View text source at Wikipedia

Talk:Sayyid dynasty

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

[edit]

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 15:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan ancestory

[edit]

According to khafi khan , a mughal historian , syeds actually had afghan ancestory . Ozgharzai (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Misunderstanding

[edit]

Here i am. So with all due respect you have very little if any knowledge about sayed dynasty, I am willing to discuss anything because i got a strong case (which is more than obvious). As i said before there is Very little information and literature regarding sayed dynasty's origins. And the claim of there lineage to prophet muhammad is generally rejected (as you might know). As for the punjabi origin, Only one scholar have hardly mentions it and (THATS IT).So the Afghan mention is Extremely important. and if not i really dont know how and why? And these are not my views these are all backed by scholarly research on topic which again should be obvious too. So lets all pot POV on side and honestly contribute.

Read WP:GOOD FAITH, Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS and WP:NPA and then write a new comment. It goes without saying that this is not how you have a proper discussion. Don't expect a reply with such a comment. Also, please read WP:AGE MATTERS as well. Also, I can't find a single mention of the Sayyid dynasty being Afghan in Tribe, Diaspora, and Sainthood in Afghan History. If you continue to edit war you will get reported. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see i am not edit warring or reverting. And sorry if you take it personal (intention was not that).My comment about having less knowledge was only meant about giving info as of cooperating not degrading. But it is just i see something very obvious being undone. You are right about the sources being old but as i said there is (very, really very) little literature about the topic, so what ever we have is very precious (that's why i didn't even delete the punjabi origin which doesn't have any support at all).So i really hope you reconsider it.
Even if that was the case; then so what? that's not a valid argument. Not to mention you still have nothing to back up that they were Afghans. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O.k what the other editor had that he is punjabi? he had a source (only one) saying, that. And lineage of prophet muhammad (which is rejected), with all due respect what you want me to have? I gave a very important primary souce and 2 important secondary sources ( which Again are VERY rare considering he topic at hand. .

I'm gonna repeat myself one final time; two of the sources you cited are literally the same, i.e. The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, which is from 1867, in other words outdated. Moreover, it also seems to be a translation of primary sources (read WP:PSTS). The third source Tribe, Diaspora, and Sainthood in Afghan History. does not even mention them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should pay attention to what i am saying. The first source is old BUT NOT outdated as i have mention 3 times that we have - very little- known about sayeds. That is pretty much what we have. The second source does mention them, just log in and read. And the book mentions them in an accepting manner, agreeing we really dont have to doubt that do we.

This is starting to sound like WP:TENDENTIOUS. Ironically you are the one not paying attention. Click the guidelines and read them. And if indeed the source mentions the Sayyids being Afghans, please show the quote for it and its page. If not, then I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is really difficult to discuss in a situation where any proof or not will not change the outcome, is it not true? and i did read all guidelines thats why i am presenting my case according to wiki rules. I will really encourage you (respectfully) to study more about sayed dynasty, i am sure you will change your postion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.44.191 (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply asked you to provide proof that the Sayyids are called Afghans in the one reliable source there was, which you were unable to. No, this discussion is over. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think we have solved the problem here. Now we have 3 sources.

1-the primary source in the form of book (muntakhabul- lubab).

https://archive.org/details/cu31924073036778/page/n415/mode/2up

2- The (old) secondary source in the form of book (The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period)

https://books.google.no/books?id=P_yZMy1fxsUC&pg=PA404&lpg=PA404&dq=he+khizr+khan+was+by+origin+and+by+names+of+his+ancestors+afghan&source=bl&ots=vgUMvivFbn&


And now the 3- secondary source in the form of book(African Elites in India: Habshi Amarat). Very recent, Published in 2006.(Kenneth X. Robbins, ‎John McLeod)

https://books.google.no/books?id=4xduAAAAMAAJ&q=african+elites+in+india+book&dq=african+elites+in+india+book&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y

- Book is not open but as you told me i have copied the sentence for you.. 

"There are suggestions that Mubarak Shah was an Afghan and related to Khizr Khan Sayyid , the Afghan sultan of Delhi.."

Now i think we have enough material to mention Afghan in the origins. I really hope you go forward and edit it the way you think is appropriate. Thank you.

Again, you are more or less repeating yourself (as you have done various times now). Read the guidelines, especially WP:RS. Last warning, next time you will get reported to WP:ANI for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.Hi. Here is an important secondary -published source.

https://books.google.no/books?id=XrJoBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+of+india++khizr+khan++afghan+john+e+mcleod&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbsfbll532AhV_Q_EDHee_B5IQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=khizr%20khan&f=false84.211.45.132 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another published source (book) by David abram. There might be even more books, but i think we have enough secondary sources already.

https://books.google.no/books?id=yi4PbmKuE70C&pg=PT1276&dq=khizr+khan+afghan&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMyY2e0K_2AhVDAhAIHc9mC4g4FBDoAXoECAoQAg#v=onepage&q=khizr%20khan%20afghan&f=false 84.211.45.132 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still not reliable, consider reading WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can see both new edits in sayid dynasty origins are "unpublished sources" according to wikipedia. Same was mine with African elites in india which if you Research is considered ground breaking work. I know no action will be taken ,hence wikipedia among students-acadamics is becoming a bad joke. Thanks. 178.232.108.161 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Afghan inclusion (closed; see below for new Rfc on this topic)

[edit]

{{rfc|origin|rfcid=2DECBAC}}

Note: are you here to vote on an Rfc? This is not it; see the section below this one.

Hi.I think i have explained myself and "fulfilled" every obligation i was asked for inclusion of Afghan in the origin section. Rest is up-to you guys.84.211.45.132 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IP 84, I have commented out the RFC header for now; please rephrase your Rfc question so that it can be answered by responders here with a Yes or No response. In addition, I'm not sure you've read and complied with WP:RFCBEFORE; please make sure that you have discussed this sufficiently to meet these conditions, and then restore the Rfc header. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (Summoned by bot) Please read WP:RFCOPEN and try again, providing an actual neutral statement that people can discuss. — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 19:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping Mathglot and Bsoyka. I was invited by bot. I'm notifying you that the RFC was reopened below. The new RFC-statement still isn't great, but for what it's worth I investigated and attempted to assist any future RFC-respondents. My response attempts to pull together the relevant background and the relevant sources. You may (or may not) find it helpful. Alsee (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for the ping. — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.I have tried reaching consensus and involving third party but failed. O.K i will rephrase.84.211.45.132 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled the section header and added hatnote above to avoid confusion among editors arriving on this page for the first time. Nice job on the summary, Alsee, thanks very much! Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got one simple question;

How can one mention of khizr khan by just one single author (Eaton) makes it mainstream, while Afghan which is mentioned by historical primary sources such as- muntakhabul lubab and many secondary sources by respected authors makes it fringe? I cant take hold of that logic. Thank you.Mathglot 84.211.45.132 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has just been closed in the section below. Sometimes, one just doesn't end up getting an answer to a question in the way one might like. An alternative venue for you to try would be the WP:Help desk. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i know nothing will work here but here is ACTUALLY my --sixth-- source . I know its funny but couldnt help my self.
https://www.amazon.com/India-Condensed-Years-History-Culture/dp/9812616209 178.232.108.161 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.no/books?id=b7-IAAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=condeensed+history+of+india&hl=no&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=%20afghan&f=false 178.232.108.161 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the author of that book, Anjana Motihar Chandra, is a wellness coach and has no academic specialization in this area or time period(ie. not an historian). Therefore, not a WP:RS.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying if Anjana is not a historian fine, what about other 5 sources? I mean what is wrong with John Mcleod, he is a history professor who's subject is indian history. Why not he is a credibale source? He have many honors (even from indian goverment) for his work and is teaching at the respectable University of Louisville. 46.212.40.72 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just exactly what do you hope to gain from this? That a one word mention of ethnicity, from Mcleod, should be added(somewhere?) to a dynasty, which had nothing Pashtun/Afghan in their culture, religion, or government? An ethnicity which is disputed by Eraly's Arab and Eaton's Punjabi sources(both mentioned in one word sentences) for ethnicity? What was the culture of this dynasty? What language did they speak day-to-day? What type of influences are shown in their architecture? What language was used on their coins? Your insistence on a specific ethnicity, since the RFC went against you, seems POV and tendentious. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of what i gain from this which is nothing, but i see something unjust and wrong and try to fix it. And for culture his entire army were Afghans.His surname (malik) was only used by Afghans in that period in indian subcontinent.etc etc. I can ask the same question from you, why arab and punjabi origin is mentioned (with less sources') and Afghan (with multiple primary and secondary sources) is singeled out and not mention in just three words? Dont you think its unjust and unfair? 46.212.40.72 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
Unsourced. Culture has nothing to do with an army. Which means you do not understand what culture means.
Unsourced.
Wikipedia is written using reliable secondary/tertiary sources. Primary sources, if used, have to be directly mentioned and sourced by secondary sources. The Arab ethnicity source is written by an academic historian(who apparently says something you do not like), while the Punjabi ethnicity source is written by an academic historian(who apparently says something you do not like). All you have one source that says "Pashtun" en passant and nothing else about their origin. Compared to Eraly's quote, which is in the reference, and even the Eaton source gives more than just a passing mention.
That you do not like what 2 academic historians say? Sounds like a personal problem.
So far you have brought a singular source that makes a passing mention of perceived ethnicity. You made two assertions without any sources, thus can only be considered your opinion. So instead of respecting the RFC you have chosen to continue your POV pushing. Since this has been addressed per RFC, continue this at your own risk. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"RfC on Afghan inclusion"

[edit]
Notwithstanding the bludgeoning by one IP, there is clear consensus against adding this content. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi everyone. My original request was to include Afghan in the origins. Afghan origins have the most support among other two origins (as you can see in talk page). I have provided both primary and multiple secondary sources (both old and new). The article have very few historical documents of which the Afghan one is the most common, the least we can do is to mention it in origin section. Hope you guys agree with me. Do you agree? 84.211.45.132 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attempted summary, hopefully helpful for new arrivals: I was randomly selected by bot to respond to this RFC.[1] I know nothing of this topic, but this I what I have been able to gather from investigating the dispute:
    • "Sayyid dynasty" was some sort of ruling family, in India in the 1400's. There appear to be unclear or disputed claims connecting this family to Muhammad, founder of Islam. Furthermore there appears to be some dispute between Sunni and Shia religious sects involved here, either directly or indirectly. The topic is therefore likely subject to a history of ideological, political, and/or religious WP:POV pushing agendas. Under Wikipedia Policy we need to apply particular care in regards to WP:Reliable sources, and what claims we include or assert.
    • I have attempted to identify and review all source links cited in the above discussion. 1 and 2 appear to be the same source, "The history of India : as told by its own historians. The Muhammadan period". This is a compilation of translations of other texts. It likely qualifies as Reliable only insofar as reliably-translating the other sources - it appears to actively disclaim any assertion of Reliability in the original sources themselves. I have had trouble identifying exactly which Primary Source the relevant text is coming from, but it appears to be hundreds of years old. Under Wikipedia Policy, editors have absolutely no business interpreting ancient WP:Primary sources. Any attempt to utilize such sources in Wikipedia would need to be done via a modern academic text evaluating, interpreting, and explaining those ancient sources. Source 3 African Elites in India might fit that criteria, and the relevant text from that source appears to be "There are suggestions that Mubarak Shah was an Afghan and related to Khizr Khan Sayyid". The source does not assert that claim is true. It does not indicate whether it would be relation by ancestry or marriage or otherwise. And notably, the source does not assert or imply that it is a significant, mainstream, or even credible viewpoint. (It might be, but we have nothing to support such an assumption.) It merely asserts that such a view exists. That leaves a problem of assumptions and WP:Due weight, unless we have more/better sourcing. Source 4 is only viewable as a 1.5 sentence fragment. If I am reading it correctly, this source says the self-appointed-ruler asserted that his descendants in Afghanistan had authority to rule. No mention of ancestry. Source 5 "The Rough Guide to India" is arguably the best source, in that it does contain a clear claim that the Sayyid dynasty was descended from Afghanistan. However it is a promotional travel guide, IMO with about as much academic rigor and reputation-for-reliability as a Yelp review. If you want to make a claim of major Religious and Historical significance, you need comparably weighty sources to support those claims. This topic has surely been the subject of extensive scholarship, and if this is the best you can dig up then absence-of-expected-sources starts to become evidence-of-absence-of-sources.
    • By the way, in the article edit history I see multiple accounts blocked for WP:Sock puppetry. And it appears that this very issue was pushed by one-or-more blocked socks. I also note that this RFC was opened by an IP, raising significant concerns that this discussion may be ongoing disruption by a block-evading IP-sock. Alsee (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support : I have never used any other account be sure of that. And my main point is this - there is NOT any other source except the ones mentioned in the article-, which means "again" that we have very few sources and one of them is the arab origin and Eaton describes it punjabi. This -ABSENCE- of sources makes my primary and secondary sources (only one is travel book by a famous author,the other auther john E McLeod is a proper professor and historian what is wrong with that source?) are very important. So much so that one cant - simply ignore it- and move on.`All i am asking is mention of afghan as another theory with muntakhabul lubab as primary source and the old book and McLeod book as secondary sources. It is very inline with how wikipedia functions. 84.211.45.132 (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion, for the reasons detailed in my "Attempted summary" above. Alsee (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the summary above. This claim seems relatively unsourced and doesn't seem to warrant a mention per WP:DUE if I'm reading into this correctly. (Originally summoned by bot above, alerted to this new RfC by Alsee) — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose IP is clearly on a WP:TENDENTIOUS mission to push an Afghan origin (which he has been attempting since May(!) through different IPs), and has yet to post an actual reliable source that supports his claims. Imo, if he makes any further attempt without any WP:RS he should be reported to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Encyclopaedia of Islam makes no mention of the ethnicity of this dynasty, calling them an "Indo-Muslim dynasty", and Bosworth's The New Islamic Dynasties, makes no mention of their ethnicity either. Judging from the sparse and poorly written information about the last three sultans(6 lines?), it seems rather silly to worry about their ethnicity when nothing can even be written about them or their achievements! An important part that is missing is mentioned in the Bosworth source, which states, "...they were unpopular with the Turkish and Afghan military classes in the capital." --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Historian AL Srivastva mentions in his book Delhi Sultanate that "their claim of Descendants of Prophet Mohammad is dubious but it seems certain that Khizr Khan's ancestors came from Arabia". Eaton says Khizr Khan was a punjabi. So it is likely that his ancestors came from Arabia and settled in Punjab. There is not much given about their ancestry in others books I referred, and certainly no mention of Afghan origin. The books provided by the ip are either direct translation of primary sources or travel books hence not reliable from historical point of view specially when there is no other source mentioning Afghan origin. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Alsee, and if this Rfc closes with a very clear consensus, I support a 24-month moratorium on raising the same Rfc topic again. Mathglot (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support inclusion:I have never used any other account be sure of that. And my main point is this - there is NOT any other source except the ones mentioned in the article-, which means "again" that we have very few sources and one of them is the arab origin and Eaton describes it punjabi. This -ABSENCE- of sources makes my primary and secondary sources (only one is travel book by a famous author,the other auther john E McLeod is a proper professor and historian what is wrong with that source?) are very important. So much so that one cant - simply ignore it- and move on.`All i am asking is mention of afghan as another theory with muntakhabul lubab as primary source and the old book and McLeod book as secondary sources. It is very inline with how wikipedia functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.45.132 (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The absence of sources says to me that the majority of historians don't believe there's enough evidence to say anything about it with any confidence. When the majority of professional opinion is that we don't know for certain, the fact that someone is willing to stick their neck out where no one else will and expound a theory about it, doesn't make their theory the majority theory, or even a minority theory; it makes it a WP:FRINGE theory going against just about everyone else in their field. So, it should be excluded on the basis of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.