Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Aror

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent addition

[edit]

@Summerkillsme, you recently removed a sourced information by giving an edit summary by 'removing nonsense' and 'non 'WP:RS'. Infact, the sources you replaced for adding information is actually un reliable. See this discussion and the second source that you have used haven't provided any inline citation where it got the data from. Moreover, primary sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. Thank you. Imperial[AFCND] 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; Primary sources which are backed by secondary sources are allowed. But here, couldn't find which primary source is being supported by the secondary source Sindh: Land of Hope and Glory. Imperial[AFCND] 01:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the citation from a author (second source) directly citating our only primary source here (chachanama).
You have taken your sources in a wrong way, 2000 was not the total force it was the reinforcements with supplies with already existing army of roughly 15000 entities with new men from jats and bakkore.
50000 is not supported anywhere for the context of this battle. Summerkillsme (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but , chachanama is our only source for this battle and excerpt is taken from it .
2000 was not the total force of the battle , it was the reinforcements that came from persia for the supplies for already existing army, your sources are political books completely focused on different matters. My one is taken from chachanama Summerkillsme (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be removing the Sindhi roots and rituals if it is not considered WP: RS and will be adding a secondary source , citing our only primary source , won't be citing political book Summerkillsme (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please summarize 'Political books'? Imperial[AFCND] 13:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added complete description of the arab army .

The 2000 horses force were not the only contingent, it was for the supply for the bigger arab army before crossing the indus (explained in the source) . The description of arab army against dahir force is well mentioned in chachanama and Baladhuri account which I added citation.

As for the supposedly 50000 of dahir force at this battle , I haven't came accross any authoreven citing any numbers close to this specific one .

Even the only source mentioning the so called 50000 number is not related this battle , but rather aftermath of dahir death. Summerkillsme (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read Page no 512, where it says it was the part of the battle. It is not about the aftermath of Dahir's death. Imperial[AFCND] 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plz then it is wrong, the author of your source has nowhere cited the source of his '50000' army .
The two sources I'm citing is directly taken from chachanama , our only primary source on the details of this battle.
You can refer to any other book regarding this , dahir army was only 20000 infantry and 5000 cavalry Summerkillsme (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
check my comment on the other thread and reason for removal of your sources.
I could copy , paste 100's of books referring to dahir's army being 20000-25k , as all of them has used chachanama as their primary source (which is the only one , other than Baladhuri but that is for qasim army) .
K. S lal in this case is a very big NON WP:RS Summerkillsme (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't objectify historians. Kisori Saran Lal is a well reputed Indian historian. Imperial[AFCND] 14:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he is but here he has not provided anything citation/source for his source.
No matter how good a historian /author is , he must provide some sort of source for his statement.
We are not dealing with someone opinion , rather what have been recorded through primary sources Summerkillsme (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before making a significant change, discuss it on talk page Dahir's forces and those of the Muslims are variously reported by early and modern historians. Non-Muslim historians tend to assess the size of the Muslim force as much greater than Dahir's. Elsewhere, according to a modern Hindu historian of India, Prof. K. S. Lal, Dahir had under him 50,000 horses (along with infantry), while the Muslim forces did not exceed 20,000 in total. See K. S. Lal, Early Muslims in India, New Delhi, Books and

Books, 1984, pp. 14, 19.-The Spread of Islam Throughout the WorldImperial[AFCND] 12:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why you edited it to 2,000 previously? It seems you were making your own stuff... HistoricPilled (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you won't make personal attacks. It was a genuine mistake that I added 2,000 instead of 20,000 because I particularly read that context. Imperial[AFCND] 13:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal attack in any way, but good you made it 20,000. HistoricPilled (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It seems you were making your own stuff..." Seems to a personal attack to me. Nvm Imperial[AFCND] 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no.1 you did not provide any description for your recent revert and no.2 I would assume it was because you edited it not someone else because you also added sources to it so one would even take it as manipulation even if it's not personal, I hope you follow the Wiki Standards related to POV. HistoricPilled (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to make an edit summary, btw, I did made an edit summary to check over the talk section. Imperial[AFCND] 13:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
K. S lal has not provided any citation for this 50000 claim .
He is very well in academia heavily exaggerate things , this has been very well discussed in some earlier threads as well. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I have checked the K.S lal and different excerpt of 50000 supposedly men. None of the two has provided any citations for their statements in the book. Using sources like with random statemens without any citation would put a big question mark on the reliability of the article.

Authors like K.S LAL are known to exaggerat things

Our main source for this battle is primarily chachanama , who has provided full details of this particular battle and no one else. Chachanama is considered benchmark for sindhi history and only account more or less consistently every for sindh related issues. My two citations had directly referenced them and alongside qasim army as well. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cambridge history of India tells the manpower of Dahir were 50,000. See this. Imperial[AFCND] 14:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plz read my above reply to your comment.
neither did they have provided any citation /source for this claim , how hard is to for you to understand reliable secondary source are one which have used primary source and actually cited it in its work .
At this point, You are bringing very random 100 year old books and gazetters , who have not provided anything for their claim .
We are looking for actual history not opinions which have no basis . opinionsSummerkillsme (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge history is not 'very random 100 year old book'. Lets resolve the issue with the help of WP:MILHIST. Imperial[AFCND] 14:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ofcourse doesn't meant that way
MILHIST not required here . Unnecessarily streching things . WP:RAJYou provide me with one source of 50000 men which has actually cited a source in his work. I can provide you 100 more
This 25k force of dahir is already exaggerated. Summerkillsme (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So called modern estimates

[edit]

Who decided it is a modern estimate?. Cambridge hasn't said anything whether they think this might been the actual numbers , they simply wrote it without even citing any source. No matter how reliable cambridge might have been , this statement is not worth adding when almost all the modern scholars accept and refers to the numbers reflected in primary sources.

If the cambridge has specified that the numbers in primary sources are less and must have been greater than we may have mentioned this , but in this case they haven't and they aren't aware of the actual numbers .


We have already discussed this various times , you are hovering over a single source which is contradicting every single modern scholar expert in this .

Cambridge is a reliable source no doubt , but in many cases it has its fair share of blunders which is visible in this case , where they have wrote a fanciful numbers without even specifying that they think this might have been modern numbers / or provided a source for this.

No scholars has given this so called modern estimate and I'm removing it. Summerkillsme (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Summerkillsme, see this discussion . It is not us who decides which one is right and wrong, as long as we are not a contemporary of Battle of Aror, not we faced it, how can you be sure that the 50,000 figure is wrong? Imperial[AFCND] 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk, please see this. Imperial[AFCND] 05:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added my statement their , don't tag him .
Anyways how can you be so sure the number were anything close to 50k , not a single source Evey goes above 20-25k.
cambridge and K.laridiculoul numberst goes above any ancient arab or persian source which has been cited by every other historian . Even the bigger problem arises when you realise none of the two has given any source/citation for their statement lol , this should have already put our debate to end , yet we are still somehow continuing it.

No matter how reliable journal/book is , without proper source in it and presence of multiple contradictory sources, It can't be used as a WP:RS 

Summerkillsme (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reliability of Cambridge press and will accept the advice of experienced editors. Why shouldn't I tag him/her? They should make a conclusion for this. Imperial[AFCND] 09:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you took it wrong , what I meant is don't tag him here , we are already discussing this there on that thread.
Obviously you are free to believe cambridge statement , but ofcourse the statement of cambridge can't be added here which is without any source/citation and contradicted by sources which has actually primary sources in our cases .
We shall debate there in that thread. I have presented my case there , let's see his response Summerkillsme (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. We shall discuss it over the noticeboard so that the discussion could also be used for future editors as a reference for thier doubts. Imperial[AFCND] 10:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerkillsme, could you revert the edit of you got the answer? Imperial[AFCND] 15:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dont worry its not getting revered now , debate is still going on .
We can't take one statement without any source as front page of article Summerkillsme (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the debate resolved? Imperial[AFCND] 07:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerkillsme, I made my last comment on 07:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC) and you made your last edit on 14:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC). You must have seen my comment and I checked the discussion. Please don't remove content for your own wish, as it would be considered as vandalism. Imperial[AFCND] 10:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
plz stop this edit warring. The reason I didn't replied I assumed you must have seen the discussion there.
The top moderator there added just simply add the main primary source considered by modern historian, that's it .
then discussed problem which could also arise with primary source also but nothing else.
No such mention of any other of those
Hopefully you could now stop adding this source this one non WP:RS again and again.
Stop calling it so called modern estimate. KS Lal didn't mentioned it anywhere. He geniunly wrong numbers and without any source. We cant accept it , in a sea of all the other authors who accept given numbers.
I'm really getting tired of your edit warring Summerkillsme (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The top moderator has already said to simply to use modern sources WP:AGEMATTERS. and the secondary sources using primary sources for their base WP:RS.
If KS Lal has specified what he has thought what might have been modern estimates then we would have taken it as consuderation , but that's not the case ,no primary source given as well, so yeah we are not adding it.
Now stop editing it again and again. Summerkillsme (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the debate is already resolved and ended with just simply use the modern sources.
Try reading the discussion
Plz dont edit know without knowing. Summerkillsme (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk, @ActivelyDisinterested is that concluded in such a way? Those statements cannot be used? Imperial[AFCND] 07:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerkillsme, you are misunderstanding the context. They said that the secondary sources can be used. You are currently vandalizing the article by removing the cited information. Imperial[AFCND] 07:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop deliberately ignoring my main reply which contained the reason . This is last time I'm repeating it.
First Stop accusing me of vandalism and Plz read WP:RS properly and realise secondary sources must be based on some primary sources which has to be cited.
Specifically true for numbers related issues.
User:Banks Irk didn't replied to me either way.
Check @ActivelyDisinterested statement
that WP:AGEMATTERS modern one has to be added.
Other he said primary source may well some time be wrong but all the modern scholars here in this one which is represented here.
Possibly the arab army has to be bigger than dahir"s army this if we were to go with sources as cited by some authors, but since you are so bent at it , I'm not adding it .. Summerkillsme (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments completely ignore what was concluded at RSN and are contrary to RS. Secondary sources do not need to cite primary sources. Period. You are wrong. Full stop. Cambridge is a RS, and can be used for these numbers. If there are conflicting numbers among various sources, report the conflict with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was so confused when he said that "Plz read WP:RS properly and realise secondary sources must be based on some primary sources which has to be cited.". Now, I hope I can revert the last edit. Won't that be fine? Imperial[AFCND] 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do mean 'full stop' . You are the one who didn't bother to reply in the first place.
User ' Active disintegrated ' did and mentioned to add modern sources only as per 'WP: AGEMATTERS. specially in fields related to history
You are very experienced editor , so you must know about WP: SOURCETYPES . Not only cambridge here is completely outdated, it's completely disregarded in academic discourse , thanks to it lack of citations , specially here when every other author/historian is pointing to one same statement .
it a well known fact this version of cambridge (1920's to 30's ) falls within Raj era had confirmed to promote a certain narrative , though I won't go deep here in this. Summerkillsme (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested do you agree with his claims? @Banks Irk, Despite our advice, he persists in returning the same version. @Summerkillsme, if you want modern sources after 1980, I have already provided that on the article body. So please don't talk like "completely outdated" and things like that. Imperial[AFCND] 17:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up at ANI or some other dramaboard. This is no longer a RSN issue, it's editor conduct. I have no further interest in this kerfuffle. Please, both of you, do not ping me again. Banks Irk (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ImperialAficionado you appear to be misinterpreted AGEMATTERS. It is 'The Cambridge History of India' that is outdated, as it was published in 1928. The fact the other sources are using primary sources is not the point, modern (as in published this century) have decided to use the 25k number. Also per WP:ONUS it is up to you to convince other editors that your addition is appropriate. If you and Summerkillsme can not come to a consensus there are other options as described in WP:Dispute resolution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested, That is what I am saying. There are sources other than the 'The Cambridge History of India', which got published in 1984, and there are even newer sources than that, which used 50,000 as the number. The article itself have cited more than 3 sources with the number 50,000. And as per my knowledge, if there is any contradiction between the numbers. Both should be added.Imperial[AFCND] 01:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest listing the different sources here, detailing what each says about the different strengths. It would help anyone you ping here to better understand the issue.
If souces of equal weight disagree about the figure that should be discussed in the article. But if one figure is only used by a particular POV minority it's not always necessary to show it (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). I'm only talking in general as I don't know all the sources involved in this specific dispute.
Infoboxes are very bad as displaying subtleties, if needex just use "figure1[ref1] – figure2[ref2]" and add content to the article discussing the disparity ("Smith, using the figure given by Peter, states there were 20,000 while Jones says it was 50,000 based on etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • K . S Lal stated 50,000 in his book Early Muslims in India (1984)
  • Edward James Rapson, ‎Sir Wolseley Haig, ‎Sir Richard Burn stated 50,000 in "The Cambridge History of India" (outdated)
  • Syed Moinul Haq stated 50,000 in his book
Islamic Thought and Movements in the Subcontinent, 711-1947 (1979)
  • Kanak Lal Barua, ‎Maheswar Neog stated 50,000 in his book
Studies in the Early History of Assam (1973)
  • John Cadwgan Powell-Price stated 50,000 in his book A History of India from the Earliest Times to 1939 (1950)
  • Madhu Sen stated 50,000 in his book
Studies in Religion and Change (1983)
. Anwar Iqbal Qureshi stated 50,000 in his book Economic History of Pakistan (1978)
Here are the sources depicting the 50,000 horsemen. Whenever I try to edit the article, @Summerkillsme is reverting it. Please make a conclusion on this. Imperial[AFCND] 08:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested, I hope you would make a comment. The section started at ANI was closed due to this discussion, and nothing is happening here. Imperial[AFCND] 15:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there's enough sources to show that there's disagreement over the number. I suggest changing the infobox to "20,000 – 25000(current refs) – 50,000(new refs)", and adding a new attributed sentence after the current one that gives details of the over figure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will say look at the date of the book references he has given , none of them is modern , all are 1970's . As you mentioned in one of your above comment it should be in 2000's WP:AGEMATTERS
One more thing intersetingly madhu sen and Iqbal Qureshi , (both scholars not related to historical department anyways)
has nowhere anything about 50000 , So I wonder where the above user got his information from .
It seems like just a desperate attempt by the user to pull out any pages of any random outdated books without any consideration of historiography and expert scholars.
One more point : K.S lal seems to have a lot of controversy in his works during our required timeframe , I wonder if there can be consideration of his works cited regularly in wikipedia articles. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm not an expert in this field, I'm only trying to offer advise based on Wikipedia's policies (which is why I hoped to get help from MILHIST). The situation calls for a third party that has subject knowledge to break the dead lock, something I'm afraid I can't help with. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright , either way it seems like this debate it's over , the other editor is no more adding comment on this topic. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They very much are, which is why I posted my comment as it seemed that you had disengaged from the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw his comments here and on your talk page Summerkillsme (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Summerkillsme, wrong. Madhu Sen have quoted ...Dahir too was getting ready to meet him . River Sind was crossed in June 712 on a makeshift bridge of boats without any serious opposition . But this unexpected move took Dahir by surprise and he with his army of 50,000 horse , marched.... in his above book and Iqbal Qureshi have quoted At last victory crowned the arms of the Muslims . Dahir was killed and his army of 50,000 dispersed. So please stop making assumptions without proper research. Anyways, I will add the data once more, and if you revert that too, I will take this to ANI if @ActivelyDisinterested wills. Imperial[AFCND] 13:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGEMATTERS.
,
And my bad If I didn't checked the sources correctly , can you tell the page no. Either way madhu sen and Iqbal Qureshi both here are not really related to historical department here. .
we have been in this debate for so long Summerkillsme (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Studies in Religion and Change - Page 122 by Madhu Sen
Economic History of Pakistan - Page 2 by Iqbal Qureshi Imperial[AFCND] 13:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all your source are of 1970's or before that , the moderator has already added in one of the above comments that WP: AGEMATTERS should be after 2000's which is considered in modern historiography and scholars expert in this field.
None of the madhu sen and Iqbal Qureshi here are related to historical department anyways.
You deliberately keep ignoring me statement. Summerkillsme (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested, wow. You said that only sources after 2000's are considered as made by experts? And the 1970s sources cannot be considered as reliable when there are contradictions? Imperial[AFCND] 13:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said that AGEMATTERS should be taken into account, I never gave dates or other considerations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not a moderator, just another editors trying to help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you both lay out the different sources you have, with page numbers, publication dates, authors and quotes. We could then go through them all and see if we can reach any consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ActivelyDisinterested, here it is;

1.) Early Muslims in India (1984) by Kishori Saran Lal publisher -Books & Books,- Page 19 ..River Sindh was crossed in June 712 on a makeshift bridge of boats without any serious opposition . But this unexpected move took Dahir by surprise and he with his army of 50,000 horse..
2.) Islamic Thought and Movements in the Subcontinent, 711-1947 (1979) by Syed Moinul Haq publisher -Historical Society, page 48 Dahir . The latter had assembled a large army of nearly 50,000 horse at Brahmanabad and then marched in the direction of Rāwar near Aror where he encountered the Muslims .
3.) A History of India from the Earliest Times to 1939 (1950) by John Cadwgan Powell-Price publisher-T. Nelson page 99 ..Dahir with 50,000 horse went out to meet the invader . The elephants of the Hindus with their body armour were a new weapon the Arabs had not met before.. 4.) Madhu Sen, already quoted above 5.) Iqbal Qureshi, already quoted above

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Aror&oldid=1205823337"