Talk:Nezak Huns/Archive 1

Transition to Turk Shahis
While the transition in coinage is subtle and gradual, Chinese and Arab sources indicate that between 661 and 665 a new ruling class of Turkic rulers emerge in Kabul as the "Turk Shahi". The coins of "Shri Shahi" included here under the Nezak, while nearly identical to Nezak coins except for the "Shri Shahi" inscription, are considered to belong to the Turk Shahi. Currently "Turk Shahi" redirects to the "Hindu Shahi" dynasty, which is distinct. I propose changing the end date of the Nezaks to c.665, and moving the Shri Shahi coinage to a new "Turk Shahi" entry. alx_bio 23:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alchon Huns which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Outdated information
The so called "Western Turk theory" section doesn't make much sense, considering scholarship now agree that the Nezak Huns were established around 484, much earlier before Tong Yabghu Qaghan's lifetime: "Previously, it was thought that the Ne¯zak coins start as the result of the Hephthalite defeat against the Western Turk/Iranian forces in ad 560. However, research shows that the Ne¯zak coins initially started in the late fifth century, thus shortly after the start of the Hephthalite series and long before ad 560." (Rezakhani 2017, p. 160) Do mind that the History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750 has much outdated info. For example, they don't even mention the Alchon Huns, who has now just recently been agreed to not be the same entity as the Hephthalites. Albeit it has tons of interesting information, I think we should really be careful with using the source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll revert then the Western Turk part. Would you by any chance have a Pdf of Rezakhani on this portion (both Nezaks and Yabghus of Tokharistan)? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I have in fact got the whole PDF. I gotchu - sending it right now. Dunno if you noticed but I also sent some sources a few days ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saw these! Thank you so much!! पाटलिपुत्र  Pat   (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite
In the next few days, I will be rewriting the article. All cooperation are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Background on the "weakening of Sasanian authority in the east."
 * Details on the various origin theories. Can be fitted into the etymology section.
 * [More to add] TrangaBellam (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential Merge
Should Ghar-ilchi be merged with Nezak Huns? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC) Actual commencment: TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support @पाटलिपुत्र We really need an article for Ghar-ilchi? There is nothing that could not be covered at this page; you have literally created the page by copying content (1, 2, 3) from three existing articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As things stand, each and every bit of information available at Ghar-ilchi —a king whose name can be obtained from a single source— is available at our target article. WP:DUP#2 applies, even if the most conservative reading is applied. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Friendly) Well, it was essentially my own content I think, so I gathered all I had about Ghar-ilchi to create his page, and a bit more. It is a normal process on Wikipedia to create pages on significant rulers. Often they will be expanded and become quite interesting over time. If not, they at least respond to the curiosity of the Wikipedia reader who wants information about this specific ruler. The information is also much easier to find when linking from another page (your xxxxxxx#yyyyyyyyyy types of links get broken over time with the slightest editorial change, they just don't work in the long run, and if you link to the whole master page it's a pain to find the relevant information). The criteria for existence of a page is notability, not the fact that information is limited or could be found or inserted somewhere else. I really don't see the point of trying to erase such pages. The master page usually is better off summarizing content, while the sub-page can have all the details. Best  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is that Ghar-ilchi is no Akbar or even, Tuqaq. You do not summarize information that can be fit in less than a single paragraph. Fwiw, you need to cover both the Arab Invasion and Rise of Turk Shahis in far more detail, at this page.
 * That redirect links get broken over time is a strange reason to create articles in itself. Does seeing CewBot in action reassures you? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the main criteria for article creation is Notability, not some fancy notion about possible insertion into another, larger, article. And I know for a fact that most cascading links get broken over time, despite CewBot's admirable efforts. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Notable topics do not necessitate a standalone page; read the page you are citing. WP:NOPAGE says, TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it is customary to create page for notable rulers on Wikipedia. I don't see why we should lose time on this, you asked for my advice and got it. Just make a Merge request if you want to advance your case further. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed this discussion into one. Will affix the tags. Please feel free to bold your !votes or any tweaks; I won't mind. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * (The following comment was moved from another section ) As for the merge (from January): I am not crazy about the want or need to create multiple unassessed, stub, or substandard articles when the content could improve an existing (currently start-class) article.
 * "Major" issues I have is that Ghar-ilchi is reportedly the twelfth and last known ruler of the Nezak Huns and not a lot is known about any of the rulers. There is repeat content in the Ghar-ilchi article.
 * From a policies and guidelines point of view there would be less contention (now or future) in a merge as notability is, as easily determined, on the thin side. Also, at a point, when there is more information, a split would be in order. --  Otr500 (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ''(The following comment was moved from another (related) Talk Page discussion
 * Of the three WikiProject banners at the top of the page, you have informed two of them (Central Asia and Afghanistan), but apparently not WikiProject Ethnic groups. Regardless, it's been four months with three participants ( being the third), so perhaps the WikiProject members don't care enough to comment. I'm with on this one: there is insufficient support for a merge; but I really don't think that an RfC will help, since it will target a large number of people who have little or no knowledge of the subject area, and will be less inclined to comment then the WikiProjects are. My advice would be to let the matter drop - but if you want formal closure, there is WP:CR. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Mild Oppose - @पाटलिपुत्र  If this were a paper encyclopedia I could see a need for keeping the number of articles to a minimum, but if the topic is notable, what is the harm in its having its own article? (editor is a volunteer for Feedback Request Service) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand argument and my only reply:
 * The King is known from a single prim. source, dated 668 CE. All the rest, as this page shows more clearly, are speculations in that scholars fit the King to documentations of Nezak actions in the preceding or following decade. Whether he is notable is quite suspect - not a single scholar discusses the subject outside of Nezak Hunas or even bothers to devote a single paragraph.
 * Also, consult WP:DUP#2. The standalone page contains nothing extra than this page. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points: rulers for whom there is a decent amount of information generally deserve their own page on Wikipedia. There might be a single direct primary source for Ghar-ilchi (although an important one), but that's irrelevant: there are multiple secondary sources discussing this king, and their opinions and analysis deserve to be presented in the article dedicated to him, with all the references etc... There is often little sense in merging the pages of individual rulers into the page of the political entity they belong to: the article on the political entity will focus on generalities (geography, historical events, art, dynastic order etc..., here the Nezak Huns), while individual pages can focus on the known specifics of each ruler (life, known documents, coinage, various academic theories etc...), as long as some facts are known about the ruler in question and to the extent that he has been the subject of academic inquiry and discussions. Further, having an individual page for a given ruler actually facilitates navigation: redirects to a general page about a political entity make it much more complicated to search for relevant information about the specific rulers, and redirects to sub-segments of a large article never work in the long term as they keep getting broken with the slightest change in the spelling of the target subtitle. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Meta discussion
, I had advertised of this discussion in every plausible venue from Wikiproject Central Asia to Wikiproject Royality to Wikiprojects of individual modern-day states whose territories were ever ruled by Nezaks. After a passage of three months, it appears that there are two editors in support (me and Otr500 in support) and one in opposition (you); I am not considering K3 despite his (supportive) comments at the project-discussion. If you have any thoughts about resolving this discussion and attracting more heads, please let me know. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When there is no significant consensus for a change, we usually keep things as they are. Best पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Launched a RfC pursuant to this discussion. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Stagnant decision and tag removal
The merge request of Ghar-ilchi has long become stagnant, surpassing any normal timeline, and apparently not in need of a formal closing. I am removing the January 2022 "merge" tag. See Ghar-ilchi

Overlaps
Whether the Alchons migrated after or before 560 CE remains unknown. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Grenet's EI article is quite backdated and completely oblivious of Vondrovec's scholarship. There is no need to use it, unless necessary. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Why revert the whole series of edits, including restoring the spelling mistakes, grammar issues, and obvious anachronisms ? If you have an issue with Grenet's Encyclopedia Iranica article, you could just remove him (although that's bad practice, since he is generally an excellent source and 2002 is quite recent). You cannot just cherry pick the RS that you happen to like and blank the rest... that's very bad editorial practice on Wikipedia. Rather, you present the different RS views and balance if necessary. Your personal opinion about Grenet is not WP:RS, and is no basis to shape an article. And why remove an important coin image which is discussed in the body of the article? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anachronism like ?
 * What do you want to cite from Grenet? What were you told in this thread? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If you had actually read my edits, you would know. You were placing the 560 CE discussion of the Sasanians before the 528/532 CE troubles of the Alchons: better to keep the chronological order of things. Grenet was the source for the description of the Nezak king as Buddhist, but your edits had left that line without reference... This is quite careless. Again, please respect the contributions of others when editing: better to improve on existing content and sources rather than erase everything that doesn't fit your narrative. We are supposed to edit collaboratively: do not just rudely revert, just to add your own prefered content. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The event relevant to our page is not Alchons being troubled in 528/532 but theirs' coming back from Kashmir decades later. I mentioned that date, since it is the last-confirmed one and establishes a narrative structure. I had stated outright that [w]hether the Alchons migrated after or before 560 CE remains unknown. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will cite the Buddhist bit to someone more recent than Grenet, who has been already used in the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody is blanking your content. I repeat, what do you wish to add? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really?? What is this ? You just mass revert my last 6 edits in one stroke, restoring your spelling mistakes, grammar issues, deleting newly added refs. This is no way to edit. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It won't have happened if you had bothered to read the text (or sources) and not make cavalier claims about 560 CE discussion of the Sasanians before the 528/532 CE troubles of the Alchons ....
 * Please do not ref-spam a 960-page book without any page number. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You should say "It wouldn't have happened if...", not "It won't have happened if...", this is the Conditional . You obviously have major issues with English, so why do you revert when others are trying to help with your spelling and grammar mistakes, thereby restoring errors? Apparently, you also do not know what collaborative editing is about. You do not just blank the contributions of others, their refs etc..., then add your own content. This is rude and goes against Wikipedia editorial practices. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the lesson in English, which is neither my first language nor among my usual choices of lingua franca [see user-page; most of the English that I write, is machine translated from Dutch and then emended]. Duly appreciated and I have nothing against your correction of grammatical errors or typos, to which I am very prone.
 * The issue concerns your cavalier attitude with sources. Like the one on "chronology" [above] or creation of error-ridden articles holding Nezak Tarkhan to be a King [it is some kind of title.] TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, why do you mass revert, including restoring your spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, for Christ's sake ??? Regarding content, well, you know, I just write what sources provide, and I do use WP:RS in, probably, nearly 100% of my contributions. So, you might have different views on what is right or wrong, error-ridden or not, but your views are unfortunately not WP:RS. I would recommend that you respect all contributions that are properly sourced, and think twice before deleting them. It is much better practice to add more sources, to balance existing content etc... I believe also that, intellectually, it is much more interesting to have as many WP:RS as possible, so as to have a real breadth of opinion, rather than focus on one narrative that you happen to think is right, and only allow the sources that support it while blanking those that don't. On Wikipedia, we balance reliable sources, we do not selectively delete those that don't support a specific narrative. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not intellectually interesting to claim from Grenet/Dani that Nezaks rose to power as the result of the Hephthalite defeat c. 560 AD etc. Or claim from RSes that Napki Malka was a ruler. Or claim from RSes that Nezak Tarkhan was a king.
 * This is not a case of two historians interpreting different motives to Tipu Sultan based on roughly the same evidence; the more views, the merrier and NPOV our article becomes. This is recent historians/numismatists coming across better sources (coins, literature etc.) and unanimously rejecting previous guesses. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know, in this case it is quite valuable to say precisely that: that earlier scholarship considered that xxxxxx, with their references, and that modern scholarships has yyyyyyy, with references. And no WP:RS reference gets blanked in the process. Isn't it what most good academics do anyway: describe previous scholarship, before exposing their own, more up-to-date, views? पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah - Napki Malka is covered in an endnote. You can discuss the old theory of origin about Nezaks (Rezakhani explicitly notes that the view has been firmly discounted; use him) or Tarkhan being a King (use Inaba) at endnotes.
 * That being said, is this some kind of recent enlightenment? Less than 2 months ago, you had unilaterally redirected an entire article depending on a single recent source (Alram 2014). I can give other examples. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Narendra is a very special case: he was created by Alram originally (by a misreading of the coin legend), and then abandonned by Alram himself in 2014: it is not the case of a dispute or competing theories between several reliable sources, it's an evolution in nomenclature. The information and the explanations are now in the Toramana II article. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Our article already has, For reasons unknown and quite inexplicable, you did not remove my line but yet added (to another section):Then, you wonder why I mass-revert your additions. Because the energy expended in separating the wheat from chaff is not worth it. This is not the first time either that I have asked you to stop copying the same line from one section to another, leading to unnecessary redundancies. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon to have some redundant information when given in a different context, and that is true for any academic work. The first paragraph is about "Sources": it would be very strange not to mention the Chinese investitures in that segment. The second occurence is about the historical development of the Nezak, and reminding who Ghar-ilchi was is useful (and even necessary) is that section as well. It can of course be tweaked. It is no reason (at all) to mass-revert anything. You seem to forget that 95% of the content of this article was already written by me and others over several years when you started editing 2 weeks ago, so I would appreciate if you showed a bit more respect for the work of your fellow contributors.  पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 95% is a gross over-estimate. I am not even accounting the multiple error-ridden lines that you (or somebody else) had inserted, the most glowing example being the paragraph about Nezak Tarkhan.
 * That being said, I have added a line in the sources section (Other Chinese sources comment on (unnamed) rulers of Kapisi in mid-seventh century and historians assume them to be referring to the Nezak Huns.) which (hopefully) clarifies the reasons behind not discussing them redundantly. I consent to you reverting my addition AND self-restoring the redundant lines but I will be initiating a RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . I do not understand your comment "I consent to you reverting my addition AND self-restoring the redundant lines ": I do not need your consent to edit on Wikipedia, and I do not revert people unless absolutely necessary. However, if you self-revert that last deletion of my contributions (your 4th RR ) as already suggested, and if you promise to stop blank-reverting my contributions, I will remove my "4RR Edit Warring" application. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that I won't file a reverse-filing at 3RRN, if you reverted me. I will take it to RfC.
 * I won't be self-reverting; get a thick skin or revert yourself. Today, you had added over 3000 bytes of content and only 381 bytes of content (a single paragraph) was removed by me and replaced with something else. Lines added by you are not sacrosanct and I reserve my rights to tweak with them—as I see fit—without being bullied into believing that I am reverting you. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not understand: "blank-reverting" or "mass-reverting" another's contributions is in itself highly incivil and akin to edit warring. We never do that when editing normally: we discuss, we tweak (a lot), we improve content etc... but blanking outright is never done between editors of good standing. It is totally inadequate on Wikipedia, except if you are facing vandals. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

As promised, I have not reverted your addition and have launched a neutral RfC. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Redundant Information
At the start of the Decline section, we have: At the section on sources in literature, do we (again) need: Or, will: suffice in itself as a pointer?

Option 1 - Preserve the redundancy for XYZ reasons; no need for the or option.

Option 2 - Do away with the redundancy for XYZ reasons; the or option is sufficient.

Option 3 - Preserve the redundancy as well as the or option (that is, maintain status quo) for XYZ reasons.

Option 4 - Some other resolution for XYZ reasons.

Please provide your valuable opinions. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - Avoid redundancy etc. The sources section is meant for a broad overview on the type of sources and discussing the most significant of them; not for detailing each minor source which are going to be discussed in body. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi . I am afraid you are lauching an RfC about outdated content: have you noticed that I added a wholy different sentence in the "Literature" section, partly due to your feedback? I trust it should be satisfactory, and, if not, then the RfC should be modified, otherwise it will be meaningless. One last remark: we usually don't disturb the Community with an RfC for such a minute matter: usually editors discuss with each other, tweak each other's contributions, and that's about it... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My approach and comments remain same. I do not agree to the line—Soon after, in 661-662 CE, the chronicles record that the king of Jibin received a formal investiture from the Chinese court, as Military Administrator and Commander-in-Chief of the Xiuxian Area and eleven prefectures.—being placed in the section on sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The intention is to show that Chinese investitures are among the important sources for the history of the Nezak Huns and their relation to the Chinese Empire (as it is for many Central polities). This line is generally attributed to the Nezak Huns, since it is in the same Tang Shu paragraph as the description of the dynasty, and the dates are extremely close. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have slightly reframed the sentence to add another reason about why it is being specifically mentioned: hope it is okay with you. We can consider this resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine with me! पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also disagree with this edit-summary: we are using a critical translation, which is a secondary source. As is the case, the secondary interpretation adds nothing to the translation. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not generally just give "raw" primary sources, their interpretation has to be provided from secondary sources, which Balogh does not really do. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat, the secondary interpretation adds nothing to the translation. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well it is really bad form just to give raw quotes. Also, the interpretation allows us to explain what the quote says in clear English, with links, and to introduce the rulers "Khingila" and "Ghar-ilchi" thought to be mentioned in the quote. Otherwise, the quote just by itself would be too obscure (and will be erased soon under the pretext that it is just a Primary Source). In other words, Primary Sources can only illustrate and back-up what Secondary Sources say about them, they should never stand alone. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced but I concede. And our issues are resolved. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

An elusive book
Pat, do you have a copy of Coinage of the Iranian Huns and their Successors from Bactria to Gandhara (4th to 8th century CE)? I should have never parted with my own.
 * No, I have Volume 2 ("Seals, sealings and tokens from Bactria to Gandhara (4th to 8th century CE)"), but not that one. पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

On an aside, if the second paragraph of etymology section is polished up, I feel this to be all good for a GA. What say you? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really know, I hardly ever bother with the GA process, as I find it a bit too dry and technical... पाटलिपुत्र  Pat  (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)