Jump to content

Talk:Khwarazmian Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Map caption

[edit]

When you click the map in the infobox, the caption says "Khwarazmian Empire is located in Khwarazmian Empire", which is unhelpful information. If we have nothing else to say about the map, I suggest shortening the caption to "Khwarazmian Empire". But I didn't find a way to edit that. Art LaPella (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the reliability of Bunyadov

[edit]
Moved from User talk:AirshipJungleman29

Hello. I have seen you have left a message on my page. I see you keep reverting my edit. I am not here for edit war, let me clarify your mistakes:

1) your first accusation of Buniyatov being unreliable: first of all, he does not even need to be reliable IN THIS CASE: I have written it as "Buniyatov says so and so." I have not presented it as a Wiki's point of view but I have stated it as Buniyatov POV. In this case, Buniyatov does not need to be reliable: You can go to theory of evolution page, quote an anti-evolutionist person and present it as his POV. It may fall under WP:RSOPINION

2) as for "WP:PUS is one editor's opinion, not policy; an author may be reliable for one topic area and not for others": first of all, that certian author being reliable in 1 case and not in other one is YOUR arbitrary opinion, not WP assessment or something like that: does wiki have assessments which cases Buniyatov is acceptable in and which cases he is not acceptable/reliable in? No. Then, even if there was a wiki rule on Buniyatov, it would still be OK in my case as I have written "Buniyatov says so and so". It is accepted in Wikipedia as I have stated already in the first section: WP:RSOPINION

3) the most important part: you accused me of "making edits to the page Khwarazmian Empire which do not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy." which edit of mine do you allege to be non-verifiable? I have cited even the page numbers - all are verifiable there.

Thus, before reverting your edit, I wait for your response here. If my edits do not have any flaw, let us settle it down here and stop sabotaging my edits or in other words, we shall avoid and evade a possible edit war.

Thanks. Waiting to hear from you.

--176.88.165.232 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post on the talk page, so other interested editors like HistoryofIran who reverted you first can also weigh in. In this case, the source is neither reliable for statements cited as opinions or statements asserted as fact, so WP:RSOPINION has no relevance. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You first posted it on my talk page. Not him or others. As for this case, the author is reliable as he is already cited; the statement was not presented as fact but his view, so WP:RSOPINION rules here. Please, stop vandalizing and do not enter into edit war. Thanks, --176.88.165.232 (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the author is reliable as he is already cited" that is an interesting argument but sadly not supported by any WP:PAG, so invalid. I will move this conversation to the article talk page. Please note that the other citation has now been removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)~[reply]
Here is an even more interesting argument by AirshipJungleman29: " WP:PUS is one editor's opinion, not policy; an author may be reliable for one topic area and not for others". but sadly not supported by any WP:PAG, so invalid. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on WP:PUS, you will see a box at the top of the page. It reads "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines..." If you want me to provide a picture of this box, I can. In any case, you have not provided any arguments that relate to it, so I don't know why you keep bringing the essay up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while I grant and did know that WP:PUS is not a policy and even aware of the box you are talking about, refer to my edit, I wrote "refer to such policies. Though I shall also grant that I kinda worded it badly, I should have stated "policies that are similar to that advice."
Anyway, you have not provided any explanation on why Buniyatov does not fall under WP:RSOPINION and why he is reliable in cases you consider him reliable and unreliable in cases you consider him unreliable. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can check the references in the critics section of his Wikipedia page. In short, on matters of ethnic history he has been found to distort, manipulate, or conceal the facts. This is why he is not generally still cited on these matters. In other areas, such as political history, he is reliable, and worthy of being cited in Featured Articles such as Siege of Bukhara. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still fail to understand it: even if he was a charlatan with zero credentials, he could still be cited under WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says...."" This is from RSOPINION and My edit exactly fell under this criteria: "Buniyatov says so, Buniyatov says so."
However, you could still oppose it under "Due Credit" criteria but not source or reliability criterias. Anyway, I will add academic papers on this issue as well, as a further expansion to the issue so that Due Credit issue gets solved as well --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran, please, join us. We are stuck at repeating ourselves. re-iterate that my contribution fell under WP:RSOPINION and he keeps on saying Buniyatov is unreliable when it comes to ethnic issues. We have recently worked with you at the Battle of Parwan and you did not seem un-constructive there. I explained you once and you acknowledged your neglection. Why not assist us here? --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buniyatov is not reliable for ethnic related stuff. What is stated about his historical falsifications (which is already more than enough) is just tip of the iceberg (which I will be adding soon). It's not like there is a shortage of actual high quality WP:RS about the Khwarazmian Empire, we can use them. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so, you agree with and acknowledge that my edit falls under WP:RS? but still prefer to not include Buniyatov. Did I get you right? --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, @HistoryofIran, as far as I understand: HistoryofIran agrees that my edit is WP:RSOPINION but still refrains from mentioning Buniyatov. but As far as I know, among the cited works on Khwarazm empire, Buniyatov is the only one that talked of that aspect of the culture of Khwarazmians - that is why I quoted him as wp:rsopinion.~So, if you know other experts on the matter, let us add them as well. If you are not aware of any, do not sabotage for arbitrary reasons: I shall just add Buniyatov and some other official and academic papers (District Governorship's website, the website of the ministry of education of Turkey etc.) on the matter of how the descendants of Khwarazmians identify themselves. --178.243.193.189 (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide a source isn't reliable for certain claims, then we don't cite them. We only consider it worthwhile to attest the opinion of reliable sources, believe it or not. Presenting material as opinion is not some lesser status where we allow less reliable sources into the article. It's precisely the opposite: the level of scrutiny is higher, not lower! You're deliberately misunderstanding the point of WP:RSOPINION, which is about how we decide whether sources are reliable in asserting that an opinion exists. The passage is not concerned with how we decide which opinions are due for inclusion: that is where you must consult WP:NPOV. Remsense ‥ 论 05:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You completely and deliberately misunderstood the event here. First of all, "if we decide a source is not reliable certain claims, then we don't cite them." - Wiki has no any assessment on Buniyatov being reliable or not. Then, Buniyatov was cited here in this article and in some other articles, until Airshipjungleman decided to delete it just to not submit the point. And no, academics deciding some author is unreliable is not a wikipolicy to omit that author. Wiki itself has list of reliable-unreliable sources and if Buniyatov is there, just forward me. And your "the point of WP:RSOPINION, which is about how we decide whether sources are reliable in asserting that an opinion exists." is completely a [a blatant?] distortion but even that works in this case: why not decide whether an opinion exists on how the descendants of Khwarazmians identify themselves? --176.88.165.232 (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
academics deciding some author is unreliable is not a wikipolicy to omit that author
Here, when surveying academic claims, that's exactly what it means. We judge the reliability of sources in context, in large part according to what kind of claims the sources are making. You would know that if you weren't fixating on a specific passage addressing a point unrelated to the issue at hand. Stop wasting our time, please. Further comments of yours will be removed as long as you continue (likely while socking) to deliberately misunderstand site policy with the intent of getting your favorite crank opinions represented. It's not going to happen. Remsense ‥ 论 09:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why ignore this part "Wiki itself has list of reliable-unreliable sources and if Buniyatov is there" and cherry-pick the ones you see fit your agenda? Stop wasting sabotaging edits, please. You may do whatever you want to sabotage with the intent of suppressing the opinions you want to be supressed. It is not going to happen. I will contact the admin sightboard for your vandalisms if you insist on sabotaging for your political agendas. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to contact the admin sightboard, and once you do, let me know what that is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because again, you've chosen to deliberately ignore what WP:RSP specifically states its own purpose as being (The following presents a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed), and deliberately ignore the fundamental paradigm given by WP:NPOV—a core site policy—in black and white.
We do not care about, and will not include, opinions about ethnicity from people who are not ethnologists or are otherwise experts with established credentials on the subject. You have chosen not to acknowledge the core points of site policy and infrastructure that would make this reality very clear. Instead, you've decided to accuse me of cherrypicking when you can't even read the first sentence of the page you're trying to use as a fig leaf. How stupid do you take others to be as to pretend that RSP would plausibly list every crank with irrelevant credentials whose opinions we don't consider reliable on a subject? Go away. Remsense ‥ 论 21:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You again are blatantly ignoring even the text. WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT WP:RSP, WE WERE TALKİNG ABOUT RSOPINION. Do you even understand what the subject of the discussion is? LoooooL. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RSP AND RSOPINION. You either fail to understand the plain text or you are deliberately distorting the discussion: we were not talking about WP:RSP but you accuse me of deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSP. :) Where did you bring that from? How idiot do you take others that you can just accuse someone of deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSP while they are talking about WP:RSOPINION? :)
I do not care you political agenda. My contribution falls under WP:RSOPINION.
Also, your abusive threat "Further comments of yours will be removed" will also be reported. Why would you threaten to delete a COMMENT in a discussion?
Just wait for my next spare time. We will see. The last comment of yours show how blatantly you are sabotaging a contributing contribution. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I make that four personal attacks in one comment, in addition to a case of selective amnesia. As I have warned you on your talk page, any more disruption will be immediately reported. You are expected to be civil on Wikipedia, and to get to grips with policies and guidelines, not to forget what you've furiously demanded when it suits you to act like a child. Consensus-building discussion is how this website was built. Not whatever you're doing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He made personal attacks, not me: He accused me of DELIBERATELY MISUNDERSTANDING. Why do you threaten me when he slandered me?
Even more interesting is that when you had no answer to give, Remsense came and threatened me. Now, when I exposed that Remsense distorted the discussion by pointing out that he either failed to understand that we were talking of WP:RSOPINION not WP:RSP, unlike how he percieved or blatantly distorted, he has no answer to give but you come out and threaten me? :) --176.88.165.232 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to pretend that you didn't twice demand a list of reliable sources, that's on you, but it's pretty laughable when everyone can see it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not demand that but even if I did, is that a personal attack? :D You accuse me making personal attack, I respond by pointing out his personal attack and you show demanding a list as a personal attack? :) --176.88.165.232 (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAN DISCUSSION FOR THIRD OPINION: WP:RSOPINION, HISTORY AND ETHNOLOGY

[edit]

As the adversaries transitioned into personal attacks which resulted in the discussion being so muddled, let me re-narrate the structure of the discussion here:

Now, here are the points of the two sides: 1. I hold that my edit falls under WP:RSOPINION. I wrote exactly in that format: "Buniyatov says so, Buniyatov writes so..." 2. The other side has two issues against it: 1) My edit does not fall under WP:RSOPINION 2) Buniyatov is not an ethnologist, so his views will not be included [even under WP:RSOPINON]

Now, against this "Buniyatov not ethnologist" issue, what I can say is this: My edit was not related to exclusively or primarily ethnology: my edit and Buniyatov's assessment was on how certain people IDENTIFIED themselves. While an ethnologist may cover it, so can historians.

Also, I added official website of a certian district governorship that corraborates Buniyatov's claim. That has gone ignored. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 06:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the 3O: the IP fails to understand the reliable sources or undue weight policies. The IP believes WP:RSOPINION means that any opinion, no matter how unreliable its author, should be described in the article if it comes with attribution. I, Remsense, and HistoryofIran say that the source is neither "reliable for statements as to their author's opinion" or reliable "for statements asserted as fact"; thus WP:RSOPINION does not apply. In addition, WP:DUE requires that material in an article reflect the coverage given by reliable sources: if a subject is not covered by reliable sources, as is the case here there is no reason to include it.
The IP's next contention was that editors couldn't decide if a source was unreliable. They demanded a complete list of every unreliable source ever made, which includes the one under discussion. When it was pointed out that such a list on Wikipedia (WP:RSP) could not possibly hold every unreliable source ever made, they decided to forget about their previous demand and instead threw a tantrum:

"WE HAVE NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT WP:RSP, WE WERE TALKİNG ABOUT RSOPINION. Do you even understand what the subject of the discussion is? LoooooL. LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RSP AND RSOPINION. How idiot do you take others that you can just accuse someone of deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSP while they are talking about WP:RSOPINION? :)

If a possible 3O provider looks at the above and decides to steer clear, I don't blame you.
Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." In this case, there is consensus against including dispute content, but the IP is here to right great wrongs and so consensus is unimportant to them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one that adviced AirshipJungleman29 that s/he can oppose my contribution as per "due credit" criteria Then, how can s/he say that I fail to understand undue weight? :)
First, AirshipJungleman29 accuses me of believing that "any opinion, no matter how reliable its author is should be described in the article if it comes with attribution." (BOLD IS BY ME) - FALSE. We are not discussing if we should include this contribution of mine into the article. Rather, we are discussing if it is eligible, not if we should.
Then, AirshipJungleman29 states that "the source is not reliable for statemetns as to their author's opinion." - how can this be? Buniyatov's book is not reliable for a statement that narrates Buniyatov's opinion?
As for "The IP's next contention was that editors couldn't decide if a source was unreliable" part:this is a misunderstanding. All I said was to assess it under Wiki policies, not arbitrary opinions of editors. AirshipJungleman29 was acting like as if it is Wikipedically established that Buniyatov is unreliable.
Then, AirshipJungleman29 went on to accuse me of demanding "complete list of every unreliable source ever made". ==> I did not demand or even ask such a thing. Then, s/he goes on to state that I forgot my two times demand and goes on to accuse me of throwing a tantrum in which I accused her/him/them of not distinguishing between WP:RSP and WP:RSOPINION. It is again false: Remsense accused me of "deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSO" I urge all of you to check the relevant edits and the relevant discussion above: Everything I talked of here was WP:RSOPINION but Remsense suddenly came and accused me of "deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSP".
As for alleged consensus part, first, it is not a consensus issue. We are discussing if my contribution falls under WP:RSOPINION. Not if we should include it. Again, AirshipJungleman29 shows that s/he is either failing to understand the subject of the disputation or he is conviniently muddling the picture here. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other point, of course, is why you are asking for a third opinion in a discussion between four editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's basically WP:GAMING. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why I removed this entry from the third opinion noticeboard. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so, I shall ask for 5th opinion? --176.88.165.232 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your ideas are trivially contradicted by the opening sentences of every core content policy. In the strongest terms epistemologically possible, there is no third opinion to be had. Remsense ‥ 论 05:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And when the fifth goes against you, then the sixth? And the seventh? And eighth, and ninth, and tenth, and essentially however long it takes to find someone who agrees with you? Because obviously everyone who doesn't is pushing a political agenda, and isn't to be trusted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not so if any one dares to answer the question, without any gymnastics. I asked if that statement is WP:RSOPINION and none of you dared to say NO as the statement is undisputably WP:RSOPINION 176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Buniyatov and WP:RSOPINION

[edit]

@HistoryofIran, can you take a look here: as you know, in the current version of the article, I have narrated Buniyatov's point of view and cited him. @AirshipJungleman29opposes me by stating that Buniyatov is not reliable to be quoted there. Putting aside the arbitrary verdict of Airshipjungleman29 on partial reliability of Buniyatov, where he is reliable or notİ; Here is the question:

My contribution falls under WP:RSOPINION, does not it? If my contribution falls there, Buniyatov would not even need to be reliable. At most, it can be opposed under Due Credit and other policies. What is your opinion here? --176.88.165.232 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be blunt and possibly save all our time here. My opinion is that there is no way a random IP is that good at formatting citations, knowing of certain policies (which I rarely see quoted elsewhere), and just generally how natural Wiki seems to them. In fact, your vocabulary is the exact same of another user I’ve recently had the honor of meeting again. Whats the name of ur previous account(s)? HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you likened me into a user you have talked to recently, then that is not me as I recently have not talked to you. While I do not deny that I am familiar with formatting and policies, I have no account here. But I am familiar because I have been editing wiki for more than a decade from different locations. But these are not relevant. Why not just talk about the issue? --176.88.165.232 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I have just recalled that we actually have talked to each other at the Battle of Parwan page.--176.88.165.232 (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran, we urgently need your assistance: we are stuck at repeating ourselves. I re-iterate that my contribution fell under WP:RSOPINION and he keeps on saying Buniyatov is unreliable when it comes to ethnic issues. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the episode at the Battle of Parwan article. I'm not buying it. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if that is not what you were referring to, then, no, we have not talked recently. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If my contribution falls there, Buniyatov would not even need to be reliable
You keep saying this, and it keeps being wrong. In fact, it is one of the most clearly wrong statements one can make about Wikipedia content policy. We do not include information that is not reflected in reliable sources: this fundamental fact is made clear within the opening sentences of all three of our core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR). I will say one more time that WP:RSOPINION only discusses when we can consider sources reliable for verifying what someone's opinion is. In order for WP:RSOPINION to be relevant, one has to have already made the judgment that inclusion of an opinion is due, meaning that its representation would be proportional to its prominence in the body of reliable sources about the subject. No reliable source on this subject has this opinion, so it is due zero representationRemsense ‥ 论 05:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not include information that is not reflected in reliable sources: this fundamental fact is made clear within the opening sentences of all three of our core content policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR)
Quote that statement, please. Here, let me quote from WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion" - do you see that? MAY BE CONSIDERED RELIABLE FOR STATEMENTS AS TO THEIR AUTHOR'S OPINION. Do you understand that?
Secondly, Buniyatov's book is not considered unreliable: the book is quoted here years, was quoted with-in this article for years.
"I will say one more time that WP:RSOPINION only discusses when we can consider sources reliable for verifying what someone's opinion is."
False and baseless. Also, I have already stated it that "you could still oppose it under "Due Credit" criteria but not source or reliability criterias" - So, do not act like as if the disputation here is due weight disputation. Stop that nonsense. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first part repeats exactly what I said, so I do understand. The source would be reliable to verifying he has this opinion. The reliability of sources depends on what they are being cited for in context (WP:RS will immediately clue you in on this if you read anything else but your cherrypicked section). If we were editing his own article, let's say, we might include his opinion since he is the subject of said article, and so the things he has said are relevant proportional to their prominence in the reliable sources that are about him. But this article is not about him, it is about a historical polity. So we do not care what he has to say, as he is not a reliable source for the matter on which he is expressing his opinion. As his opinion is not attested in reliable sources about the subject on which he is speaking—as distinguished from reliable sources about his biography or any other matter, it shall not appear in the article.
The second part is pure fallacy:
the book is quoted here years, was quoted with-in this article for years.
This is trivially irrelevant. Longevity is the weakest form of consensus; no assent or awareness of others is generally required to make an addition that then goes unscrutinized. This argument is categorically superseded when editors actually notice and explicitly discuss matters like a source's reliability in terms of its accordance with site policy. There was no meaningful consensus for the book's reliability for claims about ethnicity before. Later, someone noticed the author has no meaningful credentials in the subject on which his opinion was being quoted, and so a more explicit consensus has emerged in terms of site policy (WP:RS) that their work on the subject is not reliable. Remsense ‥ 论 06:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense is still repeating her/his unWikipedic assertions. I invited him to quote the Wikipolicies s/he alleges me of violating or misunderstanding, just like I have quoted. S/he failed to quote, it demonstrates that her/his assertians are null.
Then, s/he goes on to say that "The source would be reliable for verifying his opinions on his own article, let's say" - Again, unWikipedic. Does Wiki say that "unreliable sources can be reliable only if it is about the author's own article" (self?)?
Then, he alleges a fallacy by making a straw man fallacy:
"The second part is pure fallacy:
the book is quoted here years, was quoted with-in this article for years.
This is trivially irrelevant. Longevity is the weakest form of consensus;"
S/He does not even understand that if the book is unreliable, they would have to delete the citation long before I made this edit. I did not argue "it is cited, so it is reliable." - Rather, I implicitly pointed out their double-standards: they argue that the book is not reliable even "the source is not reliable for statemetns as to their author's opinion." but do not delete the already cited citation. But then goes onto state that the book was not established to be reliable for ethnicity but here s/he changes the goalposts: first, it is not about ethnicities, the book is cited for author's opinion, not for ethnical claim presented as a fact. secondly, they were arguing that the book is not reliable for statements as to their author's opinion. Thirdly, the author's opinion was corraborated by an official website of a district governorship. It has gone either unnoticed or ignored.
--176.88.165.232 (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC) 176.88.165.232 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not discuss anything but the logic regarding this specific opinion in this specific article. I do not care whether any other content is acceptable in any other context, so do not bother.
His book is a reliable source about what he has said per WP:RSOPINION, but it is not a reliable source about ethnicity. If we were editing his own article, we might include his opinion since he is the subject of said article. But this article is not about him, it is about a historical polity.
Here is the chain:
  1. We are discussing the relevant ethnology as a subtopic covered by the scope of this article.
  2. When discussing said relevant ethnology, we only include claims attested in reliable sources about that subject in context.
  3. He has no relevant credentials regarding this subject.
  4. He is not a reliable source for claims about this subject. His opinion is not reflected in reliable sources about this subject.
  5. His opinion, attributed or otherwise, shall not be mentioned in the article's discussion of this subject.
Remsense ‥ 论 07:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"His book is a reliable source about what he has said per WP:RSOPINION, but it is not a reliable source about ethnicity."
Bold is by me and that bold part is what I have written, do you understand that? Here is what I wrote (AirshipJungleman sabotages):

Buniyatov writes that the descendants of Khwarazmians call themselves Turkmens and they reside in the Musul and Kirkuk, the North of Iraq. Buniyatov further mentions that the descendants of Khwarazmians that call themselves Turkmens are referred to as Khurzumlular in Anatolia and there are 8 villages in Manisa, Turkey where Khurzumlular live as society. The official website of the Gölhisar District Governorship also talk of the local Turkmens being descendants of Khwarazmshahs.

Look, BUNIYATOV WRITES, BUNIYATOV MENTIONS ===> the book is cited for what Buniyatov says, not factual for an ethnicity.
First, comprehend this part and then we can proceed (if there is anything left to proceed onto). --176.88.165.232 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, first, you shall accept that what I wrote falls under WP:RSOPINION. Then we can discuss the due credit criteria. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Above, you can review my attempted explanations as to what WP:RSOPINION says and does not say—both in isolation, and in the context of site policy as a whole. These explanations have not changed. Remsense ‥ 论 08:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refuted that with an excerpt from RSOPINION. Even invited you to quote which you did not. 176.88.165.232 (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong about what WP:RSOPINION is saying, and I have run out of ideas for how this could be explained to you. Sorry. Remsense ‥ 论 08:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am right about what WP:RSOPINION is as I have already quoted it while you have not. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What anyone writes or mentions would only merit inclusion here insofar as it reflects what RS about the subject of ethnicity have to say. If the opinions are not being considered for inclusion due to their content as regards ethnicity, then they are clearly completely irrelevant and would be excluded as such. Remsense ‥ 论 08:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, first, we have to settle if my edit FALLS UNDER WP:RSOPINION. Then, we can discuss its "due credit" issue as I was the first to suggest it. So, now, answer this: does the edit fall under WP:RSOPINION? 176.88.165.232 (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the opinions are not being considered for their content as regards ethnicity, then they are completely irrelevant and would be excluded as such.
If they are being considered for their content as regards ethnicity, then their source is completely unreliable for claims about ethnicity, and they would be excluded as such.
That is all. Remsense ‥ 论 08:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still dodging the question and changing the goalposts. The source is for the excerpts attributed to the author: That is what WP:RSOPINION is. The claim is whether Buniyatov writes so, not whether Khwarazmians are actually of certain origin.
The fact is, Buniyatov did write what I wrote here and the source is completely reliable as it is a primary source for the opinion attributed to Buniyatov. --176.88.165.232 (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are going around in circles here because of the IP's predeliction for WP:SEALIONing. I will not reply further, and I suggest others do not either. You cannot explain anything to someone who does not want to listen. If the IP feels they are the victim of a political agenda, the administrator's noticeboard is that way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed something. Up above, the IP claimed that they have been editing wiki for more than a decade from different locations.. Since they're speedrunning in violating our policies, there's no doubt that they have indeed done the same before and been blocked for it. In other words, they're indeed socking. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely. Hopefully the current block will give them some time to reflect on their edits. In case they don't: [1] is quite clearly WP:POVPUSHing, relying on the source WP:RSN clearly showed to be unreliable, the website of a random Turkish town, an academic paper from an author who is not proficient in English (the title, first line of the abstract, and the second line of the article all contain typos) and WP:OR to force a link to Yörüks.
If they want to include this information, they have to successfully argue against these facts. If one more personal attack or allegation of bad faith is commented, however, I will be opening a report at WP:ANI. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khwarazmian_Empire&oldid=1256601143"