Talk:Kalinjar Fort

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kalinjar Fort article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Fortifications / Asian / Indian / South Asia / Medieval C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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:
/
	Fortifications 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)

India: Cities / Uttar Pradesh / History Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian cities (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on 14 September 2021. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
Please address the following issues as well as any other cleanup tags before re-tagging this article with copyedit: Multiple sections lack references entirely

This is the most recent pre-copy-paste version of the page. Maybe it would be a good idea to revert to it? Someone the Person (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

I just reverted to it. Someone the Person (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud of Ghazni invasion[edit]

dear Kansas Bear please note that according to the reference you are providing, Mahmud of Ghazni had invaded Kalinjar but however he didn't conquered or captured this fort. so I would have to undo your edit. you may also search for other citations at Google Books which are saying Mahmud Invaded but could not capture Kalinjar. actually there's difference between invading and conquering. kind regards. Rmkop (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the "source" you are using is by Arjun Kumar who is not an historian. The source I am using is written by an historian and does say, "Subsequently, in 1023, Mahmud of Ghazni led an expedition to Jejakabhukti that forced Ganda to surrender the fort of Kalinjar". More sources written by historians:

History of Medieval India, by Sunil K. Saxena, "Lahore, Kalinjar, Gwalior, no battles. Exacts tribute(ie. submits)."
Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter, by Finbarr Barry Flood, page 80-82.
History Of The Chamar Dynasty : (From 6Th Century A.D. To 12Th Century A.D.), by Raj Kumar, page 127, "In 1022-1023 he[Mahmud] received the submission of Gwalior and Kalinjar.

Therefore, I will be restoring this information written by historians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this "other" editor continues to edit war and not participate in discussion, I will address their "sources" here:

The early rulers of Khajuraho, Sisirkumar Mitra, states that the ruler of Kalinjar fort paid tribute and begged for safety.
Historical Geography of Madhyapradesh from Early Records, by P. K. Bhattacharyya, states a "friendly relation was established", quite a simplified version of paying tribute according to the other 4 sources!
History of India, by N. Jayapalan, states Kalinjar was besieged, nothing else. This book appears to be an extremely simplified version of history.

Taken in total, I see nothing that states Mahmud failed in his siege of Kalinjar, "In 1023, Mahmud of Ghazni, vigorously tried to capture the Rajput forts of Gwalior and Kalinjar but failed, later a peace treaty was however made between Rajas and Mahmud."

Therefore, this edit warred version is original research and has been removed. I would suggest to the "other" editor that simply using google books to find their opinion of what happened is a poor way to find sources. Considering that Sisirkumar Mitra, appears to be a physicist and the other two authors are also of questionable reliablility. Also, continued edit warring will be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In The early rulers of Khajuraho , Sisirkumar

Mitra, also states that Gwalior and kalinjar remained unconquered. ain't u original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:6FF4:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Guess you missed this part, "states that the ruler of Kalinjar fort paid tribute and begged for safety. So you have effectively cherry-picked what you want the source to say.

How about this form of original research by you, "History of India, by N. Jayapalan, states Kalinjar was besieged and nothing else, yet you used it to misrepresent your opinion.

I have 3 sources stating Kalinjar paid a tribute and two that states, "received the submission of Gwalior and Kalinjar". You have nothing but your personal opinion and original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Shorter History of India, page 210, "..the Chandel raja of Kalinjar, whose ancestor had paid tribute to Mahmud...". Make that 5 sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KHAJURAHO, Santosh K. Bose, East and West, Vol. 7, No. 2 (JULY 1956), page 169, "His son, Ganda, the third in succession, however, surrendered the fortress of Kalinjar, the kingdom's capital, to the invaders in 1023 A.D..". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for RMkop, your latest edit warred version is not by consensus, is original research and clearly POV editing. I have a secondary source, which by the way is to be used over tertiary sources, that states the fortress was surrendered. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To further address the original research inflicted upon the articles by user:RMkop:

Mohammad Habib, Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin, page 48, "Gwalior was invested.". More evidence that Gwalior was taken. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are the IP and Rmkop the same person? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most assuredly. Both have added the exact same source. Rmkop 10:41, 26 June 2015 2a03:2880:3010:6ff2:face:b00c:0:1 2a03:2880:3010:6ff4:face:b00c:0:1 11:09, 26 June 2015. And all these incarnations of Rmkop's are involved in edit warring over three articles, Mahmud of Ghazni, Kalinjar Fort and Faisalabad. Judging from the gaming of the system going on here, I would suspect that Rmkop is a currently blocked user. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that (and that s/he suddenly became quiet after my question), I removed the entry from the third opinion noticeboard. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::Alright, if we can't agree on secondary sources, Encyclopedia Britannica is a neutral source always there.

2A03:2880:3010:6FF2:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. A tertiary source should not be used unless there are no secondary sources. Clearly there are secondary sources, you don't like what they say; when secondary sources clearly state they submitted and paid tribute. The secondary "sources" you have supplied do not state anything to support your opinion. You have been reverted by 4 editors and clearly do not have consensus for your version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources to support territory source, but territory source should be preferred in controversial issues. others editors reverted me because i am on IP adress, ask them to support you on this Talkpage. 2A03:2880:3010:6FF0:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]