Talk:Qutuz

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 the 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)

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. 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 ! :) Samsam22 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)