This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rajasthan, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Rajasthan-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.RajasthanWikipedia:WikiProject RajasthanTemplate:WikiProject RajasthanRajasthan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
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 articles
Tagging @Noorullah here as I am going to be inactive for sometimes. See the edit summary given for the move. Mewar-Delhi Sultanate War? It should specify which dynasty they fought with. It is just like creating an article like "Caliphate-Greek Wars", and adding all those Caliphates from the beginning to the end, from Rashidun to Ottoman to a single infobox. And the article indeed doesn't provide any lead for putting "Mewar victory" in the infobox, just a few description on a wikitable, and casually adding POV statements like Rajput women committed jauhar to save their honour while most of the warriors died defending the fort. Use the List of Wars involving Delhi Sultanate or List of Wars involving Rajasthan to add your context. Or create dynasty specified conflict article and consider not using "Y-X War" if the WP:RS is not mentioning such a conflict. Imperial[AFCND] 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Hi, thanks for pinging me, heres some of my thoughts.
It seems odd to divide this as an entirely Mewar victory since the Delhi Sultanate did indeed conquer them in the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303). I think the result parameter in this should be entirely removed which is permissible per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX.
Another thing is that there is clear POV issues on this page as you mentioned from your examples above. I think an appropriate name for the page would be Delhi-Mewar Wars, let me know what you think. Noorullah (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more POV issue examples such as: "By 1336, the fort was recovered by the celebrated Maharana Hammir", as well as sources that clearly violate WP:RS. ""p.56-7. Maharana Sanga: The Hindupat, the Last Great Leader of the Rajput Race"" Noorullah (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe the title is inappropriate; it should either be divided or merged with the two articles I've linked above. Alternatively, if we decide to proceed with it, I suggest dividing the infobox parameter "combatant" into sections for the Mamluks, Khaljis, Tughlaqs, and Lodis. Additionally, we should remove the "result" parameter in that case. My main suggestion is to eliminate the wikitable and create a more organized encyclopedia. If boxes are deemed necessary, we could incorporate them into the "List of war..." as mentioned earlier. This is my perspective. I propose we also seek input from others and hear the author's thoughts on this matter. Imperial[AFCND] 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a discussion after 26th Feb? (since I have some urgent work to deal with) Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover I guess we could change the name to Kingdom of Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars. And add Guhila and Sisodiya dynasty in infobox similar to Mamluk dynasty one u have done. For Maharana Hammir one u could use Rc Majumdar as the source. And what's the prob in result since it's from 13th-early 16th and ultimately delhi sultanate was unable to annex Mewar as it was retaken by Hammir so Weakening of Delhi Sultanate is correct and one of the factors was definitely Mewar u could see Lodhi-Mewar Wars for that hmm but Mewar Victory could be removed. If we add that sanga supported babur in 1st panipat which is true as per some sources then we could display Mewar Victory. Anyways as i told previously i could have a discussion after 26th so won't be replying till then. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your assertions include WP:OR as long as there is no explicit statement for the result, nor any party got overthrew by another, the result section should not be displayed. And try using encyclopedic format than adding some wikitables with years, belligerents and result. And the POV editing is evident from the article. And I suggest naming the article 'Delhi Sultanate-Mewar conflicts' and creating a whole article based on each and every conflicts both had with. It would be better if you decide to move on with this. Imperial[AFCND] 19:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so u add more info and do the required changes which looks suitable. I shall help you in it after 26th. Ah, what's the prob with Delhi Sultanate-Kingdom of Mewar conflicts? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, Mamluks are not the same as Khaljis, Tughlaqs... Everyone doesn't have the same outcomes. Imperial[AFCND] 01:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was asking about the title Delhi Sultanate-Kingdom of Mewar Wars. All Delhi Sultanate dynasties be it Mamluk, Khilji, Tughluq, etc. and all Mewar dynasties (Mori ,Guhila and Sisodiya) come under this title so I recommend changing the title to this one. Moreover added some info in background. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not using "wars" as no source explicitly makes such a notation. We can't invent names for military conflicts. And still I am not satisfied with integrating all Sultanate to a single entity. But as majority has this opinion, we are going with it. Imperial[AFCND] 13:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as AfC reviewer. The article looked pretty perfect in terms of coverage and references for me when I accepted it. The NPOV could've been addressed by tagging and WP:DIY, with the errors rectified. Moving into draftspace seemed a bit harsh, but I don't want to contest the move if ImperialAficiondo and the creator is ready to improve the draft further and submit it back for AfC review. Since WP:DRAFTOBJECT is not revoked yet, I'll also try to clear up the POV statements per above. Furthermore, the errors can always be rectified. Thanks for the ping and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no single reason to blame you. But while considering the historic area, especially comes under MILHIST are always need to be double checked. As we can't see any lead for the parameter result, nor the background context is seen. Whereas there are several other related articles are already present in this topic. As majority opinion, we can rebuild the article with some major modifications. Imperial[AFCND] 07:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Materialscientist, could you please help us by moving this into the draftspace again? We decided to work on this in a more encyclopedic way while keeping it in the draftspace. User:R2dra is continuing his disruptive behaviour in the contentious topic areas. Imperial[AFCND] 11:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Can you explain me why this article was moved in draft space? This article is completely neutral and if it lacks something it can be edited without moving it to draft space Rawn3012 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the above comments. The article needs to expand more than what it currently has. Typical misunderstanding of viewers by seeing the wikitable, and adding "Mewar victory" to the infobox is a result of these incompleted article. Try contributing to the article in an encyclopaedic way, rather than using just few wikitables. And why the hurry? A little patience is appreciated. Imperial[AFCND] 12:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am making para for the introduction of the article based on a neutral point of view. If you would find any improvement then you can improve it Rawn3012 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. Now I am working on the background section, almost covered the background of Guhila dynasty. You could cover the background of Delhi sultanate, or can initiate the relation between them. Your choice. And I suggest removing the wikitable, and we can insert another wikitable after completing the whole paragraphs. Imperial[AFCND] 12:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohammad Umar Ali, leave the wikitables, consider expanding the article body in encyclopedic form. We can replace the wikitable after completing the article body. Imperial[AFCND] 13:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Please check the new description of article if you have some changes to suggest please mention it on talk page. We can improve it but do not remove it as it had long list of citiations. Thanks Rawn3012 (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit needed anyways but we should cover the article body first. Lead is a highlight of article body. See WP:LEAD. Imperial[AFCND] 15:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So What I have to do ? Can you help me please Rawn3012 (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is okay or not? If you can confirm Rawn3012 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you to add the military conflicts between them, including the relations between both parties. But consider that we can't invent names such as "Siege of X", "Battle of X" etc. For example, I will not be active in article building for few days. I suggested earlier to cut down all the conflict such as "Guhila-Mamluk conflicts" "Sisodia-Tughlaq conflicts" etc. because it may made easier and more constructive to build the article. But as we are continuing with Delhi Sultanate-Mewar conflicts, it takes much time to finish the draft. Follow WP: ENCYCLOPEDIC STYLE and build it. Happy editing! Imperial[AFCND] 15:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado i don't understand why do you always remove articles that show Rajput victory. Literally majority of your edits are unsourced. I just saw your edit on ishvari Singh#battle of manupur even there you changed info for no reason. And Delhi mewar wars was a perfect article there wasn't any fault in it, but still you removed it, you are literally a pro-islamist ideology guy who can't handle defeat of Muslims by rajputs and Marathas and keep changing articles BasedMaratha (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the draft better now? I have added more info plus victory of Mewar with sources. I am looking forward to submit the draft if Imperial doesn't have a problem with it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See @Noorullah21's comment. We can't insert the value to result parameter according to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. We can't allow that. Else, there would be another article named Guhila-Khalji conflicts, declarinh Khalji victory (it is possible because of the overthrow). The Delhi Sultanate was overthrown by the Mughals. Thus, the result section doesn't make any sense. Imperial[AFCND] 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hammir Singh was also a Guhila by the way so even if such an article is made result would be guhila victory Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make a link to Hammir Singh. Which one are you referring to? Imperial[AFCND] 19:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maharana Hammir one who retook Chittor and won Battle of Singoli. He was from junior branch of Guhila dynasty Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That won't consider. He is seen as the leader of Sisodias. The Khalji dynasty is known for overthrowing Guhilas from Chittor. Anyways, that is not the case here. Here, result parameter cannot be used, all the wikitables should be removed, and should cite verifiable WP:RS, and build an article of encyclopedic format. I personally still not into considering whole Sultanate dynasties integrating to a single entity. Imperial[AFCND] 19:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I use original research in the article? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First read the wiki article on Hammir Singh it clearly mentions he was a Guhila and belonged to ratansimha brother's family later he adopted the the title Sisodia this clearly indicates that he is considered a Guhila. Even History of Mewar and many other sources mention it. Another thing Result should be displayed cuz Delhi Sultanate was eventually overthrown with help of Mewar in 1st Panipat and I have provided a reliable source for the same hence it's a Mewar Victory. So I am going to add it Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly POV pushing. According to this sense, the Guhila dynasty lasted from
728 to colonial era, which contradicts the data provided by the parent articles. This itself is WP:OR. Heavy attempt to portray as the Rajputs defeated Delhi Sultanate in wars. Attempt is seen as clear as the list of emperors, from 5 different dynasties are added without a difference. How about someone making an article called Rajput-Turk war, and declare that as the Turk victory as the Rajputs lost much of their lands due to the conquests? Doesn't make any sense right? It goes either way. So, stop POV pushing, and try to make constructive editing.Imperial[AFCND] 19:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So make that article who has stopped you from making it. but I am afraid it's a Rajput Victory where are turks in 18th century Rajputs ultimately were victorious and Turks lost everything. I heard Mughal descendant's wife was begging and living in slum so add that too in that article. And for this article it's a clear Mewar Victory here, I have provided the source. And for Guhila one, yours words literally make no sense even in reliable sources like History of Mewar from Earliest Times to 1751 it's clearly mentioned he was a Guhila. Sisodiya was title adopted which was used from then anyways that's not the discussion for this article. And who are you to push your narrative and your way of article making in Wikipedia one has to follow Wikipedia norms not your stupid suggestions. I have provided the source so I am adding the victory here. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I m gonna add it don't remove it then as I have already cited the source else there will be an edit dispute. Also When did I invite or asked for suggestions from you for this article, you always poke your nose in someone else's article and then misbehave. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado you got zero reasons to call @Mohammad Umar Ali a "jerk". I made the report about you at AIV, not him. And that even won't make a reason to call anyone a "jerk". This behaviour won't allow you to make any constructive editing, as you got multiple warnings from different users regarding the disruptive editing/edit warring on History related topics on India-Pakistan contentious topic areas. So, develop a civil behaviour first. This is my suggestion, you can apply or simply ignore this. Mughalised (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the purpose of copy pasting the comment I made at @R2dra's talk page, by modifying it? That too a brand new user who was created few mins ago? Indeed this is either a meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry. I will definitely make a report at ANI as I got multiple evidences. Take care. Imperial[AFCND] 12:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking his talk page, commenting without an account would have leaked my IP address so, I created it just now Mughalised (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
