*'''Doubt.''' I have doubts there is much written about the Khazars as an ethnic group apart from anything which defines that ethnic group as the one which ruled the Khaganate? The two subjects seem to be published about together almost exclusively? Like Nishidani what I have seem result from such proposals in the past on Wikipedia has normally been bad. Not only does it lead to stubs, but also often the creation of separate articles is a way to slip less well-sourced material into the less read article. Khazars has clearly been a subject with a long history of POV debates where I would expect such things would eventually result.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
*'''Doubt.''' I have doubts there is much written about the Khazars as an ethnic group apart from anything which defines that ethnic group as the one which ruled the Khaganate? The two subjects seem to be published about together almost exclusively? Like Nishidani what I have seem result from such proposals in the past on Wikipedia has normally been bad. Not only does it lead to stubs, but also often the creation of separate articles is a way to slip less well-sourced material into the less read article. Khazars has clearly been a subject with a long history of POV debates where I would expect such things would eventually result.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Per reasons given by Nishidani above. [[User:Al Khazar|Khazar]] ([[User talk:Al Khazar|talk]]) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 21:32, 29 September 2015
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 articles
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 articles
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 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
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.
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Introducing new matter
I removed this:
In opposition, in the Chinese lists of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people contained in the old and the new "Histories of the Tang Dynasty," the tribe of Kosa (Qasar) is referred to as the sixth. In the other important Tang compendium, Tang Huiyao ("Institutional History of Tang"), the tribe Sijie (Siker,Esegels) is named as the sixth one. This contradiction was already noticed by E. Pulleyblank[1] and was finally explained by T. Senga, who showed that both Tanshu combined the list of names for "small" tribes (subtribal names) which were a part of the Uighurs, and the list of names of the "nine tribes," that is, of the Toquz-Oghuz people.
Summarizing the results of several studies by Japanese scholars, T. Senga[2] showed that the tribe Kosa (Qasar) dominated in the tribal group of the Sijie (Siker,Esegel), which included the tribe Apusy (Abuz).[3]
S.G. Klyashtornyi from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in several of his works[4] considered as the fact that Qasar/Kosa/Khazar are the same tribe and as the fact that the tribal alliance of Qasar/Khazar only partially migrated to the west of the Eurasian steppes(Klyashtornyi 2005, 2007)[5]
Some of this might, in a sentence, be retried. It is unlinked, refers to inaccessible sources, and is needlessly fixated on an issue best clarified on the relevant pages. Generally, I see an indifference to the scholarly format that is the page's standard in several new edits, and the effect is to scar or blight the work done so far. Editors should try to adopt the conventions agreed on for a page.
^Pulleyblank E.G. 1956 The background of rebellion of An Lu-shan. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
^Senga T. 1990 The Toquz Oghuz problem and the origin of the Khazars. Journal of Asian History, vol. 24, No. 1: 57–69.
^Pulleyblank E.G. 1955 Some remarks on the Toquz-oghuz problem. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher (Wiesbaden), Bd. 28: 35–42.
^QASAR-QURUG: WESTERN HEADQUARTERS OF THE UIGHUR KHAGANS AND THE PROBLEM OF POR-BAZHYN IDENTIFICATION S.G. Klyashtornyi / Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 40/2 (2012) 94–98
Perhaops Khazars and Askanazi jew2s not so far fetched?
Perhaps the Khazar theory of western Jews (as oppossed to sephedic jews of the mid east) Not so far fectched? Know that the genetic diase G6Pd prevelant amng middle easter "tribees' Greeks, Sehapdic jews etc? Yet, this genetic ailment rARE in Ashkanazi jews? (Severe hemolytic anemia especally in contact with the plant Vicia faba Fava beans) Anti semetism aside. If some or most Ashkanazi jews were from the Khazer tribe(s) wouldnt that make thenm NOT TO bLAME FOR THE "KILLING' OF JESUS? Since they didnt convert to Judism till thousand years or so after Christ was Crucuified/ Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson 64.134.238.48 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With a significant period of time passing from a previous proposal to split and no response to May 2015 proposal, i would like to raise again the idea to split off an article on the Khazar Khaganate (the Khazar Kingdom), leaving this Khazars article to emphasize the ethnic and cultural scope of the Khazars from antiquity to their disappearance, rather than the political and historical aspects of their kingdom, which existed during early middle ages. Specifically, i propose to split the geopolitical entity template and sections "Rise of the Khazar state", "Khazar state: culture and institutions", "Khazars and Byzantium", "Arab–Khazar wars" and "Rise of the Rus' and the collapse of the Khazarian state", leaving instead a summary of the Khazar Khaganate within the history section.
The reasons for split include logical separation of ethnic and geopolitical topics, like Nabatean kingdom vs Nabateans or Philistia vs Philistines. In addition, the Khazars article includes a former state template at the beginning, which is misleading some to think this article describes solely the Middle Ages' political entity. Furthermore, the current size of Khazars article (which combines both ethnic scope and state's history) is 173Kb, closing to the upper threshold of article size (typically 200Kb), thus implying that a split is a good thing. Support and/or other opinions for this proposal are welcome.GreyShark (dibra) 10:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support split as per GreyShark, the proposed split seems entirely reasonable and in line with several comparable examples. Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
(1)This comes far too quickly after the failed split proposal last year. It smacks of impatience with that decision(non-decision.
(3)The length is not problematical since it is 25k under the threshold limit.
(4)The curse of Wikipedia is stub creation with no follow on, rather than concentration on a comprehensive article of encyclopedic quality, which this one arguably exhibits.
(5)The article, representing a year's collective review and work to at least GA standard, works by virtue of a delicate meshing of very complex materials that, were they split up or fractured thematically, probably led to loss of links and thematic associations, and only lead to a demand for a return to what was a rather strenuous effort, collectively endorsed. The bibliographical and template methods used do not lend themselves to an easy split, and fixing the forseeable mess would be extremely time consuming.
(6)Any reader, raised on twitter, can see anything she is particularly interested in, by going to the relevant sections.
Given these complexities, any split arrangement should optimally be done consensually on a special work page, rather than being done unilaterally and preemptively (even if one gets the nod) by one editor. If several editors were confident that could be done, and worked to produce a result that was satisfactory, my negative verdict would be changed. Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt. I have doubts there is much written about the Khazars as an ethnic group apart from anything which defines that ethnic group as the one which ruled the Khaganate? The two subjects seem to be published about together almost exclusively? Like Nishidani what I have seem result from such proposals in the past on Wikipedia has normally been bad. Not only does it lead to stubs, but also often the creation of separate articles is a way to slip less well-sourced material into the less read article. Khazars has clearly been a subject with a long history of POV debates where I would expect such things would eventually result.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per reasons given by Nishidani above. Khazar (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
