Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Kara-Khanid Khanate is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 6.

Language

Last talking language of Kara-Khanid's is persian and someones steal history here and this page is protected. That's weird. Their main language was Middle-Turkic and arabic not persian. Somone is trying to convert this page to tottaly Persian why there is persion on the top like they talking persian? this page should be edit definitely Ltequila (talk)ltequila~~ —Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*cough*battleground comments*cough* --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the source in the article state that they also spoke Persian. And the article has been protected so the likes of you can't disrupt it, as you have done previously in other places [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers

I have no idea why someone would add list of researchers' names to the articles. If important, their name would appear in the sources. If not, then their names shouldn't appear, and it would be original research to suggest that they are important. Other articles on empires simply don't list the researchers' names in separate section, and the same is true for any other Wikipedia articles (e.g. a scientific topic, a historical event, a place, etc.). Unless it is an article specifically about researchers on the Kara-Khanids, then their names should not be listed in article. You can add the names if they said certain things that you are quoting in a particular sentences, e.g. "According to xyz, the Kara-Khanids originated from ..." or "Xyz disputed the idea that the Kara-Khanids originated from ...", or if a particular researcher is very important, for example, making some important discoveries (in which case the person may even merit a separate paragraph on the discussion of their discoveries), otherwise the names shouldn't be given as separate entries in their own different section in article. Hzh (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your opinion, but before deleting the text, you should have explained this action on the article's talk page. The main motivation for including this list in the article was that, unfortunately, there is currently a growing number of publications on the history of Central Asia, where the authors ignore previous researchers. I have been doing research on the history of the Karakhanids for over 20 years and this list comes from a well-reviewed academic bibliography. I realized that this list of researchers should be included in an article in a different format and I will move it to an article that provides reviews of research on Central Asia.Khorazmiy (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could include their works under "Further reading" or "sources". Beshogur (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I will do that.Khorazmiy (talk). — Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit as user:Khorazmiy also removed a Cambridge University Press source in the process.[2] Also, just wondering; why should we use Soviet and Russian Federation scholarship, when there are far better sources out there in English? (the world's lingua franca, and the language of this Wikipedia). - LouisAragon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Professor Dr. Boris Kochnev and Professor Dr. Elena Davidovich are high-level archaeologists and scholars. For many years they participated in the excavations of the cities of the Karakhanid era and studied the history of this state on the basis of coins that were not available to researchers from Western Europe. Based on their research, they defended their habilitation dissertations. If you are a specialist in the history of the Karakhanids, please give reasons why you do not think that the names of these worthy specialists should not be presented at least in the list of sources? I also would like to note that in the list of sources on the history of the Karakhanids there are publications in which the history of the Karakhanids is not covered at all and some of which I have deleted.Khorazmiy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics

@Beshogur I don’t know how to source the the image from Vahaduo, like Vahaduo doesn’t post the dna distancing, you have to manually do it and screenshot or save the result. HazaraHistorian (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HazaraHistorian Are you using Vahaduo to do original research? —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring in infobox

SBD091, can you explain what you're doing? You've been reverted several times and you have made two reverts, and you've provided zero explanation throughout, despite some clear problems with your changes. Per WP:BRD, please explain your edits on the talk page instead of edit-warring. R Prazeres (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The language "Middle Chinese[4][5] (administrative)" in the infobox is unverified under WP:V and the sources should either be corrected or that line removed. Neither of the cited sources provide for the claim. In each case the source refers to Middle Chinese as an administrative language used by the Qara Khitai, and not the Kara-Khanids. The Kara-Khanids were only Qara Khitai vassals for 71 of the 372 years of existence as a polity. To say Middle Chinese was their administrative language is inaccurate, or broadly misleading at best, unless sources are provided showing that Middle Chinese was the administrative language of the Kara-Khanids themselves. Without accurate sources the language information in the infobox is unverified and/or original research. Please either add correct sources that match the claim or remove that unverified material. I.M.Oblomov (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch @I.M.Oblomov:! The reference given (Grousset 2004, p. 165) actually refers to the Kara-Khitai:

"The Khitan were of the Mongol race, but in two centuries of rule at Peking they had become markedly Sinicized. Their descendants, although settled thenceforth in Turkestan among Muslim Turks, remained hostile to Islam and to Arabo-Persian culture, for their orientation was toward Chinese civilization, whether Buddhist or Confucian; they were what the Muslims called "pagans." (...) Barthold even believes that the administrative language may have been Chinese. It should also be noted that Christianity flourished in the Kara-Khitai empire, side by side with Buddhism." in Grousset, René (1970). The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. Rutgers University Press. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-8135-1304-1.

Grousset seems to make no mention of the language of the Kara-Khanids, but describes them as firmly Muslim-Turk, see Grousset, René (1970). The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia. Rutgers University Press. pp. 144-148. ISBN 978-0-8135-1304-1.

And the second reference given (Pozzi, Janhunen & Weiers 2006, p. 114) also describes the Kara-Khitai, not the Kara-Khanids:

"Under such circumstances, the linguistic impact of the Kara Khitai in Turkestan is likely to have remained minimal. Although the first generation of the conquerors certainly included some actual Khitan speakers, it is questionable whether there ever existed a functioning Khitan speech community in the Kara Khitai state. By all tokens, Chinese was the dominant dynastic and administrative language of the state and probably also the native language of most of the immigrant Kara Khitai individuals. However, even Chinese did not leave any permanent trace in the Kara Khitai territory. As in all of its earlier intrusions into Turkestan, Chinese was destined to be lost under the influence of the local languages, which in Kara Khitai times included various forms of Mongolic, Turkic, Iranian, and even Arabic. The fact that Khitan was apparently distantly related to Middle Mongol (Proto-Mongolic), as spoken by the historical Mongols, was probably of no consequence in this context." Stary, Giovanni (2006). Tumen Jalafun Jecen Aku: Manchu Studies in Honour of Giovanni Stary. Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. p. 114. ISBN 978-3-447-05378-5.

I removed the mention of the Chinese language, which is clearly mistaken. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]