Talk:Afghan–Sikh wars

Source bombardment

• Jaques ,Tony.Dictionary of Battles and Sieges
• Singh Ganda, Ahmad Shah Durrani: Father of Modern Afghanistan, page=285
• Anil Chandra Banerjee, The Khalsa Raj, (Abhinav Publications, 1985), 78.
• Ganda Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh: First Death Centenary Memorial. Nirmal Publishers
• Harnik Deol, Religion and Nationalism in India
• Brief History of the Sikh Misls
• J.S Grewal, The Sikhs of the Punjab
• A Concise History of Afghanistan in 25 Volumes, Volume 14

user:Ama975193 has added each of these sources which seems to indicate the Sikhs won the war(s) against the Afghan/Durrani. A quote from each source would help to confirm this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

This source makes no mention of the Afghan Sikh wars. I have removed it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: It does makes mention of many battles about this war.

Would you be using this sourceinstead? It provides overview of the wars fought between the two and the wars started from 1748 not 1751 contrary to this article.

Here is another source written by a military expert and published by Jonathan Cape, which makes it clear that "Sikhs had defeated the Afghans in a previous war, they reasoned that they could easily vanquish the British".

There is a clear case of Sikh victory against the Afghans. NavjotSR (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• "It does makes mention of many battles about this war."

Not on the page number given. Proper citation works wonders. Page 45 of that book, starts off with: "The Taliban in Power".

• "There is a clear case of Sikh victory against the Afghans."

Fine. Bring a source, with a page number and quote.

This source brings up Remember you are an Englishman: a biography of Sir Harry Smith, 1787-1860 Joseph H. Lehmann, Cape, Sep 15, 1977. Unviewable and unverifiable.

This source gives an overview of the war, yet I am not seeing where it states the Sikhs won this war. Which page, specifically, is it stated? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This source concludes that: "Sikhs had defeated the Afghans in a previous war, they reasoned that they could easily vanquish the British", on page 228. This source is nonetheless detailing that Sikhs won all the battles. Why it should be controversial to state that Sikhs won the war? Sure we can't state that Sikhs won the war based on this single source but instead we can mention specific result about all 3 phases, and each of them would be 'Sikh victory'. NavjotSR (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest you take This source to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Accordingly, "We only use a result for the whole war that is in the reliable sources. It is OR to analyse the results of individual battles and decide on an overall result." --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Buddy the afghans lost. Why are you so salty? CapChecker123 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you trying to make this personal? Like here? Either post a reliable secondary source with a page number to support your changes or you will be reported for disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Mate it’s not personal, you can report whatever you want, you’re literally deleting any additions to this page if it’s not your own. I will let the admins decide CapChecker123 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I am restoring referenced information. As explained below you are engaging in original research and have chosen to edit war instead of discussion. Your choice. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It is original research, the sources I have used are approved by Oxford University and also is as recent as 2004. So just behave yourself and quit censoring this page CapChecker123 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• "So just behave yourself and quit censoring this page"

3rd time. Supply the page number, volume number and quote for your source. Since you appear to be unable to comply. Which means you are writing original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

120.21.61.157

This IP is using references as misrepresentation of comments being added by him/her. Continue to vandalize page. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Sikh Territorial Gain, not Stalemate

The Afghan Sikh wars resulted in Sikhs conquering several of cities/territories of Afghans. This is why the result though was originally Sikh Victory, was changed to Sikh Territorial Gains.

No source, just another opinion by an IP. Typical edit warring which is the only way they can "form consensus". Notice there is no discussion and there are no sources to back up their claim. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Neither do you. It about what the article refers to if you can understand english. Typical reverts by you due to your own personal opinion and not coming to a mutual understand as previous editors have. On talk page here (pasted below) there was already sources shown to you which you neglected. Obviously, again because of your own personal opinion. So stop reverting changes even when sources are already there and the whole article already states that.

This source concludes that: "Sikhs had defeated the Afghans in a previous war, they reasoned that they could easily vanquish the British", on page 228. This source is nonetheless detailing that Sikhs won all the battles. Why it should be controversial to state that Sikhs won the war? Sure we can't state that Sikhs won the war based on this single source but instead we can mention specific result about all 3 phases, and each of them would be 'Sikh victory'. NavjotSR (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.106 (talk)

Now we have a fictitious discussion and now you decide to take a questionable source, that makes an arbitrary comment on some undefined war, with a statement from a POV pusher to back your fairy tale? That source does not support what you continue to edit war into the infobox and the source is hardly reliable for this article. Typical POV pusher.

• "It about what the article refers to if you can understand english."

Typical POV pusher comment, a personal attack. *yawn*

• "This source is nonetheless detailing that Sikhs won all the battles."

More original research.

• "Sure we can't state that Sikhs won the war based on this single source but instead we can mention specific result about all 3 phases, and each of them would be 'Sikh victory'."

This is original research, another move by POV pushers.

So far, you have Wikipedia:OR, made a personal attack and made a Wikipedia:False consensus. Looks like you are the one pushing their own personal views and sentiments. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Because you do not want to understand the opinion on others and jump to conclusion, now you have opted to go with Wikipedia:OR, made a personal attack and made a Wikipedia:False consensus. Again all due to your personal views, with no understanding of the article, and causing disruptive reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.106 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Because you do not want to understand the opinion on others and jump to conclusion, now you have opted to go with Wikipedia:OR, made a personal attack and made a Wikipedia:False consensus. Again all due to your personal views, with no understanding of the article, and causing disruptive reverts."

Wow. More unsubstantiated accusations. Why am I not surprised.

• "It was the last mutual and neutral decision as per article that the result was Sikh Territorial Gain instead of SIkh Victory or Afghan Victory or Stalemate."

This is your false consensus statement for all the viewers reading this. There was nothing mutual or neutral about it, and it was clearly not a decision. Which I explained to you and you ignored it since it refuted your fairy tale consensus.

The unreliable source does not even support your POV pushing edit of the infobox. That is original research. Maybe you should learn the rules before edit warring your opinion into article(s).--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I clearly know how to wikipedia works and have made edits to various article and never had any issues till now. You yourself have no resources and you are pointing finger at me? There was already a source shown to you but you just ignored it. Also when you go through the article, you can clearly understand what the result was because it wasn't one battle or two battle, it a result of all accumulative war. But due to your own POV, there can clearly be no mutual understanding. And you are just causing reverts without any consensus or source of you own. So end of discussion! No need to delete my comments like you tried to do on your own talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.106 (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• "I clearly know how to wikipedia works..."

Clearly not. Wikipedia:False consensus, original research, and personal attacks, show otherwise.

• "There was already a source shown to you but you just ignored it."

Wrong. The source, which is not even about Sikhs or Afghans or their wars, makes an arbitrary statement about some war between the Sikhs and Afghans and does not support your edit. That is original research.

• "But due to your own POV..."
• " Also when you go through the article, you can clearly understand what the result was because it wasn't one battle or two battle, it a result of all accumulative war."

I do not have a POV over this issue, clearly someone that claims false consensus, uses original research and issues personal attacks against another editor has a POV to push. As it stands now, there is not a reliable source for the result of these wars and according to an admin, "We only use a result for the whole war that is in the reliable sources. It is OR to analyse the results of individual battles and decide on an overall result."

• "No need to delete my comments like you tried to do on your own talk page."

If you know "oh-so-much" about how Wikipedia works, then you know I can ban anyone from my talk page.

• " So end of discussion!"

Nope. I have proven your edit is original research and that the so-called source you wish to pin your opinion to, does not support your edit. So, no, this discussion is not over. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You have proven nothing. And yes this discussion is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.105 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV?

Added by user:Abdhul-ghani1990;

• "The Afghans were utterly defeated by the Sikhs.[13] The Afghans Were no match to the Sikhs and were defeated."

Seriously? HAVE to mention they were defeated in both sentences? Even the battle of Jamrud article indicates the result of the battle is disputed. Nothing like pushing your own opinion.

• "Maharaja Ranjit Singh successfully absorbed and united the Sikh misls and took over other local kingdoms to create the Sikh Empire. This leveled the playing field, since the Sikhs finally were united, just like the Afghans."

What does this have to do with the Afghans? Nothing! More irrelevant information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Capchecker's response

The Sikhs did indeed win all 3 wars. What’s your agenda with deleting the factual outcome of the war? CapChecker123 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And why aren’t you writing the outcome of the third phase of the war. If the Sikhs did not win, does that mean the afghans won the wars? I don’t think so pal, so I’ll keep adding in the facts, and you can keep deleting, I’ll just add it back. It’s about time you stop censoring this page. CapChecker123 (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are you changing what referenced information is stating?[1]

First request Your so-called source(Singh) does not have page numbers and is not listed in this article.

Why did you change this sentence

• "Ahmad marched on to Amritsar, massacring the population and destroying the city..."

to this;

• "Abadly marched on to Amritsar, massacring the civilian population and destroying the holy city."

What the hell does this even mean? If you can not write legible English then you should not be editing English Wikipedia!

You also added;

• " Third Phase: Decisive Sikh Empire victory, all of the Punjab, Kashmir, Peshawar Valley and Khyber Pass annexed by the Sikh Empire"

Using Singh as a source, what page is all of this information on??

You also changed this

• "Afghans driven from country; Lahore and surronding regions taken by Sikhs"

Using Mehta, page 303. That is not what Mehta states. That is source misrepresentation.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, your addition of,

• "Durrani occupation of Delhi (1757)"

Your source Mehta page 229 makes no mention of Sikhs. That is original research --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Your silly buddy, you clearly do not know what massacring the civilian population means. Civilians are people who live in a city. He massacred the inhabitants of Amritsar and then desecrated the Holy site. Typo error is a typo error, I don’t know why you’re so triggered. It’s just a history article. Have you got something personal at stake here? CapChecker123 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Result of the war

Can certain users stop editing and removing the outcome of these wars. The Sikhs won all of these wars. That is plain and simple fact. There’s no two ways about it. All gains that the afghans made into modern India/Pakistan were all annexed by the Sikh Empire. Why are users so salty at this fact. If annexing parts of an empire is not considered a victory, I’m not sure what is. Keep your personal biases out of this, the Afghans lost most battle and every war against Sikh misls/Empire. Plain and simple fact. I will keep updating the result as certain users are clearly just censoring or downplaying the outcome of the wars.

Durrani invaded at least 9 times. After Sikh misls came to power. He was sent back to Kabul each time. Sikh empire under Ranjit Sikh pushed the afghans back to Kyber Pass territory.

If I’m using my head, it’s quite clear the afghans lost all the wars, mainly because they failed to wipe out the Sikhs after multiple massacres. They then lost Punjab, Peshawar, and Kyber pass to the Sikhs. Sources state this, and it is just what happened, go cry to somewhere else with your salty censoring of the outcome of this war. CapChecker123 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Afghan–Sikh Wars and Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani

Hi there! I'm starting a discussion to ask whether these two articles are over the same exact topic. I was recently asked by Kansas Bear on my user talk page here if these two articles were inadvertent duplicates. I'm obviously no expert in this topic, so I wanted to start a discussion and ask other editors about this and get input. The timeline of these series of invasions appear to overlap, and I believe that the articles are referring to the two same countries. Are these two articles about the same series of wars, and if so - should they be merged? I'm going to ping HistoryofIran and Falcaorib - as these editors have recently made multiple changes to this article. I'm also going to ping Zeex.rice, as this user made recent changes to the other article. Thanks for looking into this! Please let me know. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani includes battles with the Mughals,Marathas,Rajputs,Jats,etc.Because of this,it makes sense to have the two pages be seperate. Tarunveer Singh Aujla (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Utcursch:? Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't read much on the topic. Maybe drop a note at WT:IND? utcursch | talk 02:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Rv, disruption

@Historyofiran.

Explain how this is a disruption? BorisTheBulgar (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you removed loads of well-sourced information? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The sourced information is not relevant towards the Battle of Attock. Why is the conquests of Kashmir mentioned under the battle of attock? BorisTheBulgar (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources information is not relevant to the battle, when reviewing this page. I see that you tend to remove a large amount of information without actually adding anything to this article. Do you have a reason of why you only remove information from this article instead of adding any? BorisTheBulgar (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Refrain from 3RR please. BorisTheBulgar (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Afghan–Sikh Wars, which the Battle of Attock amongst other things was part of. I'm the one removing large amount of information? Isn't that a bit ironic coming from you? [2]. Instead of trying to give me advise regarding the rules, I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:DISRUPT, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean coming from me? What are you trying to insinuate? HistoryofIran You still haven't answered the question of why you only delete information instead of adding any?

I mean, the diff says it all. And if you insist; No, I only delete disruptive information, and whether I add information or not is-no offense-really none of your business. I do have 35 GA articles, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. This has gone off rails, I'm out. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Didn't really ask about your other articles, and quite frankly, your constant deletion of information on this article has literally no relevance with your other articles. I will add referenced information from referenced journals and textbooks. I will like to you see try and delete that information before I report you. Good day HistoryofIran

I will try my best. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@BorisTheBulgar: Coming back after some time and resuming your removal of sourced information is highly disruptive. I would highly advise you to stop, or I will take this to WP:ANI. Either reach WP:CONSENSUS or leave the information alone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Change to referenced information

Show me where Mehta states "Afghan Victory", on page 303?

What page does Lee state "Sikh Victory"?

What page(s) does Lee state "Sikh offensive into Punjab Halted and recapture of Multan"?

Malleson does not appear to be an historian. So all that information needs a reliable source.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

And you answered NONE of my questions. Still waiting. And Malleson is still not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Still nothing. You saying you have answered my questions is not answering them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apparently you can not see. Still waiting for an explanation to your edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Still no quotes to verify any of these edits.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologize, I did not see your talk here and will respond accordingly. I was focused on my own in "reason for phase edifications"

Here is the claim to Lee. [3] and [4].

I am going to replace Mallesons sources with better ones as I said. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is also a quote from [5], "In January 1775 Arsala Khan persuaded the king to allow his musketeers to assemble inside peshawar prior to being sent to join the siege of MULTAN. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Also mehta was not the source I meant to use, I accidently must have overlooked it when I was editing. @Kansas Bear Noorullah21 (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Also another source for the recapture of Multan. [6] Noorullah21 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

for source [7], page 165 and 166. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Does this clear up Lee's source? And especially my added one as I said was going to replace Mallesons. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Please respond so this situation can be resolved. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies my phone must not have shown your section either. Do you have where Mehta states Afghan victory? You really need to write out the gov.pk source(along with page number(s), in case we get an anti-pakistan editor. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t specifically have access to mehta’s source, But I didn’t plan on using that specifically, so IDRK.

Also yeah, I’ll write it out in a momento, I mentioned page numbers below. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ll try and check mehta’s source as well to see if I can find anything from that that would also say so, so give me a bit. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No rush. Everything checks out, except the Mehta. You can always add a source and change it to Afghan victory. Make sure it is quite explicit about that, this article gets hit frequently by vandals. I will self-revert. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear Thanks, will try to see if I can find something for it as well. I apologize for saying you were disruptive editing, didn't notice your section. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem. Simple misunderstanding. Go forth and edit! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reason for phase editifications

Well, as continued from my edit summary, the second phase had already ignored those facts including zaman shahs campaigns, hence I extended them out with proper material, these conflicts were also VERY loose over time, as the fighting only irrstandarded over different periods of time, hence they were changed to these different phases that I implemented and still am working on to change. (mostly directed for user @Kansas Bear

The old revision ignores afghan victories and also the campaigns of timur shah and zaman shah. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

will also be adding more sources in the time being while I am editing Noorullah21 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear I already explained why these phases are being shifted out into new sections, read here as I go on about why. You claiming malleson isn't a reliable source is questionable, and in action you are slightly right hence I have replaced some of his sourcing as you clearly saw I was doing. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

You wanted to go to the talk page but are not responding whatsoever, you do realize this is considered disruptive editing? if you do not reply soon I will leave a complaint. @Kansas Bear Noorullah21 (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear, since Noorullah isn't supposedly answering your questions will answer them for you. I can't say anything on Mehta's claim since I don't have access to the book. However, I can confirm the claims backed up by Lee's book. Look at [8] and [9]. Kailanmapper (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

(I am noorullah) Kansas bear isn't responding but is talking on his talk page. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple problems with the new changes abd the sources. First of all the sources referenced with First phase has false information about author. The PDF is a thesis written by Aashiq Muhammad Khan Durrani and the title is The last phase of Muslim rule in Multan. Third issue is the page number which was provided as 103 which had absolutely no information about Afghan Sikh war of first phase. Then the page number was removed. Now other sources, its just a link to the archive book. I already mentioned that, page numbers should be provided for verification of each phase that the source is referencing. If these informations cannot be provided then the content needs to be reverted. There is no need to remove the existing sources such as Mehta. Once again Malleson is not reliable source. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The author is Sughra at [10]. Not false info about the author.

"103 which had absolutely no information about the Afghan Sikh war of first phase." The source states that the Afghans captured lahore and multiple other states from the Mughals. (they were supported by the sikhs in this conflict), this is apart of the First conflict with the Sikhs, as mentioned with the capture of Lahore and these varying states.

Page numbers were provided to all and you were just ignorant of 103.

You saying malleson is not a reliable source again makes no sense, his sources have already been removed and you are just going in circles talking about the same thing over and over again. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Page 116 (on tp) also then states the 1758 recapture of Multan as for the second phase as well in cordination. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

you need to clear this up that what is mentioned on the pdf is the actual author or Shugra. And is Shugra historian? Abd why is ignorant about page 103 when it has no mention of Afghan Sikh war? Its about Afghan Mughal war. Why make unnecessary attempt to cite this as first phase? Also you have Malleson as the 4th phase reference. And no pages for the archive book for the phases you referenced which shows the result of your claims. Also page 101 and 102 says that Lahore was conquered as well as Multan in April and May. So how is first phase win for Afghan? Get your sources straight instead of deliberately citing incorrect information. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you not read the time periods between the first phase of the war and the second phase of the war?

Lahore and Multan were recaptured in the second phase and you are blatantly ignoring this claiming I am citing incorrect information, look more carefully before neglecting everything a person has said against you.

I already explained that the sikhs supported the mughals in the conflict, and as a result were defeated following the capture. You can see this at Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani.

" And no pages for the archive book for the phases you referenced which shows the result of your claims", You do realize you actually have to read in, not from the start and expect it to be exactly at the start, right? Noorullah21 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I will also requote this for you:

"

First Phase: November 1748 – April 1758

Second Phase: April 1758 – 1773"

The afghans lost the second phase, the second phase was where the sikhs recaptured Multan and Lahore, NOT THE FIRST PHASE. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You are again, also ignoring the changes with the page numbers added on very clearly with sfns. Noorullah21 (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

(you are also reverting the page before I can fix the above ie mallesons source still at 4 which I was actually about to replace) Noorullah21 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

you need to replace all your changes. Phase 1 starts 1751 and Mughal-Afghan war cannot be considered a Afghan-Sikh war nor has any such mention on page 103. Read 101 abd 102 where Afghans lost both Multan and Lahore in April and May 1758. You started replacing only after I told you about the errors. Sane issue with your sources. And do not expect readers to go through the whole archive book to verify your changes. Provide page numbers which references the results of each phase. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

the results of each phase cannot be provided as a source because no book claims these as "phases". Noorullah21 (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

you can only conclude phases from certain events such as in the first campaign, the fall of multan and lahore, which then preludes to the second phase as it starts in 1758. the first phase is what is considered in these terms from 1748 (which was when the afghans began campaigning for lahore but lost on first attempt), they had later returned and captured lahore, hence I would call that the end of phase 1. Phase 2 begins with the sikhs recapturing multan and reaking havoc on the durranis for the periods to follow until timur shah. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would the campaign start in 1751? it makes no sense especially since the durranis were fighting in Lahore since 1748. Hence why 1748 is the chosen date, literally. You can even see this year in source [11] on page 121. It talks about campaigning against the sikhs as well. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

As you can clearly see in the source, The sikhs were in lahore in 1748 as well. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And again, you are being completely ignorant, all page numbers were being provided with SFNS, which you still completely ignore and you are still rambling about there not being page numbers. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Although, since 1751 is the petid date, I suppose it can count. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

phase cannot be concluded by one battle or capture of one city. Phase 1 result of your reference point to page 123. I do not see any mention of capture of Lahore by April 1758 on that page. Please check again. Also why 3rd phase, the offensive was halted in Punjab being mentioned? Afghans captured Multan should be enough. Why 4th phase is inconclusive? By 1799, page 160 states that Lahore was taken. And that is when Sikh Empire was established with Lahore as capital. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, 123 was the wrong source I meant to use drahans for that. Also a phase is concluded by the end of fighting, fighting had ended after the afghans captueed lahore until th esikhs returned in 1758, hence why I end the first phase there.

Also for the 4th phase, the afghans captured lahore a total of 3 times and sacked it multiple times, however Zaman Shah had to withdraw from the city all 3 times due to internal issues, and the sikhs could never actually beat him in battle, hence why it is inconclusive. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

actually i might merge phase 1 and 2 then Noorullah21 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about the new changes and do you think it needs any changes? I fixed the dates to the appropriate times for now from what I know to when conflict started breaking out to determine phases better. Noorullah21 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some changes. Zaman Shah didn't attack three times. Just 2 times. 1796 and 1799. 1796 he captured Lahore and returned but Sikh captured after he left. 1799 he recaptured again but on return to Peshawar, sources say that the Sikh army all along harried the Afghans and when crossing the river Jhelum, the sudden order of water swept away the men....when Shah Zaman and his remaining army reached Kandahar, they were exhausted. After that on page 162, it just states that 1800, Shah Zaman gathered any army to fight rebellious Ranjit Singh but doesn't mention about any capture of city of Lahore or anything. So how was this third invasion? This needs fixed. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

otherwise good effort. Made couple of fixes and rewordings as well and dates especially due to Sikh Interlude Period", from 1772-1780. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Zaman Shah marched on Lahore but didn’t capture Lahore in his third campaign because his brothers rose up before he could do anything, so I’ll fix that. But he still technically did a third invasion as it said he marched on Punjab, then was forced to retreat from his campaign after his brothers rose up. Noorullah21 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

according to source, he technically marched third time but was cut short with return due to Instability back home. There were various skirmishes between 1800 and 1811. One of them was battle of kasur in 1807. So that is why I had 1800 as the date. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

rest all good effort made on your part. Appreciate it. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright we can keep it at 1807 then and thanks Noorullah21 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

footnote

@MehmoodS I added a note that states why the third war could be inconclusive, "Zaman Shah had captured and sacked Lahore 2 times, however he was forced to retreat back to Afghanistan due to internal issues and could not solidify his gains." Noorullah21 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 Good day to you. The note isn't necessary because the note doesn't comply with the source. When I read the source by Mr. Lee, it says that while returning, Sikhs pursued Shah Zaman and his forces, over pushing all the way to river Jhelum where Shah Zaman had no option but to cross the heavy terrain river where thousands of his soldiers died and the supplies and artilleries were sacked. Now when you read the sources by Mr. Lafont and Mr. Cunningham, it becomes more clear that it was strategy of the Sikhs to evacuate the city of Lahore before the arrival of Shah Zaman and then use Guerilla tactic to attack on their return. The source by Mr. Drahm also supports this even though it doesn't give more detail as other historians have about the strategy. So when you put all this information together, it can create conflicted opinions. So I would say that the note isn't necessary as it becomes a conflicted opinion and keeping the conflict of interest neutral, inconclusive is good enough without any note. Source is enough. MehmoodS (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Source [12] on page 202 (inbook) and 216 (doc) states that the Afghans were successful in most of their campaigns (including the seizure of the rohtas fort), they had fielded very little losses, but had to retreat due to internal issues. [13] page 203 (inbook) and 217 (indoc) Shows Shah Zaman dispatching 20,000 men, in the following pages after it of course goes over his success in the region. (The sikhs ran away but did not return and did not plan to it seems until they had a better opportunity to strike, ie came the opportunity with Zaman having to leave due to Shah Mahmud. You can see this in page 204 and 205, and One of Zaman's generals had even consolidated some of his gains with the capture of Kot Kamalia. (page 205 inbook and 219 indoc)

The source you stated where "Sikhs pursued Shah Zaman and his forces, over pushing all the way to river Jhelum where Shah Zaman had no option but to cross the heavy terrain river where thousands of his soldiers died and the supplies and artilleries were sacked.", this was not true to an extent. The source says Shah Zaman was forced to retreat to deal with the Persians, but had to leave some of his supplies at the river were swept. RANJIT SINGH, who was UNDER Shah zaman at the time had recovered some of the guns, and as a result Shah Zaman rewarded him when he went to Peshawar, the sikhs did not pursue the afghans in this retreat. (page 206 inbook) and (220 indoc)

I hope you understand. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@MehmoodS Noorullah21 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

AbdeL's source also does not cover the issue of what happened. Noorullah21 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Noorullah21

problem is that there are many historians who have mention the versions of this incident and relying on just one won't be justified. I am going to stick to discission to reliable sources only and not to any particular sites as claims are very conflicted through such sites. Lafont in his book [14] tells that 1797 Shah Zaman entered Lahore without any struggle and on his return appointed his general Ahmad Khan Shahanchi-Bashi who was then defeated and killed with Sikhs capturing the fort of Lahore. Also here is document by Cunningham [15]. He tells that during the second occupation in 1798, Shah Zaman sent an advance army of 5000 who were attacked and dispersed on the Jhelum. And later he entered Lahore without any opposition. Later some RESULTLESS skirmishes took place but the designs of Mahmud led the ill fated king to withdraw to the west. And Mr. Lee's book, page 161, states that Sikhs pursued Afghans all along the river Jhelum where thousands swept away along with supplies and artilleries bogged down in the mud. These can create various notes based on these other sources which i was trying to explain can create conflict. That is why I was trying to explain that note doesn't help. MehmoodS (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 I added Mr. Cunningham's reference as its more supportive towards inconclusive. Removed notes keeping your opinion in respect as it conflicted. Hope you are ok with this change and we can end this on good note. MehmoodS (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

oooooookkkkkkkkk @MehmoodS Noorullah21 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

Edit the false information Jeep singh16 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/ijr/article/download/34/22. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit war?

@Daredevils56 and Noorullah21: I'm concerned that an WP:EDITWAR might be shaping up:

• Daredevils56 made these edits
• Noorullah21 reverted them
• Daredevils56 readded them

According to WP:EPTALK, it's probably a good idea at this point to start a discussion about this disagreement, and decide on next steps together (instead of continuing to revert back-and-forth).

BalinKingOfMoria (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@BalinKingOfMoria I believe the issue ( @Daredevils56 ) me and him had have been resolved, the issue I had was that he was removing the phases. Noorullah21 (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Peshawar sardars

User:Noorullah21 Peshawar sardars are led by Afghanis please read this https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.VTheSikhLionOfLahoremaharajaRanjitSingh from page 181 Daredevils56 (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

And yes I agree that Sultan Mohammad Khan was on exile. but still he is an Afghani. Daredevils56 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the old "Phases"

I have decided to begin to phase out the old "phase" brought upon the Wikipedia page here. The reason I have done this is because it is old and inconsistent with sources provided which don't describe the war as an onset of phases. Alongside this, much of the early history is also very disregarded in its first phase and last phase(s) nonetheless, which is why I decided to remove them, if someone wishes to continue speak on the matter please share concerns here. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

Here in his article, it is mentioned that Ahmad shah didn't win a battle and went back to qandahar.. the ahmad shah abdali campaign was shows on based and biased history. 39.40.5.99 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - @39.40.5.99 what specific changes do you wish to make to the article and what are your sources? ThethPunjabi (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Result

"Sikhs achieve hegemony over Punjab" looks odd since the Territorial changes pretty much already claim say that. "Sikhs seize control over Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Kashmir" with a bullet makes more sense. Lothyscraps (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Azim Khan wikilink

Can we add a wikilink to Azim Khan in §Campaigns of Maharaja Ranjit Singh? While the Azim Khan article is wikilinked in the infobox, that has not been done in the body of the article. Wikilink on first use in the actual article text would be consistent with many of the other names found in the infobox. -- 97.124.47.226 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Result

Can’t be a stalemate when one side clearly established control over the lands where the battles were being fought. All of Kashmir fell under sikh rule and majority of Punjab aswell. The afghans had no lands left in Punjab. War ended in 1837 after the battle of Jamrud. Even in 1838 Sikhs and afghans were on better terms. So no the Anglo-Afghan war did not cause the end of the afghan-sikh wars. Historian2325 (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Result

This was a military statement with many regions nevertheless falling to the Sikhs. The Sikhs aimed to go deep into Afghanistan but failed partly because of the poor weather and because of their key commanders killed.

Wazir Aqbar Khan requested the British to assist the Afghans after the battle of Jamrud to fight the Sikhs when the British chose to side with the Sikh Empire and 2 years later, the first Anglo-Afghan War began. Pathaan2024 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Result

Change result from “Sikh Victory” to “Military stalemate” which was agreed upon by wiki users prior to “Historian2325” began edit warring. His last edit was the final edit for the result prior to the extended protection for the page which thus, disallowed the result to be altered back to its original form. This needs to be changed back as the wiki user altered the result prior to another well known wiki user applied the protection without reviewing “Historian2325”s edit or to revert it back before the extended protection came into place. Pathaan2024 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Bad edit was done by Dunki2024 who has been indefinitely blocked. Result was “Rise of Sikh Empire” before Dunki2024 made the change. @Historian2325: I hope this is good decision for you. @Noorullah21:. Dekhoaayadon (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I also noticed something else; since neither side officially declared war, is it a wiser choice of words to change the page's title of "Afghan-Sikh wars" to Afghan-Sikh battles or skirmishes? There were no aims mentioned by either side and neither side declared war which is obligatory for war. Pathaan2024 (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Were you Dunki2024 account? Dekhoaayadon (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Sock of HaughtonBrit

Missing battle pages

The pages of battle of Amritsar 1767, Amritsar 1797, gurjat 1797 and both Rohats 1764 and 1767 are all gone. Why were these pages deleted? Historian2325 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)