# Talk:Tong Yabghu Qaghan

Well, I had checked, and no response for this removal. Eiorgiomugini 18:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this text:
The concept of identifying with Khazar khagans was being rejected by a few scholars such as Chavannes, Uchida and Xue Zhongzeng, one of the main reason involved with his date of death, which generally had been disputed from 626 to 630, due to the differs from primary sources.
In the context of the paragraph this makes no sense. What is being objected to? What the article says is that Ziebel and Tong Yabghu are identical, and that Theophanes identifies Ziebel as "Khagan of the Khazars". Is Xue (you give no citation for the others) arguing that Ziebel is not Tong Yabghu, or that Theophanes does not actually identify him as khagan of the Khazars? What is the basis for the disagreement I am trying to help make this article good but continually restoring grammatical errors helps no one. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
In your first removal, you did not said anything about the grammatical errors, but conflicting from your sources. It makes no sense when the fact that his date of death was disputed, there can be no certain for such assert with another source, you should be able to think where the problem lies. Xue actually provided other scholars's quote argument with footnotes, and shown what is being disagreed at. There are several factors, such as the exaggerated stories which written as well as the date. And no, Theophanes did not identified him as Tong Yabghu and vice versa in the Chinese sources. This is clearly another type of WP:NCON as far as I can tell. Eiorgiomugini 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is undisputed fact that Theophanes named Ziebel khagan of the Khazars. What I believe you are saying is that Xue and the others he cites claim that Ziebel is not the same as Tong Yabghu, and Tong Yabghu may have died before the Third War. I will add this back in. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, but I don't see the reason that you removed the source, actually is more complicated. Also there are more than one Khazar khans that were being identified with Tong Yabghu according to him. Eiorgiomugini 18:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the reference. If it's not exactly what you meant then let's try and work it out here on talk before adding to the article. I am trying to proceed in good faith with you.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually you did a good job on that on that phrase. Eiorgiomugini 19:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My intention was never to obscure or remove legitimate information. It was to make sure that the article is readable and understandable. I am happy to work with you (or whoever) to that end.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As seen in the earlier talks of this page, Tong's death date seems to be debatable. In this article, the date is given as 628, with a  note that 626 is also a possiblity. But this conflicts with the article Göktürks which gives the date as 630. According to some, Tong had been killed by his uncle in 630.  So, this discrepancy needs the attention of an expert. 
By the way, yabghu is a title of a vassal king.  Since Tong's grandfather Tardu had decleared independence, khagan is a better title for Tong. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tong Yabghu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I will do the GA Review on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.  H1nkles (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
After reading the article I see the seeds of a GA here but I feel that there is much that needs to be done to maintain its GA status.  To start per WP:lead the lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, covering the major points within the article.  The lead in this article does not meet this criteria.  I find the use of quotes to be a bit excessive and not inline with WP:quote.  Regarding the excessive nature of the quotes, the article is short to begin with, the quotes seem to be inserted to make the article seem longer.  The fourth quote regarding taxation of the conquered Aghvania forces is an example of an unnecessary quote.  The reader understands that the people were heavily taxed, what benefit does the quote provide except to support that assertion?  The point of a quote is to either better explain what we cannot succinctly explain or to support what may be considered a controversial point.  Neither of these exist to justify this particular quote.  Regarding conforming to the MOS, quotes are generally not suppposed to be italicized, and we try to avoid large block quotes as it breaks up the flow of the article.  The citation of the quotes and the lead into each quote are excellent but overall the use of four block quotes in an article of this length start to make it appear as though they were inserted to help bolster the length of the article rather than to actually add to the accuracy of the article.  The map should probably be placed on the right with the rest of the images.  I'll refer to WP:ACCESS regarding layout of the page.
Regarding the content I did not read much about Tong Yabghu's rise to power or how he died.  Is there any information on these parts of his life?  Also who succeeded him upon his death?
Your references are solid and appear to be credible, the format for the references is good.  In conclusion I would say the primary issues are comprehensiveness, the quotations, and the lead.  I will place the article on hold for a week with the hope that work can be done to bring it up to current GA standards.  Thank you for your work and please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions.  H1nkles (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

East-Hem 600ad.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not good enought to be a GA. Enlisting reasons in a while. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)