Jump to content

Talk:Nezak Huns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Nezak)

Issues

[edit]

Section review

[edit]
The lead provides fuel to a merge discussion fire. "While their history remains obscured...", and "Nothing significant is known about the next ten rulers except".... The "except would have to be pretty exceptional.
The last sentence in the "Etymology" needs rewording or an inline citation. From a comprehensive review of Chinese chronicles, Inaba concludes Nishu to have been both a personal name and epithet across multiple Turkic groups., for some specificity and text–source integrity. This would include the use of "comprehensive review" and tossing in an unknown "Inaba" (the source author), as well as "concludes". If this person, the article unknown, states of doing a comprehensive review with a conclusion this needs citations.
While sources can comprehensively review, come to conclusions, possibly even surmise or make other suppositions, editors need to take care that it is not through their voice or Wikipedia's voice that an article is written. Thank you, -- Otr500 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "except" would have to be pretty exceptional - I agree; reframed.
The last sentence in the "Etymology" needs rewording or an inline citation [..] If this person, the article unknown, states of doing a comprehensive review with a conclusion this needs citations. - There is an inline citation? Inaba 2010, p. 196-197. Read the last paragraph of p. 197.
tossing in an unknown "Inaba" - Nice observation. Amended.
the use of "comprehensive review" - It was probably Rezakhani, commenting of Inaba's paper. But until I find the citation, I have removed the adjective.
Do you see any other issues with the article? I appreciate your efforts, thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, I will look closer when time avails. I saw the two-page reference. My concern was more with the word "comprehensive" but is now allayed by the revision. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; will appreciate your feedback for both the article and proposed merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues Comment

[edit]
Greetings, There is more than one use of what is referred to as unsupported attributions and words to watch, especially when not properly attributed, and should be better written from the view of the source[s]. Our non-negotiable policy on NPOV means we must not exclude sourced content, that might even be considered a minor point of view when there are objections or the possibility exists.
Notability is what we use to determine if a subject should have a page on Wikipedia and depends on Significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. In writing articles, speculations, guesses, suppositions, and probabilities should be avoided. When used by a source such wording should have an inline citation directly supporting the content. On a quick read:

Sourcing and Words to watch

[edit]
"Territories" section:
  • "Cao seem to have been the erstwhile name of Kapisi". "seem[s] to have been" [by or according to whom] and the wording "erstwhile".
  •  Done
  • "...however some scholars [which] disagree with this identification..."
  •  Done
  • It is also assumed to correspond to..."
  •  Done
"Sources" section
  • "...is assumed to have existed primarily on the basis of a distinct coin series."

Original research

[edit]
There is more than one instance when entries in the "Notes" section are unsourced. This leads to original research concerns. -- Otr500 (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look and nominate for GA. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilities

[edit]
  • Despite, the Nezaks might have survived as a local chieftaincy in or around Kapisi for a few more decades - On what basis, do we speculate to such effects?
  • The Alchon-Nezaks probably took back Zabulistan from the Sasanians by the end of the 6th century CE. - Ditto.
TrangaBellam (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Came across a new source

[edit]

@पाटलिपुत्र: Coinage of the Nezak Shah by Matthias Pfisterer and Katharina Uhlir. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam:Fantastic find. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र FYI, Ziad (2022; p. 73-74) notes:

Any precise or absolute chronology is naturally unrealistic given the dearth of chronological anchors and hoard finds. However, it is fair to infer that the Śrī Ṣahī derivatives followed soon after the Alkhan native Sakra issues,71 aft er the Alkhan retreat and the Nezak conquest of Gandhāra. There is no reason to assume that the Śrī Ṣahī regular silver and copper issues, along with their local derivatives, would be produced in the late seventh century, as Vondrovec and Göbl had suggested. The most compelling piece of evidence is the appearance of the derivative Alkhan lunar bull tamgha and Alkhan-type crowns on the Nezak Śrī Ṣahī issues. There would be no reason to assume that either the tamgha or crown would have been deliberately inserted on Gandhāran coinage well into the Turk Shahi period, by which time both features had disappeared.

Both the regular Śrī Ṣahī and Sakra issues would have ceased ca. 667, when the Turk Shahis replaced the Nezak. The Sakra issues provide a compelling piece of evidence to this end. NumH 253 is the prototype of 2.2.1 (see Chapter 2), which introduces a new localized “trident” tamgha derived from a standard Turk Shahi royal tamgha. With the inclusion of this “trident” tamgha, the lunar bull tamgha disappears from the native Sakra coinage. It is logical to assume that the Turk Shahi derivative tamgha would have been introduced in the Sakra mints soon after Turk Shahi ascendancy, at the same time in which the prototypical Turk Shahi tamgha (S61, in Chapter 2) was introduced across Turk Shahi regular coinage in the Kabul Valley, Gandhāra, and Zabul.

TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र What's the significance of the Brahmi akshara as described in Pfisterer? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Not sure what you are referring to... do you have a page number? पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@पाटलिपुत्र p. 52-53 TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam:Humm, no idea, sorry... Could be a mint mark... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]

What is the usual order - alphabetical? TrangaBellam (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ty! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coin images needed

[edit]

To do. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inscription

[edit]

How does this image aid an average reader? Anyone who is not acquainted with the field will doubt the equivalence of the inscribed legend with the proposed reading because absent any other information, the matching of characters appears to be wildly speculative. Further, I don't want the section pre-spammed with images because I plan to add high-res images of a few Nezak Phase I mints. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, I won't mind shifting the image to footnotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: OK for the footnotes, then :) For the coin images, be careful with uploads, as normally only CNG coins are accepted on Wikipedia (they have a license agreement with Wikipedia), and sometimes Flickr images under a free license or free personal photographs... apart from these, images of coins from websites or books are generally not considered as acceptable from a copyright standpoint पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - please shift it to footnotes.
Interesting but do you feel that my licensing-details at File:Śrī Jayataka of Sindh.jpg is not accurate? I came across Commons:Currency:

However, scans of coins are mere mechanical reproductions and are allowed [..]

How do we know that there was sufficient lighting adjustment etc. to confer sufficient originality past Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: Yes, if you read carefully scans are accepted (ie purely mechanical reproduction by a scanning machine without human intervention), but photographs are not accepted (a photograph necessarily involves a degree of creativity, such as lighting, position of the camera etc..., hence copyrightable). You can also read here. Your image File:Śrī Jayataka of Sindh.jpg cannot be used normally: if you're convinced, you can have it removed rapidly by inserting the following template on the Commons page of your file: {{speedy delete|***Your reason here***}}. I know it's a bit sad, but better to follow the rules... A unique coin or object hidden away in a private collection can sometimes be uploaded with a Fair Use license (see as File:Seal of Khingila.jpg), but it can be a bit tricky, cannot be high resolution, and is often challenged. Best पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read

[edit]

A silver rhyton from Afghanistan held in the Cleveland Museum of Art and its historical context TrangaBellam (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temple for Brahmins?

[edit]

The deva in the religion section presumably refers to Deva (Hinduism). The current wording is unclear and kind of implies Brahmins were some kind of deity being worshipped in the polity. It seems the source is using the word "Brahminism" to refer to Hinduism, i.e. worship of Devas generally, without giving any indication that the worshippers were themselves Brahmins. The infobox also has Zoroastrianism in the religion field without any corresponding information in the religion section. 59.90.60.94 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwayama exclusively uses Brahmanism (with an a instead of an i). The Wikipedia article redirects to Historical Vedic religion and Britannica says "... subsequent scholars depicted Brahmanism either as a historical stage in Hinduism’s evolution or as a distinct religious tradition". Kuwayama identifies Deva shrines with that, it can be linked to Brahmanism (not Brahmins) directly and mentioned in the infobox. If other sources make a more direct identification with Hinduism, that can be linked instead. 59.90.60.94 (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "Hindu" and "Hinduism". I don't think the scholars have any clear idea why they use "Brahmanism". We don't have any such thing on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Historical Vedic religion is one sense which "Brahmanism" was used, by Max Mueller. But that sense is not what is meant here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also beginning to see that, to the East Asians, "Brahmanism" means Hinduism. (The scholar cited here is Japanese.) See the page on Prasat Ban Thanon Hak, for example. This is easily explainable. "Hindu" acquired a religious sense in the Indian subcontinent due to Hindu-Muslim interactions, but outside the subcontinent, "Hindu" still means India, as it originally did. So, calling something "Hinduism" would amount to calling it "Indianism" (kind of like calling Islam "Arabianism"). So obviously they wouldn't want to do it. It is called Brahmanism because it is the religion propagated by Brahmanas (Brahmins).
FYI, Joshua Jonathan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Nezak Huns/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 03:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been sitting at GAN for an unconscionable time ;), will take it up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

Criteria

[edit]
GA Criteria

GA Criteria:

  • 1
    1.a 
    1.b 
  • 2
    2.a 
    2.b 
    2.c 
    2.d 
  • 3
    3.a 
    3.b 
  • 4
    4.a 
  • 5
    5.a 
  • 6
    6.a 
    6.b 

Discussion

[edit]

Prose Suggestions

[edit]

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

[edit]

Etymology

[edit]
  • the former was used only to describe the Nezak Tarkhans Due to being very similar to the article subject in name, I think a brief gloss should be given, perhaps the former was used only to describe the Nezak Tarkhans (Western Tokharistan rulers), or something similar.
     Done

Territory

[edit]
  • Feels like this whole section would benefit from being moved to the first subsection of the history section.
    Uncertain.
  • c. 630, during Xuanzang's visit, Kapisi composed eleven vassal-principalities, including Lampā, Varṇu, Nagarahāra, and Gandhara; Taxila had been only recently lost to Kashmir. suggest Kapisi composed eleven vassal-principalities during Xuanzang's visit in c. 630, including Lampā, Varṇu, Nagarahāra, and Gandhara; Taxila had been only recently lost to Kashmir.
     Done

Pilgrim Travelogues

[edit]
  • Dharmagupta (d. 619), a South-Indian Buddhist monk, had suggest removing (d. 619)
     Done
  • Dharmagupta (d. 619), a South-Indian Buddhist monk, had visited the polity in the early seventh century, but his biography by Yan Cong is not extant. the phrasing here, hinging largely around the usage of had seems to imply that Dharmagupta visited before Jñānagupta, but the literary work associated with it was lost. As the timing is at least 50 years later, I think removing had would make it less confusing.
     Done

Chinese Histories

[edit]
  • The Cefu Yuangui and Old Book of Tang should give brief introductions for both works, such as The Cefu Yuangui (a 11th-century Chinese encyclopedia)
     Done
  • Footnote c should have a citation.
     Doing... - I failed to find a source, the last time. Need to read all of the cited works, again.
  • Footnote d, while written very academically, is strange to see in Wikivoice; it would look more normal I think, as Minoru Inaba gives a list of the sixteen prefectures: [list]
    Removed.  Done
  • Ziad, however, cautions the reference to twelve generations was probably not intended in the literal sense Ziad has not yet been introduced.
     Done

Phase I

[edit]
  • but incorporated Alkhon iconography alongside their distinctive styles Should introduce the Alchon huns, as they are far more obscure than the Sassanians, and have not been introudced in any fashion in the body yet. Also, this is the only usage of Alkhon instead of Alchon in the article, which I assume is accidental?
    Typo fixed
  • Coins exhibit progressive debasement as silver decrease in favour of alloys incorporating increasing quantities of copper. suggest The coinage exhibits a progressive debasement as the silver percentage decreases in favour of alloys incorporating increasing quantities of copper
     Done
  • A wing-shaped vegetal appendage a short gloss on what vegetal appendage means would be nice. Like flower petals, is what it seems to me, but I can imagine non-native and non-expect English speakers struggling pretty hard to understand it.
    Your understanding is correct; care to give a pointer on how to better describe it for non-native speakers?
    Perhaps A wing-shaped vegetal appendage (shaped similar to flower petals)? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsatisfactory. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • some samples include a Brahmi akshara a short gloss for akshara would be useful.
     Doing...
  • footnote j ( Numismatists use this mark to group Nezak coinage into two types; there is a consensus among scholars the latter type started earlier than the former. should IMO be pulled up into prose and cited.
     Not done Not very significant information, I believe.
  • footnote k ( The long barsom bundles were likely derived from the mints of Yazdegerd II, who preceded Peroz I.) should also be pulled up into prose and cited.

Phase II: Alchon-Nezak crossovers and derivatives

[edit]
  • Footnote l (Whether these two varieties were contemporaneous remains a matter of speculation.) should be pulled up to prose and cited, IMO.
  •  Not done Better suited to footnote.
  • For footnote m, the Gandhara was added to Nezak territory only in the aftermath of Alchon desertion is confusing to me, what desertion? Is this meant to mean that the Alchons abandoned the Sakra region and the Nezaks took over? Or is it, as the became "extinct" and the unavailability of Phase I mints affirm such a view. after the death of the Alchons, which seems incorrect, as the Alchons seem to have briefly outlived them.
  • Footnote n could be pulled up into prose, IMO.
  •  Doing...

Origins and establishment

[edit]
  • However, Shōshin Kuwayama—primarily depending on Xuanzang's recording the rulers of Kapisi as Kshatriya, about two centuries later, and the absence of Hunnic identifiers in coinage—ascribes an indigenous origin to the dynasty. given the long list of names and people, it may be useful to reorganize to However, Shōshin Kuwayama ascribes an indigenous origin to the dynasty, primarily depending on Xuanzang's recording the rulers of Kapisi as Kshatriya, about two centuries later, and the absence of Hunnic identifiers in coinage.
     Not done
  • However, Shōshin Kuwayama—primarily depending on Xuanzang's recording the rulers of Kapisi as Kshatriya additionally, while linked above, the term Kshatriya has not been defined, recommend a short gloss.
     Not done Read this line with the last line of the section on pilgrim travelogues.
  • Vondrovec finds his arguments to be unpersuasive. Vondrovec has not been introduced in the body.
     Done
  • and Hindu societies had a history of absorbing alien warriors within the Kshatriya fold. foreign may work better than alien
     Done

Decline: Rashidun and Umayyad invasions

[edit]
  • probably first in Kabul and later throughout the territory, sometime soon sometime soon is not exactly the right phrasing, suggest changing sometime soon to soon after
     Done
  • According to Hyecho Hyecho should be introduced.
     Done
  • Footnote r is huge and not very useful, strongly suggest removal.
     Doing... Maybe, pull up to the section on sources?
    That could work; although it is quite a long quote that I'm not sure the reader gets much out of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kabul (city - ?) Is it not certain here if Kabul refers to the region or the city? If so, suggest Kabul (either the city or the region)
     Done

Notes

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tepe Kafiriyat

[edit]

Probable Nezak site (p. 198) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nezak_Huns&oldid=1245668135"