the Doab, but not in Awadh), Lucknow (in Awadh but not in the Doab), and Benares (not in either), to Bihar, also not in either, which is also the land of those rivers.  As far as I remember, it was employed by Urdu writers.  Will look for sources soon.  What are the chances the BBC's travel section will have anything to enlighten us.  The Urdu bit there is nonsense, as the Muslims of the Awadh and UP in general (and not those of Western Punjab) spearheaded the Pakistan movement.  They were blamed for that (The Raja of Mahmudabad's property in Lucknow was singled out by the BJP), i.e. not for Urdu, but for going to Pakistan.  As for chikan, business in it is nothing compared to Benares silk.  And Benares, also 30% Muslim, is nowhere near Awadh.  I can easily poke holes in the rest of that story, but I'll find some scholarly source.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I missed the part that it is said to be part of the "Muslim culture", not necessarily Hindu culture. You are probably right. I haven't seen anything inconsistent with it. Can we now dump the Hindi dictionaries then? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not being allowed to edit the page. I make one edit, Anupam follows it with a revert and a continuous succession of little edits, with big quotes, with no room for anyone to get a word in edgewise. In the section below, where I am working on a lead, the Hindi dictionaries are only in the footnotes. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There's not much I can do.  after his interpretation of the term on this page for many days, will not let me add text with scholarly citations, will not let me edit with "inuse" in place, even after making a talk page post and intimating my intention to edit.  He has begun to add the big quotes, from obscure sources, in the lead. Go figure.  I will the text here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, thank you for pinging me here. I appreciate that you have removed the non-neutrally worded information added by an anonymous IP about Pakistan. The other material that you removed, however, is well sourced and so you must gain consensus for its removal here (your edits have already been opposed by User:Kautilya3). I should note that the term refers to communal harmony and shared culture of the Hindus and Muslims of India; it does not refer solely to Muslim culture alone as you incorrectly stated above. K. Warikoo, Professor at the Centre for Inner Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University describes the concept in the text Religion and Security in South and Central Asia (published by Routledge):

At this time, my recommendation is for you to wait for the input of other edits to comment here before making changes to the article. Alternatively, you can propose additions you would like to make here, so that others can offer their thoughts on them. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Warikoo's CV at JNU says: an expert on Central-Asian studies, Security Studies, Silk Road Studies. He has been scraped from the bottom of the barrel to enlighten us in a big fat quote about a Muslim culture of the Gangetic plain.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, it is not Warikoo, who's saying that. See below for proper citation, and proper use of source, when the source is not the most reliable.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me here. I will do some reading first before going into details, but I start to understand where your allergic reaction stems from, which unfortunately took a bit the shape of an overreaction in the topic Hindustani language. Please do not equate the "technical" linguistic viewpoint of editors like and me with this. This is a conflation of ideology and reality. This espeically holds for the stuff in the lede based on the DNA op-ed. And no, "the Hindustani language, the lingua franca of the northern Indian subcontinent, is" not "the product of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb". It's cited from a non-RS, we know better from better sources in the article Hindustani language (at any stage of its edit history). I suggest to remove everything based on the DNA op-ed and the Google site. More later. –Austronesier (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Austronesier, I will go ahead and remove the quoted sentence from the article per your request. If you don't mind, however, please read the source provided by User:Kautilya3, as well as this one. The article, as it stands now, reflects how the term "Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb" is widely used in academia and popular culture. The arcane definition provided by User:Fowler&fowler below has no usage in the public square; in addition, the version of the lede he is proposing is very communally charged and not appropriate for the lede of an article. I'm going to ask User:Fylindfotberserk and User:Ms Sarah Welch, two editors who have improved various South Asian religious and cultural articles, to offer their thoughts here as I think they may be very helpful. Thanks, AnupamTalk 10:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the two media site articles. Still, I can't avoid to say that the current wording lacks the necessary distance between national ideal and regionally confined reality. I'd advise to paint the aspects of communal harmony in less ideologically tinted words, and mention–clearly seprated from it–how the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb is evoked as a symbol for national unity-in-diversity. The Warikoo quote, if read carefully, actually only represents a source for the latter aspect. –Austronesier (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides,, as I have pointed out, you have the citation all wrong. Warikoo has only edited the book, not written the article in question. The correct citation is:   Here is the Google Scholar description of the article, with citation index 7.  I have used it below, not for the ideological archetype or exemplar which the author describes in glowing words, but for the actual utilization of it by the media to quell Hindu-Muslim tensions in the wake of a bombing in Varanasi. That is what the "regionally confined reality," to use 's felicitous choice of words, is about.  See my list of sources below.  Also, as Philippa Williams much cited article, see below, shows, in Varanasi, there is much enthusiasm for this GJT ideal, but when she asked her Hindu respsondents if they had any Muslim friends, most had no answer, a few pointed to some houses they said belonged to Muslims. At least in Varanasi, in her field work, GJT did not seem to be a lived reality, only an imagined one, but still successfully invoked in times of sectarian Hindu-Muslim tensions for quelling them.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's sources, thus far

 * Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary (Google scholar citation index 347) by R. S. McGregor, late Reader in Hindi, University of Cambridge.
 * Practical Hindi-English Dictionary (Google Scholar citation index 80)
 * Hindi sabdasagara (in Hindi) published by the Nagari Pracarini Sabha, between 1965-1975, the premier Hindi language dictionary, many volumes.
 * "Ek kahani Ganga-jamni: Satirizing secularity" (Google scholar citation index 2) by Christina Oesterheld, Senior Lecturer in Urdu, University of Heidelberg
 * "Deconstructing a Deconstructionist Urdu Story" (Google scholar description), published in Annual of Urdu Studies, 1996.
 * Lives of Muslims in India: Politics, Exclusion and Violence (Google Scholar Citation index 18) by Abdul Shaban, Professor of Development Studies, and Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Tuljapur Campus, Mumbai
 * Literary Paradigms in the Conception of South Asian Muslim Identity (Google Scholar citation index 1) by Mehr Afshan Farooqi, Assistant Professor of South Asian Literature, University of Virginia.
 * Islam in South Asia: A Short History (Google Scholar citation index 1) by Nadeem Hasnain, Professor of Social Anthropology, University of Lucknow.
 * The Making of Awadh Culture (Google Scholar citation index 28) by Madhu Trivedi, Associate Professor in the Department of History, School of Open Learning, University of Delhi.
 * "Book Review: The Making of Awadh Culture by Michael H. Fisher, Robert S. Danforth Professor of History at Oberlin College
 * "Who wants to be a cosmopolitan? Readings from the composite culture" (Google Scholar Citation Index 14) by Kathryn Hansen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Asian Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
 * "Hindu Muslim Brotherhood" (Google Scholar citation index 36) by Philippa Williams, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, Queen Mary University of London.
 * "Communal peace in India: Lessons from multicultural Banaras" (Google Scholar citation index 7) by Priyankar Upadhaya, UNESCO Professor of Peace and International Understanding, Benares Hindu University.
 * A Season of Betrayals: A Short Story and Two Novellas (Google Scholar citation index 9) by Qurratulain Hyder and C. M. Naim.
 * An essay in Indian Literature and the World: Multilingualism, Translation, and the Public Sphere (Google Scholar citation index 5) by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan whose book Real and Imagined Women: Gender, Culture, and Post-Colonialism has been cited 619 times in the scholarly literature.
 * Another essay in Indian Literature and the World: Multilingualism, Translation, and the Pullic Sphere by Francesca Orsini, Professor of Hindi and South Asian Literatures at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. (Google Scholar citation index 1137)
 * Hindu, Sufi, or Sikh: Contested Practices ... (Google scholar citation index 23) by Steven Ramey, Associate Professor in the Department of Religious Studies and Director of Asian Studies at the University of Alabama.
 * River of Life, River of Death: the Ganges and India's Future, Oxford University Press (Google scholar citation index 14) by Victor Mallet, correspondent for the Financial Times.

Fowler&fowler's Lead, thus far
 Ganga–Jamuni Tehzeeb,  more commonly  Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb,  ("Ganga-Jamni" Hindi, literally, "mixed," "composite," "alloy,"   "Tahzeeb", Urdu, via Arabic: refinement, polish, culture.) is the composite, syncretistic, culture of northern India, especially Indo-Muslim culture. The culture is thought to be a result of Turko-Mughal heritage in language, art, and religious praxis; the Urdu language is one of its products. Syncretic religious traditions such as Pranam Panth, Kabir Panth, Sikhism have been seen to rise in the wake of this composite culture.

Urdu scholar C. M. Naim in his introduction to the English translation of the novel Aag Ka Darya (River of Fire) by Qurratulain Hyder, has described Ganga-Jamni as, "the syncretic (Indo-Muslim) culture that was once the primary defining element for much of elite society in the towns and cities of the Gangetic plain." Postcolonialism scholar Rajeswari Sunder Rajan considers the domain of the culture to be all regions where Islamic rule existed in northern India, including the Punjab, UP, and Bihar. South Asianist, Kathryn Hansen, has included the Indo-Muslim culture of Hyderabad in peninsular India as well.

What encapsulates ganga-jamni has not been entirely free from ideological pre-conceptions: in the early decades of the 20th century, "nationalistic" Muslim authors considered Ganga-Jamni, which stood for the mixing of Ganga (Hindu) and Jamuna (Muslim) traditions, to be  identical with "Hindustani" or "of the Gangetic plain of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh;" for other Muslim intellectuals according to C. M. Naim, "Hindustani stood for a linguistic variety rival to their own Urdu as it allegedly contained a disproportionate percentage of what they regarded as 'Hindi/Hindu' elements." Similarly, in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Urdu poets in both countries were active in mushairas, or public readings of poetry, on radio, and in newspapers. According to Naim, "The Indian side emphasized the common heritage of Indian Hindus and Muslims, the so-called Ganga-Jamni culture that developed in North India and Hyderabad. The Pakistani poets began with two separate nations and completely ignored any common past. Needless to say, all the Pakistani poets involved are Muslims, while on the Indian side there are non-Muslims as well."

In Awadh, in north-central India, the Ganga-jamuni tahzib is viewed by historian Madhu Trivedi to be the amalgamation of Persian artistic taste and Indian cultural mores that arose in the 18th- and 19th-centuries under the Nawabs of Awadh, making Lucknow a seat of culture. Its realization is illustrated by Urdu poets of Lucknow refashioning the marsiya style of commemorative poetry to depict Imam Hussain's family as a highborn one in Awadh rather than 7th-century Iraq. Lucknow boasted a culture of hospitality and refinement which the historian Muzaffar Alam has attributed to the Sufi concept of Wahdat-al-Wujud (Unity of Being) prevailing in the courtly culture of the Nawabs. The culture prompted the appointment of some Hindus in the Awadh administration, although the Nawabs generally preferred Shi'a Muslims. In contrast, Hindi scholar Francesca Orsini views Ganga-Jamuni to be a feature the rural culture of Awadh, comprising not only the shared observances, sanctities, festivals, and physical culture of Hindus and Muslims, but also their shared experience of the region's "exploitative agrarian, caste, and patriarchal systems." She contrasts this rural, composite, folk culture with the sophisticated culture of Lucknow personified by the figure of a courtesan.

Journalist Victor Mallet considers the Ganga-jamni tahzeeb to be the interwreathed Hindu-Muslim culture of contemporary north India. This theme has been explored in literature by novelist Manzoor Ahtesham. The mutual infiltration and reciprocal influencing of Hindu and Muslim traditions feature in his novel Sukha Bargad (Withered Banyan). Two characters in the novel, Suhail and Rashida, Muslim brother and sister college students, fall in love with Hindus. The resulting relationships place them in a contemporary composite culture that mixes Hindu and Muslim strands of Indian society. But at the end of the novel, the relationships fail, which Kathryn Hansen views as mirroring the rising distrust between Hindus and Muslims in the 1970s and -80s, and the rise of religious fundamentalism in India.

As a real or imagined brotherhood between Hindus and Muslims, the ganga-jamni is associated with some large cities in northern India. In Lucknow, according to one study, the local media have given good publicity to the instances of Hindu and Muslim participation in public festivals, linking it to the gamga-jamni culture of the region's history. However, urbanization and religious factionalism have largely weakened these traditions, which the city's long-term residents never tire of lamenting. In Varanasi, the idea of a mixed culture, elicits the enthusiasm of Hindus and Muslims alike; however, it does not readily translate to social relations. In one study, when Hindus respondents were asked if they had any Muslim friends, most could do no better than point to a house they believed was occupied by Muslims.

The imagined notion of the composite culture been usefully exploited by the media and city authorities in Varanasi to curb sectarian strife. After the 2006 Varanasi bombings and resulting religious tensions, appeals from Bismillah Khan, a Varanasi native and shehnai virtuoso, often associated with Varanasi's Ganga-jamni culture, were broadcast by the TV stations every half-hour for several days. It has also been manipulated by politicians: in the lead up to India's 2014 General elections, India's current prime minister, Narendra Modi, a candidate of the Hindu nationalist Bhartiya Janata Party to India's parliament from the city of Varanasi, attempted to court Varanasi's Muslims by describing Khan as the pre-eminent symbol of the Ganga-jamuni tehzeeb.

(In progress)

Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb defined by Academic Sources
The article, as it stands now, reflects how academic sources define Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb, as well as how it is popularly used in culture (Exhibit A and Exhibit B).

K. Warikoo, Professor at the Centre for Inner Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University describes the concept in the text Religion and Security in South and Central Asia (published by Routledge):

The Politics of Secularism: Medieval Indian Historiography and the Sufism, authored by Venkat Dhulipala, Associate Professor of History at UNC Wilmington and published by University of Wisconsin–Madison, states:

The text Āzād Hindūstān, Māz̤ī aur Mustaqbil, published by the Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library, likewise states:

In light of the fact that multiple scholarly sources define Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb as the composite culture of the Hindus and Muslims of India, the article should remain as it stands now, not altered to bias the definition in favour of one group. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 10:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Awadhi tehzeeb
Some history from

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Some history as well as culture from:

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Responses
It is important to note somewhere that the whole notion, "Ganga Jamni Tahzib," the ideological exemplar, is a 20th-century construction. As I have indicated there is no source that I can find for "Ganga Jamni Tahzib" (in all its spelling variations before 1900) Will keep working on it. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, many sources have referred to it as an "Awadhi poetic phrase". Sometime, we might find out which poem it was! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it will need to be a poem, because, without the "tahzeeb," the expression "Ganga-Jamni" is quite old (in the meaning of an alloy, half-silver half-gold; half-copper half-brass; mixed grain rice or lentils) so I'm not sure how adding "tahzeeb" alone without a larger poetic context, such as a poem you mention, will make it poetic. The earliest reference I can find is for the expression Ganga Jamni, without Tahzeeb, is 1848, well before Awadh was annexed by Dalhousie.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

New lead
Dear  I am finally implementing a large part of the scholarly lead that I had written more than two years ago (see above) and have waited on for about the same time. Some of you have already commented on it earlier. I hope my edit will be given a chance, allowed to stay for the same or a good proportion of the time that the current version has existed. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also pinging for their scholarly views.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You have no consensus to implement this lede. Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb is exactly the opposite of what you write about. It is about the composite culture of Muslims and Hindus in northern India and the communal harmony fostered between both communities. You have rewritten the lede to include your views on "exploitative agrarian, caste, and patriarchal systems" as well as anecdotes about a fictional romance. Your additions might be more suitable to an article on religious violence, but it has no place here, especially not in the lede. This article is about peace and culture; the definition offered by K. Warikoo, Professor at the Centre for Inner Asian Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University (which is in the stable version of the article), is what we will operate on here:

The stable version shows how Muslims and Hindus have fostered this culture and it is the same operative definition that journalists write about when discussing Ganga-Jumni tehzeeb (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). Additionally, please do not WP:CANVASS your favourite people to support you every time you edit. It is unfair to do this and it is also WP:GAMING the system. I will not allow you to interject your political views into this article, which is about communal harmony in India. AnupamTalk 16:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I am absolutely perplexed that User:Fowler&fowler would remove the famous maxim by Kabir that is very relevant to the context of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb. This is despite the fact that Kabir is mentioned in this source used in the very same article! I have nevertheless copied the reference into that section should there be any doubt. AnupamTalk 17:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Warikoo's field is Strategic Studies: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45072965  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And Central Asia Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "The editor of the book, K. Warikoo contributes two scholarly articles. The first article is on trade and cultural movements through Kashmir and Ladakh in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ... In his second article, Warikoo discusses the nineteenth century Great Game which, according to the author, was the culmination of the aspirations of the British and Tsarist empires to dominate the region covering Central Asia, Afghanistan and Kashmir."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a citation to Nadeem Hasnam, a social anthropologist of lakhnavi culture; you have a newspaper article written by --A craft lover and natural wanderer, the writer has walked into remote craft pockets across the country. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I wanted to make the point, which I do periodically, that because of relentless and longstanding POV promotion of Hindi and Hindu in everything related to Urdu and syncretic forms of Islam in India, a great great disservice has been done to Wikipedia. Pinging also   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Until I pointed out that the term Ganga-Jamuni had existed long before it was applied to "Tahzeeb" (تہذيب tahẕīb, i.e. refinement, etiquette) and the meaning has always been that of a mixing or alloy (as of the mixing of the two rivers; that in fact, the mix of two kinds of lentils is referred to as that) this page was referring Ganga-Jamuni to be the culture of the Doab the tongue or interfluve of land between the two rivers. I have written large parts of the Doab page as well, e.g. drawn the map painstakingly. It was news to me.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not including Kwami in that accusation. Just informing them.  Apologies if it might have seemed that way.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Shall I in all earnest join a discussion that has one participant saying I will not allow you...? Naaaah.... ok yes. I have always thought that the lede is a summary for the rest to follow. By this standard, Fowler&Fowler's version fails. Also, it reads very much like an essay to me (so does the "stable" version, just shorter). There are also some pointy bits ("In one study, when Hindus respondents were asked if they had any Muslim friends, most could do no better than point to a house they believed was occupied by Muslims." – so where's the study?). The basic idea is good: first say what Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb traditionally refers to and then mention in a neutral way that it is evoked ("exploited"? Here goes the essay...) as sort of "counter-reality" to the communal rifts caused by the Hindutva Partition 2.0-project. We know that the reality is different; if it weren't, people wouldn't yearn for an idealized past. Btw, mention of Modi instrumentalizing (not "manipulating") it seems due to me here.

Sorry that this is still incoherent and brief, but I still have to control myself from chuckling when literally imagining the stick-wielding I see in this dialog. I can see it as clearly before my eyes as I can see the harmonious Ganga-Jamni Tehzeeb. –Austronesier (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * OK, good. I posted what I did because I realized the other day again that I had posted a longish essay/pre-lead whatever you want to call it for the purpose of the rest of the article to be re-written.  By all means, someone, anyone, please reduce it, summarize it further, distill it, but incorporate it.  It is better for it to be in the lead than forever on the sidelines.  Unfortunately, I'm flat out of time.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A word on canvassing: I think Fowler&Fowler knows that pinging me is like a box of chocolates. –Austronesier (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I've not seen Forrest Gump (though I've probably seen enough parts of it to vaguely remember the theme, but the chocolates reference is escaping me this minute). Was pinging simply for someone to use the good sources I have added to improve the article, the lead or the main body, if they have the time.  An RfC-like debate, a straw poll, in which my buddies will weigh in, pile on, is the last thing on my mind.  I really have very little interest in this topic but hate for WP's article on it to be so poorly written.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For the rest of the month, I have an FAR to save. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy movie quote: "Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get". –Austronesier (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Very true.  I ping you because I have absolute faith in your integrity.  If integrity is predictable in every situation then it is not integrity.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose Fowler's intro for the same reasons mentioned above. Fowler's version is an essay on why he feels Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb is imagined, rather than speaking about it in a scholarly context. He removed the fact that is a Hindu-Muslim syncretic culture and added a revisionist version that it is a Turko-Mughal culture. Seriously? No encylcopedia or article presents the topic this way other than fringe citations Fowler cherrypicked to write what he wants this article to say. LearnIndology (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A false example of Kabir?
Coming back to this article, I had removed that example from Kabir because the meter was not adding up for me, couldn't tap my foot to it. So, I called a Hindi linguist (not Colin Masica, who sadly passed away a couple of months ago; see his picture I have added to his page), but someone else. They said it did not sound like Kabir. They gave me some typical examples of Kabir. So I did searches with those examples and also the example on this page. Here are the results: first the real ones: and
 * "सुख में सुमिरन " suukh meiN sumiran
 * "बड़ा भया तो क्या भया" baRaa bhayaa to kyaa bhayaa


 * "कोई जपे रहीम " Koi jape rahim you all be the judge.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no good "feel" for Hindi meter, so no comment here. I nevertheless fail to see how this source fulfills WP:V for the preceding statements, including attribution of the cited verse to Kabir. –Austronesier (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This citation supports that it was said by Kabir. LearnIndology (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And claiming personal connections and original research is not permitted on the Wikipedia. LearnIndology (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be ideal to have a source about a literary work that is not a newspaper article, and one that predates this addition to the article to exclude the possibility of citogenesis? –Austronesier (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Here is an example. If not, we can easily use another example of one of Kabir's quotes relating to Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb, or a fact from the article, like "Kabir spoke of Hindus and Muslims as being the warp and weft of that chadariya ." LearnIndology (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And it should be published in a high-quality peer-reviewed academic source. We're not talking about some obscure poet, so clearly there shouldn't be lack of such sources. –Austronesier (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"Revolutionary role of Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb movement"
Is this a section we need? I ask for a couple reasons: 1. Right now, the section doesn't have any central thesis - it's a few names (unsourced) and a single quote from Kabir (that as noted elsewhere on this page, might not actually be Kabir). 2. Is it really "revolutionary"? And if so, what is being revolutionized? Could it just the natural result of centuries of cultural fusion? Right now, it doesn't discuss anything being changed since it hardly has any substance at all.

It seems to me that if we want to keep examples and say it's a section about tehzeeb reflected in literature, the section should be renamed as such and rewritten to support that idea. But if there are other suggestions of the direction to take this, let's discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash aziz (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Everything is off here. The inapt terms "movement", "revolutionary" (this sounds like as if an individual or a group actively initiated a movement, "hey, let's be revolutionary and fuse some religions and call it a tehzeeb"), the inadequate sourcing, and the so far not properly verified Kabir quote. I also agree with your suggestion to rename and rewrite the paragraph, with good sources (not another newspaper article, please). –Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)