Talk:Turk Shahis

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

[Untitled]

The main page kabul shahi should be recreated, that is very important.It is the historical name, turki (bhuddist ) and hindu shais are sub divisions.

Agree Aceditor00 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalaj

User: पाटलिपुत्र The Turk Shahis called themselves Khalaj[1]

"His Excellence, the Iltäbär of Khalaj, Worshipper of the highest God, His Excellence, the King, the divine Tegin […]"

talk) 16:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi @
Xerxes931:. Although interesting, this is a primary source, open to interpretation. What is the point you are trying to make? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
No problem @
Xerxes931:! Nice day to you too! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Xerxes931: I added the coin legend in the article. Nice find! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 02:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Political motivated content discussion

The Turk Shahis arose at a time when the Sasanian Empire had already been destroyed by the Muslim forces of the Rashidun Caliphate.[1] The Turk Shahis then resisted for more than 200 years to the eastward expansion of the Muslim forces of the Abbasid Caliphate, effectively blocking the Muslim conquests in India, until they fell to the Persian Saffarids in the 9th century CE, and the Turkic Ghaznavids finally broke through into India after overpowering the declining Hindu Shahis and Gurjaras.[1][15][2] The long resistance of the Turk Shahis against Muslim expansion may have contributed to the preservation of Indian culture and Hinduism, as "the militant process of conversion" to Islam in conquered lands, which had deeply affected the Near East and the Iranian world, already "was a thing of the past" in the 10th century CE.[15]

Hello Azegi (talk · contribs) could you please refer to the paragraph above where it is politically motivated? Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SunDawn (talk · contribs). The information in the paragraph is not supported by the sources. "destroyed by", "Muslim forces of" and ""the militant process of conversion" to Islam in conquered lands, which had deeply affected the Near East and the Iranian world, already "was a thing of the past" in the 10th century CE" are all politically motivated phrases and sentences unsupported by the sources. The paragraph need to be rewritten. Please stop republishing religiously motivated edits.

Hello Azegi (talk · contribs)! First of all, as you are the one that changed the content, the onus is on you to prove that the reference given by other editors is wrong. For instance, you removed Turkic Ghaznavids finally broke through into India after overpowering the declining Hindu Shahis and Gurjaras even though this is what is written on the reference, on this book. Thus, I feel that your removal of the content is not justified. However, I do also find that some of the previous content is unjustified, as numismatic journals that are used for reference is not likely to comment on the Muslim influence either, as it is not seen on its introduction. Thus, I propose a partial restore of the paragraph, as follows:
The Turk Shahis arose at a time when the Sasanian Empire had already been destroyed by the Muslim forces of the Rashidun Caliphate.[1] The Turk Shahis then resisted for more than 200 years to the eastward expansion of the Muslim forces of the Abbasid Caliphate, effectively blocking the Muslim conquests in India, until they fell to the Persian Saffarids in the 9th century CE, and the Turkic Ghaznavids finally broke through into India after overpowering the declining Hindu Shahis and Gurjaras.[1][15][2] The long resistance of the Turk Shahis against Muslim expansion may have contributed to the preservation of Indian culture and Hinduism, as "the militant process of conversion" to Islam in conquered lands, which had deeply affected the Near East and the Iranian world, already "was a thing of the past" in the 10th century CE.[15]
The final words would look like this:The Turk Shahis arose at a time when the Sasanian Empire had already been destroyed by the Rashidun Caliphate. The Turk Shahis then resisted for more than 200 years to the eastward expansion of the Abbasid Caliphate, until they fell to the Persian Saffarids in the 9th century CE, and the Turkic Ghaznavids finally broke through into India after overpowering the declining Hindu Shahis and Gurjaras.[1][15][2]
What do you think? SunDawn (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SunDawn (talk · contribs). I believe the paragraph is good enough, with minor change of "Sasanian Empire had already been destroyed by..." to "Sasanian Empire had already been conquered by...", since there is no evidence of notable level of destruction.
Meaning final words would be looking as:The Turk Shahis arose at a time when the Sasanian Empire had already been conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate. The Turk Shahis then resisted for more than 200 years to the eastward expansion of the Abbasid Caliphate, until they fell to the Persian Saffarids in the 9th century CE, and the Turkic Ghaznavids finally broke through into India after overpowering the declining Hindu Shahis and Gurjaras.[1][15][2]
Agreed. Can you work that in? SunDawn (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Panturkic page

The main page of Kabul Shahi has to be created. The term Turk and Hindu Shahis do not deliver the concept of Shahi dynasty of Kabul. Aceditor00 (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Bo Fuzhun into Turk Shahis

Should Bo Fuzhun be merged into Turk Shahis? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: There is no reason that the subject cannot be discussed at the target, with proper context. If you see the edit-history, the article was split from Fromo Kesaro which, in turn, was split from Turk Shahis. We know absolutely nothing about this ruler (we have a single premodern source, recording his accession) to devote a separate page. Every scholar discusses the subject in the context of Turk Shahis. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As things stand, each and every bit of information available at
    WP:DUP#2 applies, even if the most conservative reading is applied. Things can be made more compact at merge-target, undoubtedly. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose It is a normal process on Wikipedia to create pages on significant rulers. Often they will be expanded and become quite interesting over time. If not, they at least respond to the curiosity of the Wikipedia reader who wants information about this specific ruler. The information is also much easier to find when linking from another page (your xxxxxxx#yyyyyyyyyy types of links get broken over time with the slightest editorial change, they just don't work in the long run, and if you link to the whole master page it's a pain to find the relevant information). The main criteria for existence of a page is Wikipedia:Notability, not the fact that information is limited or could be found or inserted somewhere else. The master page usually is better off summarizing content, while the sub-page can have all the details. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We need material to expand: currently, there is nothing except a single premodern source, recording his accession. Scholars have kept on writing the same thing about our subject in the last 25 years and will keep on writing so. I admire your hopes of some scholar chancing upon ancient scrolls, medieval chronicles, peculiar coins etc. that might provide more details on our subject but
    we are not crystalballs
    .
    I am not proposing that we delete this article but rather we merge this article to Turk Shahis, which can provide additional information on the dynasty and context. CewBot exists to fix broken redirects due to changes in section-header and that is not a reason to create standalone articles.
    To repeat my arguments from another page, there is no content or detail to summarize since you cannot summarize three lines: one about his accession year, the next about Kuwayama's identification of coins, and the last about Kuwayama's speculation that he might be Khingal of Gardez Ganesha. You need to mention them at the main page or skip them.
    The main criteria for existence of a page is [not]
    The relevant section says,

    When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic. Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.

    Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page [...] Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.

    TrangaBellam (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Again, it is customary to create page for notable rulers on Wikipedia. I'm not interesting in discussing further. Let's see what other editors have to say.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose different personalities. Should we merge bunch of stubs with other stuff? These articles are ok. Beshogur (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyama 1993

Kuwayama, Shōshin (桑山正進) (1993). "6-8 世紀 Kapisi-Kabul-Zabul の貨幣と發行者" (PDF). 東方學報 (in Japanese). 65: 371-430.

Is any English translation available? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions

Pataliputra, Chinaknowledge is not a very reliable source. Please replace the citation. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad though, the author of the site Ulrich Theobald is Senior Lecturer, Department of Chinese Studies, University of Tübingen, Germany. He has a PhD in Sinology. But I'm sure we can find other sources as well. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Inaba Minoru (2015) पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turk_Shahis&oldid=1195122978"