Talk:Khaydhar ibn Kawus al-Afshin

Hi, Parthian Shot. Sounds like a good idea. I don't know wikipedia's procedures here. What I'll do is write here anything I think ought to be added from al-Afshin to Afshin (since I'm easy going on the name, though there ought to be redirect to Afshin from al-Afshin) and you say yes or state your objections. Sound good? Gallador 02:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Parthian Shot. I think we otta add here that the Armenian leader turned Babak over to Afshin, Afshin brought Babak to the caliph and Babak was executed. I would spell out the reward as in the al-Afshin article. I think for the English reader Byzantine invasion has much more meaning than Anatolian campaign. If you follow the Theophilos link you'll see there it's claimed that the Byzantine emperor destroyed the birthplace of al-Mu'tasim and the caliph's response was against the major Byzantine city that was the birthplace of that Byzantine dynasty. Why not include the description of Afshin's son's wedding? I think names can be spelled one way, and, if there's a link (Maziar, for example) than that's a good one to use. That's it for now. What do you think? Gallador 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It should be merged. I just noticed it.

Here is the content of Al-Afshin

Al-Afshin, Haydar b. Kawuz (d. May or June 841) was a Ninth Century Prince of Ushrusanah and leading Abbasid general.

Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari records (v. 32, p. 135) that in A.H. 207 caliph al-Ma'mun sent Ahmad ibn Abi Khalid to Khurasan. That commander acquired control of the Transoxanian principality of Ushrusanah for the Abbasid caliphate. Al-Afshin's father, Kawus ibn Kharakhurah, submitted. Kawus and his son Fadl went to al-Ma'mun. Although Fadl's brother Haydar is not named in the entry under this year, he is one who played a very prominent role on behalf of the Abbasids.

In 216 and 217 (831-833), he suppressed uprisings in Egypt from remote regions to Alexandria. On June 2, 832 the news was proclaimed of his great success in taking Bima in Egypt. It surrendered to al-Afshin's extension of al-Ma'mun's promise of safe conduct.

In A.H. 220 (835), Caliph al-Mu'tasim appointed al-Afshin governor of Jibal and sent him against the Iranian seccessionist leader Babak. Babak was one of a series of such opponents to the Arab empire and he in particular had been especially challenging for the caliph's armies. That year al-Afshin met Babak in battle, defeated him and inflicted heavy losses. Babak escaped. The next year, al-Afshin avoided the traps Babak planned and instead surprised Babak, captured his camp and drove off his forces.

In A.H. 222, al-Mu'tasim sent reinforcements to al-Afshin. The general, followed the caliph's instructions to be prudent and patient. He succeeded in seizing Babak's major stronghold of Badbhbh (Babak Castle). Ya'qubi (Tarikh II, 579) records al-Afshin freeing 7,600 Muslim prisoners from this fortress. Al-Afshin destroyed Badhbh. He wrote to the Armenian ruler advising him that Babak was heading his way.

Al-Afshin received a letter of safe conduct for Babak from al-Mu'tasim. Al-Afshin forced some of Babak's supporters to take it to Babak. Babak was furious and rejected it. However, the Armenian leader Sunbat handed Babak to al-Afshin. After granting Babak a night to wander ruined Badhdh, al-Afshin brought his prisoner to the caliph in Samarra. He arrived on January 4, 838. Babak was executed.

On March 14, 838, al-Mu'tasim rewarded his general for this outstanding success. He granted al-Afshin a crown, two jeweled belts, twenty million dirhams and an appointment as governor of Sind. At this celebratory event the caliph had court poets sing al-Afshin's praises, including one who referred to him as "the stallion of the east." (al-Tabari 33 p. 92)

In that same year al-Afshin joined his caliph in al-Mu'tasim's striking response to a Byzantine attack against the caliphate. John Bagot Glubb (p. 345) cites Masudi for claiming this was the largest army, two hundred thousand strong, any caliph had led against the Byzantines. The Caliph led one prong of this retaliatory invasion, al-Afshin the other.

As the two prongs entered Byzantine territory separated by a hundred and fifty miles, Theophilos (emperor) decided to hit one of the portions of the Muslim army, before the entire invasion force joined together. It was al-Afshin the emperor attacked. Al-Afshin steadied his troops. His men met the Byzantines' full force as commanded by their emperor. Al-Afshin's men held. He counter-attacked. This battle, on July 21, 838, was a decisive Muslim victory. Al-Afshin triumphed. The emperor and his surviving soldiers withdrew in disorder. They did not interfere as al-Afshin continued on to Ankyra meeting up there with al-Mu'tasim.

From Ankyra, the full Muslim force advanced on the Byzantine stronghold of Amorium. A Muslim captive escaped from that city and disclosed the weakness of a section of its walls. The caliph concentrated his bombardment on this section. A breach was made. Amorium was captured.

Al-Afshin seems not to have been involved in the major conspiracy that cost many commanders of that Byzantine expedition their lives. Indeed, in A.H. 224 (838-839) he had a magnificent celebration of his son Hasan's wedding. Caliph al-Mu'tasim personally provided for the guests. However, al-Afshin, wishing to replace Abdallah ibn Tahir as governor of Khurasan, had begun intriguing with Mazyar ibn Qarin, a prince in the Caspian region. Mazyar rebelled and was defeated. In Adharbayjan, al-Afshin's kinsman Minkajur rebelled.

These rebellions caused al-Afshin to fall from favour. His situation was made worse by the finding of alleged correspondence between him and Mazyar. Further, the Khurasanian governor, Abdallah ibn Tahir, alleged that he had intercepted some of Babak's wealth al-Afshin had obtained in that campaign and was seeking to transfer secretly to al-Afshin's lands in Ushrusanah. When Mazyar arrived in Samarra, al-Afshin was arrested.

Mazyar participated in the interrogation of the former general, asserting that al-Afshin had conspired with him. Others present raised additional questions concerning the sincerity of al-Afshin's conversion to Islam. Al-Afshin had answers to all the allegations. He claimed that Zoroastrian artefacts and books in his possession were family heirlooms from before he had become Muslim. He explained that when he punished a pair of Muslim fanatics destroying idols in Ushrusanah he was exercising reasonable leadership aimed at maintaining the harmony of his religiously diverse territory. He told his detractors that the formulaic address his people used in writing to him in Persian as "Lord of lords," was simply a tradition and did not invalidate his personal belief in one God. (al-Tabari v. 33, p. 187f)

All such replies were unsuccessful. Al-Mu'tasim had a special prison built for al-Afshin. It was known as "The Pearl" and was in the shape of a minaret. There he spent the final nine months of his life and there he passed away in May or June of 841.

Perhaps, a fitting conclusion of an article on al-Afshin is found in some of the poetry that was composed about him. Al-Tabari (v. 33, p. 120-121) quotes these lines of al-Husayn ibn al-Duhhak al-Bahili:

• All glory falls below that which he established/ for the house of Kawus, the lords of the Persians.

• Al-Afshin is nothing but a sword drawn/ by God's power in the hand of al-Mu'tasim.

• He left no inhabitant of al-Badhdh/ except for images like those of Iram.

• Then he brought forward as a present its ruler Babak as a captive...

• And he pierced Theophilus with a well aimed lance thrust/ which shattered both his armies together

• and routed him.

• Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari History v. 32 "The Reunification of the Abbasid Caliphate," SUNY, Albany, 1987; v. 33 "Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the Abbasid Caliphate," transl. C.E. Bosworth, SUNY, Albany, 1991
• John Bagot Glubb, The Empire of the Arabs, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1963

The article claims that Afshin, the Persian prince of Oshrusana, was a Turk. This is wrong. Afshin (as the name suggests) was an Iranian Muslim general who served the Abbasid caliph. He is known as the great traitor who betryed Babak and the Persian nationalist movement, by fighting Babak and freeing some 7000 Arab prisoners.

Afshin's army consisted of a large number of Turkish slave soldiers, but he himself was an Iranian. His father was among the powerful Iranian Muslim advisors of the Abasids, just like the famous Barmakid family. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.128.189 (talk) 18:49:32, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Tajik, Afshin was a Turk, the reference at the end of that sentence says that. Atabek 02:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Atabek, there good amount of sources that Afshin was Iranian. Besides Bosworth in Iranica, here are some:

[1] [2] [3] [4] I am not going to get involved on the Sahl issue here, but there is no reason to bring Afshin to the debate. --alidoostzadeh 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ali, I don't see how Bosworth would be an expert on Afshin as well. But in general al-Istakhri, J. Saint Martin, relying on Armenian historians, as well as Britannica [5]. Moreover, Afshin originated from Ferghana, which is modern-day Uzbekistan, homeland of Timur, and can hardly be called "Iranian" region. In future, please, discuss your edits and wait for reply before editing the article. Thanks. Atabek 19:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Atabek at the time of Afshin, Ferghana was Soghdian speaking. Uzbeks came much later. Bosworth is a top expert on medieval Islamic history. I think both views should simply be presented in the Afshin article. I brought 4 google links. I agree some classical sources call him a Turk as well, but at the same time, many people from Central Asia were called a Turk in some Arabic sources. (this is discussed in several different JSTOR articles) even if they were not. I think simply there is no reason to argue on Afshin in this page as Sahl ibn Smbat is enough for people who are involved (for example Ibn Hawqal says he is the ruler of Armenia and there is another source calling him ruler of Albania and there is sufficient number of discussions here without getting Afshin involved). The case of Sahl article might have resemblence to Afshin. But there should be a better approach than this article, I think the comments on the origin of Afshin should be removed from here and the Afshin page modified to reflect both views. I am not ruling out Afshin was Turkic or Iranic. But to put one view on this page is not encyclopedic. Thanks. --alidoostzadeh 19:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ali, I agree that we should put multiple views. And I can put more Google links to 3 sources I provided above, claiming he was a Turk. But then I don't see why the page on Afshin claims him as only Iranian general without mentioning other references to Turkish origin. Also claiming that in 8-9th century, Ferghana, in the heart of Central Asia, had no Turks, while they suddenly appeared in 10th century as Seljuks and invaded Iran from the east, does not seem quite plausible. Atabek 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Seljuqs were not from Ferghana, they were from the region around the Aral sea (ca. 1000 km further north), and they did not invade Iran, they invaded the northern parts of Khorasan before being forced to accept various coalitions within Iran (see the excellent article in Encyclopaedia of Islam). "Turks invading Iran" is misleading and gives the impression that the Oghuz Turks, as an ethnic unit, invaded and conquered Iran. This is simply not true. The migration of Turkic peoples into Persia was a slow process that had not much to do with invasions, and it was quite different from the later Mongol invasion which resulted in the massacre of many millions: Iranians and Turks. Native entities never regarded the Seljuqs as invaders or enemies of Islam. It was quite the opposite: Iranian nobles supported the Seljuq cause, because for the first time after the Arab conquest, the Iranian lands were united under one political power which also incorporated native Iranians and native Iranian traditions. Khorasanian nobles were appointed to the position of veziers, military commanders, advisors, etc etc etc. Your conclusion that "Afshin was a Turk because he was from Ferghana" is wrong anyway, because we know from historical sources, especially from the works of al-Biruni, that Central Asia was predominantly Iranian. The number of Turkic tribes was very small, and many of them had been converted to Islam by the zealous jihad of the Samanids. Samanid sources claim that 200,000 Turks ("50,000 tents") were forcefully converted to Islam, and those Turks were mostly residants of what is now the southern Qazaq steppes (see Ibn Athir, volume 8, pg. 396). Later on, the Ghaznavids claimed that a total number of some 70,000 Oghuz were moving from the north into Ghaznavid territory (see Tarikh-i Masudi; Turko-Mongol influences in Central Asia, in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in historical perspective, Cambridge 1991, 58 and n. 10). These are very realistic numbers, because, as Canfield puts it, "the ways of life possible in the steppes meant that there were natural and environmental limitations on the numbers of the nomads". We are talking about the 10th and 11th centuries, and the entire number of Turks recorded by Muslim historians was not more than some 250,000. Even if we double the number to 500,000 Turks in Central Asia (men, women, and children), then this is still nothing compared to the sedentary and established Central Asian cities, each of them having a population of more than 50,000 at that time (Samarqand, Bukhara, Tus, Nishapur, Balkh, Herat, etc etc etc). The Turks were not a threat to the cultural and social environment of back then, because their number was small and they resided - as nomads - outside the centers of society. That's why the Turks rapidly adopted the way of life of the settled population and not vice versa. Your entire conclusion is wrong. And keeping in mind that Afshin lived in the 9th century, it is very unlikely that he was a Turk. His name, his birthplace, the name of his father, his title, and the name of his family point to an Iranian origin. At that time, the number of Turks in Muslim armies was still small. This changed a century later, when the Samanids actively recruited Turks into their army, of whom some later became important generals and founders of dynasties. (Sebüktegin, for example, or Qutb ud-Din Aybak) 82.83.158.97 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay lets move the discussion of Afshin to the last page. I think if some sources call him a Turk then we should mention both viewpoint in the article. I am going to move this discussion of Afshin into the Afshin page. Given the letter of Afshin to Kuhyar, (where Turks, Arabs and Maghrebs (berbers)) are identified as enemies, I think Iranian is more probable..--alidoostzadeh 00:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can see, this article plagiarises an article from Encyclopaedia Iranica, available here. I understand that the EnIr. article has been given in the bibliography, but the Wikipedia article, as far as I have checked, copies sentences verbatim from the EnIr. article without marking them as quotations. As the initiator of this article has been banned from Wikipedia, I suggest that either someone rewrites this article or that it be deleted from Wikipedia. Shabdiz · Talk 11:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Atabek, I removed the origin to its own section, since if the origin is disputed, there is no need to put it in the intro. I think your overall approach seems fair as you added: "Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2007). The Turks in the early Islamic world. Ashgate. p. 138. ISBN 0860787192. http://books.google.com/books?id=rAEXAQAAIAAJ. "Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not."", however, some of the sources you added in my opinion are not scholarly or outdated.

What are the qualifications of these authors relative to Bosworth, Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes (who did his work on this topic: D. Pipes. Turks in Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978, 2, 85—96).

Note I am talking about the qualification of these:

A) Rose, Hugh James; Rose, Henry John; Wright, Thomas (1848). New general biographical dictionary, Volume 2. Fellowes. p. 424. http://books.google.com/books?id=f2AMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA424. "the whole force of the khalifate was directed, under a Turkish general of great celebrity, named Afshin, to crush this monstrous sect"

1848??

B)

Hasan, Masudul (1998). History of Islam: Volume 1. Islamic Publications. p. 224. http://books.google.com/books?id=TPsPAQAAIAAJ. "After the failure of some campaigns, Mutasim sent a large force under his Turkish General Haider Afshin to suppress the revolt and capture the Brigand at all costs."

What is the scholarly qualification of the author and the publisher "Islamic Publications" with regards to the same level as Lewis, Bosworth ?

I did not find much on this author but what is his university? and academic qualification?

C)

Chisholm, Hugh (1910). The Encyclopædia britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information. The Encyclopædia Britannica Company. p. 48. ISBN 0742562964. http://books.google.com/books?id=Sv8tAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA48. "Motasim made Afshin, a Turkic prince who had distinguished himself already in the days of Mamun, governor of Media, with orders to take the lead of the war against Babak"

1910 is outdated. This source is from 100 years ago.

D) Glassé, Cyril (2008). The new encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 80. ISBN 0742562964. http://books.google.com/books?id=D7tu12gt4JYC&pg=PA80. "the Turkic general Afshin subdued Babak by taking the fortress of Badh in 222/837"

The person is not a university academic. [6]

His book is good, but if it goes against Bosworth/Lewis, then there is no reason to bring him forth.

E) The Cambridge History of Islam source is a good source, but proper citation would include the actual author of the article, and not its editors. This way, we can see that it was not Bernard Lewis but the author of the specific article. I say this, because Bernard Lewis has mentioned Afshin as a Persian ruler.

This is the only one that meets WP:RS in my opinion, but is the author the same quality as Bosworth/Lewis?

F)

Also the article in Bosworth in Iranica does not mention his ethnicity explicitly(as it seems there is a scholary concensus and Bosworth has mentioned it else), but implicitly it is given as Iranian.. So there is no justification to put Turkic then reference the Iranica article for it.

G)

The name Turk itself in easly Islamic historiography (say 8th century) was used in a vague manner by Arab authors[7] "These new troops were the so-called “Turks”. It must be said without hesitation that this is the most misleading misnomer which has led some scholars to harp ad nauseam on utterly unfounded interpretation of the following era, during which they unreasonably ascribe all events to Turkish domination. In fact the great majority of these troops were not Turks. It has been frequently pointed out that Arabic sources use the term Turk in a very loose manner. The Hephthalites are referred to as Turks, so are the peoples of Gurgan, Khwarizm and Sistan. Indeed, with the exception of the Soghdians, Arabic sources refer to all peoples not subjects of the Sassanian empire as Turks. In Samarra separate quarters were provided for new recruits from every locality. The group from Farghana were called after their district, and the name continued in usage because it was easy to pronounce. But such groups as the Ishtakhanjiyya, the Isbijabbiya and groups from similar localities who were in small numbers at first, were lumped together under the general term Turks, because of the obvious difficulties the Arabs had in pronouncing such foreign names. The Khazars who also came from small localities which could not even be identified, as they were mostly nomads, were perhaps the only group that deserved to be called Turks on the ground of racial affinity. However, other groups from Transcaucasia were classed together with the Khazars under the general description." (M.A. Shaban, “Islamic History”, Cambridge University Press, v.2 1978. Page 63)

[8] “The name Turk was given to all these troops, despite the inclusion amongst them of some elements of Iranian origin, Ferghana, Ushrusana, and Shash – places were in fact the centers were the slave material was collected together....Judging from the specific names of their origin, Soghd, Farghana, Urshusuna, Shahs, the majority of them might have been of Iranian origin"”(ʻUthmān Sayyid Aḥmad Ismāʻīl Bīlī, "Prelude to the Generals", Published by Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2001.)

On the term Turk and its usage, authors have mentioned that it covered various groups including Iranian Soghdians. Actually, some authors are now proposing an Iranian etymology for the term Turk itself [9] (V. H. Mair is a famous scholar) and here: [10] as well the leading clans of the Gok-Turks. Wether this is true or not, is to be seen. But the term itself was not crystallized only for Altaic speakers for the Arabs in Baghdad.

H) Here is one source for example.. but unless I know the qualification of the author, I do not plan to insert it. H. M. Balyuzi , G. Ronald, the University of Michigan. 1976: "Afshin was of princely descent, his ancestors having ruled Transoxania, and he was not a Turk, but an Iranian".

I don't think we need mediation on this issue, but I see no justification for given the same weight for academic sources as non-academic or major outdated sources (1910 and 1848). The non-academic and outdated (1848, 1910 Britannica since now we have 2010 Britannica although Britannica itself is not a specialized reliable source but a teriatary source whose authors are usually not known) should be removed. Which really leaves only the article in the Cambridge history of Islam (1977). I feel WP:WEIGHT would stick with Bosworth (2007)/Lewis and Pipes who are clear on the issue. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Minor correction. The source brought by Atabek from Bosworth is actually by Peter Golden (who is a well known scholar as well). P.B. Golden, "Khazar Turkic Ghulams in Caliphal Service', Journial Asiatique, 2004, vol. 292. pg 292:Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not also reprinted in Bosworth, Clifford Edmund (2007). The Turks in the early Islamic world. Ashgate. p. 138. ISBN 0860787192. [11]. "Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not."

I added another source from Bosworth:

Edmund Bosworth (Translator with Commentary), The History of al-Tabari Vol. 33 "Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the 'Abbasid Caliphate: The Caliphate of al-u'tasim A.D. 833-842/A.H. 218-227", SUNY Press, 1991. Footenote 176 on pg 59: "Abu Dulaf's contigent of volunteers from lower Iraq would be mainly Arabs, and there seems in fact to have been hostility between him, as a representative of Arab influence at the caliphate court, and the Iranian Al-Afshin"[

Bosworth, Golden and Lewis, as well as the specialized article by Pipes are high quality sources. Also I removed scholars who were not academics (as the issue is controversial and one must use high quality sources) and outdated sources which mentions ethnicity. So judging from the current academic sources, I think the Turkish theory is undo weight (single source from 40 years ago), as it mentions Afshin in passing. Be that it may, still the Cambridge history of Islam source is a WP:RS source, so I have kept it (the rest of the sources were not from University Professors specializing in the area or were from 100+ years ago). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Khodabandeh, you should not remove references, replacing them by a single Bosworth reference. That is clearly WP:UNDUE. Any reference associating Afshin with Iranian background either references or otherwise recited Bosworth. I think Wikipedia is supposed to provide variety of references for people to draw a neutral conclusion, not just reasserting only one reference. That is not quite scholarly.

I already provided at least one reference with Bernard Lewis as one of authors, mentioning Turkic background, and Cambrdige History of Islam or Britannica are no less but far more qualified references on the subject than Iranica. And where does it say that 1910 or 1848 should be completely discarded just because of one author's claims. Atabəy (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Obvisouly, you did not read the talk statement. A) You did not provide a reference to Bernard Lewis but a book edited by Bernard Lewis. I provided reference to Bernard Lews (Makes 1) B) Your reference to Bosworth is actually from Golden (Makes 2 references separate from Bosworth) C) I provided an independent Bosworth reference (Makes 3 references with Bosworth). D) I Kept your Cambridge Encyclopedia of Islam (Makes 1 for your viewpoint) as I have kept Cambridge History of Iran (Makes 4: Bosworth, Golden, Lewis, Cambridge History of Iran) for my viewpoint. So that is four academic sources not one Bosworth! E) The D. Pipes reference is also in very reliable academic journal discussing Turkish troops under Caliphate (Makes 5) E) 1848 book, 1910 Britannica, and two authors without any academic qualifications are not valid sources. Simply we use academic sources in Wikipedia not outdated sources. Specially if the issue is controversial, quoting random sources does not help. I have kept you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Khodabandeh, my reference to Bosworth was supposed to provide balance of views. Bosworth himself claims in Iranica: "During the reign of the caliph Mahdi (158-69/775-85) the Afshin of Oshrusana is mentioned among several Iranian and Turkish rulers of Transoxania and the Central Asian steppes who submitted nominally to him".

So I don't think the addition to intro, except from apparent allergy to word "Turkic", should establish any reason for edit reverting, when both backgrounds are mentioned, just like Bosworth did in intro. Again, using only Bosworth is WP:UNDUE. Stick to WP:NPOV just as I did in my edit, providing you with another Bosworth reference. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Khodabandeh, are you interested in editing encyclopedia with scholarship or threatening me with 1RR rule to push a WP:POV emotionally charged with habitual opposition to referencing Turkic [12]. If it is the second, then we should take the issue to administrators or arbitrators and find out why 7 references are less relevant than one, and what are your qualifications to reassert this point through multiple reverts. Atabəy (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Atabek, Stick to the discussion and keep your ethnic-related talks to other forums. Do you even read what other people write!? As per emotional, your the only one is that emotional and writing personal nonsense about users allegry. Stick to the discussion. Instead of responding, your acting all emotional. So assume good faith and be respectful

A) Yes I have called to mediators already (Dbachmann and Folantin)

B) Bosworth is not making any definite statement about ethnicity in Iranica. Even the statement you quote has no ethnic context. He is simply stating Afshin is mentioned among some "Iranian and Turkish" rulers. This does not give YOU, the right to misintrepret HIS statement, and claim he is saying Afshin is Turkic. Practice reading the sentence several times. The statement is your WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of Bosworth. Else if I mention "The Sassanid King is mentioned among several Iranian and Turkish rulers of the area", it has no definite bearing on the ethnicity of the Sassanid king, and it does not give the right to misintrepret and write" The Sassanid King was a Turkic or Iranian"...

C) Golden, Lewis, Pipes, Cambridge History of Iran does not equal Bosworth! Let me repeat it again for you:Golden, Lewis, Pipes, Cambridge History of Iran does not equal Bosworth!

D) Your citation for Lewis and Golden were wrong and were corrected. You had Golden quoted as Bosworth and someone else quoted as Lewis. Now it is corrected.

E) 1848, and 1910, as well as two non-academic authors were removed. Yes I do have an allegery to non-academic sources that are designed to push a POV or sources from 150 years ago or 1910 Britannica (with no author), when there is all these academic sources. I have kept your Cambridge history of Islam.

F) The issue of a disputed ethnicity needs its own section and not a source from 1848. It does not go in the intro, as you only have one academic source, and I have five (from major professors or journals). Just like I did not insert these 5 academic sources (not 1848 or 1910 or two non-academic authors) in the intro and put Iranian.

G) Read what other people write. With all due respect, next emotional comment coming from you, and I will report you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Khodabandeh14, again threats or intimidation (you accept what I say or I will report you) are not a scholarly way of discussing historical subjects. I will not continue discussion until dispute tag is restored to the article. You should not be removing tags until issues are settled. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So are you saying scholarly way of discussing the topic is make personal comments about user's allegery? Or how many times did you say my only source was Bosworth? Is Golden Bosowrth? Is Lewis Bosworth? Is Cambride History of Iran Bosworth? Is that a scholarly way of discussing historical subjects? So either you did not read the article or you simply (I hope not) are repeating a baseless statement. And please note, Bosworth in Iranica is not saying anything definite. I brought another source where he does. Is that scholarly way of acting and putting Bosworth next to Turkic, when Bosworth is not even making a statement about Afshin's ethnicity in Iranica? Is that scholarly way of acting by putting a source from 1848 and 1910?

As per reporting, I do not like to report anyone. But WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX discussions are not beneficial and should be reported. I could care less if Afshin was Turkic or Iranian. It doesn't even matter now or a million years. But if something is disputed, then it does not go in the introduction. Ethnicity can be mentioned in the body. The dispute tag is not restored because simply, there is a Turkic section and Iranian section. You can put valid academic sources in the Turkic section (not 1848, 1910 or scholars with no expertise in the area). Any source that is entered, should be justified with respect to the academic quality of the author. So Lewis, Bosworth, Golden, Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge History of Islam and etc. cannot be put in the same league as say a source from 1848, 1910 or unknown non-academically affiliated authors. The 1848,1910 etc. can be used for articles where other sources are lacking. Incase you do not know these authors, you can google "Golden Turkic", "Bosworth Islamic history", "Lewis Islamic history"..The article by Pipes is also in a prestigious journal. Either way, I have kept your theory, but it is weaker theory (so goes second) and I have kept your Cambridge history of Islam. But no, I will not maintain an 1848 or 1910 sources. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note I can go google book fishing too: George Bourtounian mentioing Afshin as Persian (But I do not quote him as he is not an expert in Medieval islamic history despite being an academic Professor. He is an expert in Armenian history) [13] Donnes Rafat mentioning Afshin as a Iranian (Sogdian) [14] I do not quote him cause I do not know his academic qualification. [15] Badio Badiozaman I do not quote him cause I do not know his academic qualifications. So I hope you get my gist. I stricly follow WP:RS pertaining to the topic. And if something says not Iranian like Cambridge History of Islam (which is academic) I keep it. But I have no desire what soever to put random quotes from non-academic academic authors and books from 160,100+ years ago, and make a mockery of Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

A) Atabek, please justify how this statement from Bosworth: "the Afshin of Oshrusana is mentioned among several Iranian and Turkish rulers of Transoxania and the Central Asian steppes who submitted nominally to him" allows you to source Afshin as a "Turkic". The statement is no different than saying X is mentioned among several Iranian and Turkish rulers. How is that giving you justification to claim Afshin as Turkic? Is that not a violation of WP:NPOV?

B) Please justify your source from 1848, 1910 and three authors who are not Professors/academics of major University. I am talking about these sources which I removed:

• Hasan, Masudul (1998). History of Islam: Volume 1. Islamic Publications. p. 224. (Removed because Author has no scholarly position in universities nor is publisher known)
• Rose, Hugh James; Rose, Henry John; Wright, Thomas (1848). New general biographical dictionary, Volume 2. Fellowes. p. 424. http://books.google.com/books?id=f2AMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA424. "the whole force of the khalifate was directed, under a Turkish general of great celebrity, named Afshin, to crush this monstrous sect"

I removed it because it is from 1848.

• Glassé, Cyril (2008). The new encyclopedia of Islam. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 80. ISBN 0742562964. http://books.google.com/books?id=D7tu12gt4JYC&pg=PA80. "the Turkic general Afshin subdued Babak by taking the fortress of Badh in 222/837"

The person is not a university academic. [16] So I removed it. His bok can be good for non-disputed topics.

• Britannica 1910. Do I even need justification to remove Britannica 1910 when there are sources from 2000+?

If I were to go fishing, I could also pull up these that mention Persian/Sogdian:

• [17]
• Donnes Rafat mentioning Afshin as a Iranian (Sogdian)

[18]

• George Bourtounian mentioing Afshin as Persian. He can actually fit WP:RS, but I have not quotd him.

[19]

• H. M. Balyuzi , G. Ronald, the University of Michigan. 1976: "Afshin was of princely descent, his ancestors having ruled Transoxania, and he was not a Turk, but an Iranian".

[20] However, I believe Wikipedia should stick to quality, not random quotes to justify a POV.

So I have kept academic sources: Golden, Lewis, Bosworth, Pipes, Cambridge History of Iran, Cambrdige History of Islam. I could also go and quote the above sources. But I care about the quality of Wikipedia. C) Justify your repeated(now several times) wrong statement that my only source is Bosworth. Is Golden the same as Bosworth? Is Lewis the same as Bosworth? Is Cambridge History of Iran the same as Bosworth? Is Pipes the same as Bosworth? Is this guy the same as Bosworth? [Peter Benjamin Golden] P.B. Golden, "Khazar Turkic Ghulams in Caliphal Service', Journial Asiatique, 2004, vol. 292. pg 292:Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not"

Is this guy's name Bosworth? [{Bernard Lewis]] Lewis,Bernard. "The Political Language of Islam", Published by University of Chicago Press, 1991. excerpt from pg 482: "Babak's Iranianizing Rebellion in Azerbaijan gave occasion for sentiments at the capital to harden against men who were sympathetic to the more explicitly Iranian tradition. Victor (837) over Babak was al-Afshin, who was the hereditary Persian ruler of a district beyond the Oxus, but also a masterful general for the caliph."

Note this Lewis quote is from 1991. The Golden quote from 2004. The Bosworth quote (from Tabari's history) from 1990s. Your Cambridge History of Islam is 40 years old, and it is the only academic source you have presented. I have kept it.

D) Plase stricly avoid WP:SOAPBOX/WP:FORUM comments and concentrate on the argument, not the background, alleged allergies and etc of the users. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have called two Wikipedia admins to look at this topic. They seem neutral. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Badiozamani, with all my due personal respect to him, is an Iranian-American of Kurdish background and an aspiring politician with a PhD unrelated to history and is clearly not qualified to draw conclusions on this topic. Again, there is no basis why Britannica from 1910 is not a qualified historical source. The more appropriate approach would be showing Britannica and other 19th century references, while also presenting later research, mostly by Bosworth.

Again, the discussion is pointless as long as you use RR and dispute tag removal as a method of "judging" historical references or pushing point of view.

And no one disputes why you bring references from Iranian background. In fact I was the one who added more recent Bosworth reference. But why are you removing references to Turkic background bringing irrelevant reasons (it is from 1910, etc.) or threats? Atabəy (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

And Cyril Glassé with a graduate degree in Islamic Studies from Columbia University publishing a "New Encyclopedia of Islam" in 2008 was not a qualified reference for you? Again what are your qualifications to select which references are fit and unfit in this article? Atabəy (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Salam (Peace),

• I did not quote Badiozamani in the article. I said one can quote random google books. The background of the author is irrelevant. It is the academic qualification that counts and their scholarly position. Also I just mentioned 4 not just Baio Zamani. But as you see, I do not push them in the article, because I care about the quality of sources.

Having a graduate degree from Columbia does not make an author specialist on the same level as Golden, Bosworth, Lewis, Cambridge History of Iran and etc..

My qualified reference are renowned university Professors: Golden, Lewis, Bosworth, Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge History of Islam (which supports the Turkic theory). Cyril Glassé [21] might be okay for a topic that is not controversial. But for a topic that is disputed, he does not match Golden, Lewis, Bosworth, Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge History of Islam. Just because a person graduated from Columbia (not even clear they have a Ph.D.) does not mean they are qualified in the area at the same level of say Golden, Lewis, Bosworth and etc.

• Britannica 1910 is outdated by 100 years. One should use modern sources that are available. It is also a teriatary source and has no author. When there is a controversial topic, one does not use something from 1910 which has no clear author. Scholarship improves over the years as you know. Maybe someone will remove the Lewis/Bosworth/Golden/Cambridge History of Iran quote 100 years from now and say they discover some new information on Afshin that he was Turkic. That is fine. We have to keep in mind scholarship improves.
• If I was trying to push a POV, I would have removed your Cambridge History of Islam. It is quality source and I kept it. So your accusation is not valid. I only removed sources that were written from 100+ years ago, 160+ years ago and authors who not full University Professors, academics.

Now please respond:

• You added a non-existent reference to Turkic background from Bosworth. That is falsification if it was not done unintentionally. Bosworth's statement is not about Afshin being "Iranian or Turkic".. It is about Afshin being mentioned among some Iranian and Turkish rulers by some source. This does not give you justification to claim Bosworth is claiming Afshin is Turkic or even alleging that Bosworth is claiming: "Iranian or Turkic". So what was the reason to mention Iranica and put Turkic for Afshin, when Iranica states no such a thing!
• Also you added a non-existent reference from Bosworth to Iranian background while it is actually Peter Benjamin Golden (an important scholar in his own right)
• You keep mentioning Bosworth, but Lewis, and Golden are not Bosworth.
• I have added a Turkic section and you can add your academic sources there. But I will not accept 1910, 1848 or authors with no Academic qualification or who are not specialist/professors in the area. Lewis, Golden, Bosworth, Cambridge History of Iran, Cambridge History of Islam and etc. are specialist. So I have quoted them, and as you can see, I did not delete your reference from Cambridge History of Islam. It meets WP:RS but 1910 Britannica is outdated by 100 years or the 1848 source is outdated by 160 years.
• There is no threat.
• I said discuss the arguments not the user, or else I will report it to the admin. It is not a threat, but I think that is how disputes are solved.
• As I said I can go quote many google books as well, George Bournoutian for example is WP:RS, but even for this topic, I think we should stick to the foremost specialist. And my criterion is simple. Look at the resume of Golden, Lewis and Bosworth and compare to someone like Cryil Grouse or Badiozamani..
• I hope you can see there was no bias here, I am simply requesting you bring GOlden, Lewis, Bosworth level sources (just like I do not quote say the at least other 4 google books source I menioned).
• Have to repeat this again, Golden and Lewis, Cambridge History of Iran are not Bosworth.

Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just so we are clear:

• Bernard Lewis (Princeton Full Professor))

Lewis,Bernard. "The Political Language of Islam", Published by University of Chicago Press, 1991. excerpt from pg 482: "Babak's Iranianizing Rebellion in Azerbaijan gave occasion for sentiments at the capital to harden against men who were sympathetic to the more explicitly Iranian tradition. Victor (837) over Babak was al-Afshin, who was the hereditary Persian ruler of a district beyond the Oxus, but also a masterful general for the caliph."

• Clifford Edmond Bosworth, Oxford Full Professor. His Resume [22]

[[23] Clifford Edmund Bosworth (Translator with Commentary), The History of al-Tabari Vol. 33 "Storm and Stress along the Northern Frontiers of the 'Abbasid Caliphate: The Caliphate of al-Mu'tasim A.D. 833-842/A.H. 218-227", SUNY Press, 1991. Footenote 176 on pg 59: "Abu Dulaf's contigent of volunteers from lower Iraq would be mainly Arabs, and there seems in fact to have been hostility between him, as a representative of Arab influence at the caliphate court, and the Iranian Al-Afshin"[

• Peter Benjamin Golden (Resume: [24]) (Rutgers Full Professor)

P.B. Golden, "Khazar Turkic Ghulams in Caliphal Service", Journial Asiatique, 2004, vol. 292. pg 292:Some of the soldiers were slaves, others, such as al-Afshin, the scion of a ruling Central Asian (Ustrushana/Ushrusana) Iranian family, clearly were not".

• Roy Mottahedeh, Full Professor at Harvard University

Mottahedeh, Roy, "The Abbassid Caliphate in Iran", Cambridge History of Iran, IV, ed. R.N. Frye, 57-89. pg 75:" Al Mu'atism chose for this task the Afshin, the Iranian king of Ushrusuna".

• D. Pipes. Turks in Early Muslim Service — JTS, 1978. I am not particually fond of this author, but his work is published in JTS which is a prestigious journal. I have this particular article and it is in general, well researched. EIther way JTS is a WP:RS journal.

So I think you can clearly see, my quality for the qualification is WP:RS from qualified scholars who specialize in these fields, not just random sources (I showed you at least 4 random non-specialist that I found in one/two minutes of google book search with the same viewpoint as these authors, but I do not stuff them in the article because I care about quality). Read the Resume of these Full Professors(the first four) and then please tell me how one can justify an 1848 source, 1910 Britannica or a source where the author does not probably have a Ph.D or two random authors with no academic positions(on the level of these authors I mentioned). Or even quoting Iranica on Afshin for Turkic (when Bosworth is not stating such a thing at all in that article). Infact, the only good source you brought, which is Cambridge History of Islam, may be considered WP:UNDO, not the 5 academic sources I brought (forgetting about the random google books search which I can probably find more than 6). So as you can see, your edit to this article (from my viewpoint) were clearly biased (the example which is quoting Bosworth from Iranica and putting it next to Turkic when he says nothing about this), and then quoting 5 non-specialized sources along with that for Turkic, and just leaving one for Iranian, ignoring the ones in the body of the article itself. As per the introduction, if ethnicity is disputed by academic sources, then it should be in the body. That is just following Wikipedia Guidelines WP:MOS "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. ". In this case, since it is disputed, it has been put in the body, although based on the 5 academic sources I brought (and not I can easily google book and find 6+ or more), I believe even the section on Turkish theory is WP:UNDO, but the source does meet WP:RS. I'll wait for a neutral assessment of this discsussion and the next step. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I did an extensive search (google books) for the last 20 years, and there are some non-scholarly sources which mention different things(more fore Afshin and Persian), but when it came to sources written by full distinguished professors, thing were unambigious (Peter Golden, Bernard Lewis, and Bosworth). Based on WP:FRINGE, "Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality.". It is clear if someone is not an expert and full distinguished professor in medieval history, then the source is not as reliable. as well as: " Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future."
• Also two very specialized sources (one from Peter Golden on troops of the Caliphs(2004), one from Bosworth on Ushrusuna(2005) were unambigious. WP:RS: "Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written."
• Then there is also three sources (with one mentioning afshin specifically) that mentions both theories, but explicitly states that he is usually considered an Iranian and the three sources here mention that the term "Turk" was used in a geographical fashion to denote all troops of the Caliph, despite the elements from Iranian regions such as Ushrusuna. The source: "was not usually considered Turkish" proves the weight of both theories as the author has considered both theories. This is the type of source dab asked for and I provided it. So both theories have been considered in a WP:RS source and one has been given more weight. The current wording reflects this.
• I thank dab for his guidance and also for his request for the type of the sources I brought (the last three with one mentioning both theories specifically and giving much more weight to one). Anyone that actually reads the literature of the time can easily see Afshin was Iranian. I removed the Edward Browne (1902) source since there are new sources. *Perhaps the theory changes in 30 years or 100 years from now, and it is found Lewis(1991), Bosworth(2005), Golden(2004) and current distinguished full professors writing specialized articles on the area are wong. Then the article should also change in reflecting new facts. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So I think you can clearly see, my quality for the qualification is WP:RS from qualified scholars who specialize in these fields, not just random sources (I showed you at least 4 random non-specialist that I found in one/two minutes of google book search with the same viewpoint as these authors, but I do not stuff them in the article because I care about quality). Read the Resume of these Full Professors(the first four) and then please tell me how one can justify an 1848 source, 1910 Britannica or a source where the author does not probably have a Ph.D or two random authors with no academic positions(on the level of these authors I mentioned). Or even quoting Iranica on Afshin for Turkic (when Bosworth is not stating such a thing at all in that article). Infact, the only good source you brought, which is Cambridge History of Islam, may be considered WP:UNDO, not the 5 academic sources I brought (forgetting about the random google books search which I can probably find more than 6). So as you can see, your edit to this article (from my viewpoint) were clearly biased (the example which is quoting Bosworth from Iranica and putting it next to Turkic when he says nothing about this), and then quoting 5 non-specialized sources along with that for Turkic, and just leaving one for Iranian, ignoring the ones in the body of the article itself. As per the introduction, if ethnicity is disputed by academic sources, then it should be in the body. That is just following Wikipedia Guidelines WP:MOS "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. ". In this case, since it is disputed, it has been put in the body, although based on the 5 academic sources I brought (and not I can easily google book and find 6+ or more), I believe even the section on Turkish theory is WP:UNDO, but the source does meet WP:RS. I'll wait for a neutral assessment of this discsussion and the next step. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I did an extensive search (google books) for the last 20 years, and there are some non-scholarly sources which mention different things(more for Afshin as an Iranian/Persian/Soghdian), but when it came to sources written by full distinguished professors, thing were unambigious (Peter Golden, Bernard Lewis, and Bosworth). Based on WP:FRINGE, "Likewise, exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources, and, with clear editorial consensus, unreliable sources for exceptional claims may be rejected due to a lack of quality.". It is clear if someone is not an expert and full distinguished professor in medieval history, then the source is not as reliable. as well as: " Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future."
• Also two very specialized sources (one from Peter Golden on troops of the Caliphs(2004), one from Bosworth on Ushrusuna(2005) were unambigious. WP:RS: "Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written."
• Then there is also three sources (with one mentioning afshin specifically) that mentions both theories, but explicitly states that he is usually considered an Iranian and the three sources here mention that the term "Turk" was used in a geographical fashion to denote all troops of the Caliph, despite the elements from Iranian regions such as Ushrusuna. The source: "was not usually considered Turkish" proves the weight of both theories as the author has considered both theories. This is the type of source dab asked for and I provided it. So both theories have been considered in a WP:RS source and one has been given more weight. The current wording reflects this.
• I thank dab for his guidance and also for his request for the type of the sources I brought (the last three with one mentioning both theories specifically and giving much more weight to one). Anyone that actually reads the literature of the time can easily see Afshin was Iranian. I removed the Edward Browne (1902) source since there are new sources. *Perhaps the theory changes in 30 years or 100 years from now, and it is found Lewis(1991), Bosworth(2005), Golden(2004) and current distinguished full professors writing specialized articles on the area are wong. Then the article should also change in reflecting new facts. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khaydhar ibn Kawus al-Afshin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071006080344/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f3/v3f3a052.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v3f3/v3f3a052.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015210411/http://iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f6/v1f6a024.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f6/v1f6a024.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply