Talk:Khalji dynasty - Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 5 January 2025 (Archiving 25 discussion(s) to Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 1, Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 2) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Revision as of 15:48, 5 January 2025 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 25 discussion(s) to Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 1, Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 2) (bot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bengal (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bengal, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.BengalWikipedia:WikiProject BengalTemplate:WikiProject BengalBengal

India: Delhi / History Low‑importance

	India portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Afghanistan Low‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pashtun High‑importance

	Khalji 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Former countries (inactive)

This 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

Guild of Copy Editors

This 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).

^ "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.
Dynastic Chart The Imperial Gazetteer of India, v. 2, p. 368.
Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. pp. 80–89. ISBN 978-9-38060-734-4.
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.
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: