Talk:Muhammad of Ghor

List of referenced content deleted from this article

• User 117.207.185.74 deletes an entire section containing cited content on Assisination ,for unexplained reasons

Request for check year of death mohomad ghor is killed by our smrat prithviraj singh chauhan but prithvi is also died in 1192.

Request for check year of death mohomad ghor is killed by our smrat prithviraj singh chauhan but prithvi is also died in 1992. Vikaschauhanji (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Prithviraj led a coalition of several Rajput kings and defeated the Ghurid army led by Muhammad Ghori near Taraori in 1191 AD. 103.27.49.37 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Making a quick prose check in the lead

Re:Packer and Tracker: I hope you don't mind, but I am making a quick prose and coherence check in the lead so that your passage through the GA will be smoother. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I've stopped after the first paragraph in the lead. I recommend that a WP:GOCE copy edit be requested before the GA submission. It will save a lot of time in the GA review. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

desecrated

The use of the word desecrated in the sentence "After a general massacre of the populace, the Ghurids desecrated the Hindu pilgrim centre of Benaras" seems bit out of place. I do realize that Benaras suffered destruction, but I understood that it was general destruction, looting, etc. The source cited says "In 1194, Muizzuddin returned to India. He crossed the Jamuna with 50,000 cavalry and moved towards Kanauj. A hotly contested battle between Muizzuddin and Jaichandra was fought at Chandawar near Kanauj. We are told that Jaichandra had almost carried the day when he was killed by an arrow, and his army was totally defeated. Muizzuddin now moved on to Banaras which was ravaged, a large number of temples there being destroyed ..." I think that the emphasis on desecration in the Wikipedia text is misplaced. It seems to me more appropriate to say, "Following the battle, the Ghurids took the fort at Asni, where they plundered the royal treasure of the Gahadavalas, and went on to take the pilgrimage city of Benaras, which was looted and a large number of its temples destroyed." The cited source does not mention a "general massacre". The chronology seems to be that the fort at Asni was taken and then Benaras was looted (sacked). (q.v. here and here) I have made this change based on the source in an effort to make the article more GA worthy. --Bejnar (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any obvious issues with your edits, although i beg to differ on the part of wholesale slaughter in Kashi, the same author (Satish Chandra) covered this bit in his different publication as follows..

As usual the contemporary literary works indulge in gross exaggerations. They place Jai Chand's army at 80,000 men in armour, 30,000 horses....... Jai Chand who is known to be a great warrior, suffered a disastrous defeat.
After great slaughter and plunder, the fort of Asni which contained the Gahadavala treasure-house was plundered...

(great slaughter literally means a massacre)

Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526) - Part One (2006)
(pp:-27) Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at a variety of sources "the great slaughter" was of the troops of Jai Chand, not the citizens of towns. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Although I did not go through the rest of the article over the weekend, i.e. beyond the lead, your remarks show that it possibly continues to have neutrality issues that I had identified a year ago. Please see the last three paragraphs of Lion Capital of Ashoka's history section beginning with "Although Buddhism and Buddhist monasticism ..." for a more NPOV description. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that neutrality issues still exist. One of the problems is that modern Indian sources are often not NPOV. --Bejnar (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Needless emphasis on Indian sources and further labelling them as POV sources is derogatory, more so in the case where the cited sources are from eminent historians of the modern era like as Sunil Kumar, Satish Chandra, K.A. Nizami, Md. Habib et al..

It's not only disparaging, but is off topic as well given that this article had glaring errors for a number of years like his forged tomb being in Pakistan, wrong birth year, not having any offspring though he had a daughter et al which were sorted out by me apart from creating several decent articles on the subject. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 16:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about the other Indian historians mentioned above, but Sunil Kumar was a dear friend. I met him on the basketball courts at the University of Chicago. He was a pretty good player. I have three or four of his books here, somewhere. I have little interest in medieval history, but he was hardly of the POV that I had found in this article when I last examined the neutrality issue. He died unexpectedly a couple of years ago. I owe it to his memory to make sure he has been paraphrased accurately. When I'll get around to it, I don't know. Maybe this coming weekend, maybe next week. But I will. I had forgotten about all the sources I had collected upstairs. The glaring errors described above are errors of fact, not of neutrality. Pinging @TrangaBellam: who I think was also a discussant. I apologize for my fading memory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I will take a look; didn't know it was being nom-ed for GA. Kumar was a man of many abilities - in his college days, he was a gifted track athlete, too! TrangaBellam (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

I highly recommend anyone interested in this article to comment on Wikipedia talk:NCROY#Other pages for disambiguation. This ruler's predecessor is also a Muhammad and bears the same regnal name of another state. If that article is moved to something like "Muhammad of the Ghurids", then it will more or less the same as this article. My suggestion is to move this article to Mu'izz al-Din Muhammad, which already redirects here, and I guess there is no other ruler with that name. Aintabli (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aintabli: We had a discussion last year on it and a consensus was established to use Muhammad of Ghor throughout the article instead of Muizz al-Din. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 05:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review (Sangsangaplaz)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muhammad of Ghor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sangsangaplaz (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Redundant Section

In the 'Early Years' section there is a redundant subsection called 'Title' while the previous subsection is called 'Name and Title'. They should be combined. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternative

Or one or both of them should be renamed if appropriate. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Understandability

The article uses a lot of words which is hard for users to understand such as 'condominium' (which is modernly used for apartments) and use of words to watch which can ruin the encyclopedic feel of the article. I will try to fix as much as I can though I will not make any major edits and i will make only minor edits. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

On Hold

Since this article meets all the criteria, when the above problems are addressed I will pass this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangsangaplaz (talk • contribs) 07:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed

@Sangsangaplaz:The issues you pointed out above has been fixed now, could you please point out other minor issues ? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 02:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

After subsection

@Re Packer: I recommend renaming the aforementioned section to something more appropriate. Then this article is a pass.

@Sangsangaplaz: I did renamed it to the best it suits the content in the section which includs his birth year and title, though could you suggest anything more "appropriate"? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 19:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I renamed it to "Early life" now which probably is more nuanced then early career, isn't it more or less fine now ? Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 19:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry for the mistake I meant the Later subsection Sangsangaplaz (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sangsangaplaz: Which section ? Please mention the name specifically. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 13:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sangsangaplaz: I renamed "early carrer" sub section to "accession to the throne", think all these minor issues are resolved now and it should be pass. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 03:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review (Trangabellam)

Sources Section (Missing)

Please create an overview section on Sources and their follies, biases, etc.; see Nezak_Huns#Sources for a guide.

Birth Section

• K. S. Lal needs to go; see Subrahmanyam (2023), et al.
• His name is variously transliterated as Muizuddin Sam, Shihabuddin Ghuri, Muhammad Ghori and Muhammad of Ghor.

• Such a framing is only used when dealing with some King X who was differently translated by historians writing in different languages - say, by Arabic and Chinese chroniclers. We don't have such a case here; hence, do away with the line.

• According to the Tabaqat-i-Nasiri, his birth name was "Muhammad" which is vernacularly spelt as "Hamad" by the Ghurids.

• The italicized part is unencyclopedic trivia.

• During his childhood, his mother used to call him "Zangi" due to his dark skin tone.

• Perhaps introduce a link to Wikitionary's entry on زنگی.

• After the coronation in Ghazna, he styled himself as "Malik Shihabuddin" and after his occupation of Khurasan, he took the title of "Muizzuddin" or "Mu'izz al-Din".

• Shift this line to the relevant chronological sections. Boldface the stylized titles.

• The synchronous accounts ...

• What are these accounts? They have not been introduced before. Will probably be fulfilled by the proposed section on Sources.

Title Section

• Do away with this seperate section; these will be discussed within the article. "Sultan-i-Ghazi" is not really a title, etc.

Accession to the throne

• However, their efficient administration of the province, made him doubtful of their uprise and seeing a possible challenge to his own authority, he ordered his nephews to be imprisoned in the castle of Gharjistan.[8] Although, they were released from the captivity by his son Sayf al-Din Muhammad after the death of his father in 1161.

• You meant uprising? Although anticipates a contrast; we have none, here.
• Reframe it as, However, Ala al-Din soon grew wary of the brothers' increasing sway over the provinces and fearing an usurpation, had them imprisoned in the castle of Gharjistan. They would only be released ....

• Sayf al-Din, later died in a battle against the nomadic Oghuzs of Balkh.

• Why shall an average reader of our article care about how he died unless it involved our subject?

• After their release from the captivity, "Tarik-i-Firishtah" states that the Ghurid siblings were reinstated in Sanjah, although the earlier account of "Tabaqat-i-Nasiri" stated that the hardship continued due to their financial conditions. Muhammad thus, took shelter in the court of his uncle Fakhruddin Masud who held the principality of Bamiyan as vassal of their uncle Alauddin Husayn.

• Do we have conflicting sources? For example, TiF only has their reinstatement as governor while TiN only has them taking refuge? The situation is not clear from your construction.

• Later, Fakhr al-Din Masud laid his own claim for the succession after Sayf al-Din death as the elder member of the Ghurid family.

• This is horrible ungrammatical prose. Reframe as, After Sayf al-Din died, Fakhr al-Din Masud claimed the throne by virtue of being the eldest among the Ghurid clan.

• Muhammad helped his brother in suppressing the revolt of Fakhruddin ...

• Sorry, but two lines ago, you had the two being sheltered by Fakhr al-Din. So, rationally, they ought have helped him because it would have cemented their chance of succession upon his death? Or, did they take this power-vacuum to have a (succesful) shot at the throne?
• Also, Fakhruddin was revolting against whom? The identity is important because indirectly (if not directly), the brothers came to his aid! And, how did they negotiate with him after suppressing the revolt?

• his brother succeeded Sayf al-Din to the throne in 1163 and initially placed Muhammad as a minor officer in his court, which result in him retiring (unhappy with his position) to the court of Sistan where he spend a whole season.

• placed > appointed.
• unhappy with his position does not make much sense esp. as a bracketed appelation. Is it your aim to convey that Muhammad did migrate to the Court of Sistan but without resigning from his brother's Court? Such a conveyal seems anachronistic, though.
• Whole season - an year?

• However, later Ghiyath-al din sent an envoy to brought him back who subsequently placed him in charge of the southern part of the Ghurid domains which possibly included Istiyan and Kajuran.

• to brought > to bring
• I won't progress further; please get a GOCE copyedit done.

Overall

FAIL as of now. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, if you are failing this nomination, please complete the necessary steps at WP:GAN/I#FAIL. Certainly, if this needs a GOCE copyedit, this nomination should not remain open until the copyedit is done, as the backlog there is months long. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move at Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian campaigns of Muhammad of Ghor#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to watchers of this page. Schierbecker (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)