Talk:Gupta conquests of Bengal

Infobox "result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks Imperial^[AFCND] 06:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters it clearly says The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail. The consecutive results are well sourced in the article so you don't need to remove it. I have also noticed that you have a past of misunderstanding Wikipedia rules like [1]. So kindly refrain from disruptive editing, and see WP: RECKLESS thanks. Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. See the explanation given by Gog the Mild on Talk: Maratha-Nizam War. Imperial^[AFCND] 10:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We cannot summarise long campaigns and was like Maratha invasions of Bengal in a few words "X victory" and besides you have done the same thing in Ghaznavid campaigns in India if this was really concerning then the involved admins would have already removed it. Jonharojjashi (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is newly created and I myself tagged the WikiProjects here. So it takes time to get into the hands of Administrators. And in this case, WP:MILHIST are assigned to involve this topic area. Tagging @Gog here. Imperial^[AFCND] 13:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Summarising complex issues in one or two words is exactly what the template guidance requires us to do. I word urge you to read it. Replacing what it says with what makes clear sense to you is not how Wikipedia works. There seems to be a Wikipedia:Consensus for abiding by policy. And this sort of thing is not going to attract Admins, that's not what they're for. We are meant to read the relevant policies and guidelines ourselves and follow them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Based on the sources currently cited in the article, this doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY / WP:SYNTHESIS: the sources do not discuss the content as "Gupta conquests of Bengal". In fact, some of the sources propound the theory that Bengal was the homeland of the Guptas.

Just because we have sources for the individual sub-topics belonging to a category does not mean that we should create a new article for every possible category. For example, unless reliable sources discuss Foreign relations of India with Christian-majority nations as a topic, we should not be creating that article with content that belongs to India–Mexico relations, India–Philippines relations, Brazil–India relations etc.

Bengal was not a political unit at the time of Guptas (neither it is now). We don't need this article just like we don't need Gupta conquests of eastern India, Gupta conqeusts of Lower Gangetic Plains, Gupta conquests of West Bengal, Gupta conquests of Bangladesh, Gupta conquests of Sundarbans, Gupta conquests of Medinipur division, Gupta conquest of Bankura Sadar subdivision Gupta conquest of Bankura district etc.

If the individual campaigns pass WP:NOTABILITY, it's ok to create something like Samudragupta's campaign against Chandravarman (most of them probably do not, and are best suited as redirects to Samudragupta#Military career). utcursch | talk 15:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

[2] explicitly throws light on the Gupta conquests of Bengal (pg 147-151) and what does origin of Guptas had to do with it? If Guptas were from Bengal so this article shouldn't exist? Though [3] on the basis of the provenance of early Gupta coin hoards and the distribution of the important Gupta inscriptions, historians have come to the conclusion that Gupta homeland was lower Doab (Eastern Uttar Pradesh).

Moreover it does pass WP:GNG as the sources are/aren't:

• Presumed, almost all the sources guarantee the territorial expansion till South East Bengal and upper Assam similarly sources also concluded the involved belligerents and results, so generally it doesn't come under WP:SYNTH.
• Reliable sources are well cited
• Significant coverage in [4] (pg 147-151)[5] (pg 354)[6] (pg 738)

Although I agree that naming the article "Gupta conquest of Vanga" and citing more sources where it clearly mentions Gupta conquest of vanga or Gupta invasion of Vanga could have been better, I will try my best to improve it. Feel free to add up or remove unsourced contents. Jonharojjashi (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This looks like yet another attempt by Jonharojjashi to make another ""Indian victory" battle/war to gain some pride points. Speaking of non-notable articles, they're making another one as we speak, this time using a legendary history not supported by WP:RS to Indianize an entity [7]. I think the next step for this user is WP:ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Now this is completely unacceptable as you are accusing me of gaining some pride points and the next step for this user is WP:ANI as If I have done something blatantly wrong. [8] the page is in working phase so how can you pass judgements? Previously you had accused me of creating weak articles (Kanishka's war with Parthia) "allegedly" which was not. It is understandable now what your point is as I'm already getting links now. Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you literally just got "accused of creating a weak article" here too by another user - some self reflection is advised. Saying it's in a working phase does not make it any better if it's a WP:POVFORK, especially when we've already seen how your "completed" articles look. Feel free to take those links to your ANI report [9]. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh now I have explained above how this article is notable and if you have seen other "completed articles" too then what is your opinion on Kanishka's war with Parthia is it weak because of sources? Or is it weak because you say so? It is clearly WP: BLUDGEON Jonharojjashi (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You havent explained anything, and taking credit from others is not cool: the Kanishka’s war with Parthia was saved by other editors edits and suggestions, not you, who were spamming my talk page at the time [10] [11]. And thats not what WP:BLUDGEON mean. HistoryofIran (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

But that was not my question at all. I simply asked you whether I had cited unreliable sources there or not? And ofcourse thanks to User:Folly Mox, User:Srnec & User:पाटलिपुत्र, if they weren't there, you would have resorted to some ways of removing the article at any cost, as you most probably wouldn't want any newcomers to contribute to any Iranian/Afghan related articles. You seem to have some sort of misperception or prejudice towards me for making non-notable articles in your point of view, but that is not wholly true. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You do realize everyone can go back and read what truly happened? [12] And feel free to take your unsubstantiated concerns about me to ANI. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I certainly do, because I'm confident of my stance here and anyone can see [13] that you couldn't even differentiate between "900k Iranian peoples and 900k Iranian army" you even lied that "None of the refs have a page cited". From this view, it is evident that who was making blatant excuses and you have a habit of making false allegations towards me for making non notable articles. Jonharojjashi (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)