Talk:Zanabazar

Neutrality
I have made some edits to give an impression that Zanabazar's recognition as Javzandamba was probably not entirely about spiritual matters. However, I think I might have taken it a bit far, i.e. the whole connection to politics seems to be largely an inference by modern historians (a very very obvious one, though), and maybe this should be pointed out. Also, I guess there was also a spiritual dimension to it, which I may have neglected. Yaan 18:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Bogdo Zanabazar
Mongolian "bogdo" (traditonal), "bogd" (modern) means "holy", and here is likelier a title rather than part of his name. Anthony Appleyard 22:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Architect
If he "defined the style of the Mongolian architecture for the next 200 years", then the text should say so. The reason for Categories is supposed to be immediately obvious when reading the article. --Latebird (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

1st or 16th
Okay, I'm confused. At Jebtsundamba Khutuktu, Zanabazar is clearly named as the 1st Jebtsundamba Khutuktu. When I follow the link from that page to Zanabazar and read the first paragraph, he's referred to as the 16th? What gives? Surely two related articles should be consistent. 27.33.121.123 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS
This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org

This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)