Talk:Ghurid dynasty

Ghurid origin

He did not know the Persian language, so he had a Persian translator in his court. he was not tajek. Realone23 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you created two threads for this. Anyways, read WP:SOAPBOX. Moreover, in Wikipedia we follow WP:RS, not your personal theories/deductions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

thanks for comment Realone23 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

what about tarikh bayaqi which says that masud gazhnavi talked with ghurids kings with the help of two translators because there language was not Persian not Turkic 2400:ADCC:128:2000:32DC:CF5B:1652:39B5 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Origins

Talking about credable "modren sources" both cambridge history of india & iran call ghurids, ( suri Afghans)! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Richard Eaton (2000). Essays on Islam and Indian History. Oxford University Press.
• Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006
• Wink, André (2020). The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: c.700–1800 CE. Cambridge University Press.
• Cynthia Talbot, The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• Flood, Finbarr B. (20 March 2018). Objects of Translation: Material Culture and Medieval "Hindu-Muslim" Encounter. Princeton University Press.

Oxford University(2000)

Cambridge University(2020)

Cambridge University(2016)

Princeton University(2018)--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

My point was that there is qoute from cambridge history of islam in article, but the VERY cambridge on history of india and iran call it suri Afghans. Which was funny and as expected you prove my point by pointing some links. Any way, you don't want me to add 10s of books calling them Afghans,? Will it change a thing? Things are really stupidly funny here! 84.210.149.236 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Which means nothing. No author, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• "..Tajik Ghurids which also held sovereignty in Khurasan and Ghur...." -- Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Volume IV: Age of the Great Mughals, André Wink, Brill, 2024, page 36. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

  you cut out the start of the sentence right? :D where he is talking about Kurt dynasty who is descendents of tajik ( section) of ghurids :D good lord... 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

No more than you attributing Ghurids to being Afghans when the sentence clearly doesn't call them that! No more than you ignoring the two quotes posted on Noorullah's talk page calling them of Tajik origin. Save your "good lord" for your own blind nationalistic bias. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

yeah right, everyone knows who is nationalistic here. And who is tireslly editing against a certain group. Thanks for the request. But save it. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, tirelessly, using academic published sources to write what you don't like. Got it.

• "everyone knows who is nationalistic here."

LMAO. You've been reading too much of your own propaganda. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Only the sources you like. Others get deleted as - rv disruptive. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you've never heard of WP:CONSENSUS. Last time I removed references was here. Which means you must be Kamal Afghan01. Which also means, you didn't take it to the article talk page to get consensus. Instead you canvassed Noorullah to proxy edit for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Which means i dont know kamal and it also means dont make things up. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Just see past 3-4 months and see how many sources are removed including norullahs, as disruptive. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the source

@Wikaviani Hi, per this edit, you said that what I posted in my edit and edit summary was not what the source said.

My edit: [1]

Your revert: [2]

Here was what I added: Many Ghurid princes married into local ethnicities such as Tajiks, Persians, Turks, and Afghans, thus characterizing them as some of these ethnicities.

Here's the source: Many of the Shansabani princes married Turkish slave-girls or possessed them as concubines. A notable admixture of Tajik, Persian, Turkish, and Indigenous Afghan ethnicities therefore characterized the Shansabanis." [3]

So could you explain how this would be OR? Noorullah (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot read the source anymore, but I could when I reverted your edit. I don't remember why I performed that revert, however, feel free to revert me if you think that your edit was an improvement of this article. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikaviani Just saw this now, will be reverting, thanks for clearing this up. Not sure why you can't read the source though, that is kind of annoying. Noorullah (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Per opening source

The source in the beggining of article makes no mention of "presumably tajik", but only mentions that they were from Afghan Mountains.So it should only be left with eastren iranic origins. Correct me if i am wrong. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Read the sourced "Origins" section. Making more threads [4] will not get you closer to remove sourced info. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I said about the opening if you cared to read, just making up excuses as usual right? Then leave the origin in the " origins" section and stick to source in the opening , as was before u changed it. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If you cared to read the policies of this website before your user account was indeffed, you would know that the lede is supposed to be a summary of the the body of the article. Scholars consider the Ghurids to have been Tajiks, thus that will remain in the lede, and you will just have to deal with it. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hehe you know more than me that most scholars considers Suri Afghans well.. suri Afghans. And dont get over excited behind your monitor, it's just wiki ( the most unreliable website, infact the only website that warns that i am very unreliable". Dishonesty should be in sale..and the discussion is over. 84.210.149.236 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And yet you are still remaining here despite being indeffed and desperately making new threads to remove sourced information by scholars who know much more than you. Make it make sense. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If Scholars that apparently know more than us nobodies still hold a strong belief that Ghauris were Tajiks then that is just laughable and pathetic.

In no empirical measure can Ghauris ever be described as Tajiks or Turks, from any respectable opinion whatsoever. We certainly know they weren't from those two as rational beings of course instead of from the perspective of the damaged psyche of many who feel the need to tie their ethnic group to whatever deemed glorious empire in spite of blatant intellectual dishonesty; a phenomenon that extends to Wikipedia and this article itself. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we follow WP:RS, not our personal opinion. Since you have already been blocked for personal attacks once, I've pinged the blocking admin. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I consider myself principled enough to not lie to every human being who lays eyes on the article. It's objectively morally wrong to write up an indication towards a falsehood in the opening intro of an article from what is meant to be an impartial website. Wikipedian editors have no right to comment on the ethnicity of a people of whom the information is not known, non of you know they were Tajiks so why are people so insistent on the inclusion of that sentence?

Calling Ghauris as Tajiks is justified because its sourced. Now how does Wikipedia react to sources calling them Afghan or Turkic?

If it matters, I want "presumably ..." removed. If you can't claim it was a Tajik empire then why is it there? Theres sources that have us writing they're apparently of a different ethnicity.

"Presumably" and "Tajik" should be removed. Left to just say Eastern Iranic. Or just Iranian Empire which is the only appropriate classification.

To an extent Wikipedia does in fact let you use you think for yourself in the interest of the betterment of the site. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we still follow WP:RS, not your "morals" or what you consider to be a "falsehood". I looked at the cited sources, 4 outrightly say that they were Tajiks, 1 says "probably", and the other "we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks." So I've removed, "presumably", that should satisfy your "morals". HistoryofIran (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Not my morals; it's God's given morals, I am not one who uniquely decided this, billions of humans believe that if you lie to other you will be held accountable for it. If I phrased my comment in a way where I seemed very specific on the existing sources of the article itself then my mistake. I'm saying If I pulled out a source, what does Wikipedia do upon this?

If a source says that Ghauris did not natively speak Persian, what are you going to do about it? Just inquiring out of curiosity.. Do non-Persian speaking Ghurids come under the category of Tajiks in your mind? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not cater to "God's given morals" either. Read our policies this time, we follow those, and only those, including WP:RS. And I don't care about your question, this is not a WP:FORUM. See also WP:SOAPBOX. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Very amusing. I've made my point atleast. I just wanted readers to see this entire discourse on the insistent publication of falsehood on wikipedia.

Reminds me of the Afghanistan not being apart of central asia thread on Wikipedia RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very amusing that we have to follow the policies of this website, something you also tried to go against here [5] where you ended up getting blocked. Just like that thread, just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it a "falsehood" - we still follow WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no Tiananmen Square massacre and Ghurids were not Tajiks. Falsehoods.

That was my point. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

He acts like he owns wiki, he even deleted - presumably- ,he is more confident than most scholars:D. Time you guys really do something. Take it to wikipedia administrasjon or something. 178.232.112.187 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I am relying on scholars (WP:RS), unlike you and RevolutionaryPatriot. Take it to Wikipedia adminstration? Like you were and got indeffed? Perhaps it's about time your IPs got the same treatment, since you're evading your block (WP:BLOCKEVASION). HistoryofIran (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have NEVER been blocked! what are you on? And we have given 10s of books as reliable sources only to get reverted! Check history ones. 178.232.112.187 (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've already reported you, you're not fooling anyone - you're the same person as 84.210.149.236. And instead of spamming article and user talk pages, you should perhaps read WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2025

THE GHURID DYNASTY'S ETHNICITY IS DISPUTED.ALMOST ALL THE 19TH CENTURY HISTORIANS INCLUDING MOUNTSTUATE ELPHINTONE HASE DESCRIBED GHURIDS AS PASHTUNS OR ETHNIC AFGHANS.( Ghurid Dynasty in Pashto ( (د غوریانو شاهي کورنۍ) 2A04:4A43:58EF:EA26:0:0:63E9:3FA2 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2025 (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. Cannolis (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

> Proposed Addition: Ghurid Ethnicity (Afghan Sources)

Hello all,

I’d like to begin a calm and scholarly discussion regarding a recent addition I made on the ethnic identity of the Ghurid dynasty.

The aim is to represent multiple academic perspectives, particularly those that identify the Ghurids as Afghan or Pashtun. These views exist in the academic record and are supported by both classical and modern historians.

Here are the sources I included:

Abū al-Fazl, Tarikh Bayaqi – states their language was neither Persian nor Turkic.

Firishta, Tarikh-i Firishta – describes them as Afghan (Soor tribe).

Mountstuart Elphinstone, The History of India – calls them Afghan.

Imperial Gazetteer of India – refers to the “Afghan house of Ghor.”

René Grousset, Histoire de l’Asie – calls the Ghurids Afghan.

Catherine Asher & Jon Andrew Boel, New Cambridge History of India – identifies them as Afghan.

The Cambridge History of Iran – classifies them within the broader Afghan tribal context.

I’m not trying to erase other interpretations (e.g., Tajik or Persian views), but simply to balance the article with referenced scholarship. Wikipedia policy supports this under WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

I’d like to work toward a consensus version that presents this information neutrally. Would other editors (including @Kansas Bear) be open to helping structure a version that includes these sourced perspectives?

Thanks, Mahmud the great (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I’d like to begin a calm and scholarly discussion regarding a recent addition I made on the ethnic identity of the Ghurid dynasty.

Yet you engaged in edit warring [6] [7] and only used the talk page when the article got protected.

The aim is to represent multiple academic perspectives, particularly those that identify the Ghurids as Afghan or Pashtun. These views exist in the academic record and are supported by both classical and modern historians.

I’m not trying to erase other interpretations (e.g., Tajik or Persian views), but simply to balance the article with referenced scholarship. Wikipedia policy supports this under WP:NPOV and WP:RS.

Your edits says otherwise, you attempted to fully replace "Tajik" with "Pashtun" [8] [9]. Moreover, majority of the cited sources are not even WP:RS, and none are properly cited. This has been discussed to death, the consensus in scholarship is not a Pashtuns/Afghan origin. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @HistoryofIran, thank you for replying.

You're absolutely right to point out that my earlier edits did not maintain proper balance — I acknowledge that replacing "Tajik" entirely with "Pashtun" was too aggressive and not in line with WP:NPOV. I appreciate your patience and criticism on that.

That said, I believe there's still room to include a broader scholarly spectrum — including the Afghan/Pashtun perspective — so long as it's done in parallel, not as a replacement. Some of the sources I used may not have been fully formatted, and I’ll work on improving that. But notable examples include:

Tarikh-i Firishta – identifies the Ghurid leader Mahmud as from the Afghan Soor tribe.

Elphinstone’s History of India – describes the Ghurids as Afghan.

Imperial Gazetteer of India – references the "Afghan house of Ghor."

The New Cambridge History of India (Asher & Boel) – refers to the Ghurids as Afghan.

The Cambridge History of Iran – discusses their tribal Afghan ties.

These may not reflect the majority scholarly view, but they are all RS, and WP:NPOV encourages minority views to be included proportionately — not erased.

I'm not trying to push an agenda or revert-war. My goal is to collaborate on a balanced version that includes these perspectives, without removing Tajik or Persian identifiers. I'd like to suggest we work together on that language for the lead and background sections.

Thanks again for engaging constructively. Mahmud the great (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

My goal is to collaborate on a balanced version that includes these perspectives,

Then please WP:DROPTHESTICK and read WP:RS (three of your citations do not even qualify as that), WP:CITE and WP:UNDUE. And your vague claim about the Cambridge History of Iran does not sound right, as I quickly looked through it with a quick Ctrl + F in that book. The chapter (The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217)) in that book about the Ghurids is also written by Bosworth, who is cited in the article (in a later work he wrote) amongst the citations that support an Eastern Iranian Tajik origin. There's nothing to say that already hasn't been said, sorry. You can look up the dozen other talk sections here. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply.

I appreciate the clarification on Bosworth and the chapter authorship in The Cambridge History of Iran — that’s helpful, and I’ll double-check the text more closely.

Regarding WP:RS and WP:UNDUE — my intent is not to promote a fringe view, but to include notable historical perspectives, like Firishta and Elphinstone, that were cited in many colonial and post-colonial works. I recognize that modern academic consensus favors a Tajik/Eastern Iranian origin — but wouldn’t it still be valid under WP:NPOV to briefly mention these earlier identifications (as Afghan or Pashtun), with attribution and proper context?

I’m happy to rework the language and citations, keeping WP:RS in mind. If older sources like Elphinstone are not acceptable alone, maybe they can be included alongside attribution and balance — as a historical interpretation, not a claim of modern scholarly consensus.

If you think it’s possible to find wording that mentions these views in the “Historiography” or “Background” sections, I’d appreciate guidance.

Thanks again. Mahmud the great (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

In addition, you should consider the following modern academic sources published by Cambridge University Press, which support the view that the Ghurids were Afghan or Pashto-speaking:

1. Bosworth, C.E., The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods (Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 198:

> “The Ghurids were Pashto-speaking.”

2. Asher, Catherine B., Architecture of Mughal India (The New Cambridge History of India, Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 2:

> “Afghan Ghurid dynasty.”

These are not outdated or fringe materials, but reliable modern academic publications from one of the most respected university presses in the world. Ignoring these perspectives contradicts Wikipedia's policies on Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Reliable Sources (WP:RS).

I’m not suggesting the article remove existing views (e.g., Tajik), but it is entirely valid — and necessary — to acknowledge that respected modern historians have referred to the Ghurids as Afghan or Pashto-speaking.

We should work toward a balanced presentation that reflects both majority and minority scholarly opinions. Mahmud the great (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification on Bosworth and the chapter authorship in The Cambridge History of Iran — that’s helpful, and I’ll double-check the text more closely.

1. Bosworth, C.E., The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods (Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 198:

> “The Ghurids were Pashto-speaking.”

It does not seem that you actually want to follow WP:NPOV as you claim (and whose policy you somehow was aware of right out of the bat as a new user), as you are once again blatantly misusing the very same source I just called you out for. You conveniently omitted the full sentence; "In Afghanistan today, the Ghurids have been assigned an important place in the country's history—they are described as the first native Islamic dynasty to make Afghanistan the centre of an empire—and attempts have been made to show that the Ghurids were Pashto-speaking, and that the earliest Pashto literature sprang from their court circle." So no, the source (Bosworth) does not support this, as is even further established by the fact that he is one of the citations used to support an Eastern Iranian Tajik origin in the article, which I just mentioned. The second source is about Mughal Architecture, so I'm not even going to bother looking into that. I'm sorry, but we're not going to ignore the scholarly consensus in your favour, and especially not misuse sources / use poor sources taken through a quick Google ebooks search. The Ghurids are not considered Afghan/Pashtun in any way. I am out of here. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

(More evidence that you actually don't want to follow WP:NPOV [10]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Italic Mahmud the great (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I want to clarify that my intention is not to remove or deny the Tajik association with the Ghurids, but to present a broader historical perspective supported by reliable sources.

Completely rejecting the Pashtun identification as a "false claim" is not accurate, especially since early primary and secondary sources do not explicitly identify the Ghurids as Tajiks. Several historical works — including both classical sources and respected scholarly studies — mention or support the possibility of a Pashtun or non-Tajik identity.

I have referred to the following:

Tarikh-i Bayaqi — mentions the Ghurid language was different from both Persian and Turkish.

Tarikh-i Firishta — identifies the Ghurids as distinct from the Persian elite.

Mountstuart Elphinstone, in The History of India, describes the Ghurids as Afghans (a term historically associated with Pashtuns).

The Imperial Gazetteer of India also discusses the ethnic background of the Ghurids, distinct from Persian groups.

C.E. Bosworth, in The Cambridge History of Iran Vol. 5, acknowledges that: “...attempts have been made to show that the Ghurids were Pashto-speaking, and that the earliest Pashto literature sprang from their court circle.”

These are not vague online sources or unsourced opinions — they are published and respected works by historians, including multiple contributors to the Cambridge History series. Dismissing all of them as irrelevant seems unjustified.

My suggestion is to include this perspective neutrally — not as an absolute claim, but as a documented historical viewpoint supported by both early Muslim historians and notable academic works.

I welcome collaboration on how best to include this in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. The aim is not to promote one identity over another, but to reflect the full range of credible historical interpretations. Mahmud the great (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Still ignoring what was previously mentioned several times (i.e. using non-WP:RS and misusing Bosworth for the third time now) and edit warring, i.e. more signs of not caring about, but going against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If you continue disrupting the article, you will get reported. I have nothing more to say. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring that all sources suggest them pashtun or tajik we don't know the exact origin of ghurids like my sources and your sources are equal the fact is that you are ignoring my sources and repeatedly calling it old or baseless sources I didn't challenge the tajik origin of them just write the pashtun origin that was said by many historian like Qasim farishta and tarikh bayaqi but still what ignore I think my honest appeal from you is that only writing tajik ethnicity is cruelness so please my appeal is to write pashtun and tajik both or just write east Iranian origin Mahmud the great (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Being disruptive in the article again, this time but quitely removing "Persianate" and putting "Pashtun" alongside Tajik [11]. Last warning. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)