Hiensrt

Battle of Attock (1758)

Hello, Hiensrt,

You tagged this page for speedy deletion as an obvious hoax but since it is dealing with assessing historical literature, it doesn't qualify as "obvious" from an admin's point-of-view. So, I've converted it into a Proposed deletion which will allow other editors to assess your argument. If an editor removes the PROD tag, you can always propose it for deletion at Articles for Deletion. Speedy deletions are supposed to be straight-forward and uncontroversial and so your tagging didn't fit for this type of deletion.

If you have questions about the variety of deletion processes, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I understood as the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned account, it should be categorised as such. Now I think Proposed deletion was the better option.Hiensrt (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Further hoax battle articles?

I have seen messages from you expressing concerns about battle articles. A fairly quick look suggests that you are probably right. I will look into it more thoroughly when I get time. JBW (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBW, there is quite an upsurge of such articles, specially on battles. There are no such battles mentioned in almost all the mainstream history book I have referred to countercheck. Above that even the sources/citations provided in the article does not specifically mention any such battles. Devil is in the details, the citations are related but not about the battle of course because I think there were no such battles. Apart from that some articles are also using some obscure books maybe self published or castecruft chest thumping books published or funded by the same castes organizations or individuals which by the way is happening a lot these days in India. Hence it has become more important to verify the authenticity of sources as well. This has become some sort of menace these days.Hiensrt (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I fairly thoroughly investigated Battle of Bharatpur (1757) and came to the conclusion that it was definitely a hoax, so I have deleted it. I started looking at other articles, and making notes on what I found, but a computer system crash caused me to lose those notes, and I don't remember much detail of what I had found. However, I do know that it seemed to me that Battle of Ghasera looked extremely dubious, and I also had doubts about Capture of Delhi (1753). I will try to come back to it, but unfortunately I have now lost a lot of time that I put into it, and can't afford more time now. You evidently know much more about the whole topic than I do, so if you have any information you can offer that may help me, I shall be grateful. JBW (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Great work removing Battle of Bharatpur (1757). Unfortunate to know that you lost your notes, anyway I didn't see Battle of Ghasera page, but will look into it. About Capture of Delhi (1753), let me give short summary of what it actually is. Safdar Jang was wazir i.e. Prime Minister of Mughal Empire during the time of Mughal Emperor Ahmad Shah Bahadur. The mughal empire was a tottering mess at that time. Safdar Jung was quite powerful and even controlled the emperor, due to some court politics he was expelled from the post of Prime Minister and asked to retire to his province of Awadh, later his descendants ruled Awadh state till 1850s till British took over the kingdom.

Anyway when he was expelled from Delhi the imperial city, he didn't go to Awadh but remained in the vicinity of Delhi and collected his army to challenge the imperial authority. In short he rebelled against the empire. He also invited other factions and parties of former mughal empire like Marathas, Jats and other Mughaliya soldiers to his cause. Same thing was done by Imperial side as well. The imperial city which was called Shahjahanabad at that time was a walled city. It was fairly new city and built near the many old cities of Delhi. Today the same Shahjahanabad is called the Old Delhi because later British built a New Delhi near it. Anyway some maratha soldiers sided with Imperial side while Jats under Surajmal took the side of Safdar Jang. Rebels then tried to attack the walled city but as it was fortified they could not succeed. Rebels who were outiside the city looted the countryside including the old cities of Delhi which lie outside the Walled City. In these lootings Jats who were obviously under Safdar Jang took active part.

And this is just a short part of the war. Soon Imperial side started to make sorties out of the city and attack the rebels. Such skirmishes started to happen more frequently, both sides lost many men and war went on for months. Both were fed up with the war and no one was getting an upper hand. Later Jaipur ruler Madho Singh I mediated a peace between both parties and Sadfar Jang left for Awadh. The war thus ended. The role of Jats was of taking part in the war under Safdar Jang and they merely looted unprotected, unguarded and mostly impoverished people of old delhi (most of the family which has even little money took shelter in the walled city). Now this small episode of a bigger yet not too well known Rebellion of Safdar Jang is made as a separate battle in itself, which is not the case, and not just battle they made it look like they captured the Imperial city and that too themselves and were not acting under the authority of Safdar Jang. If it was a battle, then with whom? the impoverished victim of the loot, didn't fight back. Safdar Jung's rebellion under which all this took place has no page of its own and we have such page. In my opinion either this page can be converted into Safdar Jang's rebellion and all other aspects of the whole war is to be added or this page should be deleted because this page in its current state is WP:HOAX.Hiensrt (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to read in detail, Historian Jadunath Sarkar in his book Fall of Mughal Empire Vol. 1, described this war in minute detail. A whole chapter is dedicated to rebellion of Safdar Jung. Another page is Battle of Sikandra, now I read in some books that a Jat rebel Rajaram of Sinsini exhumed and burned the remains of mughal emperor Akbar but no book mentions any battle happening at Sikandra where the tomb of Akbar is. Neither any citations on the page talks about any such battle. My opinion is the rebel Jats came to Sikandra, broke open the tomb of Akbar then exhumed and burned his remains because Sikandra was in the heartland of Jat terrirtory hence no one could go there in time to oppose them and its not like any army is charged with guarding of a tomb, it was most likely lying unprotected. Hence this page too looks like WP:HOAX. This one is also created by now banned sockppupet user. One new user @Basedch is most active on these pages and he also created a new page Battle of Pichuna just two days back, frankly speaking I doubt this one as well but I have to check the sources which I didn't do. This user also got final warning for many vandalisation he has done. Hiensrt (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Also look at Battle of Peshawar (1758), no mention of any battle happening at Peshawar in citations provided. Some user tried to add a book reference which is listed in WP:PUS and written by unknown author. There has been flood of such obscure books written by obscure writers under influence of some specific ideology or castes. Need to check this battle page because well known historians do not mention any such battle.Hiensrt (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Capture of Agra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bharatpur. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)