Talk:Second Battle of Tarain: Difference between revisions

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Merged and Shifted

There were actually Four articles on this Topic....Namely

Battle of Tarain Battles of Tarain First Battle of Tarain Second battle of Tarain

Now the first three articles have been merged and redirected to a common and more comprehensive Article which is the "Battles of Tarain"... Now I feel if the article of the First Battle is merged into it then we should also redirect the article of the Second battle into it as well... BTW all these articles include almost Identical Information and hence it is useless to have to different articles on the same topic with Identical info.... Adil your (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

'Strength' section on the infobox

I have undone an edit here which seems to alter the figures and not provide any source. It seems like anonymous users coming and changing the numbers is a common occurrence, but there does not seem to be any reason to accept a figure without a reliable source. Akakievich (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Anonymous users changing figures is the norm here on Wikipedia. I have restored the Roy figures(which I confirmed finally) and restored the Chandra figures. Both are reliable sources and should be presented. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing that, I appreciate it. Akakievich (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

roy is pro hindu not reliable soucres Rowan8882ij (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of a source is meaningless. Kaushik Roy is a Reader at the Department of History, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, West Bengal.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello to everyone, is there any modern estimate or earlier source supported by modern scholars about the forces of Prithviraj Chauhan because the source given, i.e. satish chandra's book clearly says Ferishta gave grossly exaggerated numbers. It would be great to have those numbers witten here instead of ferishta's account. Even the fact that this is grossly exaggeration is not mentioned in the article itself, so it is a little misleading. Sajaypal007 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation, another non-paginated source is unverifiable

Currently the article contains a reference(Review:NANDINI SINHA KAPUR: State Formation in Rajasthan: Mewar during the Seventh-Fifteenth Centuries) that does NOT support Mathan Singh at the second battle of Tarain. This is source misrepresentation.

The other source, A History of Rajasthan is unviewable and contain no page number(s), which means it fails WP:V.

The IP that has edit warred these sources into the article has told me to "Rv, this review of jornal please check the source from Chapt 5 onwards", is wrong. Per WP:ONUS if the IP wants this information in the article is it their responsibility to provide a reliable source with a page number that supports this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear How can you claim that source did not talk about Mathan Singh ?? He was feudatory of Chahuhan Rajputs, In any case for Kachwaha participation here is the source which is more verificable:-

Jadunath Sarkar (1994). A History of Jaipur: C. 1503-1938. Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-81-250-0333-5. on page numner 25. 2402:8100:2182:614F:2D99:BFBF:D501:82C6 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• "How can you claim that source did not talk about Mathan Singh ?"

Easy. Said "source" is actually a review of a book by Nandini Sinha Kapur. Your "source" gives no page numbers to verify this information. When checking this "source"(ie. review) it makes no mention of Mathan Singh. Also you have not provided a page number or quote from the actual book to verify this information.

• "In any case for Kachwaha participation here is the source which is more verificable"

So you are saying you edit warred to use an unverifiable source, got it. When providing information for verifiability, you should provide the page number and a quote. Anyway, the Sarkar source says "The story runs that Pajvan...", which would indicate this is not historical fact. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

Can anybody pls add another Category i.e. Battles involving the Rajputs. 2409:4051:4E93:566C:8390:7686:9CC9:3C6A (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit

Since Sajaypal007 opposed my removal of Prithviraj Raso's account of army strength of the Rajputs, Special:MobileDiff/1090113211 & Special:MobileDiff/1089040449. In my recent edit, Special:MobileDiff/1090427599, I added the number of fatalities on Rajput side from source of Dasharatha Sharma who quoted Hasan Nizami, closest source to the event and it states in the rout, 100,000 Hindu/Rajputs were slained. Thus, the number of 83,000 by fictional Raso is removed as of now, Special:MobileDiff/1090429024. I explained my points on my own talk page as well, Special:MobileDiff/1090134693 & Special:MobileDiff/1090137075. Feel free to discuss it with contrasting reliable sources.

PS:- Ferishta's number might be exaggeration as he claimed it was army of Rajput and Afghans as well; but how much ?? He was tbe closest Persian author who mentioned strength of Rajput army. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 13:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly adding casualty figure from Nizami and based on that removing strength of Prithviraj as given in Raso is WP:OR. Secondly as much as Raso is poetic work, Nizami although being one of the earliest description of second battle of Tarain, (Prithviraj Vijay's although contemporary, its most content is lost) was also a poetic work. And regarding being biased, he was so much as while many islamic accounts mention the first battle of Tarain where Ghori was routed, Nizami doesnt even mention that. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Another thing is many Islamic accounts are known to blow off their opponents strength, while for hindu accounts there have been tendency of blowing off both the numbers, their own and their adversaries to upscale the grandeur of the battle. So it is quite puzzling when Raso gives such a small number for second battle of Tarain, it also gives the account how one of his prominent general was away and Prithviraj was only with a part of his army at the fateful field of Tarain. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, in history, its not like everything is fixed, and there are different opinions and we have to show different perspective and it is not our job to contrast two sources and decide for ourself what might have happened, that is original research, so based on Nizami's casualty figure, we can not conclude that Raso is wrong because its strength number is less than casualty number of Nizami. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: While I concur with you on Nizami being biased as he even omitted Tarain-1191 fearing Aibak under whom he wrote his book.

• I don't have a issue in presenting the numerical strength of Raso but not in infobox where we should stick with more accepted versions, Ferishta's account though might be exaggerated but are quoted by all learned scholars including Dasharatha Sharma.
• I already pointed out how unreliable Raso is and shouldn't be used for such extraordinary claims; It even got ancestry of the hero of the text wrong. It even claimed that Prithviraj slained Ghuri, Is it historical ? Even Prithvirajvijay was written to glorify Prithviraj as Jayanka himself accepted that where he compared him to Hindu deity Rama.
• He did lost Skanda prior to this fateful day, though still had many of his able generals behind him like Govind Rai, Kachwaha kings who were chief allies of Chauhan's as their early coinage also suggests.
• I think this is very much evident that his army included over 100 Rajput chiefs [See my talk page where I replied to your concerns]; Thus, it's not possible that all of them could only muster 83,000 force ?

FYI, sources differ on Shahabuddin's army strength as well, some sources states that Ghurid only had a 40,000 army but we prefer to stick with more accepted and sensible assertion of Minhaj. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

No reliable secondary source back Raso's claim of Prithviraj killing Ghori. While for strength it does. for which part one text is reliable and for which part it is unreliable is work of historians. And Ferishta has been proved unreliable on quite a lot of occassion besides being biased, so it's not like one is a holy truth and as put by a lot of reliable secondary sources that Ferishtah's strength of Prithviraj is highly exaggerated, so how can that have place Raso's numbers can't. Sajaypal007 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your viewpoint that, texts like Prithivirajraso fails WP:NPOV.You may call it WP:PRIMARY source too, but unlike other primary sources which can be used in some cases, it's use is suspicious as it was an eulogy and lacks historicity. Infact, the conclusion it has mentioned about the end of skirmishes between Chauhan and Ghori is ridiculous and not supported by any historian. I don't know the context in which it was use there, but proving a point using this source should be forbidden altogether. Also, the sourcing guidelines are clear that we need WP:SECONDARY sources mainly, as they are considered most reliable among all.Admantine123 (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Gaur rajput dynasty of Sarwar, ajmer

There should be mention of Gaur rajput dynasty, they fought many wars and support Prithviraj Chauhan in all battles and ruled many parts of the Rajasthan, in 1198 They ruled Ajmer . Please mention Gaur rajput dynasty in this Article Citation- Oficialhistory602 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Requested move 13 April 2025

Second Battle of Tarain → Second battle of Tarain – Per WP:NCCAPS. Far from always capped in sources. See google scholar [1] and ngram result here. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support – clearly a descriptive title, not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – per consistency with almost all second/third/etc. battles. Consistency is one of the five criteria, a policy which outranks the guideline NCCAPS. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  WP:CONSISTENT explicitly does not apply to spelling variations and capitalisation is arguably a spelling variation. It is WP:LOWERCASE (also part of WP:AT) that explicitly links to WP:NCCAPS. Any specific part of WP:AT should be read in the fuller context of that policy rather than taken in isolation. CONSISTENT refers to topic specific naming conventions. The spirit and intent of CONSISTENT deals with word patterns rather than the spelling of words within the patters. While battle is consistently capped in WP articles in the format Battle of X, this is done as the first word in sentence case. While sources on many particularly well known battles do cap battle in prose, this is not always done, though many editors tend to assume capitalisation. Where the question of capitalisation is explicitly considered and usage does not support capitalisation, lowercase is used. This is evident in most of the battle articles for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. MOS:CAPS dictates capitalisation in prose and applying a different standard for the article title would create an inconsistency between the title and content. Your argument might better be characterised as one of WP:OTHERCONTENT, which only carries weight if comparisons are directly comparable and represents best practice. How sources capitalise battle for different battles is not directly comparable and they do not represent best practice if the question has not been explicitly considered but assumed. This post from another discussion identifies some of the false consistency that exists for articles of the format Ordinal battle of X because usage in sources (best practice) has not been considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Spelling variations only refers to WP:ENGVAR. It's one thing if we have something like "revolution" or "war" which is very mixed and should be handled on a case-by-case basis, but something like >95% of ordinal battles are treated like they should, as proper names. WP:LOWERCASE is not one of the core criteria for article titles. Consistency is. I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered: if the name was lowercased more (like maybe, just maybe, an actual majority?), then of course it should be moved to lowercase. However, if it's something that is usually (per Google search, seems to be around 70% or so), but not always capitalized, with the added consideration of MOS:MILTERMS, consistency should certainly be a factor. The discussion ended in no consensus so it cannot be a precedent. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

  Neither WP:CONSISTENT nor Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles make reference to capitalisation or letter casing. Nonetheless, you would assert that CONSISTENT applies to capitalisation where the cases they do deal with address word order, and spelling as an exception. Your assertion is that CONSISTENT has primacy over LOWERCASE, even though if applied, it would lead to an inconsistency between an article title (effectively using titlecase) and its prose (per MOS:CAPS) using sentence case. Both are part of WP:AT. Rather than reading the parts in isolation, it is far more reasonable to read the parts in the fuller context of the whole - while WP:CRITERIA will determine a proposed title, the ultimate title should conform to the guidance as a whole. Where reading CONSISTENT in isolation as applying to capitalisation, reading WP:AT as a whole tells us to use sentence case. If we capitalise a title that is not normally capitalised in prose [in sources] then that would be title case. Of the two views we hold, one inherently creates inconsistencies with the prevailing P&G if applied; one does not.

  [S]omething like >95% of ordinal battles are treated like they should, as proper names. This is, at best, a circular argument - assuming that they are proper names, then asserting that they should be capitalised as a proper name. These names are descriptive and certainly not true proper names (see also the Collins definition here). However, WP relies on evidence of usage to determine capitalisation and what we nominally refer to as a proper name. However, if we saw sources for 95% of each ordinal battle capitalise Ordinal Battle of X 95% of the time, then we wouldn't be having this discussion since Ordinal Battle of X would be [near] always capitalised and a proper name per NCCAPS. Problem is, this is not what we see. For second battle of, we only see it capitalised in a raw ngram search (here) 70-80% of the time and this does not capture just prose usage - it also captures expected title case uses such as headings and titles of references being cited. The raw ngram over-represents capitalisation. Not all ordinal battles are capitalised equally in sources. Considering four of the ordinal battles most represented in the ngram corpus (see here and here), for the second battle of the Marne 87% UC, second battle of Ypres 76% UC, second battle of Bull [Run] 80% UC, and second battle of El [Alamein] 76% UC. Again, these are raw ngram results that overrepresent capitalisation in prose. For the WWI battles, we also see a marked rise in UC centred about the year of their centenary that would fall to WP:RECENTISM, given that this type of capitalisation is primarily for importance. These four battles make up 28% of the usage of second battle of in the ngram corpus (see here). If these make up a significant proportion of uses in the coprpus and are capitalising at a percentage greater than the average, then there will be many battles capitalising at below 70% (eg second battle of St Albans at 42% UC was also suggested from the wildcard search).

  When I referred to my post at a previous discussion, I was not citing this as a precedent. I was referring to the search results for a sample of articles which show that of the 71 articles using third battle of in a title or as a redirect, there are 19 identified in that post and a further two evident from the search where the capitalised article title used (30% of the total) is questionable.

  Capitalisation does not reasonably fall under CONSISTENT because if it did, it would create several inconsistencies within prevailing P&G. Ordinal battles are not a priori proper names - 95% of ordinal battles are not capitalised 95% of the time in sources. As a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, there is strong evidence that WP ordinal battle articles are over-capitalised. The use of usually in a sub-paragraph of MILTERMS does not reasonably create a lower threshold to capitalise battle of when read in the fuller context of MILTERMS and MOS:CAPS, of which it is part. Ngram evidence is that Second Battle of Tarain (per the present title) sits at 55% (see here). Cinderella157 (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)