Khazars was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Khazaria.com was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Khazars. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities 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.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine 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.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries
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
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hello I want to request an edit. In linguistic part of Khazars, it says "The latter based upon the assertion of the Persian historian Istakhri the Khazar language was different from any other known tongue."
But when you look at the source it says "al-Iṣṭakhrī's account however then contradicts itself by likening the language to Bulğaric (Golden 2007a, pp. 13–14, 14 n.28)."
Since old Bulğaric was a Turkic language its normal for him to linkening. But I think it's a very important detail! Why it is hidden? I think a neutral sentence should be:
"The latter based upon the assertion of the Persian historian Istakhri the Khazar language was different from any other known tongue, al-Iṣṭakhrī's account however then contradicts itself by likening the language to Bulğaric"
Not done It's not clear to me that this edit is an improvement. Please open a new request with a clearer explanation. Andre🚐23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change this link:
[[Borjigin#Genghisids|Činggisid]]
to
[[Borjigin#Post-Mongol Empire|Činggisid]]
As you can see at the top of this page, the target no longer has a "Genghisids" section. The content once in that section is now in the "Post-Mongol Empire" section. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinclairian: This edit is terrible. You've restored the lead to six paragraphs, which is two over how many its meant to be, only to restore some material that failed verification and some lead bloat. The lead is not a repository for sources. It does not even need sources unless the material is likely to be contested without them. The place for any key sources is the body. If any sources are not in the body, that the problem. Why do you think an entire separate lead paragraph is due on this page for a sub-topic that has its own linked page? And if you think the other statement does not fail verification, perhaps you can quote from the passage that you think supports it. I'll add a lead too long tag. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add whatever tags you wish, your own rationale is just as empty as you claim mine. You make it very difficult to AGF regarding the contents of your edits. Sinclairian (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinclairian: Let's stay on topic. So you can't provide a passage that verifies the statement? That seems like a problem, since WP:V is a very clear grounds for removal. What is unclear about that to you? And why do you not think trimming a long stretch of lead with few wikilinks down to a sensible summary so that the number of paragraphs can be reduced is a good thing? That's MOS:LEAD. What is your rationale? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page 864 of Behar et al. states the issue of Khazar conversions is uncertain in historical scholarship, it thus satisfies both statements it is cited to support (Linguistic and genetic studies have not supported the theory of a Khazar connection to Ashkenazi Jewry. and The theory still finds occasional support, but most scholars view it with considerable scepticism.) and does not violate WP:V. Secondly, considering the longstanding antisemitic credo the Khazar theory has been used to buttress for several decades represents the civilization’s only mainstream relevance, I’m confused why you think trimming this section and only this section IS sensible. Sinclairian (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in your musings, only the lead here. The theory about the Khazars that you refer to has its own separate page. It is far less due or directly relevant here, so I've told you they problem. It's undue, and low on wikilinks, which is a strong indicator that it is blather, even without a read. Moreover, what you restored was a self-evident combination of sweeping and vague statements. I've tagged the obvious problems there too. I replaced it with: "The late 19th century saw the emergence of a theory that today's Ashkenazi Jews could be descended from a Khazarian diaspora. This theory, though ill-evidenced, has been used for polemical purposes and is sometimes associated with antisemitism and anti-Zionism." (Still plenty) - what about that do you find wrong or problematic? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You ask for a a passage that verifies the statement because WP:V is a very clear grounds for removal. and now that you actually have it you’re going to disregard it completely? If you’re so disinterested in my “musings”, perhaps you would benefit from focusing on keeping yourself consistent instead of asking me anything further; after all, the only response I could possibly have to such questionings are further “musings”. Sinclairian (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By musings, I mean the ad hominems you continue to spew while determinedly avoiding a collaborative discussion. You couldn't have at least addressed one of the points I mentioned? Because you're miffed at me dismising your (actually off-topic) musings? I asked what was wrong with the summary. And you ignored it completely. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One that's not conspiracy theory, but just a theory that is ill-evidenced, unpopular and happens to have been used by conspiracy theorists. Elhaik is not a conspiracy theorist, for instance, though his evidence has not swayed his peers. Neither is Wexler a conspiracy theorist. You do a disservice to the earnest work of these scholars. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it’s not a disservice to the vast majority of scholars whose earnest works speak to the contrary of Elhaik’s findings, including Wexler? When did we rewrite WP:VNOT? Sinclairian (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a statement that the issue of Khazar conversions is uncertain in historical scholarship satisfy anything about "linguistic and genetic studies"? Those are different things. And how does it translate into some rambling about "occasional support" and "most scholars" this or that. Seems like some rather large leaps are being made. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking historical scholarship or genetic studies? These are totally different ball parks? I'm talking about the vague yet sweeping statements in the lead linked to narrow, specialist sourcing. Is that not clear? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is unclear is that you left Wexler 2002 but deleted Behar 2013. You’re fine if a general study cites genetic studies to support its conclusion, but you’re not fine if a genetic study cites general studies to support its conclusion. Sinclairian (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the part I redacted I removed both a reference to Wexler AND Behar. Seems like a moot point. Again, the lead is not a repository for sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the presence of references is not, in of itself, cause to have any old statement sitting around, regardless of any other considerations. You restored with an edit summary bemoaning that references had been removed, not that the lead had been otherwise marred. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep placing stock into the idea that an edit summary is an all-encompassing insight into an editor’s whole mental faculties. I do not know why this is. We’re discussing this now, here, on the article talk page. Sinclairian (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you write in an edit summary is what you can expect other editors to address (and assume to be your main talking points), in the absence of you starting your own talk section outlining your reasons more fully. As it stands, those were your reasons, and then your first comment here was about you struggling to AGF. Well, imagine how I am struggling. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Not done It's not clear to me that this edit is an improvement. Please open a new request with a clearer explanation. Andre🚐 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
