Jump to content

Talk:Ghaznavids

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persianate

[edit]

Became persianate and persianate are not the same. --Bejnar (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was already Persianate at the time of Sultan Mahmud, the real founder of the Ghaznavid state (as a notable state, not just a local power). Indeed, the state was Persianate from the beginning. Mahmud was an Amir with Persian culture and Turkic paternal ancestry. Alefbe (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the cited reference said. --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those three cites say that they started Persianate. All they do is duplicate the citations for "the originally Turkic Ghaznavids became thoroughly Persianized." which is well documented and already a part of that paragraph. --Bejnar (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question, The Ghaznavids (Persian: غزنویان) were a Persianate and Islamic dynasty of Turkic mamluk origin which existed from 975 to 1187 and ruled much of Persia, Transoxania, and the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent.
All that needs sourcing is that the Ghaznavids were a Persianate.
  • The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India..-- started a Persianate state.
  • The Persianate culture was carried by succeeding dynasties into Western and Southern Asian, in particular...by the Ghaznavids.. -- expanded Persianate culture.
  • Nizam al-Mulk also attempted to organise the Saljuq administration according to the Persianate Ghaznavid model.. -- Ghaznavid administrative model was Persianate.
I don't see a problem here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Persianate" is not the same as in case of the Seljuqs. The Ghaznavids became Persian in ethnic identity. See: "… One of the effects of the renaissance of the Persian spirit evoked by this work was that the Ghaznavids were also Persianized and thereby became a Persian dynasty. …" (B. Spuler, "The Disintegration of the Caliphate in the East", in The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. IA: The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War, ed. P.M. Holt, Ann K.S. Lambton, and Bernard Lewis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). p. 147) Or: "The Ghaznavids were essentially Persianized Turks who in the manner of of the pre-Islamic Persians encouraged the developement of high culture." (Robert L. Canfield: Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective (School of American Research Advanced Seminars). Cambridge Univ Press. 2002. p. 8) Tajik (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that they became Persianate. Which is already well stated in the last sentence of the lead paragraph with a full panoply of citations. What is not needed, as could be or is misleading, is the placement of Persianate in the first sentence. --Bejnar (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ghaznavid dynasty was a continuation of the Samanid dynasty. As "ghulaman-e khas", the Ghaznawids were already fully integrated in the Samanid court and high culture. That means that the Ghaznawids were already culturally and linguistically Persianized before their empire was founded. Starting with Sultan Mahmoud, almost all subsequent rulers had local Iranian mothers. Tajik (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of that in the multitudinous citations that have been provided on this point. The Ghaznavids were a frontier clan of the Samanid empire.--Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were not a "frontier clan". They were a well-integrated military family, members of the "ghulaman-e khas", the elite slave guards of the Sultan Emir. Tajik (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point. --Bejnar (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is messing the History

[edit]

Even the Seljuks are Persianate for wiki. What a shame. What a massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.141.60 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with the person above. Whenever I read wikipedia articles about Central Asia and Turkic history it always is in someway distorted to include either persian culture or language or anything. If you look at list of persian scientists on wikipedia they listed Ulug'bek as persian. Of course the cyber editing attack by tajiks and iranians is not just a bunch of minors sitting behind the computer and writing their pathetic opinions. It's an active attempt by iranian, afghan, and tajik groups (both private and public). Ultimately, wikipedia has never been considered a reliable source of information, especially for history and all universities automatically fail students who cite wikipedia. For example in the article Uzbekistan, almost the entire Turkic history of Transoxania which began in the 4th century happened to not even be mentioned, but the sasanid dynasty which was supposedly persian (although in reality islamic and they did not identity with nationalities of persian or arab). It's a damn shame that wikipedia let's this kind of behavior persist.Whenever I correct persian tampering with articles (and citing sources such as encyclopedia iranica) some persian people who obviously spend their twilight hours on wikipedia change thing back and administrators don't even bother to think that this is all part of a puny persian nationalist attempt to distort history. Rest assure however that scholars know history much better than these people who edit wikipedia, and scholars unquestionably have concluded that Iranian and Central Asia history have been dominated by Turkic elites since the 4th century AD.

Because turkic dynasties adoptet local customs and traditions and identified themself with Iranians and their myths. That was for Karachanids, Timurids, Mughals, Ghaznavids, Ilkhanids (Mongols) etc. Urbane and domisticated cultures were always dominante to nomadic people.--188.97.9.183 (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pakistan

[edit]

User:Nickzlapeor has been removing Category:History of Pakistan without explanation, telling me on my Talk page that it needs none. As the Ghaznavids empire covered a large part of what is now Pakistan, it seems to me to belong in that category (as well as in Category:History of Iran etc. If anyone believes otherwise, can we please have an explanation here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not only about this page, I want to put forward a view that History of Pakistan should only include pages belonging to the region of Pakistan, beginning from 1947 to present. This is because Pakistan was only created in that year, and so the category should be related to such pages only, since the country came into existence then." Nickzlapeor (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up the question of what is meant by "History of Pakistan". Does it refer only to the history of the current political entity known as Pakistan, or to the region that currently encompasses what is now Pakistan? And that requires discussion and consensus rather than your unilalteral decision that it should be the former. My feeling is that the latter, ie the geographic region, is more commonly used by Wikipedia - for example, History of England covers the history of the geographical place that is now known as England, and goes back far further than the current political entity known as England. (Also, as this is a wider discussion than just this one article, I'll try to find a relevant project to raise it at too) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mamluk and Slave, Different Terms

[edit]

In the article, instead of using the term Slave, it's better to use Mamluk. BozokluAdam (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Badly written introduction with a particular point of view

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Sockpuppet:Nasir Ghobar blocked

The introduction was written very unencyclopedic and very poorly/badly cited. The lead sentence was describing the dynasty's unimportant adoption of the Persian culture instead of highlighting the more important points. The introduction needed to highlight what the Ghaznavids accomplished during their rule and where their main capital(s) was located. I have listed the book references in one citation, restructured the sentences and added information from a neutral point and I wish it remains that way.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of which justifies your removal of NUMEROUS references. It is YOUR opinion that their adoption of Persian language and culture is unimportant. The lede is fine, and very well cited, regardless of your opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove any references, it is you who removed [1] them, and just want to remind you that you don't own this or any other article. I have decided to report you for 3RR.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the alternative in detail ? (I mean item by item)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1.) The introduction is too short and needs to explain more about their main achievements, particularly in Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent because that's where they were fighting. 2.) The lead sentence should avoid adding "Persianate" because that is awkward. 3.) the third sentence about them becoming Persianized should be somewhere in the second paragraph because that is not that important since all the previous and later dynasties were considered Persianized. Their country was not called Khorasan, this is an opinion. Since when was India called Khorasan?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the length of the introduction.
Additions are welcome, however, removal of Persianate from the lead sentence is not acceptable due to the impetus the Ghaznavids gave to Persian art, language and literature, even to the point of exporting it to India.(Robert L. Canfield, Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective, p13.)
However, I would be willing to have the 3rd sentence moved, as long as it remains chronologically correct. As for Khorasan, you will have to be more specific. There are only 3 instance of Khorasan being used in the article, please explain which one is troubling. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "Ghaznavids" about the dynasty (ruling family) or about the state (empire)? If it's about the state then it's wrong to call it a Persianate society because many areas, particularly the larger ethnic Afghan tribal area in Afghanistan and Pakistan never became a Persianate society. The 3 contemporary books used as a reference for "Persianate" is refering to the "ruling family". Although thousands of Afghans were employed in the Ghaznavid army, the Ghaznavids didn't get to rule over the Afghan tribes, and the "which existed" from 975 to 1187 is very unencyclopedic because nobody can deny they existed. The introduction needs to start in an orderly fashion, i.e. name of empire instead of dynasty, founder, location of capital, followed by how far the empire stretched, and then explain what was special about it and so on. There also needs to be a section explaining their origins and rise to power, I added this but you removed it. The History of Afghanistan template should not be removed, that's clearly insulting Afghanistan's history because every modern state takes strong pride in their past history, especially in this case when all its leaders were born, died and are buried inside Afghanistan.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're here to extoll the virtues of the thousands of Afghans (that) were employed in the Ghaznavid army. That explains your POV editing.
I think you are looking to "split hairs" here. Trying to separate the dynasty from the empire. Without the empire, Persian culture does not end up in India. [2]
This states the Ghaznavids[3] "inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India". So you are saying the Ghaznavid Empire did not inherit these traits? Do you have a published source that states this?
This states, "Forced to flee from the Samanid domain, he captured Ghaznah and in 961 established the famed Persianate Sunnite Ghaznavid empire of Afghanistan and the Punjab in India."(Sydney Nettleton Fisher, William Ochsenwald, The Middle East: a history: Volume 1. And this, "Beginning his(Masud Sa'd Salman) career in Lahore, a frontier city of the Persianate world, he celebrated the conquest of India by the Ghaznavids by composing panegyric poetry in the qasida form."(Middle Eastern Literature, Dissertation abstracts international:The humanities and social sciences)
Can you prove, "If it's about the state then it's wrong to call it a Persianate society because many areas, particularly the larger ethnic Afghan tribal area in Afghanistan and Pakistan never became a Persianate society." If you have secondary sources to back up your claim, let's see them.
You can put the "History of Afghanistan" template in the article, doesn't bother me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Posting quickly-searched information from book.google.com is not impressing to me, plus I didn't deny any of that. Why is the 1,000s of Afghans being employed in the Ghaznavid army (E.J. Brill's first encyclopaedia of Islam) bothering you? I'm complaining that the way this article starts is very unencyclopedic because the very first thing it wants to adress (Persianate), which is the least important, is making readers believe that they were Persians but the fact is they were Turks who stood against the Persians. The founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty left Balkh (north of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan) to settle in Ghazni (south of the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan, and a region outside the Samanid controlled territory). His son, Mahmud of Ghazni, conquered new territories "in the name of Islam" and not in the name of Persian culture or language. These things are commonly understood by anyone who reads Afghanistan's history. I want to improve and expand the article. It would be better if the 1st paragraph describes the empire (the state), the 2nd the dynasty (ruling family) and the 3rd their accomplishments.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really asking me to show you secondary sources for the Afghan tribal areas not being made Persianate? OMG, what's this? Did you ever read any book on these people? Why are you asking me, just search it on book.google.com since you know how to search information there. If you don't feel like it try this one.[4] There is not a single source on earth that mentions the Afghan tribal areas being conquered by any people. That's why they are still living the same way as they did 1,000s of years ago and speak the same language they spoke 1,000s of years ago. There is no trace of Persian culture or language.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. You seriously need to learn how to read. Nothing about Afghans, Afghanistan or their involvement with Ghaznavids bothers me. You intentionally took what I said out of context, since you blatantly ignored this, "You can put the "History of Afghanistan" template in the article, doesn't bother me.".
2. Stating this was a Persianate does not tell the reader this empire was Persian or that the Ghaznavids were Persian. Simply by clicking on the link will give the reader a clear understanding of what Persianate means. The opening sentence states, "The Ghaznavids were a Persianate Muslim dynasty of Turkic slave-soldiers which existed from 975 to 1187 and ruled much of Persia, Transoxania, and the northern parts of the Indian subcontinent." What is should say is, "...of Turkic slave origin". But since another nationalist had to have his way that was removed. The correction, "... of Turkic slave origin..." should be placed back into the lede sentence. Thus clearly telling the reader of the Ghaznavid Turkic origin.
3. I provided a published source showing that modern day Pakistan was part of the Persianate world. ""Beginning his(Masud Sa'd Salman) career in Lahore, a frontier city of the Persianate world, he celebrated the conquest of India by the Ghaznavids by composing panegyric poetry in the qasida form."(Middle Eastern Literature, Dissertation abstracts international:The humanities and social sciences). Which clearly states that Lahore was part of the Persianate world. Simply because some obscure Afghan tribal area wasn't influenced by Persian culture doesn't mean the entire article has to be changed to reflect this. I have provided published sources stating the Ghaznavid empire was a Persianate, as per Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.
4. Oh, and since ethnicity is such a big deal with you. I am not Armenian, Azerbaijani, Iranian, Kurdish or Turkish. So please keep your racist statements such as this, "... but Kansas Bear who I suspect is an Iranian...",[5] off wikipedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1.) I obviously know how to read and that's why I pointed-out the word "Persianate" being in the wrong place because no other encyclopedia or book starts this way. If "Afghan" didn't bother you then you wouldn't have continued commenting on that.
2.) Since the time of the Ghaznavids, Lahore has been a city of the Punjab region (part of Hindustan). The land between Lahore or Hindustan and Ghazni is the native territory of the Afghan tribes, Mahmud passed through these Afghan tribal lands (there were no planes at the time to fly over them) but didn't govern them or establish any kind of rule there. Since the time of Alexander in 330 BC until the latest NATO invasion of Afghanistan, this large tribal region (known historically as "Afghanistan", meaning land of the Afghans) has never seen any kind of government. This is well established, do you understand or no?
3.) Suspecting someone as Iranian shouldn't be considered a racist statement, Iranians just have a very different view on the history of Afghanistan. The fact that someone keeps removing "History of Afghanistan" template is sure enough proof on that. I didn't mention anything about ethnicity, why did this come up?
4.) Please focus on the issue, the article needs to be written neutrally, the same way as Britannica ("Ghaznavid Dynasty, (ad 977–1186), Turkish dynasty that ruled in Khorāsān (in northeastern Iran), Afghanistan, and northern India."[6]), Iranica ("GHAZNAVIDS - an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin"[7]) and others. [8] [9] [10] [11] Notice that none of these or any other source mention "Persianate", especially not in the lead sentence. The way this Wikipedia article is written with the "Persianate" in the first line is forcing readers to accept this personal point of view of someone who wants the Ghaznavids to be considered Persians and that is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia as a source. Having said all that, I'm not against the term "Persianate", it is in the wrong place and needs to be addressed later on.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The way this Wikipedia article is written with the "Persianate" in the first line is forcing readers to accept this personal point of view of someone who wants the Ghaznavids to be considered Persians and that is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia as a source." After all the published sources that have categorically stated how the Ghaznavids were a Persianate as well as the empire they built and you are still making this a personal issue. It is quite clear that published sources mean nothing to you, especially if they say something you don't like. You are here to make sure that everyone knows that the Afghans were not affected by Persian culture and to ensure that Iranians no longer steal anymore Afghan history.[12]
That and making blanket statements like, "The fact that someone keeps removing "History of Afghanistan" template is sure enough proof on that." Is clearly a violation of assuming good faith. Especially when you have blantantly ignored what I said earlier about the template.
You have provide no viable reason for the removal of Persianate from the lede sentence and instead have shown that none of the published sources mean anything to your POV and have displayed a battleground mentality by attempting to drag someone's ethnicity into the issue. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1.) NOT a single published source mentions "The Ghaznavids were a Persianate Muslim dynasty" in its introduction. This is an example of using words out of context or wrongly piecing together a special particular view point by an editor and enforcing it on readers. This is what I mean by "damaging the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable or respectable source" because anyone who reads the first paragraph of this article gets the feeling that a Persian nationalist/ethnocentric edited that part. The 3 books cited do not support the claim, they actually say that
--- then (after 5 paragraphs) it tells readers that:
-----click here to verify.
2.) That bottom sentence which is used as a reference in the Wikipedia article is not saying that the Ghaznavid dynasty (ruling family) were Persianate. This is deliberately distorting information or falsification of sources I think. I can't believe we're discussing this, it's becoming ridiculous. I'm requesting that the first sentence shouldn't include "Persianate" and I have said that it should be in or after "Due to the political and cultural influence of their predecessors - that of the Persian Samanid Empire - the originally Turkic Ghaznavids had become thoroughly Persianized" (the 3rd line) since that is exclusively addressing their ethnicity and upringings. My suggestion also prevents edit-wars because some sources have the Ghaznavids as "Afghans" [13] based on their place of birth. Please don't try to discredit me, or divert the topic of this discussion to somewhere else, because all I want to do is improve and expand the article by describing the Ghaznavid army and add many other important details. The only thing to read is Persian this, Persian that but they were Turks born, lived and died inside Afghanistan. For example, the first short paragraph contains the word Persian 5 times.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"NOT a single published source mentions "The Ghaznavids were a Persianate Muslim dynasty" in its introduction. ". No where in Wikipedia is that a requirement. Making up your own rules will not work here.
You are the only one that has tried to discredit anyone by dragging another editor's ethnicity into this.
The lede is a summation of what the article is about.
1. Was the Ghaznavid dynasty a Persianate(ie. patronizing and spreading Persian culture)?
Answer:Yes
2. Was the Ghaznavid Empire a Persianate?
Answer:Yes
3. What is this article about?
The Ghaznavid dynasty and the empire they created. Not about Afghans or whether Afghans were influenced by Persian culture.
Are there secondary sources to support the first two questions? Yes.
As per Wikipedia:No original research, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read this:
----click here to verify the text
Do I need to explain this summarization in my own words? It is what the mainstream historians say about the Ghaznavid dynasty. It was the Persian employees of the Ghaznvids who laid the foundation for a Persianate state in northern India. That is precicely what that cited 2006 book by J. Meri is explaining. I hope it's time that you give up and agree with me by taking out the word "Persianate" from the first line of the introduction because it doesn't apply to the Turks (Ghaznavid dynasty or family) but to their Persian employees.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India. Under Mahmud, Ghzna approached Baghdad in importance, hosting luminaries such as al-Biruni and Ferdowsi. Though the Ghaznavids initially spoke Turkish, Persian literature was promoted at both Ghazna and Lahore, encouraging poets such as Unsuri, Farrukhi, Manuchihri, Runi, Sana'i, Masud Sa'd Alman and the Sufi al-Hujwiri. The dynasty presided over new developments in Persian literature, notably in lyrical romances and romantic epics...". --Medieval Islamic Civilization, by Homyra Ziad, Ed. Josef W. Meri.
"The Ghaznavids, like the Sâmânids, patronized Persian arts, especially poetry.", -- Central Asia in World History, By Peter B. Golden
"But Mahmud patronised Persian court poets to an extent unprecendented even under the Samanids and Persian poets far outnumber Arabic at his court." -- Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, by Julie Scott Meisami
"The Samanids are famous for having supported Rudaki and Daqiqi, the first poets to write great poetry in New Persian, while the Ghaznavids also patronized New Persian literature, most famously the Shahnameh 'the Books of Kings', a literary poem composed by Firdausi that was based partly on Iranian oral epics." -- Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present, by Christopher I. Beckwith
I found nothing stating the Ghaznavid's "employees" were patronizing Persian culture or that their "Persian employees" laid a foundation for Persianate state in India. On the contrary, numerous sources state otherwise. What you have done now is original research. The highlighted part of your text does not say the Persian viziers(or any other office) laid the foundation for a Persianate state in India. It is time you gave up. You have provided no reason for Persianate to be removed from the lede sentence. Instead, there are now numerous sources that can be used to expand the article on how the Ghaznavids patronized and spread Persian culture to India. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The warriors, who were the mainstay of Mahmud's conquests and his administration, were actually Turkic slaves who had served under Persian rulers. In the eleventh century they asserted their independence, so much so that this initial period of Turko-Persian-Islamicate expansion is often known as "the Slave Dynasties". The new Muslim elites of South Asia were Turks who favored Persianate culture and who governed in the name of Islam. They still favored their westward flank, and in addition to seeking caliphal recognition, they tried but failed to conquer Khurasan. Instead they expanded to the east and south, not limiting their patronage to Ghazna but extending it to another city, Lahore." -- The Oxford History of Islam, by John L. Esposito, p398-399. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1.) What you're doing is original research, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Show a source that explicitly states that the Turkish Ghaznavid dynasty was Persianate because that's what you're claiming in this Wikipedia article about the Ghaznavids but the mainstream historians don't agree with you because they say we don't really know that.
2.) Do not ignore what these mainstream historians are telling us in the article about the Ghaznavids in Encyclopedia Iranica, that the dynasty was Turkish and their military was Turkish (Generals, Commanders, specialists, and majority of the soldiers) but the rest of their administration (government servents or employees) were Persians who obviously used their Persian language for the day to day stuff, and "northern India" was not the seat of power. That 2006 book by Homyra Ziad, which you keep using as your main source, stating "The Ghaznavids .... laid the foundations for a 'Persianate state in northern India", is referring to the later Delhi Sultanate of northern India. What she's trying to tell readers is that the very first time Persian language used within the government in northern India was during the Ghaznavids. You're wrongly using that to label the Turkish Ghaznavid dynasty as being Persian, and this is wrong. This is misleading readers and Wikipedia is telling us that we're not allowed to do that.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, again.
"Forced to flee from the Samanid domain, he captured Ghaznah and in 961 established the famed Persianate Sunnite Ghaznavid empire of Afghanistan and the Punjab in India." -- The Middle East: a history: Volume 1, by Sydney Nettleton Fisher, William Ochsenwald.
"..the administration of the Ghaznavid dynasty in Central Asia, which was Turkic in origin and Persianate in culture." -- Iran at War: 1500-1988, by Kaveh Farrokh.
"Nizam al-Mulk also attempted to organise the Saljuq administration according to the Persianate Ghaznavid model.." -- Persian historiography to the end of the twelfth century, by Meisami, Julie Scott.
"The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India..." -- J. Meri (Hg.), Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, "Ghaznavids".
This has all been posted here before, yet you continue to ignore what published sources state. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1.) You are just wasting time by posting random quotations from random books that you search for at book.google.com, and ignoring the above summarization on the Ghaznvids at Encyclopædia Iranica ("a project whose goal is to create a comprehensive and authoritative English language encyclopedia about the history, culture, and civilization of Iranian peoples from prehistory to modern times.[2] It is a project of Columbia University, started in 1973 at its Center for Iranian Studies, and is considered the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Iranistics.").
2.) You didn't even provide the page numbers so that we can verify your information, please do that. In the meantime, the 1st one states: Persianate Sunnite Ghaznavid "empire" (administration) but the "Persianate" used in the introduction in this article is about the "dynasty" (smaller ruling family). The 2nd one states: the "administration" of the Ghaznavid dynasty in Central Asia, which was Turkic in origin and Persianate in culture. We already know that because Iranica explains that the administration were made up of Turks and Persians but the dynasty were Turkic/Turkish. The 3rd is a repeat, the Ghaznavids .... laid the "foundations" for a Persianate "state" in northern India. Like I said, what you're doing is Original Research. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." You are quoting words out of context from random books to draw a specific conclusion that satisfies your personal point of view.
3.) I'm not against the term "Persianate" being included in the article, it is awkward to have this in the first line of the introduction but should be included in the 2nd paragraph, where it talks specifically about the Turkic rulers becoming Persianized. It could be quoted as "The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India."[1][2][3]. This is appropriate, neutral and encyclopedic.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"You are quoting words out of context from random books to draw a specific conclusion that satisfies your personal point of view." Not even.
And quit trying to assign original research to published sources that directly state the Ghaznavid dynasty and empire was Persianate. Sources have been posted and you continue to ignore them. Simply because you found some source that does not mention Persianate does not mean they weren't.
You tried to show that Persian employees were the ones spreading Persian culture and the "source" you tried to use to prove it WAS original research and since that failed you have now labeled every source I have posted as original research. Everything I have posted shows that the Ghaznavids adopted a Persianate administration(empire) and patronized Persianate culture(dynasty). I will be reporting this to the proper Admin. Any removal of Persianate from the lede sentence will be considered disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes even. I'm accusing YOU of doing Original Research, not the book writers. You are confused, none of these books explicitly claim the Ghaznavid dynasty (Turks) being Persianate, and if anyone does this they have to give a reference. It is your erroneous conclusion that want to make them that. You are misreading the quotes from these books, the book writers say that the "administration was Persianate", referring to the Persian employees. The term "Persianate" includes Persian identity and that's basically calling ethnic Turkic Ghaznavid dynasty "Persians" when you add the word "Persianate" in the lead. My knowledge is based on the following scholarly work by Clifford Edmund Bosworth:
----click here to verify the text and please read who Clifford Edmund Bosworth is.
Which part of this do you not understand? Any where you take this issue will produce the same results, that the dynasty cannot be boldly labelled as "Persianate" because it was Turkish and scholars haven't reached a conclusion to label them Persian. The neutral way to add this would be quote "The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India.[1][2][3]" at the end of the 2nd paragraph, where it explicitly addresses the issue of their culture and state (empire).--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Persianate is not an ethnic word , so being of Turkic origin does not contradict with being Persianate . Same word has been used about Ghaznavids in the The Oxford History of Islam , John L. Esposito , ISBN- 0195107993 , 1999 , page 40 .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it is but the common readers don't. It says "A Persianate society, or Persified society (Persian: فرهنگ فارسی‌زبانان‎, Farhang-e Fársi-Zabánán), is a society that is either based on, or strongly influenced by the Persian language, culture, literature, art, and/or identity. That means "Persianate" is based on Persian identity. We have to avoid using such terms in the lead sentence but rather explain to the readers at the end of paragraph 2. It is awkward and unencyclopedic, it would be the same as if someone starts bin Laden's article like this: Osama bin Laden was an anti-American[1][2][3] Arab and founder of al Qaeda.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural identity of Ghaznavids has been "Persianate" , so it shall be mentioned in the lead section : what's the problem in mentioning the word in the lead?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph following the one supplied by Nasir Ghobar/NasirKand, states;
"Persianisation of the state apparatus was accompanied by the Persianisation of high culture at the Ghaznavid court. Ferdowsī sought Maḥmūd’s beneficence towards the end of his life, but Maḥmūd and Masʿūd are most notably known as the patrons of Persian poets with a simple, lyrical style like ʿOnṣorī, Farroḵī, and Manučehrī. The level of literary creativity was just as high under Ebrāhīm and his successors up to Bahrāmšāh, with such poets as Abu’l-Faraj Rūnī, Sanāʾī, ʿOṯmān Moḵtārī, Masʿūd-e Saʿd-e Salmān, and Sayyed Ḥasan Ḡaznavī. We know from the biographical dictionaries of poets (taḏkera-ye šoʿarā) that the court in Lahore of Ḵosrow Malek had an array of fine poets, none of whose dīvāns has unfortunately survived, and the translator into elegant Persian prose of Ebn Moqaffaʿ’s Kalīla wa Demna, namely Abu’l-Maʿālī Naṣr-Allāh b. Moḥammad, served the sultan for a while as his chief secretary. The Ghaznavids thus present the phenomenon of a dynasty of Turkish slave origin which became culturally Persianised to a perceptibly higher degree than other contemporary dynasties of Turkish origin such as Saljuqs and Qarakhanids."
This statement by C.E.Bosworth, supports the definition of Persianate(supplied by Nasir), ""A Persianate society, or Persified society is a society that is either based on, or strongly influenced by the Persian language, culture, literature, art, and/or identity.
I would suggest to Nasir that he keep his anti-Persian POV off wikipedia and not cherry pick his information from his own sources, since what Bosworth states in the second paragraph is EXACTLY what Farrokh stated, "under the administration of the Ghaznavid dynasty in Central Asia, which was Turkic in origin and Persianate in culture..
This ends the "discussion", regarding the Ghaznavid dynasty and the question of their culture, which was Persianised, thus a Persianate. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That supports the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the introduction, which already states "Due to the political and cultural influence of their predecessors - that of the Persian Samanid Empire - the originally Turkic Ghaznavid rulers had become Persianized." It is unencyclopedic to write "Persianate" in the leading sentence of an article about non-Persian dynasties. As I said to you over and over that this least important information about culture is to be explained in the following sentences or paragraphs.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Too many citations

[edit]

I noticed that there's a statement in the lead which has 8 citations, and several which have three. Look at WP:OVERCITE. In general, there should be the maximum number of three consecutive citations, but it should be as small as possible. The lead in particular should summarize the article's contents, so it shouldn't normally require citations at all. I'd advise editors to review the citations and select the best and most reliable ones. Thanks. Jesse V. (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Whenever I view a Wikipedia article and notice so many citations it makes me not want to read it.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are too many citations, however, I do not agree with Nasir Ghobar's general anti-Persian and anti-Iranian stance. He is trying to impose modern political thinking and ideology on a dynasty that existed 1000 years ago. That is in fact very unencyclopedic. His attempt to "Afghanize" this dynasty is wrong in both historical and political sense, because a) the ethno-linguistic term "Iranian" in this case has nothing to do with the modern country Iran (the relationship is the same as with "Germanic" and "Germany" or "Romanic" and "Romanian"), b) Afghanistan was created more than 750 years later (and took its name some 900 years later), c) it is undeniable that the Ghaznavids were thoroughly Persianized (or as Bertold Spuler and Bernard Lewis put it: "[...] the Ghaznavids were also Persianized and thereby became a Persian dynasty."; see: B. Spuler: The Disintegration of the Caliphate in the East; in: P.M. Holt, Ann K.S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis (Ed.): The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War; The Cambridge History of Islam, Vol. Ia; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970; p. 147) It is true that most Ghaznawid sultans lived and ruled in what 750 years later became Afghanistan, but that does not mean that it makes them "Afghans" or "Anti-Iranians" or "Anti-Persians" (a ridiculous claim, keeping in mind that most of the Ghaznavid sultans had Persian mothers and wives and bore Persian names). That's like claiming that Genghis Khan was not a Mongol, but a Russian and "anti-Mongol" because he was most-likely born in what is now Russian Siberia near Lake Baikal. Or that the Greek writer Homer was not Greek, but a Turk, because he was most likely born in Ionia which is now part of Turkey. Nasir Ghobar's point of view is ridiculed by the fact that in Ghaznavid sources - most notable in the writings of al-Biruni - the Afghans (Pashtuns; who back then lived further south in what is now Pakistan) are named as Non-Muslim enemies of the Ghaznavids, allied with the related Rajputs. It was only after their defeat that some of them joined the Ghaznavid army as mercenaries - a small and unimportant number, compared to the thousands of Turkic slave-soldiers or the hords of Arab, Persian, and Kurdish ghazis who made up the bulk of the Ghaznavid army during their Indian campaign. This article should definitly be edited and optimized. But not by revisionism and factual falacity. The German version could serve as a model. --Lysozym (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My general anti-Persian and anti-Iranian stance? So you think I'm attempting to "Afghanize" this dynasty? Who gives a crap when the modern state of Afghanistan was created when we're dealing with this dynasty? Afghanistan doesn't just have one ethnic group, it has a large Persian population. The Ghaznavids sultans were born in the territory that is now the modern state of Afghanistan so naturally they are a big part of the history of this country and what is wrong with explaining this? "Afghans" include Pashtun, Tajik/Persian, Hazara, Uzbek, Aimak, Baloch and many other ethnic groups. Al-Biruni didn't provide information about the exact location of the Non-Muslim enemies of the Ghaznavids. These were most probably the Afghan inhabitants of Kafiristan who remained Non-Muslim until the late 19th century, but we don't know. You are free to add what you want about the Arab, Persian, and Kurdish that were employed in the Ghaznavids, I'm not stopping you.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of "Afghan" is clear. In Persian sources (and all other sources influenced by Persian) it refers to the Pashtuns. It may not be the original name of the Pashtuns, but from the Persians' point of view, an "Afghan" was a "Pashtun". Expanding the meaning of the word to designate the modern citizens of Afghanistan is a very new developement and is still not accepted by all. When the Ghaznavids (and 600 years later the Mughals) were talking about "Afghans", they were explicitly talking about Pashtuns. And "Afghanistan" was only the Pashtun-dominated areas between the Hindu-Kush and the Sulaiman Mts. (what is now mostly northern Pakistan). As late as the 17th century, the Mughal officials knew "Turanis" (Turko-Mongols), "Iranis" (Persians), "Hindus" (Indians), "Rajputs", and "Afghans" (Pashtuns). Bayram Khan who was an ethnic Turkoman and was born in Badakhshan was considered an "Irani", not an "Afghan". And Sher Shah Suri who was born in India was considered an "Afghan", because he was a Pashtun. Your reply above actually proves that you are totally wrong here. You are trying to impose modern political ideas on a dynasty that ceased to exist some 900 years ago. That is not encyclopedic at all. --Lysozym (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Afghan" historically referred to many ethnic groups. As far as I know, north of the Hindu Kush was generally considered "Khorasan" and south of these mountains were the regions of Zamindawar, Kandahar, Zabulistan, Afghanistan, which were inhabited by various nomadic tribes, that became to be known as Afghans. Some of them crossed over the Hindu Kush to the north during the summer and during winter they travelled to the Punjab. They were officially called "Afghans" by the Persians in Khorasan, the Afghans that were employed in the Ghaznavids army were the local Afghans from Ghazni, they were mostly used as "guides" because they knew the language and the routes.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Afghan" is an ancient Persian designation of warrior tribes at the border of the Iranian and Indian worlds. It derives from the Indo-Iranian word for "horse". The original "Afghans" were not Pashtuns (that's the reason why Pashtuns do not call themselves "Afghan"). But these "Afghan" tribes were absorbed by the tribal union that later came to be known as "Pashtun" - remnants of different Eastern Iranian sedentary, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes that had survived the Islamic and Mongol conquests and slaughtering. In Persian, the word remained as a general designation of aggressive tribes in the east and since Pashtuns became the dominant (and only) powerful tribal union by the end of the 17th century, "Afghan" and "Pashtun" became synonyms. That also means that the "Afghans" described in pre-16th century sources were most likely NOT Pashtuns.
Kandahar and Zamindawar were Persian and Persianized cities, the same goes to Ghazni and Gardez. The homogeneous Persian-speaking population of Kandahar is still at some 20%, that of Ghaznai at some 50% (not including Hazaras). However, these cities have been effectively Pashtunized in the past 250 years due to emigration and the general political dominance of Pashtuns. The first Pashtuns in Zamindawar were "invited" and tolerated by Shah Abbas the Great in a royal decree. They were meant to act as a buffer between Safavid Persia and Mughal India. That's why many Pashtuns, especially Abdali Pashtuns (under the pressure of rival Ghilzais) moved to Zamindawar and Ghor in the 17th and 18th centuries. The original population of the region was an Eastern-Iranian population ruled by so-called "Zunbils" and worshipped a diety they called "Zun". They were fierce enemies of the Arab Muslim armies and their wars against the Caliphate partially inspired the legendary story of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr whose name, "Zubayr" (spelled "ZUBIL" in Pahlavi and Syriac; the same spelling as "Zunbil"; the "n" was not written), was confused with the "Zunbil". "Afghanistan" - as a nation - did not exist. And the small political entity known as "Afghanistan" back then (in and around the Sulaiman Mts) did not include Kandahar or Ghazna. --Lysozym (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Spreading of Persian culture began in the south of the Hindu Kush with the Ghaznavids. When the Arabs arrived to the area south of the Hindu Kush mountains in the 7th century they described its people culturally and religiously as Indians, their territory connected with Greater India. Persians were north of the Hindu Kush who practiced Zoroastrianism. The "Afghans" at the time of the Ghaznavids were not Persians and not Indians but counted as a different group, possibly Aryans mixed with Hebrews+Greeks+Turks+Arab+others. They were probably the Kuchi people who roamed the area from the Amu Darya river to the Punjab region as caravaners and traders, with the Sulaiman Mountains being their settelled home region. They live the same way today as they did then.[14]
2.) The dynasties (ruling families) ruled from small fortified towns but that doesn't mean that they were the inhabitants of Afghanistan. For example, when Hindus ruled Kabul it doesn't mean that all the inhabitants of that region were Hindus, only the rulers were. Most people who read history don't get this.
3.) I didn't state anything to make me anti-Persian or anti-Iranian. I just oppose "Persianate" being in the leading sentence because it creates confusion for the readers. It should be properly explained in the following sentences. I called Persians as the employees of the Turkish Ghaznavid dynasty because that's exactly what they were. You, on the other hand, call all Afghans animals (horses). You demonstrated that you don't like Afghans. After viewing many other articles with "Persianate" being added in the lead I decided to give up my argument. I don't have the time for this.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ad 1) The "Afghans" at the time of the Ghaznavids were simply tribal unions of unknown origin. They were called "Afghans" by the Persianized Ghaznavids because that's how Persians referred to nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in the east. The rest of your claim is pure speculation.
ad 2) That's true for all dynasties, including Pashtun ones. But in many cases, these small but dominant ruling elites expanded their culture, language, and identity on others. That's how Persian expanded out of the Persis, how Turkic languages expanded out of the Tarim, how English and Spanish became dominant in the Americas - and how Pashto became dominant among the heterogenous tribal union now known as the "Pashtun people", and how it became the language of sedentary populations of clearly Non-Pashtun origins in Kandahar, Gardez, Jalalabad, Quetta and Peshawar in the past 400 years.
ad 3) It is pretty clear that you are pushing for an anti-Persian agenda. No scholar would agree with our point of view. The Ghaznavids were a thoroughly Persianized dynasty: they spoke Persian, identified as Persians, even claimed to be descendants of the ancient Iranian kings - a claim that inspired Ferdowsi to write his famous satire of Mahmoud, making fun of his Turkic origins (back then, "Turk" was synonymous with "barbarian" or "savage" in Persian). As noted by C. E. Bosworth in the EIr, all important positions in the state - that of the vizier, the official for finances or the official for war, etc. - were continously given to ethnic Persians and no Turk or Arab (or any other ethnic) is known to have hold these positions. Many of the Ghaznavid ssultans -including Mahmoud - had Persian mothers and were related to the native aristrocrats of Khorasan; that was important in the feudal society of back then and secured Ghaznavid power in Khorasan. Your stand in this subject is wicked and false. As for the rest: you are just talking nonsense and prove, that you have no idea what you talk about. The fact that "Afghan" is derived from "horse" (the original Persian word being aspgān or asvgān, related to Sanskrit aśvaka) is no insult at all, but referres to the equestarian culture of that people. The horse was a central part of the Indo-Iranian ethno-religious cult and identity. That's why the horse even appears in the names of the legendary heroes of ancient Iran: Garshasp, Tahmasp, Lohrasp, etc - all ending with the Persian/Iranian word "asp", meaning "horse". That's also the root of the name Vishtaspa, the legendary king who first accepted Zarathustra's religion. Go and get some education, please. --Lysozym (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to chill out when discussing with others. You're using words such as "wicked", "nonsense" and "go and get some education", and that shows that you have no manners and I shouldn't respect someone like you in any way. Your contributions don't show anything impressing other than reverts, adding a word or a short sentence here and there, and all dealing with Persianizing/Iranizing pages. We know who the Ghaznavids were, why are you repeating this to me? I stated to Kansas Bear over and over that the information about their culture (Persianate society) is the least important, and instead of the leading sentence, it should be appropriately explained in the 2nd paragraph where it states "Due to the political and cultural influence of their predecessors - that of the Persian Samanid Empire - the originally Turkic Ghaznavid rulers had become Persianized." He and you both are ignoring this. It is unencyclopedic to write "Persianate" in the leading sentence of an article, especially about non-Persian dynasties. If the name "Afghan" referred to an animal (horse), the people would never have accepted this but it is documented that the people called themselves Afghans and their country Afghanistan so it is nonsense to say that it means an animal or anything like that. At this point we only know that the Ghaznavids employed 1,000s of Afghan soldiers, but we don't know if they were Pashtuns. The Pashtuns are known to be fluent in Persian as well as their mother tongue, and that's how they have been going deep inside Persian society. Even today, they can go to Iran and pass as Iranians (ethnic Persians) but how many Persians can go live in Pashtun tribal territories?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed more to this project than you could ever realize. So I do not need the respect of someone like you to know what I have done for Wikipedia. And I call certain theories and propagandas "wicked" and "nonsense", because they are wicked and nonsense. You are not the only anti-Persian and ethnocentric user we have dealt with in the past years. It's always the same: anti-Persian propaganda, unsufficiant knowledge of the subject or the sources, endless talks about nothing. Your contributions have not beed helpful at all - that's why they are being reverted, not just by me, but also by others who know at least a bit about the Ghaznavids or that period. Nobody cares what you think what's important or not. It's important what real scholars say. The Ghaznavid's culture was what defined that era: the firm etablishment of Persian cultural and linguistic domination after ca. 250 years of Arab rule, the firm establishment of orthodox Sunni Islam in an era where Mutazilite/Djahmi, Shia, and Sufi ideas were previously dominating (along with Non-Islamic beliefs), as well as the spread of specifically Khorasanian cultural habits to Western Iran and Northern India. And now an obviously anti-Persian ethnocentrist like you shows up and tries to tell us that this was the "least important thing"?! So what was important?! The 1000 Afghan horsemen who had de facto no importance at all in the Ghaznavid army?!
As for your last argument: what are you trying to explain?! Pashtun obviously learn Persian, because they have a need to learn the dominant language of culture and society. Obviously, Persians and others do not need to learn Pashto because there is almost no benefit in learning that language. That's they reason why in Afghanistan people are forced by law to learn Pashto, because otherwise only a few Non-Pashtuns would ever learn that language and Persian would slowly but surely replace Pashto in all important fields - from science to economy, military and government. This simple fact shows the importance and prestige of Persians - a status that language gained due to PERSIAN, PERSIANATE and PERSIANIZED rulers such as the Ghaznavids. You need to learn and understand this before editing articles like this one. Until then, your wicked and false propaganda will be reverted. EoD. --Lysozym (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maybe you should show me which articles you edited. Just because I proposed the moving of the word "Persianate" to a follow up paragraph doesn't make me an anti-Persian. I was hoping for neutral editors (non-Persian ethnocentrics) to get involved. This section was started as "Too many citations" so please focus on that instead of critisizig my constructive edits.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is wicked and false propaganda >>> "Obviously, Persians and others do not need to learn Pashto because there is almost no benefit in learning that language." Pashto is the dominant language in the following important cities: Kandahar, Jalalabad, Peshawar, and Quetta. Anyone who does't understand Pashto cannot do business in these major trade passing cities. In Quetta, for example, the Hazaras are fluent Pashto speakers and they are able to do business successfully. In the last 10 years NATO forces have only hired interpreters who must speak Pashto and Dari. If someone doen't know Pashto then he/she doesn't get this up to $240,000-per-year paying job. The same applies for becoming a minister or any other high ranking government official, if you can't understand both of Afghanistan's official languages then you don't get much support and eventually don't get the position.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Another wicked and false propaganda is this >>> "That's they reason why in Afghanistan people are forced by law to learn Pashto.." Afghanistan is a fully democractic country and there is no such law that forces anyone to learn Pashto.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel : d'histoire, de généalogie et de chronologie de tous les états du globe, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à nos jours.

[edit]

After reading through this book,[15] I do not believe the information, regarding the Ghaznavid's "Sasanian" ancestry on page 112, is verifiable. A Sasanian family tree listing Yazdegerd III followed by a "?" then a Firuz i Barsinjan(who is subsequently followed by Kara Naman, Kara Millat, Kara Arslan, Huk and finally Sabak Tegin), is hardly evidence. The relating information about the Ghaznavids, found on pages 114-115, make no mention of Firuz-i-Barsinjan, Kara Naman, Kara Millat, Kara Arslan nor Huk. The Ghaznavid genealogical tree on page 116 also makes no mention of the individuals in question. Therefore, I am removing this reference as it does not have the required information to source this statement, "The Ghaznavids were also descended from the kings of the Sassanid Empire from Yazdegerd III's line". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong dates ?

[edit]

The paragraph: They occupied Bukhara in 992, establishing in Transoxania the Qarakhanid, or Ilek Khanid, dynasty. After Alp Tigin's death in 993, Ishaq ibn Alptigin followed by Sebuktigin took to the throne. seems to have incorrect dates, since Alp Tigin died in 963. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


First Ghaznavid ruler

[edit]

If Alp Tigin founded the Ghaznavid dynasty at Ghazna (modern Ghazni Province) in 962, why is he not the first Ghaznavid ruler? --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Iranica it says that the start date for the Ghaznavids is 977. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the date that they first impacted Persia? Do you have a citation? Other sources seem happy with the 961 or 962 date. See article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

Future Perfect at Sunrise requested a citation for the Ghaznavid flag. When a citation to Persian Heritage (magazine) was provided, Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the flag, indicating that Persian Heritage (magazine) was not a reliable source. The magazine's recent issues can be viewed at their website. Now it is true that a publication can be a reliable source for some things and not for others, but I fail to see why Persian Heritage (magazine) is not, in general, a reliable source for its non-editorial content, especially on a non-controversial point. Issue taken to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Persian Heritage (magazine). --Bejnar (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buyid dynasty

[edit]

Although listed in the infobox as a predescessor dynasty, the Buyids (934-1055) were primarily a contemporaneous dynasty to the west of the Ghaznavids. They started their conquests about thirty years before Alp Tigin began his, but they both were the result of the Samanid decline. The eastern Buyid lands were eventually incorporated into the Ghaznavid empire which lasted about a hundred years longer than the Buyids. (Buyids lasted ~120 years; Ghaznavids lasted ~220 years.) --Bejnar (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. According to the Encyclopedia Iranica[16] they were contemporaries.
  • "In Persia, the province of Kermān was taken over from its Buyid ruler in 424/1033, but the Ghaznavid force sent there was soon driven out by a Buyid contingent sent against them the next year (Bayhaqī, pp. 552-57)."
  • "In his middle years, Maḥmūd had taken over Ḵᵛārazm (see CHORASMIA ii), and towards the end of his life, he also extended his conquests westwards across northern Persia, his prime target here being the branch of the Buyid dynasty (q.v.) ruling at Ray. On the pretext of an anti-Shiʿite crusade, he marched against Ray in 420/1029, deposed its ruler Majd-al-Dawla and went on to attack various Daylamite and Kurdish princes of northwestern Persia (Ebn al-Aṯīr, IX, pp. 371-74)."
I say remove it from the infobox. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of source

[edit]

The source which you used [17], states that it was Mahmud who became the first independent Ghaznavid ruler, not Böritigin who was not even the founder of the dynasty.

Here is what the source says:

He secured from the ʿAbbasid caliph al-Qāder legitimation of his independent power and a string of honorific titles, including the one by which he became best known, Yamīn al-Dawla (Bosworth, 1962a, pp. 215-18). He divided up the former Samand dominions with the Ileg Naṣr (Gardīzī, ed. Ḥabībī, p. 175), who took over all the lands north of the Oxus for the Qarakhanids, and began a reign of thirty-two years, lengthy by contemporary standards.

It is funny you missed this but not the other thing on the source, misuse of source to suit your own agenda maybe?

Furthermore, according to the Cambridge history of Iran 4, Ismail and Sabuktigin were vassals of the Samanids, and it was Mahmud who declared independence (page 165-166). --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rulers (Alptigin, Bilgetigin etc.) which you removed from the table were a governor of Ghazna. See the article, Khwarezmian dynasty there also shown governors of Khwarezm. I know you don't agree with me then we must ask others. ---Qara khan 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... sorry but did you write on the Ghaznavid article with closed eyes? in the article you wrote that these governors of Ghazna (which ended after the reign of Böritigin) were the only ones who were the vassals of the Samanids, but you have made the Ghaznavid rulers from Sabuktigin independent and then a vassal of the Seljuqs until a wrong period. And don't revert my edit when we are not discussing, that's not how it works, or are you running out of things to say?

And don't think you can hide from me by saying ”i know you don't agree with me then we must ask others”, since this is not how works here, we haven't even begun a proper discussion and you are already trying to leave? Well then next time think before you edit. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I know you don't agree with me because of you have undone my edits several times. Secondly, you wrote: And don't think you can hide from me by saying... read the article, WP:No personal attacks. If you continue write like that, i will have to report you. ---Qara khan 13:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a personal attack? well then go ahead and try to report me and lets see who is right :).

Bad excuse, this is not about agreement, this is about using a reliable source which agrees with the things you write - you will have to answer, or else i would have to do what this says [18]. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to both Qara Xan and HistoryofIran, I have been extremely busy the past two weeks.
After a cursory glance, unless someone(Bosworth, Iranica, etc) says these other governors of Ghazna are Ghaznavids, we probably should not have them in the article. This could be construed as original research, which would leave us in some hot water. I am not sure how much information there is concerning pre-Ghaznavid governors of Ghazni, most likely not enough to create an article. Perhaps an addition to the Samanid Empire article concerning the governors of Ghazni? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an addition to the Samanid Empire article concerning the governors of Ghazni?

That sounds great. Plus this article also needs some fixing, since the Ghaznavid rulers were more or less vassals of the Samanids until the reign of Mahmud. But instead of trying to make a argument for his edits, Qara Khan chooses to ignore me. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting 2 weeks and no response from Qara khan, I guess we should take that information and place it in the Samanid Empire article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, i will add it to a content (which i will create soon) known as vassals or some other name resembling that. Although i haven't been active on Wikipedia for only some days, it will take sometime till i can get on my normal editing level. Expect that it will be done in the following days or the next week. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

It's super sweet you found a manuscript, but this a primary source and you are doing OR. Ogress smash! 04:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghaznavids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghaznavids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

[edit]

Please change "The use of these elephants in other regions that the Ghaznavids fought in, particularly in Central Asia, to which the elephant was a foreign weapon." to "The use of these elephants was a foreign weapon in other regions that the Ghaznavids fought in, particularly in Central Asia" Big kush daddy 420 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done NiciVampireHeart 19:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title?

[edit]

Why Ghaznavids and not Ghaznavid dynasty? The second one is more common for this kind of states. Aryzad (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced infobox map

[edit]

The infobox has a map of the Ghaznavid empire, but I couldn't find the source for it. It wrongly includes Kashmir in the empire, whereas it is well known that Kashmir repelled their invasions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic language

[edit]

Anyone knows which Turkic? Karluk? Sounds a bit vague. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Persianate label

[edit]

The term Persianate itself is flawed as it is very narrow. Japan was influenced by Chinese culture probably a lot more than the Ghaznavid Empire was influenced by Persian culture but we don't call the Japanese Empire as Sinate or Chineseate. It is a misleading term. It should not be in the lede. The Ghaznavids also had influences from various other cultures. Not to mention that Persian culture itself has been highly influenced by Arab culture. Let's avoid such narrow terms.Historynerdboy (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Having come to power in the Persianate world of Iran and Transoxiana, the Ghaznavids and the Seljuqs, whose ancestors were nomadic warriors and military slaves, readily accepted the superiority of Perso-Islamic high culture, and became fervent propagators of Persianate culture, not even vaguely attempting to embed their aboriginal nomadic culture into the texture of Islam. No historical or literary work written in Turkic has come down to us from the Ghaznavids and the Seljuqs...." -- "Two Patterns of Acculturation to Islam:The Qarakhanids versus the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs", Istvan Vasary, The Age of Seljuqs, ed. Edmund Herzig, page 9.
Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not your personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead of the cities that had been centers of Persianate culture under the Ghaznavids and Saljuqs (namely, Ghazna, Lahore, Shirvan, and Ganja)...." --The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca, Nile Green, page 264. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forced to flee from the Samanid domain, he captured Ghaznah and in 961 established the famed Persianate Sunnite Ghaznavid empire of Afghanistan and the Punjab in India." -- The Middle East: a history: Volume 1, by Sydney Nettleton Fisher, William Ochsenwald.
  • "..the administration of the Ghaznavid dynasty in Central Asia, which was Turkic in origin and Persianate in culture." -- Iran at War: 1500-1988, by Kaveh Farrokh.
  • "Nizam al-Mulk also attempted to organise the Saljuq administration according to the Persianate Ghaznavid model.." -- Persian historiography to the end of the twelfth century, by Meisami, Julie Scott.
  • "The Ghaznavids inherited Samanid administrative, political, and cultural traditions and laid the foundations for a Persianate state in northern India..." -- J. Meri (Hg.), Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia, "Ghaznavids". --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military and Tactics must be edited and freed from errors and POVs

[edit]

The military and tactic section must be edited and freed from errors and some POVs. Unfortunately, editing is not possible due unknown reasons. --88.215.91.49 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What 'errors' and 'POVs' exactly? The section is well-sourced, and the article is protected since it constantly suffers from disruption. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, HistoryifIran,

thanks brother for responding. Wasn't sure if anyone would read that. The POVs I mean in the article are a) the claim Ghaznavid army was mainly or overwhelming Turkic which was not that case. In fact, it was very multi-ethnical and multi-racial (Arabs, Kurds, eastern and western Iranians and to some extent and more royal to Ghaznavids than Turks, Indians). While Turks formed most of the royal guards, the overwhelming majority in the army were Iranians (local Khorasanians, Kurds and western Persians). Take a look at his commanders and their ethnic composition b) the claim Ghaznavids army was composed largely of Afghans. First of all, then the term 'Afghan' had most-likely another meaning, taking from Bactrian Hephtalithe language 'Afganano': [lands in possession in the far] /[lands in possession out of )(regional) reach] (N. Sims-Williams and Cheon), describing all ancestors of modern Nuristanis, Chitralis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns, Avans ... for further references al-Biruni on habitat of Afghans while describing the ancestors of modern Nuristanis, Kalach, Chitralis and Burushko (savages) c) the article suggests in that section that then Afghans in the modern meaning of Pashtuns did live in southern Afghanistan (modern political entity) while there is not a single reference to that, neither previously provided by Saffarids and nor by later dynasties like Kart Maliks and Ghurds or even Mughals calling southern Hindukush as Afghanistan. The sub-rulers Miranshahs and Merab Shahs who ruled the southern region still after 450years of Saffarid demise, never provided anything in this regard, while Juzjani clearly mentions the Ghurids took military action against the people of Shinvara and Karamiyya (Shinwara, obviously ancestors of modern Pashtunized Shinwari tribe, originally a dardic group and the people of Kurram Agency and Mastung, center of modern Pashtuns and most likely heardland of ancient Pashtuns) and so later their successors and sons-in-law, the Kart Maliks d) Mahmud Ghaznavi in fact, when invading India, killed tens of thousands Afghans fighting the Raja union of Multan and other localities, who were masters of the Afghan subjects. At the end, Mahmud brought between 7000 and 11000 Afghan slaves to Ghazna of whom ca 5000 were used and taught in military. The bigger? remaining served as personal slaves (water-bearers, groom, ...). Just the number of Arabs in the Ghaznavid army made about 20,000. That number is obviously outnumbering Afghan soldiers in the military of Ghaznavids. It wouldn't be correct but by far more realistic if you put ethnic Arab soldiers instread of Afghans forming with Turks in/from southern Afghanistan the Ghaznavid military. I have enough academic sources and references to fill that POV section with content and academic value. Let me know. Wish you a nice weekend 82.113.106.191 (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have reliable sources that back up your statements, I'll add them to the article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No brother, with all respect to you and your awesome amibition here, which I appreciate, but they are my references and I would like to write them down as part of the article. To be honest, actually the whole Ghaznavid article must be updated and re-written and better structured. I mean look at the introduction. Unbelievable long with too much information that could have been put in the main part of the article. In that view, the German articles with their short but concise are much a better.

A theoretical question. Mahmud Ghazni, according to Firdowsi, had a eastern Iranian Persian mother from Sistan (Dehqan). So he was half-Iranian. He married to Iranian women. The children were considered as Turks or Iranians and how much Turkishness they had after 3 generations? Ibrahim, who had tens of wifes had more than 30 daughters. All of them were married to local Iranian nobles. Such an information is very important to mention because it shows the integrity of the Ghaznavid Turks within the Iranian society or that they claimed for themselves to be descendants of Bahram Chobin, the Parthian and Sassanian General. Within the royal family, despite people calling Ghaznavids as Turks, they had the rule not to marry outside the Iranian ethnogenesis. Nothing of these important points and many more I read in this article. 212.161.68.146 (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the page to the "Ghaznavid empire"

[edit]

This article deals more with a polity founded and ruled by the Ghaznavid dynasty than the dynasty itself, so my proposal is pretty logical. Even the infobox contradicts the title of this page. Any thoughts, Kansas Bear, Beshogur, Kautilya3, Ogress, HistoryofIran, BerkBerk68, Bejnar, Boing! said Zebedee? VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[19] Ghaznavids seems like be the most common name. However if we could divide the article into empire and dynasty, then I can support. It looks like "Empire" is more frequently used than "dynasty" as well. I don't like the name "Ghaznavid dynasty", since it is an empire based on a total different locations than Iranian, Afghan and other Turkic empires. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
agree per Beshogur. BerkBerk68 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not excited either way. "Ghaznavids" or "Ghaznavid Empire" are just fine. Wouldn't 'empire' be capitalised in the title as part of a proper name? If not, then I'd stick with "Ghaznavids" as the common term, notwithstanding BerkBerk68's well-taken points. --Bejnar (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

[edit]

Mention the descendents of the Ghaznivids. The Hazaras being 99% of Ghazni with the same Turkic features has not even been mentioned once In the Wikipedia page and needs to be added.

The modern day Ghaznavids are the Hazaras that live in Ghazni and the Hazaras are the descendents of the Ghaznivids that lived in that era. There has been no mention of them In the Wikipedia page and i request that the Wikipedia team writes about them and the inhabitants of Ghazni (the Hazaras) with the same Turkic features and DNA as the Ghaznivids. Their religion Is now prodominantly Shiite Islam due to the force conversions of Shah Ismail I during the Safavi era. General313 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middle east

[edit]

@Kansas Bear they were sold as slaves in the Middle East and trained there (Mamluks) Then Sabugtigin went back to the Samanid empire to and after the death of the ruler, he went to Ghazni and established the Ghaznavid empire HazaraHistorian (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the source you cited. And this source, does not appear to be a reliable source.
  • "Sabugtigin went back to the Samanid empire to and after the death of the ruler, he went to Ghazni and established the Ghaznavid empire."
  • "Thus the rule of the line of Turkish generals, all originally in the Samanid service, gradually became firmly established in the eastern part of modern Afghanistan. On the evidence of the few surviving coins of the period, however, they still recognized the Samanid amirs in Bukhara as their suzerains. This was the position when Sebüktegin (this seems to be the most probable form for this name; Turkish sevük/sebük tegin or ‘beloved prince’) in 977 took over from the deposed Böri, beginning a twenty-year rule in Ghazna. Sebüktegin had been one of the most trusted personal slaves of Alptegin, accompanying him on his withdrawal to Ghazna in 962. All that we know of his antecedents stems from a collection of aphorisms on statecraft and kingly power allegedly left by him to his son Mahm¯ud, the Pand-n¯ama [Epistle Containing Pieces of Advice], in which it is stated that he came from the Turks of Barskhan, on the shores of the Issyk-kül in the region later known as Semirechye (now in Kyrgyzstan). Obsequious genealogists later fabricated for Sebüktegin a genealogy stretching back to the Sasanian emperors of Persia, but in fact he probably came from one of the component tribes of the Karluk Turkic group. Regarding his subsequent career, the elaborate account in the Seljuq vizier Niz¯am al-Mulk’s Siy¯asat-n¯ama [Book of Statecraft] of Sebüktegin’s rise to fame under Alptegin’s patronage because of his outstanding personal qualities can hardly be taken at face value.3 Be this as it may, Sebüktegin now began an uninterrupted period of power in Ghazna (977–97), still acknowledging the Samanids as his nominal overlords: placing their names before his own on the coins which he minted and being content, it would appear from the inscription on his extant tomb in Ghazna, with the title expressing his subordinate status, al-h¯ajib al-ajall (Most Noble Commander). Yet in practice, he was securely laying the foundation of an independent Ghaznavid state which his son Mahm¯ud was to erect into a mighty, supranational empire. On arriving in Ghazna, Alptegin’s ghul¯ams had established on the surrounding agricultural lands a series of territorial revenue assignments (iqta's) for their support."
I see nothing stating anyone being sold in the Middle East and returning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sabuktigin was born in or around 942 to the Turkic Barskhan tribe, in what is today Barskon, in Kyrgyzstan. He was captured by the neighbouring Tukhsis in a tribal war and sold at the Samanid slave market at Chach." --Bosworth, C.E. (1968). "The Political and Dynastic history of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217)". In Boyle, J.A. (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods. Cambridge at the University Press. page 6.
  • "A merchant of the name of Nusr-Hajy having purchased Sabuktigin while yet a boy, brought him from the Turkic steppes to Bukhara, where he was sold to Aluptugeen, who, perceiving in him the promise of future greatness, raised him by degrees to posts of confidence and distinction, till, at length, on his establishing his independence at Ghazni, he conferred on him the title of amir al-umara (chief of the nobles), and also that of Vakil-i-Mutluk, or Representative." --AMEER NASIR-OOD-DEEN SUBOOKTUGEEN". Ferishta, History of the Rise of Mohammedan Power in India, Volume 1: Section 15. Packard Humanities Institute. Retrieved 30 December 2012.
Guess you missed this information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent addition

[edit]

@Kansas Bear @HistoryofIran Hey just wanted to ping you guys per my recent addition since you guys seem to edit these topics a lot -- [20]

I added a phrase that states the Ghaznavids of Turko-Afghan origin. If you wish to revert it, I am fine with that completely. If it's possible discuss it on the page here, that would be nice. The reason for the addition was that while subsequently researching on the Khiljis of Malwa, I stumbled upon a common reference term in books stated as the "Turko-Afghan period", which usually considers to have been started at the Ghaznavids and Ghurids, and extends to the Delhi Sultanates. I added some sources here on this page for the reference of "Turko-Afghan origin", but scrolling up on this talk page I see it has been a clear sign of dispute in the past.

I hope that this is clear that the term Afghan here should not be considered synonymous with Pashtun in this example. And I think adding a note would fix that (if this origin idea to be implemented in the lead and later is even agreed upon). Noorullah (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the citations you added are either written by nobodies (Claude Cahn and Everett Jenkins, Jr.) or by authors who are far away from their field of expertise (Ross E. Dunn, Jan Lucassen). WP:UNDUE also comes to mind here - the origin of the Ghaznavids are not even remotely disputed - they were Turks from a slave background. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran Got you, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish/Turkic spelling

[edit]

Turkish/Turkic spelling (Gazneliler) should be added to beginning of the article. 84.51.29.38 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghaznavids&oldid=1266096790"