This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Last talking language of Kara-Khanid's is persian and someones steal history here and this page is protected. That's weird. Their main language was Middle-Turkic and arabic not persian. Somone is trying to convert this page to tottaly Persian why there is persion on the top like they talking persian? this page should be edit definitely Ltequila (talk)ltequila~~ —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, the source in the article state that they also spoke Persian. And the article has been protected so the likes of you can't disrupt it, as you have done previously in other places [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why someone would add list of researchers' names to the articles. If important, their name would appear in the sources. If not, then their names shouldn't appear, and it would be original research to suggest that they are important. Other articles on empires simply don't list the researchers' names in separate section, and the same is true for any other Wikipedia articles (e.g. a scientific topic, a historical event, a place, etc.). Unless it is an article specifically about researchers on the Kara-Khanids, then their names should not be listed in article. You can add the names if they said certain things that you are quoting in a particular sentences, e.g. "According to xyz, the Kara-Khanids originated from ..." or "Xyz disputed the idea that the Kara-Khanids originated from ...", or if a particular researcher is very important, for example, making some important discoveries (in which case the person may even merit a separate paragraph on the discussion of their discoveries), otherwise the names shouldn't be given as separate entries in their own different section in article. Hzh (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion, but before deleting the text, you should have explained this action on the article's talk page. The main motivation for including this list in the article was that, unfortunately, there is currently a growing number of publications on the history of Central Asia, where the authors ignore previous researchers. I have been doing research on the history of the Karakhanids for over 20 years and this list comes from a well-reviewed academic bibliography. I realized that this list of researchers should be included in an article in a different format and I will move it to an article that provides reviews of research on Central Asia.Khorazmiy (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit as user:Khorazmiy also removed a Cambridge University Press source in the process.[2] Also, just wondering; why should we use Soviet and Russian Federation scholarship, when there are far better sources out there in English? (the world's lingua franca, and the language of this Wikipedia). - LouisAragon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Professor Dr. Boris Kochnev and Professor Dr. Elena Davidovich are high-level archaeologists and scholars. For many years they participated in the excavations of the cities of the Karakhanid era and studied the history of this state on the basis of coins that were not available to researchers from Western Europe. Based on their research, they defended their habilitation dissertations. If you are a specialist in the history of the Karakhanids, please give reasons why you do not think that the names of these worthy specialists should not be presented at least in the list of sources? I also would like to note that in the list of sources on the history of the Karakhanids there are publications in which the history of the Karakhanids is not covered at all and some of which I have deleted.Khorazmiy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beshogur I don’t know how to source the the image from Vahaduo, like Vahaduo doesn’t post the dna distancing, you have to manually do it and screenshot or save the result. HazaraHistorian (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SBD091, can you explain what you're doing? You've been reverted several times and you have made two reverts, and you've provided zero explanation throughout, despite some clear problems with your changes. Per WP:BRD, please explain your edits on the talk page instead of edit-warring. R Prazeres (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]