Talk:Conquest of Sylhet

Article name

User:UserNumber we should change the article's name. Which conquest? Conquest by whom? It should be named to Muslim conquest of Sylhet.--92.3.84.63 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need, Wikipedia prefers shorter titles. Also, many Wikipedia articles use simply "conquest" instead of "Muslim conquest" such as the Conquest of Mecca, Conquest of Tunis (1574), and the Conquest of Constantinople (the latter of which has unfortunately been redirect as the "Fall" of Constantinople due to subjectivity). UserNumber (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Conquest of Sylhet

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 Conquest of Sylhet'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 "pak":

• From Gour Kingdom: East Pakistan District Gazetteers: Sylhet. East Pakistan Government Press. 1970.
• From Gour Govinda: East Pakistan District Gazetteers: Sylhet. East Pakistan Government Press. 1970. p. 54.

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. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Reliability?

I have to observe that the presentation of Govinda as a merciless tyrant who oppresses Muslims, and specifically the narrative of his martyring Muslims for sacrificing cows (even assuming that the sultan's starting a war that would kill thousands of Hindus because of three Muslims was fair), is based on Muslim sources, which can hardly be expected to be unbiased in such a matter. The 'Biographical Encyclopedia of Sufis' by Hanif isn't even feigning an objective tone ('the Hindu ruler got infuriated and out of hatred and malice and revenge got the son of Burhanuddin killed'; 'immediately the sultan despatched his forces ... to take revenge of the poor victim Burhanuddin'); it's absolutely clear who the good guys are and who the bad guys are here. The very way Govinda is said to have learnt of the cow sacrifice is based on something like a miracle, by which God himself seems to be mocking Govinda's Hindu beliefs, which makes the whole incident sound like a pious Muslim legend. There must have been a Hindu perspective on these events, too, and it can't have been the same; but since Bangladesh is a predominantly Muslim country now, the whole narrative seems to be written from a Muslim point of view. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)