Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:16, 3 April 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Afghanistan This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:OR, made a personal attack and made a Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:OR, made a personal attack and made a Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:OR, made a personal attack and made a Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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?

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 Misplaced Pages!

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~ 04:54, 12 February 2021 (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? . 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)

Again HistoryofIran adds nothing to the article just adds information relevant to himself. Explain your actions. Since you do not add information at your own behest on this article. I do not appreciate censoring of information.

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class Afghanistan articles
• Unknown-importance Afghanistan articles
• WikiProject Afghanistan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles