Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After discounting the canvassing, there is no consensus to delete this article. Nakon 03:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rajasthan

Battle of Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The so called Battle of Rajasthan never happened. It is a hoax. It is not mentioned in any academic source. It is not mentioned in any historical Arab or Indian sources. It is entirely made up, probably by Hindutva propaganda artists, who come up with weird theories such as Christianity is a Vedic religion or the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple (see P. N. Oak). Such fallacious and totally wrong statements and ideas should not be taken seriously.

This article is utter rubbish. The so called "Ummayad General" named Junayd ibn Abd al-Rahman al-Murri who is listed to have been slain in this battle is recorded in this source[1] (last paragraph, page 15) to have "died in Merv", which is all the way in Turkmenistan and nowhere near India."

I have checked many academic databases available to me at my university and there is literally no mention of this battle. I have also checked the internationally recognized JSTOR database and there is not one mention of it.

The majority of the sources that mention this fake-battle are ones created by Hindutva propaganda artists and staunch Hindu-nationalists who want India to be cleansed of non-Hindu religions. There is also a mention on the talk page, comparing it to the Battle of Tours, which is a very bizarre and strange attempt to rewrite history. It also shows that there is a clear agenda.

There is only 1 source that I have come across that was actually a published source, by an author named James Wyndrandt, who in an extremely brief passage makes mention of it. He however does not indicate any sources for his claim. James Wyndrandt is not an academic, he is a journalist who has a variety of diverse interests ranging from Dentistry, to Jets, to Genetics, to Saudi Arabia, etc.[2][3] He appears to be a potential wannabe Jack of many trades, but master of none. He is definitely not a specialist in South Asian history. Here is his book and the page it is on, [4]. I am guessing Wyndrandt just copied the idea from Hindutva sources, without questioning it. Other than this source, there is literally no source that I have come across. Absolutely no peer-reviewed source. Absolutely no academic source.

Such a remarkable battle, which is claimed to involve 40,000 Hindu forces against 100,000 Ummayad forces (I deleted this statement, however it is found in early versions of the article) should be detailed in the history books in great detail. Battles such as the

• Delete. Xtremedood (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're the nominator; you don't also get to vote (since "delete" is already implied by the nomination). Pax 16:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pax, do not vandalize my comment. Your vandalism has been removed. Xtremedood (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

You don't get to vote twice, which is what you're doing when you (a) nominate an article for deletion, and then (b) cast a delete vote. The nominator is automatically considered a +1 delete vote (unless he declares a neutral stance). It is not "vandalism" to strike-through a nom's improper second vote. Pax 09:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, do not vandalize my comment. Xtremedood (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk 23:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. The sources are not reliable as per
  WP:HISTRS. Considerable cleanup will be needed because the subject is mentioned on several other history pages as seen by the backward links ("what links here"). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This source would be sufficient, comes from Sterling, qualifies
  WP:RS. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Once again, this belongs in the discussion section. No significant details of the battle are given in your source. Location of the so called "engagement" is unknown. According to this source [5] a battle "seemingly" happened in 739 in Gujarat and not Rajasthan. This was not stopping any so called "wave of conquests". Not to mention that your source is not reputable with an author who does not specialize in the field. The passage is also written in a highly sensationalist tone. Xtremedood (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Changing my vote after input from Peterkingiron and PWilkinson. Some battles of the kind described in the article have happened. However "Battle of Rajasthan" is a neologism. It should be either retitled or the title should be clarified. Further rewriting as per Peterkingiron and PWilkinson are necessary. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and close I don't see any evidence that how it is a
  WP:HOAX, nor there is any policy based rationale. Many sources.[6][7] Although if someone else, who is notable and has disputed this popular battle, they can be mentioned. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. There is evidence that the battle took place, though we may not have the desirable level of referencing. . The fact that the Muslims Arabs were kept to bay for four centuries due to the aftermath of a battle makes it militarily notable. We need more expert input & advice here before we consider deletion. AshLin (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It is well-known that Gurjara-Pratiharas blocked the Arab expansion into India. But the question is about this particular battle, which seems to be in the realm of myth than history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-
  Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, or any other relevant articles. Mar4d (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Extremely obvious that this battle never took place. The purported scale of the battle is far to huge to have escaped the sights of prominent South Asian history books. I am from the area this battle supposedly took place in and have studied it's history, but I have never even heard of this battle. Muhammad bin Qasim's conquest is verified and well-reported while this invasion, which occurred in around the same era, has absolutely no authoritative accounts. It is also interesting to note that there are no Arab accounts of these confrontations.--
  ‏الحسين‎ 08:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: needs recurring historical sources that actually add up to tell the facts. Going to reconsider if provided enough
  WP:RS (without any synthesis). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: It has relevant references and citation, unless and until contradicting citations are provided it will be unfair to delete this article--Suyog^{talk to me!} 10:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. Clearly no such battle happened. No mention in Arab history books or popular Indian history books.
  Khestwol (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Khestwol: Have you read them all? How come you missed so many of those who have mentioned this battle? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - Xtremedood has canvassed[8][9][10][11] those who he believes that they would share same point of view as him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be in the discussion section. 4 opinions from Indians and 1 non-Indian does not constitute diversity of thought. Other users like AshLin also invited others to provide an opinion. Diversity of thought is important for the discussion. It does not constitute canvassing criteria. Xtremedood (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifying through linking, and specifically inviting them by leaving message on their talk page, these 2 are very different things. One can disable notifications but no one can disable user talk pages. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Users invited are respected contributors with significant contributions. They did not get their barnstars for nothing. More expertise and diversity of thought pertaining to matters involving South Asian history should be welcomed. Consensus is not based on voting, it is based upon useful input. 4 Indians and 1 non-Indian does not bring forth as effective discourse. More expertise on South Asian history required for meaningful discussion. If you have any evidence for this battle, do show it. Complaining won't do anything. Xtremedood (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: anybody can award a barnstar (I did just today!), and the great majority of them are frivolous (i.e., for almost nothing!). Pax 11:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xtremedood: & @OccultZone: At the same time, canvassing is prohibited. The discussion was already listed in a host of WikiProject pages & discussion lists. The charge of canvassing by Xtremedood sticks. Not to mention that Sitush & Fowler&fowler are NOT Indians and have minds of their own besides considerable expertise in South Asian affairs and access to better resources than us. There is a huge difference. AshLin (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree, as consensus is not held by a majority of votes, see Wikipedia:Consensus. This is not an issue of majority, but an issue of bringing forth broader discussion on the topic at hand. As of yet there hasn't been one academic source to prove the battle ever occurred in the manner in the article. Why so averse to including a diversity of different perspectives? There is an immense lack of information, and bringing different perspectives that previously weren't shared here is something that may contribute to the overall discussion. Xtremedood (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this charge of canvassing is being pressed only by those who have voted against the deletion of this page. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some sort of heavy bias against

‏الحسين‎ 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Xtremedood has canvassed and that has been objected to. The editors brought in by him are all pro-deletion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern that. Nothing constructive has emerged from these pro-deletion editors either. AshLin (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it is not a vote, see WP:Consensus. There is a lack of material to this topic, therefore diverse perspectives should be welcomed. These users have contributed to similar topics. You too have informed 2 users. If you have evidence to support your claims, present it. It is simple. We should focus on the topic and not digress. Xtremedood (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the following [12], it clearly states "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." By inviting more people from a diverse array of backgrounds, more perspectives are available and perhaps more policy-based arguments may be shared. Xtremedood (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Obviously Xtremedood has a mad on for this article, and in the phrase of one of my old sergeants, he's got "his ass in it." But both here and in the discussion below, I'm seeing a lot of specious BS. What the hell does it matter that most of the sources are Indian? India has as many English speakers as the rest of the freaking world combined, and there's nothing about Indian sources that are inherently unreliable. What the hell does it matter whether this battle was real or not? If it's well-sourced and it was a fake, then the GNG is still met, the article is supportable, and this is a content dispute, not a legitimate matter for AfD. As far as Xtremedood's "diversity of thought" argument goes, I utterly and completely reject the notion -- which is nowhere found in deletion policy or any other policy or guideline on Wikipedia -- holding consensus up for hostage to real or imagined quotas of "diversity," and even if most of the Keep proponents are Indians, what in the hell does that matter, and exactly what about being Indian disqualifies an editor from making sound, dispassionate judgments? Nha Trang ^Allons! 20:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- (Copied from the discussion section) I approach this as an uninvolved historian though without particualr knowledge of the subject. Assuming that this is not a hoax, it would seem that this aricle is about a war, not one battle. I would suggest a NPOV title might be something like Muslim invasion of India in 8th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Renaming is only possible after the article is kept. Are you !voting to keep? Pax 10:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: see fuller vote below. I have struck through the vote, so that I am not voting twice. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but needs serious revision. (Copied from the discussion section) The nominator is being distinctly aggressive and the nomination is somewhat over-the-top, but it does make some good points. So far as I can make out, the battle is not entirely made up or a hoax - but the account currently given in the article looks as if it is closely based on some modern Indian sources who have been strongly selecting and interpreting historical sources to suit their ideological views. Earlier versions of the article had rather less of this problem but still seem to have been largely based on modern Indian sources with a similar (but possibly less dogmatic) viewpoint. PWilkinson (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (Continued in the discussion section.)[reply]
• Keep, or rename. I'm having serious doubts about this AFD when it begins with completely unrelated allegations about PN Oak (who is not referenced in the article at all!!) or "Hindutva" historians (who are also not referenced in the article at all!!). The articles seems to have changed considerably over the years, at one point, the intro called it the battle of Gurjara. Calypsomusic (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in one form or another, whether real or popular hoax. (That it's real is buttressed by RS such as this.) A raw hit count of 96,000 for the specific phrase of "Battle of Rajasthan" suggests considerable notability either way. Pax 17:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure about the hit count. Many of the early hits are wikipedia derivates which is usually a bad sign. Throw in some cricket references and right leaning blogs and the hit count is, at best, dubious. --regentspark (comment) 23:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough sources mention it. And I have checked them for any obvious sectarian leanings, but not found any. Have found a couple more sources that might be useful and added to the discussion on the talk page. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and repurpose (which is of course a variety of keep) -- We have a conflict of evidence (or of views - POV) with Hindu nationalists pushing one POV and (perhaps) their opponents pushing an opposing one. What we need is NPOV, but in a heated atmosphere that is difficult to achieve. At a relatively remote period (like this), the primary sources are probably chronicles, but they are also likely to present the POV of their side. It is the job of the historian to sift the evidence from all sides and come up with a synthesis that fits all the evidence. WP should present that synthesis; if there are multiple views, it ought to prsent them all and (ideally) weigh up their merits.
  Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent would unbalance that article. I am suggesting that we restructure the article as Arab invasion of Sindh or Arab invasion of Sindh and Rajasthan, including also material from the two other articles mentioned; or that someone should create such an article. This AFD discussion has led to otehr editors undertaking useful research, but I would be happier if we had a few references to primary sources or to academic books or articles synthesising them (secondary sources). I would suggest that an Admin should close this as "No consensus", leaving further work to be argued over on talk pages. I would stress that I know nothing of the accuracy of the content of any of the articles and have taken them at face value, perhaps with some scepticism. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't think the problem is one of "nationalists" getting hold of the subject, but rather that the available evidence is scanty (as mentioned in my John Keay quote below) and so a lot of folklore has developed around the subject. I agree with your idea of repurposing the article on the Arab invasion in general. In particular, it needs to cover the "giant pincer movement" described by Wilhelm von Pochhammer [13]. If you don't mind, I will copy these comments to the article talk page, where we can continue the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep man, what a mess this AfD is! Who decided it was a good idea to have separate sections? Anyway, it appears that the nom (who has no clue what constitutes vandalism), due to his own agenda, is dead-set on having this article deleted, as demonstrated by his canvassing of like-minded friends. Messy as the sitaution is, the article covers a notable topic and therefore should be kept. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename it. Keep it. But, rename it by "Arab-Pratihara Conflict/War" or "Arab-Rajput" war/conflict. It is more or less established fact that something fierce battle/war happened in modern day Rajastan border, otherwise Ababs would have swept India in early 8th century like they did in modern day Iran.Ghatus (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs serious revision if it is to be kept. Per the excellent comments by PWilkinson, here and in the discussion section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be well sourced. Not commenting on renaming or revision, because this is an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reliably sourced; that the sources are predominantly Indian or are not "academic" sources is irrelevant, and that particular argument smells strongly of
  WP:GNG. I also don't believe that renaming is appropriate, since this is the name that reliable sources use. Ivanvector (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and revise if necessary. BMK (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Requires a professional viewpoint. Imho it looks more like a very obscure or minor battle. @Sitush:, @Fowler&fowler:, could you please provide an opinion? AshLin (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here is one source. Crawford, Peter (16 July 2013). The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam. Pen and Sword. p. 216.
    ISBN 978-1-4738-2865-0. Retrieved 1 May 2015. AshLin (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This book includes a mention of the generalAl Junaid, though no mention of his exploits to the East, ie towards India are discussed. - Levi, Scott Cameron; Sela, Ron (2010). Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources. Indiana University Press. p. 313.
    ISBN 0-253-35385-8. Retrieved 1 May 2015. AshLin (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The Crawford source is not academic. It is written in a very sensationalist tone. It also makes absolutely no reference to information pertaining to the battle and how it got information about the battle. I believe that this supposed battle may have slipped into this source (and the Wyndrandt's) source, possibly due to a lack of proper academic referencing and checking and taken from biased Hindu-nationalist sources. As I said, this so called "battle" is mentioned in Hindutva websites, however it is not mentioned in any academic sources I have researched. There is no doubt here that General Junayd existed, however, according to the source in the opening, he "died in Merv" which is in Turkmenistan. Xtremedood (talk) 11:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Okay then. So let's say it's a hoax. But if it's a well-sourced hoax, then there's no more call to delete it than there is to delete the Piltdown Man, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or Cottingley Fairies articles. It should be rewritten to reflect that and reflect NPOV. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources of the article do not meet WP:Verifiability. None of the sources are academic. From what I see, the sources are largely published in India. The publishers are non-notable and lack proper checks and balances. A lie told often is still a lie. Unless you can verify this battle ever happened, by legitimate sources, it should not be on Wikipedia. There have only been 2 Western sources that indicate this battle ever happened from what we see, and one of them is written in a highly sensationalist tone and does not cite where it got information pertaining to the battle. The other is written by a person who is clearly a non-specialist in this area. Xtremedood (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is improper to compare this with Piltdown Man, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or Cottingley Fairies, as these are well-known publications that have many sources stating that these are forgeries. I have not come across any significant publication that even lists this as a battle that occurred, rather than refutations of the battle. According to the principles outlined on Wikipedia:Fringe theories this article should not be on Wikipedia. Mention of this battle is so extremely fringe that it does not warrant being on Wikipedia, as there are literally no academic sources mentioning it (that I have come across), as well as there are no significant refutations of the battle (that I have come across). Xtremedood (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if a battle of this kind did take place, no self-respecting historian would call it the Battle of Rajasthan naming it after a 20th century political province. Battles are always named after the locations where they happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a quick statement pertaining to the most recent reference (Book by Desmond Lazaro). As far as what is available for me to see, it refers to paintings and the art (not military) tradition of Rajasthan. The book is called "Materials, methods & symbolism in the pichhvai painting tradition of Rajasthan." It does not make any historical reference to the actual "battle" from what I see. I am however not sure if it is simply a painting referring to Rajasthan (the search term battle of rajastan arabs could really mean anything). It may also refer to Hindu mythology - which offers no basis for an objective study of historical events. More clarification is required pertaining to this source. Certain passages and direct quotes may be helpful. Xtremedood (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the specific mention in a historic source -
  • pg 64 (Entry against year 739), The chronology of India, from the earliest times to the beginning os the sixteenth century by Christian Mabel Rickmers (1899) (from Archive.org) says The Tajikas or Arabs having overrun Sindh, Kachch, Chavotaka, the Maurya and Gurjara kingdoms, seem to have invaded the Nausari district, and to have been defeated by Pulakesin (Nausari grant), AshLin (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka by RC Mazumdar in Epigrahia Indica Vol 18 contains many references to the Arab invasions. AshLin (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same event is referred in Vikramaditya II#Conflict_with_Arabs, with page no refs of two Indian textbooks. In the light of all this, your mention that this is the work of Hindutva hoaxists does not hold good. AshLin (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know if this is a clear reference to the so-called Battle of Rajasthan? Mar4d (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d:, read the Battle of Rajasthan article. These refs corroborate the final defeat of the Arabs by Pulakesi, general of Vikramaditya. AshLin (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I have had a look at the article. The sources are poor and limited. There are large swathes of text that are entirely unsourced, with little to no reliable or authoritative academic works cited (see

fails verification on its chronology and context explaining where, when and how the battle happened, the scale of the battle, troops and casualties (these are basic parameters) and what was the name of the battle (I cannot find anything on the "Battle of Rajasthan"). There are also notability concerns (if this battle had been notable, it should have been covered extensively and reliably in sources). Hence, I am still going to stand with my original position - delete or merge (if proven remotely that this event happened). Mar4d (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

There are several issues with your sources. None of those sources support the claim that a Battle of Rajasthan ever occurred. Nobody here is doubting that there were engagements between Arabs and Hindus. However, there is no support for the idea of a Battle of Rajasthan per se. There is no support for the idea that a decisive battle ever occurred of the nature described in the article.

For example, if we look at your first source: pg 64 (Entry against year 739), The chronology of India, from the earliest times to the beginning o[f] the sixteenth century by Christian Mabel Rickmers (1899) The source says this happened in 739 A.D., a full 1-9 years after the date mentioned in the article and other sources. Clearly this is not the Battle of Rajasthan otherwise the author would have said this happened in 730 A.D. or 738 A.D.. The author also uses the word "seem" which does not indicate surety. The details are also very different from the details outlined by the sources referenced in the article. Your first source also mentions that the so called engagement occurred in the 'Nausari district' which is in Gujarat, not Rajasthan.[14][15] There are several other issues with this source.

Your second source Jodhpur Inscription of Pratihara Bauka by RC Mazumdar in Epigrahia Indica Vol 18 does not contain any reference to a "Battle of Rajasthan." I have not seen a reference to a battle occurring on 730 A.D or 738 A.D. on this source. There are also no details pertaining to the nature of the conflict as described in the article and other non-academic sources used by the article. This source has nothing to do with the so called "Battle of Rajasthan."

Conclusion: Simply choosing random references of Arabs and Hindus fighting does not suffice to justify an article, such as the article titled "Battle of Rajasthan." There was no major decisive battle as described in the article. If there was there would clearly be academic sources. Xtremedood (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do support the meat of the article that Arabs invaded from Sindh into Western India (both Gujarat & Rajasthan are modern creations of the Indian nation state, Rajput kingdoms existed in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab & the Himalayan states too), that they fought a series of battles & were stopped in a final battle by Pulakesin. The term "Battle of Rajasthan" is used by modern historians to cover the military activities of this campaign. AshLin (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:User OccultZone seems very eager to speed keep and close this discussion to keep the page alive. Make note of initial attempt to delete page. User OccultZone did not contest the deletion and wait for final administrative decision, rather he deleted the template itself.[16] He also adds meaningless sources, such as links pertaining to Rajasthani art, without pointing out relevant information to historical accuracy. Xtremedood (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone is making personal threats on my talk page [17]. He threatens me to retract my statement or he may tell administration. This constitutes Blackmail. My comment was aimed at bolstering diversity in dialogue. Xtremedood (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment by AshLin moved by Xtremedood (Reason: Do not tamper with the opening):

The Brief History of Pakistan and that of Saudi Arabia, both by Wynbrandt, has a laudatory foreword by Fawad A Gerges, who has written many books on politics and history of the Middle East and he is also creditted as a co-author in some sites and author of foreword in others. The fact that Wynbrandt is not a historian per se does not make him an unreliable source. Wynbrandt's book has been cited in Wikipedia itself in Constitution of Pakistan. He has also been cited by Musarat Ameen & Rizwan Naseer in their peer-reviewed article Democratic Peace Theory: An Explanation of Peace and conflict Between Pakistan and India in the Berkeley Journal of Social Sciences. Ameen & Naseer, who cite Wynbrandt, are scholars who are published by the Pakistan National Defense University. Moreover, the Government of Pakistan Federal Public Service Commission officially endorses this book as suggested reading for the Civil Services exam. It is clearly a reliable source which you are trying to discredit on the pretext it is a Hindutva hoax. AshLin (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wynbrandt is not a specialist in the field. The Constitution of Pakistan and 730-738 A.D. South Asian history are two distinct and separate subjects. Wynbrandt (to my knowledge) did not receive any award for his work in South Asian history. He also does not cite where he got his information from for this so called battle. None of those reasons you have listed state why the so called "Battle of Rajasthan" happened or on what basis it should be considered reliable. None of the reasons you have stated list on what basis can we historically verify that a "Battle of Rajasthan" took place. Citing a source does not make everything in that source reliable. The only somewhat verifiable source you have stated which lists an engagement is one to nine years off from the stated date in the article. It also says that the battle or engagement happened in Gujarat and NOT Rajasthan. It also mentions that the author is not 100% sure that the engagement or battle took place. It also has nothing to do with this so called "Battle of Rajasthan" theory that is stated in the article. Whether it is a Hindutva hoax or not does not take away from the fact of the article being unreliable and fallacious. This article violates a variety of policies that Wikipedia has in place. It violates the tenets outlined in

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Xtremedood (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

History is not written per your want. This continued

bludgeoning will be dealt accordingly if it hasn't been stopped. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Your statement seems to violate

WP:Personal Attack. Provide sources that list this so called "battle." As of now the sources you have provided do not suffice WP:Verifiability policy. Xtremedood (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You conveniently forget the second reference which so names it - Crawford, Peter (16 July 2013). The War of the Three Gods: Romans, Persians and the Rise of Islam. Pen and Sword. p. 216.

ISBN 978-1-4738-2865-0. Retrieved 1 May 2015. also. You have not proved this is a fringe theory. You have not proved that the events are fictitious. The entire attempt of the Caliphate Arabs to push forward into India failed and is discussed in detail by Khalid Blankinship in his treatise The End of the Jihad State: The Reign of Hisham Ibn 'Abd al-Malik and the Collapse of the Umayyads

, a copy of which is with me. He also adds the following statement, which explains why the battle is a lesser known one:

Two neutral sources source the term "the Battle of Rajasthan" and the reliability of events is sourced from primary sources of 19th Century, on the one hand, and numerous history texts, including a treatise solely dedicated to the Umayyad Caliphate. Whatever be the defects of the article in question, it does not match your description of it as a hoax. Hence there are grounds for improvement but not grounds for deletion. AshLin (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to, The Emergence of Muslim Rule in India: Some Historical Disconnects and Missing Links, Tanvir Anjum, Islamic Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer 2007), 217-240. There were two separate invasions both repelled by Raja Dahir ruler of Sindh(page222)(referenced by Tarikh-i Sindh, 42-43 & Muhammad ibn Qasim aur uske Janashin) However, neither battle, which appears to have occurred prior to 711, are given a name.

One cannot see how historical events in 700 to 710 can deny the existence of a battle or series of battles in 728 738 AD. That took place, there are references, primary and secondary to verify that. Your point being? AshLin (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deny, no. Bring into question whether "Rajasthan" actually occurred in 738(per the article) or not. Considering both Muslim generals/governors, listed in the article, have been proven to have died somewhere else is a huge issue. Did you miss that part? Perhaps you need to read the article since you have stated 728, and the article clearly states 738. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring no less. Whether the Muslims governor's died there or not. Are you claiming Muslim governors led from the front & went down with the ship, figuratively speaking. They have generals for these sort of things. Your current line is, both governors died Not on the field of battle therefore the battle didn't take place, never mind the other sources which they say did! For the typo, yeah I'm human, my apologies! AshLin (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No red herring. Simple research. There is more than one way to research information, it simply takes the will to do so. When facts arise, such as governors being somewhere else or dying somewhere else at the time of the battle, then something is not correct.

I believe the battle(s) occurred, however I believe the date is incorrect, thus explaining the "governor death error". It appears that an error, either accidental or intentional, was made by taking two previous unnamed battles and using them to coincide with Al-Junayd's reassignment to Khorasan. Thus making it appear that an alliance of Indian kingdoms/rajputs defeated the Muslim invaders and stating Al-Junayd died in said battle(s). Now clearly this is

original research, but Al-Junayd being governor of Khorasan and dying at Merv clearly is NOT original research and should not be treated lightly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry to burst your bubble, Khalid Blankinship sheds light on your general's move from Sindh on pg 134. He was transferred after a successful campaign in India in 726 CE: AshLin (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: Above unsigned passage not added by me) The passage suggests (since al-Junayd left office in 726 A.D.) that he was not anywhere near India in 738 A.D. when looked at in the context of this source [[18]]. Play close attention to Khalid Blankindships passage as well "Though the course of the conquests cannot be established with certainty, they remained at their maximum extent at least until al-Junayd left office about 108/726, so that it was left to his successors to reap the results of his rapid advance." Xtremedood (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- I approach this as an uninvolved historian though without particualr knowledge of the subject. Assuming that this is not a hoax, it would seem that this aricle is about a war, not one battle. I would suggest a NPOV title might be something like Muslim invasion of India in 8th century. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Peterkingiron: Good suggestion. How about Attempted Arab invasion of India, because the invasion didn't succeed? (We don't need 8th century because the Arabs didn't make another attempt. In fact, they went rapidly out of the scne.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already an article for that,

  Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Xtremedood (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Renaming it to Attempted Arab invasion of India is not right. There was no "attempted" Arab "invasion" of India according to the sources. The Arabs DID conquer

  Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent. Xtremedood (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Then it would appear that your sources are not particularly good. Here is what my sources say: So it was in Sind and so it would be in Hind (i.e. India). In fact Sind’s governors had already had a foretaste of what lay ahead. Muhammad ibn Qasim may have pushed east towards Kanauj, Junaid certainly tried his luck in western India, and later governors may have followed suit. Their experiences, in so far as they can be inferred from the scanty evidence, would not be encouraging. Al-Biladuri claims conquests for Junaid which extended to Broach in Gujarat and to Ujjain in Malwa. From a copper plate found at Nausari, south of Broach, it would appear that the Arabs had crossed Saurashtra and so must have squeezed through, or round, the Rann of Kutch. This was the incursion which put paid to the Maitrakas of Vallabhi, they of the dazzling toenails whose enemies’ rutting elephants had had their temples cleft. It was also the incursion which was finally halted by, amongst others, a vassal branch of the Chalukya dynasty. The date is thought to have been c736. Ujjain and Malwa look to have been the target of a separate and probably subsequent offensive by way of Rajasthan.7 It too was defeated, in this instance by a rising clan of considerable later importance known as the Gurjaras. Clearly, when the subcontinent first faced the challenge of Islam, it was neither so irredeemably supine nor so hopelessly divided as British historians in the nineteenth century would suppose. (John Keay, India - A History, Harper Collins 2000. p.187). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but needs serious revision. The nominator is being distinctly aggressive and the nomination is somewhat over-the-top, but it does make some good points. So far as I can make out, the battle is not entirely made up or a hoax - but the account currently given in the article looks as if it is closely based on some modern Indian sources who have been strongly selecting and interpreting historical sources to suit their ideological views. Earlier versions of the article had rather less of this problem but still seem to have been largely based on modern Indian sources with a similar (but possibly less dogmatic) viewpoint.

Before going on, I note that while we do have a number of sources for the historical period and geographical area of this article, they are not ideal. All of them (whether Indian or Muslim) seem to be from at least a century (and sometimes much more) after the presumed battle and, while most mention fighting, they don't seem to give precise dates, times or opponents (at least in this particular period). So they do have to be treated with care.

However, that has not been done in the article as it stands - in fact, it looks very much as if the sources used have been trying to build this up into an Indian equivalent of the Battle of Tours (and the Battle of Tours was pretty heavily hyped in many European chronicles). To take one definite error,

List of caliphal governors of Sind lists Junaid as being dismissed in 726, which is (as it should be) in line with Arab sources (or at least within the variation of a year or two which one seems to get between Arab sources covering this period from a century or three later) which also (as some people have already pointed out above) make it clear that while he died sometime around 738, this happened in Khorasan, not India. It is fairly clear from Arab sources such as al-Baladhuri

(and from reliable secondary sources) that his successor Tammim died in post in some kind of disaster, probably sometime around 730, and was succeeded by Hakam al-Kalbi, who was still governor in 738 but apparently killed in 740.

For greater detail, this Chronological Dictionary of Sindh, published in Pakistan in the 1980s, while perhaps not fully reliable, seems to do a decent job of pulling together events from disparate sources into a slightly fuzzy timeline, which to me seems plausible and decently in agreement with the various sources. The picture we seem to get is one of successful Arab attacks under Junaid about 725 and possibly under Hakam in the early 730s, but a major defeat of Tammam around 730 and defeats of the Arabs by Indian rulers in Rajputana and/or Gujurat in the years leading up to 740, followed by a native revolt, civil war between Arabs or both at once in Sindh. How many different Indian rulers defeated the Arabs and in what sorts of combinations is probably impossible to determine today, particularly as some of the accounts could well be a matter of rulers in later centuries wanting to prove that their ancestors had defeated the Arabs. What does seem almost certain is that we are not looking at an all-Indian coalition defeating the Arabs in a grand knockout battle - rather, we are looking at single rulers or local groups of rulers within Rajputana and Gujurat defeating the Arabs in one or more battles without names that have come down to us and with a few thousand troops on each side, perhaps similar to the actuality of Tours but quite a bit smaller than Talas (though note that numbers of troops, particularly enemy ones, given in medieval sources are usually exaggerated, often by a factor of ten or more). And, comparing with Tours, it also seems probable that it was the subsequent disorder in Sindh rather than the battles themselves that were directly responsible for stopping the Arab attacks.

The name "battle of Rajasthan" is fairly obviously a relatively recent Indian invention - however, it does seem that other historians have started to use the name as a convenient label for the battles underlying the Indian nationalist account. Wikipedia should certainly have an article covering the Arab attacks on India during the decades after the conquest of Sindh, and under the circumstances, the current name seems somewhat acceptable though far from ideal. However, the article itself badly needs extensive reworking - my own inclination would be to start by reverting to a version from August 2012 or before, though that by itself will do little more than cut out the very worst of the current article. (As a final note - while I quite appreciate why User:Justice007 has deleted large sections of the article, the Background and Later events sections, while unreferenced, were ironically rather less POV than most of the rest of the article.) PWilkinson (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that the details that we know and can verify be added to this article,

Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent and that the "Battle of Rajasthan" article be deleted as the historical record does not prove a Battle occurred in Rajasthan. As I have stated, this source says [19] 739 A.D. and uses the word seem for a battle that occurred in Gujarat, not Rajasthan. Also, this source [20] says that the battle in 738 A.D. stopped all advances of Arabs or "waves" in a sensationalist, incorrect and bigoted tone. There are too many contradictions and also the second source does not state the location of the supposed "engagement." Xtremedood (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@PWilkinson:, This is not unique case for the Indian subcontinent that details are hard to come by for some event, but they are there, both from Arab and Indian side. The ambiguity about the name does not mean the battle never took place, as Xtremedood is trying to imply. Just because, one source says 738 AD while another says 739 AD doesn't imply a contradiction, just that 8th Century Indian sources may have been a little out of step. I do agree that the article needs rework, which one can get down to once this AFd is over. There is a whole lot of material in these sources which can be added to this article. Certainly, a shortened paragraph about this is relevant to the Muslim conquest of the subcontinent however, that event began in 12th century and onwards and this is a defeat of the attempt by the Umayyad Caliphate four centuries earlier and notable in its own regard. AshLin (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the 739 A.D. source say that the battle seemingly happened in Gujarat, not Rajasthan? Xtremedood (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My view I am observing the discussion. During that, I cleaned up the article. It is the great confusion, and awkward terms that we are making the dispute, and matter to some extent personally, and politically motivated that goes no anywhere and helps nothing. We should stop saying that the sources are from India or Pakistan. The historian is the historian, the author is the author, whether of India, Pakistan or from any other countries. Why do we always devalue the authors and academics from that part of the world? The rules do not restrict and describe such concept. The article needs entirely cleanup and retitle, and use of the terms should be strictly to the neutral point of view. The both sides have the sources, the both views, versions, we should mention, add and we should come to the way of the compromise rather wipe out the history. Terms of the language if that meet with the neutral point of view, and reliable sources can support the matter. We do not forget that we cannot tear the history books, whether Wikipedia has the article or has not. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not devaluing people from any "part of the world." We have to interrogate the sources to know their reliability. Knowing the country is part of that. User:PWilkinson has provided some excellent input. Unfortunately, I see you only flaming and raising temperatures. Time to take a break? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please just fresh and cool your mind rather, and try to understand what I am suggesting. I do not write things that do not exist. Once read again all the comments and take, indeed time to rest.Justice007 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would ask that everyone here please take note that the user who nominated this article, Xtremedood, has actually been reported in the past for his behaviour (removing sources, repeatedly edit-warring with other contributors, etc.) Furthermore, from his comments elsewhere and on this page, it is obvious that he has demonstrated an extreme bias against Hindus and Indian-related subjects; he has likewise attempted very hard to "sanitize" and mince articles such as Criticism of Muhammad in the past, deleting vast amounts of cited information he seemingly disagreed with on a personal basis. Some of his first edits and their related summaries clearly indicate his lack of clear objectivity on religion-based articles: "The usage of the word gay is not appropriate...homosexuality is not natural and no one is born gay; hadith-rejecting approaches to analysing the Quran should rejected", so on and so forth. Wikipedia is not an apologist ground for Islam, or any religious belief system or figure, for that matter, and should not be hijacked or misconstrued as such. He has claimed that these sources and those who wrote this article are biased, I would ask him, what makes him any different? Gorgevito (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name some revisions of mine that are supposedly "against Hindus and Indian related subjects". I have never been punished for edit-warring. You seem to not know the context of those disputes. I am against bias that exists in a variety of controversial topics, however I have maintained proper conduct. If you have an issue, take it to the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take note also of the user, Gorgevito, as he signed up very recently. Xtremedood (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you've been on Wikipedia all of two months as of today. In that very short time, you've been warned four times, and been brought up to ARE and AN/I both. Are you really sure you want to throw stones at other users for how long they've been around? Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northwich Town Council election, 2015

Northwich Town Council election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ths an article for the lowest tier of local government in Britain - many of these elections are termed Parish Council or Community Council elections. Not notable in the slightest and wholly unreferenced  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a top-tier council. Any useful info should be entered into
  Cheshire West and Chester Council election, 2015. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I don't believe parish council elections are notable. Number 57 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor local elections are not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly non-notable, as
  talk 19:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Marxist Tendency (Canada)

International Marxist Tendency (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, marginal group. No independent or reliable sources regarding the group. All the sources that actually are about the group itself are from the group's website, the website of its parent organization (IMT/In Defence of Marxism) or from its front groups (Hands Off Venezuela) except for one non-reliable source which is from a rival organization. The only other source, the Daily Telegraph, is an article that doesn't even mention the group and isn't about it at all but about Ted Grant who was the leader of the group's parent organization. Oromantise (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oromantise (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, As a publication (NOT a "group" from what I can tell) the article is within its rights to self-source in accordance with
  WP:BRANCH. RatRat (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:SELFSOURCE NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: SELFSOURCE allows a primary source to be used for informational purposes about itself. What it doesn't allow is for those sources to be used as evidence of notability, and that's what at question here. Notability hasn't been demonstrated. Nha Trang Allons! 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.