Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent/Archive 2

Recent POV edits
Arrow, these are starting to get out of hand. Firstly, a political scientist that is writing a general book on international relations is not an appropriate source for discussing the nature of Muslim invasions of India (especially if he is referring to such events as "genocidal"). He is not a historian, Arabist or an Indologist. This author's knowledge of the invasion is purely peripheral. Even if he were specialized in this field, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to plug someone else's opinion; it is to provide referenced material in a NPOV fashion that can lead one to other resources. This so-called genocide is not verifiable; there is no acknowledgment of it in the general literature on the subject and it's a blatant POV edit. You didn't have your way in the Islam article, so now you are resorting to pointish behavior. Please stop these nonsensical, disruptive edits. -Rosywounds (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This material can be easily verified. I produced for you two concurring historians on the talk page of Islam. Arrow740 (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this material was referenced, but you are giving undue weight to a theory that is not generally accepted. The source you used was authored by a political scientist, not a historian specialized in Indo-Muslim history. The Muslim conquest of India did not constitute a genocide. No state in the entire world, including India, recognizes this event as a genocide. Your anti-Islamic edits are not only disruptive, they are becoming flat out annoying. If we need alert more community members of this, then we certainly can do that. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is reliable. We don't require governments to take stances on the statements of reliable sources here. If you're new you might not know that. Arrow740 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the cultural obliteration was obviously most pronounced in what is now Pakistan. Arrow740 (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What an ironic statement! We do not care about the position of a government, but we are going to proceed to quote a political scientist in order to verify medieval Indo-Muslim history! The International Association of Genocide Scholars also does not acknowledge this naming; is that better for you? If you are new, then you should read all of the policy links that I showed you (and that you have violated). Take the hint. Pakistan was created by the British Empire, much like how Israel was. Go complain to them. Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss politics. As I said, this is not "widely recognized" as a genocide; that is a position being given undue weight and, when placed in a lead, it is blatant POV-pushing. -Rosywounds (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No I won't complain to them, because their official stances aren't relevant here, as I clearly wrote. Arrow740 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrow740 the burden is on you to prove the source is reliable. This claim of genocide, is definitely a WP:REDFLAG. Thus, you need a very scholarly source (perhaps more than one) to back up this claim.Bless sins (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you can't place this claim in the lead, as it is not being discussed in the body.Bless sins (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an academic publisher publishing a book on the history of international reliations. It's reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that equates a conquest with genocide (the systematic extermination of people) probably isn't speaking all that factually. For one, the author would have to prove that the goal of the Muslims was to kill the Hindus rather than simply put them under Muslim hegemony. Regardless, bless sins does bring up a good point here; this "genocide," if as widely recognized as you say it is, should be citable from more than just one or two texts. The Pontic Greek Genocide, which is already hotly debated on its own, has close to 10 sources to verify its name. Considering the recognition of this in academia approaches 0% (the IAGS doesn't even recognize it), I'm skeptical.-Rosywounds (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can disagree with the author, but unless you find a reliable source doing so it isn't important for this article. Arrow740 (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They probably don't concern themselves with genocides from a thousand years ago, but according to their definition the conquest of Sindh was genocide. Note that the adult male polytheists were killed and the women and children enslaved. Arrow740 (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740, still has provided no rationale for the source being scholarly.Bless sins (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an academic publisher publishing a book on the history of international relations. It's reliable. Arrow740 (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we do an RfC on this? The Pontic Greek Genocide has 8 (EIGHT) sources for its name, and its neutrality is still under question. Killing all of the men and enslaving women and children is a traditional military practice; the Greeks (particularly the Spartans) did it, the Romans did it, the Mongols did it, the Persians did it, etc. We do not refer to all of these events as genocidal. If anything, the closest thing you described was gendercide. This seems like an emotional POV push. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Pontiac Greek Genocide is a modern event, so it's going to get a lot more attention. Actually this kind of massacre was foreign to Arab practice; Muhammad started it. See Irving Zeitlin, The Historical Muhammad. Polity Press 2007, page 133. Arrow740 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it was foreign to the Arabs does not mean it was foreign to antiquity and the middle ages. The PGG's attention "because it is modern" is not an excuse; Wikipedia is about verifiability. That PGG article has EIGHT sources and it is still in question. As Bless sins already said, this is a red flag comment; it would need more than simply 1 source to include material that appears to be against the general academic community. Wikipedia does not cater to fringe theories. Wikipedia's own policy: There you have it. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 * There you have what? I've produced for you three historians already. Arrow740 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Three? Name them. I think we've already went over how one is a political scientist, against is in polysci/modern history.... I haven't really seen you provide very many specialists on Indian history or Muslim history. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What guideline leads you to produce this requirement of specialization? Arrow740 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability and undue weight are already major problems with this inclusion, firstly.
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. [This is why the Pontic Greek Genocide article uses a combination of EIGHT sources to verify the term genocide]
 * The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
 * All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
 * Including exceptional claims in Wikipedia requires locating the best available sources supporting such claims, but that alone is not enough: if and only if these sources are reliable should you include the material. Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions. The requirement to provide carefully selected qualitative sources for exceptional claims especially applies in the context of scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people.

Simply because someone is a scholar does not mean they are a scholar on this subject. Robert Spencer is a scholar on Christianity and Richard Dawkins a global leader in evolutionary biology, for example, but the reason they are not used as sources in articles on Islam is because their works on Islam are incredibly partisan and they have no formal training in Islamic studies. Certainly an article on biology could cite a scientific publication by Richard Dawkins, though. Similarly, someone that is specialized in modern history doesn't seem like a reliable source for the medieval history of the Middle East and India. Would you use a scholar on India to verify claims about African history? This just seems like common sense, Arrow. Simply because someone has a PhD doesn't mean that they are a scholar for every subject. If someone is publishing work that is not in their area of expertise, then they shouldn't be trusted as reliable. This is especially true in this case, since this claim is exceptional, and exceptional claims depend on the most reputable of sources available. Do you consider a modern historian (his focus probably being in areas like WWII, the Cold War, the Balkan Wars etc) commenting on 7th century Arabia to be the "best available source" to support this claim? Moreover, his book is fused with his own analysis of Islamic theology and teachings, which is not even in the same arena as his field of study. Your posting of partisan sources such as Trifkovic has not been criticized by simply me; editors in very good standing like Itaqallah have even reverted these nonsensical edits and discussed this with you before, like here. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So the answer to my question is "nothing." You're attacking Trifkovic because you think you can make a case. What about the other two? They are all reliable sources for history. Arrow740 (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, please read the wikilawyering file. Other than Puchala and Trifkovic, who was your third source? My answer was that someone whose specialty is the modern history of the Balkans is not a scholar on Medieval Middle Eastern history, Islamic theology, or Muslim conquests in India. This sentence was already rejected by a cadre of good father editors at the Islam article because it sounds POV, so you have pointishly sought another article to place the very same sentence in simply because this sentence would be more topically appropriate here; But still, unsurprisingly, it is a POV-push and a red flag statement. I already gave you Wikipedia's policies on red flag statements. Exceptional claims (e.g. genocide) need exceptional sources. We are not talking about partisan works here by people whose area of expertise is completely off-topic. We are talking about peer reviewed, encyclopedic verifiability. Should we have this mediated? I am not the only person that has been having trouble with your disruptive edits. -Rosywounds (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've learned the wikipedia catch-phrases pretty quickly. Being trained as a historian (of whatever age) qualifies one to repeat the statements of primary sources, which is really the issue here. This all comes from the Muslim records of the invasions. The Puchala source is reliable; it is an academic press publishing a book on the history of international relations. See WP:SOURCES. Would attributing that statement satisfy you? Arrow740 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A historian specialized in modern Balkans history is not able to contribute credible research for 10th and 11th century India. I already brought up wikilawyering for a reason; simply because someone has a PhD in one thing does not make their theses on other, extraneous subjects of any worth to an encyclopedia. The guidelines may not specifically state this, but this goes without being stated. Here is a recent noticeboard that discussed this very same topic, only it discusses Robert Spencer's reputability with respect to Islamic theology (see here). Spencer is a scholar on Christianity, but his scholarship does not extend to Islam simply because he is a theologian. It is not just about whether or not Spencer "knows how to source"; I have no issues if you were to use Trifklovic's sources (assuming they are reliable). Certainly not everything that Trifklovic has sourced is useless; much of it is useful information, but Trifklovic's analysis or utilization of such material is of no scholarly importance. It simply is not his area of expertise. As for Puchala, the issue is different. Puchala is a scholar with at least some peripheral knowledge on this subject and his work is published by an academic publisher, but the claims you have included here go beyond simply the usage of one source. The characterization of this event as a genocide is a redflag claim; it goes against the commonly held view amongst scholars. Controversial statements by one scholar do not deserve to be given WP:Undue weight. Bernard Lewis, a scholar on the Ottoman Empire, refuses to characterize the Armenian genocide as a genocide, but that does not mean his opinion deserves undue weight in the Armenian genocide article. It would be disruptive and inappropriate to use Lewis as my sole valid source and then demand that the Armenian genocide article change its name because one or two scholars disagree with the characterization. Moreover, I already showed you how the Pontic Greek Genocide uses a total of eight sources simply to verify that one word "genocide." Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (the word "source" is plural). -Rosywounds (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "it goes against the commonly held view amongst scholars." This is completely false. I'll check the move. Arrow740 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a move for the statement and changed the wording; I would be willing to agree with the statement if it were made (or left) in this fashion. Further, I integrated it into the section that already criticizes the Muslim invaders. The statement was blatantly out of place before. Tell me whether or not you consider this acceptable. I think my recent edit makes it sound fairly NPOV. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote refers to the cultural obliteration in Sindh and other places that were attacked early on. Arrow740 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740, you have provided no sources for your claim of "genocide". Why is the author exceptionally reliable? Why are the book and publisher exceptionally reliable? Are there any other sources on earth that also say a genocide took place? (Surely if a genocide happened we would have multiple sources, as we have for the Holocaust).Bless sins (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While you're doing this, tell me the following:
 * who was the genocide against? Surely there must be victims. Was it against all Hindus? All Bengalis? Who?
 * How many were systematically murdered? And where did this happen?
 * When did this happen? What was the approximate period?
 * Who was responsible? Don't say Muslims, cause there have been millions of them. Tell me the name of the ruler who ordered this. In the case of Holocaust it'd be Hitler and the Nazis. Who's it here right now?Bless sins (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided a source. As to the rest, you can answer your own questions. Arrow740 (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If we cannot reach a consensus for this, then perhaps we should have a request for comment? I am not a particular fan of the sentence, because it is a red flag statement that deserves more than just one citation, but I'm not in the mood to have an edit war over it. As of right now it's written in the form of a quote in order to make it seem as though it is Puchala's opinion. -Rosywounds (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Answer my own questions"?? What do you mean? Can you answer the questions, since you have the source? If you can't, it appears that you may be fabricating this.Bless sins (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a travesty of truth to deny the historical fact of Islamization of millions of Indians by blood and gore, which is attested by many muslim historians themselves. One caanot, however, rule out small scale conversions at different points of time in such a vast country like India prompted by social considerations. It is also a fact that once a person is converted (by force or allurement) he becomes more fanatical and denies his own roots.Kumarrao (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are a biased and dishonest person. If you say that one cannot rule out small-scale conversions through social pressure in such a vast country one cannot rule out large-scale conversions either. Besides, converting millions and millions of people by force and indoctrinating them requires a technological level and state power that are hard to imagine before the 19th and 20th centuries.77.163.42.73 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks
if i had the mental energy, i would try to improve this article. it looks great already ;] בינה תפארת (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm... maybe if it looked great then, we should revert. It has quite a few problems now. — LlywelynII  18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim POV
20 Million deaths? Wait, wait, Are you trying to tell me that Medieval India consisted had more than 20 millions which were to die?

The section on the "conversion" clearly shows the lack of actual historical knowledge on the side of its author, The author of it simply called the followers of "this islam" "barbaric" and "done many bad things"-- This alone contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV and I, consequently, removed the whole section until it is re-written from a NPOV. 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.64.225 (talk)

Pro-Muslim POV: should be called muslim crusade of the indian sub-continent
another muslim crusade that gets a complete pass for being the atrocity that it was.xyz iz wrong for me but xyz iz just fine for anyone else.just another case of "i'll just pick and choose the things from history that are convenient for me to remember and forget the things that are convenient for me to forget" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.29.190.21 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since crusade has the cross built right into the word, maybe not the most felicitous title. Conquest does just fine, especially given the temporary nature of the actual crusades. — LlywelynII  18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting
The article, "Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent" seriously needs "proper" rewriting. The fact of the matter is many paragraphs are actually pro Muslims and mere fantasies. How can its say, trade expanded because of Islam when it was already Well established before Islam, i.e silk route.

Many of the facts are irrelevant to arrival of Islam in south Asia. As European economic expanded, its trade was expanded with other countries including India as well therefore one cannot say arrival of Islam is responsible of trade expansion! Also age of exploration also helped Trade expansion, not Islam.

One more thing, Islam also destroyed many ancient Indian universities and did not built any infrastructure which "contributes to science" and destroyed Hindu, Buddhist, Jain temples and universities and built Mosques on them which is irrelevant to science expansion! So it will be better for "proper" rewriting of Impact of Islam that should include its atrocities on Hindu civilization!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please adhere to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy before making any contentious edits. Removing large chunks of content just because they have not been tagged with citations on this article is no reason for removing them. The text you removed about technology is most likely verifiable and the architecture part is unchallengeable. Any thing added to the article can not be discriminatory or giving undue weight to something. Also keep in notice that if you don't like the content of the article or because you think it is not correct WP:TRUTH, it doesn't mean you can remove it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is; all my points above are not deniable and also many point in your so called “Impact of Islam and Muslims” is irrelevant to Islam, one example, you have written (without any source) that “because of Muslims rulers and Islam, large urbanization took place in India”, which is completely false and nothing more than "propagandist statement” as population expanded which ultimately results in more urbanization, this “happen everywhere” not just Muslims countries but all round the World so crediting Islam or Muslims rules in particular, is again nothing more than propagandist. Also you have not written anything about economic sanctions on Non-Muslim population under Muslims rule which also include Jizya and other discriminations as well.--Pt.Sumit (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not written this content. Wikipedia is contributed to by a number of editors. I just reverted when you removed chunks of information without any explanation. There are parts of information that are verifiable. And the article itself is not so well sourced at the moment. It needs some working from all aspects. Removing material at this stage will tilt the article to a certain POV. It is better to use citation tags so that some other editor will eventually cite the material. Cherry picking content and adding only one side's POV is not the way it's done here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever written it, it does seem you are not interested in removing /replacing it with true and sourced information! Just by reading it, one can easily get the pro-Muslim appeal to the article which contents "many unfactual" and "irrelevant to Islam" information which itself is a violation of Wikipedia’s policies of neutrality and Correct information! Also the articles says, “Conversion controversy” which again; is completely false information to begin with. If I and many Muslims writers start saying "Osama bin laden was a Hindu" that does not make it a controversy or a thing for a debate, it will simply be “a completely false and propagandist information” similarly saying, conversion was because of genuine change of heart is again; biggest false information ever and it does not make it a topic of great debate or a "controversy" indicating that there is a possibility of such thing happening. Also it is clearly given in "Al-Hind", how they did convert people of Hindustan to Islam starting from Gandhara (Article: How 'Gandhara' became 'Kandahar')(Read it!) and latter whole India!--Pt.Sumit (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I reverted those edits but they do need improvement and inline citations. The edits you just claimed to make are completely undue. The word controversy would be the right word. Just because some citations say it is the 'fact' doesn't mean it is, because others will very much argue against it. So what you need to read before editing this is WP:UNDUE & WP:POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pt. is obviously bringing rather too much of his own baggage into the article (inter alia, the Silk Road had almost nothing to do with India as it ran well north of the Himalayas & it was staffed by Muslims for a goodly portion of its existence), but it should go without saying that mentions of trade and architecture easily run afoul of WP:RELEVANT in an article on conquest. Surely there are articles on, say, Indo-Islamic architecture and the Economic history of India where such issues should actually be discussed. Including them via a see also link here is generous or even questionable.


 * With respect, TopGun could do with looking over WP:UNDUE again himself. UNDUE deals with treating rogue, pet, or nationalistic theories (like, say, the idea that the conquest of India was a peaceful affair by friendly Sufi wisemen) as though they were reliable sources; it has nothing at all to do with removing unsourced claims, which is fine and particularly so when those claims themselves run afoul of UNDUE. Mentioning lots of extraneous irrelevant cultural details in a page on conquest is itself a violation of UNDUE.


 * I'm not defending all of Pt's stance or edits, but this page does currently have some UNDUE problems & they're not the ones being misrepresented in this exchange. There is no legitimate controversy that the Muslim expansion in India was either heartless domination or a peaceful love-in. There were elements at different times of both, there's some controversy of the extent of both, and sections of the article need rewriting and sourcing to reflect that. — LlywelynII  19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, fwiw, WP:Beware of the tigers is rather less obnoxious than that "truth" link. WP:DONTBITE. — LlywelynII  19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead In
The first sentence in the lead in is very confusing. It says...
 * "Muslim conquest in South Asia mainly took place from the 13th to the 16th centuries, though earlier Muslim conquests made limited inroads into the region, beginning during the period of the ascendancy of the Rajput Kingdoms in North India, from the 7th century onwards."

The part after the first comma seems like it should be a separate sentence but it's not a full sentence. Desasu11 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not confusing at all. Awkward, maybe. — LlywelynII  18:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

one of the bloodiest chapter in human history ? really ? and you're using rđa Trifković, the fervant islam hater as a reference ? how does the muslim conquest of india compare to the mongol invasions of the middle east? the conquest of the americas and the near-extermination of the natives in north america? the holocaust ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.247.56 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." from Our Oriental Heritage: The Story of Civilization|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ru4LPyMAxxkC&pg=PT725|accessdate=27 August 2012|date=7 June 2011|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-1-4516-4668-9|pages=725

Population of India,Pakistan,Bangladesh (South Asia) during 1000 and 1500 AD
According to this source: '''Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Graziella Caselli,Jacques Vallin,Guillaume J. Wunsch, page 34, 2006. Online'''

The population of South Asia (now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) increased DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * from 40 million in 1000 AD
 * to 83 million in 1250 AD
 * to 95 million in 1500 AD.

Too much indian nationalism in this article guys this wikipedia not india.com
Too much indian nationalism in this article guys this wikipedia not india.com

examples they think Afghanistan belongs to india, Afghanistan was never part of it but pakistan was. The indus river is border between Iranian plateau and greater India!!!! get facts right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 20:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Brother, relax. Nobody is saying it was a part of India. It WAS a part of the Indian Subcontinent, and still is. More importantly, Afghanistan WAS a part of the Mughal empire, which is also referred to as "India," broadly speaking. If you want to change the second phrase to "Northwestern Indian Subcontinent" I don't have any objections. Leave that first bit alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please understand, Afghanistan is the Northwestern extreme of South Asia also known as the Indian sub-continent. It is part of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). Afghanistan is recognised and respected as a sovereign nation and it belongs to the Afghani people themselves. Nobody claims that the country of Afghanistan belongs to India (or any other country for that matter) and there is no nationalism involved at all. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan was ruled by Turks, Buddhists, Hindus, Persians and others. The context of your concern must have been about the Hindu Kabul Shahi dynasty of Afghanistan who were defeated by Mahmud Ghazni's father. Before these Hindu rulers there were also Persian, Greek and Buddhist rulers as well in Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean that Afghanistan belongs to any other country. Instead it belonged to the Afghani people. So just chill bro ! Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but NONE of you have any idea what you are saying. Afghanistan was never part of the Indian subcontinent, i don't even know why bits of this article even mentions Afghanistan. The fact is it has always been seen as Central Asia and part of Greater Iran but never south asia. Only modern maps try to allude it to South Asia but out of political reasons and nothing more but the country is, geographicaly, culturaly and histroicaly Iranian. This is Wikipedia and we rely on sourced facts, not opinions. Akmal94 (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a two-year old thread! You need to look at what reliable historians say:

"From a historical perspective, the western and eastern boundaries of South Asia as a cultural and political region appear quite different from the current national borders that separate Pakistan from Afghanistan and Iran to the west, on the one hand, and India and Bangladesh from Myanmar to the east, on the other. Not until well into the period we are covering in this book did Bangladesh become incorporated into the South Asian sphere. The situation in the west is even more ambiguous. The area of Afghanistan and even parts of Central Asia were several times in the distant past included in a polity based in South Asia. The cultural impact of Indian civilization was similarly felt far outside South Asia’s current limits during much of the first millennium CE: Buddhism flourished throughout Afghanistan and Central Asia, while the North Indian Brahmi script was adapted to several Central Asian languages such as Khotanese and Tocharian. For these reasons alone, one could make a strong case that Afghanistan is (or at least once was) an integral part of South Asia, rather than the Middle East, in cultural and political terms. We have gone into this point at some length because history books today routinely characterize any people whose origins lie to the west of Pakistan as “foreign” to South Asia and their large-scale movements toward the southeast as “invasions” of the subcontinent. (Asher, Catherine B.; Talbot, Cynthia (2006). India before Europe, Cambridge University Press)"


 * The authors are using the term "South Asia" here rather than "Indian subcontinent." But the same arguments still apply. Historically, Afghanistan is interconnected with the Indian subcontinent. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Will Durant and Jadunath Sarkar
My bad for not being clear in my edit summary. When I said "he never made such a book" I was referring to Sarkar not Durant; whom never wrote that book nor does a book with that title exists. As for Durants, he does not say that on 495 nor anything like it through his book (link to PDF of book | here). Also for "Source is unreadable", I was referring to | KashmirHerald which leads to nothing. Its quit odd that there are two links referring to something that was never said/written, dont you think? AcidSnow (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions
Issues about this article keep appearing at the noticeboards and the Help Desk. This is a reminder that this article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions and is subject to Arbitration Enforcement arising from WP:ARBIP. Anyone who is planning to report any issues at a public forum such as the Help Desk or the noticeboards should first read the boomerang essay. If you report edit warring but have been edit warring yourself, you are likely to face sanctions. Use caution and judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by User:Ghatus
I have reverted your edits as I find that there was no reason attributed for section blanking, deleting tags without acting on them & a few edits which do not seem to add value or context to the article. In fact you have not given edit summaries for your edits from this edit to this one. Moreover, you have not added any references to support your edits. Please discuss your edits & get consensus as your actions look suspiciously like vandalism. Your account looks like a single purpose account too. AshLin (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

King Bhoja and defeat of the Ghaznavi army
Battle against Ghaznavis: Gujarat was a vessel state of Bhoja. In early 11th century Ghaznavi attacked Gujarat and Somnath after plundering East Afghanistan and modern day Pakistan. The King of Gujarat informed the whole matter to King Bhoja. King Bhoja then organized a huge army and marched against Ghaznavi. Ghaznavi himself fearing the powerful army of Bhoja retreated through the shortest route i.e. via the desert of Sindh to avoid a clash. But, his army was severely destroyed. Then, Bhoja marched against Ghazi Salar Masud, the nephew of Ghaznavi and the man in charge of the north India for Ghaznavi, and annihilated them in the Battle of Bahraich. Masud was killed and the whole army of Ghaznavi was permanently thrown away form India.
 * Please provide verifiable references. AshLin (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@AshLin @AshLin The Muhammadans did not make a great stand, hut fled ; many of tliem were slain by Hindu  scymitars and prostrated by Rajput war-clubs(Page-112)

also check the wikipedia page of "King Bhoja"

Rajputs and south India between 13th and 16th century
From the time of Tuglaqs in the early 14th century, Rajputs again started to consolidate their powers. The Mewar reestablished their supremacy under Maharana Hammir. Hammir defeated Muhammad bin Tughlaq with Bargujars as his main allies, and captured him. Tughlaq had to pay a huge ransom and relinquish all of Mewar's lands. After this the Delhi Sultanate did not attack Chittorgarh for a few hundred years.

The Rajputs re-established their dominance, and Rajput states were established as far east as Bengal and north into the Punjab. The Tomaras established themselves at Gwalior(central India), and the ruler Man Singh Tomar built the fortress which still stands there. Mewar emerged as the leading Rajput state, and Rana Kumbha expanded his kingdom at the expense of the sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. Kapilendra Deva or Kapileshvara Deva was the emperor of Kalinga-Utkal (Orissa) and the founder of the Gajapati dynasty which annexed large swathes of territory in Telengana, Andhra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the south to Madhya Pradhesh in central India and most of present day Bengal in the north. South India was, however, free from the hustle and bustle of the North under Vijayanagar Empire.

Rana Sanga of Mewar invaded many territories of the Lodis. Ibrahim Lodi fought Sanga repeatedly, only to be defeated each time, losing much of his land and Sanga's military influence came to extend within striking distance of Agra, the then the most important city of the North India.

@AshLin Please check the wikipedia page of "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquest of India" and "Maratha Empire". All sources are already there. I am adding nothing.


 * Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests appears to be a pathetically sourced article and reeks of POV writing;
 * 1. Sudhir Kakar, is not a historian and has no specialization in the time period in question
 * 2. Encyclopedia Brittanica, an unspecialized tertiary source, which should not be used
 * 3. "Muslim conquest and the Rajputs", with outdated historiography(1922), appears to be unverifiable, no listing on google books. amazon, alibris, abebooks....
 * 4. "Serving empire, serving nation: James Tod and the Rajputs of Rajasthan", clearly taken out of context to support the POV of that article.
 * 5. "A Historical Review of Hindu India: 300 B. C. to 1200 A. D", also unverifiable, also containing outdate historiography(1939).


 * I find no mention of Lodi or Rana Sanga in the Maratha Empire article. Also, "Târikh-i-Soraṭh, a history of the provinces of Soraṭh and Hâlâr in Kâthiâwâd" is a primary source translated in 1882, which is clearly outdated. You need to find modern reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Defeat of the Army of Ghaznavi
@Kansas Bear I am giving you as much "reliable" sources as possible,judging as far the current sources of this current article are concerned. Now, it's upto you to decide whether to write proper history or to write concocted fancies.

Sources:

1)The Writings of Turkic author Gardizi. (The Ornament of Histories - The History of the Eastern Islamic Lands AD 650-1041)

2) “The Discovery of India” by Jawaharlal Nehru. (Page-251, L-18-19, Penguin Ind., ISBN Number: 978-0-143-03103-1))

3) “Somanatha: The Many Voices of History” ( ISBN 1-84467-020-1) by Marxist historian Romila Thapar.

4) A Persian text named “Tarikh-i-Sorath” vividly depicts the destruction of the army of Ghaznavi at the hands of Rajputs. The English translation by Ranchodji Amarji in 1882, Divan of Junagadh, runs as follows(bad translations/typos in some parts): ''"...This(attack on somnath) act so provoked the Mahdraja Masidalika, who was a protector of his own religion, that he marched with Bhim Dera, the Raja of Gujarat, in pursuit :

They ran like fawns and leaped like onagers^ As lightning now, and now outvying wind I

The Mohammedans did not make a great stand, hut fled ; many of them were slain by Hindu scimitars and prostrated by Rajput war-clubs, and when the sun of the Raja's fortune culminated, Shah Mahmud(reference to Ghaznavi) took to his heels in dismay and saved his life, but many of his followers, of both sexes, were captured. Female prisoners were, if they happened to be virgins, considered pure according to their own belief, and were without any difficulty taken as wives ; the bowels of the others, how- ever, were cleansed by means of emetics and pur- gatives, and the captives were after that disposed of ^according to the command, " The wicked women to the wicked men, and the good women to the good men." The low females were joined to low men. Respect- able men were compelled to shave their beards and Were enrolled among the Shekhavat and the wadhet tribes of Rajputs. ” ''

Also read Battle of Bahraich of the early 11th century.
Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * As I stated before, "Târikh-i-Soraṭh, a history of the provinces of Soraṭh and Hâlâr in Kâthiâwâd" is a primary source. This coupled with the fact your methodology is clearly biased and you can not or will not do the proper research(Nehru:lawyer, Gardizi:Persian not Turkic(Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources, Scott Cameron Levi, page 59) for these sources leads me to believe you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
 * Also, to highlight your lack of proper research, Studies in "Alberuni's India, Arvind Sharma, page 132 n.56, " It is also possible that the account of Mahmud's reverse is exaggerated as according to the Oxford History of India ...".
 * Jawaharlal Nehru, was a politician and lawyer, not a historian.
 * Abu Saʿīd Gardēzī writings are also considered a primary source.
 * “Somanatha: The Many Voices of History”, page 176, makes no mention of a battle, "The Tarikh-i-Sorath of Ranchodji Amaraji, written in 1825, refers briefly to Mahmud's raid and gives some information on the fate of the temple from the eighteenth century". No mention of a battle. Again poor research.
 * You should take your own advice, "decide whether write proper history or to write concocted fancies". --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

All we know about Ghaznavi are from literary sources. You are allowing one set of literary sources in wiki page and totally rejecting other sets of literary sources. A neutral observer must present both sets of literary sources. That's not being done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Pity you continue to ignore the facts when told to you. You wish to write history to suit your own personal opinion(s). The author of Tarikh-i-Sorath was not a historian and the historian Arvind Sharma clearly states, "It is also possible that the account of Mahmud's reverse is exaggerated as according to the Oxford History of India... This coupled with the facts that Nehru was not a historian, your Gardezi "source" has no page number or quote and your Thapar source makes absolutely mention of a battle , but you believe you should have license to write whatever you want. Neutrality has nothing to do with it. You have nothing. You have presented nothing. I have shown your sources to be both unreliable and that you have clearly distorted information from these sources to push your personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You yourself have already reached conclusions. Pity. When an eminent historian(Thapar) says" follow this book for details", you call the book crap or a portion of it "crap". When she refers to it, she means to read it fully to get a historical perspective or angle. Again, I do not know what "possibly exaggerated" means. The historian himself is not sure and at the same time it implies that "something certainly happened" but the "extent of the event is not clear". By the way, you should research what level of respect "Discovery of India-by Nehru" enjoys among the historian fraternity.But sadly,You are allowing one set of literary sources in wiki page and totally rejecting other sets of literary sources on probably some personal grounds. All the perspectives must be mentioned.


 * Wrong. Per reliable sources, Nehru is not a historian, therefore is not a reliable source. Where does Thapar say follow this book for details? Pity you have to resort to lying, "The Tarikh-i-Sorath of Ranchodji Amaraji, written in 1825, refers briefly to Mahmud's raid and gives some information on the fate of the temple from the eighteenth century".  This is a direct quote from the source you provided! There is no mention of a battle and no mention to refer to the Tarikh-i-Sorath. Either provide evidence from a reliable source or drop it. Continue to make this issue personal, and I'll contact an Admin to help you with your issues.
 * But sadly, you will not accept what a real historian has said about the fairy tale battle, probably some personal grounds. "It is also possible that the account of Mahmud's reverse is exaggerated as according to the Oxford History of India." Oxford History of India makes no mention of a battle after Somanatha. Your personal interpretation of what Arvind Sharma's states is original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Some Edits
1)Maratha Empire rose after the Mughal, and the British rose after the Marathas.

2)Added a “ proper and scaled Maratha Empire Map” in place of a childish drawing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs) 03:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Marathas rose after the Mughal and The British rose after the Marathas
I referred to the wiki article for going through the references and citations, not to follow what is written there. You will find scores of references and citations in support if you do not have any comprehension problems.

Sources:- (Check the Maratha Empire Section there. By the way, you will get them all with links in “Maratha Empire” wiki page “note” section.)

1)The New Cambridge Modern History(G.R. Potter) – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 12 July 2013. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1BY9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA556&dq=maratha+chauth+from+oudh,bihar&hl=en&ei=b30mTpvkMcS4rAfezomRCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved

2)The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Maratha supremacy(R.C. Majumder) http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=xywpTvOTGofirAf40eTsBg&ct=result&id=zQ9uAAAAMAAJ&dq

3) Shivaji, the great Maratha, Volume 2, H. S. Sardesai, Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd, 2002, ISBN 81-7755-286-4, ISBN 978-81-7755-286-7

4)The Rediscovery of India: A New Subcontinent Cite: "Swarming up from the Himalayas, the Marathas now ruled from the Indus and Himalayas in the north to the south tip of the peninsula. They were either masters directly or they took tribute."

5) History of the Marathas – R.S. Chaurasia – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 26 May 2012.

6) History of Midieval India – Saini A.K, Chand, Hukam – Google Books. Books.google.co.in. Retrieved 17 September 2012.

7)	Mehta, J. L. Advanced study in the history of modern India 1707–1813

8)	 Mackenna, P. J. et al. Ancient and modern India

9) J. L. Mehta (2005). Advanced Study in the History of Modern India: Volume One: 1707 – 1813. Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. pp. 707–. ISBN 978-1-932705-54-6. – It explains the rise to power of his Peshwa (prime minister) Buluji Vishwanath (171 3–20) and the transformation of the Maratha kingdom into a vast empire, by the collective action of all the Maratha stalwarts.


 * If you provide a book as a source, then you need to provide page numbers in every case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. Pages with links are available in the reference or citation or Note section of Maratha Empire. Please do visit. I can not copy & paste every thing. By the way i will wait for your response for a day and then I will again edit it if you do not have any problem. I hope you will certainly have not. Thanks. Please check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why I object to the second paragraph of the introduction
Why I object to the second paragraph of the introduction is simple.It says

Prior to the conquest of India by the British East India Company, the Muslim Moghul Empire was able to annex or subjugate most of India's Hindu kings. However, it was never able to conquer the Hindu kingdoms in upper reaches of the Himalayas such as the regions of today's Himachal Pradesh,Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan and the extreme south of India such as Travancore.

Objections:

1)It clears makes Marathas non existent and tries to portray( Mughal> British) instead (Mughal> Maratha>British)

2)With use of such phrases “Muslim Moghul Empire”, “able to annex or subjugate most of India's Hindu kings”, it tries to portray British as the savior of Hindus. On the contrary, Marathas who were Hindus either annexed or subjugated almost all the Mughal territories in the 18th century. Personal communal bias must be avoided.

TITLE
Isn't the title wrong (grammatically)? Shouldn't it either be Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent or Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent? Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47  Talk 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent → Muslim conquests in South Asia – There are multiple reasons: 1) The term 'Indian Subcontinent' is increasingly being phased out of use in the academic, literary and journalistic circles. For example, a search for the term 'South Asia' in Google scholar leads to 897,000 results (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22South+Asia%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=), while the same search for 'Indian subcontinent' leads to 85,900 resuls (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Indian+Subcontinent%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44), a factor of 10 difference. Additional evidence is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent#Nomenclature

2) The term 'Indian subcontinent' does not usually include the eastern regions of present-day Afghanistan, the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces of Pakistan, which were definitely part of the conquests of the Mughal Empire. These regions are however, included in the term 'South Asia'.

3) The title 'Muslim conquests in South Asia' will acknowledge the fact that a lot of the conquests under various Muslim kings and emperors were conquests of political entities under other Muslim rulers, most of whom were also of a non-South Asian/Indian background. The title as it stands sets up an 'Indian'-'Muslim' binary which has not withstood the scrutiny of modern historians. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC) I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The "Indian subcontinent" is what is called "India" by a historian. We call it "Indian subcontinent" here to distinguish it from the present day India. "South Asia" is an entirely different concept, which arises when people try to divvy up the world into regions in order to allocate resources. It has no relevance to the issues of this page. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose – "South Asia" implies a much wider area than the present scope of the article. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am just wondering if the topic is POV in that it only covers conquests and I'm wondering what would happen if there was a one sided article on "Crusader conquests". An article on Muslim wars might be more neutral.  GregKaye 07:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is called India or the Indian subcontinent in English. The argument that the Mughal Empire included areas not part of the Indian subcontinent is irrelevant - so did the British Empire.  As for South Asia being more common; it is not the same thing; the UN includes Burma, Ceylon, Iran, the Maldives, Tibet, etc. in South Asia.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Page has nothing about Iran. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Query about India, in particular, in detail
This article relates to the Indian Subcontinent. Being aware of India as we know it today came into existence in 1947 prior to which the history is always told w.r.t. Indian Subcontinent, I was wondering if there's any article exclusively on detailed chronological account of ″Muslim Invasions in India″ and/or so-called "conquests" right from 7th century?? My search results did not yield any article that I was looking for. Seeking help & clarity in this issue -Anand2202 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Our History of India page deals with the entire Indian subcontinent up to 1947. "India" in pre-1947 times means the Indian subcontinent. Please see that page for authoritative information. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now beefed up the page called Battle of Rajasthan (old title) with reliable information about the Arab incursions into "India." Please check there. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Arab or Umayyad
TRIGGER WARNING

So I was reading the article and I loved how it is done in the beginning, first you start with the "Background", then "Early Muslim communities", then "Rashidun Caliphate and the India Frontier", then "Umayyad Expansion in Al Hind" and then something weird happened the next part says "Arab invasion of Sindh". Wait a minute what, why divide the Umayyad expansion in to two, then change the word expansion to invasion and then use an ethnic word rather than the Imperial name of the forces??? Don't you think it's better to merge and say "Umayyad Expansion in Al Hind and Al-Sindh". I noticed many Muslim Historians use the words "Al-Hind wal Sind" in the Arabic language. Please stay peaceful. RussianDewey (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

A severe case of Skew
There is far too much material on the Umayyad Caliphates history and too little about the rest. Much of this is suitable for shifting to a different article or merging. As of now, a very badly skewed article. AshLin (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

Thank you for cleaning up Muslim Conquests on the Indian Subcontinent.Maglorbd (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Many thanks to you in fact for creating so much new content on that page, and also the brilliant map that you produced, which gave me a roadmap for the content on the Battle of Rajasthan page.
 * I have only proof-read one little section of your content so far. I will do the rest too in the next few weeks. But, overall, I think there is a bit too much detail in your sections. Would you be happy to make this into a separate article on "Arab invasion of Indian subcontinent" (or some such), so that we can write a condensed summary in the main article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You read my mind. Most of the stuff will be shifted to "Arabs and Al Hind" once I get around to posting that and I intend to streamline "Muslim Conquests on The Indian Sub-Continent".Maglorbd (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)