Talk:Mir Wais Hotak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mir Wais Hotak article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Mir Wais Hotak is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Move page ?

I am proposing to move this page to Mir Wais Hotak, as Khan is a title, and as modern references to him use Mir Wais rather than Mirwais. Is there any objection? --Bejnar 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Hotaki dynasty origin and ethnicity

The RFC on the origin and ethnicity of Mirwais Khan Hotak and the Hotaki dynasty are being conducted on the Hotaki dynasty talk page, as that is where a lot of the discussion of this issue has appeared. --Bejnar 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern scholarly sources

I have edited the page suppling some modern scholarly sources for the questioned facts. The citation to the 1725 British work of fiction, Persian Cromwell, has been removed. --Bejnar 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elphinstone

The cite to Elphinstone (Mountstuart Elphinstone's An account of the kingdom of Caubul and its dependencies in Tartary and India (1815)) for the premise that Mirwais was a Tatar is completely bogus. --Bejnar 06:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Raoulduke47 said: "However, I have read through this book (available on Google books: [1] ) and found nothing that might confirm Mirwais' supposed Tatar ethnicity. On the contrary, Elphinstone persistently refers to "Ghilzai kings"(that he writes "Ghiljie"):
Page 435-436: "The Ghiljies were in former times by far the most celebrated of the Afghauns. In the beginning of the last century this tribe alone conquered all Persia and routed the armies of the Ottoman Porte: after a hard struggle, the third Ghiljie king of Persia was expelled by Nadir Shah."
page 541: "In 1708, the Ghiljies rose against the Georgian Prince Bagrathion..." "


When Elphinston visited Afghanistan he spoke and wrote about a PASHTUNIZED tribe that he count to the Ghiljis who are originally also turks. All non-indo-aryan tribes of Afghan society are part of this tribe..why?? --88.68.197.81 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Balboa

That is not what Elphinstone says in his book. --Bejnar 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Than you should provide yourself the correct book that says that...or do you just hided that information?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.122.201 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are suggesting. Raoulduke47 put it clearly:
The proponents of Mirwais' supposed Tatar ethnicity seem to have latched -rather irrationally- onto Elphinstone's statement that the Hotakis belong to the "family of Toraun" which, according to them, should be written "Turan", meaning Turkish (this is not clear: Turan is a word of Iranian origin). This is not at all convincing. If Elphinstone had wanted to say the Hotakis were Turks, or had Turkish origins, then he would have said it outright, not used an ambiguous circumlocution like "family of Toraun". Quite on the contrary, from reading the whole paragraph, the evidence is that the Hotakis were Ghilzais, and that "family of Toraun" is simply an indication of lineage, not of ethnicity.
More importantly, Elphinstone's An account of the kingdom of Caubul is primarily a geographical study, and provides no evidence that Mirwais was a Tatar, as he is not mentioned even once in the entire book. Raoulduke47 19:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Because in Persian Turan is still used and is a sononym for Turks. Kandahar was during his reign like Kabul, Herat, Balkh,Ghazni and many other cities and provinces a persian speaking region. The majority spoke Persian liek they do it still today. Kandahar self was a multi-cultural area where Persians, Arabs, Usbeks, Tatars, Afghans and even Mongols like the Arghuns lived. The language of trde and economy was Persian not just because of the persian governeur there ...Gurgin Khan. If you inform yourself we still use the term Turan for turks in Persia beside tork. And that is why Elphinston used it too ...so it´s not a chance. In south-eastern Peshawar there is a region called Turan-Shar. Maybe because of the Turki-Shahis and their descends that still live there. Again: Turan is a Persian word and a sononym for Turks since ancient times--88.68.223.93 19:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Elphinstone was not a Persian, please see his actual use of terms. --Bejnar 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
who said he was a Persian??? Don´t fool Wiki, turke khar--88.68.221.165 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
88.68.223.93 said that Turan was a Persian word. That is not the word that Elphinstone used. We know that Elphinstone used Turkic when he meant Turkic. --Bejnar (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

he didn´t used turk in his books. Why are you lying?? --88.68.213.103 (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation - deleted material

The material correctly deleted by KnowledgeOfSelf as a potential violation of copyright, should be mined for appropriate information, if it can be collaborated from a reliable source. It can be viewed at link or link. --Bejnar 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)