Talk:Khalji dynasty

Untitled

This article is absolutely baseless.

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Mongol invasion

According to [3], Mongols invaded Singh and Punjab in 1296-1297, being defeated by two Khilji generals. Later another Mongol army invaded in 1298 and captured Siwistan. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

STOPIT!

I have corrected it many times, but seems someone with nationalistic ideas are deleting the mentioning of (Afghan) and only leave the turkic, whilst its comletely against wiki rules, they were treated as Afghans and always thought as afghans. infact afghan suris and lodhis were also khilji called ( ghilji or ghilzai) in afghanitsan. removing the afghan name from a dynesty which were precieved as afghans is totally unacceptable, dont remove, if u hve somthing discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.3.220 (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have seen no published sources to support your opinion. Unsourced information can and will be removed. --Defensor Ursa 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The (source) was there before you deleted it. any way the whole article says that they treeted others like afghans and treated in courts like afghans , britanica which is cite is enough to prove my point. refert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.3.220 (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No. You added, http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9045252/Khalji-Dynasty, here;[4], then you removed it here;[5]. Britannica states, "Khaljī dynasty, (1290–1320), the second ruling family of the Muslim sultanate of Delhi. This dynasty, like the previous Slave dynasty, was of Turkish origin, though the Khaljī tribe had long been settled in Afghanistan.

I see nothing that states Turko-Afghan. --Defensor Ursa 05:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the Ghilzai are known as Pathans or Afghans. The wikipedia article on them itself, which is well sourced says that. Also, they do not maintain cultural ties with Turkey. Many north indian tribes can be called indo-iranian. Would you list all north indians as persians? No, that's ludicrious dynasties and cultures change and the information should reflect that. This was an Afghan dynasty and the only reason people insist on hiding that today is due to the war. They want to make Afghans think they have only been the victims and destroy their society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.204.116 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Pashtun influence on the Turkic Khilji

The sources in the article seem to agree that the Khilji had been Pashtunized (or "had adopted some Afghan habits and customs") during their settlements in present-day Qalat, Zabul Province, Ghazni, etc before arriving in India. They confirm the Khilji were not just normal or pure Turks. I think we should be careful in wording to reflect the influence of the Pashtuns on the Khilji better in the article in light of these sources. Khestwol (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In some sources their origin is mentioned as "Turko-Afghan". "Afghan" in the pre-20th century context is mostly synonym with "Pashtun", so here we can use both words to show the influence on the Khilji. But because of the modern shift in the definition of the word "Afghan" due to the political situation (now "Afghan" is used almost exclusively for a citizen of the multiethnic Afghanistan, and not for the Pashtun ethnic group), I think, in modern times, it is better to use the wording "Pashtunized Turk" to express their origin. Khestwol (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that can support Pashtunized Turk? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the present sources in the article support such an origin for the Khilji, although they use an older terminology where "Afghan" is used in an ethnic sense for the ethnic Pashtun people. Khestwol (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So "Afghan" is being used for "Pashtun"?

Here are my main concerns;

"The Khilji rulers trace their roots to Central Asia and were of Pashtunized-Turkic origin.~Britannica source~ They had long been settled in present-day Afghanistan before proceeding to Delhi in India."

The Britannica source makes NO mention of Pashtun/Pashtunized or any variation of that word.

"Sometimes they were treated by others as ethnic Afghans due to their adoption of some Afghan habits and customs".~Chaurasia source~ ~Cavendish source~

Neither source states Pashtun, they state either "adopted some Afghan habits and customs" or "brought a new set of customs and culture to Delhi.

"As a result of this, sometimes the dynasty is referred to as a Turko-Afghan." ~Yunus source(unviewable)~ ~Mandal source(appears to be an agricultural specialist?)~ ~Singh source(could find nothing on this author)~

Not sure how Turko-Afghan equates to Pashtun, and I am sure some POV pushing editors will mention that and how all of these sentences could be considered synthesis for "Pashtun".

However, I found The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy 1971-1994, by Mehtab Ali Shah, page 163, which might state, "between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, such as the Khilji, Lodhis and Saur, were Pashtun...". Except it will not show the page.

and "Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, ed. Barbara A. West, page 239

Which is all I was able to find. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion "Pashtunized-Turkic" is the neutral and less ambiguous wording, because at the present the term "Afghan" has virtually lost its older meaning of Afghan (ethnonym) which it commonly had until relatively recently to refer to Pashtun tribes. But you might change it if you find something even more neutral and clearer. Khestwol (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Khilji's were not Pashtunized, they were Pashtuns, i don't know they are seen as "turkic" there was nothing Turkic about them or their customs. They were seen as Afghans by local Indians and as Turks. Even the Ghilzai in Afghanistan are of 100% Iranian origin and are not Turkish nor resemble them in any way. Akmal94 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

"Ferocity" and "faithlessness"

"The dynasty is known for their faithlessness and ferocity" -- is this wording encyclopedic and suitable for the lede, or can it be changed? Khestwol (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt, many parts was edited by biased editorAhendra (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It lends nothing historically to the article, so I see no reason to keep it. Besides, I wouldn't base something like that from Encyclopedia Britannica(ie. a tertiary source). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Source misrepresentation

@Beren Dersi: I notice you have been making significant changes to the page but I am not sure of their wisdom. For instance, this edit [6] is a misrepresentation of the source and is uncalled for. The preceding paragraphs in the book explain that he was controlling the Hindu landlords. Your edit makes a feudal act appear as a religious persecution. Can you explain? .Pinging @Ghatus: as well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, Beren Dersi is communalizing Indian History with distortion of history and selective cherry picking. See my previous edits. Out of context and baseless sources are quoted.Ghatus (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Edits need to be true to sources and follow wiki content-related policies. I have re-read the source paragraphs again and the section as I had edited. I do not understand your concern. The earlier edit [7], for example, is fully supported on page 182 of the cited source. How is the summary then misrepresentation of page 182? What seems not supported is the OR "Hindu middle men who despite being in absolute control of the agricultural production market hardly giving any tax" – can you identify the page and paragraph that supports this? I will give Ghatus and you time to persuasively explain or add reliable sources to this edit where reliable source is missing or content is unsupported. Let us collaborate and improve this article with WP:RS sources. Beren Dersi (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ghatus: you should not remove tags such as "citation needed" and insert the sentence such as "Alauddin Khilji tried to imitate Muhammad and establish a new religion and ordered the Muslims to take his name during namaz" without providing a reliable source. Please no personal attacks per WP:IUC; if you wish to call highly cited scholarly sources such as those by Sir Henry Elliott or Professor John Dowson on Khilji dynasty as baseless or out of context, please explain your rationale. Beren Dersi (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Beren Dersi: , @Kautilya3: 1) Beren Dersi said:"if you wish to call highly cited scholarly sources such as those by Sir Henry Elliott or Professor John Dowson on Khilji dynasty as baseless or out of context, please explain your rationale."

Yes.Elliot and Dowson are not used today as "credible" sources of History because of their "scholarly incompetence" and for acting as "political propagandists" of the British Raj.

Noted Scholar of Post- colonialism Partha Chatterjee (scholar) wrote in his Empire and Nation: Selected Essays 1985-2005, Columbia University Press(2010)

scholarship of Elliot and Dowson were to be questioned in subsequent decades

He further wrote termed "History of India as Told by its Own Historians" as "otherwise could scarcely claim to rank higher than annals".

Historian Eaton wrote

Especially influential has been the eight-volume History of India as Tol d by its Own Historians, first published in 1849 and edited by Sir Henry M. Elliot, who oversaw the bulk of the translations, with the help of John Dowson. But Elliot, keen to contrast what he understood as the justice and efficiency of British rule with the cruelty and despotism of the Muslim rulers who had preceded that rule, was anything but sympathetic to the "Muhammadan" period of Indian history. As he wrote in the book's original preface:

"The common people must have been plunged into the lowest depths of wretchedness and despondency. The few glimpses we have, even among the short Extracts in this single volume, of Hindus slain for disputing with Muhammadans, of general prohibitions agains t processions, worship, and ablutions, and of other intolerant measures, of idols mutilated, of temples razed, of forcible conversions and marriages, of proscriptions and confiscations, of murders and massacres, and of the sensuality and drunkenness of t he tyrants who enjoined them, show us that this picture is not overcharged...."2

With the advent of British power, on the other hand, "a more stirring and eventful era of India's History commences ... when the full light of European truth and discernment begins to shed its beams upon the obscurity of the past."3 Noting the far greater benefits that Englishmen had brought to Indians in a mere half century than Muslims had brought in five centuries, Elliot expressed the hope that his published translations "will make our native subjects more sensible of the immense advantag es accruing to them under the mildness and the equity of our rule."4

Elliot's motives for delegitimising the Indo-Muslim rulers who had preceded English rule are thus quite clear. Writing in 1931 on the pernicious influence that the colonial understanding of pre-modern Indian history had on subsequent generations, Mohamma d Habib remarked: "The peaceful Indian Mussalman, descended beyond doubt from Hindu ancestors, was dressed up in the garb of a foreign barbarian, as a breaker of temples, and an eater of beef, and declared to be a military colonist in the land where he h ad lived for about thirty or forty centuries.... The result of it is seen in the communalistic atmosphere of India today."

It does not take a superman brain to understand the sources of Elliot and Dowson are nothing more than propaganda.

2) You are quoting "Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi" written by Ziauddin Barani in 1357 as reference to Khilji Dynasty which ended in 1320. The work is itself non-contemporary, full of sourceless and sketchy descriptions and nothing more than a "primary source". It was written to gain royal patronage which means that it was a subject of distortion to please the ruler like any such writings.

3) Sources clearly says as Kautilya3 wrote "The preceding paragraphs in the book explain that he was controlling the Hindu landlords. Your edit makes a feudal act appear as a religious persecution."

So, both your sources are not only unreliable but you are misinterpreting or cherry picking them . Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Beren Dersi: Thanks for responding. However, you should not take this long to respond to a point, because you are expecting us to go back to a month-old issue and research it all over again. I stand by my charge of source misrepresentation. The source said clearly that Khilji was trying to control rebellious tendencies among his courtiers, and controlling the exploitation of the masses by feudal lords. Your edit said that he was persecuting Hindus. That is misrepresentation. Secondly, quoting Elliott and Dowson is not appropriate because their book is a translation of medieval chronicles. It constitutes sources material that has to be interpreted by contemporary historians, not by us. Thirdly, you are not following WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. You must cite your source that has used the Elliott and Dowson material. When you cite a source, you must read it in its entirety (at least as far as the topic is concerned) and summarise it accurately. If you do not follow these policies, you can be taken to administrator action. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3:: There is no wiki policy on "you should not take this long", share a wikipedia policy page link if there is one. Please no forum like discussion on this talk page or threats; see WP:TPG for why. Let us collaborate to improve this article. In your reply and that of @Ghatus, there is one good point, but neither of you have addressed the following issues:

1. For the content, "Hindu middle men who despite being in absolute control of the agricultural production market hardly giving any tax" – please identify the page and paragraph that supports this conclusion, per WP:V policy? If you don't, that is OR and unacceptable in this article. We should delete it.
2. Why did you remove the cite tag I had placed after the content @Ghatus added "He tried to imitate Hazarat Muhammad and establish a new religion and ordered the Muslims to take his name in the Namaz"? It lacks a source for WP:V. So far, both of you have failed to cite a reliable source for that sentence.
3. @Ghatus added, "He dreamt of becoming second Alexander to subdue the earth, and ordered to engrave his name as “Second Alexander” in his coins", with the cite [8]. I checked, it failed verification, and so removed it here with the comment "tag for RS, Columbia Univ site does not mention this". However @Ghatus reverted my edit, without addressing the edit comment. Please explain where you see the support on that Columbia University page, and check if @Ghatus is misrepresenting the source.
4. @Kautliya3: you allege "source representation" by me!!, but why are you not charging @Ghatus given the above evidence? Can you diff link any edit for the following allegation of yours: "Your edit said that he was persecuting Hindus." I don't find the word "persecuting" anywhere in the version I left. Note that false accusations and misrepresentation of editors is inappropriate per WP:TPG. Be fair and neutral: check and question @Ghatus edits too. I welcome your critical and constructive questions on edits with diff links, after you have checked the sources @Ghatus or I have cited. If the cited scholarly source supports the content, it belongs in the article per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Don't take sides. Let us improve the article together.
5. @Ghatus: The medieval Islamic historian texts are WP:PRIMARY. Elliott and Dowson are WP:SECONDARY and a reliable source, with some of their work published by Oxford University Press. They are acceptable, and widely used. Partha Chatterjee's personal view is WP:PRIMARY, should be considered, but interpretation of such primary sources and opinions are typically avoided or directly quoted in an encyclopedia. There are numerous modern scholars who consider and use Elliott and Dowson translations and scholarly work as useful and reliable sources of history (see footnotes 64 and 67 of this, or this, or Susan Bauer's 2013 book at pp. 701-710 as ISBN 978-0393059762 (she includes E&D translation of Ziauddin Barani), or this, or the 2007 bibliography compiled by Tahera Aftab as ISBN 978-9004158498 published by Brill Academic, or hundreds of other scholarly recent sources). So you are wrong when you allege, "Elliot and Dowson are not used today as credible sources of History because of their scholarly incompetence and for acting as political propagandists of the British Raj." Elliot and Dowson is a useful secondary source, widely used by scholars as above examples attest, and it meets wiki's WP:PSTS policies.
6. @Ghatus: To address your good faith concern, I will add second sources to complement Elliot and Dowson, those published by scholars in recent decades. There are plenty of such sources.

I invite you to add relevant content with WP:RS cites that provide alternate, non-fringe, major and minor views on anything I add. I will try to do the same for WP:NPOV. Beren Dersi (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't write any content for this page, and I am not going to defend anything that exists. If you would like to improve the write-up constructively, please feel free to do so. What instigated me to challenge your edit, as I said, is misrepresentation. The original text said "Hindu middlemen" which you changed to "Hindus." The original text also explained the reason for his action, viz., taxation issues, though it wasn't worded in the best possible way. However, you eliminated the explanation. So, your edit made it appear that he was persecuting Hindus, an idea that was absent in the source. Whether you said "persecution" explicitly or not is not the issue. But your edit was going in the wrong direction. If you would like to try again while being faithful to the source, please go ahead. As for Elliot and Dowson, none of us experienced editors on Wikipedia agree that it is reliable to be quoted. If you need to contest this aspect, you need to go to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You write, "What instigated me to challenge your edit, as I said, is misrepresentation. The original text said "Hindu middlemen" which you changed to "Hindus."..." I believe you are referring to this edit. I quote Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund source as ISBN 0-415-15482-0 cited after that sentence, from their para 1 on p. 162, "Furthermore, Ala-ud-din asked the wise men of his realm to supply some rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters rebellion."

So you you are wrong when you allege, "The original text said Hindu middlemen..." It doesn't. It seems like an OR by @Ghatus. I am surprised you accepted @Ghatus' revert, despite the OR. Instead of questioning @Ghatus, you are accusing me of something I did not do.

There are numerous sources like Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund which we can add to complement Elliot and Dowson, where necessary. There is no wiki policy or consensus page on Elliot and Dowson or books published by Oxford University Press being unreliable, share a wikipedia policy page link if there is one. Please avoid claims such as "I am an expert or experienced editor" or WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I welcome your help to @Ghatus and I, so we can constructively improve this article, without taking sides. Beren Dersi (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Kautilya asked to look into this discussion, and here are some quick comments:

• On source misrepresentation: I think this is simply a good-faith misunderstanding since Kautilya seems to be talking about Kulke & Rothermund (pp. 171-173) which talks about the "Hindu middlemen" and Beren Dersi seems to be referring to Elliot & Dawson (pp. 179-182), whch does not (at least in those terms).
• On sources: In this User:Ghatus is absolutely right that dated and derided sources like Elliot & Dowson are not appropriate for this article. For the relevant wikipedia guideline on the type of sources we should be using, see WP:HISTRS (see also this compilation by Sitush, of comments about Raj era history sources although it does not yet mention Elliot & Dowson).

Since Beren has offered to cite sources "published by scholars in recent decades", I think we can set past discords aside and proceed with using the best available sources. The article certainly needs a lot of improvement and work, as all seem to accept. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks. I was actually referring to the more recent edition of Kulke & Rothermund at p. 162 here. But, given your help, I now sense that the older edition of Kulke & Rothermund book might have confused @Kautilya3. See quote in bold above. FWIW, Elliot and Dowson is not in that compilation and it should not be, given that majority of scholars consider their translations as reliable and use them (while a few like Chatterjee have a different opinion). New translations are not materially different than Elliot and Dowson's translation. For this article, I will add second sources "published by scholars in recent decades", where necessary or requested by @Kautiliya3 and others. Beren Dersi (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Beren Dersi: The sentence you quoted from Kulke and Rothermund is itself in quote marks in the source. It is probably being quoted verbatim for Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. But it is clear from the surrounding text that "Hindu" here is talking about the Hindu middlemen. This is discussed at length on page 161, including a quote from Allauddin himself. On page 162 also it is stated that Allauddin decreed that no further taxes should be imposed on the "poor people" who were presumably rural Hindu peasants (who were earlier being taxed by the Hindu nobility). Even the sentence following the one you quoted says, The Hindu was to be so reduced as to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life. So, it is clear that it is the Hindu nobility that are being talked about.

The bigger issue is that while the medieval Sultans might have done things for political/administrative reasons, there was no shortage of Muslim clerics and hangers-on who were always ready to give it a religious ("communal") colour. The medieval texts are full of such Islamist portrayals. Indian historians, who are keenly aware of the issue, are much more careful about wording their texts. So, you need to read the entire section on administrative reforms, understand what is being said, and represent it faithfully.

Regarding Ghatus, he simply reverted your edits because he thought they were heading in the wrong direction. He is not necessarily defending the old text. As soon as we agree on how it should be changed, you are free to change it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any confusion about editions. We are all talking about the 1998 edition (3rd edition). - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You write, "It is probably being quoted verbatim for Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. Your "probably" may cause undue OR. I have the Kulke and Rothermund book in front of me. I read the section and the chapter when I first edited this article, and have read it again today. I believe we must faithfully represent the section as well as the lines 1-4 of this source, as it reads while being careful about COPYVIO and OR (this is the 4th edition; 3rd edition states the same). With respect to your comments, will it suffice if we add a short summary about the "middlemen" aspect as well from the section, to address your concern. Would that add balance? Any alternate creative suggestions that avoid WP:OR, and retain WP:V? Beren Dersi (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you would notice that the lines 1-4 are in quote marks. So, they are from some medieval text quoted without interpretation. So, you should avoid them. Let us see if Abecedare agrees. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The lines 1-4 are indeed in Tarikh-i-Firozshahi. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion is too narrowly focused on individual sentences, sources, and editor's conduct (and past statements). Lets try to reset it, and see how to best deal with the subject on the whole and explain it to the reader. Will post some procedural suggestions below in a short while. Am hoping that other editors on the page who have read more on the topic than me at this point, will help implement it. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kautilya3: If the 2004 book by Kulke and Rothermund, published by Routledge, is citing it, the content meets WP:RS guidelines. We should not interpret it, just quote it. How about including the second sentence you mention above, for balance - "The Hindu was to be so reduced as to be left unable to keep a horse to ride on, to carry arms, to wear fine clothes, or to enjoy any of the luxuries of life"? We should faithfully summarize K&R interpretation, we should not do our own OR and interpretation to avoid WP:OR.

Unless you provide cites shortly for items #1 to #3 in the list above, we should delete content added by @Ghatus which lack cites for WP:V and are OR. These were tagged before, and tags were improperly removed a month ago. @Ghatus and you are welcome to add them back with reliable cites. I am surprised you are not applying the same standards of cite check for content that @Ghatus added, and hope you will challenge both @Ghatus and me with equal diligence. Beren Dersi (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: your suggestions are most welcome. Beren Dersi (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya / @Abecedare: Barni, in Khilji dynasty service, who authored Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, is stated as, "recognized by many as the finest Indo-Muslim historian of the Sultanate period" on p. 164, The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume 3: 1400-1800, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-191-629-440, published in 2014. I am reading the relevant chapter to see if additional summary from it will add balance to this article. Beren Dersi (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There are no aspersions on Barni or Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi. But it is a historical source, written in another time. So, we can't use it directly. Rather we have to use the contemporary historians' interpretation of it. As for I am being picky about your edit rather than the faults of the existing text, the reason is that your edit gave it a religious colour, which is a big deal for contemporary India. The Hindu nationalists already abuse history a lot. So all religious issues will be looked at with a magnifying glass. The other issues 1-3 that you mentioned are not a big deal to me. The idea that the Hindu nobles weren't paying tax is mentioned on p. 161 of the 1998 edition. About Alauddin wanting to found a "new religion" and wanting to "conquer the world", Google books brings up plenty of hits. Whether they stay in or not doesn't matter to me particularly. I hope you will follow up on Abecadare's suggestions below. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concern. You want a modern secondary source for the content, not exclusive direct reliance on Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi. Sorry, I have no knowledge or interest in their politics. We must rely on summarizing verifiable secondary sources. Do reconsider your stance, you should apply the same standards on @Ghatus, me, everyone else and yourself. :), Beren Dersi (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Economic policy and administration section

This article is in an amazingly bad shape (which unfortunately is not uncommon in India history articles), with no logical order in the choice, titles, or organzaization of the sections, or content within them. But since that is too big a topic to handle immediately, lets focus on the Economic policy and administration under Khilji dynasty section, some sentences of which are being discussed above. As of present this section is a seemingly random collection of sentences and idea, with no logical ordering and a mix of good and and bad sources. Lets remedy that!
Here are my procedural suggestions, which as I said above, I am hoping other editors on the page (who are likely more knowledgeable about the subject than I) will help implement:

• Sources: What re the best available WP:HISTRS sources on the subject? Looking at the current version, these probably qualify (although none of them are ideal):
  • Hermann Kulke; Dietmar Rothermund (2004). A History of India. Routledge.
  • Holt et al. (1977), The Indian sub-continent, south-east Asia, Africa and the Muslim west, The Cambridge History of Islam series, vol. 2A. ISBN 978-0521291378

• K.S. Lal (1967), History of the Khaljis, Asian Publishing House, ISBN 978-8121502115

while theee don't:

• Elliot and Dowson (1871), The History of India as told by its own Historians, Vol. 3, Trubner and Co.
• Vincent A Smith (1919), The Oxford history of India : from the earliest times to the end of 1911, Clarendon Press.

and these are borderline/indeterminate:

• A.L. Srivastava, The Sultanate Of Delhi 711-1526 A D, Shiva Lala Agarwala and Company, 1950.
• Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi (1 January 1992). The Life and Works of Sultan Alauddin Khalji. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. ISBN 978-81-7156-362-3. (will need to check for reviews etc)
• M.A. Farooqi (1991), The economic policy of the Sultans of Delhi, Konark publishers, ISBN 978-8122002263 (will need to check for reviews etc)

As one can see we have quite a mix of dated histories; books on history of India/islam, not specifically focused on the Khiljis or their period per se; and books published by non-academic presses. Are there no better sources available?

• Section organization Instead of randomly adding sentences to the section, just because they can be individually cited, we should make more of an effort to organize the material logically and per the weight given to the issues by the sources. Tentatively I propose a four paragraph structure with (1) first paragraph on the motivation (why was Alauddin trying this?), (2) and (3) on the actual reforms, and (4) historians evaluation of the effect. (Also the current section mainly talks about the policies under Alauddin, which makes sense, but did the policy change under his heirs?)

Per above, can we first try to compile a list of best available sources, and then make an effort on the talk page to summarize them adequately? My experience is that if we follow this procedure the content will almost write itself. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is a better source, which has a chapter on the topic:

• Jackson, Peter (16 October 2003). "The military, the economy, and administrative reform". The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 238–254. ISBN 978-0-521-54329-3. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: After you mentioned the non-policy essay WP:HISTRS earlier, I read it. I am unclear why you believe either the translations of Elliot & Dowson's Trubner or Vincent Smith's Oxford University Press publications are not okay under WP:HISTRS essay or WP:RS policies? Please explain. Is it the date of their translation and publication? Will you be okay if a post-1950 scholarly source is included with the translation, as a second source? Those translations are considered reliable by historians and scholars, and widely cited and used in publications in the recent decades (see evidence list above). Alternate translations where available are not materially different. If a translation has been widely accepted by modern scholars, it meets WP:RS guidelines.

I like your idea of using best available sources. Yes, I summarized Peter Jackson's book to this article many months ago, at several places. It could be another source for this section, he states much the same thing. I am willing to compile sources and revise the section/article per the general sourcing guidelines in the WP:HISTRS essay, as and when I find time. Of course, @Kautilya3, others and you are welcome to do so as well, or instead, and I will just sit back offering constructive comments based on WP:HISTRS and other content guidelines. Meanwhile, I will go ahead and delete unverifiable content and OR from that section and the article in general. Beren Dersi (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Beren Dersi: It is all yours. I don't have any particular interest in this subject, although I will be happy to learn from whatever material you come up with. The only reason I watch this page is that it is often a target of Hindu nationalist POV-pushing. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Beren, since we appear to agree on the concept of using the best available sources (such as Jackson), lets gather them first. Then we can get to the topic of how to best summarize them per WP:DUE (by which standards quotes from Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi may or may not qualify for inclusion). Btw, I haven't bothered to look into the edit-history of the article to see who-added/removed-what-content-or-sources, since ultimately the reader does not care about that. I only looked at the content and sources in the current version, and found the former to be woeful and latter to be a mixed bag. Since I think all of us agree upon that, lets just try to improve it w/o getting into any behavioral issues, or assign credit or blame. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing topic a bit, one thing that interests me about Alauddin Khalji is that he repelled Mongol invasions. I gather that even the Caliphate was ravaged by the Mongols. This is something that is often glossed over by the Indian historians, who don't know enough or care enough about the global history. A proper Indian history should credit Alauddin from saving India from the Mongols. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I am on it, as time permits. I look forward to "best available WP:HISTRS source suggestions" from you, @Kautilya3 and others. Beren Dersi (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Khilji people

I have removed the generic section on Khilji people, as it was offtopic, unrelated and undue to Khilji dynasty. It was tagged quite a while ago. The section may better belong in Turkestan or Ghilji or a new article. Beren Dersi (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Beren Dersi

I did not understand what is the main name of this ethnicity. Which ones Ghilji, Ghilzai , Ghalzai, Gharzai, Khaljī , Khiljī. --Shxahxh (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No Confusion

@Beren Dersi:, @Kautilya3:, @Abecedare:

There is no confusion over the edits done. Earlier version was misleading.

Market Regulation: Market regulation or price control was one of the achievements of Ala-ud-din. For this reason, he made crack down on "Hindu" middlemen and also confiscated Muslim aristocrats' property. But, the reference to the confiscation of Muslim property was omitted in the earlier version. Not only that, the world "middleman" was also omitted from the phrase "Hindu middleman" and it gave the whole para an impression of the religious prosecution of "Hindus". But, reality was different. Muslim population centred around cities and hence the agricultural market was under the total control of "Hindu middlemen".

Massacres: Khiljis massacred their enemies. In conquering areas they massacred "Hindus". They also massacred Muslims( biggest massacre is Ala-ud-din's order to kill 30000 new Muslims in a day). Howevre, in the earlier version the reference to Muslims was ommitted and again made it as a case of religious prosecution of "Hindus".

HINDU: Timur in 1398 used the term "Hindu" in order to mean Indians(both Hindu and Muslims). So, in what sense Khiljis(1290-1320) used the term "Hindu"? The Khiljis called themselves "Turks". Since you are quoting from primary sources, one has to be highly careful.

Sources: "Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi" is a primary, non contemporary source. Elliot and Dowson's work is nothing but a collection of translations with their "scholarship" and "intentions" being in question.Ghatus (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have moved on from these concerns now. However, let us not get too far into the secularist tarpit. He did ask his clerics to devise rules to grind down "Hindus," which could only mean the unbelievers. So, religion was certainly part of the enterprise, even though it may not have been the driving force. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, both Hindu Rights and Muslim Rights get their inspirations from the same source-misinterpretation of History. The Sultanate period produced two so called "realistic/pluralistic" rulers- Ala-ud-din Khilji ( who first separated the state from clergies) and Muhammad bin Tughluq ( who persecuted clergy for overstepping and also the first Muslim practitioner of Yoga). I do no know what reference you are giving, but if background is read and proper interpretation is made, I then will be able to comment. BTW, Alauddin believed "Kingship knows no kinship" and the terrible stories of the execution of his "near and dear" ones prove that. Again, Alauddin was no "Akbar", but that does not mean that he was a "bigot" like "Firuz Shah Tughlaq" or "Sikandar Lodi". It is also true that he "cut muslim clergy to size" (when situation demanded) not for "secularism", but for his own security. Bye :-)Ghatus (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Map

Does anyone have a source for this map? According to KS Lal's History of the Khaljis (p. 220-221): "On the north-west, river Indus may roughly be taken as the boundary line of the Indian empire. Beyond the Indus the land was constantly disputed between the Mongols and the Indians. [...] On the east .Turkish empire does not seem to have extended beyond Benares and Jaunpur (Sarju). Bihar and Bengal were ruled by Harasimka and Shamsuddin Firoz respectively, both independent of the Sultanate of Delhi."

While Bengal did form a part of the Delhi Sultanate under the Mamluks, this doesn't seem to be true for the Khiljis. utcursch | talk 18:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Khilji dynasty → Khalji dynasty – The majority of the scholarly sources on this topic prefer "Khalji" to "Khilji". This includes older sources such as History of the Khaljis, as well as more recent publications, such as Peter Jackson's The Delhi Sultanate (2003) and Satish Chandra's Medieval India (2004). Encyclopædia Britannica also calls it Khalji dynasty, as do India's NCERT [9] and Pakistan's Ministry of Education [10] (page 10).

Google Books search results:

• "Khalji" "Delhi" -wikipedia
  • 22,300 results, which include the majority of the authoritative works on the topic
• "Khilji" "Delhi" -wikipedia
  • 18,500 results, several of them exam preparation guides

Therefore, I propose that this article be moved to "Khalji dynasty". The related articles (e.g. the names of the dynasty's rulers) should also be moved accordingly. utcursch | talk 19:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. utcursch | talk 19:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current title is fine and had been stable for a long time. It still is a common name to refer to the dynasty. Khestwol (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Neutral, after analyzing the evidence. Khestwol (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: I was tempted to close this as rough consensus to move but we need more participation. There are no support !votes at all but the one oppose is blatantly contrary to policy in my opinion. There seems to be a case for the move in terms of WP:NAMECHANGES. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

In my thinking, "Khilji" is more academic, and not less common. My rationale is per the Wikipedia policy at WP:TITLECHANGE. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. The current title is also WP:CONSISTENT with all other title names using the same spelling like Alauddin Khilji, Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji, Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji, Malik Balkha Khilji, and others. I strongly disagree with moving just one article and leaving others, because this compromises consistency between these related articles. Khestwol (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article (and related articles) have been titled "Khilji" for long, but it's definitely not "more academic". A generic Google search result admittedly shows "Khilji" as the more common spelling, but that's partially because of Wikipedia's popularity. As I've shown above, using Google Books search result, "Khalji" is vastly preferred by scholarly sources. You can also try other archives, such as JSTOR: Search for Khilji, and nearly all the search results are about modern writers surnamed Khilji. Search for Khalji, and you will find articles about the dynasty.

The majority of the sources cited in this article also use the spelling "Khalji", and that proportion increases greatly if you restrict the list to notable publishers and authors. E.g. if you eliminate the authors who do not have a Wikipedia article on them, the only authors who use the spelling "Khilji" are 4 outdated colonial-era writers: H. M. Elliot (1871), Alexander Cunningham (1873), W. W. Hunter (1893), V. A. Smith (1911). On the other hand, "Khalji" is used by A. L. Srivastava (1966), K. S. Lal (1967), Peter Holt-Ann Lambton-Bernard Lewis (1977), Tapan Raychaudhuri-Irfan Habib-Dharma Kumar (1982), Peter Jackson (2003), Hermann Kulke-Dietmar Rothermund (2004), Clifford Edmund Bosworth (2007), Alexander Mikaberidze (2011); besides, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Archaeological Survey of India.

In medieval Persian manuscripts, the word can be read as either "Khilji" or "Khalji" because of the omission of short vowel signs in orthography, but "Khalji" is the correct name. utcursch | talk 02:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• Support per more result count and use among modern academics as listed here. Capitals00 (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:CONSISTENCY of other article titles also depends on this article. So do you think we should also rename other articles like Alauddin Khilji, Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji, Muhammad bin Bakhtiyar Khilji, Malik Balkha Khilji and others which use the spelling "Khilji"? Khestwol (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - If "Khalji" is the correct name, by all means that is what we should use. Let us rename all the other page titles with "Khilji" at the same time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Khilji is the proper name. While we studied the history history in school, it was always "Khilji" and nothing else. Entire India use Khilji with a spelling variation of Khilaji. I have seen textbooks in Marathi language, Hindi language, and in English as well that use "Khilji". If western scholars cant pronounce/write it properly, it shouldnt be changed. It is not exactly a western name after-all. Also, per Khestwol: there are too many members from that family who are properly named (on wikipedia) as Khilji. How can an individual's family name be Khilji, but when referring to the same family it has to be Khalji? Beats my common sense. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the nominator's statement at all? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran:

• "Khilji" is not the "proper" spelling. The Persian manuscripts omit vowels (see abjad), because of which the word has been read variously as "Khalji" or "Khilji". Of these, "Khalji" is correct, according to the reference cited above.
• I'm not sure when/where you studied, but several Indian textbooks use the spelling "Khalji". For example:
  • NCERT English textbook: page 2(31): "KHALJI DYNASTY", "Alauddin Khalji"
  • NCERT Hindi textbook: page 2(31): "ख़लजी वंश", "अलाउद्दीन ख़लजी"
  • Maharashtra State Board - English textbook: page 15(6) - "Alauddin Khalji", page 97 (88) - "Khalji dynasty"
  • Maharashtra State Board - Marathi textbook: page 15(6) - "अल्लाउद्दीन खल्जी", page 97 (88) - "खल्जी घराण्याची राजवट".
• Also, "Khalji" is not a corruption resulting from the western scholars' inability to "pronounce/write it properly". If you read the discussion above, you'd notice that the only notable authors currently cited in the article that use the spelling "Khilji" are all colonial-era British writers. On the other hand, the prominent Indian historians who have authored the standard work on the dynasty (Kishori Saran Lal, Mohammad Habib, Banarsi Prasad Saksena etc.) use the spelling "Khalji" without exception. Several other Indian historians, ranging from "JNU-Marxist" to "Nationalist" schools of thought, use the spelling "Khalji" as well. E.g. Dharma Kumar, A. L. Srivastava, Satish Chandra, Dasharatha Sharma etc. Of course, several non-Indian historians use the spelling "Khalji" as well.
• Finally, the individuals' family name is not "Khilji" either. For example, if you go through the references cited in the article Alauddin Khilji, you'll find that every single work mentioned in the Bibiliography section uses the spelling "Khalji": Abraham Eraly (2015) Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1979), Asoke Kumar Majumdar (1956), Banarsi Prasad Saksena (1992), Kishori Saran Lal (1950), Mohammad Habib (1981), Peter Jackson (2003), R. Vanita & S. Kidwai (2000), Richard M. Eaton (2001), and Satish Chandra (2004).

utcursch | talk 21:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support After doing a little background check, turns out I was wrong. The textbooks do say "खल्जी घराण्याची राजवट" and not "खिल्जी". I must have got confused over the years. Apologies. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2017

Change "Madura" to "Madurai"

Note: It is wrongly given as "Madura" in Tamilnadu. The city name in Tamilnadu is "Madurai". Also the hyperlink wrongly leads to an Indonesian city. K.ratan (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Afghan origin

Khaljis "POV and fringe". First of, please explain what this actually means. I only added one line from a book and quoted it and yet is somehow counts as expressing my point of view.The book clearly states: "At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends" Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34)" Hayras123 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hayras123: Ignoring the fact that Elliott's History of India is an obsolete source (see WP:HISTRS), the book includes translations of various chronicles. The "a race different from that of the Turks" bit is from the Tughluq-era Delhi chronicler Barani, who is not a reliable source. As several modern historians have explained (see Jalaluddin Firuz Khalji#Early life), the Khaljis were of Turkic origin, and their ancestors had lived in present-day Afghanistan for quite some time, because of which they were wrongly regarded as non-Turkic when they came to Delhi. utcursch | talk 15:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Utcursch:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"

Ignoring the fact that the Ghilzai tribe of Afghans are descendants of Khaljis, there are many other reputable, non-biased sources that clearly state that Khaljis were not of Turk origin. In fact, it is clearly stated that they are of Afghan origin Hayras123 (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Barani is not one of those sources that are acceptable as primary sources: plenty of modern historians have shown him to be unreliable. As already mentioned, Ghulam Sarwar Khan Niazi is a Pashtun, and so is Abdul Hai Habibi. Independent historians who do not have a conflict of interest on the topic disagree with them. utcursch | talk 23:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

So just because Niazi and Habibi are Pashtuns, disqualifies them for giving their assertion on the topic? That's not very noble of you but shows you are biased. For your information Habibi was a historian himself and much of his work is deemed reliable in the western world. Also, the sources from Minhaj and Nasiri deny that they had any Turkic roots and so do most of the sources in the article. You're basically POV pushing. Akmal94 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2018

The article is completely biased and uses words such as "The dynasty is known for its faithlessness" etc. This is against the Wiki spirit and culture AFAIK and I'd like to see it neutralized to present a broader picture instead of telling the story from POV of the enemies of Khilji Empire. 110.36.227.66 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The anon probably wants to remove "faithlessness and ferocity" bit from the lead. I agree -- Britannica is a tertiary source, and now allows readers to contribute. Unless more authoritative, scholarly works support this description, such vague terms don't belong in the lead. utcursch | talk 15:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018

"The change is Khiljis are not turkic," Major RTI ridgeway in his book "Pathans" has called khiljis as Ghilzai Nation. The Khalj and Afghans have always been mentioned together and indispensably their place or origin and race was common. Abu Nasr Mohammad, son of Abdul Jabbar Utbi (1023 A.D.), in the conquests of Subuktagin writes as follows: "the Afghans and Khalj obeyed Subuktagin and reluctantly joined his forces." [1]Ibn-ul-Athir has also mentioned this event in the same manner. [2] [1] Tarikh-e Yamini, 26. [2] Al-Kamil 8/348, Ibn-ul-Athir writes in Al-Kamil:L Yaqub Layth conquered Khaljiya and Zabul.

Minorsky clearly writes that these Khaljies are the ancestors of the present Afghan Ghalji. Barthold and Haig have written the same in the Islamic Encyclopedia.[1] It can therefore be said that Khalji or Ghalji were related to the Hepthalites and Zabul rulers, since the Helthalites, (Hayatila of Arabs) ruled over Zabulistan. Their features struck on coins resemble the features of the Ghalji youth who live in this area and have high noses, almond eyes, bushy hair, and strong features. [1] Minorsky’s comments on Hudud-al-Alam, 348 FawadAliKhan11 (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Major RTI Ridgeway's book is not WP:HISTRS-compliant: the books cited in the article are written by reputed historians. Tarikh-e Yamini etc. are primary sources. There are several other books that mention that the Ghaljis are of Turkic origin, and became "Afghans" at a later point -- that doesn't mean they were Pashtuns during the Khalji period. utcursch | talk 12:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"A Comprehensive History of Medieval India" by Salma Ahmed Farooqui Pg 67, (is on Pearson, www.pearsoned.co.in/salmaahmedfarooqui), The origin of the Khiljis lack clarity, with some historians believing that they belonged to the Turkish stock while others attribute their origins to the Afghans. Zia Barani, the Indian historian (1357 A.D.) in his book Tarikh-e-Ferozshahi, has a special chapter where he says the king must be among the Turks but when Malik Jalaluddin Khalji ascended the Delhi throne he says: “the people found it difficult to tolerate a Khalji king.”[4] Since Khaljies were not Turks Indian historians also considered them to be Afghans.[5]

e. In Afghan literature the Khalji of India have been referred to as being Afghan Ghalji. Khushal Khan Khattak, the famous Pashto poet (died 1688 A.D.) in a long elegy enumerates the Afghan kings and considers Sultan Jalaluddin Khalji (1290-1295 A.D.) to be a Ghalji of Wilayat (Afghanistan). “Then Sultan Jalaluddin ascended the Delhi throne who was a Ghalji from Wilayat.”[6] f. Until the time of Babur, the founder of the Indian Mughal dynasty the Ghalji of present Ghazna have been mentioned as Afghan Khalji and not as Turks. Babur says: “In 1507 A.D. we had ridden out of Kabul with the intention of over-running the country of Afghan Khaljies, northeast of Ghazni and brought back with us one hundred thousand head of sheep and other things.”[11]

[4] Zia Barani’s Tarikh-e Ferozshahi, 173. Calcutta. [5] Tazkira-e Bahaduran-e Islam, 2/331. [6] Divan of Khushal Khan 669, Kandahar. [11] Tuzuk-e Babur 127, Bombay.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.59.224 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 

First of all, the terms "Afghan" and "Pashtun" are not synonyms. Secondly, the article already explains, with more authoritative and reliable sources, how the Khaljis' ancestors lived in Afghanistan, and came to be wrongly regarded as non-Turkic by the older Turkic nobles of Delhi. utcursch | talk 00:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes the terms Afghan and Pashtun are not synonyms, however Pashtuns today are divided in three major groups, Afghans, Pashtun proper and Ghilzai (of turkish extract), The sources I quoted are as authoritative and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

What is your source for the statement that "Pashtuns today are divided in three major groups, Afghans, Pashtun proper and Ghilzai"? utcursch | talk 04:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

"Pathans" by Major RTI Ridgway, In this book Genealogical Tree of the Pathan Nation attached at end of book shows Afghans, Pasthun proper and Ghilzai/Khilji, All Tribes under each group and origins are mentioned. for example Durrani mentioned under Afghan, Afridi under Pashtun proper, Lodhis under Ghilzai/Khilji

Another book "Afghan despotism in India" by Iqtadar Hussain Siddiqui, can't find it at home to mention page number( but will update page number) quotes Khiljis, Lodhis and Surs as Ghilzai.

Jawaharlal Nehru "The Discovery of India" Pg 238 "The Afghans differed also from the more highly cultured and sophisticated Arabs and Persians.. One of their great rulers, Alauddin Khilji, himself married a Hindu lady and so did his son, Some of the rulers were racially Turks such as Qutbud-Din Aibak, the Sultana Razia and Iltutmish, but the nobility and army continued to be mainly Afghans." Nehru hence makes a distinction between Afghans and Turks and considered Khilji to be Afghan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Major Ridgeway or Jawaharlal Nehru are not historians. Also, the article already mentions that the Khaljis were regarded as ethnic Afghans. There is a separate article on Ghiljis -- it mentions they most probably descended from the Khalaj people: just because the Ghiljis came to be regarded as ethnic Afghans over time doesn't mean that the Khalaj people were non-Turkic. utcursch | talk 17:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have quoted something all afghans and pashtoons and ghilzais know the three have different roots. Major Ridgeway's book was the main source for recruiting Afghans, pashtuns and ghilzais when the british ruled India. Khiljis they are "ethnic Afghans" along with "ethnic turkic", or vice versa. That is exactly what the Afghans or pashtuns consider ghilzais to be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.63.32 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Books by colonial officials are not acceptable sources for history of tribes, castes and clans: this has been discussed several times at WP:RSN. The article already states that the Khaljis were considered to be Afghans. "Ghilzais" are not same as Khaljis -- they have their own article. utcursch | talk 01:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To utcursh. I think you should wipe out the "wrongly" here, as everybody disagrees. Because it doesnt make sence. only considered will fix the problem. And secondly you should mention it a turko afghan origin, and adding the khalji location (from where the name is derived) will help more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E432:23EF:29A1:4913 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"Wrongly" is supported by more than one author, and their area of expertise is Delhi Sultanate. utcursch | talk 12:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

firstly about bakhtyar, you are simply imposing your version of history on others. secondly 90 percent of the sources doesnt say wrongly. It is wiki not some ones personal home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E432:23EF:29A1:4913 (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not my version of the history: it's a claim supported by historians like Ashirbadi Lal Srivastava, Abraham Eraly, Peter Jackson and others. If you have more authoritative, scholarly sources that call these historians wrong, feel free to suggest them. Wikipedia mirrors and colonial government officers are not acceptable sources. utcursch | talk 13:45, 23 March 2018 (UT

The khalj are different from Turks in the below sources, (we'll leave who is afghan, pashtun or ghilzai for another discussion) Am quoting Minhaj Siraj, He says that the Khaljies live near Ghazni, Garmseer and Ghor, but has not said anything about these people being Turks. On the other hand, he clearly refers to other rulers of Turkish descent as Turks. Khalj, which has been altered to Khalakh by calligraphers, was a well-known word among geographers long before the compilation of Hudud-ul-Alam. Ibne Khurdadbeh (844-848 A.D.) also speaks about Khaljiya. He confirms that there is a difference between Khalj and says: “the winter dwelling of Turks of Kharlukh (Kharlikh) is near Taraz and nearby them lie the pastures of Khalj (Khaljiya).[2] [2] Al-Masalik wa al-Mamalik, 28.

The Khalj and Afghans have always been mentioned together and indispensably their place or origin and race was common. Abu Nasr Mohammad, son of Abdul Jabbar Utbi (1023 A.D.), in the conquests of Subuktagin writes as follows: "the Afghans and Khalj obeyed Subuktagin and reluctantly joined his forces."[1]

Ibn-ul-Athir has also mentioned this event in the same manner. [2] [1] Tarikh-e Yamini, 26. [2] Al-Kamil 8/348, Ibn-ul-Athir writes in Al-Kamil:L Yaqub Layth conquered Khaljiya and Zabul.

Mahmud Kashghari (1074 A.D.), who was of Turkish descent and a Turkologist says: The ghuz of Turkmans comprise 24 tribes, but two Khaljiya tribes resemble the Turks are not considered Turks.[1] This Turkish historian who has studied the Turks and even note their tribes, refrains from adding the name of Khalj with the Turks.[2]

[1] Divan Lughat-ul-Turk 3/307, Istanbul, 1915. [2] Divant Lughat-ul-Turk, photographic publication p. 4-41.

Fakhruddin Mubarak Shah, well known as Fakhr-e Mudabir and author of Adab-al-Harb and other famous books, writing on the History of India (1205 A.D.) says that the armies of Sultan Qutb-ud-Din comprised of Turks, Ghori, Khorasani, Khalji and Indian soldiers.[10] [10] Introduction to the History of Mubarak Shah, 33. London, 1927.

A manuscript on the miracles of Sultan Sakhi Sarwar[7] (known as Lakhdata died 1181 A.D. and buried in Shah Kot of Dera Ghazi Khan) is written in Persian whose author is unknown. In this book the author relates a story from Tarikh-e Ghazna by Abu Hamid-al-Zawali and quotes Hasan Saghani.[8] “Kabul Shah, Khingil, who according to Yaqubi lived about 779 A.D.[9] sent a poem in the Khaljiya language to the Loyak of Ghazni.” Analysis of this poem shows that it is ancient Pashto which is said to have been the language of Khaljiya. This means that the Khalji spoke Pashto, [7] For the biography of this saint refer to Khazinat-ul-Asfiya 2/248 and Ab-e Kawtbar by Shaikh Ikram p. 91 onwards. [8] Born in Lahore 1181, died 1252 A.D. [9] Tarikh-al-Yaqubi 2/131.

Minhaj Siraj’s statement is worth consideration in which he says: “Sultan Jalaluddin Khwarazm Shah and Malik Khan of Heart reached Ghaznayn and a large army of Turks, and rulers of Ghor, Tajik, Khalji and Ghori gathered at their service.”[10] Here Minhaj Siraj mentions the Turks and Khalj as two separate entities. Juwaini, in Tarikh-e Jahankusha also speaks about the presence of Khalji in the battle of Parwan and the defeat of the Genghis army.[11] [10] Tabaqat-e Nasiri 2/259. [11] Jahan Kusha of Juwayni 2/194. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's copy-paste from "Khaljies are Afghan" by Afghan historian Abdul Hai Habibi -- hardly a neutral source. We already have citations from reputed non-Turkic, non-Afghan scholars, including more recent scholarship. utcursch | talk 18:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because Abdul Hai is afghan doesn't mean it is biased, rather answer his points raised by your sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC) The Khilji Dynasty - Padma Mohan Kumar, freelance writer email: padma413@gmail.com

The Khiljis were the second dynasty to rule over Delhi. The fall of the Slave dynasty, which was the first ruling line of kings, was followed by the accession of Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji, the founder of the Khilji dynasty, to the throne of Delhi in 1290. Historical scholars describe this change as the Khilji revolution because it marked the end of Turkish domination. The Khiljis were Turko-Afghan in origin and the family owed its name ‘Khilji’ to an Afghan village or town known as ‘Qalat-e-Khilji’ or Fort of Khilji. They had originally settled in Afghanistan but later on they had made Delhi their home. Her sources: A Comprehensive History of India: Comprehensive history of medieval India By B.N. Puri, M.N. Das — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The article already mentions that the Khaljis were of Turkic origin and settled in Afghanistan (which is what "Turko-Afghan" implies). Your edit request was "Khiljis are not turkic", which is disputed by multiple scholarly sources. Abdul Hai Habibi is hardly a reliable source for a claim like this one, given his involvement in the Pata Khazana forgery. utcursch | talk 19:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My request now "Khiljis are of Turkic origin and ethnic Afghans", Wikipedia says they are ethnic Turks and wrongly considered ethnic Afghans which is not the same as my request or "Turko-Afghan",

on Abdul Hai, we are debating his primary sources not what he has to say, (scroll up and see Tarikh-e Yamini, 26. [2] Al-Kamil 8/348, Ibn-ul-Athir writes in Al-Kamil:L Yaqub Layth conquered Khaljiya and Zabul.),

not to mention BN Puri and Salma Ahmed Siddiqui who I have quoted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The article states "wrongly" with two scholarly sources by authors whose area of expertise is Delhi Sultanate: Please find a source which disputes these scholars. The books edited by B. N. Puri and Salma Ahmed Siddiqui do not explicitly dispute this claim (not to mention that Delhi Sultanate is not the editors' area of expertise). For example, Salma Ahmed Siddiqui states in very next sentence: "The older nobility of the Delhi Sultanate did not recognize the Turkish origin of the Khiljis. Considering them to be low born Afghans...". utcursch | talk 15:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

My change I want is "Khiljis were turkish origin and ethnic Afghans" or "Khiljis were Turko Afghans origin"

Your reading the sources that disputes these scholars, Salma Ahmed Siddiqui Pg 67, A comprehensive History of Medieval India "The origin of the Khiljis lacks clarity, with some historians believing that they belonged to Turkish stock while others attribute their origin to the Afghans. The older nobility did not recognize the Turkish origin of the Khiljis. Considering them to be low born Afghan, they even desisted from helping to them come to power. " This contradicts both your sources, she hasn't given an origin to the khiljis, your sources call them ethnic Turkish, and, she didn't use word wrongly considered Afghans.

Wiki is disregarding these sources and  calling them only ethnic Turkish and wrongly considered Afghans. 

On page 68, Salma Ahmed Siddiqui " By the end of his rule Jalaluddin had sowed the seeds for two major changes that mitigated the harsher aspects of Balban's rule. The first being the Afghan descent of the Khiljis, which was used to harness the support of the Afghan nobles; and the second was giving higher offices to Indian Muslims who had so far been ignored by Balban because of his belief that right to govern was vested with Turks alone."

The change "Khiljis are Turko Afghan in origin", is also acceptable by me.

The Khilji Dynasty

- Padma Mohan Kumar, freelance writer email: padma413@gmail.com

The Khiljis were the second dynasty to rule over Delhi. The fall of the Slave dynasty, which was the first ruling line of kings, was followed by the accession of Jalal ud din Firuz Khilji, the founder of the Khilji dynasty, to the throne of Delhi in 1290. Historical scholars describe this change as the Khilji revolution because it marked the end of Turkish domination. The Khiljis were Turko-Afghan in origin and the family owed its name ‘Khilji’ to an Afghan village or town known as ‘Qalat-e-Khilji’ or Fort of Khilji. They had originally settled in Afghanistan but later on they had made Delhi their home. Her sources: A Comprehensive History of India: Comprehensive history of medieval India By B.N. Puri, M.N. Das BN Puri and M.N. Das, — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You're repeating the same point again and again: the article already states that they were of Turkic origin, and from Afghanistan -- saying that they were "Turko-Afghan" is just repetition, without specifying what exactly the term means. I'll reply if you come up with something actually disputes the sources cited in the article. utcursch | talk 16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

No the article says they are ethnic Turks, not Turkic origin, the article never says from Afghanistan, and no I am not repeating, your not able to answer why you've said they are wrongly considered Afghans, You also need to dispute the primary sources I have quoted and BN Puri and Salma Ahmad, Turko Afghan means they are from Afghanistan, considered Afghan not ethnic Turkish only turkic origin. You havn't replied why your sources are correct and these are wrong. Wikipedia should have said they are Turkic origin, and distinct from the turks, and were from Afghanistan, (not wrongly considered Afghan), the above sources should suffice this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, we can change it to Turkic origin, if that helps. But here's a direct quote from the Abraham Eraly reference cited in the article: "Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks" (i.e. Turkic peoples). That they were wrongly considered Afghans is not my assertion -- it is supported by two references in the article.

Please find a source for your claim that "Turko Afghan means they are from Afghanistan, considered Afghan not ethnic Turkish only turkic origin". B. N. Puri and Salma Ahmed Farooqui do not explicitly support that claim. utcursch | talk 20:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

"Afghan Despotism in India" by Iqtidar Husain Siddiqui The Preface says he is Head of History Department, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, August 4, 1969. Pg v "The statement of the contemporary writers indicates that it included the Turks, Ghorids, Khurasanis, Khaljis, and the Indians" In footnote Fakhr Muddabir p33, Pg vi Introduction, "The strenghth of the Khaljis whom the Turks considered inferior to them, had considerably increased. The non turks nobles also aligned with them against the Turks who wanted to oust them from the nobility and monopolise key posts and territories. As a result the Turkish rule was overthrown and throne passed on to Khiljis." Salma Ahmed Siddiqui Pg 67, A comprehensive History of Medieval India "The origin of the Khiljis lacks clarity, with some historians believing that they belonged to Turkish stock while others attribute their origin to the Afghans. The older nobility did not recognize the Turkish origin of the Khiljis. Considering them to be low born Afghan, they even desisted from helping to them come to power. " On page 68, Salma Ahmed Siddiqui " By the end of his rule Jalaluddin had sowed the seeds for two major changes that mitigated the harsher aspects of Balban's rule. The first being the Afghan descent of the Khiljis, which was used to harness the support of the Afghan nobles; and the second was giving higher offices to Indian Muslims who had so far been ignored by Balban because of his belief that right to govern was vested with Turks alone." she refers "afghan descent" of the khiljis in above paragraph, You've already made changes to this article I just saw. abraham early is right to say had intermarried with local afghans, but term "wrongly" considered Afghans still there.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FawadAliKhan11 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 

The sources that you mentioned above B.N. puri and Salama Ahmed Farooqi explicitly mentions that they were/considered Afghan. And both are very reliable sources as their main work is on medieval india "delhi sultanate" B.N.puri https://books.google.no/books?id=Y7fUHMEDAyEC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=B.+N.+Puri+khilji%27&source=bl&ots=xsioDN67S3&sig=HdBfCBTnt9mExqwdx7ps1tWyC94&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyxIyTiLjaAhXEkSwKHaM3CyMQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=B.%20N.%20Puri%20khilji'&f=false

and Salma farooqi.https://books.google.no/books?id=sxhAtCflwOMC&pg=PA65&hl=no&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

".Here is another two very important and nuetral sources. In al- hind it clearly mentions that khalaj were distint from turks and later "before dynesty" emerged as ghilzai afghans.https://books.google.no/books?id=uQ7k2vQlYxEC&pg=PA116&dq=ghaznavid+afghans+khalaj&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBlqu6irjaAhXGKywKHeMuDCAQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=ghaznavid%20afghans%20khalaj&f=false And here another main source which is explicitly focused "again" on delhi sultanate. (The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History), clearly mentions that khiljis assimilated to neighbering afghans while still confined in suleiman mountains. https://books.google.no/books?id=lt2tqOpVRKgC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=ghurid+afghans&source=bl&ots=O4hR2nTKs0&sig=jGAD28j0iq3G83FVTELZwep_gbM&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPt9L5wKvaAhXHO5oKHZGmDWwQ6AEIWjAL#v=onepage&q=ghurid%20afghans&f=false. To the editers- I think the main problem is the tone of the article (not of specific author). For ex- the term 'wrongly" even contradict the article itslef, which clearly mentions that they were considered afghans. And also emphasizing on how one particuler auther is wrong while tones of other reliable sources are at hand. Hope constructive changes are made so we can all agree on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.199.161 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Khalaj

Please do not make Khalaj or Khalaji (Ghalzai) They were Turkic not Ghalzai
لطفا قبیلهٔ غَلزایی را خَلَج و یا خَلَجی نسازید --Shxahxh (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I undid your removal of the alternate spelling "Khilji" -- it is used in several sources. That said, the article does have a bit of POV-pushing regarding the dynasty's ethnicity because of some recent edits -- I'll try to fix these when I have some time. utcursch | talk 02:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

To Utcursch. You said no description of origins in opening. It should be only in origin section, so remove the khalaj people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:D5B8:F201:6FDA:73B9 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Shxahxh's edits are ethnic POV-pushing. utcursch | talk 17:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

utcursch

But (Khalaji) should not be deleted. Brother --Shxahxh (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

FawadAliKhan11, your edits are POV-pushing in the other direction. Please do not pass off contested opinion as facts -- the discussion of the dynasty's ethnicity should be limited to the Origin section. Also, your duplication of content is unexplained. utcursch | talk 13:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To Utcursch. As you stated about sources, here is i think "The most important source" we simply cannot look over it. It is #Tarikh Yamini" which is written way before khalji dynesty. In that khiljis are (EXPLICITLY) considered Afghan. Now i dont request taking of tarko afghan to afghan. All i am saying is the article needs to be a little less biased, like deleting (wrongly) etc. Thank you. https://archive.org/details/kitabiyaminihis00reyngoog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E411:A483:8D3E:92F6 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:HISTRS and WP:RS to see what kind of sources are acceptable as citations. A primary source like Tarikh Yamini is not an acceptable source. However, its analysis by a modern historian can be an acceptable source.

Please provide the page number of the linked book where the "khiljis are (EXPLICITLY) considered Afghan" -- maybe we can find a scholarly work that analyzes this evidence. utcursch | talk 18:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here in page number 336 the author completely differentiates between khiljis and turks.

https://archive.org/details/kitabiyaminihis00reyngoog/page/n375 and in the following page (467) he mentions the same geography of khiljis but call them afghan. https://archive.org/details/kitabiyaminihis00reyngoog/page/n505

And here i have got an important scholarly source which is in persian (iran).

http://setarehi.blogfa.com/post/9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:20:CE72:B25C:1CD2 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

All the sources point out to one evidence, which is they were considered Afghan during dynesty period. Here is another scholarly source with the same outcome. https://8am.af/x8am/1396/12/02/afghan-word-and-reflection-on-afghan-identity-events-part-i/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:5D6C:63C8:FCBD:8BAB (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

Turkic and Afghan

@User:W28394 Clearly nearly all the sources mention them as Turks who had migrated to Afghanistan and adopted some customs of Local Pashtuns. This is for some users who want to make them Pashtun when they are Turkic. Pashtunization involves change of Language but there is no such evidence of Pashto Speaking Khalaj. They Spoke Persian and Khalaj Turkic language.

Statements from the references used within the article:

• His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
• The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
• The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
• 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 to the South of India

Kami2018 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That is why they are called TURK O AFGHAN. So why it is changed to only turkic in the opening? As mentioned before and every body agrees they might be a turkic tribe that totally adopted afghan culture and transformed in to pashtun ghilzai tribe. Infact i have (last year) wrote the source from a book dating back to ghaznavid times where they are mentioned. It is in talk section. So change it to turko afghan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:D4E4:84A0:2250:C80C (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 

Hi, i am still waiting for changes and your answer (others are also welcome to join in). It is over 3 years that i am involved in this article , so yes i have done my home work (full research). I think we should all agree again to restore the article to its previous version (which you have also edited) but with some minor changes. Agree?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:9803:93DA:7688:1C45 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC) 

Kami2018 It is clearly you who is POV pushing and forcing a Turkic origin on this empire when other historians and writers (Minhaj, Habib, Habibi, Barani etc) have all favoured an Afghan origin. You're also ignoring how other Turks opposed the rise of Alauddin Khiji on the Delhi throne because he was not Turkic. And there is no such thing as "Pashtunizaiton" the Pashtuns are a tribal people and don't assimilate non-Pashtuns into their community. We have Uzbeks, Tajiks and other non-Afghans living in Pashtun areas yet are not Pashtunized yet somehow you think the Khiljis were. Akmal94 (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

HI AGAIN!

You are still not writing it to its original version. After all researched and said that is the ONLY way. If not than me and others have to turn to other contributors. Hope you will take notice this time and do the right (moral) thing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:799:5E0:6000:E166:1231:E0BD:2CBC (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Kami2018

There is no doubt about the origin of the Khaljis as a Turkic group. However, this article is about the Khalji DYNASTY of DELHI SULTANATE and NOT Khaljis as a whole. So lets get that clear first. Secondly, there is also NO DOUBT that Khaljis over centuries became Pashtunized and today, they are known purely as Pashtuns.

Having established two undisputed facts, lets move on to the dispute at hand. The question here is, were the Khaljis Pashtunized enough by the time Jalaluddin Khalji took the throne? Or were the Khaljis of Delhi Sultanate purely Turkic, like you imply, when they took the throne? The simple answer is NO. There is no doubt over the lineage of proper turkic dynasties like the Mamluks who were the rulers of the Delhi Sultante prior to the Khaljis. The Mamluk turks the Khaljis served and ruled later on also did not consider them turks. Why? Because they were Pashtunized by the time and were more Pashtun than their ancestors, who were more Turkic. The historians you quote rightly mention the Khaljis being of Turkic stock. However, they are also referring to the ANCESTORS of the Khaljis of Delhi. Not Khaljis themselves. They very clearly mention the Khaljis having been Pashtunized to a great extent due to which they were not looked upon as Turkic by Turk proper. Therefore, calling the Khalhi Dynasty pure turk instead of Turkic-Pashtun is historically ignorant. Even Lodi Dynasty and Hotaki Dynasty was ruled by Khalji Pashtuns and are rightly called Afghan/Pashtun Dynasties because they had entirely Pashtunized by then. Would you change their history because their ancestors were Turkic?

Also, I do not know if you are genuinely ignorant about Khalji/Ghilji/Ghilzai Pashtuns being the largest Pashtun confederacy today or whether you chose to ignore that fact? The ancestors of Khalji/Ghilji/Ghilzai Pashtuns were of Turkic stock 1200 to a 1000 years ago but were Pashtunized and are entirely Pashtun today, not turkic. The same goes for Lodis and Hotaki dynasties (both called Afghan/Pashtun dynasties) and to a great extent, to the Khalji dynasty (who were Pashtunized enough to be rejected as Turks by the Turkic nobility). This is a non issue now. I will be keeping an eye on this article and all your edits will be reverted to the historically more accurate version.

W28394 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly all the sources mention them as Turkic settled in afghanistan. I have reported your edit to the admin and i think you should read the references and then perform constructive edits. Once again: Statements from the references used within the article:

• His ancestors, after having migrated from Turkistan, had lived for over 200 years in the Helmand valley and Lamghan, parts of Afghanistan called Garmasir or the hot region, and had adopted Afghan manners and customs. They were, therefore, wrongly looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. They were looked down as non Turks by Turks
• The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.
• The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians.
• 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 to the South of India

Thankyou Kami2018 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@User:Kami2018 Once again, you are very arrogantly wrong.

1) You are confusing ethnicity with genetics/ancestry when ethnicity is much more than that. An ethnicity is the state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. It is not limited to genetics or ancestry.

2) This article is about the Khalji dynasty of Delhi. NOT the Khalaj people who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty.

3) Like I said in my explanation earlier, Khaljis without a doubt descended from a Turkic tribe BUT were adopted into the Pashtun/Afghan ethnicity about a thousand years ago. BEFORE the Khalji Dynasty took the throne in Delhi. You ASSUME that due to Khaljis being descendants of the Khalaj people, they remained Turkic forever. Which is extremely ignorant given the fact that;

4) Pashtuns are NOT a homologous group of people. Pashtuns have historically descended from different groups of people. From the hephthalites to the khaljis. Today, the Khaljis/Ghilzais are the largest tribal confederacy among the Pashtun ethnicity and are nowhere to be found among the Turkic people. Some popular Khaljis today are/were Ashraf Ghani (President of Afghanitsan) and Mullah Omar (Ex Taliban Chief), they are referred to as Pashtuns, not Turks.

5) The main question here is whether the Khaljis of the DELHI SULTANATE were Pashtunized by the time they ascended the throne and the obvious answer is YES.

6) Like the sources state, "They were looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners". 'Wrongly' does not matter in this context as we have already established the above points about the identity of the Khalaj people, who were the ancestors of the Khalji Dynasty, and the identity of the Khalji Dynasty itself.

7) Other sources reestablish the FACT that the Khalji Dynasty of Delhi were more Afghan/Pashtun than their ancestors, the Khalaj, and that they had adopted the Afghan/Pashtun ethnicity. "The Khaljis had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks" and "The Khaljis were a Turkic tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians"

8) Going by all the above statements, you will have to completely lack comprehension skills to NOT see that the Khalji Dynasty was NOT a Turkic dynasty but a Pashtun/Afghan dynasty of Turkic descent. If you have any doubt, refer to point 1 again. Thanks.

Also, going by your talk-page, you are involved in various instances of vandalism and enforcing your opinion on other articles as well for which you have been warned numerous times. So kindly spare me the "warning".

W28394 (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You should change Pashtun to Afghan (ethnonym) or Afghan as that’s the historic name for Pashtuns and what every source is referring to when talking about a connection towards Pashtuns , they use the word Afghan not Pashtun Xerxes931 (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalji_dynasty&oldid=821461143

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.

Turkic origin?????

YES

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.[39]...It was here where Nusrat Khan captured Malik Kafur who would later become a military general.[40] 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)

about my edits

Kansas Bear Firstly khalaj people still live in Iran and they speak turkic so they are not "initially" turkic. Secondly someone has vandalized the origin part, for example I don't see any source saying anything like that: "They were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate during the reign of the Khalji Sultanate." The source says They were "wrongly" looked upon as Afghans by the Turkish nobles in India as they had intermarried with local Afghans and adopted their customs and manners. I wrote that part back with more accurate sentences, according to the sources.

Might I suggest creating an account and not editing as an IP? Also, signing your posts is also quite helpful.

Actually the sentence is;

• "The Khalaj were from the very beginning going through a process of assimilation into the Pashtun tribal system, during their reign in India they were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate."

Which is supported by Eraly source which states, "The prejudice of Turks was however misplaced in this case, for Khaljis were actually ethnic Turks. But they had settled in Afghanistan long before the Turkish rule was established there, and had over the centuries adopted Afghan customs and practices, intermarried with the local people, and were therefore looked down on as non-Turks by pure-bred Turks.";AND, Chaurasia;"The Khaljis were a Turkish tribe but having been long domiciled in Afghanistan, had adopted some Afghan habits and customs. They were treated as Afghans in Delhi Court. They were regarded as barbarians. The Turkish nobles had opposed the ascent of Jalal-ud-din to the throne of Delhi."

• "I don't see any source saying anything like that: "They were already treated entirely as Afghans by the Turkic nobles of the Delhi Sultanate during the reign of the Khalji Sultanate.""

The Chaurasia source states that Turkic nobles had opposed the ascent of Jalal-ud-din Khalji, which is poorly worded as "They were already treated entirely as Afghans".

That being said, I have read your revision;

• "the Turkish nobles wrongly looked upon them as Afghan.."

and on the conditions that you 1)change the word "Turkish" to "Turkic", 2)you register under a named account, and 3)get the consent from @HistoryofIran:(since they reverted you on 30 August), I will agree to your version. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ngl, I don't even know what the original and correct revision is anymore. This article has been a theater of edit warring (mainly by IPs) regarding that topic so much that I just gave up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Social stadiues

Main points about khilji dynesty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.141.245 (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"Indianized"

While the sources do seem to point toward such, there are numerous other sources that point to them being of just Turco-Afghan origin. Which is why I am fine with you putting the "Indianized" mention in its origins, where other sources point to them being "Indianized". It would not be appropriate to mention it in the lead (ie where it says they are turco-afghan), but rather in its origins section as another view upon it. @Mydust

You could also try to reach consensus with some of the past editors of the page on whether you believe it should be included it in the lead.

For that matter, if there is a section for the Delhi Sultanate page itself for it, you can also add it there, but rather not in the lead unless a consensus is established as was done before. Noorullah (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I too disagree with using "Indianized" in the lead, because it seems to give precedence (and undue weight) to cultural influences, and the exchange of cultural traits with time, over the fundamental defining characteristics, ethnical and cultural, of the subject of the article. Otherwise, we could very well use the lead to present India as a "Turkified" country or "Mongolified" country, the Visigoths as a "Romanified" people, Japan as a "Westernized Asian" country, the USA as an "Anglified" nation, and Germany as an Americanized European country. "Indianized" also sounds like denialism and an attempt at cultural reappropriation, as if India was really the conqueror here, which is was not, even though the invader adopted cultural traits of the invaded country, which is a universal and rather unremarkable and automatical occurrence. We sometimes do use "Indianized" to refer to the states of South-east Asia (such as the Shailendra dynasty), which were indeed based in very large part on Indian cultural influx. Cultural influences, which are always mutiple and both ways, are best discussed in the body of the article, and such sweeping adjectives should only be used to the extent that reliable sources also use them, with the same prominence. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out that Jaswant L Mehta is a not a reliable source, he’s not even a historian. Satish Chandra already gives a lengthy explanation as to why this is wrong, see talk page of “Mongol invasions of India”. I’d say that part of the origins section should be removed. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

J.L. Mehta, M.A., Ph.D., Reader in History, Punjab University. J.L. Mehta appears to be a reliable source.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re probably 100% correct. It appears that I may have made a mistake while researching this topic. Nonetheless, I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with the way “indo Muslim nobility” is being framed. It appears satash Chandra had already known of this view and wrote a lengthy explanation as to why this is wrong.

“It has been suggested that with the rise of the Khaljis, and the end of Turkish monopoly of high offices, an "integrated Indo-Muslim state" emerged in India, i.e., one in which different sections of the Muslims, including Indian Muslims, were admitted to the nobility, and high offices filled on the basis of efficiency and the pre-dilections of individual rulers, rather than on the basis of their ethnic origins. Sufficient research work has not been done to prove or effectively

disprove the point. We do, however, know that the ruling classes and the rulers in India strongly believed in the principle of superiority of blood so that only those who could establish their links with 'respected' families, whether in the secular or the religious fields, were entitled to high offices in government. The earliest Muslim political thinker in India, Fakr-i-Mudabbir, who wrote during the reign of Iltutmish, says:

"Posts of diwan, shagird and muharrir (revenue posts) should be given only to ahl-i-qalam (the educated sections) and whose ancestors had served rulers and amirs."

Ziauddin Barani who wrote his political tract, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, while in prison during the early years of Firuz Tughlaq, echoes the same views. He says that at the time of creation, some minds were inspired with the art of letters and of writing, others with horsemanship, and yet others in the weaving, stich- craft, carpentry, hair-cutting and tanning. Thus, men should practice only those crafts and professions "for which men have been inspired (and) are practised by them". He goes on to say, "Even if a man of base or low birth is adorned with a hundred merits, he will not be able to organise and administer the country according to expectations, or be worthy of leadership or political trust."

Barani was, apparently, voicing the prejudices of the ruling sections. But these views had a definite bearing on the character of the state. The state remained the exclusive preserve of the so-called "respectable" classes. The only ruler who tried to breach this policy was Muhammad bin Tughlaq who appointed a number of persons, both Hindus and Muslims, from the so-called low classes on the basis of their efficiency. But there was a strong reaction against this from the established ruling classes. Under Firuz Tughlaq, we find no reference to the appointment of such people, either Hindus or Muslims.

Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state. The position of converted India Muslims from the lower classes hardly changed. The rise of a converted Tailang Brahman, Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, to the position of wazir under Firuz Tughlaq, or of an Ain-ul- Mulk, a Hindustani, who was governor of Awadh under Muhammad Tughlaq and later was Firuz's mushrif-i-mamlik (auditor-general), should not be interpreted to mean that Indian converts from the upper castes had now become a dominant element in the nobility. Muhammad Tughlaq's induction of a large number of foreigners in the nobility, calling them 'aizza' is an index to the continued preference of foreigners over Indians. It was one of these nobles who later set up the Bahmani kingdom in the Deccan, and another in Gujarat.”

pg 268. Here’s the source. https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf

Judging from all this, what do you think should be done? Someguywhosbored (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors reverting my edits

I see that in the original section they point to Alauddin Khalji sister being married to Indian. And one of the sources claim they were Indian I have noticed that this page has turned to a propaganda site. As well as when I provide facts with accurate citations which are all from Oxford, Cambridge University and Unesco it gets reverted for no reason. Afghan.Records (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Indo muslim nobility?

I wanted to discuss this because it seems that the mentions of an “indo muslim” nobility/state still remains in this article, and it’s even in the lead. I personally believe it should be removed but I would also like the opinions of others on this. Satish Chandra had written about this view before where he extensively explains why it’s wrong, I’ll cite the full quote.

“It has been suggested that with the rise of the Khaljis, and the end of Turkish monopoly of high offices, an "integrated Indo-Muslim state" emerged in India, i.e., one in which different sections of the Muslims, including Indian Muslims, were admitted to the nobility, and high offices filled on the basis of efficiency and the pre-dilections of individual rulers, rather than on the basis of their ethnic origins. Sufficient research work has not been done to prove or effectively disprove the point. We do, however, know that the ruling classes and the rulers in India strongly believed in the principle of superiority of blood so that only those who could establish their links with 'respected' families, whether in the secular or the religious fields, were entitled to high offices in government. The earliest Muslim political thinker in India, Fakr-i-Mudabbir, who wrote during the reign of Iltutmish, says: "Posts of diwan, shagird and muharrir (revenue posts) should be given only to ahl-i-qalam (the educated sections) and whose ancestors had served rulers and amirs." Ziauddin Barani who wrote his political tract, Fatawa-i-Jahandari, while in prison during the early years of Firuz Tughlaq, echoes the same views. He says that at the time of creation, some minds were inspired with the art of letters and of writing, others with horsemanship, and yet others in the weaving, stich- craft, carpentry, hair-cutting and tanning. Thus, men should practice only those crafts and professions "for which men have been inspired (and) are practised by them". He goes on to say, "Even if a man of base or low birth is adorned with a hundred merits, he will not be able to organise and administer the country according to expectations, or be worthy of leadership or political trust." Barani was, apparently, voicing the prejudices of the ruling sections. But these views had a definite bearing on the character of the state. The state remained the exclusive preserve of the so-called "respectable" classes. The only ruler who tried to breach this policy was Muhammad bin Tughlaq who appointed a number of persons, both Hindus and Muslims, from the so-called low classes on the basis of their efficiency. But there was a strong reaction against this from the established ruling classes. Under Firuz Tughlaq, we find no reference to the appointment of such people, either Hindus or Muslims. Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state. The position of converted India Muslims from the lower classes hardly changed. The rise of a converted Tailang Brahman, Khan-i-Jahan Maqbul, to the position of wazir under Firuz Tughlaq, or of an Ain-ul- Mulk, a Hindustani, who was governor of Awadh under Muhammad Tughlaq and later was Firuz's mushrif-i-mamlik (auditor-general), should not be interpreted to mean that Indian converts from the upper castes had now become a dominant element in the nobility. Muhammad Tughlaq's induction of a large number of foreigners in the nobility, calling them 'aizza' is an index to the continued preference of foreigners over Indians. It was one of these nobles who later set up the Bahmani kingdom in the Deccan, and another in Gujarat.” pg 268. Here’s the source. https://knowledgevalley2017.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Satish-Chandra.pdf

he’s a far more authoritative source than any of the other citations listed under “indo muslim nobility”, and he cites primary sources as well. It is for all these reasons, that I decided to remove this part of the article.

@Noorullah21 @पाटलिपुत्र Someguywhosbored (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Someguywhosbored, if you need to make such big changes, and you get reverted, and you post on the talk page, it's probably NOT a good idea to revert even while you are waiting on editors' involvement. See WP:BRD. In addition, I can't follow your argument at all, in part because the huge quote is kind of distracting, and I'm wondering if posting that link isn't a copyright violation (Diannaa?) But even if it were clear to me what you are saying, there's the matter of you removing two sources, including this one, which strikes me as authoritative. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns so I’ll try to respond as respectfully as possible. I posted on the talk page before I made any changes to the page and before I was reverted. Nonetheless I wanted to address some of the points you mentioned.
    You stated that you couldn’t follow the argument. I understand that it’s a large quote, I wanted to show Satish Chandra’s full detailed opinion on this, but I can narrow down the most important quote of his which proves what I was trying to convey. “Thus, in a highly fragmented society it is hardly possible to speak of an "integrated" Indo-Muslim state” pg 268. The full quote will give you more of the story but it’s clear that Satish Chandra was trying to disprove the notion that there was an integrated indo Muslim state/nobility within the Delhi sultanate after the rise of the khaljis.
    The user who edited in the John S Bowman source greatly misinterpreted/misconstrued what it had written. Here’s a quote of the exact sentence I removed.
    “it came to power through a revolution that marked the transfer of power from the monopoly of Turkic nobles to an Indo-Muslim nobility” Now I’ll cite Bowmans quote.
    “Khalji sultans create an indo islamic state and broaden their power base by including non Turks and Indian Muslims among government officials”.
    Clearly these two quotes don’t mean the same thing. Bowman’s source does not at all imply that the nobility was monopolized by the presence of Indian muslims. He merely mentions that the khaljis broadened their power base by including non Turks and Indian muslims among government officials. Bowman didn’t imply or state that power transferred to an Indian Muslim nobility. And no where does he mention any monopoly of power held by them within the nobility. So again, his source was misconstrued by the user that edited it in.
    Moving on, the reason why I cited satish chandra is because he is far more authoritative than any of the sources listed under “Indo muslim nobility” anyway. His main area of specialization was medieval Indian history, which is precisely the period that the khaljis found themselves in. Bowman has a B.A in English literature, and while he has written on history, he’s not a specialist of this specific period and this specific region. Satish chandra as I mentioned is far more authoritative. Never mind the fact that bowman’s writings don’t at all support the assertion made in the part of the article I deleted. As for copyright issues, If there is a mistake there on my end, anyone can shoot me a heads up and I’ll try to fix it. I hope that answers all your concerns. Someguywhosbored (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
    • That's better, thanks. I am not a content expert: I did not revert you because I disagreed with the content. As for the talk page--if you had mentioned that in your edit summary, I likely wouldn't have reverted. I don't mind assessing Bowman vs. Chandra, but really this is a matter (also) for those with experience in this topic area. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• If I may suggest a way forward: instead of worrying too much about the a ref-bombed half-a-sentence in the article lede, we'd be better off presenting a summary of the various views in the article body including (for example) K. S. Lal's take that the Khaljis represented "a revolt of the Indian Muslims against the Turkish hegemony", Satish Chandra's skepticism on the point of the integration being meritocratic, Peter Jackson's analysis (Chapter 9) of the emergence of the new nobility, etc. And we can go beyond the topic of integration/non-integration of the nobility by, say, incorporating material from I. H. Siddiqui's recent book on the socio-cultural melding under the Khaljis.

I don't intend to edit the article myself since I haven't read widely enough on the topic but, hopefully, some subject experts will be able to take up on the suggestion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

hephthalites Turk?

How come they be of Turkic origin when the origin of Hephthalites is Indo-European and scholars believe they were a tribal confederation of Iranian peoples? Afghan.Records (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Because we have reliable secondary sources that state that. Did you not notice? Here is a few samples for your reading enjoyment.

• Fisher, Michael H. (18 October 2018). An Environmental History of India: From Earliest Times to the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-11162-2. "In 1290, the Turk-Afghan Khalji clan ended the first mamluk dynasty and then ruled in Delhi until one of their own Turkish mamluk commanders rebelled and established his own Tugluq dynasty"
• Satish Chandra (2007). History of Medieval India:800-1700. Orient Longman. p. 93. ISBN 978-81-250-3226-7. "The Khalji rebellion was welcomed by the non-Turkish sections in the nobility. The Khaljis who were of a mixed Turkish-Afghan origin, did not exclude the Turks from high offices, but the rise of the Khaljis to power ended the Turkish monopoly of high offices"

Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not your opinion, or my opinion, or anyone else's opinion. You appear to be heavily wrapped up in the ethnicity of editors and certain dynasties. Perhaps Wikipedia is not a good fit for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear I believe this editor mostly relies on contemporary sources. I've seen people like this often use Telegram and mostly rely on Contemporary sources rather then secondary scholarly opinions. Just a thing to watch out for. Noorullah (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I can provide a variety of sources both contemporary and and secondary. It's been widely accepted that they were of Indo-European origin by modern scholars. Me using telegram doesn't mean anything nor does it mean I don't have knowledge of the subject. 2601:140:8280:B2B0:1B6A:214E:25F4:EA9F (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I am assuming this is Afghan.Records? Why not log in then?

Also, your addition of Olaf Caroe, the English civil servant and not an historian, is incorrect. Caroe's book was not published by Oxford as added by you, but by Macmillan. Your claim of "wide acceptance" is meaningless, when there is a Cambridge University source stating something else. You appear to be here to right a great wrong, as you see it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

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: Wikipedia: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

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

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 [11] (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)