Talk:Pata Khazana

Verifiability

In sources it is said the dates are *possibly* (not surely) invented to increase the antiquity. The article is written in a biased way not consistant with references which were cited. -119.152.247.130 (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

there can be no doubt that the unique manuscript of the Peta xazana, supposedly dating from 1300/1886, and finally published in facsimile in 1354/1975, is a complete fake - a pia fraus - along with its entire contents, probably concocted in about 1940. David N. Mackenzie: The Development of the Pashto Script. In: Shirin Akiner (Editor): Languages and Scripts of Central Asia. School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, London 1997, ISBN 9780728602724, p. 142

Insomma, se una "pia fraus nazionale" c'e stata - ed e ben difficile negare che ci sia stata - para veramente pensabile che essa sia stata consumata un cinquantennio prima dell'edizione di Habibi Lucia Serena Loi: Il tesoro nascosto degli Afghani. Il Cavaliere azzurro, Bologna 1987, ISBN 8885661211, p. 33

MacKenzie is probably the best reputated contemporary scholar on Pashto language, Loi the author of the only critical translation of the manuscript. So what exactly is not consistent with the references given? You added three {{failed verification}} tags, where all three tagged sentences can almost literally be found in the cited literature on exactly the cited pages. You clearly haven't even read the references but added those tags, anyway. That doesn't exactly make me consider you trustworthy. And please don't cite arbitrary private websites in order to falsify academic peer-reviewed references. --Sommerkom (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? In the paragraph, you have written "Loi considers the manuscript a forgery of the late 19th century" - where is its source? Thanks. -119.152.246.123 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So you claimed I used bogus references without having read the sources. Great. Where are the sources? You can find them in the references section, with the exact pages given. --Sommerkom (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Source needed

Before anybody reverts back, please give me a reputable efernce that "the modern Pashto letters ẓ̌e (ـږ) and ṇun (ڼ) [...]] were only introduced into the Pashto alphabet in 1936". That's nonsense. --Sommerkom (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Excessive euphemism

Is there any well-known expert (on Pashto and history of Iranian languages) who considers "Pata Khazana" possibly credible? The cited sources don't show anything like that, and the introduction and the body of the article should reflect the cited sources. Alefbe (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, names of the sections should also reflect the content of the sections. Is "reception" a euphemism for "controversy" or "criticism"? Alefbe (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is, and it's mentioned in the MacKenzie source cited here on the exact page given. Did you actually read the source? Or any publications on the subject? Or do you just claim that "The cited sources don't show anything like that"?

Sorry for being a little bit confrontational but it's really tiresome to deal with all those people without knowledge of any reputable literature, let alone the sources cited here, but a clear point of view. Here I was accused of bogus references, now people are adding obvious nonsense without source or explanation. They even make it look like that nonsense is covered by the sources cited by me so other people can accuse me of bogus references again.

The issue is not that complicated. If there are some reliable sources (cited by MacKenzie) which consider it credible, then cite them in this article. The article and its lead should reflect its cited sources. Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, of course; I just didn't understand why you said "The cited sources don't show anything like that". Yes, they do. I still consider Mackenzie and Loi (and probabaly Mohmand) the most relevant sources. The MacKenzie paper gives an overview about the controversy while Loi is the author of the only critical translation of the manuscript. I'd rather not begin with citation countings to source a single "most/some/many scholars" but refer to the secondary source by MacKenzie. If you cannot accept MacKenzie as a general source, I'll dig out a reputable scholar who considers the script possibly authentic. However, I won't particpate in the then following discussion where you'll have to find another six reputable scholars to source the overall reception as a probable fake. Be warned, you may even loose that game since many reputable scholars don't even bother studying such an obvious pia fraud.--Sommerkom (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reception is a neutral term, on the contrary, controversy implies that there still is a controversy about the authenticity of the manuscript. The reception could just as well be: Undoubtedly fake. Criticism doesn't make sense imho. But I don't really care about the section title, anyway.

You mean "there isn't still a controversy about its authenticity"?! Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, my point is just that reception is no euphemism to hide negative receptions. But if you like controversy better, change it. I'm far from being native in English so I certainly won't argue about language. --Sommerkom (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll gladly discuss all that in detail but I want to know whether it's about improving the article or just about getting rid of "most" in the third sentence. I am trying to write an article on an highly controversial subject, based on most recent, peer-reviewed academic sources, and you accuse me of using excessive euphemisms and bogus references because you don't like a word. Maybe you like the other great examples of well-sourced, state-of-academic-discourse-reflecting articles on the subject better? I was planning to translate my featured article on the Pashto script but this really puts me off. --Sommerkom (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't like that "other great examples". Although I appreciate your effort and your expertise on this issue, I expect to see an article which covers the opinion of experts in a clear manner. Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Accusing others of being illiterate nationalists is not the best way to collaborate with others in improving articles. Also, the problem of Habibi's claims is not just about his claim about the first recorded Pashto poetry. His description of Medieval Ghurids also contradicts the opinion of experts on the medieval history of Ghur and Ghurids (see for example Bosworth's works). Alefbe (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, although I didn't accuse you of being illiterate but just of not having read the cited source. About Habibi in general, I have no idea and, more important, no good sources.--Sommerkom (talk) 09:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I used google translation and it looked like an informative article. I would like to see an English version of the article added to the English Wikipedia. (Ketabtoon (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

manuscript of Pata Khazana is available at Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

"On November 22, 2003, an article on Pata Khazana by Magda Katona appeared in Magyar Nemzet Magazin of Budapest in Hungary. The author states that a manuscript of Pata Khazana is preseved in the Armin Vambery Collection of the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. It was obtained by Armin Vambery in 1859 A.D. from Yakub Khan of Herat."

"Armin Vambery - a Hungarian Orientalist and traveler - was born in 1832. After initial education he acquired some twenty Oriental languages and dialects. He visited Teheran, Mecca, and spent several months with dervishes in rough and squalid travel through the deserts of Asia. He succeeded in maintaining his disguise, and on arriving at Khiva went safely through two audiences of the Khan. Passing Bokhara, they reached Samarkand, where the Emir, whose suspicions were aroused, kept him in audience for a full half-hour; but he stood the test so well that the Emir was not only pleased with "Reshid Effendi" (Vambery's assumed name), but gave him handsome presents. He then reluctantly turned back by way of Herat, where he took leave of the dervishes. In Heart he met Yakub Khan, who gave me a manuscript of Pata Khazana. After that Armin Vambery returned with a caravan to Teheran, and subsequently, in March 1864, through Trebizond and Erzerum to Constantinople." The paragraphs are quoted from http://www.ariaye.com/english/khazanah.html

Here is the article which was published at Magyar Nemzet Magazin of Budapest in Hungary http://mn.mno.hu/portal/185465 . You can use google translation to translate it to English. (Ketabtoon (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

Without academic sources referring to that alleged manuscript in Hungary, this is not useful in any way. In the literature I know it hasn't been mentioned once. --Sommerkom (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But the questions is, why would Magda Katona make this up? The article was published only 5 years ago. Maybe no one knew about it. I will still try my best to find a way to get in touch with Magda Katona and get more information. (Ketabtoon (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC))

LOL LOL, did you ever find the most elusive manuscript? :) LOL Pata Khazan is a laborious attempt by the Pashtons to create a new history for themselves! where did you people get a picture of "Amir Kror" LOL this is a joke! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Article cleaned up by Lagoo sab

I was forced to clean this article because it contained too many problems. For example, the "reception" section was mostly all unsourced W:OR and W:POV pushing by obvious critics of the manuscript and of its author. The MacKenzie and Loi information cannot be verified, but I've left that for now until someone finds something better. If you have any issues please discuss here in a civil manner so we can solve the problem with understanding. I have added all the reliable sources that I could find and please do not try to remove them again as that constitutes vandalism.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why have quotes from Qalandar MOmand a respected Pashto scholar been removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why have quotes from Pashto Scholar Qalandar Momand been removed?

Is it because it proves what everyone knows that Pata Khazana is a futile attempt by a disgraced, defeated people to create their fake history?

In his critical work, Qalandar Momand has thoroughly analyzed the content, the background information, the language, the terms, the dates, etc. of the Pata Khazana and concluded that the book was not written or compiled in 1729 by Shah Hussain Hotak in Kandahar as claimed by its discoverer Abdul Hay Habibi, but was fabricated by Habibi himself. Before him, renowned Iranologists Lucia Serena Loi and David Neil MacKenzie, and few Iranian scholars had questioned the genuineness of the manuscript (the original manuscript is not available to the public and nobody knows about its whereabouts), but he was the first notable Pashtun scholar who, by asking undeniable questions and declaring it a forgery, totally rejected the book

http://www.abdulhadihairan.com/?p=45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted the edits by User:Lagoo sab (who's now banned indefinitely) and restored the last stable version by User:Sommerkom. His explanation is pretty convincing and he seems to be the only one in here who knows academic works on the subject. Tajik (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)