Talk:Kabul Shahi

List of Referenced content from reliable sources deleted from this article
=References=

Intothefire (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Old References Used
What is with all of the references used for this article dating from texts of the 1800's? Many of the articles cited as "fact" actually predate the disciplines of anthropology and archaeology that emerged in the latter 1800's... Shouldn't there be relatively contemporary references, say from the last 50 years or so - preferably even more recent? It would undoubtedly make for a more authentic and useful article... Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Alberuni and the myth of Turkic origins - Not encyclopedic
The entire section 'Alberuni and the myth of Turkic origins' is poorly written, full of weasel words and reads like an opinion piece, and not something encyclopedic. As such, it requires an immediate clean-up and rewrite. 92.9.100.93 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Written like a term paper
The whole article (aside from the first paragraph) is written from the point of view of someone who already is familiar with the history of Kabul Shahi, who knows about the scholars who have researched it, and has opinions on them. I don't know of Hsuen Tsang, nor is there any link to an explanation of him, or what he thinks or thought; in the second part it assumes "to be connected to the Kamboja 'race'" to be a meaningful concept to the reader, and this frame of reference continues. I think that this is a scholarly discussion of whether or not the kingdom in question has Turkic, Indian, or other ancestry, but it's utterly baffling to a novice and really better kept to papers in a class on such topics.

I want to know what we *do* know about these people, and if that information is reliable. I do not care about justifying one or another point of view - it would be sufficient to say 'this scholar believes that they are of Turkish origin, but these scholars say this is unreliable. Evidence in these works suggests they were more likely of Buddhist or Hindu extraction." Put that in a little section called "scholarly debate" and we're in business. 03:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.252.193 (talk)