Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
Short description: Persian statesman and poet (1411–1481)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
The only image is appropriately tagged. Sources are reliable. Spotchecks (footnote numbers refer to this version:
FN 8 cites "After Humayun's death, he became one of the guardians of the underage Sultan Nizam Shah during his regency. This triumvirate regency council would consist of Mahmud, Jahan Turk, and the queen mother of Nizam Shah." Verified.
FN 13 cites "These reforms would not be taken well by many of the nobles, whose power had been significantly curtailed." Verified.
FN 37 cites "in which he was called the "envy of Rum itself", and conversed with and invited to the Deccan many other poets, including Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi and Jalal al-Din Davani". This is slightly inaccurate: Jami refers to India as the envy of Rum, not Gawan; and "conversed" with is also not quite right -- he carried on correspondence with them.
You now have "his dominions were called", but the source says "India". And the sources says Rum refers to Europe in this context; I think that should be clear to the reader here too.* FN 42 cites "and thunder storm in 1696, which collectively rid it of half of the southern wing and half its front, and it was consistently neglected and left to decay through the elements. This neglect and its ruinous state caused the madrasa to become a public dumping ground for the people's filth and rubbish. The building later underwent a significant cleanup and renovation and is now in a more presentable state." This is cited to p. 93, but the relevant material is also on p. 92. Verified, but "now in a more presentable state" needs to be changed to use "as of" wording. That source is from 1947 so I think you'll want to find something more recent as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FN 51 cites "The Sultan later regretted his ill-thought-out decision and buried Mahmud Gawan, though still in a small tomb disproportionate to the authority his rank had held." I don't see anything in the source that supports the Sultan regretting his decision.
Since the spotcheck has to pass for the article to be promoted to GA, I'm going to do another round. Footnote numbers refer to this version.
FN 11 cites "He was given the formal title of “Lord of the habitors of the Globe, Secretary of the Royal Mansion, Deputy of the Realm", which he was addressed as in court documents." The citation needs to be extended to p. 296.
FN 18 cites "The capture of the Konkan would virtually cease the attacks on Muslim pilgrims and would grant the Bahmanis dominance over trade in the eastern Arabian Sea." P. 415 is in the index and doesn't support the text.
FN 44 cites "The divisions included sectarian religious divisions where the Afaqis were looked upon as heretics by the Sunnis as the former were Shi'as." Verified, but incompletely paraphrased per WP:CLOP. I think this needs to be reworded a bit more.
I am going to stop here and fail the article. The spotcheck inaccuracies are a concern, but I would not have failed the article on that basis alone: it's also because I've been looking through the body of the article, and the prose needs copyediting. Some examples:
"The divisions included sectarian religious divisions where the Afaqis were looked upon as heretics by the Sunnis as the former were Shi'as." Unnecessarily wordy; this says the same thing three different ways.
"its collapse caused relations between the two parties to grow increasingly stigmatized during Mahmud's fifteen-year supreme rule": I don't know what's intended -- perhaps "strained"? -- but "stigmatized" is not the right word here.
"consequent of the drastic reforms" -- ungrammatical
"usurp his regime": an odd usage; usually one usurps a position in a regime, not the regime
"his statement was not given value": odd phrasing
That's just from one section, but the whole article is like this. It feels as though this was written by someone with an excellent command of English but not a native speaker. I don't know if that's right, but I would recommend getting a GOCE copyedit if possible. I am also a bit concerned by the fact that the sources are quite old. Surely there is more recent scholarship? Sherwani's work, which is heavily cited, is 80 years old. The writing style in the old sources tends to be quite florid which doesn't help either. That would be more of an issue at FAC than at GA, but it would be good if you could find something a bit more recent to work from. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all these concerns. Could you explain which point is still outstanding above that was not fixed in the initial spot check? If it's about there being no ref for the Sultan regretting his decision, there's an sfn I added at the end of that sentence after the one already there, though I could place it right after "regretted". I'm pretty sure I also fixed all major grammar issues or copyedit-needing sentences; this article is fairly short so I think I deserve a full review and a chance to fix these issues.
The problem of the footnotes not covering all pages content was summarized from is due to a bad habit I have of writing a bunch of content and then adding all the footnotes after I'm done rather quickly, which results in the issues you've encountered, but I believe I've adequately addressed.
I also cite Sherwani heavily because his two books (on Mahmud Gawan and the Bahmanis in general) are two of the most comprehensive and detailed texts there are on the topic; Chandra's and Eaton's books, both from the past 20 years, are better in that they're newer but the former only spends 3 pages on Mahmud and the latter spends ~20, but only a few on Mahmud's actual life and rule. I don't think "old" scholarship on India-related topics is necessarily bad as long as it doesn't fall under WP:RAJ, which these do not as they are not at all about the caste system. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point that an old source isn't necessarily a weak source; I've worked in areas where that's the case. Re the fail: would you be OK if I tried to do a copyedit myself? I would try to get to it by the end of the coming weekend. You could then renominate it. At the moment I believe the fail was justified on the grounds of prose, but if I go through and find I don't have much to fix I'll acknowledge I was wrong about that. It would mean I wouldn't be able to do the subsequent review, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll give it a shot. It's not an area of history I've done more than read casually about so I may have some questions for you as I go through; if so I'll post on the talk page. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flemmish Nietzsche, I'm just starting to look at the sources, and the first thing that occurs to me is that if there's a book length study of Gawan (Sherwani 1942), plus a full chapter in Eaton, then surely the article could be longer than it is? I'm going to go through the citations and find the original source material and see what I can do as far as copyediting is concerned, but I can't read the entire source and expand the article. I think if you do renominate it, a reviewer familiar with the period might argue that the article doesn't meet the GA "broadness" requirement: that the article covers the main aspects of its topic.
Sherwani 1942 is cited, pp. 25-27, for the start of the "origins" section, but why not use the pages before that which give details of his birth date and birth place, and his full name, and his family background? The whole story of why he left Gilan doesn't have to be told, but it doesn't match what the article currently says: "due to discontent with its political environment". Actually that's cited to Eaton but I don't see it there either.
Sherwani gives his name as "Khwaja ‘Imadu’d-din Mahmud b. Jalalu'd-din Muhammad b. Khwaja Kamal el-Gilani". What does the "b." mean? Are all these forms of his name? From the footnote in Sherwani (pp. 22-23) I think these are the names of Gawan, his father, and his grandfather, but I can't tell which order they're in. None of them exactly match what you have as the native name in the infobox.
While you're right that there is a lot of content about Mahmud much of it isn't actually about him specifically; much of Sherwani's book focuses on the political background of the Deccan in this period and the events leading up to the Bahmani Sultanate's fall, the latter of which is briefly summarized at the end of the article; both Sherwani and Eaton's texts also have a lot of paragraphs just stating how great he was, or how distinguished his character was, and I prefer to write about actual events and facts rather than just puffery and a person's character. There is also a false appearance of more content than there actually is by Sherwani on Mahmud, as almost all the content of his book on Mahmud is duplicated in his general book on the Bahmanis written four years later, which is extensively cited.
Secondly, I added the Sherwani sfn there later on just to verify his children and their uninvolvement in his Deccani life; the Eaton cite sufficiently addresses the content before the Sherwani sfn and is used later on. (page 62 if you're wondering)
The "b." here is a short form of the Arabic "bin", closely meaning "son of"; as in Mahmud is the son of Jalalu'd-din Muhammad, who is the son of Khwaja Kamal el-Gilani. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks -- that's helpful. I did wonder about puffery; the flowery style of Sherwani made me suspect it was not very content-rich, but I was hoping for more from Eaton, which is recent, after all.
Are you using "due to discontent with its political environment" to refer to the conflict with Hajji Muhammad and Syed Ali? Or is this a reference to something in Eaton? Added: I see it described as "local politics" in Eaton p. 62, now; I guess that's fair but I think it would be colourful to expand it a little.
We have "He toured various regions of Asia": I see mention of Cairo and Damascus in Sherwani, after which he's in the Deccan as far as I can see.
What's the basis for "success as a merchant"? Eaton describes him as a high-born merchant but says nothing about his commercial success that I can see, in the pages cited at least. Added: reading on I see this and support for the mention of Asia in Eaton p. 63.
So far I'm just reading the sources and trying to get a mental framework together, but I do have one more question before I stop reading for the night. Can you explain the various forms of his name? I see:
Khwaja ‘Imadu’d-din Mahmud (Sherwani 1942 p.22).
Mahmud Gawan (the form Eaton uses)
Khwaja Mahmud Gilani (the native name field in the infobox)
As I understand it, "Khwaja" is an honorific, not a part of the name; if it does belong in the native name field, should it perhaps be linked to Khwaja so it doesn't appear to unfamiliar eyes to be part of the name itself? And what's the source for "Gilani" -- presumably a toponymic? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mahmud Gawan is his "common name", I guess, basically meaning Mahmud of Gawan, as in the village of Gawan in Persia. Almost all sources which only give a brief summary of Mahmud's life use this form exclusively, hence the article title. Khwaja is an honorific, yes, and I could definitely link that. Gilani here is also a toponymic, "of Gilan", though sometimes the name is "Khwaja Mahmud Gaw/van Gilani", including both toponyms. The first name you mentioned is his name he was born with in Persia, but as far as I know was not used at all after that. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: I've been looking for Qawan/Gawan in Gilan in other sources; Google Maps knows about Gilan in Iran, still, but I can't find any references to Qawan or Gawan that identify it with a modern place. Do you know if it's known where it is? Sherwani makes it sounds as if he knew (he says "born at Qawan, or in its more familiar form Gawan in the kingdom of Gilan ..."). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find it too, and even looked on Farsi wikipedia, but couldn't find anything; probably either only used to exist or goes by a different name now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also initially had this "kingdom" Mahmud was born in as the Kar-Kiya dynasty, but from what Sherwani and Eaton say it appears to be the polity to the left of it on this map, (meaning "Qawan" is in that area) which does not have its own article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a proposed initial paragraph. Proposed subsection heading of "Family" under "Origins".
Mahmud Gawan was born in about 1411, in Gawan, in what is now northern Iran, at the southern edge of the Caspian Sea. His name at birth was Imadu'd-din Mahmud, according to Firishta, a Persian historian writing over a century later; his father's name was Jalalu'd-din Muhammad. Gawan's family was of high rank, and according to Gawan's own account had included viziers in the city of Resht. Political intrigues against Gawan's family, instigated by a minister, Hajji Muhammad, and the commander of the Gilani forces, Syed Ali, succeeded in undermining the status of Gawan's family, and at some point before 1440, both Gawan and his brother, Shihabu'd-din Ahmad, left Gilan. Gawan had three sons; their birth dates are not given, but in order of birth they were Abdullah, Ali Maliku't-tujjar, and Alaf Khan.
Thanks, looks mostly good to me. I would mention of him being born in a "small kingdom" and make some minor changes: "Mahmud Gawan was born in 1411 in Gawan, in a small kingdom in northern Iran, at the southern edge of the Caspian Sea." I would also remove the "writing over a century later" part as Firishta is relatively well known as a source for information in this period; it's also not necessary to mention that the birth dates of his sons are not known; we should only mention what information we do know.
I will admit that this is the one section of this article that I made very little changes to; I rewrote everything else but this section as it was well sourced to Eaton and I felt it give a good enough overview of Mahmud's early life; I only added the sentence about his sons and brother later on and made some minor copyediting changes. Overall with the suggested changes your suggested paragraph looks good though, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some changes per your comments:
Mahmud Gawan was born in about 1411, in Gawan, in the small kingdow of Gilan in what is now northern Iran, at the southern edge of the Caspian Sea. His name at birth was Imadu'd-din Mahmud, according to Firishta, a Persian historian writing over a century later; his father's name was Jalalu'd-din Muhammad. Gawan's family was of high rank, and according to Gawan's own account had included viziers in the city of Resht. Political intrigues against Gawan's family, instigated by a minister, Hajji Muhammad, and the commander of the Gilani forces, Syed Ali, succeeded in undermining the status of Gawan's family, and at some point before 1440, both Gawan and his brother, Shihabu'd-din Ahmad, left Gilan. Gawan had three sons: in order of birth they were Abdullah, Ali Maliku't-tujjar, and Alaf Khan.
I'd like to keep the sentence about Firishta being later -- I take your point that experts will know this, but for example when I wrote a series of articles about Anglo-Saxon kings, some time ago, I generally pointed out the dates of Bede's work and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which anyone knowledgeable about the period would already know, since it seems harmless to clarify the point for readers not familiar with the material. Or if you feel strongly about it, perhaps that could be a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the paragraph, though I also added some additional changes I didn't mention above so that info from the second half of the former paragraph wouldn't be duplicated, and added footnotes. About Firishta, as I kept in the bit saying "Persian historian" I don't see why the reader would infer that Firishta would have been a historian of Mahmud's time; it's always available to simply hover over the wikilink and see that his birth date was almost a century after Mahmud's execution. Also, do not refer to Mahmud Gawan as "Gawan" here; I'm not an expert on Persian names but I have not once seen any of these sources refer to him as "Gawan" rather than just Mahmud, which is used throughout this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK on not using Gawan; thanks for telling me. Re hovering over a link: unless I'm misunderstanding you that's only available to logged-in users who enable the relevant gadget in Special:Preferences, so most of our readers won't have that available. But it's a minor point and I'm fine with omitting it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft, cited mostly to Eaton 59-65 and the rank to Sherwani chapter III.
Over the next decade and more Mahmud travelled through Southwest Asia and as far west as Anatolia and Egypt, becoming a successful merchant, in horses as well as other goods, and taking opportunites for study in Cairo and Damascus. He was offered ministerial positions in the courts of Khurasan and Iraq during these years, but declined them. In 1453 he came to the port of Dabhol, hoping to sell horses to the Bahmani Sultanate, and also planning to meet Shah Muhibbu’llah, a holy man living in Bidar, the Bahmani capital, and then to travel to Delhi. He met first with the governor of Dabhol, and then traveled to Bidar. The Bahmani sultans of the era actively recruited Persians both as scholars and administratoprs, and Sultan Alau'd-din Ahmad Shah received Mahmud favourably. Mahmud was made a mansabdar with a rank of 1,000, and gave up his plans to travel onwards.
What's the source for Shah Muhibbu'llah being a Sufi Dervish? I couldn't spot that in Eaton or Sherwani. And I see you link to Ahmad Shah II which is a redirect; any particular reason for using that version of his name?
FYI, I see Eaton refers to him as Gawan, not Mahmud. I'll stick with Mahmud as that's your preference but wanted to point it out.
You say at the end of "Origins" that he was made a noble, and then at the start of "Career" that he was made an officer. Do these both refer to his being made a mansabdar, or was there a second appointment before the rebellion of Jalal Khan?
@Mike Christie Sorry I didn't see this until now, but yes the "noble" and "officer" statements both refer to the same thing. I'm not aware of the source for Muhibbullah being a Dervish, as again I only made minor adjustments and additions to the origins paragraph as the Eaton sourcing and the amount of content in that section in general seemed fine when I first started to work on this article. Using Ahmad Shah II is just a stylistic choice, and it helps to avoid confusion (if Alau'd-din Ahmad Shah is used) with a previous Bahmani monarch of the same name and is a "simpler" name.
The paragraph itself looks mostly good, although I would link Dabhol and Khorasan, mention his age of 42 (after "1453"), specify what him being given a rank of 1,000 meant, and change the mention of mansabdar, as that article doesn't at all mention its pre-Mughal use and might cause confusion from it, to simply "noble" or "officer" (and of course remove the "p" in "administratoprs"). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done, with your suggested changes. I don't use efn or sfn so I don't know how to fix this, but it appears that putting an sfn inside an efn causes an error if the same sfn already exists outside the efn. I've half-fixed it by making it Eaton 65n, since it's in a footnote on that page of Eaton, but that is generating "pp." rather than "p.".
I can go on with the first paragraph of the "Career" section if you think my edits are improving the article, but I don't want to insist if you don't think it's helping. Let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are definitely helping, but both versions of the origins section seemed mostly fine; when you said you would copyedit this article I thought you meant minor changes to sentence wording and flow, not rewriting whole sections with more content, which is certainly not bad, but somewhat surprising; wasn't this supposed to be a quick check to see if there actually were the abundance of copyediting issues you claimed there were to see if you were right or not? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was planning to just do a prose copyedit, but almost immediately found I couldn't do so without understanding the sources, and once I starting reading I had questions about emphasis and what was included. I can try doing just a copyedit, relying on you to catch any places where I have not been faithful to the source material, if you like? That would generate questions rather than suggested sentences, most likely. It's not my intention to take over the article, but I did complain about the prose at GA and would like to help improve it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, per the above, here are some copy editing notes on the next paragraph.
"After introducing himself to the Bahmani court of Ahmad Shah II, he was given an officer position, and later in 1457, given charge of an elite formation of cavalry after he had suppressed a minor rebellion." Repeats some of what is now in the origin section above it. I think it would be worth naming the rebel leaders, as Sherwani does. His was not the only military action against the rebellion, was it? This makes it sounds as though Mahmud suppressed it with no other help from the locals.
"Greatly impressed with his military aptitude, Sultan Humayun Shah had taken him in his service and appointed him as Wakil-us-Sultanat, or Chief Minister following Ahmad Shah II's death." Why "had taken him"? And since the rebellion was against Ahmad Shah II, we must have jumped forward in time so I would suggest giving the year. I also think "Greatly impressed" is more than is needed for an encyclopedic tone; I would at least cut "Greatly".
"In Humayun Shah's accession speech, he claims he appointed Mahmud due to him fitting the role of "one who should be clothed with the outward attributes of truth and good faith and who should inwardly be free from vices and vanity"." I don't think we need to say "claims" -- no reason to doubt this. And "due to him fitting" is a bit awkward. How about cutting most of the start of this, and joining it to the previous sentence with "... saying Mahmud was suited to the role, as "one who should ..."?
"In addition to his main role, Mahmud Gawan was given control of military affairs and was presented with the titles of "tarafdar of Bijapur" and "Prince of Merchants" (Malik-ut-Tujjar)". Can the former title be glossed at all? I would shorten this to something like "Mahmud was also given" -- no need for the full name here.
"After Humayun's death, he became one of the guardians of the underage Sultan Nizam Shah during his regency. This triumvirate regency council would consist of Mahmud, Jahan Turk, and the queen mother of Nizam Shah." Suggest "Humayan was succeeded as Sultan by the underage Nizam Shah. Until the new Sultan's majority, a regency council ruled, consisting of Mahmud, Jahan Turk, and the Sultan's mother." It's redundant to say it was a triumvirate, and "would" is unnecessary. And can we tell the reader who Jahan Turk is?
"It worked well in depoliticizing the foreigner-Deccani conflict and deterring foreign invasions through its "unity of action" policy, which saw the three regents constantly unified on the best course of action and conduct. This policy would last until the death of Nizam Shah in 1463, which laid the course for the coming internal strife which would eventually see Mahmud's execution." Generally I think foreshadowing is unencyclopedic; it's better to simply relate the events as they occurred. More immediately what does "constantly unified" mean? That they found themselves naturally in agreement in all cases? Or that they made a policy decision that they would not act without all three fully supporting each action? And the logical connection drawn here doesn't seem clear -- why would unified actions automatically be successful in depoliticizing a conflict and deterring invasions? Can we get something more specific?
I'm aware this is also not a copyedit, but I'm giving you what occurs to me as I consider how to rewrite each sentence. In some cases above I've suggested a rewrite directly; in others I would want to know the answers I've asked before I feel I could rewrite.
All of these should be fixed now. Sherwani didn't go into much detail as to what them being unified meant, but it basically seems they just happened to have the same interests and thus were unified on what to do. He also doesn't talk much about who Jahan Turk actually was, so I changed it to "a noble named Jahan Turk". Sherwani's explanation for why the triumvirate appeased the two factions was that they had a policy of appeasing the two factions, which seems redundant to say; and yes, these suggestions are helpful, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'constantly unified in their interests on the best course of action and conduct" is vague still. How about replacing from "It worked well" to the end with "The three council members found themselves in agreement on policy issues, and the council was effective in depoliticizing the foreigner-Deccani conflict by a policy of appeasement of the two sides, and in deterring foreign invasion"? Though since we haven't heard anything about any foreigner-Deccani conflict up to this point a word or two of explanation would be helpful there. If you do keep the current wording, "laid the course" seems an odd phrase -- normally one sees either "laid the groundwork" (or "laid the foundation"), or "set the course", but in any case those metaphors all imply a plan -- here the internal strife is an unplanned consequence. And it's also not clear whether the internal strife is a consequence of the death of Nizam Shah or the cessation of the unified policy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should (this time) be fixed. Sherwani does make a distinction that the unity of action policy is separate from the policy of appeasing the factions, and that only the former actually ceased upon Nizam Shah's death. I changed "laid the course" to "was the catalyst", which seems more appropriate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
""Three years after the accession of Muhammad III, when he was fourteen years of age, the triumvirate regency came to a forced end with the murder of one of its members, Jahan Turk, ordered by the queen mother herself." I think it would be worth explicitly saying that the regency had to continue into the next reign since Muhammad III had not reached his majority either. I'd also like to get "murder" and "ordered" a bit closer to each other in the sentence. How about "Nizam Shah's successor, Muhammad III, was fourteen years of age when he came to the throne, so the regency council continued [or maybe "continued to rule"]. It was ended three years later by the murder, at the queen mother's orders, of Jahan Turk."?
"Jahan Turk had been a disturbing force in the Sultanate by giving the new nobility positions in place of the old aristocracy, and had been disliked for his rumoured embezzling of funds from the royal treasury." Did Jahan raise people to the nobility, or is this saying that there were new and old aristocrats, and he favoured the new? In either case, what made this a disturbing force? Resentment at favouritism, I assume?
"His insistence on having his way had forced Mahmud to flee to the frontier provinces of the kingdom, and as Mahmud was "the moderating element in the Triumvirate", the order of the court quickly decomposed, and as Jahan Turk was the imposer of this chaos, the queen mother had him killed." A bit long and complex for one sentence. I think the first part needs to be unpacked a bit -- insistence on having his way doesn't seem like a reason for Mahmud to flee; presumably some further threat was involved. I don't think "decomposed" is the right word, even as a metaphor; it has connotations of slowness and rottenness. I think you want something like "collapsed". And "order of the court" is vague -- it brings to mind chaotic scenes in the throne room, but I think the intended meaning is more to do with the rule of the state and the coherence or fairness or sensibleness of Jahan's actions. And if it was a triumvirate regency, how did Jahan get control? Though that's probably off topic for this article.
"The queen mother retired from political affairs with the dissolution of the triumvirate, furthering Mahmud Gawan's lack of diplomatic and intellectual competition. A ceremony was held, where he was entrusted with the general supervision of all provinces (tarafs) of the Sultanate and given the title of Prime minister by the queen mother in 1466, soon after the triumvirate's dissolution. He was given the formal title of “Lord of the habitors of the Globe, Secretary of the Royal Mansion, Deputy of the Realm", which he was addressed as in court documents". We didn't get a date for Nizam Shah's death so we're in the dark here about when 1466 is relative to the previous events. When did Muhammad III succeed? After three years he would have been seventeen, so they must have been close to dissolving the regency council anyway, surely. And it sounds like Mahmud must have been the effective ruler, with Jahan dead and the queen mother retiring from politics. If that's what's meant by "lack of ... competition" I don't think it's clear enough -- I read that as the disappearance of competitors, not the elevation of Mahmud's own role. Why do we care about how court documents addressed him?
"Following Mahmud's many ambitious campaigns and territorial acquisitions, in 1473, he himself also expanded the number of tarafs, ruled by a tarafdar, from four to eight, due to the accrued administrative burden and expansion of the Sultanate, in part caused by his own pursuits." Suggest cutting "himself", but this seems out of sequence. What does "many ambitious campaigns and territorial acquisitions" refer to? Are those covered below? If so, surely this mention of the new tarafs should come after that? And "ambitious" is a bit PEACOCKy, though if Eaton supports it it's probably OK. And it's not clear whether the new tarafs are new territory or subdivisions of old tarafs or a mixture of both -- expansion of the Sultanate implies new territory, but "accrued administrative burden" implies the existing tarafs required more resources to administer. My main concern here though is that this seems out of sequence.
"He also instituted reforms of fixing the payment and obligations of the nobles and limiting the provincial governor's control to the assignment of only one fort. These reforms would not be taken well by many of the nobles, whose power had been significantly curtailed." Not sure what is meant by "fixing": correcting an error or oversight in the payment and obligations? Or fixing in the sense of setting a well-defined value for? And "instituted reforms of" is ungrammatical.
"Mahmud Gawan's foreign policy caused a drastic shift in the diplomatic atmosphere of South India; he temporarily allied his state with Vijayanagara, who had been rivals of the Bahmanis since the Sultanate's inception, and established a friendship with Mahmud Khalji of Malwa, with mutual envoys sent despite three past invasions of the kingdom by Khalji." Without dates this is impossible to place in context.
Should be good now, though some things to consider:
The sentence saying Muhammad III was fourteen was saying he was fourteen when Jahan Turk was killed, not when Nizam Shah died (he was rather 9–11)
Sherwani is vague as well about what "new nobility" means, and why Jahan Turk was a disturbing force; all it says is "It seems that Jahan Turk began to alienate the sympathies of a powerful section of the nobility by his highhanded behaviour. He began by replacing the scions of the old aristocracy by members of the new nobility" — and for the reason of Mahmud's flight, it again says closely what I wrote in the article, "He was so much bent upon having his own way that he actually managed to send away Maliku't-Tujjar Mahmud Gawan to distant frontier provinces"
The method in which Jahan Turk took control and the different roles the triumvirate members had which enabled Jahan Turk to have that power are explained at some point (for example Mahmud Gawan was technically Chief Minister in the triumvirate but not Prime minister altogether) but as you said that's somewhat off-topic for this and maybe should be in the Bahmani Sultanate article instead.
I included the line about how Mahmud was addressed to show how respected and powerful he was, and as Eaton also includes the line to convey the same message; I can remove it if you think its too puffery-y.
The date of Nizam Shah's death was actually given, just at the end of the first paragraph in that section; I added it in the third paragraph as well.
The reforms paragraph was referring to the below section on his campaigns, and yes I moved it to the bottom of that section. Dates are given in many of these works somewhat sparingly, so it's sometimes hard to pinpoint exactly when these things happened, and you often have to do it based off the year given a few pages earlier for a "recent" event, but yes dates were added.
I tweaked one sentence. Re "His insistence on having his way had forced Mahmud to flee": I don't think this conveys the same thing to the reader as the quote you give. It seems the key point is that for a time at least he had enough greater influence than Mahmud that Mahmud was forced to go, but the source says "send", which is very different from Mahmud fleeing. How about "He was able to force Mahmud to leave Bidar for the provinces"? Also see here, page 9, which gets a bit more definite about Jahan Turk. In fact I wonder if it would be worth requesting at WP:RX copies of pages relating to Mahmud? It's a recent source and seems a reliable source. In the last paragraph I would suggest putting the first two events in chronological order; presumably the ties with Gujarat would be dated 1468 or earlier, so that should move up too. Will look at the campaigns and reforms section next, perhaps this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you mentioned is actually used in this article, and can be found with open access here, I must have skipped over the part where Jahan Turk is mentioned though; I'll add the information given to the article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I mentioned the alliance with Vijayanagara first for a reason, as it is clearly the most notable of his diplomatic efforts through their 150-year rivalry which preceded the alliance between the two states; I don't think it has to be in chronological order as long as the dates are mentioned as right now it is ordered based off how impactful these diplomatic actions were; it wouldn't make sense to say that his efforts "caused a drastic shift in the diplomatic atmosphere of South India" and follow it with a simple alliance with a state (Gujarat) which didn't have a past history of conflict with the Sultanate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change "His influence and insistence on having his way had forced Mahmud to continually assist in the frontier provinces of the kingdom" to "He had gained enough power to become the de facto ruler, with Mahmud sent to administer the frontier provinces of the kingdom"? Citing both Yazdani and the bit of Sherwani you mention above should be enough to support this. I think we need to say that he was effectively the ruler in order to explain Mahmud's absence from the capital. Then the last sentence of the paragraph could be cut to just cover his assassination -- at the moment it says Mahmud's absence led to Jahan Turk's increase in power, but that seems the reverse of what the sources say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partially done — I don't think you're right about both sources saying Jahan Turk became de facto ruler before Mahmud left; Yazdani says specifically that "Khan Jahan Turk, however, acquired unlmited power and influence in every department of the State, and keeping Mahmud Gawan, his colleague, employed in the administration of the frontiers, he became the de facto ruler" — which says that it was Mahmud's absence which allowed Jahan Turk to seize more power, in addition to the great amount he already held, and become the de facto ruler, which makes sense. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that could be read that way; I read it as saying he acquired power, and that was how he kept Mahmud in the provinces. Ideally we'd be looking at the underlying source for this, which is presumably either Firishta or Mahmud's letters; those might make it clearer. But this isn't FAC so I'll leave it up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mahmud Gawan partook in many campaigns and enlarged the state to an extent never achieved before, with the state stretching from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal": can we avoid the repetition of "state"? And I don't think "partook" is the right verb. What's intended here? Did he personally go on these campaigns, or instigate them, or something else?
"The capture of the Konkan would virtually cease the attacks on Muslim pilgrims and would grant the Bahmanis increased revenue in trade." Suggest eliminating "would" -- it's much more natural for the reader to have straightforward past tense, instead of placing events in the future of the past moment. There's a Wikipedia essay about this use of "would" somewhere but I can't find it.
A general comment, not a copyediting comment: I think a more chronological structure would be better. The second paragraph here is about the reign of Nizam Shah again, so it feels like we're jumping around. I understand there are benefits to topical structure, and I've done it myself for historical reigns, so it's a judgement call.
"Shortly after the death of Humayun Shah and the accession of the boy monarch Nizam Shah, the rulers of Orissa, the Gajapatis, saw the Bahmani Sultanate as weak, which was typical in the presence of a regency." Suggest "When the regency council took control after the accession of Nizam Shah, the rulers of Orissa, the Gajapatis, saw the Bahmani Sultanate as weak, which was typical in the presence of a regency."
"Mahmud, in addition with Jahan Turk, who was a member of the triumvirate regency, the queen mother, and Nizam Shah himself, led an army against the Gajapatis and drew them back from Bidar." No need to restate the nature of the regency; this was described in the earlier section. "Drew" seems to be the wrong verb: to draw an enemy is to move them in your direction; surely he pushed them back?
"In the confrontation between the joint regency and the opposing side, an initial advantage turned into an unexpected defeat, and the party was forced to retreat." This is vague -- it's not clear from this who had the initial advantage, though it seems it was the invaders. Can we be more specific about the advantage? Then the rest of the paragraph seems to be about the same attack -- do we actually need this sentence at all? It seems to be a recap of what follows?
"The court was temporarily moved to Firozabad, and Mahmud ordered the queen to delegate Bidar Fort to a different noble." What's the relevance of Bidar Fort here? Is it the same fortification referred to in the next sentence as "the citadel"? And Mahmud was not Prime Minister yet, so how could he order the queen to do anything? Can we get a link for Firozabad?
"whom Mahmud and the queen had invited for assistance": "invited" seems a formal word for a military alliance. Perhaps "asked for assistance"?
"Mahmud Begada, going by way of Malwa through his insistence not to enter the Deccan, along with Mahmud Gawan, successfully forced Khalji of Malwa to retire to his home via Gondwana": why didn't Mahmud Begada want to enter the Deccan? And isn't Bidar in the Deccan? So if he raised the siege he would have been in the Deccan? Why is it relevant that Khalji retreated via Gondwana? And I'd suggest "forced Khalji to retreat to Malwa" rather than "forced Khalji of Malwa to retire to his home"; the current phrasing sounds very unmilitary.
"This occurrence was near-repeated the following year. Mahmud Khalji again raided far into the Sultanate, as far as Fathabad, but was repelled following a second instance of assistance from Mahmud Begada and a confrontation accompanied by Mahmud Gawan." Suggest "Mahmud Khalji invaded again the following year, reaching Fathabad, but was repelled by a force that included Mahmud Gawan, again with the assistance of Mahmud Begada."
More later, tonight if I have time. Would it be possible to get a map that shows the locations of these kingdoms and cities? That would really help the comprehensibility of some of these descriptions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented most of these. In response to your points:
"Partook" seems perfectly fine here, as Mahmud did indeed take part in and/or lead all of the campaigns mentioned; I added "and led" after "partook in" to clear up any confusion.
I don't think there's anything technically wrong with it, though this meaning of partake is not the most common one; it's the connotations that seem wrong to me. To partake in something brings to mind partaking in a tea party or a golf outing -- it gets used for social events. If he led these campaigns, we don't need to say he participated as well, so could we just make it "Mahmud Gawan led many campaigns" and avoid the issue that way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Drew" has multiple meanings, and "drew back", meaning push rather than pull, is one correct use of the verb. See M-W definition #2 for "draw".
The mention of the initial confrontation was talking about the first battle between Malwa and the Bahmanis, and the latter's defeat in it is what led the Khalji to be able to lay siege to Bidar; they are separate, but I changed the prose to clarify that.
Bidar Fort is what was protecting the citadel, yes; the mention of it being delegated to a different noble is important as it shows how desperate the situation was at the time; Mahmud had the power to order the queen to do such a thing because of his role he held in the triumvirate, but I'm just summarizing what Sherwani and Haig write (for this part of the article, anyway).
There would have been a link to Firozabad a while ago if there was an article on this Firozabad, but there is not; the same goes for Fathabad.
Mahmud Begada didn't want to enter the Deccan for the reason I added, that he wished to be close to his home country of Gujarat due to the recent internal strife which affected his rule; he also didn't actually go himself to Bidar to raise the siege, but instead when Mahmud Khalji heard of his approaching forces he was intimidated to raise it himself. The Khalji retreating through Gondwana is also important to note here because it means that his way north, the most direct way back to Malwa, was cut off by his opponent's forces, and also that Gondwana was a foreign country which ended up decimating what troops he had left. All of this I specified in the article.
Again this is much easier to understand now. I still don't get the "insistence not to enter the Deccan" explanation. I understand he wanted to be closer to Gujarat, but how could he help raise the siege of Bidar if he never went into the Deccan? Is it the case that he invaded Malwa, and the news of this reached Mahmud Khalji who then abandoned the siege? As it stands the article makes it sound like Mahmud Begada actively helped raise the siege, and the phrase "the way north to Malwa was blocked by the Bahmani and Gujarati forces" makes it sounds as if those forces were not actually in Malwa (and hence they were in the Deccan). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, here's a map of India in 1398, somewhat outdated but a map of India in 1470 would be roughly similar in terms of how the Deccan and Malwa looked.
Some replies above -- no obligation to deal with my replies, but I want to make sure you're aware when I still have concerns in case you want to deal with them. One more point below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but was intimidated to raise the siege": if you want to keep "intimidate" it would have to be "intimidated into raising".
"along with those of the recurring ally of Gujarat": suggest "again in alliance with Gujarat".
"The main army of Berar under Yusuf Turk besieged Kherla, then subordinate to Malwa." We haven't yet been told who Yusuf Turk is or who or what Berar is, so the reader doesn't know if this is Mahmud's forces besieging a city or Malwa forces besieging a city. We find out in the next sentence but it should be clear as we read.
"two defenders deceived the general such that they were able to murder him": a bit awkward; could we do "two defenders deceived and murdered the general". And who is the general? Yusuf Turk, I assume? If revising the previous sentence leads to him being described as the general then that's fine, otherwise I would make it clearer who this refers to.
"though a diverting of Mahmud's forces had the opposite effect and ended the conflict". Vague; what does "a diverting of Mahmud's forces" mean? Does this just mean Mahmud led his troops to cut off the Khalji who gave up the combat?
The concluding treaty seems odd -- despite Mahmud's victory the Malwans still get control of Kherla without apparently losing anything.
"agreed to let his city be annexed to Mahmud": should this be "to the Bahmani Sultanate by Mahmud"? Or did Mahmud take personal overlordship of the city.
"he reorganised the tarafs, ruled by a tarafdar, out of both the new and old territory held by the state": do we need to mention tarafdars here? It breaks the sentence up for not much value, particularly given that we've already linked the word above.
"due to the accrued administrative burden and expansion of the Sultanate, in part caused by his own pursuits": suggest "due to the increased adminstrative burden and the expansion of the Sultanate's territory, both partly due to his own policies".
"something which had been crucial to past Sultans but was expanded under Mahmud's ministership": why crucial? That implies more than just a desire on the part of the Sultans, but some actual value accruing from the contacts.
'Haroon Khan Sherwani calls him "one of the most prominent Persian writers of the period."' Can we introduce Sherwani? E.g. just "Historian Haroon Khan Sherwani calls him ..." would do.
"The extensive library carried a collection of 3,000 manuscripts": this wording implies that the library contained other items as well. If not, perhaps "The library included 3,000 manuscripts", and if we need to mention that this is a large number for the time and place, say something like "..., an extensive collection for the era".
I don't think we need the dimensions -- this is not the article about the madrasa itself, and the picture gives the reader a rough idea of the size.
"expansive courtyard" is bit PEACOCK; how about just large, if we need to say it at all?
"Its domes were reminiscent of those of Samarkand during the Timurid Renaissance." The source actually compares the domes to Mamluk Egypt, not Timurid Samarkand, but in any case I'd suggest making this a quote, since otherwise it's hard to avoid it sounding boastful: "Historian Richard Eaton describes it as an "extraordinary place", with "arches and colorful glazed tiles recalling Timurid Central Asia, and its minaret and domes reminiscent of Mamluk Egypt".
"in an effort to give it a more presentable state" suggest "in an effort to improve its appearance".
All done. Most of your questions should be answered in the diff, so the only things to mention are that yes, Belgaum was given directly to Mahmud as one of his fiefs (the other being Bijapur), but it was still a part of the Sultanate, and that Mahmud Khalji voluntarily raising his own siege was both from the threat of the Gujarati and Bahmani forces in the northwest and the forces of Jahan Turk in the south, which I forgot to add in. I also found a better map of the correct century to use instead. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"due to the drastic reforms issued by Mahmud": suggest being more specific -- the reader needs to know that this refers to the reforms mentioned earlier at the end of the campaigns section. This is one of the downsides to a topical rather than chronological organization; it's hard to avoid repeating information.
"Plots arose among the Deccanis to usurp him from power": "usurp from" is not the usual usage; suggest "to oust him" or "remove him from power". To usurp means to take over power from someone, and it's the elimination of Mahmud's power that's the point here, not placing someone else in power.
How did Yusuf Adil Shah's absence motivate the plot? Did the plotters fear him for some reason?
You omit the story given (at least by Sherwani) of the Sultan's discovery of Mahmud's relatively humble way of life, after his execution. It sounds a bit hagiographical (which for a European saint would mean it was a later fabrication) so I would be hesitant to include it as fact, but if Eaton gives the story too and takes it at face value then it might be worth summarizing.
"Though Mahmud asserted that the letter was forged, his statement was not given merit as the Sultan Muhammad Shah III was himself wary of Mahmud's growing power and influence." Suggest "Sultan Muhammad Shah III was wary of Mahmud's growing power and influence, and did not believe Mahmud's assertion that the letter was forged."
I think the sequencing could be improved in this section. The first paragraph says there was a plot, he was executed, and the kingdom fell into disarray; then after the first sentence of the next paragraph we go back to the start and give details of the letters, Mahmud's failed defence, and his execution again. Can we put this into chronological order?
Yusuf Adil Shah's leadership of the Afaqis is mentioned twice.
Done. I didn't see any mention in Eaton's text of this story of the sultan discovering Mahmud's charitableness, but I summarized that portion of Sherwani. Let me know if there's anything else I should change to the article if I want to renominate it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's a footnote out of place at the start of the last paragraph, but other than that I think this is fine to renominate for GA. We disagree on some matters of wording, and I don't think this is ready for FAC, if you decide you want to go there, but I think it should pass GA. I won't review it this time -- aside from the fact that you deserve a different pair of eyes, I've had a bit too much to do with the current wording to be eligible as an uninvolved reviewer. Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
