# Talk:Nezak Huns

Rukhkhaj and Zamindawar were ruled by whom c. 650s, during the invasion and desecration of temple?
Caption the coin images from Vondrovec.
Pat, I have undid this edit. Bloat; we do cover the rise of Nezaks, later. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
Thanks; will appreciate your feedback for both the article and proposed merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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
"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
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)
Will take a look and nominate for GA. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


### Probabilities
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)

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

@TrangaBellam:Fantastic find. Thanks! पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
@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)
@पाटलिपुत्र What's the significance of the Brahmi akshara as described in Pfisterer? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam: Not sure what you are referring to... do you have a page number? पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र p. 52-53 TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@TrangaBellam:Humm, no idea, sorry... Could be a mint mark... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

However, I won't mind shifting the image to footnotes. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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