Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Maglorbd in topic Removing Saindava and Pulakeshin II
 | Battle of Navsari was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 December 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Umayyad campaigns in India. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Umayyad campaigns in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 April 2015. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
 | A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Dthomsen8, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on May 2015. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining! Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: awaiting deletion decision |
Infobox "Result" edit
Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Imperial[AFCND] 13:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Commander of 636 Arab raid on India edit
The Governor of Bahrain, Uthman ibn Abi al-As al Thafiqi, a member on Banu Thafiq, had sent his brother Al-Hakam ibn al-As al Thafiqi to raid Thane and Broach. The link given in the table is on al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As of Banu Umayya Clan, who had nothing to do with the raids.Maglorbd (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Removing Irrelevant Stuff edit
As the Article is About Ummayad Campaigns than there Shouldn't be Mention of the Raids Happened in Rashidun or Abbasid Eram Ummayad Campaigns Timeline was Between 711 & 740 DeepstoneV (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is in the Background section. Do you understand what "Background" means? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- The background section, I would say it is a clear mess. The article is clearly not "Arab campaigns in India". It is the campaigns launched by the Umayyads. And do you understand what the section "Background" uses for? The section is completely made up with campaigns launched by Arabs in pre-Umayyad era. I find no logic in the presentation of those in that section. Imperial[AFCND] 17:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover, it feels something off by adding the raid against the Chalukyas, conducted by the Rashidun, but ignoring the conquest of particularly conducted by the Umayyads against Sindh in the infobox. Are we supposed to take modern India as reference to the article? Imperial[AFCND] 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Background section got bloated over the years. Please feel free to cut it down. Some naval raids happened, which should be happened as part of the background. That is all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think @DeepstoneV was talking about removing Rashidun related things from the infobox. I've divided the background section now. Imperial[AFCND] 00:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, those naval raids do form the background. But the section shouldn't be as detailed as it currently is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is Another Topic But Could you please explain why the Arab conquest of Sindh is not mentioned in this article? I understand that the article focuses on India, but as a country, India did not exist back then; rather, it refers to the entire subcontinent during that time. Other than that there is Seriously No Need to mentioned Rashidun era raids in Background if u mentioned Sindh Campaign as Backgroubd DeepstoneV (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is how this page evolved. Originally it was called the "Battle of Rajasthan". It was a little known subject then, and gradually it got developed. I don't see why this needs to be combined with Sindh. Sindh was decisively occupied and the Caliphate stayed there. The Indian kingdoms were taken for a while and then lost. The histories are quite different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the Page Is evolved Now, than Its Must Need to Kept the Sindh one too At the End they Were also Ruled by A Indian (Subcontinent) Dynasty DeepstoneV (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the article is completely based on Kingdoms that covered modern Indian areas. For Sindh, we have a seperate article of Umayyad conquest of Sindh. So let's keep this as current way. Imperial[AFCND] 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- India as a Nation didnt existed backthan, Saying this Again. And if this is the case than why Hindus Shahis Are Mentioned in Ghaznavid campaigns in India because they didn't ruled Mordern day's India and Seperate articles on them are present too.
- If this Article is just covering Mordern day India's Kingdoms than their is no need to Add Karkota dynasty as it started in Mordern day's Pakistan. Ummayad conquest of Sindh is itself part of Ummayad campaigns in India DeepstoneV (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think the article is completely based on Kingdoms that covered modern Indian areas. For Sindh, we have a seperate article of Umayyad conquest of Sindh. So let's keep this as current way. Imperial[AFCND] 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the Page Is evolved Now, than Its Must Need to Kept the Sindh one too At the End they Were also Ruled by A Indian (Subcontinent) Dynasty DeepstoneV (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is how this page evolved. Originally it was called the "Battle of Rajasthan". It was a little known subject then, and gradually it got developed. I don't see why this needs to be combined with Sindh. Sindh was decisively occupied and the Caliphate stayed there. The Indian kingdoms were taken for a while and then lost. The histories are quite different. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is Another Topic But Could you please explain why the Arab conquest of Sindh is not mentioned in this article? I understand that the article focuses on India, but as a country, India did not exist back then; rather, it refers to the entire subcontinent during that time. Other than that there is Seriously No Need to mentioned Rashidun era raids in Background if u mentioned Sindh Campaign as Backgroubd DeepstoneV (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, those naval raids do form the background. But the section shouldn't be as detailed as it currently is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think @DeepstoneV was talking about removing Rashidun related things from the infobox. I've divided the background section now. Imperial[AFCND] 00:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the Background section got bloated over the years. Please feel free to cut it down. Some naval raids happened, which should be happened as part of the background. That is all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover, it feels something off by adding the raid against the Chalukyas, conducted by the Rashidun, but ignoring the conquest of particularly conducted by the Umayyads against Sindh in the infobox. Are we supposed to take modern India as reference to the article? Imperial[AFCND] 18:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- The background section, I would say it is a clear mess. The article is clearly not "Arab campaigns in India". It is the campaigns launched by the Umayyads. And do you understand what the section "Background" uses for? The section is completely made up with campaigns launched by Arabs in pre-Umayyad era. I find no logic in the presentation of those in that section. Imperial[AFCND] 17:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Removing Saindava and Pulakeshin II edit
Later in 776 CE, a naval expedition by the Arabs was defeated by the Saindhava naval fleet under Agguka I - this happened during the Abbasid Caliphate and should not be included in the Ummayyad campaigns. "A Concise History Of Karnataka ( From Pre Historic Times To The Present) by Suryanath, Kamath and Heroic Hindu Resistance To Muslim Invaders 636 AD 1206 AD by Sita Ram Goel does not site any primary sources - so are opinions. These references are added where scholars think the arab raids were a failure.Maglorbd (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)