Talk:Qutuz

Poor English

This article has been butchered and is now unreadable.

Qutuz

Please read the reference before attempting to change the text. The period of the Circassian Mamelukes starts with Sultan Barkuk in the second Mameluke era. --Chapultepec 18:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference is an european text book, in most of the arabic and turkish history books, many of the Bahri sultans were circassian, Aybak, Qutuz and Baibars are among them.

I haven't seen any Turkish books regarding Qutuz as a Circassian nor the other sources.

Please read the reference I gave at the bottom of the article..

As for the Arab sources please read this one:

The Cambridge History of Islam By P. M. ( Peter Malcolm) Holt, Bernard Lewis

--Chapultepec 18:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________

Qutuz was the third turkic Sultan after Aybak and Al-Mansur Ali. Samsam22 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actualy the third sultan was the nominal Sultan al-Malik al-Mansur Nour ad-Din Ali son of Aybek Some historians however consider Shajar ad-durr as the first Turkic Sultan . Samsam22 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________

Aybak Al-Turkumani , his name says it already :) Samsam22 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any relation between Qutuz and Kutuzoff family in Russia ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.27.38.240 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Qutuz is from Khwarezm not from Russia Isa Alcala (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many primary sources

This article has several dozen citations to medieval historians. For various reasons, primarily unreliability and bias, Wikipedia has rules against the use of primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY for more detail. MapMaster (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How is that ? Where from did modern historians get information about Mamluk period  ? please tell me . By the way quotes from primary sources in this article do not interprete events but describe events. thnx Samsam22 (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern historians obviously get much of their information from medieval historians, but that's not to say that we should obtain our information directly from them. I would not trust myself to read an X-ray - my doctor has been trained on how to read the X-ray and has read many many X-rays.

The ban on the use of primary sources as references in Wikipedia is a long-standing rule. While I believe that it possible to mention that "medieval historian such-n-such said this", we do need to let our readers know that the source is not necessarily reliable. That is why I insert the word "medieval" when describing these historians - to alert the reader.

Also, I do believe we need a citation on the "fact" that Qutuz is considered equal to Saladin (and the others). If this is widely known, then it should not be a problem to find a citation. MapMaster (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

These are chronological events not X-rays that need figuring out by a medical doctor. We are not analyzing history and events but quoting events as mentioned by historians and Chronologers. That is to say, to use your own example, we are exposing the x-rays only and not analyzing them or taking conclusions . If you do not trust yourself to understand chronological events or to quote chronologic events as written by Chronologers then you can not write about history. The chronoligic events are refered , if you can not have the source-books and read them then it is hard for you to judge. Please do not delete notes again. As I was a student of Islamic history and archeology , Egyptology and Anthropology in Egypt and in the west, I have many expensive and hard to obtain source-books and manuscripts. When I share that here it is good for students and readers searching for knowldge. As for the position of Qutuz in Islamic history I do not need to verify a well known fact known to a school boy in an Islamic country. Maybe because you can not read arabic you do not know that but a simple thing to do is to copy past the following word on Google search and see " قطز " Qutuz and Saladin are the most known Sultans in the Islamic world. Qutuz is even more known and praised than Baibars and Al-Ashraf Khalil. And by the way, this letter of Hulagu to Qutuz which you put on Ain Jalut article does not match the orginal message and you should delete or replace :)Samsam22 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read multiple sources from people at the time and see that the stories correlate I think it's safe to assume they are true. We can read Juvaini, Matthew Paris, Lord Joinville and others and see that things are depicted in the same way. Should I have to consult someone from the 1990's to learn about Freud or can I read his books to learn what he said? The further you get away from a source I think the more unreliable it becomes. These people saw things that people now can never know except through them. We are not trusting just one person from one country or religion we can read from people who accompanied the crusaders and people that live in Egypt.

Also I don't believe we need citations for things that are well known. It's not really useful to cite that the earth is round because this is widely known. Isa Alcala (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The prohibition on primary sources is a Wikipedia rule, not mine. They can be used, with caution, for basic chronology but a discussion of who was responsible for Qutuz' assassination, for example, is a matter best left to modern historians. Thank you, MapMaster (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I was looking through some of the links you provided and found some things that I found interesting. "History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources", " Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". If we look at the pages you provided us I think it shows that primary sources are not banned. If they are interpretations we must consult secondary sources. However, what was posted was not an interpretation. Retransmitting what these historians said without adulterating their text is not wrong. Since interpretations were not made we need not consult secondary sources. Also I would like to say that Baibars did not write these books, but historians did.Isa Alcala (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MapMaster, I think you are confused or something. We are just quoting what every one said whether Mamluk historians or modern historians. We are not concluding anything. Again I tell you that Mamluk historians included Baibars in the conspiracy. They differed about the act itself. Modern historians took it over and each selected his version. We are telling that that is all . I think all the case you are thinking Muslim historians said Baibars not took part but the western historians said no he took part. Sorry this is not the case, It is not a racial conflict my friend. Muslim historians both Mamluks and modern said Basibars was involved. Western historians took it over and did not say a new thing. We only telling about the versions. I hope you understood now. By the way do not keep saying primary sources are banned. Wikipedea only means that you should not build conclusions upon primary sources and that is correct. Some western historians can not even read Mamluk names so should we write the wrong names which they wrote ! Again, I should remind you that David Tschanz is not a historian but studied history and works for an oil company in Saudia Arabia. His version on the Aramco Oil Company site is based on story of Ibn Khaldun ( probably you do not know that. ). That is all ok but there are a few other versions so do not keep stuck to one version just because Tschanz quoted it. Probably Mr. Tschanz would add the other versions if he write the story in a book.:) Samsam22 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talking about Primary sources and manuscripts, I received from Egypt a few days a go a very intersting and rare manuscript titled "Al-Roud Al-Zahir Fi Sirat Al-Malik Al-Zahir Tatar" about Sultan Al-Zahhir Tatar ( Burji Sultan ) written by his biographer and contemporary Mahmud ben Ahmad Al-Badr Aini. If someone likes to have a copy for his study should tell me. It is in Arabic. Samsam22 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing about any particular historian or part of this article. I am, instead, stating that Wikipedia articles should be built upon secondary sources.

Wikipedia policy is very clear: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." The section from WP:PRIMARY goes on to give circumstances under which primary sources may be used, but the 32 primary source citations in this article (out of some 38) is too many. If you feel I am confused or mistaken, let's ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:No original research. MapMaster (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok go ask for an opinion, if they say that it is a must and Al-Maqrizi and Ibn-Taghri and Ibn Iyas are not reliable sources I will support what is written by secondary source. Tell them also that articles about Mamluk Sultans which their names are in red and black on this page Mamluk can not be written from secondary source because western writers did not write about them. So see how you write about them on Wikipedia. On my user page I mentioned : The biography of of Sultan Shihab ad-Din Ahmad was my last biography of Mamluk sultans. I will resume only on request. Samsam22 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking you to stop writing biographies, or to never use primary sources. I am saying that you should use more secondary sources when you write your articles. Please don't be upset and please don't stop contributing. MapMaster (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What about these quotes from the links you provided? "History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources", " Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". I read through what you posted and it seems to say that primary sources are only bad if we interpret from them. Again I say that interpretations were not made. Thus the quote, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" shows us that we don't need a secondary source because no one made interpretations. We are using books written by historians. Isa Alcala (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course "History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources", but Wikipedians are not here to write history. They are only here to tell people what credentialed historians have written - historians whom other historians consider to have the accurate picture as of today. Read WP:NOR. History is research, too, and the ban on original research includes it. Wikipedians are not supposed to write what (they think) is true, they are supposed to write what sources currently considered reliable say is true - including about what happened in the past. Determining what part of pre-modern historians' writings are reliable and can be trusted requires expertise and is the job of modern historians. I realise this is an extreme necro, but maybe someone will read it twenty years from now and it is scary that a position ignoring the basics of Wikipedia's policies both remained in the majority and got the last word in 2008.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It is also kind of creepy that nobody involved in the above conversation has edited since 2010, two years after it took place. I may be necroing in more than one sense.--62.73.72.3 (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

He was a Just Turkic origin

He was a just Turkic origin. Being born in Iran, doesn't make he Iranian. At that time, there were too many Turks in Iran, and the ruling dynasty of Iran was also Turkic. He has nothing to do with being Iranian. Moreover, he ruled not even Iran but the mamluks(Bahri Dynasty). He didn't rule Iran or wasnt Iranian. Please, don't change this. He is just turkic. He is only Turkic in every source. Taerelo (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Jalal eldin was uncle

brother of Qutuz's mother 84.215.179.160 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

'Western historians think so'

'Western historians mention that Baibars was in on the conspiracy and assign him direct responsibility.'

Why emphasise 'Western' historians - do modern Muslim historians disagree with this? Currently, not even one modern Muslim historian is cited as disagreeing in the article, and even if there were such a citation, the very generalisation that the ethnicity or religion of the historian is the cause of the disagreement would still be Original Research. If no source can be cited claiming that modern Muslim historians disagree with this, the implication of a disagreement is a violation of WP:V. Note that the statements of the 'Muslim chroniclers' cited after this claim do not disagree with it either; they only attribute motives to Baibars, but do not deny his responsibility. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No citation for birthdate

Unless I'm mistaken, there is no source for Qutuz's birthdate of 2 November 1221 SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)