Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



  1. Searched the web for 普速完
  2. Searched the web for 屈出律
  3. Searched the web for 直魯古
  4. Searched the web for 耶律
  5. Searched the web for 出律
  6. Searched the web for 夷列
  7. Searched the web for 塔不煙.
  8. Searched the web for 塔不烟
  9. Searched the web for 西遼
  10. Searched the web for 元史译文
  11. 元史Yanyi (best)
  12. 安史之乱后的西域历史
  13. 2.喀什噶尔和河中地区的突厥化:哈拉汗朝
  14. 喀什噶尔的古代居民
  15. 阿諾德·湯因比 人類与大地母親
  16. Searched the web for balasaghun.
  17. Searched the web for balasagun
  18. Literature in Central Asia
  19. "Turkish History, Leavening of Cultures, Civilization" H. B. Paksoy, D. Phil.



Paksoy, H.B., ALPAMYSH. Central Asian Identity under Russian Rule.

name of article[edit]

"Karakhanid" is not in common use. All standard transcriptions of the Arabic alphabet use a "Q" for the ق , and virtually all scholarly work on the Qarakhanids in English uses the name "Qarakhanid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Song dyansty section[edit]

Someone should improve this section possibly by translating the Chinese into English. As is, I don't think it should be kept. Xaphoo 19:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


This article does not cite any reliable references. To a large part, it contradicts standard reference works such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the book The History of the Turkic Peoples by Peter Golden. For example, it does not explain that the name "Qarakhanid" was not their native name, but the name that modern scholars have chosen for the dynasty. Tajik (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot find any serious despute in this edition. Takabeg (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Persianized Kypchack ??[edit]

Something is wrong with the organisation of the article. In Early History subsection Persianization and Kypchak dialects are discussed.

The Karluk (or Chagatay) group of Turkish languages may be affected by Persian which is a common cultural exchange. But even if that is so, that topic has no place in Early history subsection. ( In Culture section claims are already repeated.)

But surely, the assertion which states the Persian influence on Kypchak group of languages (which were then spoken by Turks in Europe) is highly suspicious.( Codex Cumanicus was published in the 13 th century about the language of Turks in Europe thousands kilometers far from Persia) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names in other languages[edit]

It's unnecessary for us to put modern Kazakh name Қарахан мемлекеті and modern Turkish name Karahanlılar in this article. Because we can easily find them, that are the titles of Kazakh Wikipedia (kk:Қарахан мемлекеті) and Turkish Wikipedia (tr:Karahanlılar). Moreover they are only modern usage and not important to read histrical documents. But the title of this article in Chinese Wikipedia is zh:喀喇汗国. 黑汗, 桃花石 is useful for reading historical domuments. The title of this article in Persian Wikipedia is fa:خانان کاراخانی and different from قراخانيان, Qarākhānīyān or خاقانيه‎, Khakānīya (I've transferred from Turkish Wikipedia). In short, modern alternatives are unuseful and histrical alternatives are useful for readers of English Wikipedia. If you doubt them, you can use {{Citation needed|date=}}. Takabeg (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Qara-Khanid Khanate ?[edit]

"Qara-Khanid Khanate" 1 result

Takabeg (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


I have been doing some rewriting on the article. The original article appeared unbalanced, lacking information on significant parts of the Karakhanid history, instead for some strange reasons concentrate a big part on the Kara-Khitans. It also contained unsourced information which directly contradicted what stated in books, and statements that seemed to be written from a biased perspective. I will adjust the content where I can find the reference. Hzh (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the most egregious example is the description of the Kara-khitans as being harsh on the Kara-khanids. All the books I have consulted said that the they were tolerant rulers. The only one said to have pursued harsh policy was Kuchlug (though he may not be considered a Kara-khitan at all since he was a Naiman who usurped the throne), even then one book doubts the description of the events under his rule. Wiki articles should not give a skewed narrative that contradicts what is accepted history. Hzh (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Kara Khanid's wars with Khotanese Buddhists[edit]

Conversion of the Karakhanids to Islam[edit]

04:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Official language[edit]

The modern Uyghur language is descended from the Xakani Karluk language of the Kara-Khanid Khanate, not the old Uyghur language of the Uyghur Khaganate). It is the Western Yugur language which is descended from the old Uyghur language.

The Modern Uyghur's ancestral language was also known as Xakani, it was the official language of the Kara Khanids and was documented by Mahmud Kashgari.

Rajmaan (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Native name[edit]

The Karakhanids are Turkic, not Persian or Arabic, please don't add give those as their native names. While it may be argued that they are Persianized, they are certainly not Arabic, and you cannot use that as their native name. I will leave the Persian name for the time being for discussion, but Arabic simply cannot stay. I will remove the Persian name if there is no good reason is given, since being Persianized is not the same as Persian, therefore any suggestion that they are Persian is wrong. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

These are the contemporary name used by historians, tell me where can you find Qarluq Turkic language? Your hypocrisy is outstanding since you kept the Persian name and changed the Persian one I have given. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't dumb garbage material on my talk page and accuse me of things I have never said , I never claimed they were Arabic, never claimed "Persianized is not the same as Persian", never claimed they weren't Turkic people or suggested they were Persian, it seems you got a dog in this fight. I will let you win, congratulation. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The field is meant for the native language, if you put that Arabic in, you are suggesting that they are Arabic. If you mean you cannot find their original title in their Turkic language, than you should not put anything in. We don't invent things. Chinese has contemporary name for them, but you certainly cannot put Chinese as their native name. Putting Arabic in as their native name simply suggest you have no inkling of the subject in question. I corrected the Persian name because that is commonly used in Persian, and that will be removed if you cannot give a good explanation why Persian should be added. Hzh (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Now you accusing me of not knowing the subject at hand when I have studied them extensively, okay I'm ignorant of the subject and you are the genius here. I will let you have your candy, okay so just be happy at the moment. You don't have to reply to me anymore.Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Again stop adding garbage on my talk page when there is a talk page for this article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If telling you what the infobox is for is garbage, then you have a problem. You appear not to understand what the native name field is meant for - it is exactly what it says, name in the native language, per Template:Infobox former country. If you put Arabic name in there, you are claiming them to be Arabs, which suggests you have no idea what you are putting into the infobox. Hzh (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That is right I know nothing, and you know everything, you are right I apologize, I should have known better what the infobox said, I'm stupid. Next time I will try my best to please you okay. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Languages in lead[edit]

I'm in favor of as few as possible. If the Kara-Khanids used Arabic script, there should just be one name in Arabic script that's historically valid, nothing else. And it looks like it's been established that Chinese is not notable/relevant here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 14:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Who established that? There was a section on relation with Song China, but it was hidden because there wasn't enough content to justify it (I'm the one who moved to hide it). The reason the Chinese characters are there is to indicate that the Karakhanid styled themselves as rulers of China by their use of title Tamghaj Khan/Tabhghach Khan which means "ruler of China", and they also used Malik al-Mashriq (or al-sharg) wa al-Sin meaning "King of the East and China" in their own coins - [1]. Muslim writers of the period consider part of the KaraKhanid Empire like Kashgar to be Chinese territories. There is in any case no such name as Kara Khanid Khanate used by the Karakhanids, how they use it is pretty much irrelevant, unless you want to add what they called themselves, which include ruler of the China. There are plenty of things that could be added to the article, the idea that if it wasn't in the article is somehow a justification for removal is odd, especially given that I can give you a number of books that discussed their relationship to China. There are certainly material that can be added, if I get round to doing it. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not enough reason. The Karakhanids did not use the Chinese language. "Chinese territories" does not imply Chinese language. The British queen didn't just claim to be the Empress of India she ruled India, but we don't have one Indian language on the page British Empire or Queen Victoria. By your logic, we should be adding Hindi/Urdu to the leads in those articles. The Kara-Khanids didn't even ever rule over native Chinese speaking territory; the British did rule over Indian territory. I don't even think Persian should be in the lead; it should just be whatever Middle Turkic form of their name they used themselves, in (Perso-)Arabic script and transliteration. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 15:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't use India with its many languages as an example, if that is all you know, then don't try to apply what's local to the general. As I said, there is no such name Kara-Khanid Khanate since they did not record their own dynasty name. If you can find the Turkic name, then by all means add it, but I suspect you can't, and in the absence of such a name, then the Persian and Chinese would have to do. Hzh (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, there is no such name as Kara Khanid Khanate in the Turkic records. The name is a modern construction based on the royal title the Karakhanid used. Song dynasty records also used Heihan (黑汗 or 黑韓, literally "Black khan" or "Kara khan", as kara means black) for the Karakhanids. Hzh (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to apply anything (and my analogy is unnecessary); I have the null argument here- the Chinese name which you wish to have in the lead is unsourced. It's your position which has the burden of proof, to show merit for inclusion. I see you're right about the name origin, so in this case nothing other than the names used in English belong in the lead; the Persian script names, if they belong at all, belong in the "origin" section. There's no mention of Song records on this page currently; so right now the Chinese name has no place on this article. If you add back in the Song section, maybe the Chinese name can go there. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Btw, I'm basing off of WP:LEDE#Foreign language. This article is not closely associated with a single foreign language. Also see WP:LEDE#Clutter for perhaps a surprisingly relevant example. Thanks. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I said, the text on Song dynasty is hidden, and there are plenty of sources if necessary. The hidden text contains some Chinese text in the Chinese records, here Song History which records the King of Hotan asking to be granted the title Kara Khan, here Halahan or Heihan from The Encyclopedia of Empire is used (which also gives various contemporaneous names). The point is that unlike your example (you don't appear to appreciate why it is different, and if you think the example of Genghis Khan is relevant here with only 2 names you really don't understand the point it is meant to convey), the English title does not exist in the original language of the Karakhanid or is unknown, however they were referred to as Heihan in Song documents, or or Al-i Afrasiyab in Persian sources, or others. The Chinese name is actually related to the title of the article, and is commonly given in many sources (ask yourself why the The Encyclopedia of Empire would add the Chinese name). It is where the name comes from. Hzh (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no clue what you mean when you say I "really don't understand the point it is meant to convey" wrt WP:LEDE#Clutter- care to elaborate? Or are you questioning the Manual of Style? Once again, you have the burden of the proof, you can feel free un-hide the text and improve it, and then let's talk. If you provide clear and reliable sources to merit inclusion of Chinese in the Origin section (if Chinese is the origin to the English name), go ahead and add them. But WP:LEDE#Foreign language is quite clear. It's clearly not the case that there is a unique non-English language that's "closely associated" to this article (possibly any!), and that's that; this means no scripts in lead. This is my last remark about the lead. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 01:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
There are four set of parentheses with many names in the Genghis Khan example, this article has two names within a a single set of parentheses, it is even less cluttered than the "improved" Genghis Khan example which includes pronunciation guides in English and Mongolian and dates. At the moment you appear not to understand the subject of the article or even the rules you cited. For example, you removed the Persian name, when the article itself said the the Karakhanids became Persianized, and that the later khagans wrote Persian poetry, suggesting that they had adopted Persian. I would therefore ask you to restore the Persian name as you did not give a valid reason that is congruent with known facts, particularly so when the issue is still under discussion.
The name Kara-Khanid Khanate comes from the royal title (in Arabic) used in their coinage, and the Chinese in Song sources corresponds directly to that name. Arabic and Persian literature otherwise use the Khagan and other names for them. As explained, the Karakhanids are unusual in that the name of their dynasty is a a modern term, but it does correspond to the name used in Karakhanid coins and Chinese sources. There is a reason why there is WP:IGNORE as rules cannot cover all instances, when there are unusual case as Kara-Khanid Khanate. Note also that per WP:BRD, you should have discussed it first when someone reverted your edit, you should have left it at that while discussion is in progress. Hzh (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And you seem to not understand what "closely associated language" means. You're position is to put at least two in the lead, when you haven't demonstrated that either is even closely associated. In fact, you're simply supporting the previous version of the page, and you've ignored the fact that a form of Middle Turkic is much more closely associated with the Kara-Khanids than any other language. You haven't demonstrated the need for WP:IGNORE, and this discussion shouldn't be controversial in the first place, as I've cited WP policy and you're trying to go against them. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 16:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The modern term is closely associated with the old Chinese term. The idea that the Karakhanids had become Persianized to the extent of writing Persian poetry is not a demonstration that they are linked to Persian is astonishing. No original Turkic name of the dynasty exists, so I have no idea why you would even argue they are "more closely associated with the Kara-Khanids than any other language", it is irrelevant to modern title used apart from the royal title in Arabic that they used in coins. You are plainly arguing from a position of ignorance, and refusing to see why the term is different (Genghis Khan indeed!). Hzh (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that there is no attempt to explain the removal of the Persian, and if none is forthcoming, then the Persian will be restored. It is particularly wrong to remove the Persian name for Āl-e Afrāsiyāb as the name is an indication that Karakhanid had Persianized to the extent of them adopting a Persian mythical king as their ancestor, presenting themselves as part of the Persian cultural milieu - [2]. I will consider how to rewrite the lead, perhaps only one name in Persian is needed. Hzh (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No. Stop ignoring my arguments and calling me ignorant. I explained the removal. The Kara-Khanids lacked a native name to refer to themselves, so there is no "closely associated" language to this topic, as would merit inclusion in the lead as per WP:LEDE. Alternate names in English or in other languages should stay in the Origin section, or some other section. If you're still opposed, start an RfC. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 01:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
You did not actually present any coherent argument about Persian, and completely ignored my points (that they actually became Persianized, wrote Persian poetry, and used Persian mythology for their own origin). The Persian name might be the closest we have of a native name for the dynasty (outside of a Turkic one) as it is how the Karakhanid themselves wanted to be seen, and became part of the Persian culture. There is nothing you wrote that suggests you actually know anything about the Karakhanids, in fact, it would appear that your tactic is to make an ill-informed edit and then demand that I do all the work to explain everything to you, when you apparently did not even bother to read the article, and then ignore what I said. For example, I have already said why the Chinese section was hidden, yet you come here and demand that I unhide and write it, completely ignoring my point that it may not warrant a section of its own. We try not to add unnecessary details that bloat an article, and I'm still considering if any of the information on the Karakhanids relation with China is actually worth adding. We are not performing monkeys for you come and demand that we do things for you. I have dozens of other things I still need do on other pages.
We don't actually treat anyone who is ignorant of a subject any different from another as he or she can still make a positive contribution, but you should at least respect the work that has already been put into it, and do something positive rather than demanding other people do the work. Present your argument why Persian should not be included, otherwise you will be considered as having no argument at all. Hzh (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's be civil here. I already did present a coherent argument. You talk as if we're arguing over content. No, that's not the case. We're arguing over the style of the lead. As I said, all the content you are arguing for can go in later sections. My position is clear: if there is no native name, then no name should go into the lead. If you dispute this, your historical arguments won't help since this is a style issue based on WP:LEDE; we would have to seek a WP:Third opinion or an RfC. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 03:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that you chose to ignore the fact that the Karakhanids had became Persianized (meaning they had adopted Persian as their culture and language), I'm at a lost where your argument is. Hzh (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
How about I just quote you from above: "The Karakhanids are Turkic, not Persian or Arabic, please don't add give those as their native names." As I have said many times by now, I don't believe there's a good case here for a non-native name to go in the lead, based on WP:LEDE. Since there is no native name, no foreign-language name should go in the lead. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 03:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
And you conveniently ignored the following sentence about them being said to be "Persianized". In any case, the name Āl-e Afrāsiyāb is Persian, therefore the native name is Persian (you are confusing the two terms Karakhanid Khanate and Āl-e Afrāsiyāb - one is Persian, one is not, even if they both mean the same). Hzh (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I should also say that WP:LEDE clearly says that a non-English equivalent can be given, which Āl-e Afrāsiyāb in Persian clearly is, therefore can be added. I think you have in fact misinterpreted WP:LEDE#Foreign language, making it about the native name of the subject (which by the way was what the previous discussion was about), rather than a term "closely associated with a non-English language". Hzh (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Our disagreement is over whether the Persian term counts as "closely associated with a non-English language". Since it's not a native name, it's certainly not obvious. My position remains: it does not count. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 16:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The example of Karakhanid Khanate clearly illustrates that "closely associated with a non-English language" is not the same as "native name". The native Turkic name is non-existent or unknown, but the dynasty name is closely associated with a non-English language (in this case actually more than one) - Al-i Afrasiyab in Persian, al-Khaqaniya in Arabic. Your position appears to be that if the fact doesn't agree with how you see things, then the fact doesn't exist, and that cannot be a serious proposition, and therefore it is an unacceptable argument. Hzh (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if I adopt your position that there are two "closely associated" languages, they should not go in the lead; the guideline in WP:LEDE#Foreign language is clear that there is room for at most a "single foreign language". ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 21:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I have already said before that the Persian should be add, whether the Arabic is there or not is unimportant as it is given elsewhere. However it doesn't say at most a single foreign language, that again is how you interpret it. Hzh (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


It appears that both of you agree that only English should be used in the lead. That seems a fair consensus given that this event happened a millenium ago and MOS:FORLANG allows for a discretionary single foreign language equivalent (usually the present local language). Inlinetext (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that I have argued for Persian in the lead, your comment of "only English" is completely puzzling. Hzh (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course I had read that, and also noted that you would be satisfied with only a Persian descriptor additionally (to English) in the lead. Is it correct, as the article presently says, that this dynasty was confined to Transoxiana - 'corresponding approximately with modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, southern Kyrgyzstan,? If so, what would be the present day language for this vast area ? Inlinetext (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW, it is also good form to advise that either of you can object to me at the outset and I shall automatically recuse myself. Inlinetext (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
It's just odd for you to say that I had agree to any "English only" suggestion. It is probably not very useful to look at the present countries, since a lot have happened since then (Tajiks are Persian speaking, Uzbeks and Kirghiz Turkic, although I don't think the Kirghiz has any relation with the Karakhanids, the Uzbeks are probably more associated with the Kipchak and established their own khanate). I suspect the people today who most identify with the Karakhanids are the Uyghurs of China. Hzh (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hzh is correct that I was the one advocating for only English, and Hzh for the addition of Persian (and initially, also Chinese?). It's roughly correct that the dynasty was confined to "modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, southern Kyrgyzstan", but also northern Kyrgyzstan (Balasagun) and parts of southern Xinjiang (such as Kashgar). However I'm not aware of their territory extending to modern-day Tajikistan. The modern Kyrgyz also identify with Karakhanid history, see Yusuf Balasaghuni (who appears on a banknote). Persian in the Persian script is no longer used in this region at all; the major local languages currently used in this region are Uzbek, Tajik (a variety of Persian, used unofficially in Bukhara and other parts of Uzbekistan, written in Cyrillic or Latin; ignoring Tajikistan), Kyrgyz, Kazakh, Russian (dominant language in the region near Balasagun), and Uyghur. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 16:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
This article is about Kara-Khanids, a state that ruled the region from 9th century to 13th century, what it has to do with modern-day Uzbekistan, Tajikistan etc? Should we remove the Latin script from Roman Empire since this language is no longer official in that region? Or should we add Turkish spelling to Herodotus because he was born in what is now Turkey? Your argument is very weak. Please stop removing the initial foreign languages based on your own interpretations of guidelines. -- Mazandar (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I am glad that both of you have been so civil in discussing this. My opinion, FWIW, is that MOS only permits a single additional (to English) language descriptor in the Lead, and there is no clear candidate for that language here. So stick to English only and play it safe. Bye. Inlinetext (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
There does not appear to any more opinion forthcoming, and there isn't overwhelming support for either side. The only argument appear to be how Basawala chose to interpret the guideline, for example saying that "at most a "single foreign language" (also said by Inlinetext), which is actually not how the MOS worded it and clearly a misinterpretation because you can easily find counter examples in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). There also appears to be a confusion between name in a foreign language and an alternate name (Āl-e Afrāsiyāb is an alternate name in Persian, and you can argue that Persian may not be considered foreign towards the end of the dynasty). Given that the second edit should never have been done anyway (as the discussion was ongoing, but which I choose not to revert so as to allow the discussion to proceed), I will restore that in some form when I have the time to rewrite the lead. A way to resolve this is to create a section on its various names as recommended in the MOS (although the Persian version will likely be retained in the lede). I will also likely add something on its relationship with Song China, but I'll have to think about how to add it. Hzh (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not just how I alone chose to interpret the guideline. If you object to the 3O, this will have to go to RfC. I support a names section, but not Persian nor Chinese in the lede. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
By all means do that, but as there is no consensus (one for you, another one against you apart from me), I will put the Persian back because you should not have removed it in the first place (the edit was left there as a courtesy even though you do not understand how WP:BRD should be done). You have clearly misunderstood and confused a number of things, refusing to acknowledge my argument about Persian, now even refusing a compromise of putting all the different terms apart from Persian into a separate section. Hzh (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If you put the Persian back, then that would be quite clearly a violation of BRD. And don't confuse disagreement with refusal to acknowledge arguments. I for one, have actually been responding to the arguments of other side instead of dismissing them as ignorant. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Really, you are the one who violated it in the first place, now you are claiming I did it? Did you even read how WP:BRD is done, or do you just want to get your way? In any case, this part of the discussion is over and it is inconclusive, and I'm changing it to a state before you messed it up so that the following discussion can take place. Hzh (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I did not claim that you violated BRD, read the conditional statement. I do not believe I violated BRD, but this has already been discussed earlier. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, use "would have" then, and the point still stands. So you are claiming that you did not understand what you wrote in the beginning of this discussion? Hzh (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In any case, either you accept that the discussion includes Persian, then you violated WP:BRD, and if you don't accept that, and Persian is not intended to be part of this discussion, then me putting Persian back does not constitute a violation (i.e. putting it back is the first revert in the cycle, which then needs to go to discussion). Make you mind up. Hzh (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, I do not accept that this discussion included Persian at the time I removed it (it was only about Chinese); it became relevant (and in fact the main point of contention) only after you objected. Regardless of BRD (which is described as "optional" anyways), now that you've decided to completely dismiss a neutral WP:3O and now that an RfC is up, your proposed change to the article may be seen as disruptive. Anyways, the inclusion of content has the burden of consensus, not the lack thereof. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There you are, making edits while a discussion is in progress, claiming that the discussion does not cover the edit, refusing to undo it when I first asked you to (you have forgotten that, have you?), now claiming that it is covered by the discussion by the mere fact of me objecting. You are getting in the territory of slippery arguments, everything you say goes. You seem to have forgotten that someone else objected to your edits. Do remind me, what exactly is the Arab script you speak of in your opening sentence? The inclusion of content is not about consensus, that only kicks in after the content has been reverted and discussed. Hzh (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an explanation of what you meant by the Arabic script the KaraKhanid used that's historically valid (they did use Arabic scripts and they are historically valid). Either you know and you are pretending not to know, or you don't know what you meant, neither of which is good for you. If you refuse to answer that, then I would assume you have no real interest in the discussion, everything you have done so far is merely trying to spin it out as long as you can. Hzh (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the languages in the lead[edit]

No consensus.In my opinion, the formulation of the RFC was right.Winged Blades Godric 16:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the lead contain non-English language names, such as Persian or Chinese? Is the Persian language a "closely associated" language to this article that would merit inclusion of the name(s) used in Persian-language sources, under WP:LEDE#Foreign language? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

  • A note to the closer of this RfC - the first question is improperly worded and not specific to the current issue under discussion, and appears to misled respondents into answering this as if the RfC is about the formulation or interpretation of a guideline rather than the specific issue under discussion. It might have been OK if they had answered the second question which is directly relevant to the issue, most however ignore it, which made the relevance of the responses questionable. An alternative question that is directly relevant to the issue at hand is therefore given below, and respondents may re-add their responses and offer opinions that specifically address the issue at hand. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • A followup note: this claim against the reliability of the responses under Survey is biased and problematic. The fact that this RfC is on the talk page of a specific article is enough for competent WP editors to deduce that the scope is not about a WP guideline. The claim that users ignored the second question is also a biased claim; one answer can cover both questions, as the first responder clearly indicated this, and set such a precedent for it. (No more edits up here; refer to discussion below.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 16:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


  • No, it should not contain non-English names (and the second question is redundant). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak no, I believe a strict interpretation of policy favours leaving them out, but after seeing relevant policies and precedents it seems that it's not unacceptable. My judgement as to the value of languages in the lead versus the clutter they cause is quite neutral on this as well. Siuenti (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No sums it up. L3X1 (distant write) 01:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Two of the responses so far appear to have completely ignored the guideline and the questions asked, which should be about whether Persian (or other languages) is a "closely associated" language to be included in the lead. The first question is actually wrongly worded, and mislead people into answering the question wrongly, and should not have been part of this RfC. This is a serious error as the guideline clearly permits the usage of non-English language. This is not a RfC about changing guideline on non-English language names. As far as this article is concerned, my position is that Persian is a closely-related language, as they ruled over a large area that was culturally Persian, used Persian themselves and deliberately adopted a Persian identity. Hzh (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No. My reasoning can be found throughout this section and the one above, but essentially boils done to lack of a compelling argument for giving an exception to the guideline. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 01:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. The first question is a restatement of MOS:FORLANG, in which case there's no reason to suppose the guideline shouldn't apply here. The second question (whether Persian should be included) requires finer subject knowledge than I have, but generally I would expect it to be included – even leaving aside the Persianisation of the Karakhanids themselves, most of their history, I surmise, would be known via Persian-language sources, so the Persian name is likely to feature prominently in the literature. If there are issues with cluttering of the first sentence, the alternative names can be listed at the end of the lede section. – Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative amended question[edit]

Is any of these non-English languages—Persian, Arabic, Chinese—closely associated with the Karakhanid Khanate to warrant their inclusion in the lead of this article per WP:LEDE#Foreign language? Hzh (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, Persian specifically as the Karakhanids ruled over a large area that was culturally Persian, used Persian themselves and deliberately adopted a Persian identity by using a name that linked them to the Afrasiab of Persian mythology. Hzh (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

It should be clarified that one important question here is whether Persian should be considered a foreign language to the Karakhanid, as had been made clear in discussion above. The Turkic rulers had eventually become Persianized to the extend of writing Persian poetry, and also incorporated Persian mythology into their own identity, and the name in Persian in question is an expression of their adopted Persian identity - Āl-e Afrāsiāb. Hzh (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant non-English, as it's used on WP:LEDE. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

For those who are unaware of the subject, the Karakhanids used Turkic, Arabic and Persian languages. The question is whether them using Arabic and Persian would make those languages closely associated with them, to me Arabic perhaps not (it would be more like the English using Latin), but for Persian it is certainly true as they become absorbed into the Persian cultural sphere and consciously adopted a Persian identity. Hzh (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

My feeling is that if there is not clearly one most strongly associated language, they should all go in a box and not in the lead. WP:LEDE says "a single foreign language equivalent" Siuenti (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a weird idea, and I'm not sure how this idea comes about or how that is quantified. They ruled over an area that was mostly culturally Persian, themselves becoming for a large part Persianised. How you would argue about the Yuan dynasty, perhaps Mongolian, not Chinese in the lead? Hzh (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the way it's done in Qing dynasty Siuenti (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It nevertheless appears to be an entirely arbitrary decision. In any case, it does all seem made up, for example you turned "closely associated" into "most strongly associated", what you said has no basis in the guidelines. Hzh (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
"If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. " NB "single", "can". If no foreign language is clearly more strongly associated than the others, how are you going to choose which one? Siuenti (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The guidelines doesn't say more or most, and there are in fact exceptions to the guidelines about using single non-English name (common in geography articles - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)), so what you says doesn't follows. What I have been arguing in fact is that Persian is the one most closely associated with the name of Karakhanid Khanate, barring someone else being able to find the name in the Turkic language they used. Hzh (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
In fact, a Turkic variety in the Old Uyghur script is probably more strongly associated with this dynasty, as they were a Turkic dynasty to begin with, and the region largely speaks Turkic now. But as the Origin section points out, their names in any language are artificial or bestowed by later/outside sources. I've exhausted all I have to say in the above section, but I will reiterate that the burden of the proof lies on arguing for the relevance of the Persian name plus showing that Persian is closely associated enough above Turkic. Both conditions would need to be met, and if you're arguing for an exception to the guideline, your argument would have to be even stronger. Yes, I know that there is no clear Turkic name, but both conditions need to be met before Persian can go in the lede. WP:LEDE is clearly about the association of the language, not the name. And if you believe the name in Persian is relevant, but not that Persian is more associated with the Karakhanids than Turkic, then that's enough to demonstrate that the Persian name does not belong in the lede. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 00:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid as far as you are concerned, we have enough evidence that you are not discussing in good faith by your continual refusal to acknowledge what you actually wrote. I have already explained why Persian is closely related to the Karakhanids, that the Persian name(s) is contemporary to the Karakhanids, that there is no known name for the dynasty in the original Turkic language (pointless to argue about putting the Persian name over Turkic name when that doesn't exist or not known). If you don't want to accept the argument, that's fine, I no longer believe that you want to, or are willing to accept any argument. Hzh (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? You've just completely ignored my most recent point. At this point, I have nothing more to add. I continue to disagree with you, and let's not confuse mere disagreement as unwillingness "to accept any argument". I'll certainly accept an argument if it's convincing- this isn't one of them. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what else to say when you refuse to admit what you actually wrote, ignoring any argument against you (it's interesting that you only acknowledge the argument supporting you but ignore the other one against you), simply asserting that you don't accept my argument without clearly specifying why, and asking me to explain something that doesn't make sense given that I have already said. A discussion means that you need to take account of what other people said, as well as what you yourself have said. If you can go so far as to pretend that you never said something that you actually did (and refusing to explain when asked), then the discussion breaks down, because there is no evidence you are actually partaking in any meaningful discussion. Simply demanding that other people explain things to you and refusing to acknowledge the explanation is not a discussion.
The question here is whether Persian is closely associated with the Karakhanids, I think I have shown enough that Persian names are indeed closely associated (and to Siuenti, most closely associated aside from the original Turkic, modern Uyghur is irrelevant as far as its original name of the Karakhanids is concerned). Certainly they were more closely associated to Persian than the Yuan dynasty Mongols were to the Chinese because the Mongols never assumed a Han Chinese identity, whereas the Karakhanid tried to assume a Persian one. Hzh (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── First of all, let's not forget the result of the WP:3O above, which also disagreed with you. And in fact, I'm paying close attention to your argument, and I'll respond directly to it. You wrote: "I have been arguing in fact is that Persian is the one most closely associated with the name of Karakhanid Khanate, barring someone else being able to find the name in the Turkic language they used". Sure, the existent name used in Persian sources is more relevant than the (apparently) non-existent Turkic name. My point however, I reiterate, is that WP:LEDE talks about one closely associated language, not a closely associated name. We seem to be actually in agreement that a form of Turkic is more closely associated with the Karakhanid Khanate than Persian. Since, as you point out, the name in Turkic is lacking (or for that matter, an self-bestowed name in Persian, it seems), there is no non-English language name that should go in the lede. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to differentiate with your "one closely associated language, not a closely associated name", the language is closely associated (given what I'm have been arguing all along that they used the Persian language and adopted a Persian identity), so is the name. You are making a spurious distinction about a "more closely associated" language that is not in the guidelines (and something which I have already addressed and you apparently ignored). And as I said, you ignore the respondent who disagree with you in the 3O. You might also want to go back and address the question you are pretending not to exist, otherwise I won't consider that you are making any honest attempt at discussion. Hzh (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I will not entertain your attempts to discredit me. I'll answer any question if you pose it neutrally and civilly and if it pertains to to the application WP:LEDE here, which is what we're discussing, and nothing else. But I think that my argument is clear, that no non-English name should be included in the lede. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 20:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
And you have presented no argument that I haven't already addressed. If you keep presenting arguments that had already been answered or are just inexplicable based on what I have already written, and refusing to address an important issue that you used to justify keeping your own edit, you are discrediting yourself. Hzh (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out User:Hzh and User:Basawala are misusing this RfC discussion. RfCs aren't for two people to debate, especially two people who have already had extensive debate and it should clear by now neither is capable of convincing the other. RfCs are for getting views from a broader audience, with the expectation that should the consensus of those outsiders favor one prior debater and oppose the other that the latter would accept defeat. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears to me that there is not a single non-English language closely associated with the Kara-Khanid Khanate, so including a non-English name in the lead is not appropriate per WP:LEDE#Foreign language. "Single" in that rule means the only logical definition of "closely associated with a non-English language" is "closely associated with exactly one non-English language".
Alternate names, especially in non-English, seriously reduce the readability of a lead. The rule has to be interpreted as conservatively as possible. I think the key idea is that if someone read about the subject elsewhere, or talked about it with someone, is there some name other than the English one that would probably be used? If it's a city in Ukraine, yes - Ukrainian. If it's a historical dynasty with so little history that archaeologists had to make up a name for the people, probably no. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It does seem to me that people are extrapolating guidelines that aren't there. There is nothing about being conservative, in fact the very opposite. As have already been pointed out, other guidelines do not follow this "single" non-English language idea. See your example for a city in Ukraine Kiev that gives Ukrainian, Old East Slavic, and Russian (and it follows the actual geography guidelines). Also guidelines are not rules to be strictly followed (read the top of the page WP:LEAD). The guideline is not there to force a way of doing things, it's a general proposal that is recommended, but not strictly enforced as there would be exceptions. Your interpretation is therefore erroneous. The name is made up in English, and if you talk to Persians, they would likely use a Persian name, because that would be the historical name or names for them. Scholars would often give the various alternative names for them because the naming in English is unusual. Hzh (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you point to the geography guideline about Kiev please? Siuenti (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), you can add in the lead "a list of alternative names in parentheses", "archaic names", "relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place)", local official names, etc., and used Gulf of Finland as an example. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems that people are answering the question wrong, which may be a problem of the wording of the first question. This is a serious error, as the RfC is about this article alone, not about deciding a general guideline on non-English usage in articles. Hzh (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. It seems clear to me that the question and the answers are about this case only. If you're worried, you could ping the users to clarify, but the fact that this is an RfC in the talk page of a article and not a guideline is sufficient. And also, this RfC was *not* tagged under "Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Even if people misinterpret this RfC (which I don't think is the case), there's nothing wrong with this RfC. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 01:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not surprise by your response as you have been consistently refusing to admit any error when there clearly is, plainly ignoring the meaning of words. RfC is meant to be specific, therefore you should say "in this article" or something similar per WP:WRFC. Learn to do things like this properly or you get irrelevant response like " sums it up". Hzh (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.