Talk:Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent/Archive 1

Undue Weight
, It seems that this article gives undue and disproportionate weight to Arabs and Sind in the 8th century. I thing this whole affairs of Arabs in Sind should be cut to a single small section. There is a different article for this. Historian Stanley Lane-poole described it as "an episode in the history of India and of Islam, a triumph without results". No need to give disproportionate importance. Ghatus (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the plan. See the above discussion copied from my talk page. Please feel free to branch it off to a separate article and summarize it here. (I am going to be busy with my day job for a couple of weeks.) The new article could perhaps be titled Arab conquests in the Indian subcontinent?
 * You need to see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for the procedure for copying. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Today's revert
I have just reverted a large number of unexplained and undue edits. Here is why: The editors involved have been notified of the ARBIPA sanctions.
 * For this edit, it is true that Islam arrived in India much earlier than the Muslim Conquests. But this article is about Muslim conquests. So it doesn't belong in the lead. Please feel free to add it in the body.
 * In this edit, maps have been changed with the new maps being called "real maps." Please discuss here what is real about them and what the sources are.
 * As for the rest of the edits, there is a strenuous effort to replace "Muslim" by "Islamic", which is undue. The balance of reliable sources do not use terms such as "Islamic conquest" and "Islamic rule". So, please refrain from such POV edits.

As far as I can tell, this article is reliably sourced even though it lacks enough footnotes. No new unsourced content is permitted.- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A funny sentence in this article.
"The Ancient Indian Kingdoms in Afghanistan and Pakistan became Muslim majority areas, as did the Eastern Part of Bengal. This would ultimately lead to the Partition of India in 1947 after the end of British rule." . The British used a popular strategy "Divide and rule",if an area becomes Muslim majority it does not lead to a partition,it is that it became a Muslim Majority area so Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted a seperate place for muslims,and the idea was supported by the Britishers and Jawahar Lal Nehru.I don't even understand if the conversion section is a Islamophobe or a criticism section or really some history.Haider67 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you find funny about the sentence. Since the section is titled "Impact of Islam", the Partition of India should be included in it.
 * The conversion section details all the current theories about it as per WP:NPOV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent blind reverts, false content addition, pov content addition, and inadequate edits summaries
This blind revert, done without any edit summary, [] by LouisAragon added unreferenced and what seems like pov-worded text (whose goal appears to be to suggest that the Muslim invasions were not destructive or historically significant to the native population):
 * 1) text such as "Like other societies in historySouth Asia has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history" and "In that sense, the Muslim invasions of the 10th century onwards were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions in the History of Central Asia during the 1st through to the 6th century." and "The Sultanate ushered in a period of Indian cultural renaissance".
 * 2) The reasonably factual though simplified "India in the 16th century presented a fragmented picture of rulers on account of constant conflicts between Hindu & Muslim empires" is replaced by the pov-worded "India in the 16th century presented a fragmented picture of rulers, both Muslim and Hindu, who lacked concern for their subjects". Both versions are unreferenced, the former had been tagged as such - the latter edit reused that reference required tag, which it should not have done.
 * 3) "Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India describe in detail the massacre of "idolators" & "infidels" " is replaced by "Timur's memoirs on his invasion of India describe in detail the massacre of "Hindus" " This is a fake quote, see [] - Timur very rarely uses the word "Hindus" but often talks of "idolators" & "infidels" (amongst which he included non-Hindus like Zoroastrians) and of their massacre and states "my object was the extermination of the infidels" (p187) boasting he "routed the infidel enemy, killing them in multitudes" "having overpowered the infidels, they put many of them to death" (p188), "I would exterminate them to a man" (p189), "Their orders were to plunder and destroy, and to kill every one they met." (p196), "They plundered every village and place they came to, killed the men." (P197), "vast number were taken prisoners. Next day I gave orders that the Mussulman prisoners should be separated and saved, but that the infidels should all be put to death with the proselyting sword." (p198), "up to the present we had taken more than one hundred thousand infidels and Hindus prisoners ... no course remained but to make them all food for the sword". (p202) - and much more of the same.
 * 4) LouisAragon's revert also deleted wikilinked content I had added: "but was defeated at the First battle of Tarain by Prithviraj" being deleted and replaced by the less accurate "was defeated at Tarain by Prithviraj."
 * 5) In a further edit  LouisAragon attempts to make up for the lack of any edit summary in the revert by claiming without evidence "that revision is even far worse written, regarding historical context, English, and WP:NPOV". I have already indicated how the reverse is true -that the LouisAragon revert is full of pov and that it deleted historical information (such as First battle of Tarain).
 * 6) The assertion that the LouisAragon revert contains better English is also patently false: "Throughout its long history the Western frontiers of South Asian Sub-continent has always been vulnerable to attacks by nomadic tribes. The northwestern portion of the sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes from Central Asia." was replaced by the longwinded and pompous "Like other societies in history, South Asia has been attacked by nomadic tribes throughout its long history. In evaluating the impact of Islam on the sub-continent, one must also note that the northwestern sub-continent was a frequent target of tribes from Central Asia". One could also note :) plenty of other examples. The old version was not all in perfect English, but if bits were roughly written they could have been rewritten, not deleted and replaced by something that was even worse. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * The blind revert by LouisAragon followed on from an extensive revert made by Alexis Ivanov . It contained the edit summary "You have to source your claim", a completely inadequate explanation for such a large removal of content, especially since there seems to be no content added that obviously needed sources. Rather than such an extensive revert, Alexis Ivanov should simply have tagged the content he considered needed sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.


 * I forgot my popcorn today Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) The recent edit history I note is the following:
 * A number of edits by
 * reverted by, by   and   again.
 * reinstated by you and reverted by.
 * Similar edits once again reinstated by, only to be reverted by.
 * The recommended procedure, as per WP:BRD, was to have come here after the first revert.
 * So it is really Alxndrdegrt's edits that we are discussing. The only edits you have made are these, which are not particularly contentious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is LouisAragon's and Alxndrdegrt's edits. I've been pointing out numerous failings within the edit reverted to and (I assume) supported by LouisAragon. The extent and degree of those failings is why I restored it to the Alxndrdegrt version after the revert by Alexis Ivanov (whose edit summary did not justify such a major revert). The content of Alxndrdegrt's edit, while not perfect, had none of those failings and so substantially improved the article. So, for a discussion to start, LouisAragon needs to explain what objections he had against the Alxndrdegrt version. And also why he is supporting a version that has so many flaws. I don't know why he is supporting it 100% - doing a complete revert rather than just making selective edits. Probably examining each section of each version in turn is a way to proceed. I hope to see a discursive contribution from Alexis Ivanov that goes beyond "popcorn". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * Well, the edit started by changing "conquest" to "invasion". Also "incursion" has been changed to "attack". Such changes require consensus. You can assume that the present wording reflects the present consensus among the editors. To change it, one needs to produce reliable sources, in this case WP:HISTRS sources. You have provided a link to a web site that seems to contain British Raj era texts. They do not meet the requirements of WP:HISTRS, which requires sources containing "recent scholarship." You are welcome to challenge the content that is currently unsourced, or content for which you have appropriate sources that disagree with those referenced here. But, just changing wording to reflect own views is not how Wikipedia works. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not know what content you are referring to. You already stated that the content additions I made were "not particularly contentious". I have added no links to the article other than a wikilink to an article dealing with an event. If you are referring to the text on Timur's account cited in my above post, are you alleging that the translation is inaccurate and that he never used the term "infidel" and that he killed only Hindus? The source, Elliot, Sir H. M., Edited by Dowson, John, "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians" is already used SIX times as a reference in the article (and only last month you wrote "as far as I can tell, this article is reliably sourced" - is it only an unsuitable "British Raj era text" when its content goes against what you want?). Consensus cannot support unreferenced or pov or clearly inaccurate content. It is you who is displaying a misunderstanding of "how Wikipedia works" if you think every single word change in an article need consensus. Single descriptive words should be accurate and have a npov - so for example "captured" rather than "liberated" - and need to follow what sources state (though not reproduce them exactly). And anyway, the concerns I expressed earlier were not about single words - they were about unreferenced sentences that appear to be pov worded. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * As I have already noted, you are apparently defending Alxndrdegrt's edits. (It is indeed odd that he or she isn't here to discuss own edits.) I am taking their latest reinstatement (what is labelled as [13] above). As for Dowson's book, the book is a translation of medieval texts. Those texts are WP:PRIMARY sources. They cannot be used on their own without support from secondary sources. Downson's own commentary can't be used because it isn't recent scholarship. If any of the current references to Dowson use it in a judgemental way, you can tag them as . - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have little doubt that you are nit-picking for effect and nothing more. The source a mere few weeks ago you called "reliable" suddenly becomes "unreliable" when you require it to be so (though remaining "reliable" enough to still be used on multiple occasions in the article). It is not a primary source - the primary source would be the Persian original. And not an ounce of evidence is produced by you for the edit version you want retained, a version which remains unreferenced despite claiming to be a "quote" ("Hindus" remain in inverted commas). Nor are you addressing any of the other substantive pov content issues I raised - all of which is indeed odd considering that you are apparently defending LouisAragon's edits and ARE here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.


 * Thank you Kautilya3 you just said what was on my head, and my popcorn comment is clear, you bring the party here I'm just interested in how you are going to twist this article the way you always do with articles in Wikipedia, and cause disruptions. I will bring the butter hopefully you can wait, the popcorn will be ready Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See here for the subtleties involved in interpreting medieval texts, and why we insist that it should be done by professional historians. - Kautilya3 (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a royal "We"? Your continuing condescending attitude of superiority just antagonizes. Also, please do not ref tag things on talk pages - their context will be lost when new sections are added to the talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Source misrepresentation
This sentence; is not supported by this source, Satish Chandra, Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals (1206-1526), (Har-Anand Publications, 2006), 25. I would suggest user:Alxndrdegrt stop adding unsourced information in front of a reference, thus making it appear to be sourced. That is source misrepresentation, and makes the article "biased and inaccurate". --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mu'izz al-Din was wounded & captured by Prithviraj's brother Govind Tai. Prithviraj as a gesture of goodwill pardoned & released Mu'izz al-Din."


 * Looking at what's taking place, there's absolutely no intention in general from both Alxndrdegrt and Triptoe to actually improve the quality of this article. I only see changes of unsourced material into more unsourced material, removal of cn tags without adding references, using weasel words and completely non-academic ways of formulating these new edits, as well as lastly, changing important core sections, such as the title without any WP:CON or whatsoever. The duo, altogether, has been warring since about the 1st of November, with numerous times adding content with no edit summary nor sources, , , . The same acts were then taken over by "Tiptoetrutheminefield", who started to reinstate the exact same content as user:Alxndrdegrt, again with no sourcing as well, upon the fact that though he at least uses edit summaries; they are blatantly fake (e.g "removal of sourced content" even though no sources were added) User "Alxndrtgrt" should've already been given a firm warning back then, and the page probably semi'd, for them to actually seek the dialogue, finding sources for their content, or to actually seek a WP:CON. As for now, I believe there is absolutely no reason either to keep this even worse revision active, that's built upon edit-warring and the addition of even more pseudo-historical revisionism and unsourced content. It should be returned to the version prior to the edit war as initiated by "Alxndrtgrt" and continued by " Tiptoethrutheminefield". - LouisAragon (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this article has gained the attention of some editors, what relevance does this sentence have? "But Mahmud of Ghazni never met on the battlefield Emperor Raja Raja Chola I and Emperor Rajendra Chola I of the Chola empire which was the most powerful Empire of India at that time." Judging from the location of the Chola Empire, and the fact that Mahmud never raided that far south, this sentence is quite meaningless and should be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear, I'd appreciate your contribution if you would like to respond to the points I made in the previous section. In particular the wording which seems pov, and the use of excerpts from the English-language translation of Timur's invasion accounts. LouisAragon above, as well as displaying bad faith, conveniently fails to mention that the background section wording he reverted to was also entirely unsourced. I suspect that the "But Mahmud of Ghazni never met ..." sentence is there to weasely imply that the battlefield successes of the former were actually not up to much because he never encountered the latter. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * Having argued against both LouisAragon and Kautilya3, I can understand their concerns. However, if everyone takes a step back and approaches the issue from the standpoint of sources, then I believe we can improve this article. If I am not mistaken this article has numerous unsourced sentences and paragraphs. Take for instance this sentence;
 * "In that sense, the Muslim invasions of the 10th century onwards were not dissimilar to those of the earlier invasions in the History of Central Asia during the 1st through to the 6th century."
 * clearly unsourced and clearly a piece of original research.
 * I propose we assess sources and sentences, starting with the first section of this article until we reach the end of this article. This should address any concerns that we(as editors) have over sources and sentences. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This material is "unsourced" only in the sense that it doesn't indicate its source. But these are not the ideas that our average Wikipedian came up with on his own. They are clearly the insights of a historian of the highest calibre. Those of us that know enough history of India know them to be true. The article has been tagged for footnotes for quite a while, and has now added inline tags. If we want to improve the article, we should hunt for sources, not merely delete the existing content. People can also hunt for WP:HISTRS sources that provide alternate points of view, and we can add them. Nothing is cast in stone in History. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "....insights of a historian of the highest caliber" - I must admit to never having heard anything like that before as a justification for unreferenced OR! I think the entire "background" section needs to be deleted. At the moment it is 100% unreferenced OR synthesis and very POV - and I think it probably always will be. The Alxndrtgrt version was better regarding the pov problems, but it was still all unreferenced. Is there any need for such a section anyway? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * You have already tagged it for citations. Without achieving consensus that is all you can do for the moment. If you want to take it further, please produce WP:HISTRS that contradict it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is WP:SYNTHESIS . HIAS (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note on the policy or rather common sense: If something is challenged to be original research it should be referenced or it can be removed at a later point of time. The onus is on the person who wants it to remain to produce references. --AmritasyaPutra T 13:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense? If the right thing to do is to delete unsourced material, then there would be no need for templates like "citation needed", "unreferenced" and "refimprove", would there? As for policy, see WP:UNSOURCED. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Four editors have voiced their concerns for that section. AmritasyaPutra is correct, regarding challenged information, though anything unsourced and then challenged can be removed. As for WP:HISTRS, that has no bearing on unsourced information, nor are editors required to find reliable sources that contradict unsourced information. My concerns were that it was unsourced and not written in context with the article itself.
 * So the Background section should be removed per consensus. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * May be we should wait for citations. HIAS (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we should wait for citations. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not pinging you Alexis. How long should we wait? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, I would say anytime you want. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been tagged for citations for 4 days now. I think a week should be enough time given the amount of editors here, especially since some editors thought it OK to remove the equally unreferenced alternative version without any wait at all on the grounds that it was unreferenced. Certainly not longer than a further 7 days. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * One week works for me. Should we move to the next section? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the time is inconsequential. Any editor that challenges and deletes material that has been there for several years and read by thousands or perhaps millions of users is staking a claim that they know all the literature pertaining to the subject well and they are confident that the material under question cannot be reliably sourced. If we find sources and reinstate it, their knowledge of literature as well as their judgement will be under question. Plus issues of WP:NOTHERE. So humility and some good sense will work well to their advantage. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I had thought about mentioning the interesting fact that this unreferenced OR synthesis content has been there for at least 3 years unchallenged (until I challenged it), but I decided not to, feeling that mentioning it would carry with it certain implications about the editorial standards of those working on it over those years. Kautilya3 has now both done it, and done the implication bit too: Kautilya3 seems disturbingly untroubled that "thousands or perhaps millions of users" have been consuming unreferenced OR for years. One day more than an additional 7 days of this sorry state of affairs is one day too long, imho (and my good sense too). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * The 7 days have past, making 10 days in total since the section was tagged for references, and no references have been added, so I have deleted that section. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * That is why some of us are here and thanks to KansasBear, we can have a civil disucssion and ensure the quality of the article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the background should be re-instated in light that there were Central Asian invasion on India. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It cannot be re-instated without sources, and consensus concluded that the section was OR Synthesis and should be removed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.
 * I will bring my sources, just making sure you are ready that I will re-instate in the near future. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

On to the next section then. "Islam in India existed in communities along the Arab coastal trade routes in Sindh, Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, and Ceylon as soon as the religion originated and had early gained widespread acceptance in the Arabian Peninsula, being brought over by merchants, Sufis and missionaries, who oftentimes settled down and intermarried with the local women, adopting local customs. The first incursion by the new Muslim successor states of the Arab World occurred around 636 CE or 643 AD, during the Rashidun Caliphate,long before any Arab army reached the frontier of India by land." is very badly written. Although its essential content does not appear to me to be dubious, it is all unsourced so there is no way of knowing for sure. The paragraph following it has references, but many are incomplete and are strangely rendered - such as "Sen, Sailendra Nath, "Ancient Indian History and Civilization 2nd Edition", pp346", and "Editors: El Harier, Idris, & M'Baye, Ravene, "Spread of Islam Throughout the World ", pp594". If the 1924 translation of Al-Biladhuri's Kitãb Futûh Al-Buldãn is acceptable for Kautilya3 as a source, then I trust he will drop his objection to a minimal use of the Timur text translation in later sections of the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Today's edits
I am copying here today's edits spanning over a dozen individual edits: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

This is contained in the sources in a section titled "Negative stereotyping based on uncriticial Muslim histories". The section further says that the statement is a "god-send to those Hindus who wish to inflame religious passions". Need I say more? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The source is an op-ed in a second-rate newspaper, quoting a pro-Hindutva blogger, who is rarely a reliable source for anything, let alone history. The rest is WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

The second source, Harry Johnston is an explorer and administrator, who died in 1927. Hardly a reliable source for history. The first source is from more serious scholars. Yet their source is a book published in 1918, by an author E. B. Havell, administrator and art historian. Once again, dated and poor quality source. The scholars themselves don't seem to have done any independent research or consulted more recent sources for history. If these things are true, there must be more recent historians that can corroborate them? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree Kautilya. I was curious where Jonassohn and Bjornson got their information. Considering they were specifically referring to warfare between the Bahmani Sultanate and Vijayanagara Empire, their book fails to address Havell's lack of proper historiography. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The reasonings you gave for your expliantion are absolutely irrational and ridiculous, I don't see how an art historian couldn't have taken sources from other well researched and reliable sources or historic data. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.107.68 (talk • contribs)

More of the same
I reverted another long series of edits, exhibiting problems similar to the above. Please read carefully WP:HISTRS before you address this topic, and bring impeccable historical sources. For example, this encyclopedia article was cited, which says "historians state...". It is obvious that the author is not a historian. He is in fact a linguist. The only history book I see in the citations is from 1930! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am concerned with this sentence:


 * "In Haryana, his soldiers each killed 50 to 100 Hindus, as Timur had a replenishable number of 90,000 soldiers, more than 4.5 million Hindus were butchered in the region."
 * Which is sourced by


 * Hari Ram Gupta. History of the Sikhs: The Sikh Gurus. ISBN 8121502764. See page 13, which is unviewable I have found a viewable copy here.
 * Per the above link, page 13 makes NO mention of 4.5 million Hindus being "butchered".


 * The Middle East and South Asia 2015-2016, By Malcolm Russell, no page number given. A search for 4.5 million results in nothing.
 * Which means as of right now, a highly questionable sentence is referenced by nothing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As such, I will be removing the unsourced portion of this sentence. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Nader Shah
No Mention of Nader_Shah%27s_invasion_of_the_Mughal_Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.83.162 (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

-Vanishing of information of Muslim atrocities on Hindu population- Displeased with the scrubbing of Muslim atrocities against Hindu population. Editing based on a political/religious agenda is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.1.119 (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Ghazwa-e-Hind
I've tagged the Ghazwa-e-Hind section with dubious because there are multiple problems with the quality of the sources and the paraphrasing thereof. The section relies mainly on a Daily Mail article and an opinion piece that refers to it. Not the most reliable sources. What the section says goes well beyond what those sources contain. They don't touch on the authenticity of the hadith, don't show that it has "become a subject of vast criticism in media", and don't say it's being used to "justify" the activities of militant groups (rather it's being used as a recruiting or motivating narrative).

If scholarly articles haven't been written yet about recent use of the term, then the following would be better sources than the Daily Mail: --Worldbruce (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017
Change 'Muslim Conquest of the Indian subcontinent' to 'Arab conquest of the Indian subcontinent'

I think the entire article needs to be cleaned of this. Already Arabs are referred to, just as much as Muslims. I think the 'Muslim' and not 'Arab' usage exists because of the negative way that Indians view the several centuries of ruler by persons of Muslim inclinations, and is another way to fuel the flames of religious nationalism, against Muslims - a minority in the country, that has been gaining traction slowly but steadily. I propose we clean up this article and the several others that refer to the several different ethnic groups of invaders that conquered, looted or settled in India.

I think the Christianization of Scandinavia should be taken into account here. Christianity was spread thru the region without an external force invading - hence articles like Christianization of Scandinavia or the Christian Conquest of Spain are legitimate. In India however, the invaders settled down and brought with them their religion. It was not primarily a desire to convert the locals that brought them there. Tariqadib (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ❌. The articles covers not only the Arab conquests but also the later conquests by Ghurids, Mughals etc.
 * I am sympathetic to the issues you raise, but that doesn't seem to be a problem that Wikipedia can fix. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2017
Decline of Muslim rule in Indian subcontinent was also because of conquering the Khyber Pass by Hari Singh Nalwa. Ending up the 4 century Muslim rule in Khyber pass. Khybar Pass - from where the Muslim rulers used to come to invade India infact many well known invasions of India have been predominantly through the Khyber Pass. and by conquering the Khyber pass by Hari Singh Nalwa it put up the barrier for other invaders. 112.196.185.105 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2017
Jagat jit singh (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2017
Khyber Pass from where the Muslim rulers used to come to invade India have been conquered by Hari Singh Nalwa the Commander-in-chief of the Sikh Khalsa Army under Maharaja Ranjit Singh ending up the 4 century Muslim rule in Khyber pass. Sikh Empire put up the barrier for other invaders which led to the decline of Muslim rule in Indian Subcontinent. Jagat jit singh (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. As mentioned in the edit summary, you need to produce reliable sources for history that state that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090816204247/http://www.ucalgary.ca:80/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051211084038/http://radar.ngcsu.edu:80/~mgilbert/indiasyl.htm to http://radar.ngcsu.edu/~mgilbert/indiasyl.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060322204851/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/0710307470.HTM to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/071030/0710307470.HTM
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110604053214/http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/sindh.html to http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/sindh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090816204247/http://www.ucalgary.ca:80/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140519132308/http://warfare2.likamva.in/Moghul/Akbar/1568-Bullocks_dragging_siege-guns_up_hill_during_the_attack_on_Ranthambhor_Fort.htm to http://warfare2.likamva.in/Moghul/Akbar/1568-Bullocks_dragging_siege-guns_up_hill_during_the_attack_on_Ranthambhor_Fort.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/sindh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090816204247/http://www.ucalgary.ca:80/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/timurid.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061125173422/http://india_resource.tripod.com:80/islam.html to http://india_resource.tripod.com/islam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130207183925/http://www.khyber.org/books/pdf/ahmad-shah-baba.pdf to http://www.khyber.org/books/pdf/ahmad-shah-baba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2017
Please add this template at the bottom of the page: Thank you 70.50.132.126 (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2017
Original:

Prior to the rise of the Maratha Empire, which was followed by the conquest of India by the British East India Company, the Muslim Mughal Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's kings. However, it was never able to conquer the kingdoms in upper reaches of the Himalayas such as the regions of today's Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan; the extreme south of India, such as Travancore and Tamil Nadu; and in the east, such as the Ahom kingdom in Assam.

Suggested edits in italics:

Prior to the rise of the Maratha Empire, which was followed by the conquest of India by the British East India Company, the Muslim Mughal Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's kings. However, it was never able to conquer the kingdoms in the upper reaches of the Himalayas, such as those of modern Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan; the kingdoms of the extreme south of India, such as Travancore and Tamil Nadu; or the kingdoms in the east, such as the Ahom kingdom in Assam.

Edits incorporated into text:

Prior to the rise of the Maratha Empire, which was followed by the conquest of India by the British East India Company, the Muslim Mughal Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's kings. However, it was never able to conquer the kingdoms in the upper reaches of the Himalayas, such as those of modern Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan; the kingdoms of the extreme south of India, such as Travancore and Tamil Nadu; or the kingdoms in the east, such as the Ahom Kingdom in Assam. Gherkinmad (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  01:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Title of this article and that of infobox in article
The infobox in the article presents an 'Outline of South Asian History', but the title says 'Indian subcontinent'. A change of title to 'Muslim Conquest in South Asia' must be considered. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2018
Please add the following subsection under the "Decline of Muslim rule in Indian subcontinent" section.

Text to be inserted (below this):


 * Jat rule

The Jat community saw radical social changes in the 17th century, when the Hindu Jats took up arms against the Mughal Empire during the late 17th and early 18th century. In 1669, Hindu Jats began to organise armed opposition against Aurangzeb's imposition of Jizya (a form of organised religious taxation). The Jats were led by Gokula, a rebel landholder from Tilpat. Gokula was killed by Mughals, but Jats were not to be subdued easily. Jats continued to terrorise the Mughals. Raja Ram Jat, in order to avenge his father Gokula's death, plundered Akbar's tomb of its gold, silver and fine carpets, opened Akbar's grave and dragged Akbar's bones and burned them in retaliation. The failure to crush the power of the Jats led the Mughals to make compromises with them by giving various concessions and favours. Jats defeated Mughals and forced them to pay a handsome fee as war compensation and sign treaties agreeing to not desecrate any Hindu temples. The warfare between Mughals and the rising Maratha, Jat and Sikh states lead to a breakdown of law and order or seriously undermine the working of the economy. Jats played an important role in the eventual disintegration of the Mughal empire. The Hindu Jat kingdom reached its zenith under Maharaja Suraj Mal of Bharatpur (1707–1763). The Jat community of the Punjab region played an important role in the development of the martial Khalsa Panth of Sikhism; they are more commonly known as the Jat Sikhs.

Edit comments: "With some rephrased sentence from Jat people and Aurangzeb."

Editor Signoff: Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Luis150902  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the additions. Adding new content of this nature should only be done by consensus. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
First, assume goodfaith (assume it to be accepted if no one has objected with valid explanation, rather seek consensus before reverting, sudden revert with no explanation was violation of goodfaith against me and Luis). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Second, do not revert if the content has been contended by anyone (no one has objected to it yet). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Third, any revert should be done with a valid and "specific and actionable" reason which can be acted up and fixed, but you have provided none. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Fourth, I proposed and another editor agreed so 2 (me and Luis) out of 3 (and RegentsPark) already agree, so this is the (2 against 0 votes) consensus right there specially when 2 of us agreed and 2rd person (RegentsPark) reverted it without contending it and without providing any valid reasons. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Fifth, wikipedia guidelines are clear that consensus is not a voting democracy, and a good and valid commonsensical edit goes in even if it gets less votes. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sixth, just reverting the stuff, without explanation, while letting other lower quality-sourced text remain in the article while creating artificially and comparatively higher barriers for the inclusion of my sourced material is not acceptable, do not revert goodfaith edits without consensus and explanation. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Seventh, apply the same consistent criteria to include my text that has been applied to the current text, in terms of quality of sources and text, etc. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Eigth, in case something needs revision in my edits, then work with me to embody cooperative-collaborative-iterative-incremental editorial (one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia), by suggesting rephrasing and enhancements, provided the editor making the suggestions is applying the same criteria to my edits which has been applied to the currently already-included edits of others (treat me same, no less or more). 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ninth, wikipedia "principals" (guidelines such as the "consensus") can not be subjectively used as out-of-the-context "ploys" to keep out the valid edits without any explanation and objection. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Tenth, Tools and rights to revert have been granted with the goodfaith presumption that those who revert several hours of research-and-edit work of other editors will at least spend few minutes in due diligence to properly study and write a solid valid specific-actionable explanation, and will not exercise the knee-jerk no-explanation lazy or subjective reverts. This is very wrong because it breaks 5 pillars and it shows no respect and goodfaith for others work. Kill my work, I will accept it, but before you kill it if I have spent 5 hours in creating my edit, then spend at least five minutes to review and explain to me, not just trigger-happily revert it in 0.5 microseconds without any due diligence or effort on your part to take the article forward in a collaborative manner. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Eleventh: Article protection is to prevent vandalism, not to create unfair barriers for those who have put significant sincere effort like I did. Protect the article from the blatant vandalism, but do so without creating such unnecessary walls that severely discourage the attempts to enhance the article. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Finally: Please just restore the edits proposed by me. Thanks. (PS: Special thanks to the kind hearted Luis for applying my edits previously. For RegentsPark, o bhai thoda theek theek laga le, pyar naal, veer ji.) 202.156.182.84 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The content was declined because it seemed to be obviously WP:UNDUE. You need to establish that the content you have proposed has the same WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources as you have done. So, please state which sources give it such weight. Pinging for more input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed -- it's not clear how this content is relevant to "Muslim conquests". utcursch &#124; talk 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This article was semi-protected for 6 months in March 2017 because of "disruptive editing" that lasted for less than 48 hours. This semi-protection is excessive: 4 days are enough and 1 month is the maximum acceptable. In June 2017, the semi-protection was replaced by extended confirmed protection (ECP) because of an edit war perpetrated by (which is indefinitely blocked). There is another reason for the ECP: authorisation of discretionary sanctions by ArbCom per WP:ARBIPA (which does not include an ECP provision (probably the protecting admin confused it with WP:ARBPIA3)). Because Jagat jit singh is now indefinitely blocked, I request that the article be immediately unprotected, because protection is now unnecessary and is "severely [discouraging] the attempts to enhance the article" (11th point above). 202.156.182.84 has worked hard to create the section it wants to add to the article and merits the ability to edit the article.  Luis150902  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 09:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Biased and misleading title
A large amount of the text already included shows that the numerous invasions were either defeated, repelled or they were just short opportunistic raids. Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality, POV, bias, due balance, etc are clear. Calling those the "conquests" is POV bias, which lends undue balance to some "wins" against the "numerous" defeats / repulsions /expulsions of muslim invaders by the native hindus/sikhs/buddhists. The contentious namespace, such as the Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent, creates a muslim-supremacist bias. Move the article to a more non-contentious, balanced, fairer, and more accurate non-supremacist namespace, such as the Attempted muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent or the Muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent, etc. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wherever it says namespace in the above comment, it was actually intended title. I also changed the title of this section. Luis150902  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title creates a pro-Muslim bias, as explained by the nom. Luis150902  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 18:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: what do reliable sources call it? -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 04:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: How about "Muslim rule in the Indian subcontinent"? Then the article can assess the extent of impact, including that, along with 20th century developments, the Hindi survived very well the centuries-long "conquest". Jzsj (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair compromise. Present title is bling bling. --G (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I beleive that if historians refer to these as "conquests", like the Norman Conquest or the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire, then they should be referred to as such. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge as to how historians/scholars/etc. refer to these events. &mdash; RAGentry (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Naming it Islamic conquests of the Indian subcontinent might make it a little bit less contentious. See also: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Base the title on the weight in reliable sources. If 'conquest' is used the most, then the title is correct. Switching adjectives and throwing qualifiers in there is just OR. Cesdeva (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent as WP:COMMONNAME. Capitals00 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Rename to Muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent as per . (Talking of "Muslim conquests" after the end of the Arab caliphate is quite ahistorical.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC) Changing my !vote based on 's observation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a nationalist POV (summoned by bot) I agree this is worth discussion, but this includes the Ommayyad conquest of the Indus Valley and the Mughal Empire. Those are not "invasions", much less "attempted invasions". An "attempted invasion" does not run from Himalayas to Cape Comorin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What then is to be done? This article is narrower than "Muslim presence in...", which would be a part of all South Asian history since about 700 AD. How about Muslim invasions in India, which covers the genuine point that only one of these affected all of India? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support move to Muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent as WP:COMMONNAME and the current title misrepresents historical events. My Lord (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Invasions doesn't seem quite right here. Reading through the article, a reasonable chunk is about the expansionist activities of Muslim rulers of Indian territories (e.g., the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals) so it's not like they were invading India. Imo, "Muslim (or Islamic) conquests in the Indian subcontinent" would work better. --regentspark (comment) 12:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Muslim invasions of the Indian subcontinent as per WP:COMMONNAME; the preponderance of reliable sources describe them as "Muslim invasions". Any compromise with "conquest" will only result in removal of lots of content from the article. &mdash;  MBL  talk 16:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree that the title is POV. The article is fine exactly where it is. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose nom, but change to "in" per User:RegentsPark. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Impact: Hindus-Buddhist holocausts and cultural annihilation by Islamist-Jehadist invaders
Please insert a section to capture the devastating impact, including the total number of Hindus-Buddhist masscared (over 100++++ million), captured and converted. Even Persecution of Hindus and Persecution of Buddhists articles do not capture such profound multi-century successive ongoing multi-holocausts. Almost every islamic invader to India, even by their own boastful islamist-spremacist sources, attacked India with the calls of Jihad (what I really mean is "@Islamic Apologist editors: please do not try to resist, dilute, omit or glossover such horibble details.") 222.164.212.168 (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, reliable historian sources disagree with these claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)