Talk:Arab conquest of Kaikan

Pakistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Medieval / Early Muslim

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

On 29 October 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Kingdom of Kaikan to Arab conquest of Kaikan. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 29 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. uncontested move (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Kaikan → Arab conquest of Kaikan – The current context of this article doesn't really covers about the 'Kingdom of Kaikan' and after checking the references, I just found out that this kingdom is barely mentioned in those sources(no in depth information) along with the arab campaigns in those areas. Neither the year of establishmet nor the name of any king is provided in any of those sources. So, the article should be moved. Ajayraj890 (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, none of the sources provide an in-depth account for this kingdom. Atleast it should have provided the years of establishment and de-establishment, the significance of the kingdom, its geographical locations in detail, its roots, successors etc. The article should be moved or be deleted. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you post the link to the WP:RAJ rule? I can't find it by searching on Google. I understand that it has something to do with British Raj historical accounts not being valid. Matarisvan (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Here is it is. If you are confused with that, check this discussion. Ajayraj890 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the first link say British Raj sources are only irrelevant for caste related articles? The content in the second link, I could not understand, because I don't know the context. Here you might say that this article is on a Jat kingdom & thus can be viewed as a caste related article. But to this point I would say that this article is more historical & caste only plays a role in classification. If we were to not consider British Raj sources for historical articles, then I'm afraid what little details we do have on Wikipedia would also be rendered not credible. Matarisvan (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I removed the sources from British era (before 1947) because according to WP:RAJ, the British era sources cannot be used. I think @Sitush can explain this more deeply. The reason for the move request is, the article completely depend on the Arab invasion. The in-dept account of this Kingdom is missing. Ajayraj890 (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.