Talk:Battle of Khanwa

Untitled

This article is not wikified, not encyclopedic, and not coherent. Will need much work, which I may not be able to give it. I'm working on too many articles as it is. Zora 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Early matchlocks.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Early matchlocks.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Early matchlocks.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of reference to Battle of Chaldiran and Battle of Ghagra in "See Also" section

I have added reference to the Battle of Chaldiran in the "See Also" section. The Battle of Chaldiran was fought a decade before the First Battle of Panipat. The Ottomans made extensive use of cannons and firearms protected by a barricade of carts to win the battle. Babur procured his cannons and firearms from the Ottomans and used the similar tactics to win the battle.

I have added reference to the Battle of Ghaghra since this was the last major battle fought by Babur in India. This battle consolidated his empire.

Please review these changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayonpradhan (talk • contribs) 05:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no problem for the First Battle of Panipat and the Battle of Ghaghra. They are contextual. Chaldiran is too far fetched.Ghatus (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute (discussion moved from user talk page)

@Alivardi: Thank you for this intro. Coming to the point, I believe you did make an error at the page on the Battle of Khanwa. Articles are made neutral by inserting different points of view from all sides. There are many such sources on that article praising Babur and quoting him. The text you removed contained a Rajput viewpoint, and was well-sourced. By removing it, you removed useful content. What's wrong in a source praising a side's valour? There are many such sources on wikipedia, e.g. Roman history articles where Livy, Plutarch etc. praise Roman gallantry. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the requirements of Wikipedia's neutrality policy is the use of nonjudgmental language, which includes not presenting a point-of-view that sympathises with a subject. This does not mean that we don't record a subject's successes, but rather that we don't word it in a way which unnecessarily flatters them. This includes such vague complementary language as "gallantry", "chivalrous" and "hero" as had been used in the Battle of Khanwa.

However, this is all beside the fact that the primary reason I had reverted the content, as I had stated twice in my edit summaries, was that an extensive quote on a completely separate conflict is irrelevant in that article. Please see WP:ROC for further discussion on the need to keep article content focused on its subject.
Alivardi (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: It was describing the skirmishes before the battle - they were definitely relevant to it, and do not seem to run afoul of WP:ROC. Also, complimentary language is acceptable if it is a quote from a source, and is done for both sides - many are present in the article for the Mughal side. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Quotes are allowed if they serve a clear purpose. However, this one instead gives an extensive explanation of a completely separate conflict. Yes, earlier relevant battles should be mentioned, but only as a quick overview. Anything else would be more appropriate for a separate article. What does this bloated and fawning quote contribute to the article that cannot be easily achieved with a sentence or two in normal text?
Alivardi (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: It was only a couple of sentences, in addition to a couple more non-quoted sentences. Not much, it was quite brief. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Five sentences, so a paragraph. Plus the other four non-quoted sentences.
Alivardi (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Still quite brief. Wikipedia is an expanding project, and good content is always welcome. Are there any other issues to re-adding it? 183.83.147.61 (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an expanding project, and good content is always welcome Of course...in a separate article. You are always welcome to create one.
Alivardi (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Now, that is too small for a separate article. And is brief enough to fit in this article - which it is associated with. What is wrong in re-enlarging the present article? 183.83.147.61 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you've reverted the edit again. Imposing your preferred view on the article while we're still in the middle of discussing it is not going to help lead to a mutually-agreed consensus (see WP:BRD). Especially when you're also accusing me of stonewalling, which it seems you've misunderstood.
Alivardi (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: I bear no ill-will towards you. What I meant was that you were reverting a point that multiple users had tried to insert (not exactly stonewalling, but roughly there). I did not do it with any accusatory intent towards you; if it offended you, I'm sorry.

Coming to the point, what is left to discuss? Let's see a summary of the arguments so far:

Violates WP:NPOV: It doesn't. To achieve NPOV, multiple points of view have to be inserted. Many points favouring Babur exist; this is a well-sourced one from the Rajput point of view, praising the Rajputs, just like Livy's and Tacitus' praises of Romans often exist on WP:HISTORY articles.

Not related to the article: It described the skirmishes before the battle. Pre-battle maneuvers and skirmishes are an important part of any battle.

Too big: No, it is not. It's only a paragraph. On the other hand, a large section (probably even a majority) of articles on battles cover pre-battle moves and encounters, along with praises of both sides, in far more detail than this.

Separate article required: No. It is far too small for an article, and would end up being one of the worst stubs. Besides, it is not an independent event - it is closely tied to this battle.

Bloated and fawning: No. It is just praise from an academic source. If this is "bloated and fawning", I dread to think of what label Ctesias and Plutarch would get - and yet, both are regularly quoted on wikipedia. This paragraph, on the other hand, is more moderate than even Livy.

So that's that. Since you ask, I'll not go to the edit page until we settle it here - but we should, surely, settle it here. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Do continue the discussion - it is important. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

It will take me time to write an appropriate response to this message and, unlike other edits, it is not something I can do whilst eating breakfast. I'm currently at work and I'll respond when I get the chance. I'm asking you to have the same patience with me which I had with the timing of your own replies. Thank you.
Alivardi (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• ​Violates WP:NPOV The neutrality policy doesn't require opposite parties to be equally praised; it requires us to use neutral language for all sides. You've previously said that the article praises Babur in a similar way to the edit in question, but beyond noting his methods of achieving victory, I do not see what you are referring to. What happens in other articles should not be taken as examples, for unless they are among the featured, they are just as fallible to such issues as we are discussing.
• Not related to the article I do not believe I've ever said this. I only stated that this level of detail is irrelevant.
• Too big I want to point out that a total of five conflicts were mentioned in that section. Why does this particular skirmish need to take up nearly half the space?
• Separate article required I did not say that a new article was required, nor did I mean that the content be simply copy-and-pasted into it. You are free to create this hypothetical article if you wish and expand it as much as you see fit.
• Bloated and fawning Addressed above. For the record, we are very careful citing such ancient writers as Plutarch and Levy here as per WP:AGE MATTERS.
  Alivardi (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Right, given the lack of opposition to the contested edit, I suppose I can re-add it now? 183.83.147.61 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

​ There was no support for the edit either. Not to worry, I've posted a request for a Third opinion in this discussion. I hope this will lead to an amicable solution.
Alivardi (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@183.83.147.61: & @Alivardi:

The section we are talking about is Battle_of_Khanwa#Initial_skirmishes

Hi, In my opinion, it is more a case of rewriting contested paragraph.

1) Information gap: As of now from sectionBattle_of_Khanwa#Initial_skirmishes what one understands is Humayun and Rana Sanga both are contesting Agra, What is not clear is who was controlling Agra.

2) One more probable information gap However, Nizam Khan, the commander of Bayana, opened negotiations with both Babur and Afghans. Then mention of sentence The force sent by Babur to Bayana was defeated and dispersed by Rana Sanga. is coming too sudden and ending abruptly. Link between Nizam Khan and Rana Sanga is not clear enough.

3) IMO. If I am not wrong. It should be possible to merge The force sent by Babur to Bayana was defeated and dispersed by Rana Sanga. and the deleted line The Rana continued with his army and attacked the Mughal advance guard on 21st february 1527 and completely decimated it. Reinforcements sent by Babur met the same fate. to some extent

"decimated it." should be enough, if one uses word 'completely then question arises. how did Mughals reemerge ? So IMO word completely not needed

4) One more information gap : In deleted sentence under discussion : Forcing the governor Mehdi Khwaja to flee to Babur. Info of Mehdi Khwaja appears suddenly without informing he is governer of which place? And when battle of 'Bayana' going on where is 'Humayun' is not clear from the section info. At times many aspects of History are not available or not clear is understandable but that needs to be stated clearly. Process of summarizing should not be reason of information gap So I hope editors will cross check on this aspect.

5) Quote part can be summarized or gist can be included in main para. Both of you can do among yourself or else If both of you wish and agree I will help you summarizing or creating gist of quote part on talk page -in couple of days- you can both accept or reject no compulsion from my side.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response Bookku. I believe you are correct about the existing issues with the section and I'm happy to implement your suggestions if 183.83.147.61 has no further objections.
Alivardi (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Thanks for your suggestions Bookku. They'll be good for the article. Coming to the point of contention - the quote - could you suggest what a good gist of it could contain? Removing the last sentence (which was the problem behind the issue Alivardi raised, i.e. that it contained terms like "hero" and made the paragraph too big) and re-inserting the rest seems like a good idea to me. 183.83.147.61 (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

which was the problem behind the issue Alivardi raised ....It wasn't the only problem.
Alivardi (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but removing the last sentence would substantially reduce the issues you raised. It would reduce the quote to a small excerpt and would turn the praise-giving quote into just a light compliment. That would be a reasonable middle ground (though somewhat truncated). What do you think? 183.83.147.61 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

​I disagree. I believe a reasonable middle ground was what I had said earlier, that the information from the quote is just as easily conveyed as a summary in normal text. This is exactly the same suggestion that Bookku had made.
Alivardi (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: I would be interested to hear his suggestions on that; it is a good proposal. I was suggesting one way of doing just that. (my IP address changed) 183.83.146.34 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

​In that case, why don't we accept Bookku's offer to write the quote summary?
Alivardi (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alivardi: Yes, that is what I am waiting for. In the meantime, do you have any suggestion for summarizing it? Thanks, 183.83.146.34 (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

​I'd rather they write it for us and we conclude this dispute. As we are both in agreement, I'll make a direct request to them.
Alivardi (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to keep informed. I am working on it. I did bit of background searching on whose ref is being given, There are many William Erskine one being quoted in the article is William Erskine (historian). This is just for information and wikilink if needed.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggested article edits

@183.83.147.61: and @Alivardi:

Following are just suggestions you can decide if those or ok or need further improvement. Thanks and best wishes Bookku (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The force sent by Babur to Bayana was defeated and dispersed by Rana Sanga on 21st February 1527. Mughal emperor Babur himself in his memoir takes note of Rana Sanga's speedy advances creating difficulties before his forces, At end of first para about skirmishes with Rana Sanga, Babur says "..The foe swooped on our troops and put them to rout..." ahead he mentions about some of his gentry "..either out of fear or to scare others..,..,..and others from Bayana, praised and extolled the valour and ferocity of Rajput troops.

In one of the earliest western scholarly account of the Mughal rulers, 'A History of India Under the Two First Sovereigns of the House of Taimur Baber and Humayun', according to William Erskine, a 19th century scotish historian, Rana Sanga a Rajput community background known for it's valour, proved to be a formidable rival for newly formed empire of Babur. Under leadership of Rana Sanga, Rajuputs came and fought together to preserve their national pride. In his book A History of India.. Erskine quotes (summary):

They (Mughals) had some sharp encounters with the Rajputs, ... found that they had now to contend with a foe more formidable than the Afghans or any of the natives of India to whom they had yet been opposed. The Rajputs, ... were ready to meet, face to face,... all times prepared to lay down their lives for their honour.

— William Erskine, "Rana Sanga", 'A History of India Under the Two First Sovereigns of the House of Taimur Baber and Humayun' P. 464

If you want to use summary without quote template or edit further with ease They (Mughals) had some sharp encounters with the Rajputs, ... found that they had now to contend with a foe more formidable than the Afghans or any of the natives of India to whom they had yet been opposed. The Rajputs, ... were ready to meet, face to face,... all times prepared to lay down their lives for their honour.

My notes

1) I gave a long thought whether to acknowledge and include mention of national pride, since two kind on objections would arise, one is Rana Sanga was fighting for self-interest not necessarily national interest second is many people contest whether pre modern India had concept of Nationhood at all.

2) Interesting part is a British historian is acknowledging concept of Indian national pride even before rebellion of 1857 took place.

3) If it would Rana Sanga was struggling for only self interest for possession of few districts, several other dominions would not have joined him, It seems like on the line of Marathas fought the lost Panipat battle to save Delhi and 1857. Now some one can say this is OR but words of William Erskine can not be said to be OR.

4) I suggest some one update William Erskine article because it lacks refernces as of now and there are many other William Erskine are there and some one needs to verify information and update article with refs.

5) It seems Babarnama available on Google books likely to be helpful in filling some of information gaps pointed out earlier.- Though Babarnama is technically primary source you can fill in the gaps with info and confirm primary source with secondary scholarly source and add the refs.

Thanks, and greetings

Regards Bookku (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Earlier point of discussion just for quick ref in needed. [1] Full Quote for just for ref

They had some sharp encounters with the Rajputs, in which they had been severely handled and taught to respect their new enemy. A party from the garrison had some days before incautiously advanced too far from the fort, when the Rajputs fell upon them and drove them in. All the troops engaged in this affair united in bestowing unbounded praise on the gallantry and prowess of the enemy. Indeed the Jaghtai Turks had found that they had now to contend with a foe more formidable than the Afghans or any of the natives of India to whom they had yet been opposed. The Rajputs, energetic, chivalrous, fond of battle and bloodshed, animated by strong national spirit and led on by a hero, were ready to meet, face to face, the boldest veterans of the camp and were at all times prepared to lay down their lives for their honour.

References

@Bookku: You've really gone beyond what I had expected in your dedication to help solve this dispute. Yes, I would be happy to accept your suggested version and I appreciate the thought and effort you've put into preparing it.
Alivardi (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Thanks a lot Bookku. You've helped a great deal in solving this dispute. Since Alivardi is in agreement, I think we can implement it now. Shall I, Alivardi? Thanks to you too for the time you took to discuss this. 183.83.146.34 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

​No problem. Go for it.
Alivardi (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

== About Rana sanga inviting babur ==

Please see this https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.10571/page/n47/mode/1up

Rana didn't invited babur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungpeshwe9 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

On the 'Background'.

'However, Indologist Gopinath Sharma who is well known for his scholarly work on..' is there any way to verify if he is truly an 'Indologist' as i fail to find him on any site so far. I would find it disconcerting and concerning to falsely cite individuals with professionalism without certifying it. BobRutsa (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)