Talk:Mahmud of Ghazni/Archive 1

Important to note fake additions
Zarrigul (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Some of the editors are recently engaged in adding fake information is noticed in family section of the main article and addition of external source of Ghazi Saiyyad Salar Masud in section 7 using the advantage of common name with  (Masud Ghaznavi)the grandson of  Mehmud ghaznavi regards zarrigul.

Untitled
76.17.109.178 04:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but This is not a discussion forum for whatever you wish to discuss. This means that, this is an encyclopaedic page created for people with IQs higher than - at least - 80, Unless you don't understand that, It should be very clear that what you say must be packed up with sources and not original research.

- what else is new?

Muslims and anti-Hindu types defending Muslim tyrants. This guy was a bastard. plain and simple. There is plenty of evidence that he massacred Buddhists and 5265656565656666666666666666Hindus and destroyed temples.

Why is there a need to sugarcoat it?

AS far as Hindu kings oppressing their own people, it is absolutely nothing compared to the way that Muslim invaders treated all Hindus. Timur himself massacred 100,000 Hindus (regardless of caste).

Now please reference one single incident that is sourced in which a Brahmin excecuted 100,000 Dalits.

---

Please, once again, WE NEED YOUR EVIDENCE NOW

what u expect from people of a country who does not have any past history culture or won religion to say.truth is this all the Muslims of India Western Punjab and Afghan were Hindus there forefather where torched raped and killed who survived they converted to Islam. How can they say the truth.And in India u can see the same view in the text books which say nothing about looting plundering of hinds and temples of India.this is what Nahru ji says in his book Discovery of India.some politician think in India that telling about the horror done by the Muslim ruler will  make Hindu Muslim present  relation wast  they don"t" understand it's like burning  fire  benith  whose heat can  be felt  and it could become big fire anytime. thoes muslims has nothing to do with todays muslims unless u say what they did to this country and the people they are not ther ancestor their are your superuser.

Tigeroo stop deleting my posts
Tigeroo you are hounding and deleting my posts on this and the article on Qasim. Please stop. Cheers Intothefire 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please red up WP:MOS. I have tried to show you numerous times on how to make acceptable and useful contributions ubt you refuse to pay attention. Case in point, you still place your comments any what where and when instead of at the bottom of the talk pages. I have accepted and incorporated legitimate issues raised by you, but you really need to get your act together and stop degrading the quality of the articles.--Tigeroo 13:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobic content
this article is a prime example of why Wikipedia cannot be trusted. You have Hindus who read this and it makes their blood boil that these foreign Muslims actually did all of this stuff. Then you have Muslims and Muslim-sympathizers who sugarcoat history and actually try to make a man like this look "normal" and in some cases act like he did Hindus a favor by killing them off.

Actually, articles like this are a prime example of why Wikipedia can be trusted. As opposed to traditional articles or encyclopedia entries, which are either written by one biased side or a supposedly neutral side that will gloss over "extreme" opinions of either side, here both sides can "face off" and show the full range of opinions, with facts to back them up where applicable. The result, while undoubtedly flawed (and clearly suffering from some grammatical issues), is still a much more complete version than is typically seen in such articles contrained by procedural tradition. -

I have replaced the Islamoiphobic content posted by non-Muslims from Hindutva extremist websites, with the authentic history from MSN Encarta and Britannica Encyclopaedia.
 * You would do better to respect history and the umma by not saying untruths about these men. If you wish to contest material in the article you need to bring counter-proofs. Haiduc 12:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

- JASpencer apparently posted a series of anti-Islamic views collected from rightwing Hindu and other anti-Islamic sites. These articles are so outrageously ridiculous. Take this article as an example. The article claims that Mahmud of Ghazni slaughtered 50,000 Hindus just in one temple!!

What the hell? What was the population of India 1000 years ago, again?

They didn't have nuclear bombs or F-16's in those days. How on earth can a small raid by a few thousand soldiers armed with only swords kill 50,000 Hindus just in one temple? Why didn't these 50,000 men spit on them? That would have drowned the killers.

In another article, the guy goes on to compare Bin Qasim attack on Sindh with Mao atrocities in China! Moa killed like how many 30 million people? The whole population of India was not 30 million in 700 AD!

Bin Qasim attacked Sindh with less than 3,000 men. If the Indian kings were not suppressing their own population (low casts) and fighting each other, he would not have even made it. OneGuy 19:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

The opinions expressed by OneGuy seems to be biased. Exaggeration on both sides is possible. It could be that 30,000 muslim invaders might have killed 5000 residents near a temple. Ofcourse, it is also true that the areas targetted by Mahmud Ghazni eg. Somnath, Thaneshwar are piligrim centers and attract multitudes of devotees.

---

The article needs to be cleaned up. An attempt has been made to portray Mahmud Ghazni as nothing but a bandit but not an iconoclast. The very fact that many temples were destroyed and made as steps of mosques point to the fact that Mahmud Ghazni was a zealot too.

Abhijna

---

Article changes from third paragraph
Editing parts of the article especially the third paragraph, in which the content becomes incredibly biased towards Ghazni and gives Ghazni the image of an evil religious zeal, which he was not.

Alexeifjodor before you revert my edits next time, I suggest you look at the bias being put into the article by others.

Ghazni did indeed establish good government and yes he did fight against many hindu armies. The fact that the hindus lost the many battles does NOT mean that this man should be portrayed as a murderer! And yes some temples were destroyed in the lines of battle, but he did not cause this out of religious zeal.

Similarly his armies were outnumbered by 8 to 1 by the Hindu armies so it is not likely that he went around destroying temples. He won every battle and set up government in the region and transformed it into a centre of culture and art.


 * Please document your reasons for deleting information. For example, if you think he didn't destroy the temples out of religious zeal, then explain your reasons for thinking so and cite sources - don't just delete the whole thing about temple destruction. --Alexeifjodor 00:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The recent edits to this article go so far in trying to whitewash Mahmud that they distort history. Mahmud's raids on Hindu targets and his destruction of Hindu temples are portrayed as incedental to his ambition to "create a fairly governed empire in the subcontinent;" the destruction of 'several' Hindu temples is presented as "a tactic used by Ghazni to weaken holds of enemy regions in early India.". Every credible historian has noted that the majority of Mahmud's raids into India were not directed at establishing just and stable governance, but were targeted to temple towns with lots of mobile wealth. The account of Mahmud's raids was eliminated from the article, and any criticism of Mahmud's destruction is portrayed as sour grapes, "because of their [Hindus'] losses on the battlefield".

Previous and better-balanced versions of the article noted his capable administration in the Muslim parts of the empire, and his patronage of the arts and culture in the capital of Ghazni. But the widespread and deliberate destruction he wreaked in Hindu India is a part of the historical record that should not be suppressed. Mahmud is a very different character from later conquerors like Babur and Akbar. Distorting history to present him as a humane ruler of India is POV pushing which ignores the facts of his Indian campaigns. Tom Radulovich 20:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

______

Tom, check my recent edits to the article. I think that it is as least controversial as it can get without referring to Mahmud as figure that serves the opinion of either side. I edited some mistakes that you left in repeating paragraphs of the article and other stuff. Feel free to add stuff as long as it is not bias quoted from.

By the way, I was not "whitewashing" history, I was simply stating the truth. The fact that he has a POSITIVE influence in shaping India should not be overlooked as he did indeed establish good government and the act of "destroying" temples was more a battle tactic than one to accumulate wealth.


 * Probably the one additon by User:Admin001 / User:67.71.62.220 / User:70.50.117.237 that didn't seem part of a pov-pushing (with deletions) campaign was copy and paste (but an otherwise maybe interesting ancectode) from www.afghan-network.net/Rulers/mahmud-ghazni.html. --Alexeifjodor 20:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The account of the battle did seem an interesting addition, but it probably should not be used without permission, unless User:Admin001 was the author. The assertions about Mahmud's "POSITIVE" influence on Indian history, his establishment of good government, and that his attacks on temples were a battle tactic incidental to military aims are quite dubious. The attack on Somnath, for example, had no obvious military objective; it was not Gujarat's capital (Anhilwara was) nor did it command a strategic location. Nor was the objective of the raid a "good government" one; Mahmud didn't intend to set up an administration, good or otherwise, over the city; he left it in ruins. Tom Radulovich 23:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely poppycock. Somnath was a prominent center of wealth and trade in Gujarat and the Somnath temple was known economic center (as well as temple) at that period. This is actually covered quite well by Romila Thapar (who does NOT use a Marxist analysis in this book, despite her right wing detractors). Furthermore, during his reign, he gave Buddhists and Hindus dhimmi status and had several Hindu vassals and generals (also well covered information). If you ask for sources, I will provide them. No one is saying he was a saint. He wasn't. And its possible he may have had some assumptions about the religious practices of the people of the Indus Valley. But, given his employment record, he doesn't seem to have held them as core beliefs with which to articulate policy. He was what all other leaders in Central Asia were at the time, skilled opportunistic conquerors who went where the money was, using religious slogans. And Somnath happened to be one of those temples and so he used the necessary slogans to do what he did. Afghan Historian (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's some preliminary proof for you: http://www.hindu.com/br/2004/04/27/stories/2004042700121600.htm Afghan Historian (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Changing title to "Mahmud of Ghazna"
It seems to me that his conventional title is "of Ghazna" or "Ghaznavi," both referring to the older form of the city's name, in use during his reign. "Ghazni" seems to be a more recent spelling. Haiduc 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * He seems most often to be known as "Ghaznavi", rather than "of Ghazna" or "of Ghazni". --Bejnar (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My God! This Wiki is full of a bunch of Hindus who are more concerned about taking revenge against this historical figure from 1000 years ago rather than offering factual information. The city is called GHAZNI not GhaznA. Just check a freaking map of Afghanistan for God's sake. It's still there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.104.21 (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
User 'Haiduc' seems to have continously vandalizing this page by adding false allegations about Mahmud Ghazvavi. Siddiqui 19:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Siddiqui, try to understand Haiduc. He's not trying to denigrate Mahmud. He just has a (very) different attitude to Mahmud's love for the young man. Personally I think he goes too far. But he's not an enemy of Mahmud's reputation. PiCo 10:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes by 72.141.1.98

 * Historical Controversies Section: Please discuss before making any changes, it is work in progress and can be improved and this is the section where the POV is most likely to occur therefore we need to work to build concensus.


 * Dhimmi = payer of Jizya = tribute, poll tax can insert a reference to Jizya here, and protected (protected from what etc. and other details should be in the dhimmi article).


 * Kashmir: Feel free to correct the information.


 * Utbi Quotes: Don't really belong here all they do is justify the iconoclast label and the raider of temples and take up too much space to make the point. The one about slaves can be worked but please try to insert it and frame it a little better. Quotes should be used to illustrate a point as a reference for a claim not stand on their own. Also please be more specific on where the quotes can be found in the book rather than a generic reference to the entire book.

--Tigeroo 04:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Utbi Reference: Need a better reference, where can some one access it, which printing, whose translation etc.

someone commented below-
 * have replaced the Islamoiphobic content posted by non-Muslims from Hindutva extremist websites, with the authentic history from MSN Encarta and Britannica Encyclopaedia-

There is no question about Mahmud's motives about his Indian campaigns for any student of history. The above mentioned sources(i.e MSN or Britannica)as well as official sources in India either for the lack of space or fearing negative and emotional reactions(some of the details a very gruesome) tend to omit details and thus, appear to sanitize Mahmud's campaigns. Most independent historians after decades of research especially in the west, agree that his campaigns involved a great deal of cruelty and religious zeal(seen time and again in followers of different religions and not limited to any particular religion). The most credible source on this, Al utbi, Mahmud's secretary and royal historian who accompanied him on his campaigns describes everything in detail while Ferishta and others also mention these events. If this article is to have any shred of credibility it should include the first person account of Al-Utbi. Efforts like this to sanitize history play right into the hands of fundamentalists like the Hindutva forces who take any omissions or outright denial as silent affirmation of the actions of historical figures. The accounts posted on Hidutva websites are ditto lifted from the translation of Tarikh-e- Yamini(by Al Utbi) and Ferishta's works by neutral Historians in the Last century agreed upon after deliberations and conferences on five continents. There is nothing new about these accounts as any student of history would know, they are known to historians the world over, the efforts to omit these are what Hindutva forces are playing politics with.

then there is this arguement---

"They didn't have nuclear bombs or F-16's in those days. How on earth can a small raid by a few thousand soldiers armed with only swords kill 50,000 Hindus just in one temple? Why didn't these 50,000 men  spit on them? That would have drowned the killers."

Yes the figure of 50,000 killed at the sea side temple at Somanth is quoted by the above mentioned Muslim historians of the time. They are described as defenders gathered from the countryside on foot wave after wave trying to stop Mahmud and his army from entering the temple. The reason why Mahmud was so successful in inflicting heavy casualities in the enemy ranks was the use of central asian technique of warfare where horsemen(fewer in number) would ride directly into the opposing army columns that were on foot and inflict far greater casualities than the conventional warfare(described in greater detail in the account of the battle with shahi king Jaipal).

"He won every battle and set up government in the region and transformed it into a centre of culture and art" Alexeifjodor

What centres of culture and art did Mahmud set up in India??? the list of ones he destroyed is very long indeed. He didn't even intend to govern the area and only exacted an annual tribute from the areas he raided. There were already established governments and empires in the areas he conquered that were great patrons of art for example, In Mahmud's words(al utbi, ferishta) "the beauty of the temple at Mathura was beyond description". Alexeifjodor doesn't have the slightest idea of this chapter of history. If you intend to idiolize a Muslim historical figure for good governance and the spread of Islamic arts and culture, there are plenty of them but Mahmud is a very poor example.

Also, how does publishing accurate accounts of the actions of a historical figure like Mahmud(right or wrong) constitute Islamophobia??? Mahmud was not an Islamic religious figure. His actions were certainly not sanctioned as a religious war by any Islamic religious authority of the time. Mahmud did not represent millions of muslim at the time in the same way as fundamentalists donot represent over one billion muslims today and Bush doesn't represent all christians

For more on this read the book India: A histroy by british writer and historian John Keay, this is the latest source(with a detailed account of Mahmud's campaigns citing different sources) i could find that is easily available to the general public, the rest are all either decades old(out of print)or are from partisan sources in India and Pakistan, most others are only availabe to academics and researchers at various Universties and other institutions. Any more neutral sources posted here will be higly appreciated.

Peace
 * It's a very old argument that was settled and the article has been adapted since to include the impact mentioned by you. This is a constant theme of edits to the page POV pushing and highlight. Please sign your comments that dates them as well and gives an indicator of when the debate dates from.

Also please post any new debates at the bottome of the page.--Tigeroo 11:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it true that the quotes from Tarikh-e-yamini(a historical document containig first person accounts of Al-Utbi Mahmud's secretary who accompanied him during his campaigns to India)have been deleted by people who are pushing their POV of depicting Mahmud as a hero. Why have the details described by Utbi and Ferishta been omitted??? Its not just the "Hindutva" forces that pay attention to such distortion of history. Any student of history would be troubled by attempts like this to sanitize histroy. Neutral Historians the world over have paid attention to the brutal nature of his campaigns. "hindutva" forces have just come on the scene during the last decade, don't hide behind the fact that hindutva forces are using this denial by official sources in some countries as a political weapon(and people like you are helping them achieve this end by omitting these facts). Deleting quotes from a historical document and writing your own comments under "controversies" if thats not pushing your POV then what is??? your comments about it make your motives about pushing you POV very clear. How does it settle the arguement when the article omits well-documented historical facts and ends up calling historical realities "controversial" why do the quotes of Al-Utbi not belong here??? is it a historical article or an attempt to glorify Mahmud. Tell history like it happened rather than picking bits and pieces that help your point of view and omiting facts agreed to by the historians the world over after decades of research and delibrations just because they contain facts that weakens your POV. Wikipedia must take note as the neutrality of this article is in question. 30, July 2006


 * Yes, Utbi quotes have been deleted, please refer to the itemized and specific reasons for this listed above.
 * As for Ferishta, please note the reference below as well as inline as examples and I have personally gone through it to include the information into the article. Please note how it was done an attempt has been made to keep the article concise, use citations and footnotes if necessary to support your support instead of dragging an immense long quote in. There is no attempt to disinclude historical facts.
 * I suppose POV being referred to in this instance is his brutality. I offer you to comparitively look through the accounts of all his wars and all of his opponents, and for that matter of wars in general in medeival history and put them in context. The controvesy is not over what happened, but over its context and both the historical importance and symbolisms currently attached to events from his life. Comparitively review other articles across wikipedia with reference to your "sanitizing" claim. We can work towards including them into the article appropriately.
 * As you can see in different regions distinctly different threads of his history have been emphasised or deemphazized and the section controversies has been rightly adjusted by other editors to Regional Attitudes which is more apt. He was neither a demon nor a saint, and his only "glory" was that of forging an empire, and such events are always drenched in blood and loot. If you define greatness of historical figures by such events then he was one, and if villany then he was one to.
 * Generally it's easier to deal with specific line items to improve this article. I find that the affect of Ghaznis conquests in India and their impact on the slave trade has not been mentioned, and am sure it will feed well with vision of desanitizing this piece. Plus please feel free to raise specific objections to where you feel he is unduly glorified and we can adjust it. Wiki is a collaborative effort so feel free to help.--Tigeroo 05:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are quotes from contemporary historical documents (i.e tarikh e yamini) being deleted repeatedly is that not POV pushing??? by people who cannot stand a quote that might provide a slightly negative picture, however true it maybe. No one is writing their own comments with the quotes they are from the original source and universally accepted translations.

you wrote.......


 * Utbi Quotes: Don't really belong here all they do is justify the iconoclast label and the raider of temples and take up too much space to make the point.

Why don't they belong here give a credible reason, it provides a glimpse of the conquests same way as some parts are an insight into the governance and arts etc. They are not inserted to make a point but to give an accurate account of history(good or bad) as it happened which this article currently lacks.

Why does everything that deviates from your POV has to go under Regional controversies and why does the name hindutva have to be invoked everytime. This is not an issue that is unique to hindutva forces it is an issue of distortion of history and what hindutva people say does not sway independent historians one bit, because it is these historians and academics that after painstaking research and years of delibrations and numerous conferences arrive at a universally accepted and complete version of history derived from historical sources. Read this article again everything negative has been ommitted or mentioned in comments about how different people percieve mahmud it is not a matter of perception but that of a view of history that is made one sided by ommiting historical version of events and trying to make them seem controversial by listing them under "Regional controversies" or attributing them to partisan sources like hindutva ppl.

What do other articles across wikipedia have to do with the sanitzing of this particular article. Also the zeal and brutality even in medieval context is not matched by any other conqurer and was mainly justified by mahmud as being in service of a certain ideology so it gives a true picture of the motivation and explanation of certain actions that seemed unnecessary from a military point of view during a conquest and that he was advised against by his nobles. Deleting these is classic sanitizing and POV pushing for which wikipedia is so well known. It certainly is not history its what you would like history to look like if you were the author. Now that could hardly be called an encyclopedia. This article as it is, is one of the most one sided and controversial historical articles on wikipedia and is in crying need for balance and some history not creating sections like "regional attitudes" and "controversies". What does these two have to do with history and why do they belong in a historical article anyway just insert historical facts and quotes that belong here not your comments on what you think is controversy there is not controversy about mahmud there never was for historians ppl on the extremes who are bent upon creating heroes and villains out of historical figures might think that way when they read certain parts of history but thankfully hisroty in this case is well documented and there for everyone to read and know so please save us from your line of thought and leave history as it is.


 * For better understanding see Primary sources and Reliable_sources and Historiography to get a basic understanding of history and problems with Utbi, plus you will notice that while most of the material is actually based of Fersihta the article has avoided including the whole book as quotation to get the information across, simlary fawning and gloryfying quotations from those historians are also missing. If you can summarize it sufficiently it can easily be placed incorporated properly, I have even given you something directly to his brutality and Indian raids that has not been mentioned that you can place here, and if there is something you wish to add about his motivation go ahead. There is no sanitizing of history, medeival history is bloody across the board the difference is the attempt to make it out as something more or limited to Mahmud. He was bloody above average but that has been acknowledged, or misrepresentation by over emphasizing things and focusing on narrow sphere events vs. the overall picture. Hindutva is mentioned because it is a significant factor in the re-evaluation of his history in relation to his historical view, as can been seen not everyone agrees with that narrow focused a view as definition of the man, Iranian nationalists focus on a different section of his life and Pakistanis have found succour in a different aspect, but all of these just singular pieces of the larger whole. If you have sources please cite them and include them to help the article overcome deficiences that you see. It would help to know what has not been mentioned, that you want included, there is indeed a lot that not has been mentioned, this artcile is a brief attempting to summarize and capture an outline of history. There must be more than Utbi, that you can contribute if you see so many problems, you have not helped in identifying them or where he is glorified?? The only thing I can see that could be glory attributed to him is success in the political sphere and carving of an empire, but this is a fact and I don't think we have even used anything like great etc and delivered it quite matter of factly. Help we can work on things, if it is easier we can work with specific issues.--Tigeroo 10:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes i saw Reliable_sources etc.

"Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections" According to you Publishers of Johan keay's books and other such books on history are not reliable????? and that rule does not even apply here Utbi has been verified through modern research he is a historical source not a modern one that has to be verified everytime he is quoted the historians have agreed upon his being an important source on Mahmood for at least five decades now, Most notable historians that are involved in research discuss the authenticity of a source only once and after that it is authentic. Do not try to push POV by using a technicality that doesn't even apply here because it clearly states that primary sources may be used if they are part of "historic documents that appear in edited collections" or read this "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on "reliable secondary sources" who have made careful use of the primary-source material(in this case modern day historians who have established the authenticity through research, numerous discussions and conferences and have quoted extensively from the works of Utbi and ferishta etc.). No one has challenged Utbi's works it goes same for Ferishita, Abolfazl begyahi, Ferdowsi and all the historians that you have quoted as well. If people started ommiting everything without understanding what the guidelines actually say then this article will not exist, including everything attributed to other medieval historians that have been quoted here. They have all been verified and authenticated and quoted numerous times so this arguement doesn't hold and besides we are not using anything directly from Utbi etc. all the books citing them and other medieval historians have been written and published in modern times by independent historians after the authenticity of these sources had been verified at various points in time during the last century. Take a look at the history of the artile once again anything that deviated from a POV that is being pushed in the narrative has been ommited especially quotes fron utbi, ferishta, al bruni etc. while pushing a certain POV using the same above mentioned historians. So isn't this sanitizing ommiting quotes from same sources or similar sources that have been cited elsewhere in this article just because those particular quotes don't confirm to the POV being pushed i.e sanitizing Mahmud's life. Sept 4, 2006


 * I think you had gotten confused between reliable sources and primary sources, and then mixed them with a second issue of sanitizing etc. The essence is it is better to quote a historian who if familiar with the primary sources, because there are many and can be contradictory and therefore need indepth study to analysis to weight, contextualize and objectify. You can ofcourse use Qutbi himself if you lack this review of his work (Most historians agree that court historians are known for propoganda, so what can be adduced is that glorifying his military crackdown was good for his social standing), but the second issue is have you noticed the style of the article, there are no quotes included at all, Qutbi also has lots of other praises in his work but they are not included either just summarized. There is no blockage to mention things infact I have given you a leader to mention something which I am aware of but can't find a source for to include. I think what you are more interested in is detailing the bloodiness of war of those times to contrast it to todays concepts which is misrepresentation, he was bloody even for his time, but not in the manner you wish to paint it. Take a walk down the Mongol histories and invasions articles, these were bloodier than anything Ghazni did but even more so because they happenned on a large scale and at more places because of the greater success of the mongols. That however was norm of the times and so is rightly contextualized and not given undue weightage, but yes these things do deserve mention if merely to highlight what life was like during those historical periods.

Any rate the main objection to the Qutbi quotes was never about their exclusion and has been summarized many times reference them properly, contextualize them, summarize them, to allow them to sit smoothly into the article and so that we can pack more into it by taking up less space. This discussion is getting old, you want to insist that there is some blockage of your contribution, when it has been pointed out that you need to improve its quality and how this may be acheived as well.--Tigeroo 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud's birthplace
Some users in here claim that Mahmud was born in Ghazni (or that "it its belived by some" thatr he was born there), and attach two sources to this claim:


 * Britannica
 * Columbia Encyclopaedia

The truth is: neither of these 2 sources actually gives ANY remarks on Mahmud's birthplace. Here are direct quotes:

Britannica:

''Mahmud (born 971; died April 30?, 1030, Ghazna), in full Yamin Al-daula Abu'l-qasim Mahmud Ibn Sebüktigin,   sultan of the kingdom of Ghazna (998–1030), originally comprising modern Afghanistan and northeastern modern Iran but, through his conquests, eventually including northwestern India and most of Iran. He transformed his capital, Ghazna, into a cultural centre rivalling Baghdad. ...''

Columbia Encyclopaedia:

''Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan. In his raids against the states of N India, Mahmud, a staunch Muslim, destroyed Hindu temples, forced conversions to Islam, and carried off booty and slaves. ...''

STOP using wrong quotes and sources! And STOP messing up the article. His birthplace is not known, and the place where he died (probably Ghaznai) should be mentioned in another part of the article, maybe at the "Political challenges and his death" section!

THANK YOU!

Tājik 13:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's repeat that again. Encyclopaedia Britannica quotes: Mahmud (born 971; died April 30?, 1030, Ghazna), in full Yamin Al-daula Abu'l-qasim Mahmud Ibn Sebüktigin, sultan of the kingdom of Ghazna (998–1030), originally comprising modern Afghanistan and northeastern...

According to Britannica's, it 100% confirms that Mahmud Ghaznavi was born and died in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

(born 971; died April 30?, 1030, Ghazna),

The above statement clearly means he was born in Ghazna (Ghazni) and he died in Ghazna. Notice that there is no "?" next to born 971;, as there is a "?" next to died April 30?''', which means the day of his death is not confirm. If you think this means something else, then you need to put up a good argument rather then just denying facts about major Encyclopedias of the world.

The Columbia Encylopedia also explains that Mahmud was born in Afghanistan because he is labelled Afghan, as someone being born in what is now Afghanistan.

Columbia Encyclopedia states:

Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan...

This proves, with no doubt, that Mahmud was both born and died in Ghazana, which is the city of Ghazni in Afghanistan. Since Encyclopedia Britannica explained that he was born in Ghazni then it should also be stated in the introduction section of Mahmud on Wikiepedia. This will help readers who just want to know about his place of birth and death, without reading the entire article.--King of Spirits 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Britannica's "Ghazni" is a reference to the place where he died. His birthplace is NOT known. If he had been born in Ghazni, Britannica would have mentioned that (like in this article about Nizami; he was born and he died in Ganja - which is mentioned twice!).
 * As for Columbia: labeling him "Afghan" is most deffinitly wrong - Mahmud of Ghazni was neither an "Afghan" in ethnicity (which means "Pashtun") nor an Afghan in nationality (because the country "Afghanistan" was created 800 years later).
 * Tājik 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry bud, your wrong again. Only the Persian speakers of Afghanistan (which you are) call the ethnic Pashtun people as Afghans. This is not the case with the rest of the world, as we westerners call all the people of Afghanistan as Afghans. The Encyclopaedia Britannica clearly show that Mahmud was born in Ghazni. So it's you against Britannica. Until you can prove that he was born else where in the world, leave the birth/death info on the intro. --King of Spirits 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The link you showed is this, Britannica:

''born c. 1141,, Ganja, Seljuq empire [now Gyandzha, Azerbaijan] died 1209, Ganja''

The reason for this is very simple, something was explained before the death-date and place of death was stated. It's not always the same case with every article on Britannica.--King of Spirits 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * King of Spirits (or NisarKand or Pashtun or whatever name you have on Wikipedia):
 * ALL scholarly sources - most of all the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica - use "Afghan" as synonym for "Pashtun", because that is the traditional and only correct meaning of the word.
 * This is even confirmed by traditional Pashto literature, as Pashto's most famous writer, Khushal Khan Khattak, explains in one of his most famous peoms:

Pull out your sword and slay any one, That says Pashton and Afghan are not one. Arabs know this and so do Romans, Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans.
 * The quote is taken from the famous "The Passion of the Afghan" ("Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak", by C. Biddulph, London, 1890)
 * So, once again, your claims are all wrong!
 * As for Britannica: your try to explain your POV does not work, because Ganja was still part of the Seljuq Empire when Nizami died. If Mahmoud had been born in Ghazni, Britannica would have mentioned that directly in the article. This is not the case (as the comparison with the article "Nizami" has proven).
 * Tājik 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Going by your philosophy, if only Pashtuns are considered as Afghans then check this name --> Yunus Qanuni and tell me if he is Afghan or not? It says that he is Afghan but he is not Pashtun. So how come he is called Afghan then? I'm sure there are million others like him, who are not Pashtuns but are called Afghans. The way you think is very funny. Don't accuse me to be other people, as many people in one house or one office use Wikipedia.--King of Spirits 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Yonus Qanuni is half-Pashtun and half-Tajik, his mother being from Tajik. Besides that, this is the most stupid comparison ever. Because Yonus Qanuni is a contemporary politician from Afghanistan, while Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni as well as Khushal Khan Khattak lived centuries and decades before the creation of "Afghanistan".
 * You are deffinitly the same person as User:NisarKand and I have already reported you to admins. They will check your IP and then decide to either block you or not.
 * Tājik 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This proves that you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia but here to fight with people. You are also showing that you are obsessed with someone by the name of User:NisarKand, and you should control your self. Now where does it say that Yunus Qanuni is half Pashtun and half Tajik?--King of Spirits 18:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It absolutely does not matter what ethnic group Yonus Qanoni belongs to, because that's not matter of the discussion. The point is: Yonus Qanuni is called an "Afghan" because he is a citizen of the modern political entity known as Afghanistan. Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni lived 800 years before the creation of Afghanistan, and his own writers and book-keepers (for example al-Biruni) recorded Mahmud's fought with "Afghans and Rajputs", making it clear that Mahmud himself was NOT an Afghan (Pashtun).
 * Tājik 18:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You use people's name as references but can't show what the books actually stated. Where are the records of those writers? So Afghans never fight one another? Didn't Afghans fight one another for over 10 years in the 1980s? That was a silly thing you stated. Besides, you need to argue with Encyclopedias about why putting Mahumud as Afghan. You are trying to take the discussion somewhere else, the information that you are removing is about him being born in the city of Ghazni, do not jump to Afghanistan as a nation not being created in that period of time. Ghazni or Ghazna did exist then and now, and that's where Mahmud was born. You want to conceal this in a way to make people assume he was born perhaps anywhere but Ghazni, Afghanistan. And you also are purposly removing the totally dispute tag so that nobody comes to join this discussion.--King of Spirits 18:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about?!?! So far, the Columbia Encyclopaedia is the only source calling him "Afghan". Every other, serious source correctly describes him as a Turk - because that's what he was: a descendant of Turkic generals from Khorasan.
 * His grandfather, Alptegin, was a bodyguard of the Samanid sultans in Balkh. His father, Sebüktegin, was a Qarluq slave from Central Asia who was freed by Alptegin. His mother was a Persian noble from Zaranj. The sources are already given in the article. It's only you who is claiming that "he was Afghan".
 * This is like saying that Ahmad Shah Durrani, the founder of modern Afghanistan, was actually a Pakistani, because he was born in Multan which is now located in Pakistan.
 * Stop pushing for POV and stop purposely misinterpreting Britannica's information. Mahmud's birthplace is not known ... and even IF it were known, it is not that important to mention it in the intro!
 * Tājik 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing over Mahmud's heritage, perhaps he was Turk, Uzbek, Persian or other. I am arguing that he was born in Ghazna, which is now a city in Afghanistan by the name of Ghazni. About Ahmad Shah Durrani, it is not known if he was born in Multan, Kandahar or Herat. Where did you get the information that states Ahmad Shah was born in Multan (present-day Pakistan)?. Britannica has a "?" next to his birth-place. After reading, Mahmud's father lived in Ghazni so that should support the Britannica's claim of Mahmud being born in the came city or perhaps in Ghazni province. Only you say Mahmud's place is unknown, I read many Afghan related sites and they all indicate that he had to be born there because they all name him as Mahmud of Ghazni, which means someone from that city. Usually someone born in that city reieves such name, same as Mohammad of Ghor, meaning he was from Ghor, which is now in Afghanistan.--King of Spirits 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahmad Shah Abdali was born in Multan. Britannica has a question-mark next to the date "1722", but not next to his birthplace. It usually argued whether he was born in 1722 or in 1723. His birthplace Multan in modern Pakistan is not disputed, which would make the founder of Afghanistan - according to your logic - a "Pakistani", 200 years before the creation of Pakistan.
 * "Mahmoud of Ghazni" is called that way, because he was the emperor of a large kingdom known as the "Sultanate of Ghazni". The Ghorids were called "Ghorids" because their empire was centered in the Ghor region. Their real name was "Shansabani", a powerful Tajik family once allied to the Samanids.
 * Tājik 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling him homosexual with NO REFERENCES?
If you are going to label such a major historical figure as a homosexual than you can't have a Gay and Lesbian association's web page as your reference for such a indisputable claim! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.54.218.111 (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of verifiable content quotes deleted from this article
This article has a several verifiable quotes which have been removed which should be placed here. I have also added a ref section which this page needs Intothefire (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is fake to categorise Dari and Farsi as different dialects
Dear Readers

There is a need a clarify this misconception that Farsi and Dari are two different Persian language dialects. This idea is purely politically-motivated and came to existence only since late 1960s by Afghan nationalistic movement which took shape in the spirit and ideology of Afghanistan government. Of course historically till very recent time before that decade the name Dari was only applied to more litrary form of Farsi language used by our writers and poets in both Iran and current day Afghanistan or Transoxania. Obviously Afghan nationalism always tried to distance itself from country's vast Persian heritage and replace it with Pashton identity which is synonymous for Afghan. So challenging and segregating our widely spoken language i.e. Farsi from our neighbouring nations was their first target to achieve by applying this new name- Dari. Of course in masses conversation most people in Afghanistan dont call their language Dari, they simply call it Farsi or Parsi which is the regional name for Persian. The above distinction only exists as far as the fomalities are concerned otherwise it is only a fake entity.

The dialect difference of Persian language in Afghanistan and Iran or Tajikistan by no means differ more widely than the dialect difference between Mashad in eastern Iran to Kurdistan to its west, or Badakhshan in east Afghanistan to Herat to its west.

If I said the above in 1960s to 1970s inside Afghanistan my place would have been in prison if allowed to live. But thanks to freedom we have today specialy the freedom on the net so we can freely express the truth.

To give examples supporting above arguements: two most famous poets from Iranic town of Shiraz in middle ages are Sa'adi Shirazi and Hafiz Shirazi. They both regarded and named the language of their poetery books as Dari in more than one occasion i.e. referring to their litrary glory. Similarly the mainstream language school books in use in Afghanisttan till mid 1960 were clearly titled Qera'at e Farsi meaning Farsi reading.

We need to respect and uphold the truth at whatever cost it may be. As only this way we can serve our common purpose of achieving hormony and a real peace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.68.168 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism continued
This article seems to be a very popular topic for vandalism, edits need to be more closely monitored.Khokhar (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanket Deletion of referenced content by user K.Khokhar
User K.Khokhar deleted all of the 3 seperate referenced content from a  section of this article , prefering to leave only non referenced content including sections that carry a. tag. This massive blanket deletion amounts to a vandal edit of referenced content , specially since no discussion has taken place on the discussion page before deletion. User K.Khokhar please do not unilateraly delete content Intothefire (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the deletions was clearly given in the history page, and I repeat " No need to go into so much detail about an unrelated figure, makes things cluttered, and is not comparable to other similar articles".

The fact this it is sourced is not relevant as I could just as well add 'sourced' information relating to the 1969 Moon Landing and not expect it to be deleted and even claim, as you have, it to be a 'vandal deletion'... my point, as already explained, is that there is no need to go into such detail about the life and actions of Genghis Khan (with images??) in an unrelated article, it makes things cluttered and is not the way Wiki articles are constructed; something that is commonly understood by most Wiki editors, in fact it is just another way of putting forward/emphasising 'your point of view'. However, a brief comparison would be balanced and fair thus the sentence describing the 'comparison' was left untouched. If this matter needs more discussion then please continue as I didn't feel there was a tangible reason as outlined for a clearly good faith deletion.Khokhar (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi K.Khokhar ...Response 1
 * I am posting your recent message on my talk page here to enable this discussion to proceed in totality.


 * ''Please stop posting unrelated and Bloated material that meets your POV in the above article::: and then claiming
 * it to be a vandal edit when it is removed :::Talk:Mahmud_of_Ghazna.
 * Please refer to NPOV_tutorial
 * Khokhar (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)''

Response from Intothefire to K.Khokhar for the above two posts .
 * Please specifically inform which section of my post you found a POV in the section -Regional attitudes towards Mahmud's memory. In fact before I added the referenced content the entire section was POV which is why perhaps that a .tag had been added by another contributor.


 * In fact I believe that considering the contentious nature of the topic and the unreferenced POV comments that existed, my posts added balance . Do you believe my referenced comments on Genghis Khan 's memory are unfair ? In Iran and Afghanistan he is considered a villan while in Mongolia and  Pakistan Genghis Khan has been honoured (with an important Pakistani military operation in his name). The contradiction of Ghazni s impression of hero in one country or countries(Iran and Afghanistan) , and villian in another is a direct and related parallel between Genghiz Khan being a villian in these countries and a hero in Pakistan and Mongolia.


 * I think Your tongue in cheek point about a referenced mention of the moon mission is therefore not applicable .We could do without the sarcasm and focus on the improvement

Intothefire (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may suggest a balanced mutually acceptable construct containing referenced content and I am willing to work towards consesus.

Hi intothefire,

Firstly, the moon landing comment was indeed tongue in cheek and should be taken in the spirit of humour, my apologies if it caused an offense. Having said that I also object to having my user-name paraded as a bold heading as if I was some common vandal even though I had stated clear reasons for the edit. Please correct this.

On topic,

The reason I don't agree with the some parts of the section section -Regional attitudes towards Mahmud's memory is primarily because, firstly, there is a comparison made between Mahmud and Genghis Khan, not by a scholar or historian but by a wiki editor, this is considered original research. However I do not object to this comparison being made as it is an understandable comparison and a common view among Indians whom had a great deal of contact with Mahmud, hence why I did not edit the actual comparison.

Objectively speaking, the section in question contains a paragraph about how Mahmud is viewed in Iran and then a paragraph about how 'he' is viewed in India, at this point a comparison is then made to Genghis Khan without any particular reason other than to put forward a point of view held by Indians/ Indian wiki editors, again, as stated, I don't object to this, however then continuing to focus on Genghis khan with Quotes and pictures and great detail when only two small paragraphs were dedicated to the views held about the actual person in question, Mahmud, is clearly out of proportion and gives undue attention to a largely unrelated figure, there is no logical reason for this other than to put forward a common Indian point of view which considers Genghis (who invaded regional Islamic civilizations) a hero and thus he is considered a counter balance due to the negative view commonly held of Mahmud and other Muslim 'Invaders', for the same reason mentioning that Pakistan has honoured Genghis Khan is again irrelevant and has nothing to do with Mahmud other than to, again, highlight Genghis and counter Mahmud being honoured in a similar fashion. This type of detailed comparison is not seen on any other biographical page as it would be like repeating things, either you would find a scholar/historian being quoted as making the comparison and/or a simple mention with a link which would take you to the page of the comparative person's biography.

Other point's which suggest a non-npov would be "Muslim villain and barbarian", why add 'Muslim' before the word villain? his religion is already clearly mentioned and the word Villain generally does not contain the word Muslim before it, I think the last sentence was not posted by you and you would be correct to say that, that phrase, in itself, doesn't necessarily imply a pov however you then go on to add "In Iran and Afghanistan Genghis Khan is described as a Non-Muslim villain and barbarian", again why do we need 'non-Muslim' before villain and barbarian? in fact it seems clear that the last sentence is also designed as a counter balance that not only implies a negative point of view towards Muslims (this probably was not your intention), but also continues with the same counter balancing.

As for the claims "In India Mahmud is depicted as a Muslim villain and barbarian, bent upon the loot and plunder of the Hindu population. Over the past century in India, a lot more attention has been focused on casualties, temple destruction, and slavery." these are also not referenced/sourced, even though they appear to have been largely put down without any other reason but to portray Mahmud as an evil villain, there may be some truth in these claims, hence I will not edit them as I do not, currently, have the time to do the required objective research. Whereas the section I removed required no research for the reasons already mentioned. Khokhar (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi K.Khokhar....Response 2

Intothefire (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the offending images Genghis Khan.
 * The historians that have commented on Ghazni or Genghis Khan, include Christian , Muslim , Hindu . Indian , Pakistani , western .Emminent Indian historians include Hindu Muslim Christian Buddhist Sikh and Marxist.
 * You may consider reading up scores of Muslim historian accounts of Ghazni that relate his scores of vicious attacks on Muslims of the region referred to as India or Hind and a very large portion of which now falls in Pakistan . Should you like I could add some of these referenced instances . We could start with Farishta.
 * To furthe balance we should include small subsections on regional attitudes on Ghazni in Pakistan as well.

Hi intothefire,

I don't think you understood what I meant, my point is that the 'comparison' between Mahmud and Genghis has not been made by a scholar/historian. I have no doubt that historians of many faiths and countries have commented on both the figures but unless one of these historians has directly 'connected' the two, any comparison or connection made by you is either/and


 * A. POV
 * B. Original research

also 'only' the comments made by the historian 'while making the connection' should be included as otherwise it, again, violates the above two rules.

As it stands there is absolutely no connection between Mahmud and Genghis, other than 'you' making the connection and then including disproportionate details about the 'unrelated' figure.Khokhar (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi K.Khokhar ....Response 3 Ok I will first respond to your points about POV and Original research I would expect that you then specificaly respond to mine. Please provide the reference for  the name of the reliable Historian or book from whom or where the  sub section heading has been recorded viz  Regional attitudes towards Mahmud's memory. Or was this topic itself coined not by a historian but by another wiki contributor like you or me .In which case the topic itself becomes Illegitimate. you do not feel the need to subject it to the same yardstick you are objecting to my contributions. Intothefire (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking your stream of logic further regarding the wiki convention of article having content only from reliable and verifiable historians and books.
 * You do not find, drawing a connection between different neighbouring regions and legacy of a king in the topic  a POV subject , but you find a contribution drawing a parallel between two Marauding kings who caused their invasions in neighbouring regions a POV ? This is patent double standards .If you believe not , then accept that any heading  coined by a wiki contributor is fair.
 * The entire article has only 7 references out of which 4 are provided by me which you object to . That leaves three references . My friend ,the entire rest of the article is composed of unreferenced commentary, but you have no objection to that ...you dont find that POV OR OR?
 * Which goes to prove that your objections are not to issues but to me.
 * This is unconstructive, I asked you to suggest a construct in my Response 1 last point .....no response from you
 * Please respond to my last two points from my response 2 ....still awaited.

Dear intothefire (my fourth post too..)

I am not disputing any of your references about Genghis Khan and the questions you asked in either of your posts are not relevant to the section in question, my point, which you still haven't understood it seems, is that you are adding data about Genghis khan 'not' Mahmud Ghazni, the section is about Mahmud Ghaznavi, so.. if you want to add Ghanghiz khan to the article you need to show a historians/Scholar's connection between the two otherwise it's considered original research, I mean anyone can find a connection between any two people and add lots of information about the other person, but other people may not feel they are unrelated and hence POV, this is why you have to show a connection... otherwise where do you stop??

Like I said before, if a section is about Mahmud, in this case regional views of 'him', and that section doesn't have references then a citation tag can be added but if it's extensive and not needed information about someone (Genghis??) who has no apparent connection to the subject Matter of the article (Mahmud) then it is irrelevant space being taken up... it's not double standards... this is how articles are constructed otherwise I could go on the page of a regional politician and add information about 'all' the other politicians because 'I feel' they are all related as they are politicians in the same region....

As for a construct, well I would be happy to do that but only if you could show me why Genghis Khan should be given so much space in this article. I hope you understand me now.

Khokhar (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. As I said in my first post if you want to make a 'discreet' comparison between them, then that is fine as someone may add a citation tag but adding all the extra information about 'only' Genghis Khan and the extra quotes about Genghis is inappropriate for wiki articles of this nature. Khokhar (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi K.Khokhar ....Response 4


 * lol !.
 * in effect what you are saying is.
 * I dont understand you !
 * My questions to you are not relevant to answer !
 * What you say is relevant what I say is unrelated !
 * You are logical I am not
 * You are sober I am indiscreet
 * Therefore you are right !proof demonstrated 
 * Cheers
 * Intothefire (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I give up arguing with you.. continue your obtrusive POV... Khokhar (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * User Vice regent delets referenced content 
 * Your deletion, 12 June 2009 without discussion
 * Regret you did not care to discuss your above deletion.
 * Please discuss before you delete.


 * I believe your selective deletion of content backed by references
 * from a highly subjective section of the article
 * even while you have chosen not to delete all the unreferenced opinion
 * has made your post and consequently the section deficient and biased.


 * I am often perplexed with users urgent dash  to delete content.
 * What is the basis of such unequivocal surety ,other than dogmatism
 * or is it plain Intolerance with Dissimilar outlook.
 * your deletion is a case in point.

Intothefire (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore accusations of "dogmatism" and "intolerance".
 * I deleted it because it is irrelevant to this article. This article is about Mahmud, not Genghis Khan. I would similarly have deleted content, if, for example, there were comparisons of Hitler with Winston Churchill or George Bush etc. You need to have sources that make the comparison between the two men, before you can put in the quotes.VR talk  15:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who was the founder?
This articles says Mahmoud was the founder of the Ghaznavid empire. The article on Sebük Tigin says he was the founder. The Ghaznavids article says Sebük Tigin was the founder. These can't both be true. I suppose it might be more accurate to say that Mahmoud was "a founder", if they did it together, or that he "expanded" or "strengthened" the Ghaznavid empire. Comment? Fconaway (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted a good faith edit by an IP, because he falsely believes that the city Ghanzi is actually named Ghaznavi. The ending -vi in Persian means from, and hence Ghaznavi = "from Ghazni" or "of Ghazni". Tajik (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"...developed a powerful love of his generals" ?!
This is not quite so. Mahmud is not known for being a lover of his generals. His claim to fame, romantically speaking, is the mutual love and devotion that he and Ayaz have for each other. They are a legendary couple. That is what we need to communicate. Haiduc (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

RV of an edit by 203.99.181.240 which was not really an improvement. Tajik (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghaznavi
whats the point of adding a citation needed for Ghaznavi missiles when you can click on the Ghaznavi link? Hrh80 (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because using internal links to source something is not permitted. See Verifiability. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Although it wasn't me who added that citation tag, but I guess anyone who added it confused it - just like me - that it redirects to the Ghaznavid dynasty's article. That page should have been named as Ghaznavi Missile.


 * "Ghaznavi" refers to anyone who is from Ghazna, and can also refer to the Ghaznavid dynasty (in Persian language usage). There are lots of historical personalities who are titled Ghaznavi. I moved that page to Ghaznavi Missile, in order to prevent any misunderstanding. I hope you would agree with that. Ariana (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FATHER OF GHAZANI
valor of Lohar Ranas because he killed Sabuk-tigin - father of Mahmud Gazni, in the year AD 997, in his own court in Kabul, in presence of his courtiers and still escaped with his party. History has recorded that to avenge the death of his father, Mahmud Gazni attacked Loharpradesh three times and failed to capture Loharpradesh but in one of those aggressions Jasraj lost his life. So alsoMahmud tried to capture Kashmir where we were ruling and failed all the 3 times.He had succeeded in capturing Punjab and other parts of India which is part of history known to everyone but I repeat that our military supremacy was so good that even he could not capture our areas though he succeeded in various other parts of India.jasraj died 1002CE,mohmud capture multan 1005CE.THIS SECTION FROM LOHANA HISTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.47.115.254 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Need change to link
Hi,

The "Jwalamukhi" link in the section "Ghaznavid campaigns in the South Asia" links to the contemporary Telugu Poet, and not the temple. I'm not a regular user here, so do not know how to change it.

Please change it if possible.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.34.58 (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)