Talk:Ghor Province

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Hello, I am doing a major reconstruction of the Afghanistan districts.Wait a little and the page will be updated and repaired.Thanks for the patience.Drjmarkov 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)drjmarkov[reply]

Prithviraj III grave?![edit]

Where is it?! take a photo of it!--D-Boy (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

The user Tajik must stop his typical propaganda against the pashtuns, action must be taken against him and other people who are trying to change pashtun history through the media it has been proven time over time that ghurids are pashtuns during their reign and countless articles on the internet and in books will tell you that. It is tajiks allegations that are unacademic and baseless, please stop stealing and spreading false stories against the pashtuns all other the internet. This is what i call the tajik Domination of history of the pashtuns.Pashtun786 (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted recent edits done by IP of banned User:Nisarkand . He has written his POV in all articles related to Ghor and the Ghorid article in the past.--Inuit18 (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to be a banned user soon if you don't stop your POVs, I tried to ignore you but your asking for it. I know for a fact that you are the banned User:Anoshirawan allowing User:Tajik to use this new account of yours. Now, it's very clear that Ghor region was a place where many different people lived. Majority of Ghor's poeple were kafirs (infidels) but only a small group, the Shansabani rulers and their rival the Shish..., is claimed to be Muslims. There was a small group of Jews also. That's what all the sources say if you take the time and read. Some editor is trying to claim that Ghor region was Buddhist and Hindu before the arrival of Ghaznavids in the 11th century.--119.73.1.23 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the POV edits and falsifications by the IP of banned User:NisarKand. He is once again propagating the false claim that the Ghurids were Pashtuns, which is totally baseless and unacademic. Tajik (talk) 22:42, 2

November 2009 (UTC)

Amir Suri[edit]

Hi Inuit18
You state: Amir Suri is different from Amir koror. Siraj never mentioned Amir koror in his book,
Please inform whats the difference in the dates/time period of existance between the two .
Intothefire (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Inuit18. Haven't you read my edit summary [1]? Also, haven't you read the response to your comment here? Alefbe (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article states Amir Suri was captured by Mahmud of Ghazni. Mahmud lived from 971 to 1030. Your Amir Kror Suri died in 771. Unless you convince me Mahmud captured a 200 year old corpse, I'll believe the 2 Amir Suri's are not the same.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes its established then that Amir Suri and Amir Kror Suri are two different personalitys .Mahmud of Ghazni captures Amir Suri and not Amir Kror Suri
  • The information pertaining to Amir Suri should not be on the Amir Kror Suri page , but on a seperate page devoted to Amir Suri .
  • Would you also like to look at a related issue List of Referenced content from reliable sources removed from this article, a related issue , so that there as well the confusion between Amir Suri and Amir Kror Suri is settled .
  • Intothefire (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atlan Hi
Notwithstanding your sarcasm .....
  • I think we have all -alefbe , you and me ,have been hasty in drawing conclusions ...all of which me be wrong or only partially true .
  • Your conclusion on dates is based on an incorrect unreferenced and misleading date attributed to Amir Kror Suri in the Amir Kror Suri article .(Dates not provided by me , but I will) .
  • Alefbe is also deluded because he is singularly busy proving Habibi's Pata Khazana wrong .
  • My mistake has been in not further substantiating or connecting the seeming anomaly in dates and names .
  • In any case edit warring or unilateral deletions are not going to sort this ,

further improving by presenting more content will . Intothefire (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you know sarcasm is the greatest form of wit? ;-)
Anyway, this is generally an area of topics I know very little about. I can look into other matters you have issues with, but as far as interpreting sources about this subject, I don't know how much help I can be. I'm glad this issue is resolved though.--Atlan (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on and as a corollary to the above resolution I have created a new article Amir Suri in line with
conclusions reached here .
Intothefire (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hazaras in Ghor[edit]

NPS tells us 58% of the population are Tajiks and 39% are Hazaras. This makes Tajiks the majority because anyone who is above 50% is a majority. Tajik and Hazara are two different ethnicities and you cannot group them together in this article. The other sentence that states Pashtuns are a significant minority is invalid because there is nothing backing this claim up.--Inuit18 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not factually correct[edit]

I do not know why this is so different from the article on the Sur Pashtoon tribe of Ghor. In this article, we are using Encyclopedia Iranica, which first of all is not a first hand source, and second can hardly be considered "scholarly" or "unbiased". In the "Sur" Pashtoon page, there are my references clearly indicating the the tribe living in the Ghor mountains are Afghans from famous historians, where as the Encyclopedia Iranica clearly states in the second paragraph that the lineage being offered is unreliable, by writing in Paragraph 2 "It goes without saying that we have no concrete evidence for any of this."

We should change this to be in line with the article about the Sur Pashtoons that have actual historical backing.

Incorrect Citation of Ferishta[edit]

I changed the following sentence which was on this page:

The native prince of the country, Mahomed, occupied an entrenched camp with 10000 men.

To the following which is what it actually is in the source that it is quoted from, Fereshta as Translated by John Briggs pg 28 vol 1,

The native prince of the country, Mahomed, of the Afghan tribe of Soor (the same race which gave birth to the dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of Sebüktigin), occupied an entrinched camp with 10,000 men.

Someone "conveniently" left out the middle part that states that Mahomed of Ghor was from an Afghan tribe. This goes along with my previous post, that the article on Amir Suri is factually incorrect. It doesnt make sense that someone uses the Ferishta source here which clearly states that the Ghor tribes were Afghan, but then blatantly ignores it in the section which describes in detail Amir Suri himself.


Afghan25 (talk)Afghan25 — Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. . The source you have provided, on my talk page, is a primary source.
  2. . This source is not translated by an academic.
  3. . The information stated within the source is not supported by academics(Soor/Sur tribe) see Ghurids. "..but this is generally rejected by modern scholarship, and, as explained by Morgenstierne in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is for "various reasons very improbable"." (G. Morgenstierne (1999). "AFGHĀN". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.) "Instead, the consensus in modern scholarship (incl. Morgenstierne, Bosworth, Dupree, Gibb, Ghirshman, Longworth Dames and others) holds that the dynasty was most likely of Tajik origin."(Encyclopaedia Iranica, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, (LINK): ". . . The Ghurids came from the Šansabānī family. The name of the eponym Šansab/Šanasb probably derives from the Middle Persian name Wišnasp (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 282). we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks.| Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Ghurids", C.E. Bosworth, Online Edition, 2006: "... The Shansabānīs were, like the rest of the Ghūrīs, of eastern Iranian Tājik stock ...")
  4. . Therefore, this quote is factually incorrect and should be removed.
If you were not in such a hurry to push an academically incorrect view of the Ghurids and make this a personal issue, like all POV pushers, you would have known this and not embarrassed yourself. I will be removing the academically incorrect quote, since modern scholarship is quite clear they were Tajiks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More sources,

  • Indo-Persian Historiography Up to the Thirteenth Century, by Iqtidar Husain Siddiqi, page 154;"C.E. Bosworth rejects the story about the descent and the time of conversion of the Shansabanis to Islam as "myths of a type familiar within the Islamic world." He describes the Ghurids of eastern Iranian Tajik stock."
  • Beyond Turk and Hindu: Rethinking Religious Identities in Islamicate South Asia, by David Gilmartin and Bruce B. Lawrence, page 251;"The dynamics of North Indian politics changed dramatically, however, when the Ghurids, a dynasty of Tajik (eastern Iranian) origins, arrived from central Afghanistan..."
  • Strange Parallels:Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830, Victor Lieberman, page 710;"...attacks on northwest India by Turkic Ghaznavids and Tajik Ghurids in the 11th and 12th centuries paved the way for the famed Delhi Sultanate."
  • Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, by Johan Elverskog, page 130;"The Ghurids were eastern Persians, or Tajiks, from the mountainous heartland of what is now northwest Afghanistan..."--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the primary source, which is clearly refuted by modern academics, after waiting a week for a response. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ghor Province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghor ethnic makeup and district information.[edit]

Do not change the district information, here is the link to what i based the summary off (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n4X9BrFFCsU/W_zl5kBsF7I/AAAAAAAAAWQ/YnO32b6g4Vw6YW-aPtmCELjcAaDB61m-ACLcBGAs/s1600/Ghor%2BSettlement%2BMap.png). Do not come and make excuses about this is language map and not "accurate" etc. Firstly there has never been a census in afghanistan so all the demographic information regarding this country is estimates and not reliable, so lets not pick and choose which one we accept and which one we dont. this language map from my own experience after visiting ghor province in 2007 seems pretty accurate.1DHNK1 (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghor_Province&oldid=1195306038"