Talk:Alauddin Khalji/Archive 1

kara is near allahabad
but situated in kaushambi so the article is related to kara(kaushambi) on wikipedia.Zikrullah 11:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

the story of padmini is only a folklore,not trusted much by historians.

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  15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Life
I also doubt the article about his sexual life since he was known to be a hardline Muslim even recognised for it by Hindu fundamentalists. n any case, it seems disproportionate and amateur to discuss the sexual life of an emperor when the public needs to know more about his system of rule.

i have removed the section on Sexual Life becasue the citation given, needs citation itself.

boloji.com is not a reliable source.

doh .. did some [expletive deleted] restore it ? humpf, and now its added to the LGBT project , even though there is no proper proof  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.57.2 (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever folks believe, the section is now erroneous because it contains nothing of a sexual nature. It needs to be fixed; either retitled, removed, or updated with properly cited info.202.82.171.186 (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The surname Gurshap is wrong and should be rewritten as Gurshasp.
The surname printed in the article as Gurshap (may be a copy from Elliot & Dawson's history, where it was erroneously recorded as such and recopied further by later English historians,the English being mostly unfamiliar with Persian names and connotations as a matter of fact) is actually Gurshasp, which literally translates to the grey horse (asp meaning horse). This type of naming people with animal attributes was very fashionable in medieval Persia, exmples being Bahram Gur and Tahmasp Safawi.

Also we see this very surname in Ibn Battuta's memoirs known as the "Rihleh" where he has recorded the cruelty of Muhammad Bin Tughlaq's gruesome and un Islamic act of ordering the corpse of Bahauddin Gurshashp to be taxidermied as a slain prize animal and displayed around in his sultanate. For further reading the learned editors of the Wikipedia organization may refer to the original Arabic text of Ibn Battuta's Rihleh and amongst other books the work in English by Professor Harun Khan Sherwani called "The Behmanis of Deccan" printed by National Book Trust of India and the Persian texts of "Tarikh e Feroze Shahi" by Ziauddin Barni and "Futuhussalateen" (Masnawi) by Abdul Malik Isami. If my contents are found to be authentic and reasonable, Wikipedia is humbly requested to change the surname to GURSHASP. Lutfullah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutfullah (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Attack On palitana After Somnath
alauddin atack palitana [after somnath] well known holy tirth of jain riligion. but he faild becouse of brhmbhatt barot people who sacrify to save the same; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.209.71 (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

khilji was returning after looting palitana temple wherein there was huge thunderstrom and half of his army died due to which again he placed everything and left in shame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.209.71 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

vandalism
A user 203.17.120.74 ha provided vandal info without ref. and the same he is repeating on other WP khilji articles. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Price Control
The economic reforms of Alauddnin Khalji administration. He s perhaps the only ruler in the whole ange f Indian history who introduce economic reforms and it is because of these reforms that Lanepoole calls him a great political economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.201.248 (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC) The Economic reforms of Alauddin Khalji form the most important feature of his administration. he is perhaps the only ruler in the whole range of Indian history who introduced economic reforms and it is because of these reforms that Lanepool calls him a great political economist. He was the first indian ruler who Introduced Price control system and controlled the demand and supply of commodities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.201.248 (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

History as far as I know: 1. Alauddin was not the only ruler in the whole range of Indian history to introduce economic reforms.There were at least tens of other rulers who did that. 2. First Indian to introduce Price Control System - if you have any evidence, please let us know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.166.240 (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hearsay / Garbage
Who wrote these "anecdotes" of Alauddin's life (to be polite)? The language is highly unscientific and more the material of children's literature and fairy tales than that of a dictionary !!!(Tessarman (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)).

I agree totally. I went through this page yesterday, and saw sentences like "R.I.P the great Khilji". P.S.: If the data on Shafique Khilji is insufficient, please remove it from "Mongol Invasions". 59.184.166.240 (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Srinath Ravi

Economic reforms
The article completely misses out on the economic reforms and regulations during Ala-ud-din Khilji. Moreover the language is non-academic203.147.88.174 (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Jalore
The book "Kahnad-dev Prabhand", written by Padmnabh, tells more about this king.

--> Should we delete this sentence? I don't think this is the place for it. Maybe in a Malik Kamaluddin article, or even better in a Kahnad-dev Prabhand. But here it seems a bit strange. Thouny (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tone
I've added this template because, personally, I find this article very difficult to understand in some sections. This kind of prose for example :

''In 1306–07, Alauddin Khalji completed two campaigns. The first was against Rai Karan who after his expulsion from Gujrat, had been holding Baglana. Though his wife Kamaladevi died on the way to Baglan after an escape from Sultan's general, Devala Devi was also with King Karan in Baglan. An expedition was launched to dethrone Karan and to bring Devala Devi to Delhi.''

for me is just plain gibberish. Please note that I'm not a native speaker, so it may not totally be the article's fault, but I still think that it could (should) be made clearer.

Cheers, Thouny (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This article has clearly been written by a Hindu supremacist.The article reads like a comic tale describing Khilji as a villain.I hope a person with a sound knowledge of history be allowed to make changes to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.249.154 (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sound and unbiased materials regarding the article was needed to reconstruct the campaign section. In Sha Allah ill try to fix the tone so it will be fit for wikipedia article using this

the author seems has good detail regarding Alauddin and even he included assesments from historians of cambridge such as sir Haigh and local historians like Ishwari Parasad

also regarding the economical reform i suggest here

http://www.academia.edu/3068338/Price_control_Policy_of_alauddin_khilji

Ahendra (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

wrong map titled "khilji dynasty"
part of map of kashmir is wrongly shown as part of pakistan, that should be shown at least in dotted lines as whole of kashmir is a part of India. Requesting experts to provide documents to prove my point as I am not a expert in this subject. Pkrdas (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can find a better map, you are free to replace it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Kashmir is a part of Pakistan and yes the part shown in Indian side is a disputed territory and it has been occupied by India similarly the Palestine is occupied by Israelis....

Padmavati
How could a website with no authenticity is considered as a reference that his conquest for Padmavati is fictional when it was written by Jayasi himself and not by a Hindu poet? Someone who wrote is definitely did it on bias and with a an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTissot11 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bias
this article seems biased. the language is not academic in nature either. too many colloquialisms. Brmpbrmp (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased as exemplified by language such as "Allaudin's laughter reverberated against the walls of the fort.", "Ranathambhor's venerable structure, rapturous beauty and sublime expressiveness...", "Hamir Dev was too self-respecting to make such an ignominious compromise." and the last three paragraphs of the Ranthambore section (North Indian Expeditions - Ranthambore). Is this the place for such scenery? An encyclopedia has place for facts and reasons, not colorful and decorative storytelling.

Moreover, such overt phrases like "to the chagrin of", "a basketful of privileges", "the vindictive begum" - all of these just form the Ranthambore section - have no place in an encyclopedia article, in a grandma's story, perhaps, but in an encyclopedia.

Besides the motive of the Rajput King Hamir Dev in granting asylum to the man who had planned the assassination of the Sultan is cited as an act of valor, rather than a political decision intended to force the Sultan into war. epithets like 'brave', 'noble', 'heroism' etc. are used indiscriminately and exclusively for Hindu rulers. Clearly this article (some parts more than others) has been biased by Hindu right wing propagandists of India who want to portray anything, and anyone related to Islamic rule of India as dark and villainous.````Sunday, 26 October, 2014 7:10 pm UTC
 * First of all the Islamic rule of India was an unmitigated blood bath and horror and any attempts to diminish the great suffering inflicted on India is just absurd. To get a feel of what it was like tune into a news channel to see what ISIS is currently up to. It was that bad. Having said that I agree that so many flowery adjectives are unnecessary.49.207.48.23 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Original name
Britannica seems to suggest that Alauddin's original name was "Jūnā Khan", a claim also repeated by some other sources that seem to rely on Britannica. But the authoritative secondary sources (cited in the article) state that his original name was Ali Gurshasp (or Garshasp). Since Britannica is a tertiary source and we have more reliable secondary sources, I've removed Britannica's claim from the article. utcursch &#124; talk 22:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Early life and personal life sections
@Utcursch The "Early life" and "Personal life" sections contain the same info currently regarding Alauddin's first two marriages. Also, if there is a "Personal life" section then why are his marriages discussed here? But if this info is placed in the "Personal life" section then this statment: This, combined with his unhappy domestic life, made Alauddin determined to dethrone Jalaluddin in the next section "Governor of Kara" does not make any sense because Alauddin's troubled domestic life has not been described. The chronology of events is being affected since you added the "Personal life" section.

I think it's important to give info on Alauddin's unhappy domestic life in the "Early life" section because it was one of the major reasons why he rebelled against Jalaluddin. A solution to this would be to describe Alauddin's first two marriages in the "Early life" section and his marriages to Kamaladevi and Jhatyapali can be mentioned in the sections "Mongol invasions and northern conquests, 1297-1306" and "Marwar and southern campaigns, 1307-1313", when they occurred respectively. As it is, those marriages happened in connection with the raids on these places. As for the Kafur info, it should be mentioned in the sections "Mongol invasions and northern conquests, 1297-1306" and "Last days" section. - Almeda64 (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity
As NineTimes has mentioned elsewhere, "Afghan" is not Alauddin's ethnicity. The term "Afghan" is now used as a demonym, and has also been used as an ethnic term for Pashtuns at times. The use of the term "Turko-Afghan" in this context is confusing, as it may mislead the reader to believe that Alauddin was of mixed Turkic and Pashtun ancestry.

The authoritative history books on the history of Khalji dynasty unanimously describe the dynasty as Turkic, and explain the "Afghan" connection separately, which is the convention we should follow. As A. L. Srivastava's book (currently cited in the article) explains, the ancestors of the Khaljis lived in Afghanistan for a couple of centuries, because of which they were considered as "Afghans" by the older Turkic (Mamluk) nobles of Delhi.

Of the citations that you have added, South Asia: A Historical Narrative also clarifies: "Turko-Afghans, the latter being the Turks who had for long been living in Afghanistan". It doesn't state that "Afghan" was the ethnicity of the Khaljis. Also, The Sundarbans of India (besides failing WP:HISTRS) doesn't talk about the Khalji dynasty of Delhi, it talks about the Khalji dynasty of Bengal (to which Bakhtiyar Khilji belonged). Even this book describes Bakhtiyar as a "The Turk adventurer" while describing his ethnicity, only later adding "Turko-Afghan origin" while using an ethno-geographical designation. utcursch &#124; talk 15:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Turko-Afghan" doesn't mean mixed-ethnicity, but refers to Afghans of Turkic ancestry. Just like, for example, African American or British Indian. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That may be your understanding of the term "Turko-Afghan", but it is not used universally in that sense. For example, you can find several books which refer to all the dynasties of the Delhi Sultanate as "Turko-Afghan", in the sense that they were either Turkic or Afghan (Pashtun).

For example:


 * "Rule of the Delhi Sultanate under five largely Turko-Afghan dynasties"
 * "Within the general rubric of the Delhi Sultanate are included five dynasties that ruled north India from Qutbuddin Aibek onwards: Mamluks (1210– 90); Khaljis (1290–1320); Tughluqs (1320–1413); Saiyyids (1414–51); and Lodis (1451–1526). They all had Turko-Afghan origins..."
 * "But it was only in 1206 that Qutb al Din Aibak, a Turko-Afghan, established a Turko-Afghan sultanate in northern India."

Given such usage of the term, it makes sense to explain the ethnic and geographical origins of the family separately. utcursch &#124; talk 18:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've also started a discussion at Talk:Delhi Sultanate. utcursch &#124; talk 19:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * IMHO, there is no need of the sentence "The Khalji dynasty is thus sometimes referred to as Turko-Afghan" in this article. The Khalji dynasty has a separate article, and that's where this sentence belongs. As I've explained at Talk:Delhi Sultanate, some sources refer to all the dynasties of Delhi Sultanate as "Turko-Afghan" collectively because they were either Turkic or Afghan. utcursch &#124; talk 19:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
Merge them. --Spasage 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC

'''fake article there were never any mongols in india. Nicely manufactured to push a foreign agenda.'''

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2017
the year of birth of alauddin khalji is not 1296 123.3.35.212 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article doesn't say that he was born in 1296, it says the start of his reign was then, so I guess there's nothing that needs fixing? If there's still a problem feel free to reopen the request. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 17:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018
The commentary on Alauddin's reforms suggests that they were designed to a) make it affordable for him to have a large army (This is hypothesis because the principal beneficiaries were majority Hindu people. not all of whom were traders or possessed assets). The second flaw is the stating of the writer's hypothesis as fact that the economic reforms Alauddin instituted were designed to minimise the chance of rebellion by Hindus by depriving them of their income and asset. (This is also an hypothesis with no basis in historical facts. It appears to be the work of a Hindu fundamentalists who usually resort to distorting history in order to make the Muslim period of India's history look "malicious".It also presumes that Hindus were the majority of traders or asset owners, which is entirely fake, as the history of Muslim like later the British conquest of India began with establishing trade between people of the Arab and Muslim world. There is no historical record to suggest a monitised economy with flourishing trade in India before the Muslims arrived in India. These far fetched opinions of the writer stated as facts and comes across as facts to unsuspecting readers are false and should immediately be removed because there are no historical facts to prove it. It is just a figment of the writer's Hindu fundamentalist imagination, which the writer is trying to portray as facts, as is evident by the write-up itself.

Wikipedia should have special measures in place when people of Hindu creed write about Muslim period based on their and their community's personal bigotry with no historical facts backing the assertions/claims 86.141.211.132 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌ The "minimise the chance of rebellion by Hindus by depriving them of their income and asset" bit is not the opinion of a 'Hindu fundamentalist' -- it is the statement of an orthodox Muslim chronicler Barani, and is attributed to him in the article, with a secondary source as citation. The opinions of modern historians are also provided in the article, with citations. utcursch &#124; talk 01:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018
You cited an orthodox Muslim chronicler Barani, as your source. First of all, there is no such thing as an orthodox Muslim as in Orthodox Jew. Secondly, you did not take into account that he was exiled impacting his write up. Print the chronicle as source highlighting the particular reference drawn from that chronicle on Khilji's reforms May234 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Over 500 history books expicitly call Barani an "Orthodox Muslim". Not really that it matters, though. The content stays as long as it is supported by modern scholarly books. utcursch &#124; talk 18:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying remove X and replace with Y. It is not as simple as that. '''All I am saying is remove the assertions about Alauddin's motivation for reform to be one of wanting to afford his army and dispossess or disadvantage Hindus. Alternatively, write those as opinions fully citing whose opinion it is'''. — Preceding unsigned comment added by May234 (talk • contribs)
 * The article already attributes the statement to Barani. Direct quote: "Barani also attributes Alauddin's revenue reforms to the Sultan's desire to subjugate the Hindus". utcursch &#124; talk 02:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that you are not open minded and have not consumed the totality of what I stated from beginning that was you have been very selective in citing from sources that would support a particular theme at the expense of all other comments from other sources on the subject. For example, totally ignoring the fact Barani was exiled and that may have reflected his opinions or contrived opinions to achieve a particular end if, as you claimed that you have cited him directly (Verbatim). It also appears that there is a lot of twist from the writers own background influencing it. The writer of this Wiki article has hijacked the Wiki platform to perpetuate his thought and possibly his community;s thought of certain aspects of India's history. I think Wikipedia should broaden its writer base for certain subject areas instead of solely relying on sources from one country such as India given the political context that exist in that country against religious minorities. '''You can either remove your twisted assertions or broaden the opinion base to more comments from others and than assess if on the balance of probability, what you have asserted stands up. It is your personal conclusion rather than the facts that is reflected in this Wikipedia article on Alauddin. Readers should at least beware of this twist.'''

Undue?
Could you state why you think this text discussing Alauddin's relationship with Malik Kafur is undue? Their relationship is considered a same-sex relationship by some scholars and a platonic one by one scholar. Alauddin's love for Kafur is widely discussed. There is a separate section sharing minute details about Alauddin's opposite-sex relationships and his relationship with his in-laws; I feel it sets a precedent to discuss the same-sex related info that exists about Alauddin, and that too near the section that details his opposite-sex relationships. The biographical info about Kafur can be argued to be undue, but I don't see how all of the text is so. —Human10.0 (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I also think it is inaccurate to place the text discussing Alauddin and Kafur's relationship in the Last Days section as, according to the sources cited, Alauddin's affection for Kafur began before his 'last days.' —Human10.0 (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * An entire subsection on Alauddin's relationship with Kafur is unwarranted, when major wars have been described in 2-3 sentences in summary style. The scholarly history books that contain hundreds of pages about Alauddin devote 1-2 sentences (if at all) to this 'relationship' (the romantic or sexual aspect). The ones that do, explain that the source for this assertion is Barani. The history books do discuss Kafur's influence and control during Alauddin's last days in detail, and that's where the information belongs.
 * Here is an analysis of all the sources you cited:
 * Abraham Eraly, 2015: Describes Kafur's rise during "the last years" of Alauddin's life. Only one sentence alludes to the 'relationship': "Besides, Ala-ud-din, according to Barani, 'was infatuated with Malik Kafur". (The original source - Barani - also narrates this while describing the last part of Alauddin's reign).
 * Banarsi Prasad Saksena, 1992[1970]: Citing Barani as the source, states that Alauddin was infatuated with Kafur "during the last four or five years of his reign", and clarifies that the 'infatuation' was not homosexual.
 * Peter Jackson, 2003: Doesn't say anything about the relationship. Describes Kafur's influence during "the final phase" of Alauddin's reign
 * R. Vanita and S. Kidwai, 2000: A book on descriptions of same-sex love in Indian literature (not a history book), which contains a chapter on references to same-sex relationships in Barani's writings. Contains exactly two quotes from Barani that allude a same-sex relationship between Alauddin and Kafur, starting with "Describing the last years of Alauddin's life...".
 * S. Digby, 1980: Article about Kafur (not Alauddin), and contains exactly one sentence alluding to the 'relationship': "Kafur was evidently of great physical beauty and Barani refers in coarse terms to passive homosexual practices as well as to the Sultan's infatution with him."
 * Shanti Sadiq Ali, 1996: Devotes 4 pages to Malik Kafur (not Alauddin), out of which 2 sentences allude to the 'relationship': "Malik Kafur, one of Alauddin's generals, then caught the fancy of the Sultan. According to the medieval chronicler Ziauddin Barani, a deep emotional bond developed between them..."
 * Wendy Doniger, 2009: Doesn't say anything about the relationship
 * utcursch &#124; talk 16:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating your part. I can't agree with your statement that a subsection on Alauddin & Kafur's relationship is unwarranted when there is a subsection on Alauddin's opposite-sex relationships (containing detailed, trivial facts about his married life) and there is no appropriate section to discuss the info. Using major wars in summary style to argue against the section is specious because major wars have their own wiki articles where they are discussed in detail whereas Alauddin's relationship with Kafur has no detailed article of its own. According to WP:SUMMARY, if you want something in summary style in this article, you have to discuss it in full detail somehwere else.
 * Your analysis of the sources I cited is misleading. Here are my issues with it:
 * Abraham Eraly 2015: Kafur's rise is not described as a part of the "last years of Alauddin's life." Kafur's backstory is mentioned in the 'Reign of Eunuchs' chapter as a side discussion that begins from the year 1299. Alauddin wasn't in his final years in 1299. His reign had just begun. Further, Eraly does not allude to Alauddin and Kafur's relationship in "only one sentence." Just a cursory look at the source shows that on an earlier page, Eraly states: And the full version of the statement you quoted is: Two things stated by Eraly show that Alauddin's love for Kafur began before his final days: Firstly, he mentions that Alauddin was infatuated with Kafur before making him a military commander. As you know, Kafur became a military commander and vizier long before Alauddin's last days. Secondly, he says "And in the closing days of the sultan’s reign" which implies that whatever was stated before this statement was not part of the final/closing days of Alauddin's reign.
 * Banarasi Prasad Saksena, 1992: Please be clear, he does not "clarify" that the relationship was non-sexual. He opines that (without providing any information to discredit the sources that talk about Alauddin and Kafur's relationship in sexual/romantic terms, or to support his own unique position). Saksena aknowledges that "During the last years of his reign, Alauddin was infatuated with Malik Kafur" but he is the only source that explicitly denies a same-sex sexual element to their relationship (like I said, without backing it up with evidence).
 * R. Vanita and S. Kidwai, 2000: A seriously misleading claim by you is that their book is a "book on descriptions of same-sex love in Indian literature (not a history book)". The name of the book is literally Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History. It's a collection of documented examples of same-sex love in not only South Asian literature but also in the region's millennia-old history. The book mentions Alauddin and Kafur when listing sexual relationships between men and castrated men:And in their page-long discussion of Alauddin and Malik Kafur, the authors mention 4 relevant statements by Barani of which two explicitly state that Alauddin was in love with Kafur. Why would one need more statements stating the same when the two given are clear? Would one need Barani to mention "Alauddin married Malika i Jahan" multiple times to mention it on Wikipedia? The two most relevant statements are:Since Kafur was made a commander in the army and a minister much before Alauddin's final years, the latter statement shows that Alauddin's love for Kafur began before his final years. I think the former statement means that the love intensified in the final years. Further, while discussing Alauddin's son Mubarak Shah and his well-known same-sex relationship with Hasan (AKA Khusrow Khan), the authors mention another quote where Barani states that Alauddin was in love with Kafur (and that the love was sexual):
 * S. Digby's Encyclopedia of Islam article on Kafur: It does not matter whether Encylcopedia of Islam mentions Alauddin and Kafur's relationship in Alauddin's article or Kafur's, or how lengthy the mention is. The article on Kafur is only half a page long; it just mentions crucial facts. So even one line is sufficiently significant. The important thing is that a major reliable source made a point of mentioning it.
 * Shanti Sadiq Ali, 1996: The full statement by the author is:This statement shows that Alauddin became infatuated with Kafur some time after Kafur was presented to Alauddin in Delhi and before Kafur was made Malik Naib, i.e., before Alauddin's final years since Kafur was already Naib of the Delhi Sultanate during the last years of Alauddin's life.
 * Kishori Saran Lal, 1950 (a major source for this Alauddin article; a source that I did not get a chance to cite) also mentions Alauddin's infatuation with Kafur (e.g. on p. 296, 299).
 * I've only used Wendy Doniger or Peter Jackson as a source for basic biographical information about Kafur (i.e., the fact that he was a eunuch slave); I haven't used them to back up any statement regarding Alauddin and Kafur's relationship. Doniger mentions Alauddin in about six sentences in her entire book (which is mainly about Hindus, not the Delhi Sultanate); she barely says anything about Alauddin, so it's no surprise that you did not find anything in her book about a relationship (platonic, homosexual, or heterosexual). Her book is just used to back up the claim of Kafur being a slave because that's what her book mentions about him; no relationship-related info was cited using her book. Additionally, if I recall correctly, Jackson doesn't mention Malika i Jahan (Alauddin's first wife) at all and only alludes to the existence of Mahru (another wife of Alauddin) but does not name her. So it seems discussing Alauddin's personal relationships weren't a focus of Jackson's book either (though Jackson does mention more than once that Kafur was Alauddin's favorite. Actually, if we widen our search to what sources mention Kafur as being Alauddin's favorite then that would include all the cited sources [except maybe Doniger, who barely says anything]. But "favorite" is a vague term in English so I'll move on).
 * In summary, most sources explicitly mention or imply a romantic-sexual relationship between Alauddin and Kafur whereas only one interprets it explicitly as platonic. I think that, like other biographical wiki articles, Alauddin's article should have a separate 'Personal Life' section. His marriages and discussion of his relationship with Kafur could go there (perhaps even the current Religion section). As a compromise, the Personal Life section could discuss the relationship with Kafur briefly and as per WP:SUMMARY, it would have a link to the 'Relationship with Alauddin' section on Malik Kafur's Wiki article (where more detailed information could be available). I think a 'Personal Life' section will be quite helpful because:
 * The Marriage section contains information that breaks the chronological order of the article and doesn't go well with the subsequent text (e.g. the section discusses a marriage occuring in 1308 or 1296, and then the succeeding 'Governor of Kara' section starts relating events occurring earlier in 1291).
 * The question of which historical period to place the Kafur info in (i.e., in the last days section? Or earlier?) would become irrelevant.
 * What are your thoughts on my 'Personal Life' section proposal? —Human10.0 (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The idea of a "Personal Life" section looks good to me. To be clear, I'm not saying that these sources don't mention Kafur's romantic/sexual relationship with Alauddin -- my point is that compared to other details, the mention of romantic/sexual aspect is trivial (with the exception of Kidwai's book). If there are other undue details in the article, they should be removed too. utcursch &#124; talk 14:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Portrait/Image of Alauddin Khalji
@Utcursch is the portrait added necessary and needed? the current one you posted is a bit hard to see and I believe it is not the best choice compared to the other one. Hence I believe it would be more appropriate to keep the old image, feel free to reply so you can share your thoughts on it. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * File:Sultan Alauddin Khalji.jpg is not reliably sourced, and even if the source is really an "old school textbook of Afghanistan", the image serves no purpose on this page -- I may as well draw a random face, and claim it is a portrait of Alauddin. utcursch &#124; talk 00:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Editwarring/disruptive editing
User @Basedafghan, please refrain from edit warring/disruptive editing. There are sources linked to why they are referred as a turco-afghan peoples. Noorullah21 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * To Iranian / Turkic / Afghan editors aiming to push their POV in the lead: please have a look at MOS:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." utcursch &#124; talk 15:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why, but since January there's been a steady rise of new Afghan IPs / Accounts, some of them (disguised?) with Iranian and Western names. Several have already been banned (this one today for example ). --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @HistoryofIran Its a tiktok horde, I have seen Afghans band up on tiktok, claiming their history has been stolen ever since they changed the Hotak dynasty map. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And hence, they are trying to vandalize pages to get their way. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)