Talk:Ghurid campaigns in India

Requested move 11 February 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor → Ghurid campaigns in India – The campaigns in India wasn't the only contribution of Muhammad of Ghor. We have similar articles such as Umayyad campaigns in India and Ghaznavid campaigns in India, this stands as an odd one among these articles. Imperial^[AFCND] 12:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Move: @ImperialAficionado I agree with this change. Not all the conquests were facilitated by Muhammad of Ghor, but many of his slave-generals such as Qutb ud-Din Aibak, Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji, etc. Noorullah (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Overlapping content

Some of the content of this article overlaps with the existing content at Muhammad of Ghor. This isn’t desirable. If details of his military campaigns need a separate article the content in Muhammad of Ghor should be summarised. Alternatively content from this article can be merged back there. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Only the lead and some part are taken from the main article which was writen by me few months back. I definately think, his invasions of India deserves separate article from long as his main article did not cover it (I may sum it up later) (Even Ahmed Shah Abdali whose raid had little effect apart from Panipat has separate article same goes for this one)

@HistoryofIran and पाटलिपुत्र: for response. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s fine to have a long and detailed separate article about the military campaigns. The issue is that the main bio article is also 80% about his campaigns, so now Wikipedia has two separate accounts in two different places, which we always seek to avoid. The main bio article may be reduced and summarised so all the campaign info is brought over here and stays in one place. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The main article donot cover his campaign against Khokhars in any detail, neither in Uch or against Khusrau Malik in detail, even Tarain campaigns need a fresh review. Many of his campaigns are not covered in detail; his rout in Battle of Andhkhud against the "infidels of Turkistan" is not covered either which was created by me earlier. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Imho it's hard to avoid at least some kind of overlap in these kind of articles. But if there is indeed enough information (Which there seems to be. Though I know zero about Muhammad of Ghor's Indian campaigns) that warrants such an article like this one, then I don't see a issue. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I significantly changed the lead of this article as per cites in the body; now it differs from his main article along with making few changes in the body which also differs from his millitary sections.

Plus; I was looking to create a separate article about the Siege of Lahore where Muhammad of Ghor uprooted the last Ghaznavid Sultan Khusrau Malik which might have few over lap with these section. Should I ? ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Since; Ahmed Shah Durrani invasion of India is also covered in a separate article (which cited second-rate references); I don't see why Muhammad of Ghor's campaigns in India don't need a separate article which had far-flung consequences. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The template creation

The template created for military conflict was removed. There are templates for Umayyad campaigns in India, Maratha-Mysore wars, Mughal-Maratha wars whereas the leads were already given. Why the template for this session was removed? Ajayraj890 (talk) 08:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Result

@Mughalised, what is the purpose of removing the result section? The outcome is given as the Ghurid annexation of northern India. Calling good faith edits "Vandalism" and "POV" is personal attack. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado It shouldn't be called a ghurid victory because ghurids lost some wars like Kasaharda and tarain, battle outcomes are displayed in the battle section below. Mughalised (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You should not edit MILHIST article. The outcome of the campaign is decided by checking the final outcome, not the intermediate conflicts. If you keep doing this, that might led to the loss of editing privileges. And the post on my talk page was indeed unnecessary. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado thank you for the information Mughalised (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven see the biased result edit of @ImperialAficionado , who's POV pushing on Ghurids Mughalised (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is about this article, not any other. If they are POV pushing report them, do not use it as an excuse to do it here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

But I will say that this also seems a silly article, and there cannot be one result. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to explain this to @ImperialAficionado but he keeps adding result as Ghurid victory again and again. Thank you for your precious time Mughalised (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Slatersteven. Some of the articles, such a this, Ghurid campaigns in India, Umayyad campaigns in India, Nader Shah's invasion of India, etc shouldn't have a result. But the fact that the same should be applied to everything. There are oppositions for every decision. I would support if the result section of each and every campaign type article is getting removed. Else, I won't. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is about a series of wars, not campaigns within one war. Unless it can be demonstrated that RS refers to it as a victory. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, Actually, there are WP:RS that citing the campaign of Ghurids as their victory, leading to the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Not the last war, the whole series of campaigns? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The campaigns of Ghurids are not even considered as the single event as shown in the article. As recorded by Khaliq Nizami, the INDIAN CAMPAIGNS OF SULTAN MUIZZUDDIN (1175-92) is recorded as Ghurid victory, and the next section CONQUEST OF NORTHERN INDIA (1192-1206) is recorded as the establishment of Delhi Sultanate as result. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, as I suspected, it was the sock of an earlier vandaliser [1]. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)