From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Khazars was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 10, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
January 24, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Introducing new matter[edit]

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.

  1. ^ Pulleyblank E.G. 1956 The background of rebellion of An Lu-shan. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
  2. ^ Senga T. 1990 The Toquz Oghuz problem and the origin of the Khazars. Journal of Asian History, vol. 24, No. 1: 57–69.
  3. ^ Pulleyblank E.G. 1955 Some remarks on the Toquz-oghuz problem. Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher (Wiesbaden), Bd. 28: 35–42.
  4. ^ Klyashtornyi S.G. 2005 Aziatskii aspekt rannei istorii khazar. In Khazarskii proekt. Vol. 16: Khazary. Jerusalem, Moscow: Mosty kultury, pp. 259– 264. Klyashtornyi S.G. 2007 Runicheskiye pamyatniki uigurskoi epokhi kak istoricheskii istochnik. Vestnik RGNF, No. 4: 30–42
  5. ^ 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

Ar means nobles[edit]

Khaz-ars, Bulg-ars, Tat-ars, "Ar-yan" (Ar - horse, Yan - people), etc., see .

Moving explanation down the page[edit]

Reference from predatory journal[edit]

I've removed the reference to the ancient DNA study published in Advances in Anthropology. This is a predatory journal and is not a reliable source. One of the authors Anatole Klyosov is known for his pseudoscientific publications on this subject.Dahliarose (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)