Talk:1311 massacre of Mongols in the Delhi Sultanate

India: History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

I request the admin to change turkic to turko-afghan, as its what historians call khiljis. You can see khalji page or any google site. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk • contribs)

I've discussed this at Talk:Delhi Sultanate#Origins in lead. The term "Afghan" does not refer to the Khalji dynasty's ethnicity. See Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji#Early life. The ancestors of the Khaljis were ethnic Turks who had lived in present-day Afghanistan for a substantial amount of time. They had migrated to Afghanistan from Turkestan. The geographical origin of the dynasty's is irrelevant here. The ethnic origin is important because it explains how the Khaljis were different from the Mongols. utcursch | talk 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historians agree that when they took over power, they were considered ethnic afghans. You can see that in wiki also. for example [1]

and so many more. So at the least you should change it to turk o afghan, as is else where. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book that you've linked to is written by a Pashtun author of Niazi background, who insists that Lodhi ans Suri dynasties are also connected to his community (p. 19). Are there any mainstream historians who state that the Khaljis were ethnic Afghans (that is, Pashtuns)? Emphasis on ethnic because as the article Afghan states: "In modern times, 'Afghan' is rarely used as an ethnic term for the Pashtuns, but is rather used as the national demonym for all citizens of Afghanistan." utcursch | talk 18:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you just have to look it up, there are tons of them. And yes lodhis and suris are pashtun you have objection in that? It is so simple to get it. Khiljis were treeted as afghans by turkic mamluks. it is a known fact. i hope you will make change in here and other khilji related topics. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And in here your own famous indian historians agree... https://books.google.no/books?id=Y7fUHMEDAyEC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=khilji+afghans+india&source=bl&ots=xshoFPb5S7&sig=nFXigi0F9eae9QRKZH-OX_1kycw&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij5_vZyJvYAhXIKewKHQKpDukQ6AEIfzAN#v=onepage&q=khilji%20afghans%20india&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In here even britanica accepts that jalaludin was thought to be afghan, thats why he dared not to enter delhi. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Khalji-dynasty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide tons of more info if you need . Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from your link: "The dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan. [...] Jalāl al-Dīn was already elderly, and for a time he was so unpopular—because his tribe was thought to be Afghan—that he dared not enter the capital.".

As the article Afghan states, there is a distinction between the terms "Afghan" (a demonym) and "Pashtun" (an ethnic term). The sentence in the article talks about the ethnicity of the dynasty to explain why they were different from the Mongols (which is also an ethnicity). The geographical origin of the Khalji family is irrelevant to this article: it is discussed in the relevant article. utcursch | talk 19:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that in the past ( see afghan in wiki) pashtun and afghan were interchangable. Thats why it is written "considered ethnic afghans" Even today when you write ethnic afghan, its translated as "pashtuns". And my whole point is that in the article its written "turkic" which is ethnicity. and that is wrong. if it was not mentioned at all, then i had to agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Khaljis were considered as ethnic Afghans by Mamluk nobles of Delhi" is not same as "Khaljis were ethnic Afghans". What they were considered by the old Turkic nobles of Delhi is irrelevant to this article. Those details have been covered in other articles. utcursch | talk 18:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Considered means they were Afghan as much as rajputs were considered indian. Even in the main article as you showed me it clearly says. "The Khaljis were not regarded as Turks by the people of Delhi, rather as Afghans during the sultanate period, and in later Persian history books, the terms "Afghan" and "Khalji" became interchangeable". now after this is there any room for discusion? It is wiki and we have  responsibality to provide true information. I am waiting for a change not only in this article but others related to khaljis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]