Misplaced Pages

Talk:Khalji dynasty: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:05, 15 March 2015 editSaladin1987 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,275 edits →Pashtun influence on the Turkic Khilji← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:48, 5 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 25 discussion(s) to Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 1, Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 2) (bot 
(258 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1={{WikiProject Pakistan|class=start|importance=low}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ipa|long}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Bengal}} {{WikiProject Bengal}}
{{WikiProject India|class=Start {{WikiProject India|importance=low|history=yes|history-importance=low|delhi=yes|delhi-importance=low}}
|importance=low {{WikiProject Afghanistan|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Pashtun|importance=High}}
|history=yes
{{WikiProject Former countries}}
|history-importance=low
|delhi=yes
|delhi-importance=low
}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=March 31, 2012}} {{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Miniapolis|date=March 31, 2012}}
}} }}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}
|algo = old(365d)
|maxarchivesize = 75K
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|counter = 2
|archive = Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== to Kami2018 ==

The article CLEARLY is one sided. Internationally among scholars khaljis are considered turko afghan. And all sources point out to that. Calling it "only" turkic, while removing Afghan is clearly opinion based. Hope you reconsider your position.

== comment about diff ==

* ''diff in question ''

The '''Khalji''' or '''Khilji'''{{efn|name=different_names}} dynasty was a ] dynasty which ruled large parts of the ] between 1290 and 1320.<ref name="Khalji Dynasty">{{cite web |url=http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045252/Khalji-Dynasty |title=Khalji Dynasty |publisher=] |accessdate=2014-11-13 |quote="This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration of the Hindu south."}}</ref><ref name=gazet> ], v. 2, ''p. 368.''</ref><ref name="sen2">{{Cite book |last=Sen |first=Sailendra |title=A Textbook of Medieval Indian History |publisher=Primus Books |year=2013 |isbn=978-9-38060-734-4 |pages=80–89}}</ref> It was founded by ] and became the second dynasty to rule the ]. The dynasty is known for their faithlessness and ferocity, conquests into the Hindu south,<ref name="Khalji Dynasty"/> and for successfully fending off the repeated ].<ref name="Mikaberidze">{{Cite book|title=Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia |last1=Mikaberidze |first1=Alexander |authorlink=|volume=|year=2011|publisher=ABC-CLIO |location=|isbn=1-5988-4337-0|page=62|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jBBYD2J2oE4C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA62#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=2013-06-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The state at war in South Asia |last1=Barua |first1=Pradeep |authorlink=|year=2005|publisher=U of Nebraska Press |location=|isbn=0-8032-1344-1 |page=437|url=https://books.google.com/?id=FIIQhuAOGaIC |accessdate=2010-08-23}}</ref>


== nobility ==


] The sentence you removed does not contradict the rest of the article. See the section under the rise of Alauddin section in the article: "He would appoint his Indo-Muslim allies such as Zafar Khan(Minister of War), Nusrat Khan (Wazir of Dehli), Ayn al Mulk Multani, Malik Karfur
who were famous warriors but non-Turks, which resulted in the emergence of an Indo-Muslim state." "... Ayn al-Mulk Multani was sent to conquer the Paramara kingdom of Malwa.. Then Nusrat Khan was sent to conquer Gujarat itself, where he defeated its Solanki king....It was here where Nusrat Khan captured Malik Kafur who would later become a military general. Alauddin continued expanding Delhi Sultanate into South India, with the help of generals such as Malik Kafur and Khusraw Khan, collecting large war booty (Anwatan) from those they defeated"


Satish chandra on Zafar Khan, Nusrat khan and Malik Kafur https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Medieval_India_From_Sultanat_to_the_Mugh/L5eFzeyjBTQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=satish%20chandra%20zafar%20khan%20malik%20indian%20muslims&pg=PA269&printsec=frontcover&bsq=satish%20chandra%20zafar%20khan%20malik%20indian%20muslims
==Untitled==
"Nusrat khan who was kotwal of delhi in the first reign was an Indian muslim https://www.jstor.org/stable/44145331?seq=1
This article is absolutely baseless.


When the war minister and wazir were indian muslims according to satish chandra, (Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526_) and all the conquerors mentioned were indian muslims, it should not be a shock to talk about the rise of indian muslims in the nobility. The purpose of the statement is to talk about the composition of nobility, not the ethnic origins of the dynasty, which is what the 'origins' section is about. the khaljis were an individual family, not a nobility of its own. There is nothing contradicting between the khalji origin of the ruling family and the rise of a heterogenous indian muslim nobility which is what Mohammad Aziz Ahmad was describing in this source https://www.jstor.org/stable/44252438?seq=10#metadata_info_tab_contents ] (])
== ] Banner/Delhi Addition ==
Note: {{tl|WP India}} Project Banner with ] parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under ] or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- ] ] 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


== Mongol invasion == == Minroksy?? ==


Doerfer who studies Khalaj and is an expert on them criticizes Minrosky suggests his content are sketchy and he was not an expert on khalaj refuting his words on Khalaj.So is what Minrosky says valuable to put here? ] (]) 05:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
According to , Mongols invaded Singh and Punjab in 1296-1297, being defeated by two Khilji generals. Later another Mongol army invaded in 1298 and captured Siwistan. --] (]) 16:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:Can you exactly show what he said with the sources? ] (]) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
::I will quote him
::“Although Minorsky's report was written in English and published in an accessible journal, the material was much too sketchy to make a sensation; also, as Minorsky was no Turcol-ogist, he failed to recognize the real value of Khalaj.“
::KHALAJ MATERIALS, DOERFER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS URALIC AND ALTAIC SERIES
::VOLUME 115, page —->1 ] (]) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Mild criticism. Minorsky has been attributed for his views so I don't see why there should be a problem with the current version. ] (]) 01:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::::He says his work is not credible I would recommend that we remove him because his views as an Iranologist is not acceptable by a Turkologist who is known for his expertise in Khalaj ] (]) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::You are currently accused of source misrepresentation in . All the time you continue to avoid addressing that without good reason your talk page comments are tainted. ] (]) 21:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Nothing more than accusation. I provided direct links for what I was accused of “miss representing” but they couldn’t defend their end. I did. ] (]) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No, you've failed to respond at ANI. As a consequence, and absent anything to the contrary, those who of us who are uninvolved will conclude that the accusations are accurate. ] (]) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::How do I reply to it? And what am I being accused of specifically? The gaps in knowledge between me and other editors make it look like I am wrong but they don’t know any better. ] (]) 21:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's not rocket science. What are you being accused of? Read the thread. Accusations have been made with diffs stating you have breached policy. The issue is whether you comply with policy or not - "gaps in knowledge" is not the point. It's unlikely that you know policy better than other editors. If you think you haven't breached policy then explain why you think that with diffs. If you continue to fail to respond you run the risk of being sanctioned/blocked etc. Pretending it's not happening is not the answer. ] (]) 22:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I am not sure what am I being accused of where do I read about it and where do I put forward my side of the argument. ] (]) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You've been given the notification and link on your user talk page (the last topic on your page). It's been there since 7 March. On 10 March I linked to it in my first post to this thread above. Here's a third link to it: ]. ] (]) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You respond ], like any other talk page. ~] (], ], ]) 01:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


== STOPIT! == == Kashghari context ==


Kasghari also said the Khalaj and Arghu are Turkified Sogdians should it be added?
I have corrected it many times, but seems someone with nationalistic ideas are deleting the mentioning of (Afghan) and only leave the turkic, whilst its comletely against wiki rules, they were treated as Afghans and always thought as afghans. infact afghan suris and lodhis were also khilji called ( ghilji or ghilzai) in afghanitsan. removing the afghan name from a dynesty which were precieved as afghans is totally unacceptable, dont remove, if u hve somthing discuss it here. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Ref —> Cambridge Language Surveys
Turkic
Lars Johanson ] (]) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 ==
:I have seen no ] to support your opinion. Unsourced information can and will be removed. --] 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Khalji dynasty|answered=yes}}
::The (source) was there before you deleted it. any way the whole article says that they treeted others like afghans and treated in courts like afghans , britanica which is cite is enough to prove my point. refert it back. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Publisher and ISBN are switched in this citation:


<code><nowiki>{{cite book |author1=Ram Shankar Tripathi |author1-link=Ram Shankar Tripathi |title=History of Kanauj To the Moslem Conquest |date=1989 |publisher=9788120804784 |isbn=Motilal Banarsidass |page=327 |url=https://www.google.co.id/books/edition/History_of_Kanauj/U8GPENMw_psC?hl= |access-date=14 April 2024 |language=En}}</nowiki></code>
:::No. You added, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045252/Khalji-Dynasty, here;, then you removed it here;. Britannica states, "''Khaljī dynasty, (1290–1320), the second ruling family of the Muslim sultanate of Delhi. This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, '''was of Turkish origin''', though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan''.
:::I see nothing that states Turko-Afghan. --] 05:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes but the Ghilzai are known as Pathans or Afghans. The wikipedia article on them itself, which is well sourced says that. Also, they do not maintain cultural ties with Turkey. Many north indian tribes can be called indo-iranian. Would you list all north indians as persians? No, that's ludicrious dynasties and cultures change and the information should reflect that. This was an Afghan dynasty and the only reason people insist on hiding that today is due to the war. They want to make Afghans think they have only been the victims and destroy their society. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


. ] (]) 22:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
== Pashtun influence on the Turkic Khilji ==


:Fixed. --] (]) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The sources in the article seem to agree that the Khilji had been Pashtunized (or "had adopted some Afghan habits and customs") during their settlements in present-day ], Ghazni, etc before arriving in India. They confirm the Khilji were not just normal or pure Turks. I think we should be careful in wording to reflect the influence of the Pashtuns on the Khilji better in the article in light of these sources. ] (]) 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:In some sources their origin is mentioned as "Turko-Afghan". "Afghan" in the pre-20th century context is mostly synonym with "Pashtun", so here we can use both words to show the influence on the Khilji. But because of the modern shift in the definition of the word "Afghan" due to the political situation (now "Afghan" is used almost exclusively for a citizen of the multiethnic Afghanistan, and not for the Pashtun ethnic group), I think, in modern times, it is better to use the wording "Pashtunized Turk" to express their origin. ] (]) 17:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 ==
::Do we have any sources that can support Pashtunized Turk? --] (]) 18:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::Yes, the present sources in the article support such an origin for the Khilji, although they use an older terminology where "Afghan" is used in an ethnic sense for the ethnic Pashtun people. ] (]) 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::::So "Afghan" is being used for "Pashtun"?
::::Here are my main concerns;
::::"''The Khilji rulers trace their roots to Central Asia and were of Pashtunized-Turkic origin.~Britannica source~ They had long been settled in present-day Afghanistan before proceeding to Delhi in India.''"
::::The Britannica source makes '''NO''' mention of Pashtun/Pashtunized or any variation of that word.
::::"''Sometimes they were treated by others as ethnic Afghans due to their adoption of some Afghan habits and customs''".~Chaurasia source~ ~Cavendish source~
::::Neither source states Pashtun, they state either "adopted some Afghan habits and customs" or "''brought a new set of customs and culture to Delhi''.
::::"''As a result of this, sometimes the dynasty is referred to as a Turko-Afghan.''" ~Yunus source(unviewable)~ ~Mandal source(appears to be an ?)~ ~Singh source(could find nothing on this author)~
::::Not sure how Turko-Afghan equates to Pashtun, and I am sure some POV pushing editors will mention that and how all of these sentences could be considered ] for "Pashtun".
::::However, I found ''The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy 1971-1994'', by Mehtab Ali Shah, page 163, which '''might''' state, "''between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, such as the Khilji, Lodhis and Saur, were Pashtun...''". Except it will not show the page.
::::and "''Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania'', ed. Barbara A. West,
::::Which is all I was able to find. --] (]) 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::In my opinion "Pashtunized-Turkic" is the neutral and less ambiguous wording, because at the present the term "]" has virtually lost its older meaning of ] which it commonly had until relatively recently to refer to Pashtun tribes. But you might change it if you find something even more neutral and clearer. ] (]) 04:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Khalji dynasty|answered=yes}}
<s>Hello, I am an historian with focus on Indo-Iranian studies I mastered at Afghanistan and its ethnic groups history. I believe I can add some context to this page.It seems like its not well updated. ] (]) 00:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)</s> '''<--- ] ] of ]'''
:] '''Not done:''' this is not the right page to ] additional ]. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have ], you can wait until you are ] and edit the page yourself.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


== Khiljis are Pashtuns ==
brother but source does not mention pashtunized, it could be elaborated but not be called pashtunized as they spoke persian or turkic language. they did not speak pashto or else that would have been mentioned, " "Khalji Dynasty". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2010-08-23. this dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkic origin, though the Khiljī tribe had long been settled in what is now Afghanistan..."
Saladin1987 16:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


DNA don’t lie and show them to be close relatives to Durrani Pashtuns who belong to R1a. Also, primary sources mention them as Afghan. ] (]) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
The Turkic Khilji must not be confused with the Pastun Ghalzi tribe. Minhāju-s Sirāj (1881). Tabaḳāt-i-nāsiri: a general history of the Muhammadan dynastics of Asia, including Hindustān, from A.H. 194 (810 A.D.) to A.H. 658 (1260 A.D.) and the irruption of the infidel Mughals into Islām. Bibliotheca Indica #78 1. Calcutta, India: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (printed by Gilbert & Rivington). p. 548. (translated from the Persian by Henry George Raverty). Also minhaj siraj i guess mentions that too but maybe i am wrong, to the extent i know khiljis were turks but had some customs adopted and its the modern writers who have made that statement of afghanistan not the writers of that time, if i am wrong i would appreciate if someone could correct me Saladin1987 17:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


== Map: Tributaries are not part of a state ==
== "Ferocity" and "faithlessness" ==


@] has asked me to discuss this here.
"The dynasty is known for their faithlessness and ferocity" -- is this wording encyclopedic and suitable for the lede, or can it be changed? ] (]) 19:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


The ] and ] were invaded, and forced to pay tribute, but they were not part of the Khalji Sultanate directly as seen in Map (they were a part of the ]), therefore their inclusion in the map as a core territory is dubious. Therefore I suggest using Map instead as it includes Kakatiyas and Hoysalas, not as core territories but ]. ] (]) 17:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
: No doubt, many parts was edited by biased editor] (]) 22:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


:The map you are suggesting is supposed to be based on this map by Schwartzberg (references on the Commons page), but actually there are no boundaries in that map. On the other hand, the current map is properly based on another map of Schwartzberg, which does have boundaries . We're probably better off sticking with the current, referenced, map, and avoiding creating boundaries which cannot be found in sources... <span style=" 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 20:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:It lends nothing historically to the article, so I see no reason to keep it. Besides, I wouldn't base something like that from Encyclopedia Britannica(ie. a tertiary source). --] (]) 22:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
::^, Unless we have clear WP:RS scholarly sources/maps that show the extent of the Hoysalas and Kakatiyas under Khalji suzerainty, the current map should be kept. ] (]) 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::Oh, OK, I see now AlvaKedak is refering to a smaller map on p.38 . I'll see what I can do to adjust the current map to that format. <span style=" 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 20:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::OK {{ping|User:AlvaKedak}}, I've updated the map with . You might need to refresh your cache to see the updated file in the infobox. Thanks for the good idea! <span style=" 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 20:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Happy to help! ] (]) 05:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:48, 5 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Khalji dynasty article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

          Other talk page banners
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPakistan Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBengal (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal
WikiProject iconIndia: Delhi / History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconAfghanistan Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPashtun High‑importance
WikiProject iconKhalji dynasty is part of WikiProject Pashtun, a project to maintain and expand Pashtun-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.PashtunWikipedia:WikiProject PashtunTemplate:WikiProject PashtunPashtun
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconFormer countries (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 31, 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

to Kami2018

The article CLEARLY is one sided. Internationally among scholars khaljis are considered turko afghan. And all sources point out to that. Calling it "only" turkic, while removing Afghan is clearly opinion based. Hope you reconsider your position.

comment about diff

  • diff in question

The Khalji or Khilji dynasty was a Muslim dynasty which ruled large parts of the Indian subcontinent between 1290 and 1320. It was founded by Jalal ud din Firuz Khalji and became the second dynasty to rule the Delhi Sultanate of India. The dynasty is known for their faithlessness and ferocity, conquests into the Hindu south, and for successfully fending off the repeated Mongol invasions of India.

nobility

User:Xerxes1985 The sentence you removed does not contradict the rest of the article. See the section under the rise of Alauddin section in the article: "He would appoint his Indo-Muslim allies such as Zafar Khan(Minister of War), Nusrat Khan (Wazir of Dehli), Ayn al Mulk Multani, Malik Karfur who were famous warriors but non-Turks, which resulted in the emergence of an Indo-Muslim state." "... Ayn al-Mulk Multani was sent to conquer the Paramara kingdom of Malwa.. Then Nusrat Khan was sent to conquer Gujarat itself, where he defeated its Solanki king....It was here where Nusrat Khan captured Malik Kafur who would later become a military general. Alauddin continued expanding Delhi Sultanate into South India, with the help of generals such as Malik Kafur and Khusraw Khan, collecting large war booty (Anwatan) from those they defeated"

Satish chandra on Zafar Khan, Nusrat khan and Malik Kafur https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Medieval_India_From_Sultanat_to_the_Mugh/L5eFzeyjBTQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=satish%20chandra%20zafar%20khan%20malik%20indian%20muslims&pg=PA269&printsec=frontcover&bsq=satish%20chandra%20zafar%20khan%20malik%20indian%20muslims "Nusrat khan who was kotwal of delhi in the first reign was an Indian muslim https://www.jstor.org/stable/44145331?seq=1

When the war minister and wazir were indian muslims according to satish chandra, (Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526_) and all the conquerors mentioned were indian muslims, it should not be a shock to talk about the rise of indian muslims in the nobility. The purpose of the statement is to talk about the composition of nobility, not the ethnic origins of the dynasty, which is what the 'origins' section is about. the khaljis were an individual family, not a nobility of its own. There is nothing contradicting between the khalji origin of the ruling family and the rise of a heterogenous indian muslim nobility which is what Mohammad Aziz Ahmad was describing in this source https://www.jstor.org/stable/44252438?seq=10#metadata_info_tab_contents Mydust (talk)

Minroksy??

Doerfer who studies Khalaj and is an expert on them criticizes Minrosky suggests his content are sketchy and he was not an expert on khalaj refuting his words on Khalaj.So is what Minrosky says valuable to put here? Afghan.Records (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you exactly show what he said with the sources? Capitals00 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I will quote him
“Although Minorsky's report was written in English and published in an accessible journal, the material was much too sketchy to make a sensation; also, as Minorsky was no Turcol-ogist, he failed to recognize the real value of Khalaj.“
KHALAJ MATERIALS, DOERFER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONS URALIC AND ALTAIC SERIES
VOLUME 115, page —->1 Afghan.Records (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Mild criticism. Minorsky has been attributed for his views so I don't see why there should be a problem with the current version. Capitals00 (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
He says his work is not credible I would recommend that we remove him because his views as an Iranologist is not acceptable by a Turkologist who is known for his expertise in Khalaj Afghan.Records (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
You are currently accused of source misrepresentation in this ANI thread. All the time you continue to avoid addressing that without good reason your talk page comments are tainted. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Nothing more than accusation. I provided direct links for what I was accused of “miss representing” but they couldn’t defend their end. I did. Afghan.Records (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
No, you've failed to respond at ANI. As a consequence, and absent anything to the contrary, those who of us who are uninvolved will conclude that the accusations are accurate. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
How do I reply to it? And what am I being accused of specifically? The gaps in knowledge between me and other editors make it look like I am wrong but they don’t know any better. Afghan.Records (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not rocket science. What are you being accused of? Read the thread. Accusations have been made with diffs stating you have breached policy. The issue is whether you comply with policy or not - "gaps in knowledge" is not the point. It's unlikely that you know policy better than other editors. If you think you haven't breached policy then explain why you think that with diffs. If you continue to fail to respond you run the risk of being sanctioned/blocked etc. Pretending it's not happening is not the answer. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure what am I being accused of where do I read about it and where do I put forward my side of the argument. Afghan.Records (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You've been given the notification and link on your user talk page (the last topic on your page). It's been there since 7 March. On 10 March I linked to it in my first post to this thread above. Here's a third link to it: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Afghan.Records. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
You respond here, like any other talk page. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Kashghari context

Kasghari also said the Khalaj and Arghu are Turkified Sogdians should it be added? Ref —> Cambridge Language Surveys 

Turkic

Lars Johanson Afghan.Records (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Publisher and ISBN are switched in this citation:

{{cite book |author1=Ram Shankar Tripathi |author1-link=Ram Shankar Tripathi |title=History of Kanauj To the Moslem Conquest |date=1989 |publisher=9788120804784 |isbn=Motilal Banarsidass |page=327 |url=https://www.google.co.id/books/edition/History_of_Kanauj/U8GPENMw_psC?hl= |access-date=14 April 2024 |language=En}}

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I am an historian with focus on Indo-Iranian studies I mastered at Afghanistan and its ethnic groups history. I believe I can add some context to this page.It seems like its not well updated. Zhun.Rokko (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Afghan.Records

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Khiljis are Pashtuns

DNA don’t lie and show them to be close relatives to Durrani Pashtuns who belong to R1a. Also, primary sources mention them as Afghan. 208.98.222.64 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Map: Tributaries are not part of a state

@Noorullah21 has asked me to discuss this here.

The Kakatiyas and Hoysalas were invaded, and forced to pay tribute, but they were not part of the Khalji Sultanate directly as seen in Map 1(they were a part of the Tughlaq Sultanate), therefore their inclusion in the map as a core territory is dubious. Therefore I suggest using Map 2 instead as it includes Kakatiyas and Hoysalas, not as core territories but tributaries. AlvaKedak (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The map you are suggesting is supposed to be based on this map by Schwartzberg (references on the Commons page), but actually there are no boundaries in that map. On the other hand, the current map is properly based on another map of Schwartzberg, which does have boundaries map i. We're probably better off sticking with the current, referenced, map, and avoiding creating boundaries which cannot be found in sources... पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
^, Unless we have clear WP:RS scholarly sources/maps that show the extent of the Hoysalas and Kakatiyas under Khalji suzerainty, the current map should be kept. Noorullah (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, OK, I see now AlvaKedak is refering to a smaller map on p.38 map C. I'll see what I can do to adjust the current map to that format. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
OK @AlvaKedak:, I've updated the map with Schwartberg Atlas p.38 map C. You might need to refresh your cache to see the updated file in the infobox. Thanks for the good idea! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Happy to help! AlvaKedak (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ "Khalji Dynasty". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2014-11-13. This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. Its three kings were noted for their faithlessness, their ferocity, and their penetration of the Hindu south.
  2. Dynastic Chart The Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 2, p. 368.
  3. Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. pp. 80–89. ISBN 978-9-38060-734-4.
  4. Mikaberidze, Alexander (2011). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 62. ISBN 1-5988-4337-0. Retrieved 2013-06-13.
  5. Barua, Pradeep (2005). The state at war in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. p. 437. ISBN 0-8032-1344-1. Retrieved 2010-08-23.
Categories: