Talk:Kayani Mughal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lights, camera, fiction! OR!

An example to pick only one (the article is riddled with it)...

  • They are the descendants of the Kayani dynasty through a Kayanid prince of Persia, Kai Jamshid (also known as Shah Jamshid)
  • The history of the tribe begins with Jamshid's exile from his kingdom after losing a war with the Assyrian prince Zohak

Not only is Jamshid not a real person, and didn't live in "Persia" (whatever that is supposed to be, it didn't exist in the time Jamshid is said to have been around), Jamshid is not one of the mythological Kayanian dynasts. Of course, the equally mythical "Zohak" is not an Assyrian prince either, and of course Jamshid didn't rule Tibet (elsewhere in the article) and so on and so forth. Total and complete and utter cruft.

Its also quite obvious that the editor has been using Google Books, so I checked that source used for just the first citation ...
"The Afghans by Willem Vogelsang, 2002, p37"

"This group [the Aymaq of West Central Afghanistan] of people is made up of the Chahar ('four') Aymaq, which includes four tribes (the Jamshidis77, Aymaq Hazaras, Firuzkuhis and Taymanis). Together with the Taymuris [...] they are generally semi-nomadic."

Note the utter absence of any mention of the "Mughal Kayanis", but it gets better since at note n77 it says:

"The Jamshidis claim descend [sic] from Jamshid (compare Avestan Yima Khshaêta, the Lord of the Underworld) and they sometimes call themselves also Kayanis (compare the legendary Kayanian, Kavyan dynasty of ancient Iranian tradition)."

This then is the source of the original research that leads from the fantastic claim of descent from the fantastic Jamshid to the equally fantastic are descendants of the Persian Kai Jamshed'. The rest of the article continues in the same hagiographic vein.
-- Fullstop (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for the original source issue. I have not had time to read up wikipedia policies on this hence I have changed the article to reflect this. I can see how this may appear so understand your points (albeit I think your sarcastic and strong tone reflects your possible frustration from working on the Gakhars page.--Merc cyclone (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. The OR described above has not been fixed. The source being cited says nothing whatsoever about the Jamshidis being Kayani Mughals (and only merely that the Jamshidis -- like other clans as well -- also consider themselves to be descended from Kayanis). Moreover, the source says nothing about Jamshid being a Kayanian. Indeed, even mythologically, Jamshid is not a Kay. The Kays begin with Kay Kobad, and between Jamshid and Kay Kobad lie the Pishdadians, including Faridun, Airik, Abtin, Manuschihar, Auzobo, Tamasp, and Keresaspa. And the Kayanians are moreover not "Persian," but generally Iranian.
  2. There is absolutely no evidence in any of the cited sources that "Kayani Mughal" is equivalent to Jamshidi, or even that "Kayani Mughal" is equivalent to "Kayani". That the Jamshidis might perhaps claim to be Kayanis is one matter. But so do numerous other clans. The rest of the article discusses Jamshidis, while the subject of the article is 'Kayani Mughal' and not Jamshidi.
  3. My "strong tone" is not specifically due to the Gakhars article, but due to general misuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox and as a publisher of original thought. With respect to the clan series it is because editors only care about improving their own self-image, and consequently the primary feature of these articles is mere self-aggrandizement and hagiography. The misuse of sources to conflate disparate ideas is also systematic, as is also the misrepresentations of origin myths as "History."
    Fact is, there are pathetically few academic references to any of these clans, and when at all mentioned, this is merely in passing, typically to say that tribe X, Y or Z is yet another family that claims such association.
    With the exception of this article (which at least mentions language, though even that information is questionable since it conflates Kayani Mughal with Jamshidi) I have yet to see any encyclopedic explanation of who these groups are. The only distinguishing characteristic of these groups is that a) they claim descent from some mythological figure(s), and yet at the same time b) they posit that those markers makes them more "elite" than some other group. This dehumanization, based as it is on the contrivances of gotras and purs and class and caste, is not only nauseating, it is also unhistorical: there is no such historical thing as the Kayanis as it is understood today. The notion of "Kayanian kings" developed out of a coalescing of originally disparate concepts.
-- Fullstop (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I take on board what you say Fullstop and have completely altered the article to reflect your point i.e. mention only whats relevant to the article. I have left the Kayani basic history part in Afghanistan as it's relevant to their connection, unless you believe this should also be removed? I would appreciate input here. I am understanding OR somewhat better and can see where the frustration is. My understandig of the Kayani reference is descendants of Kayan in Iran, however that isn't an encyclopedic reference hence not allowed. The references are all inputted now with the immediate citation of the word Mughal Kayanis (which my Gakhar friends seem to keep vandalsing to remove even though their existence has been recorded and referenced in Gazetteers and British Raj era books too...)Please help me improve the article with some more advice if possible?--Merc cyclone (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] utter absence of word mughal kiyani

after reading and researching about you references I only have say that plz read again that books[ of references] which are showing utter absence of word mughal kiyani while about ghakars they are persian tribe and if you research you will know that most of historians and scolars have same opinion that ghakars were persian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.71.216 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It mentions the history of the real Kayani tribe in those references. There is not a single source that confirms or believes that Gakhars are Kayani and that they are imposters. Go away to your own pages which are a laughing stock on the internet as a Punjabi tribe trying to be Turkic and Persian lol--Merc cyclone (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Given that the Kayanis are mythological, the use of such terms as "imposters" is a bit too self-righteous, and much like throwing stones while sitting in a glass house. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for juvenile tribalism, least of all in the context of Central Asia's wild-and-wooly history. And both of you use unscientific and anachronistic terminology, so even if either of you was correct for technical reasons, you would still both be wrong for formal reasons. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
But the first point that anon was making is that there is an "utter absence of word mughal kiyani" in the "books [of references]". Anon is quite correct. Those sources are being misused to discuss a topic that they do not even refer to. This too is original research. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Citations have now been provided, also see above reply....--Merc cyclone (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)