Talk:Abu'l-Khayr Khan

Problematic illustration

The illustration of the ruler in yellow is actually of Chinggis Khan. It is from the Tarikh-i Abulkhair-Khani manuscript in Tashkent's Beruni Institute, no. 9989, f.134r. I suggest we change it to a different folio in the same manuscript: Enthronement of Abū al-Khair. Kūhistānī, Tārīkh-i Abū’l-Khair Khānī, dated 1543. ARB ms. 9989, f.213v.

Or, if permission from Tashkent is difficult to come by, we change the image to one available online at the British Library's digitized manuscript page: Tavarikh-i Guzida-yi Nusratnama, ms. Or. 3222, f.118v. Uniquejaimee (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Uniquejaimee- very valuable to have your expert input. I've changed the image in the article to another of the images available on Wikimedia Commons. commons:File:Abdulxair.jpg is used on a huge number of Wikipedia articles so this is an error that will take a lot of work to fix. I'm leaving here a note for other editors that the British Library image which definitely depicts Abu'l-Khayr Khan is publicly online at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=or_3222_f118v . MartinPoulter (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

About the reliability

I can add a more modern one if that’s the issue? @Kansas Bear BulgarChanyu (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

1. The Lead of the article should only contain information that is in the body of the article. "Bulgar Khan" is not mentioned anywhere in the article, except the Lead. That is textbook POV pushing. A "more modern one[source]" is irrelevant since the information is not represented in the body of the article.

2. The unreliable source(Henry Hoyle Howorth) was written by a non-historian and should not be used.

3. The current source states quite clearly where the information originates(17th century text) and should be presented in this fashion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but Abulkhair Khan being known in the Kalmyk tradition isn’t an information we can see only in Henry Hoyle Howorth, Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher also talked about it. It clearly didn’t start with the 17th century Däftär-i Chingiznama. BulgarChanyu (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• "It clearly didn’t start with the 17th century Däftär-i Chingiznama."

Oh? According to ???? Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher? Which means nothing to me. No author, no publisher, no page number, no quote, no link. Meaningless.

Also, you've ignored what I said about WP:LEAD. Nowhere in this article, aside from the Lead, does it say anything about "Abū’l-Khayr Khan is referred to as Bolɣar Khan". --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just mentioned Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher to enlighten you about your misconception and lack of information on the topic. I’m saying this to change the baseless claim of the tradition being started in 17th century by Däftär-i Chingiznama. So I don’t understand what are you trying to say about WP:LEAD? BulgarChanyu (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"My misconception"...LOL. Spare me the silly childish comments. Stick to the facts. You mentioned a book, nothing else. That proves nothing. Everything has to be verified to ensure that someone isn't writing original research. Also, your mention of Ural-Altaische Jahrbucher is meaningless since there appears to be 21 volumes of it. So your so-called "enlightening" doesn't have a page number or a volume number, so how can anyone find this information?

• "I’m saying this to change the baseless claim of the tradition being started in 17th century by Däftär-i Chingiznama"

Uh no. This is supported by the source that you provided. And even IF there is another source that states "Abū’l-Khayr Khan is referred to as Bolɣar Khan", what Nurlan Kenzheakhmet states in the source is of importance to this topic. Nothing says the tradition started in the 17th century, "According to the 17th-century source, Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä, Abū’l-Khayr Khan is referred to as Bolɣar Khan." That is a WP:STRAWMAN. Please refrain from misrepresenting information.

• "So I don’t understand what are you trying to say about WP:LEAD?"

Is Bolɣar Khan mentioned anywhere in the body of the article? Yes or No?

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Seems clear to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)