User talk:Noorullah21/2024

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for your commitment to quality content. Imperial[AFCND] 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado Thank you for the barnstar. :) Noorullah (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrej Babić

Hi, thanks for taking part in the discussion but can you please sign your comment as it isn't showing, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 Fixed, thanks for letting me know. Noorullah (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Khalji Revolution

The article Khalji Revolution you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Khalji Revolution for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Dubious articles

With your expertise in Khilji era, can you look at this Dubious article Khilji-Mithila War. Take a look at Battle of Thane as well to review. It is another dubious article. This person Shakib ul hassan who is going on a rampage to write dubious articles is falsely doing this to publicize Hindu dynasties. 24.154.162.189 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Result of the article

Hello as you reverted my edit in this article 1975 Panjshir Valley uprising stating in summary edit that its not political victory. however thats not true as i have stated reasons and citations with a discussion in talk page see the talk page :-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1975_Panjshir_Valley_uprising Rahim231 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Further question about Abdul Wahab (Mughal historian)

Hi Noorullah21, hope you're doing well. I wanted to continue our conversation from your previous autopatrolled request. Thank you for updating Abdul Wahab (Mughal historian) with the Rahim (1961) source. I wanted to read more about the subject so I got that book, History of the Afghans in India, A.D. 1545-1631, from my library, but I'm not seeing Wahab mentioned on page 277 or in the index. Instead, page 277 in my book discusses Khan Jahan Lodi. Would it be possible for you to provide me with a scan or screenshot from your version of this source (via email would be great)? DanCherek (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@DanCherek Hi, I'm not sure how to send via email, but heres the link I used it from. [1]. On page 277, it states

"Abdul Wahab - Intikhab-I-Jahangir Shahi. *Abdul Wahab was a companion of Jahangir and died in 1622-3 ( lo32 H. ). Being close to the court, he gives some valuable information of the reign of Jahangir, ho manuscript of his work is available. A few extracts of the work have been translated in 3311 iot, vol. VI." Noorullah (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thank you again! I think his Ph.D. thesis (1954) is a bit different from the published version (1961) so I'll go and adjust that in the article when I have some time. Happy editing. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Noorullah21! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:53, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

The 1933 History of Ceylon

Hello! Thank you for your work adding sources to articles! I was looking at some of your edits for the drive (getting my bearings to potentially review some) and I noticed that you seem to be working through a 1933 History of Ceylon to cite various years of reigns. That general workflow is a great idea, but 1933 and the The Christian Literature Society for India & Africa both raise red flags for me in terms of reliability. (There's an essay touching on similar problems for sources about India at WP:RAJ.) Just citing the years ruled seems fine, but you might want to look for a more recent and less explicitly imperialist source. I think it would also be helpful to readers if you cited the publication year accurately, as I did here. Thanks again for your efforts and happy editing! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn Yeah I didn't want to use it for any main information itself because of issues like WP:RAJ which I am informed of, was just using it for the reign of rulers mostly. Definitely will also look for some better sources where possible and try to include the publication year properly, thanks.

Not sure why it was 2004, I used the automatic citation thing and just added in the page prefix where needed. Noorullah (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Glad you're on top of things! I do agree that it's fine for the years you were using it for, just wanted to check in in case. Thanks again for your work! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Review of WP:FEB24 contributions

Hi, I was reviewing your contributions to the drive. I removed the reference you added in Mayyit: you linked a self-published fiction work, which is not a reliable source. Please only use reliable sources in the references you use. Let me know if you need any help. Broc (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Broc Hi Broc, I added the source because I believe it didn't infringe on using it, however thank you for raising your concern. I'll try to find an alternative source for it. Noorullah (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

My concern is mostly on the fact it is a fictional work. I don't think we should use a novel as a reliable source. Thanks for looking into this! Broc (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Afghan Civil War (1793-1863)

Hello, Noorullah21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Afghan Civil War (1793-1863), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Noorullah21 for collecting more than 50 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Afghan conflict (1793–1863)

Hello, Noorullah21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Afghan conflict (1793–1863), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Afghan-Sikh Wars

Hello buddy. Some user who goes by the name of “historian” which is not a verified user was the last to edit the page’s result to “Sikh Victory” with no sourced provided and therefore undid your revision. After he did this, the page was altered to extended protection by another user who has a long history of editing Wikipedia but I believe he did not notice the sudden change prior to the extended protection coming into effect.

Can you please kindly revert the result to what you had done for the page prior to “historian”s edit warring tactic as your change for the result was accurate. I cannot change the result back to military stalemate as I don’t have authority.

Regards,

Pathaan Pathaan2024 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed the article's result to the version prior to when Historian2325 and Dunki appeared, however, Noorullah, if you feel "Military stalemate" is a more accurate result, please change it to so, as I know you're much more knowledgeable on this subject than I am. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Pathaan2024@Suthasianhistorian8 I was just changing it to its original result. Should we move over to the page’s talk page to further discuss? Noorullah (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Msg

Hy Noorullah, I have Left a msg for you in wikimedia Commons. Can you check it please DeepstoneV (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have Send the Links to you in Wikimedia, please Kindly check DeepstoneV (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why you proposed deletion of 2024 Pakistan-Afghanistan skirmishes

It meets the notability criteria and it you check it out it's completely different and goes into detail about the ongoing round of skirmishes and it isn't a replica, you yourself can check it out for yourself Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Waleed Ukranian: No need to worry, the community will determine whether the article should be retained or not. Keep up your good work but please ensure that reliable sources are cited and refrain from using blogs/forums like defence.pk etc. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Well if you see that article no blog post has been cited, most citations are news articles and pretty reliable ones at that Waleed Ukranian (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Waleed Ukranian: But the news articles are hosted on a unreliable website. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera, DW, Dawn, AP etc are unreliable first Time hearing so Waleed Ukranian (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Waleed Ukranian: I am talking about defence.pk such as this. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In this article there's no citation of defence.pk you can check that's 1950 Afghan invasion of Balochistan and I think that 1950 Afghan invasion of Balochistan be renamed and transferred to 1950-51 Afghan invasions of Pakistan so that Invasion of Khyber, Radio Kabul campaign, dropping of propaganda leaflets and arms supply to Faqir of Ipi etc could be mentioned, then it'd be notable enough and I'll cite more sources for that article Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Mapping

Assalamu Alaikum Noorullah, Could you please create accurate maps for notable Muslim Sultanates like the Hyderabad State of Nizam and the Golconda Sultanate? The current maps in their articles are highly inaccurate and smaller than the actual ones. DeepstoneV (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@DeepstoneV Walaykum as-salam, Yeah I can try to work on them soon. Noorullah (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Jazak Allah, Akhi. By the way, the Nizam Map in that atlas also includes the maps of Awadh and Bengal subah, so it would be better to create a single map incorporating all three." DeepstoneV (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Bengal Sultanate

The flag was completely sourced and used in the previous versions of the article. Flag is a vital element and should not be removed. Thanks for your understanding. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@AimanAbir18plus The flag was not sourced at all. The fact that it was in previous revisions doesn't matter, it was removed because it was for all sakes and purposes, made up without a source. You were also reverted by another user who states the same thing. [2] Noorullah (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

Hello @Noorullah21, I have seen that you have some experience related to Maratha-related topics and so wanted to ask your opinion regarding Talk:Maratha Empire#Requested move 17 April 2024. PadFoot2008 12:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Hi. I’ll check it out when I have time, thanks for letting me know about this discussion! Noorullah (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Noorullah21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Slow it down

Hey @Noorullah21. I'd like to ask you to slow it down a bit with your new page reviewing. We typically wouldn't expect several quality reviews in a single minute from a new new page reviewer, it signals that due diligence is likely not being performed. Pinging @Nove Prime Novem Linguae, as I know this is something they sometimes monitor. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Accidently pinged the wrong person... fixing by pinging @Novem Linguae. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Sure.

The method I usually do is I go onto the NPP and open a ton of tabs of new pages of topics I think would be relatively easy or things I’d like to patrol (i.e Military history, Football related, etc). Then begin patrolling in relatively quick succession — But if you think this might signify that it could not be patrolled properly quality-wise, I’ll slow it down. Noorullah (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I do the same as well actually. But it's concerning from our point of view that you might not have exercised proper care (I haven't done a deep dive myself yet, just noticed you had reviewed over 200 articles in the last day). So, please just make sure there's no appropriate tags to add, take your time, and make sure we're getting it right :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Of course, I understand your concern since I am just a new page patroller as well. From now on I’ll take it slower, thank you. Noorullah (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Evaluating WP:GNG when an article doesn't qualify for WP:SNG is what can take a lot of time for many articles, especially borderline or poorly sourced ones, because it involves opening each citation and evaluating it until you find enough that pass GNG. And then if you don't find enough passing sources, doing a WP:BEFORE search and evaluating those sources too. So please be careful that you are including a GNG evaluation in your workflow, where appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ghurids

The article is slowly becmonig an iranian advertisement. First there was no mention of tajiks in the opening but instead " unknown origins" and now as you have seen, some sources is changed to " most " sources, despite the fact that nearly all -- 2023 and 2024 sources call them Afghans. You are active there it is your moral duty to take a stance! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

This is - even- from andre wink whom is qoated in the article.

"Ghaznavids and Ghurids , and the contemporary Afghans- artillery . Between 1508 and 1519 he received his first supply of guns and cannon"

Counting ghurids as Afghans in his latest 2024 book. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't say the Ghurids were of Afghan origin.

• "The immediate successors of the Ghaznavids, the twelfth-century dynasty of the Ghurids, originally came from Ghur - the almost inaccessible, arid, and mountainous center of what is now Afghanistan, and they were not Turkish nomads but instead of sedentary Tajik origin." --The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: c.700–1800 CE, André Wink, Cambridge University Press, page 78.

Now watch the IP ignore this blatant fact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

One more, by Wink. Sorry for blowing up your talk page Noorullah21.

• "The Shansabani or 'Ghurid' sultans who superseded the Ghaznavids in the second half of the twelfth century and finally succeeded in extending Islamic dominion beyond the Panjab were of eastern Iranian or Tajik origin...." --Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th-13th centuries, André Wink, Vol. 2, Brill, page 135. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Kansas Bear Haha no problem, I actually like interactions on my talk page. Noorullah (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  At least pay attention to what is being discussed then reply. We all know your favorite source winks books, but what i said is his latest 2024 book ( like all other new sources) call them Afghan! And why i qoute winks? Just because he is mentioned in the article. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

And surprise, surprise. The IP did ignore the two quotes. LMAO. Done here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of the references

I've asked an administrator for the Wikipedia policy regarding the use of snippet sources, as well as opened a thread at RSN for the reliability of Yogendra Mishra. I would appreciate if you stop editing these articles for a while till some consensus is achieved – I don't want this matter to end up at WP:ANI. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sur empire

Hey I added a small sentence into the sur empire page to clarify that the empire emerged out of the Bengal Sultante. I was wondering why you deleted. It stumped me and a few others so now that I actually understand what happened I would like to put that piece of info on the wiki page. 82.44.0.125 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What you're adding is nonsense nor is supported by other sources. No sources state that the Sur Empire emerged from the Bengal Sultanate. Especially as it's capital was based in Bihar, where Sher Shah was first ruler. Noorullah (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The bengal sultanate was in control of bihar. Sher shah emerged out of bihar and took the rest of the bengal lands. 82.44.0.125 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bengal Sultanate was not in control of Bihar, stop adding nonsense unto the page. Noorullah (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

May 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Noorullah21 for accumulating at least 200 points during the May 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 14,452 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

HaughtonBrit SPI

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that Festivalfalcon873 and Alvin1783 were both blocked as obvious socks. It might also be helpful, in case you nominate any other articles that involve the Sikhs, to disclose in the nomination statement that these AFDs are being targeted by a sockmaster using numerous accounts to vote and twist the result in his favour. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8 Sounds good thanks, nice work by the way. Noorullah (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the DCWC!

See a    "developing" or    "least developed" country? Write about it to earn points!

Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Noorullah21! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello my friend

Do you need to me to verify any historic afghanistan flags, i'm pretty good at it 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Khalji Revolution

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Khalji Revolution you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Khalji Revolution

The article Khalji Revolution you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Khalji Revolution for comments about the article, and Talk:Khalji Revolution/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kimikel -- Kimikel (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Noorullah21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Lentini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

• Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
• Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
• Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

DCWC submissions declined

Hey Noorullah21, thanks for participating in the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest! I have declined your submissions for the GA and DYK nominations of Sher Shah Suri as they are both too old to be awarded points. Only successful nominations from within the contest period can be submitted for points. I have also declined your DYK nomination of Khalji Revolution; per the scoring rules, DYK appearances are only eligible for points when they are newly created or 5× expanded. The successful GA nomination for that article has been accepted. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Afghan Civil War (1793-1863)

Hello, Noorullah21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Afghan Civil War".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Afghan War

Hi there,

I've noticed we've come to a disagreement over the infobox for the Second Anglo-Afghan War. For the sake of brevity, I'll just state my points here, and then you can respond below.

You changed the infobox's result from "British victory" to "Afzalid-British victory" then "British-Afzalid victory". At the same time, you also changed the infobox so the Afzalids were above the UK (implying that they were a more prominent combatant in the conflict than the British). With all due respect, this is simply not an accurate reading on the conflict. The Afzalids were not more prominent in the conflict than the British, and there was not a single engagement in the war (to the best of my knowledge) that they were involved in; certainly none in the many pages we have on the war's battles anyhow. Your edits make the conflict look like an Afghan civil war that the British were only marginally involved in, which is simply not true. I will note that it is definitely questionable that you insisted I justify my decision to revert some of your edits even though you provided no explanation for adding them yourself. Though it is true that the Afzalids fought on the side of the British, they (and Abdur Rahman Khan) were definitely the junior partner to the British and not the other way around. Secondly, "British-Afzalid" victory implies that the two combatants were equal in terms of their involvement in the war, which is again not true. Take a look at the page for the Battles of Barfleur and La Hougue. It involved an equal Anglo-Dutch force on one side, and so is correctly described as an "Anglo-Dutch victory". Now look at the page for Second Battle of El Alamein: even though nine different nations took part, most of the Allied troops in the battle were part of the British Empire, so the infobox described the battle as a "British victory", which should be the case for the Second Anglo-Afghan War as well. This was a change to a long standing consensus on the page, and to the best of my knowledge neither source cited in the infobox's result section describes the war as a "British-Afzalid victory". That being said, I'm sure you have your reasons and am interested in hearing them out.

Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your example used for Barfleur and El Alamein here have different reasonings.

Firstly -- El Alamein was full of British colonies and subordinate nations, while as you mentioned, Barfleur was an equal designation.

The issue here is that Abdur Rahman Khan was not a subordinate, nor as you claimed, a "junior partner".

By looking at sources;

""Britain had been fortunate to escape the ‘rat trap’ without suffering the kind of humiliation that it experienced in the First Afghan War. Even so, the invasion was hardly a resounding success. Cavagnari and three other British officials along with their escort had been slaughtered, and the raising of the siege of Sherpur had been touch and go. The defeat at Maiwand and the siege of Kandahar were further dents to British military prestige. The intervention was the death knell for Forward Policy supporters and cost Disraeli an election, Lytton his Viceroyship and the British Exchequer £17 million, three times the original estimate. General Roberts eventually emerged as a British hero, but the real winner was ‘Abd al-Rahman Khan, who finally won the struggle for the throne that had begun with the death of Dost Muhammad Khan nearly two decades before."" (Jonathan Lee pg. 383)

-- Abdur Rahman had been engaged with his own struggle for the throne for the 2 decades prior, and was even initially hostile to the British until they sought him out as a suitable candidate for the throne of Afghanistan.

Not long after especially in Abdur Rahman's reign, he was extremely hostile to the British, seeking to declare a holy war on them in numerous instances, and breaking the Protected state status. (Lee 384-397)

Perhaps you are right, however, that overplacing the Afzalids in the infobox at least, is not the correct move. But I think the result parameter is where this should differ, with it clearly being a "British-Afzalid" victory. -- The Afzalids being a faction who were intermittently fighting for the throne of Afghanistan for over 20 years.

For a background on the Afzalids, see the background section on the Second Anglo-Afghan War page for generally who they were. background section link here.

A summary explanation can also be read in the aftermath section. @DonBeroni Noorullah (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I've read over your reply and agree with many of your points. However, there is just one which I find issue with. While your quote from Lee does indeed expound at length over British failures during the war, it makes little mention of the involvement in Abdur Rahman's Afzalid forces in the 1878-1880 conflict. Did they participate in the war's engagements in any significant measure? If so, then I would agree that "British-Afzalid victory" or "Anglo-Afzalid victory" is appropriate in the infobox. Otherwise, I must demur. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@DonBeroni Yes, while the British were invading Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman invaded Northern Afghanistan -- specifically Afghan Turkestan, Badakhshan, This is described by Lee between (Page 376-378). Or also in the Second Anglo-Afghan War section I linked here. Noorullah (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, it appears we have come to an understanding here. I'll change the infobox's result section to Anglo-Afzalid victory. Please let me know if there are other points of disagreement between us. Regards, DonBeroni (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@DonBeroni Nope, that's all, thanks for working this out! Noorullah (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Review

Hello Noorullah, hope you're well. Can you mark Pokrovsk offensive as reviewed? Right now an internet search gives info on the offensive's order of battle but not the offensive itself. Thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Flemmish Nietzsche Done. Noorullah (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)