Talk:Islamic invasion of India

message: Did a complete rewrite of this article. It was clearly vandalism before with stuff quoted from right-wing hindu sites. Hopefully this makes it better. 
Alexeifjodor, you asked me to state my reasons for the change. I believe it is quite clear, look how biased this topic was before. Clearly it was written from a very radical and anti-Islamic point of view. As I want to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia, it is imperative that the bias be removed. 
I live in India and have long studied the history. As you can see, I did not write a huge article on the subject of the Islamic invasions but started it from scratch so that it was not biased garbage anymore. I think the great influences and contributions of Islam to India should be mentioned as they were a result of the invasions of the early centuries.  
TO EVERYONE: Feel free to add any factual statements if you want but please refrain from vandalising the article by making it offensive and biased. -- User: Admin001
________________________________________
:Well, I merged your addtions with the original article. After having read the article, I agree that it is not written very npov especially because of inappropriate vocubalary (words like "barbarism"). This is however not a reason to delete the whole article (the good and the bad parts) and replace it with another version that is at least as POV as the prior version. Instead, the bad parts should be rewritten in a npov manner. --Alexeifjodor 23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thanks for comments. I have however the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are trying to remove every criticism regarding these invasions. Well, this is an article on invasions, and almost every invasion has had its critics. Since you wrote "Islam was generally tolerant of other religions and granted rights to the diverse population of the region." I'm sure you must also be somehow a tolerant person, which I think includes accepting some criticism regarding one's personal POV's. I wrote that the article could be written better and worded in a more neutral fashion, this may also be the reason that it has a npov header on it. However, let me remark that removing the entire article just to replace it with another version that is at least as much POV as the original version is not considered very tolerant and is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I merged your additions together with the original article, and since both parts of the article still have some bias in it, I left the npov header in the article. If however you see a way to improve the article, or see some mistakes please try to improve the article, and please document your reasons and cite your sources while doing so. Deleting an entire article to replace it with a personal POV is however not very "tolerant" and should at all costs be avoided. --Alexeifjodor 19:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Deleting an entire article to replace it with a personal pov is considered vandalism in wikipedia, try instead to improve the article in little steps and please document reasons/cite sources, and your edits will much likelier get accepted. Can you really imagine this happens in other articles as well, or would you consider it neutral if someone would do the same in another article that would contain criticisms which you would consider maybe relevant or even justified? And why are you also deleting the links and even the link to the french wiki? Most articles contain critical links, and the articles where this can't be the least avoided would surely be articles on invasions and war. And yes, Will Durant is relevant, because the citations is from The Story of Civilization which is considered as one of the masterpieces in historical literature. And Will Durant did in general say many positive things about Islam, so his remark is not against Islam or religion per se but is against the invasion and against the specific invaders (like Mahmud etc.)itself. Will Durant critcises the invaders and the behaviour of the invaders, their destructivness and greed etc., he doesn't criticize their religion. Read some Durant. --Alexeifjodor 06:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what the Will Durant article says, btw, about Will Durant and his Story of Civilization: The profound respect with which they treat Islamic culture and civilization--treading the groove first carved by Edward Gibbon but seldom followed up upon by historians who followed him--has caused at least one Arabic translation of their sections on Islamic Civiliziation. Note: their frequent use of the terms "Mohammedans" and "Mohammedanism" for Muslims and Islam, respectively, should not deter Muslim readers. It was merely a convention of the time, much as African-Americans were described as "Negroes" when the Durants were writing. Given the fairness with which all subjects Islamic are handled by the Durants, the terms can in no way be interpreted as pejorative or as being indicative of a hostility toward the Arab and Islamic world.--Alexeifjodor 06:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MASSIVE ARTICLE CHANGE 

message: Besides the classic Hindu vs. Muslim arguments, my personal bias says a sentence or two might be added about the Parsis fighting for their new adopted land and their population being halved. And also, how this invasion influenced directly and indirectly on the influence of Sikhism. Of course I could be talking about the wrong invasion, this article is so confusing right now! Khirad 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the information regarding the Parsis will probably belong to articles like Islamic conquest of Iran, or maybe Persecution of Parsis or Persecution by Muslims. But yes, some aspects of it might also be mentioned in this article. The relationship with Sikhism definitely belongs in this article and should be mentioned. Be bold in updating articles. --Garcia Marquez 14:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Religions 

message: This article is bad beyond salvation through editing. Much of it is simply a list of names. Where it isn't a list, it's a biased attack on Islam. As one who majoried in Indian history, I say it needs a total re-write. A precis of any respectable mainstream history (Romila Thapar for example) could provide a basis. PiCo 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article could still also be named "Islamic invasion (or conquest) of India". We are talking here of the period of ca. 1000 CE to 1700 CE. The "westerners" who conquered India at that period of time called the country and people "Hindu, Hind, Hindusthan, etc.", in fact the very name India derives from this period. (Though the term Hindu is not an invention of the Islamic conquerors, it was already used by the Persians). And the majority of the histories and accounts on medieval India use the word India rather than South Asia, because the country was called by that name in that period of time. I don't think that it is controversial to use the word "India" when referring to the medieval period, but I could be wrong. However, if you still think that South Asia is the better name than India for the article title, or if India could really be considered as "controversial", I don't mind if the article is renamed to South Asia. If we rename this to "South Asia", Greek Conquests in India should also be renamed.  --Kefalonia 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-write needed 

message: Why bother with a rewrite when a merger will do?
To begin with, this article is wrongly titled. As the Wikipedia listing for South Asia will attest, the term "Indian subcontinent" is no longer correct, being unacceptable to Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Therefore "Islamic invasion of India" is equally wrong, since the area mostly affected by the initial invasions was what is now Pakistan. Yes, it was called "India" back then, but it's South Asia now. Likewise, we no longer speak of the "Islamic conquest of Spain" (since the area of modern Portugal was affected). We call it the Islamic conquest of Iberia. 
So then, there exists a more objective article called the Islamic conquest of South Asia within which some of the correct and neutral information in this article can be imported. This article can then be converted into a Redirect to the other. 
67.94.0.46 16:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article could still also be named "Islamic invasion (or conquest) of India". We are talking here of the period of ca. 1000 CE to 1700 CE. The "westerners" who conquered India at that period of time called the country and people "Hindu, Hind, Hindusthan, etc.", in fact the very name India derives from this period. (Though the term Hindu is not an invention of the Islamic conquerors, it was already used by the Persians). And the majority of the histories and accounts on medieval India use the word India rather than South Asia, because the country was called by that name in that period of time. I don't think that it is controversial to use the word "India" when referring to the medieval period, but I could be wrong. However, if you still think that South Asia is the better name than India for the article title, or if India could really be considered as "controversial", I don't mind if the article is renamed to South Asia. If we rename this to "South Asia", Greek Conquests in India should also be renamed.  --Kefalonia 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother? 

message: :Add any additional comments
----
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
the author is totaly wrong in his assessments. Muslim is terrorist religion from its birth to till now. any muslim dominated area is communaly polarised area . one of mohamed ghaznavi and mohamed ghor are those basterds who try to destroy hindu religion and country but they failed to do so totaly it is the same in the case of so called jihadis of this dirty religion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.76.47 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I agree with both South Asia and India. South Asia is correct because Pakistan is in south Asia as is India. However, most of muslim invasions of India was actually in today's modern Pakistan. Muslim invasions from Central Asia, Middle east did indeed occupied/ruled Pakistan much more than than they did in India but I is true that Pakistan was India in the past, there was no Pakistan and those territories were all Hindus in the past before being converted to Islam. Vamlos (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Asia or India ?