Talk:Mongolic peoples

Mongols vs Mongolic peoples
While there is no problem for me to wait for discussion on proper relationship between Mongols and Mongolic peoples to finish on the other talk page, but "Mongolic peoples" can never mean "List of Mongolic states", nor that it only means Mongols. In pages such as Template:History of the Mongolic peoples, several non-Mongol peoples are listed, such as Xianbei and Rouran, which are considered belonging to Mongolic peoples but not Mongols. If you consider Mongolic peoples to mean only Mongols, then clearly things become severely inconsistent. Let's keep current content until the discussion to finish. --Cartakes (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's keep the stable version before the edit war; Mongolic *peoples* is a people, not a state; that is why Mongolic peoples can refer to "Mongolic-languages]]-speaking peoples", but not "List of Mongolic states". --Cartakes (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And oddly yet, you claim to agree that Mongolic speakers are Mongols. Like the Kalmyk. And not like the Khitan. Why would you include that on the page when we are in agreement? Ogress smash! 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I never agree that Mongolic speakers are *ONLY* Mongols. As I mentioned above, in pages such as Template:History of the Mongolic peoples, several non-Mongol peoples are listed, such as Xianbei and Rouran, which are considered belonging to Mongolic peoples but not Mongols. The terms appear not to be equivalent. --Cartakes (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We discussed the template already. You keep backtracking and then saying you haven't backtracked. Ogress smash! 21:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We discussed only *Khitans* within the template, correct? How about Xianbei, Rouran etc? Are they Mongolic peoples? I don't think we have even touched this question (they are also all listed in List of Mongolic states currently). --Cartakes (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a page, proto-Mongols, that applies to predecessors of the Mongols. The Khitan are like cousins as far as we are currently aware. There is no place to put "para-Mongolic" groups. I have already suggested we comment that it is also for related peoples. I assumed - incorrectly, as it seems - that you would recognise "related peoples" was plural and that I was not solely discussing the Khitan but also everything else that wasn't Mongols on that template. After all, we were discussing problems listing people before the Mongol era on that template. I really am starting to feel that everything with you has to be very difficult and I do not understand why you are being so intransigent. Ogress smash! 02:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not being "intransigent". Did I revert the article to the version dated 17:40, 13 June 2015‎? Obviously *no*. Instead, I simply reverted to a stable version before the edit war and waited for discussions. If I was really intransigent, then I would not do so at all. Second, "proto-Mongols" and "para-Mongolic" are not the same thing, and I treat them differently. From my current understanding, Khitan is sometimes considered to belong to the "para-Mongolic" (Janhunen), but as pointed out by G Purevdorj elsewhere, Khitans might be included in Mongolic peoples as well; on the contrary, as proto-Mongols, Xianbei and Rouran simply belong to Mongolic peoples, not something like para-Mongolic. Thus, Mongolic peoples include Mongols, Xianbei, Rouran etc, so "Mongolic peoples" are not equivalent to "Mongols" and thus the former should not be simply redirected to the latter. --Cartakes (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Using the term "Mongolic" to refer to people who are related at some undefined but not close distance to the Mongols, whether Xianbei or Khitan, is not appropriate. We do not understand the Khitan sufficiently to aggregate them that way. We know that the Khitan language is related to but significantly different from the Mongolic languages. In fact, the speakers of Mongolic languages would be the Mongolic peoples - except we already call them "the Mongols" for both historic and historian's reasons. Referring to the Khitan as "Mongolic" suggests they spoke a Mongolic language, but they did not. Khitan and Mongol have a relationship that has not been defined: we haven't named it outside of "the Khitan are para-Mongol". In the language family tree, we call the common family "Khitan-Mongolic family(?)", simply mashing up the names of the two branches. And the Xianbei and Rouran lived thousands of years ago and aren't "Mongolic", they are ancestral groups for the Mongols (and, presumably other groups). Being an ancestral group does not make them Mongols anymore than Indo-European being the ancestor of the Germanic family makes IE peoples "Germanic". They are labeled proto-Mongols because we know they were ancestral to that group and we don't have a better name for them because the Mongols haven't been proven to be related to any other group aside from the Khitan. As for the template, we should simply adjust it to say "History of the Mongols and related peoples" or something similar. It's an easy fix that doesn't require so much wrangling. Ogress smash! 03:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, but I would say that there obviously are people who don't agree you with this, such as the comment from G Purevdorj in the other talk page. The article List of Mongolic states has also existed for some time, and peoples like Xianbei, Rouran, and Khitan are all included. In order to be consistent across Wikipedia pages, I think a discussion involving more participates are needed in order to get a solution for all related articles. --Cartakes (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress: I have already waited for more than 3 days and see no more comments in talk; that's why decided to change the content. Suddenly you appeared again and revert the content without any explanation in talk. It is obviously YOUR problem, not mine. Have you understood? --Cartakes (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You indicated you wanted feedback from other people. Now you are reverting this page all the way to the page format you created. You are incredibly inconsistent: first you accept Mongolic speakers are Mongols, now you move everything to "Mongolic". I'm tagging as she reverted your original edit as OR and restoring that version of the page while we talk. Next time, don't unilaterally move forward without consensus. Also, you cannot decide to change links to proto-Mongols and Mongols to links to Mongolic peoples as it is not only OR, you are being actively contested. Ogress smash!  21:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have waited for more than 3 days, did I? No more comment from either you or any other people in the talk. No, I am NOT inconsistent. What I was and am accepting is that Mongols is the largest Mongolic people; Mongolic speakers are *mostly* Mongols. But there are other ethnic groups other than Mongols in Mongolic peoples too. Actually you are the one who acts unilaterally: you are changing the references from "Mongolic" in ALL related articles to "Proto-Mongols" or "Mongols". This is a VERY bold action; I can revert all of these your changes, although I have not done yet as I have still assumed good faith on you by now. --Cartakes (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I was always under the impression that "Mongol" and "Mongolic" were interchangeable terms in light of the fact that the modern-day Mongols are an extremely homogeneous group, a la the Arabs and Turkic peoples. The differences between "German" and "Germanic", for example, are far greater than the differences between "Turk" and "Turkic". Likewise, when it comes to the Mongols, the terms "Mongol" and "Mongolic" aren't really meant to have different meanings since the Mongols are extremely homogeneous. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your participation. Just a question: how do you consider Xianbei, Rouran and Khitans etc? Are they Mongolic? Are they Mongols? That the modern-day Mongols are a homogeneous group does not necessarily means Mongolic peoples have always been homogeneous in the history however. Hope we can work this out in our discussion. --Cartakes (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , They are proto-Mongols, except for the Khitans. Here's a cite:
 * The Khitans spoke a para-Mongolic language, which is shorthand for "well, they're demonstrably related, but who knows?". Mongols are people speaking Mongolic languages. Sometimes we call a group "X people" (Jurchen people) and other times we call them by a historical name, "the Mongols".
 * Want to see what google books finds for "Mongolic people(s)"? Not a quantifiable number. here. There are not quantifiable numbers from 1915-2015 for the term "Mongolic people" or "Mongolic peoples". Google books NGRAMS indicates that term is not used by scholars'. Ogress smash! 01:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * From your link I agree it seems that the terms "Mongolic people" and "Mongolic peoples" are not often used by scholars (there are still some usages of course, such as the book "Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities", by Carl Skutsch, p291; but I am not claiming there are quantifiable numbers of usages of course). However, it seems classifications of peoples like Xianbei as "Mongolic" is much more often (without explicitly saying e.g. "Xianbei is Mongolic people"). Below are some examples:
 * "The most likely historical correlation for the linguistic contacts between Bulghar Turkic and Mongolic is offered by the period of Xiongnu (Turkic) political dominance over Donghu-Xianbei (Mongolic)." Source：The book "Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and Linguistic Hypotheses", URL:
 * "In fact the northern Zhou, which provided the foundations on which the Yang family of the Sui and the Li clan of the Tang (both imperial houses had a strong admixture of nomadic, non—Chinese blood) unified China, was itself a Xianbei (Mongolic) dynasty ruled by the Yuwen can, who also provided the Sui dynasty with most of its top-ranking generals." Source: The book "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe", URL:
 * "In fact, historically, the Tuyuhun (329—663), originating from the Mongolic-Xianbei people in the Inner Mongolia, were a nomadic tribe having lived in the northwestern part of China." Source: The book "Interpreters in Early Imperial China", URL:
 * So how should we handle this? --Cartakes (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It is already handled, as those groups are classified as proto-Mongols. They are there. Go to the page, they are there. I provided you with a cite as well. You aren't allowed to make up your own category of Mongolic people, that's OR. Here the authors are using the adjectival form of "Mongol" while referring to proto-Mongolic groups. Do you also want to make a separate page for Proto-Mongolic people? I don't understand why you even want a Mongolic page: you'd just copypaste from Mongols. There's no difference! Khitans aren't Mongols; this is why when we discuss their language family we write "Khitan-Mongolic languages(?)" We just don't know. Ogress smash! 02:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that those groups are only classified as proto-Mongols were made up by you (see e.g. and ) without archiving consensus from respective talk pages. From the sources given above it is clear that Xianbei is Mongolic, just like that Mongols are Mongolic. You aren't allowed to make up your own category of proto-Mongols either. Pages such as List of Mongolic states has already existed for some time, and they were clearly listed as Mongolic before you changed it. The template Template:History of the Mongolic peoples as discussed earlier has also existed for some time, and the name "Mongolic peoples" was obviously not made up by me either. That they are only "proto-Mongols" instead of Mongolic in List of Mongolic states etc is only resulted from your unilateral change yesterday. --Cartakes (talk) 02:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't like what the page says, rephrase it because we are not allowed to pipe on redirects. Ogress smash! 03:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, the Xianbei did not speak a Mongolic language. Again, that is like claiming Indo-Europeans spoke "Germanic". No. Ogress smash! 03:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "People who speak Mongolic languages" works for me. But any cites for your claim "the Xianbei did not speak a Mongolic language"? Please, look at Xiongnu, "Mongolian and other scholars have suggested that the Xiongnu spoke a Mongolic language." So even Xiongnu may spoke a Mongolic language, although not yet confirmed. But if they did, then even Xiongnu would be considered Mongolic, just like Mongols are Mongolic. --Cartakes (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Listen, the definition of "Mongolic languages" is "languages descended from Proto-Mongolic language", which is essentially identical to Middle Mongol. There's an entire section with extensive quote on the Xianbei page about the issue of their language. You don't seem to understand the time issues here at all, you constantly argue achronically."The Xianbei derived from the context of the Donghu, who are likely to have contained the linguistic ancestors of the Mongols. Later branches and descendants of the Xianbei include the Tabghach and Khitan, who seem to have been linguistically Para-Mongolic. [...] Opinions differ widely as to what the linguistic impact of the Xianbei period was. Some scholars (like Clauson) have preferred to regard the Xianbei and Tabghach (Tuoba) as Turks, or even as Bulghar Turks, with the implication that the entire layer of early Turkic borrowings in Mongolic would have been received from the Xianbei, rather than from the Xiongnu. However, since the Mongolic (or Para-Mongolic) identity of the Xianbei is increasingly obvious in the light of recent progress in Khitan studies, it is more reasonable to assume (with Doerfer) that the flow of linguistic influence from Turkic (or Bulghar Turkic) into Mongolic was at least partly reversed during the Xianbei period, yielding the first identifiable layer of Mongolic (or Para-Mongolic) loanwords in Turkic. - Janhunen 2006, pages 405-6"

I don't know what else to say on this topic if you can't understand that, for example, the Angles aren't "Englishmen" even though English is descended from Anglic. Ogress smash! 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now I see that the main problem is in fact the definition of "Mongolic languages". Where did your definition "languages descended from Proto-Mongolic language" come from? IMO, Proto-Mongolic language is only a technical term within the Mongolic languages (I can see that Proto-Mongolic is the hypothetical ancestor language of the *modern* Mongolic languages, but not necessarily the historical Mongolic languages). This has nothing to do with your example that "the Angles aren't 'Englishmen' even though English is descended from Anglic". Have you looked at Xiongnu mentioned above, "Mongolian and other scholars have suggested that the Xiongnu spoke a Mongolic language."? If we follow your definition that Proto-Mongolic languages are not Mongolic languages, then there is simply no way that Xiongnu spoke a Mongolic language. Clearly, your definition does not work here. Also, just want to mention that your unilateral changes to List of Mongolic states has been partially reverted by another editor (see ), so it's clear that there is absolutely no consensus for your changes. --Cartakes (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am using modern, scholarly reliable sources, which is the basis of Wikipedia. For example:"Historically, the Mongolic language family was formed as a result of the political expansion of the mediaeval, or "historical", Mongols under Chinggis Khan [...] and his descendants in the 12th-15th centuries. ... With the course of time, and especially after the collapse of the Mongol Empire Middle Mongol was diversified into several local varieties, from which the modern Mongolic languages have developed. It is also possible to approach the Middle Mongol stage by the method of linguistic reconstruction, proceeding backwards from the modern Mongolic languages and considering their mutual similarities and differences. The reconstructed protoform fo the extant Mongolic languages may be technically identified as Proto-Mongolic. A comparison of the Proto-Mongolic reconstruction with the surviving Middle Mongol documents reveals the two linguistc states are essentially identical, which means that they must represent the same time level.""


 * The Routledge handbook The Mongolic Languages repeats this definition ad nauseum. It even has sections on the para-Mongolic languages and on proto-Mongolic; worth reading, very interesting.
 * Incidentally, Xiongnu is very badly written, using original sources, citing scholars who are not reliable in modern times such as Yakinf (how is Yakinf an expert on the Xiongnu? They were long-dead!) and nationalist propaganda from the Soviet era of Mongolia. Ogress smash! 18:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Article on many Mongolic peoples (no disambiguation)
According to top-template {dabconcept}, on June 24, 2021, I've removed templates "dabconcept" and "disambig" from the page and done start-class (stub) text about the Mongolic peoples as a collection of ethnic groups that speak Mongolic languages family. This is not contraversial academic notion and semilar to the articles Turkic peoples and others. For disambiguation already there is the page Mongols (disambiguation), or possibly create one more. DayakSibiriak (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hazara people
Muhmmadaht, it's common in Wikipedia to try to find a consensus. See WP:CONS. And simply deleting text on your part is an edit war (WP:EDITWAR) and non-compliance with the rules prescribed in the WP:RS. My reliable sources (for example, Great Russian Encyclopedia) directly state that the Hazaras spoke the Mongolian language in the past. Their ethnic formation is part of the history of the Mongolic peoples during the Mongol Empire. I earnestly ask you not to continue the edit war and come to some kind of consensus.--KoizumiBS (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * But many have rejected the sources in this way. The Hazara people are a mixed race, we should not judge from one aspect.--Muhmmadaht (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Deleting text is prohibited by the rules. I ask you to adhere to WP:NPV. As a consensus, I propose to add that different groups participated in the formation of the Hazaras, including local Persian-speaking ones. It can also be added that the Hazaras were assimilated not only linguistically but also culturally.--KoizumiBS (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * When editing articles, you also need to refer to reliable sources, and not to your own judgments. Wikipedia has strict rules that say all claims must be backed up by reliable sources. Therefore, when discussing, I ask you to refer to sources, and not write your personal opinion.--KoizumiBS (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No source was required for my editing of this article.--Muhmmadaht (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * We have no right to draw our own conclusions. We can only rely on what is written in the sources. And these sources must be provided to confirm each thesis. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I have already suggested ways to achieve consensus above. And I hope for a positive solution to the conflict. And simply removing text and sources is disruptive editing. --KoizumiBS (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Contents with untrue sources should be rejected.--Muhmmadaht (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * What makes you think my sources are untrue? Great Russian Encyclopedia - perfectly valid tertiary source. Vadim Massom - historian, Doctor of Science, Zhabagin - population geneticist, PhD.--KoizumiBS (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Muhmmadaht, I would like to make a comment in my role of uninvolved administrator. For whatever reason, you seem to think that it is ok for you to remove sourced content without explanations, and then to insist that your edits are fine. This is not really what our policies say. May I please invite you to read Edit warring and Verifiability, because, if you continue this behavior, I will likely block your account from editing. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have given several explanations for deleting this information, but the User:KoizumiBS is referring to a source that is not correct for the article.--Muhmmadaht (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see any problem with the source, it is from an acadenic publisher. If you are unhappy with the source, you can discuss it at WP:RSN.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Ymblanter, To be very clear, he considers the Hazaras to be Mongols, while they are of mixed race --Muhmmadaht (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Ymblanter, Hazaras are of a mixed race. Babur the founder of Mughal empire, he stated in Baburnama Hazaras as (Turkoman Hazara). Please see--Muhmmadaht (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am not going to participate in this content dispute. I see that you removed text sourced to reliable sources, and your opponent restores it. When they ask you why you removed the text your argument is "I do not like it".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have argued several times that this information is incomplete. I also gave the example that Babur mentioned Hazaras as (Turkoman Hazara) in Baburnama.--Muhmmadaht (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I have already suggested rewriting the text with your recommendations. To reach a consensus, I propose to add the following statement: Mongolian and Turkic tribes from Central Asia, mixed with the local Iranian-speaking population, took part in the ethnogenesis of the Hazaras. The descendants of the newcomers assimilated not only linguistically, but also culturally and religiously. This information is from a Great Russian Encyclopedia.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

GanjDareh4's sockpuppetry
GanjDareh4, a banned sockpuppet of WorldCreaterFighter, made several bogus edits to the genetics section back in February.


 * 


 * 


 * 

The edits are consistent with the well known and documented proclivity for falsifying genetics sources that discuss east and west Eurasian ancestry.

I will just start with the most mis-represented studies.

From Mitochondrial DNA Footprints from Western Eurasia in Modern Mongolia, Irene Cardinalli et al. (2022):

Paragraph 2:

Paragraph 3:

So, as we see here, this source says that only a small minority of West Eurasian mtDNA lineages are from later than the Holocene and especially few can post-date Turkic period of Mongolia.

Paragraph 4:

Again, WCF has made the ''complete opposite conclusion as the authors have. This study nowhere says that West Eurasian ancestry in Mongolia was primarily female mediated; it only emphasizes about the female mediated east Eurasian ancestry in Mongolia.

The same is obviously to be said of this study, Molecular genetic survey and forensic characterization of Chinese Mongolians via the 47 autosomal insertion/deletion marker, from Mengge Wang, et al. (2021):

So, I will change the deliberately faulty cobtributuons made by the sock... - Hunan201p (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you have succeeded to make the "Genetics" section look more WCF-ish than ever. Is this article entitled "History of recent DNA research about Mongolians"? –Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Soyots
t The Soyots were never Mongols; they only switched to the Buryat language in the 19th century. The Buryats themselves are mostly descendants of Turkic tribes and clans and finally switched to the Mongolian (Buryat) language between the 12th and 15th centuries. There is not a single Soyot clan descended from Mongolian clans, but there are Turkic Soyot clans that became part of the Buryats and Mongols. 46.211.29.108 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If some of the Celts, that is, the Irish, switched to English, this does not mean that they became part of the English. Changing your language and changing your ethnicity are not the same thing. These two authors-buryats

are engaged in subconscious pan-Mongolism. 46.211.29.108 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are removing referenced material that is supported by reliable sources and making broad sweeping analogies without backing them up with sources of your own. Wikipedia requires material to be backed up by sources, not original research. (Original research doesn't mean 'wrong', but it does mean there is no way for someone to independently verify said research, so it is not allowed.) Do you have reliable sources of your own we can reference to specifically address your concerns with how the article is written? We cannot just work with the claims you're making by themselves. Remsense  留  18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * These sources were written by biased Buryats who are engaged in pan-Mongolian cultural activism. In the Russian classification of peoples, this is not the Mongolian people, but a people who switched to the Buryat language. The Manchus switched to the Chinese language, but they are not considered in the family of Chinese peoples, although some pan-Chinese scholars may consider them Chinese. At least half of the Buryats do not know Buryat, but this does not mean that they are Russian, many have Russian first names and surnames. By the way, as far as I understand, you did not read these sources that I deleted. Read and quote them where it is indicated that the Soyots are Mongols or Buryats 46.211.29.108 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are making enormous claims, you must provide sources for them. I did not write the article as it exists, I don't have to defend the article. You want to add these claims to the article, or change the article to make these claims, so the onus is on you. Please provide sources or demonstrate that the sources are not reliable, or else I have nothing else to say. The ethnicity of the authors is not an argument, and I will tolerate nothing more of the sort. The text of sources only. Remsense  留  18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In these works there is no indication that they are a subethnic group of Buryats and Mongolian people. It simply tells ethnic historical rituals. These works may be listed in an article on the Soyots, but not in an article on the Mongolian peoples. 46.211.29.108 (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You haven't read these works but are you defending them? Where are the quotes that the Soyots are a Buryat subethnic group or Mughal people. I understand that no one read these works in the English Wikipedia. 46.211.29.108 (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 46.211.29.108, I will fully admit that I cannot natively read Russian, but I have been attempting to read the sources by machine translation. The issue is that you began by simply removing the material without explaining why you were doing so, leaving others with no explanation, which I've only managed to get now. While I'm trying to read these sources, would it be possible to supply your own to support some of the claims you are making about Soyots not being a subgroup as such? You have still made very big claims without providing a source. E: Stop it! The conversation is not over, we have not agreed that you are right to remove the material that I am still trying to verify. Remsense  留  19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is an incredibly rude, unacceptable flouting of the rules. This conversation is over. Remsense  留  19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * where is the evidence, at least quotes from these works 46.211.16.254 (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * where is your evidence? 46.211.151.15 (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You must prove to me with direct quotes from these works that they are a subethnic group and not me. Don’t get excited, sit down for a few days and read, including related topics. Think 46.211.228.229 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources indicated in the article all comply with the rules described in WP:RS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. KoizumiBS (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don’t you want to indicate the pages so that everyone can see that your edit corresponds to the texts from these sources? 46.211.164.3 (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * They've already been indicated KoizumiBS (talk) 05:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)