Talk:Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Mithila

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

Infobox "Result"[edit]

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila Victory[edit]

The sources have indicated that the invasion by Alauddin khilji was repulsed successfully and only in the 3rd battle the King was arrested. After it they gained success in the 4th battle. Do add some sources indicating your propaganda Shakib ul hassan (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do request for AFC before moving into mainspace. Imperial[AFCND] 08:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakib ul hassan, the article fails WP:V. None of the sources states about the battle between two parties and the victory of Mithila. Please provide quotations. Imperial[AFCND] 08:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Utcursch as he is more experienced in this field. Could you please look into this? Imperial[AFCND] 12:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will go through the cited sources when I've some time. utcursch | talk 23:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That helps so much. Consider the infoboxes too. Thank you. Imperial[AFCND] 04:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong. I read that Khaljis won the final battle. Then how this is a Karatak victory? I know that the last winner is shown as victor in the template Hionsa (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go through the cited source in the 4th Battle section. It clearly mentions the 4th battle fought for the Independence in the next year after the 3rd battle 103.52.208.101 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read Khalji was the winner of the last battle from the source. And if there is fourth battle, show me the book where the result of it is shown. I can't find that. And that doesn't exist. Hionsa (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the book cited in the Fourth battle subsection, cant you read yourself or i have to spoon feed you? 103.52.208.101 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spoonfeed it. But you can't. Because you are lying that you the Mithilas won the last battle. Show me the portion that says Mithilas won the battle. I can show that Khaljis won the last battle. Hionsa (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is karnatak victory, I will make Maratha invasions of Bengal Bengal victory. It is nonsense to think that they won because they were independent. Hionsa (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hionsa, 103.52.208.101, please stop this. Edit warring is a serious issue and I warned you for this earlier. If the result is the problem, I am going to make it blank for sometime time until @Utcursch looks into this. Imperial[AFCND] 05:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source, much of the content in this article covers theories and speculation, presenting them as undisputed historical facts. For example, according to the Radhakrishna Choudhary (1970), Mulla Taqia - a 16th century writer and the only source for the battles - does not even mention that the Muslim forces were those of Alauddin Khalji. He just mentions Muslim invasions during 697-698 AH (1297-1298 CE), which modern historians including Choudhary theorize to be the Alauddin's army because Alauddin was the ruler of Delhi of 1297-1298 CE. Choudhary himself writes (p. 44, emphasis mine):

A slight reference to the Muslim invasion of Tirhut during this period has been preserved in the account of Mulla Taqia. Perhaps it was so during the reign of Alauddin Khalji.

The article needs additional sources, especially those written by scholars other than local historians (who have a tendency to glorify the local rulers and ignore the larger context/evidence). For example, Choudhary - a local historian and the principal of a college in Bihar - states that Mithila king remained independent as an ally of Delhi, while Rosa Maria Cimino (citing Luciano Petech) states that he may have been an ally or a vassal of Delhi. Choudhary describes the Mithila king's capture by the Delhi forces as a historical fact (p. 45), while R.C. Majumdar (p. 398) states:

There are other traditions according to which the Muslims invaded Mithila in 697 A.H. (A.D. 1297-8) and arrested the King. None of these traditions is, however, supported by Muslim chronicles or any other reliable evidence.

Much of the content, currently stated as facts, need to be presented as theories by specific authors per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (e.g. "Choudhary, based on Mulla Taqia's account, theorizes that..."). I will try to go through the sources and cleanup the article. Others, please feel free to chip in. utcursch | talk 15:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete different story?[edit]

@Slatersteven, @Asilvering the article says about the war between "Khiljis and Mithila" which is not mentioned by any of the historians. By reading the sources cited here; [1](page number 111-112) and [2] (page number 398), none of them says anything about the war between them. Infact, it does says about an alliance between two parties. So how did the article wrote must wrote up? The article says an entirely different story! And it was in mainspace. Imperial[AFCND] 08:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: User moved that again to mainspace. Imperial[AFCND] 08:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
are you blind or something? cant you read the source? page no. 111 mentions the 4 battles which took place between Alauddin khilji and the Mithilas. first two were complete victory for Mithilas and the Mithila king was imprisoned in the 4th battle stated by mulla taqia itself. page no. 112 was mentioned to state the independence of mithila soon after the fourth battle.Whats your point? Shakib ul hassan (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, that is a Khalji victory as they were the final victors. Do you mind if if I copyedit the article. The article fails GNG anyways. Imperial[AFCND] 10:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a victory for Khilji as Mulla Taqia stated the King maintained independence against the Might of Allaudin Khilji and he also couldn't annex the region in the end. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is none of the context here. Alauddin despatched re-enforcement to Sheikh Ismail as a result of which the Mithila king was defeated and sent as a captive to Delhi. Mulla Taqia further says that Sakrasimhadeva was appointed commander-in-chief of Alauddin’s army against his 41 Hindu enemies. If the final victor was Khalji, thier victory should be mentioned in the infobox. Being independent doesn't make them victor of the conflict. Imperial[AFCND] 11:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the aim of Khaljis were to subjugate the territories of Mithila into their empire, Which they initially failed. Either there was no mention of Vassalization of Karnat dynasty too. Khaljis managed to defeat and arrest the King but it was short lived and They again managed to take their territories back. This is the reason for adding Karnat's victory in the infobox Shakib ul hassan (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The context what you said here is not found. If the king was defeated and imprisoned by Khalji at last, it is a Khalji victory. "They managed to take thier territories back", can't find that in the sources. Imperial[AFCND] 12:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that wasn't final battle but the third one, and he was only captured temporarily.
"In the third battle, fought in 698 A.H (which is 1298 C.E),the Maithil King was arrested. According to Mulla (Taqia)'s account, the Khalji's defeat near Maqbara (Darbhanga) was serious"
- History of Muslim Rule in Tirhut, page no. 44-45. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like perhaps everyone should take another look at WP:OR as a refresher. We're looking for sources that explicitly state the conclusion being reached. If we have to do a lot of work to extract a particular meaning from the sources, it shouldn't go into an article. But is there some reason why this isn't being covered on Alauddin Khalji? -- asilvering (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a conclusion on just the next page:
"According to Amir Khusrav, Alauddin Khalji, after Karra, departed towards the garden of Bihar “to dye that soil with the blood as ‘red a tulip. In the light of Mulla Taqia’s statement and the insistence of Mithila tradition regarding the independence of Mithila it is fair to maintain that Tirhut succeeded, with all means, to preserve its independent status. Tirhut (Mithila) was one of many such states who maintained their independence against the imperial might of Alauddin."
Page no.46 of History of Muslim Rule in Tirhut. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is fair to maintain they succeeded" is a strange way to say "they won", so I'd be curious to know how other sources handle this. I don't see any mention of this at all on Karnat dynasty either, if someone wants to have a go at expanding that? -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks like it was never touched before on Wikipedia but already existed within several sources. It's possible some bias editor tried to hide it. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's much more likely that no one ever got around to it. In general, if it isn't even mentioned on the "parent" article, it makes much more sense to start there rather than to make spin-outs like this one. -- asilvering (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but it's good we finally did, I've expanded this topic a little bit on the Karnat page, rest people can look after. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for Reviewer and Administrators[edit]

This draft appears to violate WP:NPOV by disproportionately targeting some specific empires which comes under WP:BIAS on the basis of religion without presenting a balanced viewpoint.This draft contains the material which violates WP:SOAP and WP:RAJ Wikipedia refers to the act of using the platform to promote personal opinions or agendas, often in a disruptive or non-constructive manner. This behavior can manifest as excessively advocating for a particular viewpoint , pushing an agenda, or using language that is more characteristic of a persuasive speech or advocacy rather than collaborative editing within the framework of Wikipedia's content policies. In general, Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral and verifiable presentation of information rather than serving as a platform for personal beliefs or ideologies. Therefore, soapboxing is discouraged as it may lead to biased or non-neutral content.As this person is trying to violate Wikipedia guidelines on the basis of WP: VANDALISM please block his IP address by editing Wikipedia. Kindly apply {{db-g7}},{{db-g11}} and {{db-g13}}.Thanks!! Kemilliogolgi (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how does it voilates WP:RAJ? all the sources used are after 1947. Any of the lines in article do not target any religions. Let the admins review the article Shakib ul hassan (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kemilliogolgi none has the right to make allegation aganist a user. The article is poorly written but that is not the license to make allegation on the user. And @Shakib ul hassan, keeping the article on mainspace and saying "Let the admins review" is not a good approach. Let it stay at the draft space and submit it for AFC. Why the rush? Imperial[AFCND] 11:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing it myself, I wouldn't say it's poorly written but spellings can always be corrected. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result in the infobox itself is wrong. How couldn't it be poorly written if it hides the entire context? The user claims that the independency of the Mithilas are the reason for displaying them as the victor. Meanwhile the sources itself explicitly states that Khaljis were the victor of the final battle. Imperial[AFCND] 01:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the replies about it above, it wasn't the final battle where he was captured that too temporarily but the 3rd, sources are tagged 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything regarding the victory of Mithilians from there. If you made conclusions by yourself, it is WP:OR. Quote down the part where it explicitly state that it was Milithila victory. Imperial[AFCND] 01:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I'll tag the sources exclusively along with statements. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do that here. It would be more helpful. Imperial[AFCND] 01:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done now on the article itself, you can take a look. Be fair and judge it yourself from a Neutral POV. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always view from a WP:NPOV. But the article says that this proved short lived as Shaktisimhadeva and Vireshvara Thakur regained those territories against Alauddin's strength when they became independent in their final verdict - all according to accounts provided by Mulla Taqia himself., which is citation manipulation. Because, the cited source does not mention a fourth battle between them, but a alliance. It says it was independent, but doesn't say how it became independent. Imperial[AFCND] 02:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mulla Taqia himself said there were 4 battles and the Mithila King was only temporarily captured in the 3rd one so there definitely was a last battle when he became independent just immediately which wasn't won by Alauddin Khilji, it also mentions against his "might". It's not manipulation of anything but common sense. Ultimately, he looks to have already lost at his objective of annexing Mithila to his empire 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed your recent add, thanks for the contribution. It means a lot. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the "four battles" mention by Mulla Taqia, please quote it down here. And saying "there definitely was a last battle" is WP:OR. When source doesn't say anything, we can't add that into the article. Imperial[AFCND] 02:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that In the fourth and the final encounter in 698 a.h., corresponding to 1298 a.d., the Maithil king was arrested., so the final victor was Khalji, were the Mithila king was arrested. Thats the end of hostilities. And we can't assume that there would be a fourth battle just because it was independent. There are many other possibilities, but we are looking into it because of WP:OR Imperial[AFCND] 02:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Here we have to rely on Mulla Taqia, who is the only authoritative guide. Taking him as the only source, we learn that four battles were fought against the rulers of Tirhut till the time of Sakrasi¬ mhadeva. In the first two, the Maithil king defeated, near about Maqbara, the army of Alauddin Khalji. The second battle was fought at Sakkuri, said to have been founded by Sakrasimhadeva. In the third battle fought in 698 A.H (1298 C.E), Maithil King was arrested"
Page no. 44-45 of History of Muslim Rule in Tirhut.
There were 4 battles and he was only captured in 3rd battle so no it's not true. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result is not given there. So, how could we go with it? Imperial[AFCND] 02:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the result, it's for the 3rd battle. Don't manipulate facts. I already posted results above. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the result for the fourth battle. Please don't assume the result by yourself. Provide quotations along with it. Imperial[AFCND] 02:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already quoted it with source in the 4th Battle. I've not added it by myself but the source itself says it and I've already quoted and explained there were 4 battles. It seems you're just trying to change things and vandalise the articles. 2409:4050:2E91:6C2E:898D:27A0:503E:31BD (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are making personal attacks here. And no. I haven't seen the quote that mentions the result of the fourth battle. Infact, I have quoted here a source that says Khaljis won the final battle. Imperial[AFCND] 12:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Gog the Mild to resolve the conflict. Imperial[AFCND] 12:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kemilliogolgi, speedy deletion tags like that can be added to an article by any user, including you. But if you need a paragraph to explain your reasoning, it's almost certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion, and you're looking for WP:AFD instead. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if some editors refreshed themselves re WP:AGF; it does a cause little good to be correct, but be blocked for incivility. Purely as a personal view, "it is fair to maintain that Tirhut succeeded" seems to be a a pretty direct way of saying 'Tirhut won', and so long as the source is a RS, there is not another RS contradicting it and there are no historians doubting Amir Khusrav as a reputable witness, then I would be happy reflecting that in the lead and infobox. I repeat that this is not a definitive ruling, just how I am reading the two sections above in the light of Wikipedia's policies. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, it is pretty complicated because the statement is about succeeding thier independence, not about winning the military conflict. Following the battles fought as the part of the invasions, the Khaljis succeeded defeating Tirhut/Mithila and took thier ruler as prisoner. Later, they bacame allies, and thus the Tirhut succeeded preserving its independence. [3] see page 112. The IP user above misquoted it in a way that seems that the Tirhut won the war. It would be better if you read the entire context (110-112). Thank you for looking into this btw. Imperial[AFCND] 18:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the kind of ambiguity I expected might lie behind a statement like "it is fair to say they succeeded". That's one reason why (imo) it might be better to deal with this on a parent article. It seems it would fit well in Karnat dynasty, where the whole narrative including taking the ruler prisoner and later becoming allies and preserving independence can be more easily contextualized. It seems to me that this would clear up the conflict here about who "won" this invasion, with the added bonus that parent articles tend to get better visibility than really specific ones about individual battles/invasions/etc. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, statements that are not mentioned in the sources are clearly seen in the article, such as the "king was "temporarily" captured", while the book only says about the imprisonment and later alliance, but not the time period of imprisonment. And the editor assumed that the independence of the Mithila was happened because they defeated the Khaljis at last; neither that mentioned in the sources. The sources neither mentions the annexation of Mithila by Khaljis. Seems like the article is made up by some assumptions, instead of using the sources. Imperial[AFCND] 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the various dispute resolution venues you might want to look into for this if you and the other editors continue to be stuck is WP:3O. I'm not sure if this dispute would be accepted there (in principle, it's just supposed to be for disputes between two editors), but it might be worth a try. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good move. But, it is not a problem with me and the other user. Whenever I asks something like this in talk page, other users would randomly pop up and starts defending it. Especially in the Indian history related articles, it happened each and everytime. Is there any other options? Or should I move on with this? Imperial[AFCND] 05:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ordinarily I would say "if the same thing is always happening to you, consider whether you are the problem". But this is a topic area that is known to be extremely contentious, such that we have WP:CT/IPA, so in this case it comes with the territory. Since it sounds like that's bumming you out (and why wouldn't it), you might consider doing something else for a little while. I'd suggest trying to write a few Good Articles on adjacent topics (maybe there are some WP:WIRED you could write on?), not just because it adds good value to the encyclopedia, but also because it will be good practice in writing, using sources, wikipedia policies, etc. Also, having some Good Articles shows other editors that a) you know what you're doing, and b) can handle some criticism about it. All of that will help you a lot when it comes to knowing when to put your foot down about a content dispute and when to shrug and move on. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it helps. I'll step back from this topic because arguing too much feels like I'm not doing myself any good. I'll focus on writing new articles instead of getting into long arguments over existing ones. Imperial[AFCND] 04:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CSD[edit]

@Explicit, hello. I think I made a mistake by tagging CSD#G5. But User:Shakib ul hassan is a sock per reported at User talk:Izno#Concern about a new report. I have tagged some other articles in similar way. Could you help me by explaining the mistake I made? Regards. Imperial[AFCND] 11:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this too.. the creator of the page is @Shakib ul hassan and he was blocked for sockpuppeting.. but you reverted the CSD saying he wasn't..? @Explicit Noorullah (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I reviewed this page, I was not aware of the connection pointed out at User talk:Izno#Concern about a new report. I only had Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonharojjashi/Archive#12 December 2023 to work off of, and the only connection made in the report was between Shakib ul hassan and Imaan quadri, an account that made no edits. You are free to tag this page again for another administrator to review. ✗plicit 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alauddin_Khalji%27s_invasion_of_Mithila&oldid=1221441232"