Talk:Ahmad Shah Durrani

This long section has little connection with Ahmad Durrani and the relevance of him for the region the section deals with, is unclear.--Severino (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I completely concur. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree and except the two last sentences, the whole section should be deleted. It is longwinded and includes random information that has nothing to do with Durrani. It also includes some 19th century style racialist thinking of mad dog, to which many Afghans are unfortunately very much attracted. There is no reason this needs to be here. 88.153.22.211 (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

thirding this, completely irrelevant ramblings, pretty much all of it is by Milktaco, which appears to be a hacked account, how is this still up after 5 years ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.143.179.180 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Added Battle of attock Battle of lahore Battle of peshwar with citations From their respective main articles Please take a review And suggest some changes if neededThank you. Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa, don't copy paste from other articles. If you are going toadd that info rewrite it from reliable sources, not just copy pasting. Kailanmapper (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to Nejatie's The Pearl of Pearls: The Abdālī-Durrānī Confederacy and Its Transformation under Aḥmad Shāh, Durr-i Durrān,[1] "The fact that numerous sources composed in the ruler’s lifetime consistently connect him in his youth to Herat justifies the stance of Ghubār and others that Aḥmad Shāh was, in fact, born in the Herat region, around the time his father passed away and when the Abdālī leadership still exercised authority over the province." Some of the sources cited about Multan seems colonialist, not scholarly. Also, the Encyclopaedia of Islam cited is a tertiary source so it may not be really helpful in such a dispute, as Wikipedia favors scholarly WP:SECONDARY sources. My solution to this dispute would be to mention Herat, the most likely place of birth, in the infobox, but also mention Multan in the body of the article. The opinion of other editors is welcome here. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Removing 6 academic sources because they are "colonialist" (whatever that is supposed to mean) or apparently "tertiary" in favour of a PHD thesis is not constructive. In fact, per WP:UNDUE the Multan suggestion should be given more weight. Please read WP:POV. EDIT: For those who are interested in fixing the WP:UNDUE issue of this article, I found even more sources that state he was born in Multan, that's 9 sources now; [2] [3] [4] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The removal of high quality sources like Encyclopedia of Islam in order to replace them by a PhD sounds like tendentious editing ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I do understand the viewpoint of both sides, however I believe that Abdali may have been born in Herat, my reasoning for this being would be the main point; the Sadozai Sultanate of Herat, where the Sadozai dynasty, under where Ahmad Shah's dynasty ALSO came from, and the region where his father was also likely leading, I believe that Abdali was likely born in Herat because of this, as the Sadozai Sultanate of Herat was a independent nation during the turbulent period that was of Safavid Persia during this period of time, fighting over the concurrent Hotak rebellion, which would attempt to also usurp main Persia. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

What we believe is irrelevant, this is what 9 scholarly sources state, including EI3. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, even the main source I use, also believes that Ahmad Shah was in fact, born in Multan. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

For those still interested in rewriting this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:POV, this is the previous revision [5] before Khestwol removed the vast majority of the citations support a Multan origin, instead of organizing them into one single citation (like the Macedon bit in the lede of Alexander the Great). --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

As we can see in the earlier version, the refs were poorly formatted, with repetitions, and tagged as "excessive citations" since August 2021. It needed trimming down. Khestwol (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'll later format them like the afromentioned article. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes that would be great, thanks HistoryofIran. I think the Early life section can be expanded with more details about his father, mother, and family, from reliable refs. Khestwol (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@HistoryofIran Hey, I am asking users who are occasionally active on these pages, but I am just notifying you guys, that I will likely be working on a revamp on Ahmad Shah's page soon, just like how I did to Timur Shah Durrani, however I might do Zaman Shah Durrani, Mahmud Shah Durrani, and Shah Shuja Durrani, and Dost Mohammad Khan first. As I already revamped the pages, but newer sources I obtained have shed light to expand a lot. Noorullah21 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was planning on expanding this soon myself, but it seems you may have beat me to it. Please be aware of WP:RS and WP:SPS, I can see some of the sources you have used are not reliable, such as James M. Perry, who is not really a historian. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your notice, however, if you actually plan to expand it yourself, go ahead, I am completely fine with it, I am, well, as you can see currently focused on many other pages as stated above before I can move onto this page, so by all means, if you wish to do it yourself, go ahead. @HistoryofIran Noorullah21 (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@HistoryofIran I began working on revamping the page on my main page in a sub page, you can check it out yourself if you want to see progress so far. Noorullah21 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

in "sandbox 2" Noorullah21 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

• In addition to suggestion by HistoryofIran on keeping WP:RS into consideration, the citation by Afghan Court Chronicle, Faiz Mohammed Kateb Hazara is highly unreliable, not just due to its age but also in particular due to agenda behind the commissioning of the book by Emir Habibullah Khan which the Emir had full control over the finished product such as editing, censorship such as removing unpleasant views, and to review the work in progress. I would suggest using secondary source. MehmoodS (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  @MehmoodS The source I am using, was the copy that was untouched by the emir, and was translated into English. It is relatively unbiased but just brings a lot of religious points when talking into the book about its history. Their was multiple copies of Siraj-Al-Tarawik, and the version this appears by is relatively good, just a lot of religious standpoints brought into it, like for example calling a person by their islamic titles ie "hajji" Noorullah21 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Age-wise is debatable, which is why whenever I usually look through, I use a secondary source to back the point up if it seems like it may have been a old source, however, the book actually stands against the test of time pretty well, for example, it refers to the Ghurid Empire as a Persian dynasty, rather then an AFGHAN one, which was commonly believed back then. It seems to follow what modern sources detest about the time, and the 2012 translation also usually tries to put footnotes in different parts of the book where information could have been changed over time, so I think the source is still fine to use, but would be better if backed by a secondary source in some areas. Which is why I am probably going to use Drahm's source to back it up in certain areas. Noorullah21 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  The revised version on which Amir Habibullah wanted appears to be the "Serāj al-tawārī (Lamp of Histories)". Noorullah21 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Yes certainly you can use book by Jonathan Lee/Drahm as secondary source. But when it comes to book by Fayz, the study of this book particularly, states that it was overlooked by Emir and went through censorship by Emir himself and also it wasn't written by Fayz independently but rather commissioned by Emir to fulfill agenda. Book is also biased when it comes to opponents where words such as infidels, Kafirs are used. Also, the age is issue especially when secondary sources are required and do exist if searched. Even though it was translated in 2012, it still is at most a primary source. I did get opinion on it on WP:RSN about two months ago where other editors considered it unreliable as well but then I got busy with other articles and this got backlogged. There are secondary sources by academicians which you can use. MehmoodS (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ahmad Shah had a wife named Mimtta, she was the mother of Timur Shah. Kindly add this. Aurangzayb (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Source? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Contact in Ocford university 82.5.103.31 (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes he was born in Multan. One big family 2604:3D08:987E:0:6D12:F0FC:A929:1BEB (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

A few personalities from Pakistan have been added that stress that they are descendants of Ahamd Shah Abdali just because they share the same last name as him. That's not how it works, Durrani is a large tribe which are often divided by sub-tribes. These people are not a descendant of him, they just belonged to the same tribe as Abdali. This should be removed or revised. Akmal94 (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Noorullah21: Re: [6] The cited source (Hanifi, Deciphering the History of Modern Afghanistan) refers to Sulaiman as Ahmad Shah's chosen successor. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@LouisAragon This seems to contradict other sources I've seen. For example: "History of civilizations of Central Asia vol.5" (page 292) It states that Timur Shah was his declared heir.

"He was probably suffering from a facial cancer. In the

last few months of his life, he proclaimed Timur Shah as his designated heir. Ahmad Shah died on 23 October 1772."

Jonathan Lee's "Afghanistan: A History from 1260 to the Present" (page 143):

"A few months before he died, Ahmad Shah had summoned his son, Timur Mirza, from Herat and publicly declared him as the heir apparent ..."[7] Noorullah (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Noorullah21: Yeah I had seen those excerpts before. Looking at the available evidence it seems as if Ahmad Shah could have initially had Sulaiman as his heir? Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@LouisAragon I'm thinking Ahmad Shah had no declared heir until he believed he was dying, which is why as described in Lee's source, shortly before he died, he declared Timur as heir.

Oddly we see this a lot in the Durrani Empire's history actually with Timur Shah as well. Timur Shah had no declared heir until he was on his death bed (also sparking another civil war in turn, this time being much longer for over 70 years). Noorullah (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Noorullah21: Thank you; I see. According to a cursory glance through Google Books, it seems that the majority of texts only discuss Timur Shah in connection with heirship of any kind. That statement about Sulaiman from Hanifi should probably be left out for the time being. Perhaps later sources will clarify it. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@LouisAragon Sounds good, thanks for contacting me and allowing me to clarify the edits. Noorullah (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Noorullah21: On May 12, you removed an entire section that was cited to an OUP reference, stating:

*"This is incredibly a complete Fringe theory -- See WP:FRINGE, suggesting he wasn't Pashtun is something that goes against almost all universal sources."[8]

First of all, the source doesn't deny his Pashtun origins. User:InedibleHulk's WP:GF copy-edit of 12 March[9] made the sentence somewhat lose its original meaning. It used to state:

*"....that raise serious concerns about what the book is aggressively claimed to be, namely, evidence of Ahmad Shah's Pashtunness".

This is entirely consistent with what the source states (which is easily accessible through the Wikipedia Library). Additionally, the section contained quite a few other valuable pieces of information, all cited to the same source, which you also removed. These details had nothing to do with his Pashtun origins or Pashtun identity. Why did you remove those too? - LouisAragon (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does go against his possible origin, even saying he didn't speak Pashto. "He is not known to have spoken Pashto, and his tenacious literary bond with Pashto was not upheld by his successors." -- This clearly contradicts what we know about him and his successors in other sources.

[10] - Specifically talks about him and some of his successors (Timur Shah Durrani), having written Poems in Pashto. - Page 101.

[11] - Very clearly refers to Ahmad Shah as a renowned Pashto Poet

[12] - Says Ahmad Shah promoted Pashto, and that Timur Shah was also a poet, like his father.

These are just a few and I'm sure theres a plethora more to say the same. @LouisAragon Noorullah (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Noorullah21:

The first source is written by Dawood Azami, a journalist. His credentials don't seem to cover this time period.[13]

The second source, is written by Meredith Runion, a program manager for the Department of Defense. Haven't found much else about her credentials or whatsoever.

The third source, Oral Literature of Iranian Languages: Kurdish, Pashto, Balochi, Ossetic. I can't make heads or tails from the limited view. Not to mention the snippet views are unpaged. This one is really the only reliable source from the bunch. The other two are written by non-specialized individuals. Oxford University beats those two hands down. Besides there is nothing wrong with giving two perspectives vis. Ahmad Shah Durrani especially when using University press sources.

You still haven't replied to my previous question btw, in which I asked why you removed the rest of the sentences, i.e. that elaborated on the status of Persian and Pashto within the Durrani realm. Are you disputing that Persian was the dominant language within the empire? - LouisAragon (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like you to elaborate on what you meant by rest of the sentences specifically. The status of Persian and Pashto can be kept, but I removed the former because of its clear nonsense suggesting that Ahmad Shah didn't speak Pashto.

The 3rd source, its the first paragraph following the page before it. [14]

I quote from it: Ahmad Shah (r. 1721-73), the founder of the Durrani dynasty (a talented poet who left a well known divan of contemplative lyrical poetry) also promoted the Pashto language. ...However during the reign of Ahmad Shah's son, Timur Shah (paradoxically also a Pashto poet, albeit much less talented than his father)... - This source actually talks a lot about Pashto-Persian status in the Durrani Empire, which can be useful if you want to re-add that.

Other sources that are more reliable show here:

[15] "The Pashto Language did not gain prominence until the 18th century, when Ahmad Shah Durrani (1747-1773) established the Durrani Empire..."

An esteemed and reliable source by Annemarie Schimmel: [16] It is typical that even the great warrior, the 'liberator' of Northwest India, Ahmad Shah Durrani, was a fine poet in his mother tounge, Pashto.

Another reliable source: [17]: As a person, Ahmad Shah was generous and affable, flexible and resolute. He was literate and well versed in the main languages of his country. He had good taste in poetry and composed verses in Pashto. A Pashto Diwan (compilation of literary works) is attributed to him.

--

@LouisAragon To conclude here, theres a plethora of reliable sources that state otherwise and makes the former opinion look like a complete WP:FRINGE theory by suggesting Ahmad Shah could not speak Pashto (despite his poetry being famous?). Noorullah (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply