Talk:Khalji Revolution

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khalji Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 13:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I will begin this review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Noorullah (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Please order the references alphabetically and add isbn or oclc numbers to those that don't already have them.

• Add additional categories to the page so its easier to find it.

• Citations that cite multiple pages should have the following format instead of .

• Yamuna river → Yamuna River

• Khalji Revolution victory → Khalji faction victory

• The lede is too long. Its purpose is to summarize the contents of the article rather than introduce new information. As such is should not contain citations under normal circumstances. See WP:LEDE for details.--Catlemur (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed these issues, some of the books do not have applicable ISBNS, and added ISBNS where possible. Noorullah (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• As I mentioned before the lede is too long, it needs to summarize the contents of each of the main sections.

• The Causes section jumps immediately to Balban's death but there is no mention of which state he ruled and why piety was so important to him (Islamic faith). The lede contains new information which should have instead been found in the main article.

• The average reader from outside of South Asia would also have no idea about the Delhi Sultanate so there needs to be a brief paragraph giving us a bit more context before we move to describing the coup's prelude.

• "tutored to not drink wine, or to even look at the face of a beautiful woman. However, as he ascended the throne, he indulged in drinking wine, as well as sexual pleasure." - Please rephrase this in a more encyclopedic manner. Something along the lines of "was tutored to follow Islamic moral principles, as he ascended the throne, he instead indulged in a hedonistic lifestyle".

• "With Qaiqabad stuck in debauchery" - This also needs to be rephrased.

• If all the subjects of the See Also section are mentioned and wikilinked in the main article then it is kind of redundant.--Catlemur (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Tried to fix these issues, cut down on the lead a bit, and expanded on background information for the Mamluk Sultanate. Noorullah (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• Wikilink Amirs, Bengal, Baharpur, Badaon

• "Qaiqabad did not do anything" → "failed to act on his father's advice

• "as he himself was centered in the Bengal" → "traveling from his residence in Bengal"

• "Believing that Delhi was no long safe for him" → "Believing that Delhi was no longer safe"

• There is a lot of copy editing to be done in the article. I am not a native speaker of English so I think it would be better for you to make a request at WP:GOCE. I can halt the review until it is finished if needed.

• "Turkish officers that were secretly given permission" - Which Turks are you referring to exactly? Why was there a Turkish faction in the Delhi Sultanate? If you expand a bit on who the Mamluks were and what were the main factions in the court it would become more clear. This is explained but only in the last paragraph of Causes and the following section, whereas it should be made clear from the beginning.

• Under which circumstances did Qaiqabad become paralyzed?

• Please give dates for all the major events that take place in the article e.g. Nizamuddin's death, Shamsuddin's ascension to the throne, the beginning of the revolution etc

• "which wished to march to Baharpur," → "the rebels wished to march to Baharpur,"

• The spelling of each name needs to be uniform across the article. For example you have spelled it Jalal-ud-Din Khalji in the infobox and Jalaluddin in the main body of the article.

• What is the exact date the conflict began? Was it in 1287 as the lede implies or did all events take place in 1290 as stated in the infobox.

• The location where the conflict took place was the Delhi Sultanate as far as I understand. So replace Indian subcontinent with Delhi Sultanate in the infobox.--Catlemur (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed some of these issues. Baharpur does not have a wiki link. Fixed Jalaluddin and other consistent spellings across the article. The conflict began in 1290, but it began as a result of Balban's death in 1287 and what happened afterward, so I rewrote it a bit.

We don't know why Qaiqabad became paralyzed, just that he became ill and paralyzed afterward, which is said in the article. The Turkish officers part were not related to the Turkish faction. Turkish officers is referring to just prominent noblemen/soldiers, as the Mamluk dynasty themselves were of Turkic origin. The factions is explained towards the end of the causes because that is when the conflict is beginning to erupt, as the previous paragraphs above were background information. Noorullah (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• " period of political and societal change in the Delhi Sultanate." - Non Turks came into prominence after the revolution, but how did society change during it? This is not mentioned in any of the main sections.

• "During this period of confusion, factions rose in the court of the Mamluks, between the Turkish faction led by Aitmar Surkah, and the Khalji faction, led by Jalaluddin Khalji." - What happened?

• "Eventually, Balban ascended the throne," - Replace eventually with the actual date.

• "who was a slave of his Ghurid overlord, Muhammad of Ghor." - who was a slave of Ghurid overlord, Muhammad of Ghor.

• Also how was a slave able to establish an empire of his own?

• "his fathers advise,"→ his father's advise

• "Bughra Khan informed Qaiqabad to abstain from drinking wine and engaging in sexual pleasure" - Is this a reference to concubines or was he unmarried?

• Aitmar Surkah and Kachhan → Aitmar Surkah and Aitmar Kachhan

• Why was Jalaluddin Khalji granted all those positions and privileges after Nizamuddin's death?

• Remove the wikilink for Jalaluddin Khalji in Revolution, it has already been linked before.

• Still no dates for many of the major events in the conflict.

• The fact that Shamsuddin was Qaiqabad's son is only mentioned in the lede.

• Add a citation to the note.

• References need to be in an alphabetic order.--Catlemur (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Reworded for political and societal change in the aftermath section.

Period of confusion reworded to turmoil.

Further explained why Jalaluddin was granted such positions (due to Nizamuddins assassination).

Added the Shamsuddin was Qaiqabad's son.

There is also dates for major events in the article where known, such as the ascension of Shamsuddin, as well as Jalaluddin's ascension.

Also what do you mean specifically in alphabetic order? By the authors, or by the title of the books? Noorullah (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• The books need to be placed in alphabetic order based on the family names of the authors.

• File:Maginary portrait of Sultan Firuz Khalji, Khwaja Hasan, and a dervish..jpg has the following warning notice on Commons which needs to be resolved: "PD-Art template without license parameter: please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States ."

• Make it a bit more clear in the first paragraph that Qutb ud-Din Aibak founded the Mamluk dynasty which ruled the Delhi Sultanate.

• As I mentioned before, the factions of the Mamluk dynasty need to be explained in the Causes section before the article goes into detail about the court intrigues ("Turkish officers" sentence) because otherwise it is very hard to follow the narrative. That means that we need to know what the court factions were before Shamsuddin's ascension.

• There is still no adequate explanation why Qaiqabad bestowed Jalaluddin Khalji with all those titles, all we know from the article is that Nizamuddin was killed and someone had to take his place. Was he known for his loyalty for example?

• Still no date for the start of the conflict and other major events in the Revolution section.

• I have placed the article on hold until 6 January 2024. The aforementioned issues along with a complete copyedit for prose, spelling, word choice and grammar need to be completed by that date. Please answer bellow each of the points raised separately so its clearer which ones have been addressed.--Catlemur (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Fixed most of the stated issues. Looking on how to improve the dates though, but have worked on that. Also submitted a request at the copy editors guild to try and improve prose. Noorullah (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Regretfully I have to fail this nomination due to the reasons outlined above (no dates for major events, lack of copyediting compliant to the MOS, Turkish faction mentioned for an explanation of the major factions has been given etc). The article is nevertheless well written and can easily be brought to GA status when the needed copy editing and additional sources are found.--Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkish is a Nationality

Turkish is a Nationality of the People Live in Mordern Day Turkey, So I Am changing the term to Turkic or Tatar DeepstoneV (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@DeepstoneV Please see WP:RS, numerous of these sources refer to them as the "Turkish faction". Noorullah (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khalji Revolution/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noorullah21 (talk · contribs) 22:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC) @Noorullah21: Hello, I'm going to be taking over this review as part of the July GA backlog drive. I'll likely be done with my review within a few days.

@Noorullah21 Thank you for your very prompt responses. I've gone through and given the article a second look, and I see nothing left to address before this article hits GA quality. Congratulations and thank you for your work; this was one of the more interesting topics I've read about in a GA review thus far! Kimikel (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: Below is my initial review; this was an interesting read but has a few small issues to fix before GA status. Please see and consider the following suggestions, and if you have questions on any just let me know:

Well-written

• I agree with the comment left by DeepstoneV. The Mamluks were Turkic; they did not originate from the country of Turkey. Therefore, the phrase "Turkic" should be used in place of "Turkish", even if the sources use the word "Turkish".

Fixed.

Lead

• Replace "demise" with "death"
• "Neglectful of governance," > A poor governor,

Background

• "Muhammad of Ghor" > not wikilinked to Muhammad of Ghor, who does have a page
• "the Mamluks rose to power" > how? when? doesn't have to be a whole paragraph, just a brief description of when and through what means they rose to power.
• "rival Amirs" > rival amirs
• "debauchery but"> debauchery, but
• "Delaying his departure"> After he delayed his departure,
• "secretly permitted by" > secretly permitted to do so by
• "nobles, opposed to Jalaluddin's" > nobles opposed Jalaluddin's
• "Qaiqabad, paralyzed under unknown circumstances, initiated" > Under unknown circumstances, Qaiqabad was paralyzed, initiating

Revolution

• "nobles, with Jalaluddin at the top, whom they intended to put to death" > nobles which they intended to kill, with Jalaluddin at the top.
• "Amirs" > amirs

Verifiable

• Bibliography sources should be listed in chronological order, with the oldest first.
• "A. L. Srivastava" should be listed as Srivastava, A.L.
• The "Unesco" source seems to have the authors Asimov, Muhammad Seyfeydinovich, and Bosworth, Clifford Edmund: [1]

Spot check:

• Chaurasia 2002, p. 28.: Verified
• Mehta 1979, pp. 76–91.: Does mention Balban's ascent to the throne, but does not mention Balban strengthening the Delhi Sultanate within the pages listed.
• Mahajan 2007, p. 121.: Verified
• Bowman 2000, p. 267.: Verified
• Asher & Hambly 1994.: Verified, although publish date should be changed to 21 November 2011 (its last update, according to the bottom of the article). Also add a retrieval date since it's a website

Broad

• Issues with lack of background raised in first GA review have been addressed in my opinion; with limited knowledge on this subject, I was able to follow the events easily. Article is broad in coverage

Neutral

• No issues with neutrality

Images

• All appropriately licensed and benefit article

Stable

• No issues with stability

Kimikel (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kimikel: Fixed all of the above. Noorullah (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 00:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji enthroned following the Khalji Revolution

• ... that the Khalji Revolution led by Jalaluddin Khalji saw the fall of the Turkic Mamluk Dynasty and the rise of the Turko-Afghan Khalji dynasty to rule the Delhi Sultanate?

• Source: https://books.google.ca/books?id=8XnaL7zPXPUC&q=khalji+revolution&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=khalji%20revolution&f=false (page 28)

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Noorullah21 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Noorullah (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC).

• Not a review, but just wanted to leave some alts:

ALT1: ... that during the Khalji Revolution, the sultan Qaiqabad was wrapped in a carpet and thrown into the Yamuna river?

ALT2: ...that the child sultan Shamsuddin Kayumars was imprisoned and deposed as a result of the Khalji Revolution?

Kimikel (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I will review the original hook

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - The hook is mentioned in the lead, as a summary of things explained in greater detail in the article. It has no reference (the lead does not need it), but the hook is then no mentioned in any single referenced sentence.
• Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: I changed the licence of File:Maginary portrait of Sultan Firuz Khalji, Khwaja Hasan, and a dervish..jpg from PD-ART-70 to PD-ArT-100 (it is from 1640) Cambalachero (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Could do one of the alt's suggested instead then. Noorullah (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The two ALT hooks are referenced as part of a reference that covers a whole paragraph. The reference should be placed specifically on the sentence being used, even if repetitive. I may accept the article anyway, but then someone else would roll it back and ask the same thing, so let's do it right from the start. Cambalachero (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21: Please address the above.--Launchballer 20:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this, will try to come up with some other hooks soon. Noorullah (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I will close this if this isn't fixed in the next 24 hours @Noorullah21:.--Launchballer 09:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What about this: ALT3: ...that the Khalji Revolution in 1290 led to the overthrow Turkic Mamluk Dynasty in the Delhi Sultanate, and the rise of the Turko-Afghan Khalji Dynasty? Main source: [2]
(This is an effective repeat of the first hook, but I've updated the article to include references relevant to it so that it's not standalone in the lead itself). Noorullah (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What about it? The problem was that the two ALT hooks don't have end-of-sentence citations. They still don't. And ALT0/3 (and also ALT2) are highly dependent on names and don't meet WP:DYKINT. (ALT1 is better, but again, it does not have an end-of-sentence citation. It should do.)--Launchballer 21:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Alright, I've added a citation for the ALT1 hook in my most recent revision. [3] Noorullah (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Approving ALT1.--Launchballer 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Improving the article

part1

Hi Noorullah21, I'm going to put stuff here on improving the article, hope it helps. The prose suggestions might not be accurate but can be adjusted.

• Firstly it would be great if you could use edit summaries per Help:Edit summary, you can look at my edit summaries in the history to see what I mean, then other contributors can see what you are doing.
• Just read the lead, it's pretty good! (Normally i read it last)

  "Amidst this upheaval, two factions arose within the Mamluk court, with the Turkic faction led by Aitmar Surkah facing off against the Khalji faction, led by Jalaluddin Khalji." - you've got three x faction here, how about something like "Amidst this upheaval, two factions arose within the Mamluk court, with the Turkic element led by Aitmar Surkah facing off against Jalaluddin Khalji's group."?

  "A battle ensued, resulting in the defeat of the Turks. Following their defeat, a significant portion of the Turkic nobility defected to the Khalji faction." - that'sa bit repetitive, how about "A battle ensued, resulting in the defeat of the Turks; the majority of the nobles defected to the Khalji faction." ?

  "The success of the revolution witnessed the Khalji dynasty replacing the Mamluk dynasty as the ruling dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. " - 3x dynasty, that does not read well, how about "The Khaljis had replaced the Mamluks dynasty as the ruling dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. "

  " and began the rise of Turko-Afghans." - would "and the rise of Turko-Afghans began" work better?

• "The Mamluks were established in 1206 after the Ghurid Empire under Muhammad of Ghor conducted numerous invasions into India. Founded by Qutb ud-Din Aibak, a Turkic slave of his Ghurid overlord Muhammad of Ghor, the Mamluk dynasty rose to power following Muhammad's death and asserted their independence" - lots of Muhammad, how about "The Mamluk dynasty was established in 1206 after the Ghurid Empire conducted numerous invasions into India. Founded by Qutb ud-Din Aibak, a Turkic slave of his Ghurid overlord Muhammad of Ghor, it rose to power following Muhammad's death."
• "Qaiqabad, initially raised following Islamic principles, succumbed to a hedonistic lifestyle upon ascending the throne, resulting in a decline of the administrative reforms initiated by Balban" - "succumbed to a hedonistic lifestyle" sounds a bit antiquated here, let's see what the source says - wow yes Lal is flowery. How about something like "Qaiqabad was corrupted by his new powers and the administrative reforms initiated by Balban regressed"
• "Qaiqabad's elimination of rival amirs through intrigue, warned his son through letters about the impending threat." - 2x through, suggest "Qaiqabad's elimination of rival amirs, warned his son by letters about the impending threat"
• "Nonetheless, Nizamuddin's attempts to foment discord between the father and son failed. " - I'd say you don't need nonetheless, it doesn't seem encyclopedic here

part2

• "Bughra Khan advised Qaiqabad to abstain from pleasure with concubines, and to remove Nizamuddin from power. After his father's departure, Qaiqabad attempted to resist indulging in debauchery, but soon returned to his previous lifestyle. Qaiqabad instructed Nizamuddin to return to Multan to oversee administrative affairs. After he delayed his departure, Nizamuddin was eventually poisoned and killed by Turkic officers, secretly permitted to do so by Qaiqabad.[8][9]" - again this reads a bit antiquated, let's see what the sources say -

  " After his father's departure, Qaiqabad attempted to resist indulging in debauchery, but soon returned to his previous lifestyle" - Lal is saying he went debauched again after the murder of Nizamuddin, not before (although Habib & Khaliq Ahmad dont say that to be fair)

  "Qaiqabad instructed Nizamuddin to return to Multan to oversee administrative affairs. After he delayed his departure" - this doesn't really sum up Lal saying that Nizamuddin knew he was being removed from influence and that's why he delayed

  "secretly permitted to do so by Qaiqabad" this bit reads too close to Lal ("secretly obtained his permission") and should be rephrased

  also, could you please send me a pdf or a picture of page 70 of Ali, Kausar (1968). A New History of Indo-Pakistan? i'd like to see what it says about "Bughra Khan, Qaiqabad's father, alarmed by Nizamuddin's rapid acquisition of power and Qaiqabad's elimination of rival amirs through intrigue", because p307 of Habib & Khaliq Ahmad 1970, suggests that Nizamuddin was provoking Qaiaqabad to kill amirs as a plan to undermine him

  also, earlier you have "Amir Khusrau suggested that Bughra Khan aimed to seize Delhi for himself" referenced to Ali, and p307 Habib & Khaliq Ahmad has "Khusrau says that Bughra Khan marched from Lakhiiauti with the intention of conquering Delhi." which reads a bit too close, so I'd suggest rephrasing. same for the next couple of sentences. finally i think you haven't conveyed that nizamuddin was conspiring to put father against son, you just note the plan failed

• "Subsequently, Aitmar Surkah and Aitmar Kachhan intrigued. Accounts differ, as they sent a letter to Jalaluddin either summoning him to court,[20] or addressing him as emperor.[21] " - suggest something like "Subsequently, Aitmar Surkah and Aitmar Kachhan conspired, sending a letter to Jalaluddin either summoning him to court,[20] or addressing him as emperor.[21] " p309 of Habib & Khaliq does say he was summoned to court, but to the court of a puppet Surkah and Kachhan had isntalled. also in the next sentence it says "Aitmar Kachhan arrived at Jalaluddin's camp, he was pulled from his horse and killed" but p309 says he was going tp relax under a tent when he was murdered - these are small things but text/source integrity is important, especially at FAC
• Jalaluddin is still mentioned 13 times in the revolution section - that's one less than at FAc, but still a lot
• "Following this, a revolt erupted in Delhi. The rebels sought to march to Baharpur and restore Shamsuddin to power. However, Malikul'umra, the guard for the gates of Delhi, halted the rebels at Badaon, preventing them from leaving to fight the Khaljis due to his own sons being held captive by Jalaluddin. " - this reasds a bit garbled to me, would suggest something like "Following this, a revolt erupted in Delhi from where the rebels sought to march to Baharpur and support Shamsuddin to power. They were prevented from doing so by Malikul'umra, guard of the city gates of Delhi, becuase his own sons were being held captive by Jalaluddin."
• "Unopposed, Jalaluddin ordered Qaiqabad's execution. Qaiqabad was wrapped in a carpet and thrown into the Yamuna River.[24]" - hmm the source is Habib & Khaliq Ahmad p310 which says "A malik, whose father Kaiqubad had killed, was sent to the needful; he wrapped his paralytic body in his bed-sheet and kicked him into the Jumna" so it's a bedsheet not a carpet. I would only suggest going to FAC again if the text/source integrity is better than at present.

part3

• looking at the reference list, this should be alphabetized
• it seems debatable if some of these are high quality reliable sources - let's take ali as a example .. no isbn, what is Ali Publications, is it related to Ali the person? in a nonrelevant part i was able to obtain online, it says Ali was formerly professor and head of department of history at daulatpur college, which is encoruaging, although we don't have a wikipedia article the colege. there's a tension here around wiki requirments based on minority world interests but at FAC these things will be scrutinised. if the book doesnt have a ISBN, some other form of reference would be great eg oclc
• the gbook links is only debatably useful, since for me at least there is no access
• some books have a day and month, which is unnecessary, despite the template sometimes adding it. just a year is fine.

There's some comments for you Noorullah, hope they're of use and let me know if something doesn't make sense. Mujinga (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look over this when I can. Noorullah (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mujinga Working through this right now, for the book you requested a PDF for, I think this should work: [4] [A New History of Indo-Pakistan] Noorullah (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but unfortunately that link doesn't work for me Mujinga (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mujinga In part 2 you mention "p309 of Habib & Khaliq does say he was summoned to court, but to the court of a puppet Surkah and Kachhan had isntalled."

The puppet here is talking about Shamsuddin Kayumars, the infant Sultan, which is addressed in the article. -- "Under unknown circumstances, Qaiqabad was paralyzed, initiating a power struggle in the court. This led to Aitmar Surkah and Aitmar Kachhan placing Qaiqabad's young son, Shamsuddin Kayumars, on the Delhi throne in February 1290." Noorullah (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was the way it currently reads to me is that Surkah and Kachhan summoned Jalaluddin to his own court which doesn't make sense. So this could be solved by saying they summoned him the Delhi court or the court of Shamsuddin Kayumars. Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mujinga Should be fixed now I think, and for the link, does [5] work? Noorullah (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the link, i can see that pdf, but it doesn't give p70, it starts at p135 Mujinga (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

you fixed this to Mamluk court, is that correct? Mujinga (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)