Talk:Balhara

Untitled

This article seems to be least objective, and historic. No citations included for all the tall claims made here. Without giving proper document references(not just mentioning some book names, but exactly the book, page number - without paraphrasing or subjectively interpreting the authors' comments) this article deserves to be deleted(at least major portions of it except for a short introduction).

Unhistoric and subjective, not supported by facts from credible source documents

This article seems to be least objective, and historic. No citations included for all the tall claims made here. Without giving proper document references(not just mentioning some book names, but exactly the book, page number - without paraphrasing or subjectively interpreting the authors' comments) this article deserves to be deleted(at least major portions of it except for a short introduction).

Absolute nonsense Article

Articles like this give wiki a bad name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.226.131 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Bulgar connection

Can anyone provide some reliable sources discussing what appears at present to be speculative linguistic connections between Balhara and Bulgar? I am inclined to delete these unless something turns up. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it - utter nonsense and speculation has no place here. I am tempted to cut this down to a two paragraph article unless things improve soon: there is a lot of reliance on primary sources and on what appear to be fringe theorists and advocacy presses. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed a convoluted paragraph from the Origin section. It relied on the works of geographers from 1000 or so years ago, and the interpretation of the highly unreliable James Tod. It was in fact an unattributed copy from a book. Perhaps there is a way to include the info but I am at a loss right now regarding how best to do it, especially since there is no certainty that the book is even referring to the same people as those in this article. The relevant section can be found at pp 354-358 of this book. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

This article has no references. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or genealogy portal. Otr500 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So fix it, as I have done. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthroponymy

This article seems to be facially acceptable, but can use a substantial amount of support. In particular, some information regarding the meaning, history and current status of the surname would be of interest to visitors. By current status, I mean where are persons with the surname primarily located, perhaps based on census figures. I recommend looking at wp:WikiProject_Anthroponymy for some good examples.--Rpclod (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)