Talk:Ghaznavids

message: Even the Seljuks are Persianate for wiki. What a shame. What a massacre.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.141.60 (talk) 11:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is messing the History 

message: User:Nickzlapeor has been removing :Category:History of Pakistan without explanation, telling me on my Talk page that it needs none. As the Ghaznavids empire covered a large part of what is now Pakistan, it seems to me to belong in that category (as well as in :Category:History of Iran etc. If anyone believes otherwise, can we please have an explanation here? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That brings up the question of what is meant by "History of Pakistan". Does it refer only to the history of the current political entity known as Pakistan, or to the region that currently encompasses what is now Pakistan? And that requires discussion and consensus rather than your unilalteral decision that it should be the former. My feeling is that the latter, ie the geographic region, is more commonly used by Wikipedia - for example, History of England covers the history of the geographical place that is now known as England, and goes back far further than the current political entity known as England. (Also, as this is a wider discussion than just this one article, I'll try to find a relevant project to raise it at too) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Pakistan 

message: In the article, instead of using the term Slave, it's better to use Mamluk. BozokluAdam (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mamluk and Slave, Different Terms 

message: After reading through this book, I do not believe the information, regarding the Ghaznavid's "Sasanian" ancestry on page 112, is verifiable. A Sasanian family tree listing Yazdegerd III followed by a "?" then a Firuz i Barsinjan(who is subsequently followed by Kara Naman, Kara Millat, Kara Arslan, Huk and finally Sabak Tegin), is hardly evidence. The relating information about the Ghaznavids, found on pages 114-115, make no mention of Firuz-i-Barsinjan, Kara Naman, Kara Millat, Kara Arslan nor Huk. The Ghaznavid genealogical tree on page 116 also makes no mention of the individuals in question. Therefore, I am removing this reference as it does not have the required information to source this statement, "The Ghaznavids were also descended from the kings of the Sassanid Empire from Yazdegerd III's line". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manuel : d'histoire, de généalogie et de chronologie de tous les états du globe, depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à nos jours. 

message: The paragraph: They occupied Bukhara in 992, establishing in Transoxania the Qarakhanid, or Ilek Khanid, dynasty. After Alp Tigin's death in 993, Ishaq ibn Alptigin followed by Sebuktigin took to the throne. seems to have incorrect dates, since Alp Tigin died in 963. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong dates ? 

message: If Alp Tigin founded the Ghaznavid dynasty at Ghazna (modern Ghazni Province) in 962, why is he not the first Ghaznavid ruler? --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that the date that they first impacted Persia? Do you have a citation? Other sources seem happy with the 961 or 962 date. See article. --Bejnar (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First Ghaznavid ruler

message: Future Perfect at Sunrise requested a citation for the Ghaznavid flag.  When a citation to Persian Heritage (magazine) was provided, Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the flag, indicating that Persian Heritage (magazine) was not a reliable source. The magazine's recent issues can be viewed at their website. Now it is true that a publication can be a reliable source for some things and not for others, but I fail to see why Persian Heritage (magazine) is not, in general, a reliable source for its non-editorial content, especially on a non-controversial point. Issue taken to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Persian Heritage (magazine). --Bejnar (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: It's super sweet you found a manuscript, but this a primary source and you are doing OR. Ogress smash! 04:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ghaznavids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929125948/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0 to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=80201010&ct=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ghaznavids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311042545/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/mahmud_ghaznavi/Mahmud%20Ghaznavi.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/kings_master/kings/mahmud_ghaznavi/Mahmud%20Ghaznavi.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please change "The use of these elephants in other regions that the Ghaznavids fought in, particularly in Central Asia, to which the elephant was a foreign weapon." to "The use of these elephants was a foreign weapon in other regions that the Ghaznavids fought in, particularly in Central Asia" Big kush daddy 420 (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 19:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019 

message: Why Ghaznavids and not Ghaznavid dynasty? The second one is more common for this kind of states. Aryzad (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title? 

message: The infobox has a map of the Ghaznavid empire, but I couldn't find the source for it. It wrongly includes Kashmir in the empire, whereas it is well known that Kashmir repelled their invasions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced infobox map 

message: Anyone knows which Turkic? Karluk? Sounds a bit vague. Beshogur (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkic language 

message: The term Persianate itself is flawed as it is very narrow. Japan was influenced by Chinese culture probably a lot more than the Ghaznavid Empire was influenced by Persian culture but we don't call the Japanese Empire as Sinate or Chineseate. It is a misleading term. It should not be in the lede. The Ghaznavids also had influences from various other cultures. Not to mention that Persian culture itself has been highly influenced by Arab culture. Let's avoid such narrow terms.Historynerdboy (talk) 04:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is written using reliable sources, not your personal opinion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Issue with Persianate label

message: The military and tactic section must be edited and freed from errors and some POVs. Unfortunately, editing is not possible due unknown reasons. --88.215.91.49 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What 'errors' and 'POVs' exactly? The section is well-sourced, and the article is protected since it constantly suffers from disruption. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you have reliable sources that back up your statements, I'll add them to the article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military and Tactics must be edited and freed from errors and POVs 

message: This article deals more with a polity founded and ruled by the Ghaznavid dynasty than the dynasty itself, so my proposal is pretty logical. Even the infobox contradicts the title of this page. Any thoughts, , , , , , , , ? VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghaznavids seems like be the most common name. However if we could divide the article into empire and dynasty, then I can support. It looks like "Empire" is more frequently used than "dynasty" as well. I don't like the name "Ghaznavid dynasty", since it is an empire based on a total different locations than Iranian, Afghan and other Turkic empires. Beshogur (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: agree per Beshogur. BerkBerk68 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move the page to the "Ghaznavid empire" 

message: Mention the descendents of the Ghaznivids. The Hazaras being 99% of Ghazni with the same Turkic features has not even been mentioned once In the Wikipedia page and needs to be added.
The modern day Ghaznavids are the Hazaras that live in Ghazni and the Hazaras are the descendents of the Ghaznivids that lived in that era. There has been no mention of them In the Wikipedia page and i request that the Wikipedia team writes about them and the inhabitants of Ghazni (the Hazaras) with the same Turkic features and DNA as the Ghaznivids. Their religion Is now prodominantly Shiite Islam due to the force conversions of Shah Ismail I during the Safavi era. General313 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023 

message: @Kansas Bear @HistoryofIran Hey just wanted to ping you guys per my recent addition since you guys seem to edit these topics a lot -- 
I added a phrase that states the Ghaznavids of Turko-Afghan origin. If you wish to revert it, I am fine with that completely. If it's possible discuss it on the page here, that would be nice. 
The reason for the addition was that while subsequently researching on the Khiljis of Malwa, I stumbled upon a common reference term in books stated as the "Turko-Afghan period", which usually considers to have been started at the Ghaznavids and Ghurids, and extends to the Delhi Sultanates. I added some sources here on this page for the reference of "Turko-Afghan origin", but scrolling up on this talk page I see it has been a clear sign of dispute in the past.
I hope that this is clear that the term Afghan here should not be considered synonymous with Pashtun in this example. And I think adding a note would fix that (if this origin idea to be implemented in the lead and later is even agreed upon). Noorullah (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the citations you added are either written by nobodies (Claude  Cahn and Everett Jenkins, Jr.) or by authors who are far away from their field of expertise (Ross E. Dunn, Jan Lucassen). WP:UNDUE also comes to mind here - the origin of the Ghaznavids are not even remotely disputed - they were Turks from a slave background. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @HistoryofIran Got you, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: The slave dynasty 154.80.104.114 (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History