![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of GuptaâHunnic Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "EI":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⥠05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This article has a multitude of massive paragraphs. Inserting more paragraph breaks would make it less of a slog to read, providing breaks for the eye. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Jonharojjashi, what is the significance of the section Samudragupta's ÄryÄvarta campaigns? Seems like the section is not related to the article's scope, and as mentioned above, it is hard to navigate through the significant, and unnecessary parts due to the mass of the paragraphs and such. Please explain. Imperial [AFCND] 17:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Mnbnjghiryurr, @ ImperialAficionado Can you both stop these disruptions for a moment? Samudragupta's Aryavart campaigns hold significance for this article as it's the event before Samudragupta's venture in the North-west which eventually commenced the initial Gupta-Hunnic conflicts. Though I'll make it less massive so that readers can go through it easily, but what is the point of bringing your past experiences with me? Jonharojjashi ( talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
it's the event before Samudragupta's venture in the North-west which eventually commenced the initial Gupta-Hunnic conflicts, but the article's scope is not the initial war as it seems. Per the title, I can count it as the article for the entire wars. I can go for a WP:30 if you're willing. Else, this will do nothing but fuels the report aganist you for being a PoV pusher. Imperial [AFCND] 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Now, let's discuss the response, focusing solely on the disputed areas as requested in the 3O. The cited sources clearly state that the Gupta Empire fell due to the invasions of the Huns. So, I'm confused why you asked, "huh, had you gone through the sources? The sources you added only talk about the decline..." with no mention of the Hunnic victory? The quotations make it unmistakably clear that the Huns emerged victorious against the Guptas (I won't repeat it since you've already linked to it). Upon reviewing the sources that've cited in support to the Gupta victory, I've found that the "Gupta victory" is mentioned by referencing the Second Hunnic War (ended in 534). Why is that? The conflicts between the Guptas and the Huns didn't conclude with that war. According to the sources I've cited, they persisted until the fall of the Guptas (550), which was also caused by the Huns. It's evident that there's an attempt to glorify the Guptas by artificially limiting the duration of the war to make it seem like the Guptas succeeded, while disregarding subsequent wars and invasions. Imperial [AFCND] 19:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The Gupta empire's decline started in the middle of the fifth century, when Hephthalite (Huna, or White Hun) incursions sapped the Gupta's strengthand Dictionary of Wars. (The reliability should be questioned as the author is a specialist in infectious diseases, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at Yale University [7] not any scholar of history, it doesn't look RS to me.) states:
Successful invasions by White Huns weakened the kingdom so thoroughly that with the death of the last Gupta ruler (c. 467) only a Bengal remnant of its power existed, and then only until 499.I don't see "Hunnic victory" as such in your quoted sources. These sources don't go beyond specifying decline of Gupta Empire after the war.
I can provide more if neededI could do the same but citing only those sources which precicly state it as Gupta victory.
The Bakker's timeline is the timeline of "Second Hunnic Wars". No it's the timeline of the whole Gupta-Hunnic struggle, please don't waste anyone's precious time by misinterpreting sources, the sources are cited right there before you. Jonharojjashi ( talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Baladitya as having defeated Mihirakula and saved the Gupta empire from the Huna depredations. The defeat of Mihirakula appears to have finally crushed the Huna political supremacy in India. The Hunas no longer appear as a great power or even a disturbing element in Indian history.
the simultaneous wars conducted by the Sasanians and Guptas against Hunnic peoples on either side of the Hindu Kush after he had passed away are suggestive to that effect.p-5
The evolving power of Hunnic people in Eastern Iran (Kidara) and northwest-ern India (Kidara/Alkhan) during the period 430 to 450 has a remarkable parallel in the expansion of Hunnic forces under Attila encroaching upon the Roman Empire. Three empires, the Roman, the Sasanian and the Gupta were ravaged by the wars fought with these elusive enemies and weighed down by the levies imposedp-14
"WP:SYNTH mess", "fictional timeline of 1720-1819", iykyk. Imperial [AFCND] 16:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran@ Jonharojjashi summarise your analysis here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#GuptaâHunnic Wars. Imperial [AFCND] 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
I am declining to provide a third opinion as there are already more than two editors involved in this dispute. 3O is explicitly for requesting a third opinion. Any editor is welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago ( talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of GuptaâHunnic Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "EI":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⥠05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This article has a multitude of massive paragraphs. Inserting more paragraph breaks would make it less of a slog to read, providing breaks for the eye. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Jonharojjashi, what is the significance of the section Samudragupta's ÄryÄvarta campaigns? Seems like the section is not related to the article's scope, and as mentioned above, it is hard to navigate through the significant, and unnecessary parts due to the mass of the paragraphs and such. Please explain. Imperial [AFCND] 17:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Mnbnjghiryurr, @ ImperialAficionado Can you both stop these disruptions for a moment? Samudragupta's Aryavart campaigns hold significance for this article as it's the event before Samudragupta's venture in the North-west which eventually commenced the initial Gupta-Hunnic conflicts. Though I'll make it less massive so that readers can go through it easily, but what is the point of bringing your past experiences with me? Jonharojjashi ( talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
it's the event before Samudragupta's venture in the North-west which eventually commenced the initial Gupta-Hunnic conflicts, but the article's scope is not the initial war as it seems. Per the title, I can count it as the article for the entire wars. I can go for a WP:30 if you're willing. Else, this will do nothing but fuels the report aganist you for being a PoV pusher. Imperial [AFCND] 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Now, let's discuss the response, focusing solely on the disputed areas as requested in the 3O. The cited sources clearly state that the Gupta Empire fell due to the invasions of the Huns. So, I'm confused why you asked, "huh, had you gone through the sources? The sources you added only talk about the decline..." with no mention of the Hunnic victory? The quotations make it unmistakably clear that the Huns emerged victorious against the Guptas (I won't repeat it since you've already linked to it). Upon reviewing the sources that've cited in support to the Gupta victory, I've found that the "Gupta victory" is mentioned by referencing the Second Hunnic War (ended in 534). Why is that? The conflicts between the Guptas and the Huns didn't conclude with that war. According to the sources I've cited, they persisted until the fall of the Guptas (550), which was also caused by the Huns. It's evident that there's an attempt to glorify the Guptas by artificially limiting the duration of the war to make it seem like the Guptas succeeded, while disregarding subsequent wars and invasions. Imperial [AFCND] 19:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The Gupta empire's decline started in the middle of the fifth century, when Hephthalite (Huna, or White Hun) incursions sapped the Gupta's strengthand Dictionary of Wars. (The reliability should be questioned as the author is a specialist in infectious diseases, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at Yale University [7] not any scholar of history, it doesn't look RS to me.) states:
Successful invasions by White Huns weakened the kingdom so thoroughly that with the death of the last Gupta ruler (c. 467) only a Bengal remnant of its power existed, and then only until 499.I don't see "Hunnic victory" as such in your quoted sources. These sources don't go beyond specifying decline of Gupta Empire after the war.
I can provide more if neededI could do the same but citing only those sources which precicly state it as Gupta victory.
The Bakker's timeline is the timeline of "Second Hunnic Wars". No it's the timeline of the whole Gupta-Hunnic struggle, please don't waste anyone's precious time by misinterpreting sources, the sources are cited right there before you. Jonharojjashi ( talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Baladitya as having defeated Mihirakula and saved the Gupta empire from the Huna depredations. The defeat of Mihirakula appears to have finally crushed the Huna political supremacy in India. The Hunas no longer appear as a great power or even a disturbing element in Indian history.
the simultaneous wars conducted by the Sasanians and Guptas against Hunnic peoples on either side of the Hindu Kush after he had passed away are suggestive to that effect.p-5
The evolving power of Hunnic people in Eastern Iran (Kidara) and northwest-ern India (Kidara/Alkhan) during the period 430 to 450 has a remarkable parallel in the expansion of Hunnic forces under Attila encroaching upon the Roman Empire. Three empires, the Roman, the Sasanian and the Gupta were ravaged by the wars fought with these elusive enemies and weighed down by the levies imposedp-14
"WP:SYNTH mess", "fictional timeline of 1720-1819", iykyk. Imperial [AFCND] 16:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@ HistoryofIran@ Jonharojjashi summarise your analysis here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#GuptaâHunnic Wars. Imperial [AFCND] 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
I am declining to provide a third opinion as there are already more than two editors involved in this dispute. 3O is explicitly for requesting a third opinion. Any editor is welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago ( talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |