Talk:Muhammad ibn al-Qasim/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Perspectives

You need to cite a source saying there are two perspectives, otherwise it becomes your interpretative reading, which is OR. See the section controversy for the two perspectives. I also note that you take sources and interpret them forming a thesis. WP:OR is against editors thesis or extrapolations on the sources ( WP:SYN) for example this sentence of yours "The Muslim chroniclers al—Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al—Buldan) and al—Kufi (in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the overall nature of the conquest of Sindh by Muhammad b. Qasim in 712 C.E."

Also, you need to quickly take a brief of WP:NPOV. Most of what you placed in that section is already there in the article, we can revisit how it is dealt with in the article if that is your particular concern.--Tigeroo 10:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 16Intothefire 17:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Tigeroo here is my respone to your immediate above comment .

• You need to cite a source saying there are two perspectives, otherwise it becomes your interpretative reading, which is OR. .....alright point conceded although I did it out of good intention of not deleting the existing content .
  

Consequently the deleted content needs to remain after removing the heading of Perspective 2

• I also note that you take sources and interpret them forming a thesis. WP:OR is against editors thesis or extrapolations on the sources ( WP:SYN)
  

As to the section you have provided here as proof my friend you are mistaken completely because it is not my interpretation at all but taken from the following source -see below- and my only mistake was that I did not provide the source ...thank you for raising this issue because it has enabled me to improve upon viz
Al—Baladhuri. The Origins of the Islamic State (Kitab Futuh Al—Buldan). Part II, Translated by F.C. Murgotten, New York, Columbia University, 1924, pp. 217—224; Al—Kufi. The Chachnama, excerpts translated in H.M. Elliot and J. Dowson. A History of India As Told By Its Own Historians—The Muhammadan Period, 1867—1877 (reprinted 2001, Delhi), Vol. 1, pp. 157—211

)

As a matter of fact it is your routine practice ...to take sources and then form a thesis ...lets agree that if I provide to you here the content ...you will remove your entire section as well and not nitpick .
please a short unambigous answer

Inspite of this I have again provided space for concensus even in this response .

In the circumstance it would behove you to
1)Take back your false charge
2)Do not challenge delete the inclusion of this content on some other charge .
3)Do not delete this content again .

Cheers Intothefire 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey I just rechecked ...I had provided the sources ...?? Cheers Intothefire 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A couple of matters on why the material was removed, nitpicking is what is making it better and is not an instrument of censorship, it is one of quality control in this case. Tackling the issues once again:

• On the question of OR: Do you mind quoting the source that makes that statement or an equivalent? The way the source is cited over many pages for a singular statement it appears like that sentence is your analysis of the material covered in those pages of the two books. Similarly for the sentences in the sources that lend themselves to the sources asserting the following sentences: "These narratives, and the processes they..." and "We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by.." etc. As an aside also Biladahuri for it's antiquity is also a primary source, you are free to use someone else synopsis of it like the commentary of the translators, but not posit an analysis of the translated material.
• On the matter of repetition: Material such as the Debal colonists, the mosque on the temple grounds, the killings, dahirs head, the slaves etc. has already been mentioned and is just being repeated. The conclusions from that view providing that perspective view on Islamization, invading desecration, political expediencies etc. are also present in the controversy section.
• On the matter of POV: Exercise some care with the usage of words such as massacres, infidels, ruthless, slaughter etc. the tone they are used can turn the section POV, see WP:NPOV on how these can be used appropriately. One issue with the additions was the sensationalist tone of the material.

As you can see there is little actual "deletion" going on...it is all already in the article, it's mostly doing away with the repetition. I see little to no "new" information added to the article via that edit. If you want to add something about it that is missing or some other issue with the presentation of the material we can look into that.--Tigeroo 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and try using references that aren't dated to 1920; Anything based on the writings of a prominent Sindhi dewan, for example, may not be strictly historically accurate. Scholarship from peer-reviewed or academic sources, with less interpretation/OR from your side, please. Hornplease 15:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, modern scholarship is preferred. This does not discount the work of other historians. Your recent removals of sourced content (some sourced to modern historians) has been quite blatant. Arrow740 06:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Hornplease's continued revert warring and 3rr violations in order to remove large amounts of well-sourced material is clearly unacceptable and also quite extreme. -- Karl Meier 07:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you guys read the article and information that was removed?? Other then the dhimmi off-topic aside or the tone of the language of the material (which are a separate discussion), most of it is a REPETITION of material already present in the article. The information is already there in the article!!!!!! Removal of duplicated information should be a simple enough starting point that should be easy enough to agree on.--Tigeroo 07:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 17
How Dyaram Gidumal came to be a source in this article ?
Hornplease you have asked an important question.
Which needs to be tackled at the specific and fundamental level .

First the specific answer
When I objected to a post in the article from the Chachnama this is what Tigeroo s comment had to say when he restored on the article -

Revision as of 14:02, 10 September 2007 (edit)
Tigeroo (Talk | contribs)
(Restore material - Material is sourced from a tertiary analysis not a primary source i.e the Introduction by Dayaram Gidumal, Berzin link duplicated & not a ref. yet, Fersihta has only one mention.)

So as a I was participating in consensus building exercise on the talk page I agreed in good faith –see my Response 8 on talk page , which as you must have seen since you are participating in this debate .

Now my fundamental question to you
Why is it that you did not object or delete content sourced from Dayaram Gidumal when Tigeroo used it  ?
But objected and deleted when I used the same source
viz your delete and comment .
Revision as of 02:23, 14 September 2007 (edit) (undo)
Hornplease (Talk | contribs)
(do help defend the egregious OR you inserted on talk.)

Hornplease notwithstanding your use of the somewhat discourteous word egregious
What this selective acceptance and rejection of source is showing is that
You are decisively unfair not willing to accept the same yardstick .

This article has to become more truthful
and until aggressive deletions do not stop
and the spirit of fair play is not embraced by Tigeroo ,Hornplease , IP198 , and annonymous IP s that appear only to delete , we are not going to make headway .

Next I will specifically show how Tigeroo misuses wikipedia rules when he deletes Content

Cheers Intothefire 13:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How Tigeroo has deleted my post

Response 18
My posts containing proper citations have been repeatedly deleted , hidden away , corrupted in various ways by Tigeroo on this and other articles
using various intelligent manuvers ,
one of these being to delete by
first citing a wikipedia rule
….and then exploiting the cited rule to make it seem a valid reason , even while actually in implementing an upturned version of the content .

Here s a recent example
An illustration of one of the deceptions used to make a deletion worse an inversion of a post , not look like a deletion

I posted the following content in my post viz (cur) (last) 19:20, 13 September 2007 Intothefire (Talk | contribs) (35,956 bytes) (Inter religious relations in Sindh concurrent to Qasim s invasion) (undo)

"Backdrop to Inter religious relations in Sindh concurrent to Qasim s invasion

We see also see that the Buddhists and the Brahmans lived in amity, and the importance of this fact cannot be over¬estimated ref Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, ,REF Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg .

We have thus Brahman, Buddhist, Greek, and Arab testimony as to the amicable relations subsisting between the followers of the two religions, upto the 7th century; and the testimony of the Arab . REF Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg,"

But Tigeroo Deletes this entire section vide his post viz :
Revision as of 22:27, 13 September 2007 (edit) (undo) Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Political setting - Moving religious relations to part where it is discussed.) Newer edit

His reasons here are noteworthy …considering what is being implemented next.

In Tigeroo s immediate next edit viz he comments viz : Revision as of 22:27, 13 September 2007 (edit) Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Political setting - Moving religious relations to part where it is discussed.)

But no such thing is done at all – viz the matter deleted by Tigeroo on the pretext that it is being shifted to Political setting ….is not shifted at all instead some other changes are made …..!!

Then in Tigeroo s next edit :Revision as of 22:50, 13 September 2007 (edit) (undo) Tigeroo (Talk | contribs) (→Reasons for Success - Incorporation of the Buddhism religious effects and questionability of Buddhist Hindu antagonism)

This is the edit he posts reproduced below …please see his comment above-
"Reasons for Success - Incorporation of the Buddhism religious effects and questionability of Buddhist Hindu antagonism "

Tigeroo s post
Stanley Lane-Poole, Medieval India under Mohammedan Rule, 712-1764, G.P. Putnam's Sons. New York, 1970. p. 9-10 ‘’’REF’’’ Brahman, Buddhist, Greek, and Arab testimony however can be found that attests towards amicable relations between the adherents of the two religions upto the 7th century.’’’ref name’’’="Dayaram The Chach-Nama. English translation by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg. Delhi Reprint, 1979 Online Version last accessed 30 September 2006/ref

The entire meaning has been changed …by removing a key section of my post viz
: "We see also see that the Buddhists and the Brahmans lived in amity, and the importance of this fact cannot be over¬estimated ref Dayaram Gidumal Introduction The Chachnamah, an ancient history of sind, giving the hindu period down to the arab conquest. translated from the Persian by Mirza Kalichbeg Fredunbeg, ,ref Dayaram

If you read the preceding text to where the truncated portion has been put by Tigeroo the inversion of the meaning will become apparent from what it was meant to be .

What does the wikipedia rule book say to this kind of dishonest misuse of rules .

This kind of thing has happened on innumerable occasions and administrators are also hoodwinked .

Cheers
Intothefire 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take step back, Why is that information important background information? Does it have something to do with the campaign or with events later in the campaign? How does it align itself with what is to come. The only thing that struck me was that it was the opposite of what Gier was saying was a reason for Qasim's success so in all likelihood was an opposing view of this situation. It would lose it's effectiveness and appear as an internal inconsistency of the article if one part is saying it was a good relationship and the other saying not, therefore I put both opposing views together one after the other so that they can CONTRAST each other. Then I trimmed down the emphasis on negative Buddhist feelings, removed that item from the list of reasons for Qasim's success because it discussed above without agreement and then added the Buddhist non-violence stance into the list. All this to include your information in a cohesive and concise manner. Please take at a look at the entirety of the diff. I asked myself what is the point of this information? And then tried to bring it into the flow of the article instead of having it reading like a disconnected insert. If I misread the intent of those lines my apologies. If I just didn't get it quite right to suit we can edit it back and forth till we get it correct, but it in no way qualifies as a deletion!!--Tigeroo 20:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 19Intothefire 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign terms

• Several non english words have been used in this article some of which are Arabic and therefore not understandable by readers not conversant with Arabic language .

• The import/meaning of these words or terms needs to be explained in English in the context of the article where they are used so that the proper meaning of the word or term emerges in context to how it is used , otherwise the Arabic terms may be misused or not understood at all .
  

I have listed here some of the Arabic terms used in the article .
ahl-i harb
anwattan
Sulh
ahd-e-wasiq
aman
ahl-i-harb
Dihqans
mal
kharaj

I could find links to only two of these terms in wikipedia ...but when I read these was surprised to find that the meaning was quite different to the way it is used in the text .

• What is the wikipedia rule on usage of non English terms ?
  
• What is the wikipedia rule if it emerges that a non english word or term has been used in a context to completely invert its meaning
  

Is it Reasonable to allow unexplained non english terms to be used unless it is not explained at the point of usage in the text .

Will the editors please reflect on this important issue as well as it will certainly go to improve the article .
Cheers
Intothefire 18:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The terms used are listed beside their translation and used sparingly. For wikipedia rules on the words see this link The source for the word and the translation are as per Wink and are "technical" terms form for administrative/ military concept i.e. the sentence "..here were two types of such treaties, "Sulh" or "ahd-e-wasiq (capitulation)" and "aman (surrender/ peace).." and "..ahl-i-harb (fighting men).." Which word do you have an issue with, i.e. as unexplained or as inverted usage, I can assume from the links provided that it is either Sulh or Kharaj, both linked pages appear stubby (incomplete) to me but do not clash with the way they are presented or treated by Wink, i.e. Sulh as a treaty of granting peace and Kharaj as a tributary tax. Similary we have mention of "Village Headmen (Rais) and Chieftains (dihqans)" which translates the words during usage. Rais and dihqan are non-arabic words reflecting local status like Raja and Thakores. Dihqans were a significant class of nobility in the Persian courts and one could create a whole article about them as a future project. We should wikilink Kharaj and Sulh as well.--Tigeroo 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Response 20

Misuse of non english words /terms by Tigeroo

My position regarding this important issue of use rather misuse of non English words by tigeroo remains unchanged. The usE of itallics or correct spelling (ref TIGEROO S wiki link above ) is the least of my concerns ....its the turn of phrase ...contextual jugglery which is the bona fide concern .

Next I will show how Tigeroo turns the phrase to imply an inversion of circumstance .

The deletions happening here are at both a pedestrian as well as sophisticated level

Cheers
Intothefire 08:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take an example of something wrong hear your comments on why you believe that it is so and see your proposed remedial formulation. Right now the comment is too vague for us to have a discussion on what your specific concerns on the issue are about.--Tigeroo 16:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Intothefire: Customary Wikipedia discussion format

This response scheme adopted by you is confusing because some items are not responses such as this one. Also being separated they tend to make one lose the flow of conversation. The typical convention is create a new section for each different topic/discussion thread and use indentations to indication responses/elucidation to a discussion thread, this keeps relevant conversations together and easy to understand and follow, and easier to keep track of. I have taken the liberty of modifying the new topic initiated to this format as an example.--Tigeroo 21:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo continues deletion of sourced content

Response21

On the 14th of September Tariqabjotu put a protection banner on the article page , the protection was to last till 22rd September viz: (cur) (last) 19:51, 14 September 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Muhammad bin Qasim: ongoing edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC))) (undo)

When the protection was removed on the 22nd ...Tigeroo had made a wholesale delete of sourced content again on the 23rd of September . A history of this page will unfold the vandal deletes ,edits , of Tigeroo for the last many months , of sourced content provided by many contributors .

Cheers
Intothefire 05:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this activity must stop. Arrow740 05:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, the information removed was a repetition. It is already in the article, entirely sourced and integrated with appropriate tertiary commentary. There is no need to write the same things twice and thrice. Please DO read both what is in the article and what you are contributing so that it does fits in the article. All third parties who have stopped across the page and made the effort to look at it have made the same comments here. I have already addressed this particular issue in this thread, lacking a counter response/ clarification it appears as if there is none. The problem with your edits is the same as your inability to adhere to simple wikipedia formats; even here on the talk pages, Response 21??? Response requires someone to have raised an issue, where is issue 21? or what issue are you even "responding" to? I don't know if you can't formulate a edit or won't make the effort to formulate one that does not disturb the coherency of the article and if anyone fixes it you scream vandal.--Tigeroo 06:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, I don't seem to be familiar with the issues. But I'm reading to catch up on what's going on. Intothefire, I strongly suggest you don't make this into a "Tigeroo vs. Intothefire" match where one side tries to score points against another. Please calm down. No offense intended.Bless sins 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article is flawed...

Someone should see the cheema article, the reason qasim conquered Punjab rapidly was as he received support from Cheema tribes. Also the so called abuse of the Jatt under Qasim sounds "dubious" as the Jatt subtribes such as cheemas had converted to Islam, it the majority of them were Jatts, so it would see ilogical for a Muslim to oppress Muslims, who were helping him in the conquest of Punjab. The Jatts adided Qasims conquest of Punjab. It would be nonsensical for him to mistreat the jatts.

See the Cheema article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.221.70 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the above statements to be true. Why did no one cross reference any of this so far? Nshuks7 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

User Tigeroo s Mass Deletions of referenced content again

User Tigeroo has begun deletions of referenced content again .
Pretext of wholesale removal of referenced content as earlier by corrupting the spirit of wikipedia rules .
Tigeroo please do not delete referenced content . Intothefire (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Pakistan

I have renamed the caption "Ancient Pakistan" for the image of Caliphate. Ancient Pakistan is a term popularised by Pakistani school textbooks rams81 (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shia POV on Umayyads?

In the section about Umayyad interest in Sindh, there appears to be a very biased view of the dynasty's treatment towards the descendants of the Prophet. "The Ummayyads were notorious for their hatred of the Banu Hashim (the tribe of Muhammed and Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib) and mercilessly tracked and killed thousands of members of this tribe." This seems pretty skewed and isnt cited as well, could someone either find evidence to prove that they killed thousands of Banu Hashimites or either delete that paragraph? Thanks. Khateeb88 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say dismiss Shia sources when talking about Umayyad, especially the modern contemporary one. you should know their sources are full of distortion in many comparative case by many of Shiite sources, take them as pinch of salt at worstAhendra (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)