Talk:Khalji dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rationale For Reverting Article

If you look in the history section for this article and examine the actual version of it I reverted, I think it's obvious why I did it. When I made my edit, the content of the article was unreadable because the edit immediately before mine had virtually destroyed the text and image layout. It's not a good idea to always automatically assume that another editor is basing their changes on the 'political' content of a given article, sometimes a reversion occurs simply because a new edit is obviously inferior because it makes it extremely difficult for someone to simply read the article. I apologise for any misunderstanding. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Un-sourced content removedScythian1 (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Untitled

This article is absolutely baseless. 98.110.233.13 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mongol invasion

According to [1], 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;[2], then you removed it here;[3]. 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)

"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 [4] 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 [5], 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 [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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 [7] and Pakistan's Ministry of Education [8] (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)

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)