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)[reply]

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

> 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)[reply]

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 [1] [2] 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" [3] [4]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
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)[reply]
(More evidence that you actually don't want to follow WP:NPOV [5]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italic Mahmud the great (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Being disruptive in the article again, this time but quitely removing "Persianate" and putting "Pashtun" alongside Tajik [6]. Last warning. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2025

Hey the topic of Ghurids being tajik is a debated topic and no reliable historian has explicitly said that they were tajiks, but here in the Wikipedia it says They are tajiks while no source or reference is given for that. That is a clear misinformation and biased writing, even Gemini in google uses that information to teach others, those who seek knowledge about history are provided with info that doesn't exist in books. Shirzad ilham (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Please see the first paragraph of the "Origins" section where multiple citations are given for the dynasty's Tajik origin, which is the modern scholarly consensus. Day Creature (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Art of the Islamic World

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 28 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ArtHistory106, Averybarkley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Wiki380architect, Currangiraffe, 875-ee, Mgh2025.

— Assignment last updated by Mgh2025 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the name Tajik come from? Which history books are your reference?

History must be based on historical relics and books. There is no historical book mentioning Tajiks in Ghur/Ghor. Tajiks are mentioned as Tazi Arabs who migrated to this region and resided in Mawara al Nahar which is current day Tajikistan. I don't know why Wikipedia is writing history subjectively. The historical books of the time of Ghaznawids, the book called Baihaqi, and also a historical book called Tarikh Namae Herat written by Saifi Herawi during the reign of Kurts,also other contemporary history books mention tribes of Khalaj/Khilji and Ghilji/Ghilzai who were residing in Ghur/Ghor. No history book mention Tajiks residing in Ghur let alone ruling the Ghurids. Ghor/Ghur is also known for Kaks (current time Kakar tribe) that were famous commanders in Ghurids mentioned in history books. We request Wikipedia to relate and name the books from which they inferred the name of Tajik here. Wikipedia uses the name Iran which is Aryana not Iran. Fars was named as Iran some decades before. We hope these corrections are considered in light of history books objectively, otherwise we are going to escalate this issue further. Korang Khan (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. ~2025-33708-57 (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking my opinion or historical relics?
You are still going to deny if I give you my own opinion.
I gave you the names of history books contemporary to the dynasty of Ghurids which you should refer to. I don't know why you still asking me to prove it while you are already given the reference.
As a reiteration, here is the list of books you should refer to: ~2026-49260-4 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking my opinion or historical relics?
You are still going to deny if I give you my own opinion.
I gave you the names of history books contemporary to the dynasty of Ghurids which you should refer to. I don't know why you still asking me to prove it while you are already given the reference.
As a reiteration, here is the list of books you should refer to: ~2026-49260-4 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tarikh-i Yamini – by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Jabbar al-Utbi
A history of the Ghaznavids which sometimes mentions contacts with people from Ghor.
Tabaqat-i Nasiri – by Minhaj-i-Siraj Juzjani (1260 CE)
Major medieval history that covers the Ghurids; later scholars reference this when discussing Ghurid origin and identity.
Tarikh-i Bayhaqi – by Abu’l-Fazl Bayhaqi (11th century)
Key source cited by modern scholars to show that Ghaznavids needed interpreters for Ghoris, implying the Ghurids spoke a language different from Persian. ~2026-49260-4 (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ghurid_Dynasty