Talk:Second Bahmani–Vijayanagar War (1375–1378)

Requested move 9 April 2024

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: no consensus. Participants in the discussion found that very few sources refer to the war by any specific name, leading me to find no consensus to adopt any given title. Future discussions on this war may be best served by exploring a descriptive title.

Despite the no-consensus finding, I will be renaming the article to implement the MOS:ENBETWEEN and MOS:RANGE fixes that Tenryuu raised. These changes were not discussed by other participants, but I believe them to be uncontroversial maintenance. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Bahmani-Vijayanagara War (1375 - 1378) → Mujahid Shah's Vijayanagara campaigns – Not found any sources calling the event as "Bahmani-Vijayanagar War" of 1375-78. The article is based on the campaign of Mujahid Shah of Bahmani Sultanate after the death of his father Mohammed Shah I. Mujahid Shah's campaign against the Vijayanagara empire is notable, but no WP:RS, nor any Historians referred this to as the current title. As we can't invent names for the military conflicts such as X-Y War, proposing move. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Do proper research first before doing any POVish editing, here what WP:RS call this event-

The Fourth Bahamani War: June 1375—March 1378 THE HISTORY OF VIJAYANAGAR EMPIRE VOL.1. Sudsahab (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Mr. GOPAL names each and names for each and every skirmish such as "nth X war" etc. We are indeed not making every skirmish on the basis of his book. And I am surprised that even if the book says "The Fourth Bahamani War", what convinced to name the article as seen in its current form? Imperial^[AFCND] 10:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever read the book?, how do u know he names every skirmish as nth X war stop doing assumptions and What do you have problem with Mr. Gopal? Because he's not a historian and genuine scholar or it is because you don't agree with him and wants to propagate your on POV which is WP:OR. We are indeed not making every skirmish on the basis of his book Wdym? You mean we shouldn't take him seriously? Why and how? Kindly explain. Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles should not be moved whilst there is an active discussion taking place. I've move protected the article at admin level for a week, which should be enough time for a WP:CONSENSUS to be established. Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's a bizarre claim that a campaign is not a war. Or vice versa; I've lost track of the OP's curious interpretation of, and emphasis placed upon, certain English words and phrases. Perhaps, like Humpty Dumpty, words can mean whatever they want them to mean. ——Serial Number 54129 19:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129, we can't invent names for military conflicts. Can we? The "Bahmani-Vijayanagar War", that particularly happened in between 1375-1378, "Battle of X", "X-Y War(s)", "Siege of X", should have explicitly stated in the reliable sources as far as I've experienced from other editors. Else, it should be merged, moved, and if it fails GNG, it would be deleted. The current title is literally an invented name. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with Serial Number. There was no need to ask for a requested move when we have a source emphasizing the title of the article.ImperialAficionado I had given a source for proving that the title is not an "invented name" please read it before saying that.Sudsahab (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ImperialAficionado I had given a source for proving that the title is not an "invented name" please read it before saying that. Sudsahab (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sudsahab, "Fourth Bahmani War" is not the same as "Bahmani-Vijayanagar War". How do you think both are the same? Imperial^[AFCND] 05:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @Asilvering. I don't understand how this user thinks "Fourth Bahmani War" gets transformed into "Bahmani-Vijayanagar War". And please check the source given by them. The author of the book names each and every conflicts like that. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Er, this is my period but not my area, I don't have any idea what sources normally call it. I'm aware the two fought, but that's as far as I know offhand. I suspect it's probably just indicated descriptively, like "during the conflict between the Vijaynagar Empire and the Bahamani Sultanate" or so on, as is done in the lead here. If no historians call it a war and subdivide it out of the broader conflict in this way, we shouldn't be doing that either. I note that we have Bahmani–Vijayanagar War, which lists several of these conflicts with the same title format, and that seems reasonable and convenient. It looks possible to me that this is a bit beyond the scope of a move discussion for a single one of those articles - do they all need to be retitled? Should they instead be dealt with in a single article?

  I agree that "Fourth Bahamani War" and "Bahmani-Vijayanagara War" are obviously different titles, and I too am confused at how anyone could say they're the same. If they're both used relatively frequently, we can have one redirect to the other. But we should certainly follow the sources. I don't see a coherent argument here in favour of "Mujahid Shah's Vijayanagara campaigns" or "Bahmani Vijayanagara War", since the only source that has been provided is Gopal, who very unambiguously calls it "The Fourth Bahamani War". Unless that one book is particularly eccentric, it seems to me that "Fourth Bahamani-Vijayanagara War" ought to be the title. -- asilvering (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Asilvering. Thank you for being here. On the Bahmani-Vijayanagar War disambiguation page, there are five conflicts listed, all referred to as the "Bahmani-Vijayanagar War" by reliable sources. Only one source labels this one conflict as the "Fourth Bahmani War" and names each minor conflict in a similar manner. For example, the "three Bahmani wars" according to that one source fought before this one were considered part of the Bahmani-Vijayanagar War (1362-67). If we change the article to "Fourth Bahmani-Vijayanagar War," we'll need to split the (1362-67) war into three parts. Similar to Krishnadevaraya's Bahmani Expedition, this event could be called "Mujahid Shah's Vijayanagara Campaign." Recently, a discussion about the reliability of some sources has raised doubts about the notability of this event. Therefore, the current title can't be part of the disambiguation, as all there meets the notability criteria, and compared to other wars, the context of this campaign is too less. Where there are 3-5 pages dedicated in books, or even a complete book for the 5 Wars listed in the disambiguation, this campaign has barely one paragraph of being mentioned. That's why we couldn't see the "wars in disambiguation" with "this campaign". Imperial^[AFCND] 06:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  No, I don't think it follows from that that we'd have to split the 62-67 war into three parts. We can make an editorial decision to keep them all together, and that's the editorial decision we ought to be making if the sources typically discuss them in that way and there's no obvious reason to abandon that.

  I went looking at one of the sources linked in the current article, The New Cambridge History of India, which says: The Bahmani capital was at Gulbarga in Karnataka and its first war against Vijayanagara was launched from there in 1347; that suggests that "nth Bahmani-Vijayanagara War" is reasonable. He doesn't appear to have anything to say about this war, though. Having no mention of the war in an entire book on Vijayanagar does strongly suggest that we don't have the sources to write an article about it. I believe in that case we normally handle the topic on the article about the individual rulers. -- asilvering (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• (pedantry) Whatever the outcome of this discussion turns out to be, if Bahmani-Vijayanagara and/or 1375 - 1378 end up being preserved, please change the hyphens to unspaced endashes per MOS:ENBETWEEN and MOS:RANGES, respectively. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. asilvering (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Not WP:RS

The source being cited is not WP:RS. This source: [1] by a "P. Sree Rama Sarma" is not from a reliable publisher, in fact it looks like a vanity publisher?

The individual is not any form of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and thus is not WP:HISTRS. Noorullah (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

See this. Garudam ^Talk! 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Garudam You linked an RSN where the editor you were talking to still disputes it. Noorullah (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No @Noorullah21, they do not dispute the reliability of the source (as you do) but rather the specific citation claim, which could have been addressed. Garudam ^Talk! 17:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this conversation should continue at the RSN rather than two different talk pages where we speak to each other, so I made my reply/comment there to your latest one. Noorullah (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Result

This IP user in this edit; [2] changed the result.

There are sources that assert a victory [for the Bahmanis], any thoughts here? Noorullah (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert IP edit, sources are not definite in concluding the result. Garuda ^Talk! 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)