Talk:Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji

message: The authenticity of the claim that Nalanda was ransacked by Bakhtiyar Khilji cannot be verified independently. Two famous historians Will Durant and Sir William Wilson Hunter did not mention such incident in their detailed history of Indian subcontinent. These two historians have done extensive research before they wrote anything about India.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.21.183 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: During 1193, the Nalanda University was annulled by the fanatic Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk; an act seen by academicians as an eventual milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. As per the excerpts from of the Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj in his famous literary work, Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, thousands of monks were burnt alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to replace Buddhism with Islam by the sword. His devastating actions continued for several months and smoke from the burning manuscripts in the library hung for days like a dark pall over the low hills. http://www.hoparoundindia.com/bihar/history-of-nalanda.aspx
However, I did not find any reference to Nalanda in the electronic copies of the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, nor in the electronic copy of the Index to the English translation of the Tabaqāt-i-Nāṣirī. In the section on "The Khalj Maliks in Lakhanawati" pp. 548–593, on pages 551 and 552 Siraj describes the taking of the Bihar fortress and indicates that the inhabitants were Brahmins with shaved heads and that the place was later found to be a college and that there were many books. The lurid details of the "Hop around India" account is not there. This may well not have been Nalanda.  Obviously this issue needs more research in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nalanda 

message: I deleted the cite to Dalrymple, since Dalrymple in his review of Charles Allen's book The Buddha and the Sahibs did not mention either Ikhtiyar or Nalanda.  Both Dalrymple and Allen appear to be more interested in the Hindu persecution of Buddhists, rather than in the later Islamic. The citation was also incorrect, William Dalrymple's review was entitled "When Buddha was sacked". --Bejnar (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalrymple

message: This sentence;
"The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaqat-i Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism."
Has been copied from this book, "I Am Not a Buddhist, page 97. The author has no specialization in history or the time period in question. Therefore this book is not a reliable source and I wil be removing the sentence in question. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: Actualy the article is confiscated as always by the persian people . Iranian historical sources are always fabricated by their nationalists who are strongly opposing the Afghans because Afghans ruled Persia for thousands of years , and second reason is that Iranians are radical shaya (shite) who hate Sunnis as Afghans are 98 % sunnis. after the war in Afghanistan persian speaking community helped iranian government in rewriting the history of the region to their credits. 
Khilji is the biggest root of the Afghan tribe , second largest is the Duranis . Khilji is wrong pronounced by the persian speakers and foreigners , actually it is Ghilji or (Gherzi) which means owners of mountains . it was also described by the arabian historians like Ibne batota as Malok-ul-jabal . the place garimser is in Hilmand a district where there are many ghirzais (khiljis) live side by side with Duranis. 
I would like the moderator of this section to correct the mistakes and please do not confiscate every history , search for it and then write .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanwrites (talk • contribs) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is not accurate because Khilji is tribe in Afghanistan not Turky 

message: Removing the line 
'However, according to Tibetan legend, the university and library were reportedly repaired shortly after by Muditabhadra, a Buddhist sage. The library was again burned by Tirthaka mendicants.[17]'
The reasons are:
No reference to the 1st claim is provided
Regarding the citation 17, which Datta, which book, which page? But more seriously, the reference here is to a myth on destruction which was first narrated in the late 18th century. As per this myth, a couple of Tirthaka mendicants were insulted in Nalanda. Incensed, they underwent tough austerities to gain power of the sun, i.e., they faced the sun for 12 years. Finally, armed with the power of sun, they came back to Nalanda and miraculously burnt some buildings.
http://kafila.org/2014/07/09/how-history-was-unmade-at-nalanda-d-n-jha/
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-history-was-made-up-at-nalanda/
The above are arguments and one may take sides. But the basic fact remains that the story of Nalanda getting burnt is a miracle based tale, not serious history
Now, is this type of tale good enough historical evidence? Again, this is a page on Khilji not on how or how many times was Nalanda destroyed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puruvara (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit in Legacy 

message: This bit from the article seems a little dodgy to me:
The sources cited are two non-English books and a book published by the Islamic Foundation. Going by the publisher name, the third one doesn't seem to pass WP:HISTRS. I'm not sure about the first two -- please provide English translations and quotes from the books if you're adding this back. The article should be specific about what these "some other Buddhist sources" are. utcursch | talk 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest addition is also dubious: the ref doesn't support the assertion that "Some pro Hindutva sources" attribute the destruction of Nalanda to Bakhtiyar Khalji. Irrespective of whether this claim is disputed or not, it appears in several books whose authors cannot be remotely described as "pro-Hindutva"). The second part is pretty much synthesis. utcursch | talk 20:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Savioiur of Buddhists" 

message: This edit, with an edit summary saying "the reference is not based on historical sources. It is unfounded.", caught my eye, and I have reverted it and improved the supporting citation. Firstly, the assertion was not that the article's subject was responsible for the destruction of Nalanda, but that Buddhist sources hold him responsible; secondly, see WP:DUE regarding whether or not cited sources are required to be based on historical sources; thirdly, this source apparently is based on historical sources (see note 87 therein, at the bottom of the now-linked page in the cited source.) Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted removal of sourced content 

message: I think his tribe should be written turko afghan same as khalji dynasty article, so that the articles match. thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:C5FC:B68B:1E2:5B59 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turk o Afghan. 

message: What happened to the mention of the destruction of Nalanda library by Bakhtiyar Khalji?
Sources supporting said destruction:
*From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha, by Donald S. Lopez Jr., page 56-57.
*India's Interaction with China, Central and West Asia, Volume 3, Part 2, Basu Kaushik Ray Ranjan And Nayak Pulin (editors), page 292.
*Destruction' and 'Decline' of Nālandā Mahāvihāra: Prejudices and Praxis, Anand Singh,Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Sri Lanka, New Series, Vol. 58, No. 1 (2013), page 23.
*Historical Dictionary of Tibet, by John Powers, David Templeman, page 465.
*History of Ancient India: Earliest Times to 1000 A.D., by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia, page 191. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destruction of Nalanda library 

message: Kindly take your concerns here. Moreover, I highly advise you to read WP:MOS and WP:CONSENSUS, as well as look at how other infoboxes are presented. By adding the transliteration box, you turned made his name written in italics. In what articles, GA and FA, is this used? And how is this an improvement? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please refrain from calling your fellow editors 'cringe' , my warning was also clearly an autogenerated one, which you copypasted yourself . Moreoever, you have not shown any proof either that 'Ikhtiyār al-Dīn Muḥammad bin Bakhtiyār Khaljī' is WP:COMMON NAME, another reason why it shouldn't be added in the infobox. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

text: So you have no examples, alright. Also, Britannica is not WP:RS, and even if it was, that's not proof that the name is WP:COMMON NAME (please read the guideline). Also, you have violated WP:3RR, included in the same warning which you called 'cringe'.  --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is WP:BRITANNICA not an RS in this context? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, per WP:RSP and those 2017 links it seems reasonable that Brittanica would be RS for the spelling of the name of a person they have an article on. Here's a newer discussion:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_334#Encyclopedia_Britannica_website. There may be sources that spell it differently, perhaps even better sources, but that doesn't make Brittanica non-RS in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. But the user has yet to show that this is WP:COMMON NAME and why the name should be italicized. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Is there any strong reference that his name includes Bin? So many history books including some from national curricular of Bangladesh suggest that the name is  Ikhtiyar Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji, but unfortunately there are lots of them which says there is BIN in that name. 
As per my little knowledge, the Arabic word "Bin" means "son of". The Bangla Translation of Tabaqat-e-Nasiri stated him as "Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khilji. If the translation is accurate then the "Bin" must be removed. I hope experts would solve the confusion. -Asifmuktadir (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also advise that this article name be changed to simply Muhammad Bakhtiyar Khalji. The bin is certainly a mistake, and the vast majority of historians do not accept it including the likes of Jadunath Sarkar, ABM Shamsuddin Ahmed, ABM Habibullah etc. UserNumber (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Name