This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Asia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Trade Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove the text "and Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep".". This sentence appears at the end of the "Indian people" sub-section of the "Khanate and Emirate of Bukhara (16th–19th centuries)" section. I reviewed the cited source, "Hindus beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade" by the Royal Asiatic Society, page 280. However, to say Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep" would be grossly inaccurate as the use of the term "slave-sheep" on this page was quoting an Uzbek chronicle referring to captives from the retreating Mughal army that occupied Balkh. Firstly, the Mughal army was diverse, and it was composed of a significant number of Central Asians (Uzbeks, Mongols, Turks, etc); it was not an exclusively racially Indian army. Secondly, the use of the term "slave sheep" in this context was clearly a constructed insult out of anger against the invading Mughal force, not as a term or slur to describe Indians. Outside of this single chronicle, by Muhammad Yusuf Munshi, I failed to track down a single other text that used the term "slave-sheep" in a remotely similar capacity. So to be clear, the source cited does not claim that "Indians were referred to as 'slave-sheep'"; that is a total misrepresentation, and neither does any other source, chronicle, or account claim such a thing. So I request the text "and Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep"." to be removed. Willielee12 (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: duplicate request, see below — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the text "and Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep".". This sentence appears at the end of the "Indian people" sub-section of the "Khanate and Emirate of Bukhara (16th–19th centuries)" section. I reviewed the cited source, "Hindus beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade" a journal article by Scott C. Levi, the relevavant page is 280. To say Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep" would be grossly inaccurate as the use of the term "slave-sheep" on this page was quoting an Uzbek chronicle referring to captives from the retreating Mughal army that occupied Balkh. Firstly, the Mughal army was diverse, and it was composed of a significant number of Central Asians (Uzbeks, Mongols, Turks, etc); it was not an exclusively racially Indian army, hence the captives of this retreating mughal force would have been multi-ethnic themselves. Secondly, the use of the term "slave sheep" in this context was clearly a constructed insult out of anger against the invading Mughal force by a victim of the mughal invasion. And the wording of this article strongly implies the use of the term "slave sheep" in this article, was implying or communicating that the captives were to-be-slaves. Regardless of how you look at it or interpret it, the wording and the context is clear, the chronicle does not say that the term "slave sheep" was used to describe indians or as a slur against them. Outside of this single chronicle, by Muhammad Yusuf Munshi, I failed to track down a single other text that used the term "slave-sheep" in a remotely similar capacity. So to be clear, the source cited does not claim that "Indians were referred to as 'slave-sheep'", that is a total misrepresentation, and neither does any other source, chronicle, or account claim such a thing. So I request the text "and Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep"." to be removed. Willielee12 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 17:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain how I can "establish a consensus" Willielee12 (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the edit not been made, I've elaborate well on why the text in question is inaccurate, hence must be removed. Willielee12 (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My request for edit was "specific ", it was "uncontroversial", it was "necessary ", and it was very "sensible ". Hence meet all the given considerations for presenting an edit request. I have given an expansive reasoning, diving into the referenced article in the wikipedia page, breaking down what the actual article says, going further to analyse the chronicles cited by the article, to conclude why the text as included, "and Indians were referred to as "slave-sheep".", is wholly incorrect and misleading.

I am not well experienced on edit requests so Im unfamiliar with establishing consensus. For instance how many editors must agree before furthering this request to an edit, and how does one invite those editers to this talk? Willielee12 (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]