Talk:Amir Khusro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amir Khusro article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Comment by 203.81.213.25 on June 25, 2007

this was not said by Amir Khusrao. It was said by a Mughal emperor when he first laid eyes on Kashmir.

I have heard this too, in the days of my youth. But it's most probably one of those apocryphal stories. Mughal emperors were not exactly in the habit of spontaneously breaking into verse.

That being said, does anyone know whether it was in fact said/written by Khusro? Any reference or citation? Should it just be taken out? --Sarabseth 23:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war of Aug 30

I don't see how the edits by 77.178.248.71 that Beh-naam reversed were "nonesense".

Both of you need to grow up. There is no point whatsoever going back and forth reversing each other's edits endlessly. In the spirit of wikipedia, let other editors adjudicate this dispute between you. --Sarabseth 16:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Message for Anoshirawan:
If it is true that "His father was from Balkh, Balkh is a Persian city. and he had no knowledge of any turkic language", it should be possible to support that by a citation. Please do not revert back without a proper citation. You can't cite an elliptical couplet by Khusro as proof of autobiographical facts. --Sarabseth 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Amir Khesrao himself claimed I am not a Turkic speaker and now you are telling me what others say. --Anoshirawan 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the statement: "You can't cite an elliptical couplet by Khusro as proof of autobiographical facts"?
Do you not have any reference for your claim that "His father was from Balkh, Balkh is a Persian city. and he had no knowledge of any turkic language" other than the couplet you cite?
Do you think this request was unreasonable: "Please do not revert back without a proper citation."
I request you to consider the issue with a cool head. --Sarabseth 12:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The word "Turk" should be linked to Turkic peoples and not to Turkish people. The Turkish people are the citizens of Turkey, while Amir Khusraw was a descendant of Persianized Central Asian Turco-Mongols. I think that Beh-nam's reference to his poetry should be used as a source for the fact that he was Persian- and Hindustani-speaking and did not understand "Turkish" (most probably Chagatai language).

[edit] Warning to Anoshirawan

Enough is enough.

You are obviously intent on ignoring the problems that multiple editors have with the reverts you keep on making. Invited to discuss the matter, you have chosen to dismiss the concerns rather than address the issues raised.

If you repeat your revert one more time, I am going to report you to Wiki administrators and ask that you be blocked from editing this article.

I'm sorry it has come to this, but you don't seem to have left any choice. --Sarabseth 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Apart from everything else you violated the three-revert_rule on August 31/Sep 1 when you reverted this article 5 times within 24 hours. --Sarabseth 22:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: After he reverted again, I did report him (for the 3-RR violation). He has been blocked for 72 hours. --Sarabseth 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Amir Khusrow was of Turkic origin. The Encyclopaedia Iranica writes:
  • "... AMÈR K¨OSROW DEHLAVÈ, NAÚSáER-AL-DÈN ABU÷L-H®ASAN (651-725/1253-1325), the “Parrot of India,” the greatest Persian-writing poet of medieval India. Son of Amir Sayf-al-d^n Mahámu@d, a Turkish officer, and an Indian mother, he was born in Patiali and early displayed his poetical talent, encouraged by his maternal grandfather, ¿Ema@d-al-molk. ..." [1]
However, this article overemphasizes his Turkic origin. Amir Khursow was born to an Indian mother, and he grew up in an environment that was most certainly Persianate, that's why he chose to write in Persian. By the way: this article claims that he belonged to the Turkish people which is wrong. His father belonged to Central Asian Turkic peoples, that's a different thing. The "Turkish people" are modern citizens of Turkey and mostly descendants of early Anatolian and European peoples who were later linguistically Turkicized. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia speak different Turkic languages (mostly from the Qarluq language family - as opposed to the Oghuz languages), and are descendants of various original Turkic, ancient Iranic, and Mongol peoples. Amir Khusrow's father beonged to these Central Asian Turks. In modern sense, Amir Khusrow would be comparable to modern Hazaras of Afghanistan: a Persian-speaking people of medieval Turkic and Mongol ancestry.

Please have the courtesy to sign your contributions.

Whether the article "overemphasizes his Turkic origin" is debatable. And has been debated here at great length in the past.

However, that's not what the dispute over Anoshirawan's edit war campaign is about. As has been made clear repeatedly, the dispute other editors have with Anoshirawan is over:

a) invoking an elliptical couplet written by Khusro as autobiographical testimony, and using it to trump material supported by multiple cited sources

b) refusing to discuss the matter here when requested to

c) refusing to yield to the consensus of other editors --Sarabseth 16:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

82.83.139.81 said

However, this article overemphasizes his Turkic origin.

and

By the way: this article claims that he belonged to the Turkish people which is wrong.

There are only two sentences in the article which contain the character string "Turk", and both occur in this paragraph:

Amir Khusro, a Hindustani Turk was born of a Turkic father, Saif ad-Dīn Mahmoud, who was one of the chiefs of the Lachin tribe of the Karakhitais of Kush, Transoxania[6][7] and a Rajput (Rawal) mother, in India.[8] His grandfather bore the name of Turk.[9].

One, the article clearly does not claim that he belonged to the Turkish people
Two, it is hard to see how two simple statements of fact ("a Hindustani Turk was born of a Turkic father" and "His grandfather bore the name of Turk") constitute overemphasizing his Turkic origin. --Sarabseth 17:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I was not talking about Anoshirwan who has also messed up the Hotaki dynasty article. I am talking about the current article. The word "Turk" in the sentence is linked to Turkish people, that's wrong. It should be linked to Turkic peoples. And it is not needed to say that he was a "Hindustani Turk", that "his father was a Turk", and "that his grandfather was called Turk". This is unnecessairy. It's enough to mention that his father was a Turkic general. We do not know if he himself identified himself as a Turk or not and it is irrelevant anyway. People back then did not idenhtify themselvs in terms of ethnicity, except for a very few cases. Like in Iranica, the article should mention that his father was a Turk (with link to Turkic peoples!) and that his mother was Indian. The expression "Hindustani Turk" and the reference to his grandfather's given name (totally irrelevant here) should be removed. That's all.

Then maybe you should have started a new topic, and not posted your comment under "Warning to Anoshirawan". --Sarabseth 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that certain things in the article are wrong, and this includes the false claim that he belonged to the Turkish people (= citizens of the Turkish Republic), and the irrelevant reference to the alleged name of his grandfather. Even the source you have attached to it, that of Dr. Iraj Bashiri, explains in detail that his father belonged to the Khitan people - to the Kara-Khitan Khanate (who, btw, were not Turks but Turkicized Mongols). Someone should fix that problem.

Why do you stoutly refuse to sign your comments? To the point where when a bot adds your IP address to your comments, you go in and remove it. What's up with that? --Sarabseth 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's of no importance whether I sign my comments in the talk page or not. What matters is that the current article is in a miserable condition, and that its introduction contains major mistakes. IPs and newly registered users are not allowed to edit the text. And established users, such as yourself, do not want to correct the mistakes, and instead worry about other people not signing their comments in the talk page. Anoshirwan may be a POV pusher, but - as it seems to me - you are not different.

This may be difficult for you to understand, but I'm not going to go in and make changes based on things I do not know anything about.

If you feel so strongly about the state of this article, why don't you become a registered user. Especially given how active you are, making multiple edits every day to multiple articles. Is there some particular reason why you feel the need to hide behind an IP address (that you are not even willing to allow to appear on this page)?

And if you're going to make allegations, and you care at all about integrity and honor, you should be prepared to substantiate them. How, pray, am I a POV pusher? --Sarabseth 02:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you admit that you have no knowledge of these toppics, then WHY do you edit these articles?! If you want to learn the difference between Turkic peoples and Turkish people, then just read the respective articles. Do you want me to explain to you the difference between Germanic peoples and German people as well?! Or the difference between Iranic peoples and Persian people?! I have also given you a link from the Encyclopaedia Iranica, the standard reference work for Iranian and Oriental studies. What else do you want?! If you have no idea of the toppic, then please - with all due respect - leave the article to others and those who know what they are talking about. And do not worry about Anoshirwan anymore, because (as you yourself have already admitted) there is not much difference between you and him.

Dear 82.83.152.225/82.82.133.241/82.83.139.81/82.83.153.142, it has obviously escaped your notice that the article is not about the difference between "Turkic peoples and Turkish people". If it doesn't hugely discommode you, I'll continue to make edits on those aspects of the article that I do know something about.

I should have known that you're the kind of coward who will make allegations about someone else, and then refuse to either substantiate or withdraw them.

I've come to the end of my patience with your nonsense, so I won't be responding any more. --Sarabseth 14:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop accusing people you do not know, Sarabseth. I cannot use my account right now, because of a larger process that is currently being investigated by some admins and affects other Wikipedians as well. It's because of the ban of some Wikipedians and alledged sockpuppet abuse, which was obviously wrong. I do not want to hide my IP - that's all you need to know. In regards of your edits, most of your edits in this article were about Nasir Khusrow's origin, a toppic you have no knowledge about as you have already admitted. You claim that he was a citizen of Turkey (in fact, that's what you have written in the article), despite the fcat that Turkey was created 800 years after Nasir Khusrow! This is POV pushing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.152.225 (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening sentence edits of 1/23/08

"Amir Khosow is mostly known because of his Persian poetry and his Persian qawwali ghazals. He is regarded the most important Persian poet of India next to Iqbal)" is a POV statement.

Khusrau is an iconic figure precisely because of his multi-dimensional genius. His contributions to Hindustani classical music are seminal. To say he is "mostly known because of his Persian poetry" is certainly disputable.

Highlighting poetry to the exclusion of music in the first sentence makes it unnecessarily argumentative.

Far better to say just that he "was an iconic figure in the cultural history of the Indian subcontinent", and talk about both the poetry and the music after that.--Sarabseth (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait on introductory page on Amir Khusro.(Khamsa e Nizami)

It is indeed amazing and moreover shocking to see that a world-class information pool such as the Wikipedia, whose authenticity is unquestioned these days, can depict page from a miniature copy of Nizami Ganjawi's Khamseh as a work of Amir Khusrau Dehlavi to make an introductory gesture on Amir Khusrau!

Ameer Khusrau did write his own Mukhammas or Khamsa as you rightly quote in the article but he had nothing to do with Nizami's Khamsa at all.Lutfullah (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

The Met disagrees with you – cacahuate talk 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cacahuate, with great respect for your illustrated personality, I request very humbly to you to revisit the web-page of The met again! It very aptly and clearly describes the miniature as from the KHAMSA OF AMEER KHUSRAU! NOWHERE DOES IT ATTRIBUTE THIS MINIATURE AS FROM THE KHAMSA OF NIZAMI GANJAWI!. I hope you take my point and request the editorial committee/board of Wikipedia to change the text of the introduction by deleting the words Khamsa e Nizami and correctly inserting the words Khamsa e Amir KhusroLutfullah (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah

I've changed your first comment back to its original statement, it's better not to alter your comments to change their original meaning once people have responded to them. You were under the impression that it was a page from Nizami's Khamsa, when I showed you that it is from Amir's version of his khamsa (the Met website also states Amir Khusrau Dihlavi wrote his reprise of Nizami's Khamsa at the end of the thirteenth century). A quick Google search shows that it it often referred to as the "Khamsa-e-Nizami by Amir Khusro". Also later in the WP article it states "Amir Khusro was the author of a Khamsa which emulated that of the earlier Persian-language poet Nizami Ganjavi". Regarding editing though, you're welcome to edit the article, everyone's an editor here. – cacahuate talk 15:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Cacahuate! Hats off to thee! I respect people with insight with all my heart. Please however get the introduction edited yourself or from Wikipedia's qualified editors to give the article authenticity. I am afraid, I am not bold yet enough to do major edits here.Lutfullah (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Lutfullah