User talk:Anang192

This is Anang192's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Muhammad ibn Tayfour Sajawandi has been accepted

Muhammad ibn Tayfour Sajawandi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kulangar has been accepted

Kulangar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Babus has been accepted

Babus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Khorasan

Hi,

thank you for your contributions to Persian related pages. They are very helpful! Unfortunately I had to revert your edits to Greater Khorasan article. While I agreed with your edits into the Geography section, but you removed sourced material from its main introductory paragraphs. Over the years, there were lengthy and quite cumbersome discussions in wikipedia about the geography of Khorasan. So we had to give sufficient detail in the main introductory paragraphs, including mentioning the fact that its eastern border with India stretched as far as to Kabul and Kandahar. Further, you also modified a sourced information that the western parts of Khorasan which currently reside in Iran make the "third" of the Greater Khorasan's territory -- you changed it to "half".

Hope this clarifies. But you are welcome to restore your changes into the Geography section of it. Thank you for your understanding (and keep up the great work!). Cabolitæ (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cabolitae!

Thank you for your feedback. I'm pleased that you agree with my changes in the Geography section (as that's where I made most of my edits). In regards to the intro ref 3 kept showing up as a non-viewable template which I mistook as redundant (my bad!), the sections which I removed (including ref 3) had mainly to do with anachronism in the terms used there. Transoxiana and Soghdiana (misspelled from Sogdiana?, besides why not just use Sogdia?) are two largely overlapping terms used by Classical Greco-Romans, while Sistan is a Medieval Persian term used from c. the 8th century onwards. It's not clear why exactly the writer is chosing to refer to overlapping classical Roman regional terms to describe a Medieval Persian geographical region while to a large extent simply repeating what's already stated clearly in the sentence before (where the cities are listed, and which order I changed abit to fully match a west to east ordering). In regards to the final sentence of paragraph 2, ref 4: Baburnama, I was thinking since the "report that areas in the south of the Hindu Kush mountain range formed a frontier between Khorasan and Hindustan" is clearly mentioned already in the 10th century by the Hudud and Khodadbeh (making the insinuation that this began in the 14th century incorrect), as well as the paranthesis of the sentence being partly anachronistic mixing in Balochistan (which Babur surely never mentions), I might as well replace it with a shorter, clearer sentence which doesn't repeat itself and isn't anachronistic, as well as tieing in better with the narrative presented in the Geography-section, where the Babur Shah reference gets its time in the spotlight anyway. I understand that people can be quite cheeky about borders but simply based on the references gathered on the page at present what constitutes "Khorasan proper" 10th century onwards and the Hududs "the Khorasan marches" seems quite clear and consistent throughout. I therefore don't see anything restricting or controversial in my paragraph 2 edit. Finally, the "half to third" was a mistake on my part, while I do dispute the source, I did not provide an alternative.

In summary, while I agree with your points on referencing, see if you can't reconsider your thoughts on the changes made in paragraph 2 of the into and I'll redo whatever changes we can agree on after that. Let me know! (And do keep up the good work as well!) Anang192 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anang,

I agree with your remarks. You can of course bring any edits that you think will improve the description of Khorasan's border, including clarifying that it wasn't really in the 14th century that the border between Khorasan and India started to be recognized at around the Hindu Kush or Sind region, but a similar description was also offered in Hudul Alam. I would only insist that we keep the detailed account of Greater Khorasan's area coverage in the main introduction.

With regard to Transoxiana and Sogdiana, I believe Transoxiana was used for the wider region which included not only Sogdia but also the region into the West of Sogdia including Bukhara and Smarkand. I have no preferences about the spelling. If you think Sogdia is now a standard name in English for Soghdiana, please go ahead and change it.

Thank you! Cabolitæ (talk) 11:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again!

Glad to hear it! I'll try to make a re-edit to the intro less invasive to the already existing text. In regards to Transoxiana I believe that the discrepency between the two terms would rather fall on the areas located south of the Iron gate, yet north of the Oxus i.e. places such as Tirmidh, Wakhsh, Khuttalan which in the 8th century would be regarded as part of Tokharistan rather than Sogdia, though I guess part of the Greco-Roman Transoxiana? Since everything along the Zerafshan river would've been regarded as Sogdia, this would surely have included Samarkand and Bukhara.

Have a nice day! :)

Anang192 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LouisAragon

Thank you for the information. I recently initiated quite an extensive update to the "Zabulistan" page. The disagreement that seems to have arisen regards the categorization of the region in light of its geographical position and culturo-religious significance (which is mainly tied between the South Asian tradition and the Iranian), and what in this case would term as a NPOV (not the first such impasse I presume). My coeditor and I were not able to reach an understanding on the matter and so I made a final edit in which I tried to corroborate both our views (rather than just going with one or the other). That final edit has since gotten retracted with his edit as the "status quo", ah well. I'd prefer if this question was to be opened either in a Talk page on said article or passed along to a relevant Noticeboard. The article has been left with little attention for many years now and I'm happy to see that there is interest. While I'm not new to the subjectmatter I am quite new to Wikipedia editing so I'd appreciate any advice you have to give on how to treat this matter going forward and how to edit the page responsibly in the future (which is still in need of severe attention).

Regards,

Anang192 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bactrian Documents II and the mentioning of Afghans

Hi,

I saw your discussion regarding the Zabulistan article and a piece of information you provided sparked my interest. You had posted a snippet from the Bactrian Documents II collection mentioning "Afghans" in association with the north and a chief named Parpaz. I was wondering if you had a pdf of the book or an actual physical copy. I have been trying to get my hands on this book for a while; however, most copies online are going for absurd prices. If you had a pdf of the book I would greatly appreciate it if you'd share it with me. If not, it would be of great help if you could share any other documents within the collection which mentions "Afghans".

All the best, --Xerxes931 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xerxes931,

I have book I on my computer, however the Afghans are mentioned in book II, and I don't have the physical copies here at the moment. If you're in a big city I recommend checking the bigger libraries. Among the Bactrian documents nothing is really told about the Afghans, and except for some variant spellings, the sentence I cited is the only one with any sort of contextual information i.e. that an unnamed Hephthalite chief in the later 400s claim chiefdom over, among others, "Afghans", and that he claims legal supremacy over Tukharistan and Gharchistan (suggesting the local of these Afghans). Cheung, 2017 gives a brief discussion on this source and a couple of other early mentions of Afghans in the following article: ^[1] (p. 35, however he leaves out the variant spelling "Yabagaan" if I'm not mistaken). Other pre-Islamic mentions includes: Varaha Mihira, early 500s (see BHAT, 1981, p. 202); the bio of Tripitaka i.e. Xuanzang, 600s (see LI RONGXI 1995, p. 157) and indirectly through Xuanzang's own description of the land of Kaikanan (LI RONGXI 1996, p. 311) located west of Banu, i.e. among the Sulaiman mountains, where his later bio supposedly place the Afghans:

"I heard some local people say that the west side of the country borders the country of Kaikānān, which is located among large mountains in which there are chieftains in the different valleys but no sovereign ruler. It has many sheep and horses; the good horses are particularly big as they are of a rare breed that is greatly valued by neighboring regions."

Best of luck

Anang192 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.academia.edu/32353626/Cheung2017-On_the_Origin_of_the_Terms_Afghan_and_Pashtun_Again_-_Gnoli_Memorial_Volume.pdf

WikiProject Afghanistan

Hello Anang192, your name has been removed from the active members list at WikiProject Afghanistan/Members and moved to the less active section of the members list. This is because you have not edited for over a year. If you become active again, feel free to move your name back to the active members list. Cheers, Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now former members section. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.academia.edu/32353626/Cheung2017-On_the_Origin_of_the_Terms_Afghan_and_Pashtun_Again_-_Gnoli_Memorial_Volume.pdf

[1]