Talk:Mu’awiya I’s Sindh Campaigns: Difference between revisions

When are you planning to add the new sources? I have told you so many times about the WP:RS policy. Yet from so many other articles you have created, I still see the same problem (including this article which is fully cited by unreliable, self published, and outdated sources) @Legion of Liberty R3YBOl (🌲) 12:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What’s the main problem here? The sources look substantive, though I haven’t cross-checked the individual citations for verification. And how can any be self-published? None of them are primary texts by Muawiya … Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

well User:Legion of Liberty initially had added some unreliable sources. they cited historians like Yaqut al-Hamawi, al-Ya’qubi and another historian who all are outdated.they even cited a self published source that I removed myself here. I saw their recent edit of restoring the article and they added new sources, I haven’t checked the new ones yet. As far as I know historians such as al-Hamawi or Yaqubi can’t be cited directly because they are not considered to be a secondary sources. R3YBOl (🌲) 13:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New sources are added , Initially i used some primary sources for WP: PRIMARY (although wiki doesn’t fully necessarily deny their use but has restrictions) , but i didn’t form analytical structure in the general bias of the article solely on those reports , I subsequently added secondary sources which analysed the events. Although there was some inconvenience regarding some citations so i acted swiftly and added new citations and hopefully i managed to remove self publications . I try to keep variety in sources i.e I added Indian , Arabic and Neutral sources and included the events which are agreed upon by all. Legion of Liberty (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Legion of Liberty, I wanted to note something about the title of this article, Mu’awiya didn’t participate directly to campaign in Sindh. Even adding him in the “Commanders and leaders” parameters isn’t valid. You got Mohsen Zakiri mentioned 2-3 campaigns in one page and was by passing. Regarding Mathew’s source, you mentioned that one small sentence taking from the source. He mentioned the battle in passing. Citation number 7 mentioned only that Abd Allah was unsuccessful and killed without giving off all these numerous information. Yet overall the article isn’t notable and the same applies to Ali’s Eastern Campaigns, Persian revolts against the Rashidun Caliphate (which already can be covered in First Fitna and Muslim conquest of Persia) and so many articles created by you. This article should be redirected, as well as Ali’s Eastern Campaigns. R3YBOl (🌲) 16:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The article title can be improved surely into Umayyad campaigns in Qayqan (661–680)
• Talking about the notability , it is surely notable because it’s not a minor skirmish or a expedition , these campaigns persisted over almost 2 decades The campaign of Abd Allah itself had a 4000 strong large army with it and were not merely a raiding party. They were sent to assert control , the second campaign of Sinan and Rashid were large scale as well , also the campaigns were distinct from any other contemporary conflicts.
• Talking about Ali’s Eastern Campaigns and the Persian revolts , both were distinct conflicts and in no way connect to the First Fitna or the Muslim conquest. If a conquered region rises into revolt , it is a rebellion. So terming persian rebellions under Ali getting Suppressed can’t be termed as “Conquest” , rebellions happened later after the conquest. Also , Ali’s Eastern Campaigns were most against Non Muslims , how can you term it as a part of First Fitna if it literally terms for the First Muslim Civil war. Hence they are distinct conflicts and are notable. Ali’s Eastern Campaigns resulted in thousands of casualities and territorial changes.
• Other articles i assume you mean battles of First Fitna , well simply distinct articles can be made for battles of a civil war if they are notable. Clearly articles I made are notable and distinct

Legion of Liberty (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The current title Mu’awiya I’s Sindh Campaigns appears to be somewhat misleading. The military activities attributed to Mu’awiya I in this region were not confined strictly to Sindh alone, but are generally discussed in the broader context of early Muslim expeditions in India.

Given this, there are two possible improvements:

The article could be expanded and retitled to something like Mu’awiya I’s campaigns in India, with proper coverage of the wider geographical and historical context, supported by reliable sources.

It is worth noting that substantial material on early Muslim contacts and expeditions toward Hind (India) can be found in the works of Qazi Athar Mubarakpuri, which may help in improving sourcing and balance in this article.^[1]

@Veritasphere I read a few texts regarding Campaigns ordered by Mu’awiya towards India , although there are few raids and clashes that occurred in Afghanistan and Central Asia , however I don’t think they can be considered as Indian campaigns. Maybe the title should be changed to something suitable regarding the conflict covered already. If there’s in conflict or campaign I’m unaware of in India , then let it be added to the article and the article title be changed. Legion of Liberty (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Legion of Liberty: “… In India and Khorasan”?Veritasphere (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we sould use Qayqan for current article. Veritasphere (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Veritasphere The article could be expanded and retitled to something like Mu’awiya I’s campaigns in India that’s still not helpful, there is already an article about Umayyad campaigns in India, if we rename this one as “Mu’awiya I’s campaigns in India” then we have to create articles for every single Umayyad campaign against India. I still would like to note that Mu’awiya didn’t directly participate in this war himself, so only commanders should be included in the “Commanders and Leaders” parameter. Since Qayqan here is referring to Kalat, Balochistan, This article should be either redirected to Kalat or the Umayyad campaigns in India. As I mentioned previously the sources in the article mentioned the campaigns by passing, this indicates how the article isn’t notable enough. the same argument applies for the other article that @Legion of Liberty had created (Ali’s Eastern Campaigns) the title is literally a WP:OR and doesn’t really make much sense (though I should discuss these issues in the article itself and not here). There is also an issue in this article, it’s somehow not written in a neutral way, for example in “Mu’awiya I’s Sindh Campaigns#Skirmish with the Turks (664)” I really don’t know who defeated who here except knowing that 18 Turks were killed, I really have no idea if the Umayyads won there or were defeated and if they won in that skirmish. R3YBOl (🌲) 12:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to know where Qayqan refers to exactly ? There are so many disambiguation links regarding Qayqan’s location. The infobox linked it to Kalat, Balochistan is that correct ? R3YBOl (🌲) 12:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]