Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1362–1367): Difference between revisions

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National / Asian / Indian / South Asia / Medieval / Early Muslim 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600) India: History 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

@Shakib ul hassan, WP:RAJ is not applied to Cambridge press, and other sources outside the RAJ. Also, sources that came after 1940, are not considered as RAJ era sources. About SCA, you have to read their whole article to get the details about the belligerents. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I am genuinely interested why did you remove post-1947 sources? It clearly doesn't fall under WP:RAJ. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so then, can you point out in WP:RAJ whether we can use sources after 1940 or not? Besides I have noticed that you have removed the sources which were published after 1940 [1][2][3] can you explain the double standards? And I didn't remove post 1947 sources, you just have to look at their first editions. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your words before typing. WP:RAJ is applied to a definite era, on some of the Authors. Except "Reign of Peshwa Madhavrao I", everything I removed falls under WP:RAJ. Try not to blame others, but try to understand the policy. You clearly haven't read the WP:RAJ as seen from the last sentance. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of pointing where it's written in WP:RAJ that we can use sources of post 1940, you say I don't understand the policy whilst it's you who have been removing sources of post 1940. Ok then I'm pinging @User:Sitush as he is the only one who can help us to resolve this issue. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only place where I did mistake was removing "Reign of Peshwa Madhavrao". And I am not removing it in my recent edits. None of the source cited in this article falls under WP;RAJ. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested, hello. The figures in the infobox are covered in the article body. And if you think Society for Creative Anachronism is unreliable, feel free to remove them. I don't think there is a need for citing inside the infobox again, as the article body already covers it. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And fyi, the source of SCA is taken from here [4]. Regards. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about Society for Creative Anachronism at RSN, something I didn't reply to there as another users had already pointed out that they were a historical re-enactment group of hobbiest. The file you link to appears to just be their own work, and so again is not reliable. I'm quite surprised you have continued to use this source.
I would suggest citing the figures in the infobox, as such details tend to be controversial and the infobox is a separate thing from the lead (which generally shouldn't contain citations). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the confusion. However, the user's response didn't clearly indicate whether I could use it or not. They mentioned, "I would not use it for anything except WP:ABOUTSELF," which appears to be a personal opinion rather than a widely accepted policy. I was still awaiting for opinions from others, which is why I considered using WP:ATTRIBUTION. And, if you believe that citing sources in the infobox is a better choice, I wouldn't disagree with that. The reason makes sense. Regards. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable source for anything but about self comments of their historical re-enactments. In general hobbiest sites are never considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I verified all the sources and all state it was a peace but the information i found in the recent source by Rc Majumdar PG no 278 is - The account of the war given by Firishta is inaccurate and one-sided. According to him, Muhammad Shah I defeated Bukka I on every battlefield, chased him from place to place, and when at last Bukka crept back into his capital, the Bahmanl Sultan lured him out of his stronghold and, having crushed him in a battle, dictated to him the terms of peace which he had no option but to accept. Though some of the facts mentioned by Firishta might be true, the Vijayanagara army did not fare so badly in the war as he would have us believe. They contended with the Bahmams on equal terms, and struck blow for blow. In the end, the Bahmani Sultan had to sign a treaty which left Bukka I master of the whole of the Krishna-Tuhgabhadra- dodb excepting some mcihals on the southern bank of the Krishna which were to be governed jointly by the two monarchs.3 The terms of this treaty, to which Firishta himself alludes indirectly, clearly show that the war ended practically in a victory for Vijayanagara. As the war had commenced on account of the refusal of Muhammad Shah I to recognize the river Krishna as the boundary between Vijayanagara and the Bahmanl kingdoms, and as the river Krishna, according to the terms of the treaty, was fixed as the boundary between the two kingdoms, though a few mahals on the southern bank of the river were subjected to the joint authority of the two governments, it is obvious that Bukka I got the better of his rival. so firstly WP AGEMATTERS and this recent source state that it was a victory for vijayanagara so I'm doing changes accordingly Violetmyers ^(Talk) 22:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]