Talk:Jalal al-Din Mangburni

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Jelaleddin Meňburun.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing information

Basic information missing from this article: the motivation behind Genghis Khan's invasion. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. This is a rather convoluted discussion to parse, but the core agreement here is that this is a subject for which many sources have used many different spellings of their name. There is a fairly clear consensus that the current title is suboptimal and should be changed. Of the options proposed, it seems more participants are okay with the proposal than are adamant about any specific alternative, which makes it the least bad option. The "ad-Din" versus "al-Din" issue seems to be resolved by the sources, and as for the rest, it is what it is unless someone later wants to propose another move based on more robust specific evidence. BD2412 T 05:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu → Jalal al-Din Mangburni – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Jalal al-Din (not "ad-Din") is undoubtedly the most common variant of his name. His surname is a bit more tricky; this is what Islamica says; "His name is read and explained in various ways. Earlier scholars had Mangubirti (or similar forms); the forms most frequently used now are Mangburnī (with a birthmark on the nose) (Mīnuvī) or Mingīrinī" --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Agree about 'al-Din' rather than 'ad-Din'. If more sources use Mangburni as the surname than Mingburnu, then no objections. IronManCap (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the issue. All the sources I possess spell his name differently lol. Some of them even simply call him "Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah." I'll show em tommorow. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You guys picked the wrong time, just as a popular TV series dedicated to him and his warfare with Genghiz khan is on air with a title "Jalal ad-Din"... Though agree with "Mangburni", because I had known him more as "Manguberdi" (God-given) for years. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 04:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I found regarding his personal name;

Jalal al-Din Mingebirdi - Iran After the Mongols (The Idea of Iran)

Jalal al-Din Mengübirti - The Coming of the Mongols

Jalal al-Din Mingburnu - The Mongols in Iran - The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History

Jalal al-Din Minkubirni - Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran

Jalal-al-Din Khwarazmshah Mengübirni - Iranica, Bosworth

Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah - The Objects of Loyalty in the Early Mongol Empire (Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries)

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Visioncurve I was also thinking about the series' impact on this person's coverage, but your argument (I had known him more as "Manguberdi" (God-given) for years) is sounding less like WP:OSE and more WP:OR. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we would need a more convincing argument than that tbh. HistoryofIran, because it seems there is no single widely used surname amongst sources, how about just "Jalal ad-Din" as the title, with the current disambig page moved and adjusted accordingly? Similar thing was done for Ertuğrul as a move from Ertuğrul Gazi, although WP:TITLESINTITLES applied there, which it doesn't really here, so I dunno. IronManCap (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My statement was not an argument, IronManCap, it was merely my modest opinion. An opinion needs to be supported with evidence to become an argument, at least that's what academic philosophy says. Sometimes rather than providing an actual argument, people simply articulate an opinion. --Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 06:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we take Islamicas word for it and move it to Jalal al-Din Mangburni. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

OPPOSE THE AL-DIN PART: the title in dispute is of Arabic origin and the Arabic word has as -ad, rather than -al. The title Jalal ad-Din means "the guardian of the religion" in Arabic. So, the transliterated Arabic word (Jalal ad-Din) is not -al but ad

SUPPORT MANGBURNI: How his surname is to be pronounced is not known yet but in Juzjani's account about him Juzjani does mention his nickname Mangburni (whatever way it is pronounced) means "a nose with a mole". The Turkmen word Meňburun means that: Nose with a mole on it. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

There is also a Jalaluddin version. Harper's military encyclopedia calls him Jalaluddin --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As demonstrated up above, the majority of sources use the 'al-Din' spelling. The transliteration in Arabic is irrelevant, see WP:COMMONNAME. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Do mind that we base stuff like this on (secondary) sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right on that one. Most sources do seem to call him by -al version. Even a Turkish newspaper seems to call him with that variant: Defeated yet proud: Jalal-al-Din-Khwarazmshah. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Aseleste:,, @HistoryofIran:, @IronManCap:, @Visioncurve:, there hardly seems to be an opposition (I dropped my opposition). Why not edit the title now? VisionCurve states that after the TV series his coverage will be affected and it imples ad-Din version's usage will increase. However, we shall take a look at academic sources, rather than TV series or other popular culture. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom and 81.213.215.83. IronManCap (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is my final proposal: The title should be "Jalal al-Din Mangburnu", then the content should start with "Jalal al-Din Mingburnu [1][2][3][4]" (these 1 2 3 4 should cite the sources that call him Jalal al-Din) and then we add "some sources call him Jalal ad-Din). Then we shall talk about his name "Mangburni" and other variants. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article should be rated again

This article is currently rated C class. I do not know when it was assessed but the article has been expanded since recently. It can be rated higher now, probably to B level --81.213.215.83 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not even close to B. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What are missing to be close to B for example? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I realised. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, just took a look at some B-class royalty biographies and this article seems to be more detailed then them. Here are some for example: Al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun, Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia, François Blouet de Camilly, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 6) . If all those articles are rated B-class then this article is more detailed, more notable, better referenced, more covered than them --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

None of those articles are B worthy maybe with the exception of Al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun, which is much better written and sourced, as well as barely anything is left to write about him. This article is far from better referenced and covered. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

They ARE rated B-class. I do not know what metrics are used there, but this article is as good as Al-Abbas' though I would agree this article could still be expanded --81.213.215.83 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran:, what about now? The article is vastly expanded (and will be expanded more). His resistance against the Mongols has been expanded, his life in India has been introduced as well as his spouses. --185.252.40.10 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

  @185.252.40.10 Please seek help from WP:WikiProject_History#Assessment. I think it is C. You can read about the criteria here on Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Assessment#Quality_scale Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  I won't rate this at more than C. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam:, @Venkat TL:, what is missing, can you give me example? I fail to understand it. Look at the above examples from B-class, this article is at least as detailed as them and I am pretty sure superior to many of them --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Here is how the article was before I had edited it and here is how it is now (as of 28/10/2021). There is a huge difference. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The section "Mongol invasion" should be renamed and expanded

In the current version of the article, there is a section named Mongol invasion. I propose to rename it to "Resistanse against the Mongol invasion" and expand it significantly. Such as introducing the battles prior to the Battle of Parwan. And then his later war against the Mongols --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran:, can you rename the name of the section with leaving a redirect to the name name? e.g. when this link is clicked it will directly redirect to the new name of the section. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of massive content on February 2022 - supposed "bloating"

Hello @AirshipJungleman29:.You deleted so many accurate and notable informations cited from Western Historians' works on the Mongol Empire? All of them were attributed to academic sources, if you feel there were some un-needed exagerations or etc, you should have opened it into discussion first. there were many infos about his earlier than and after the Battles at Indus and Parvan.

Also, why the assessments of his contemporaries are deleted? None of the things you deleted were a bloat. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical mistakes, personal commentaries, personal agenda, distortions etc in the recent edits

The current version of the article has so many problems that make the latest edits un-encyclopedic. Here are some examples (citations are directly linked via URLs):

• "The It is probable that Doqshin, having been instructed not to return unsuccessfully, eventually converted to Islam and joined al-Din." - First of all, it has a grammatical mistake: instead of possibly "theN it is probable...", the content has "The It is ...". Then the second problem is even bigger: it is a personal commentary (or even a fabrication). Doqshin's joining of Jalal al-Din is attributed to the editor's personal prediction.--185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• " A local prince, who had six thousand men attacked Jalal al-Din's makeshift forces of no more than four thousand, but al-Din still triumphed, greatly enhancing his Indian appeal" - It is a distortion. Jackson Peter's article, which is cited in this sentence, narrates this battle as Jalal al-Din being outnumbered 10 to 1. The previously cited Turkish source similarly narrate the battle in the similar way but now the most recent edits distorted the source's content and presented their own version of history: instead of mentioning what Peter Jackson wrote in his article, they came up with Six thousand vs "no more than four thousand". --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
•  "³¹⁰  The Khan sent Dorbei Doqshin with two tumens to pursue al-Din, whom he still regarded as a threat, in early 1222; one account has Doqshin fail to secure al-Din, and return to the Khan in Samarkand, who was so infuriated Doqshin was sent out at once on the same task.[9]: ¹⁴¹" - Note that the sources being non-linked, it is an coding error. Then, in the previous versions of the article, these parts had other commanders being sent by the Khan and then Dorbei being sent. It is again truncated and so distorted. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• The previous editions of this article featured many informations about Jalal -Din's battles but now they are truncated.
• The previous editions of this article featured assessments of Jalal al-Din by the medieval authors but all of them are deleted by @AirshipJungleman29:, with the pre-text of all of them being a "bloat".

I have not checked each and every edit in regard to the above problems but most of the recent edits are by Airshipjungleman29. His coding errors, his adding of personal commentaries as well as truncating many informations about Jalal al-Din makes me think his edits are a personal agenda against Jalal al-Din.

As a result, I propose that all of his recent edits on this article should be reverted. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Also, in the article Battle Near The Irghiz River, @AirshipJungleman29:'s edit states the following after he deleted some content: "deleted pro-Jalal-al-Din viewpoints hich violated WP:NPOV ..." The deletions he did were what the academic sources about the Mongol Empire were stating, they were not violating anything. He seems to have personal agenda AGAINST Jalal al-Din. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, 185.252.40.20 (may I suggest you create an account?). I propose to keep discussions here focused on Jalal al-Din himself; if we need to discuss my edits made to Battle on the Irghiz River, let us discuss it on the talk page there.

Hello. Sanx for the suggestion but as I use public computer, I do not create account. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Your first point - that of the grammatical mistake, was indeed correct and has been corrected. Your second point is incorrect, it is a point made by Peter Jackson in his excellent source, which you have provided. I quote from Part IV, p.50: "But what we learn from MS Hyde 31 of Chinggis Khan's menacing instructions on sending him a second time into India may well explain the curious statment by Juzjani that the Mongol general later joined Jalal al-Din and became a convert to Islam"; and, as for the instructions themselves, I cite part II, p.48: "According to this account, Dorbei rejoined the main army at Samarqand, but his lack of success so infuriated Chinggis Khan that the unfortunate general again set out for India under strict orders not to return without having secured Jalal al-Din".

• Oh sorry then, I was unaware of that part. I tookthis charge of mine back but still assert the related part should be re-phrased to be in the way understandable that this prediction is of Peter Jackson. Kinda like this: "Peter Jackson hypothesizes that Doqshin might have joined Jalal al-Din due to the command he was given to not return back to the Mongol army without killing Jalal al-Din." Otherwise, the current wording of the content gives the impression of WP:SYN. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Your second point presents a very interesting conundrum. The Peter Jackson source does indeed support your viewpoint; I cannot comment on the Turkish source, because it was in Turkish, a language which I do not speak. I believe for my sentence I was relying on Frank Mclynn's source (which you can find at the sentence afterwards), which states that Jalal al-Din gathered the 4000 men first, and then was attacked by Rana Shatra. We must look to the original text of both Jackson and McLynn - that of Jalal al-Din's personal biographer, al-Nasawi.

• I checked the Jackson source only as that was cited there. If Mclynn proposes otherwise, that was not cited and so I did not check his account. IIRC, Mclynn was not talking about Jalal's battle against Rana Shatra. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Now, I can tell you that it took a hell of a lot of effort to find, but I have found that original text, sadly in Russian, here, which I have translated using Google Translate: [1]. This translation goes as follows: "On the other side, about four thousand people from his troops had already escaped, they were barefoot and naked, as if resurrected, who were gathered and taken out of the graves. Among them were three hundred horsemen..." (al-Nasawi, chapter 38. 105). I believe this to be the root of the confusion, but it is clear from the source that al-Din had not just 300 horsemen with him, but over four thousand total soldiers. I will cite this in the article.

• Your third point insists that other commanders were sent to pursue Jalal al-Din. You cite a passage in al-Nasawi which states Tolui, Genghis' fourth son, was sent, and Jalal defeated him. There are numerous problems with this account. Most notably, the account states that Tolui was killed, when we know that he survived. It must also be noted that al-Nasawi's account makes no mention of the Battle of Parwan, against Shigi Qutuqu. I believe it is academic consensus that al-Nasawi was actually describing the battle of Parwan, not additional battles between Jalal al-Din and the Mongols. I am additionally unsure what you mean by "coding errors".

• Yes, [[Chagatai and another commander (Balaa or in some books Bayju Noyan) being sent to pursue Jalal al-Din a day after the Battle of Indus is narrated in many accounts and they were cited in the previous editions. I will take a look at them and provide excerpts once I have those books in my hand. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Your fourth and fifth points indicate that I have deleted a lot of information unnecessarily. Let me address that accusation all at once. The article as it was had spelling, grammatical, and syntactical errors all over the place. Around a quarter of the article was devoted to what the Mongols were doing at the same time - i.e. stuff which could be summed up in three sentences. As for the medieval assessments, I do not see any reason why five different quotes are needed, all saying the same thing: see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It was a very confused section - there was a line on his excellence in duels popping up in a paragraph about his poor rulership, etc. The entire article, in fact, was extremely confused - there was a section with two sentences, the personal life section got distracted and wandered into discussing political history, the warfare section hadn't a single citation, etc.

I do agree that the former editions had such mistakes, like grammatical mistakes or contents' section confusions but what I propose is those notable infos should be corrected rather than being deleted. There were noteworthy infos like Jalal al-Din believeing in astrology or him being accused of using magic.As for assesments, I would even say they were valuable as they come from Jalal al-Din's enemies rather than his secretary. All in all, I sank you AirshipJungleman29 hope you will find me constructive in our thread and look forward for constructive co-operation --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe that will do for a response. Many thanks for your message, I will keep your viewpoints in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your response, User talk:185.252.40.20. I have changed the wording of that Jackson/Doqshin phrase to something like what you suggested. I have also inserted a source from al-Nasawi which confirms my view on the Rana Shatra encounter. Feel free to ping me when you find your sources - I meanwhile will have a look through mine to see if I have missed anything. If you do believe that the accusations of magic/astrologist information is correct and notable, you are of course welcome to add it, with good references of course. As for the assessments, I believe there are still enough in the article — but priority and weight must be given to modern authors over medieval ones, who are liable to exaggeration. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this constructive approach and I apologise of accusing you of [intentional] distortion. I take my charge back, AirshipJungleman29 --185.252.40.20 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Mingburnu.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jalal al-Din Mangburni/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 10:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I try to complete the GAR during the weekend. After the first reading, my impression is that the article is very near to meet all GA criteria, but the first paragraph of the "Name and early life" section is completely unclear for me. Borsoka (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Name and early life

• He is mentioned both as Jalal al-Din and as al-Din in the article. I think one of the two variants should be used consequently.
• I understand that he had a Turkic personal name but what about the "Jalal al-Din" part? Perhaps, an introduction is needed before the etymology of one part of his name is explained.
• I understand that his Turkic name had several variants in Persian sources, the several variants have different etimologies although it is unclear whether Persian or Turkic.
• The variants "Menguberti" and "Mingirini" are not mentioned in the lead although the main text describes the first one as the actual variant, and the second one as one of the most common variants of the name.
• The variants "Minkubirni" and "Mengu-Berdi", mentioned in the lead, are not mentioned in the main text.
• His name "Menguberti" means God-given in Turkic languages. Is this a fact or a scholarly PoV? I understand alternative explanations exist.
• His name "Menguberti"... I understand that the form "Manguburti" is recorded in Persian sources, so I assume that "Menguberti" is a modern variant, or a variant from a specific Turkic language other than the one recorded by the primary sources.
• ...in Turkic languages I assume only in some of the Turkic languages. Could you name some of them?
• "Mengu" means Eternal and is used for God. Berti is the old form of "verdi" gave. Is this necessary? If yes, it could be mentioned in a footnote.
• Even though his Turkic personal name was recorded as Manguburti in older Persian sources, the spelling of the name changed over time in Persian sources and several Persian meanings were affiliated with the name. Spelling and meaning of his name in Persian sources are obscure. I think the sequence of the two sentences should be changed.
• ...several Persian meanings were affiliated with the name Examples (at least in a footnote)?
• ..."with a birthmark on the nose"..."valiant fighter worth one thousand men" Turkic? (A previous sentence refers to Persian meanings.)
• ...cf. Persian hazarmard Why should I compare the two terms?
• ...was reportedly the eldest son... Do we need the adverb "reportedly"? If yes, name the primary source of the statement.
• Turkmen or Turkoman/Turcoman? Is not Turkmen anachronistic in the article's context?
• A wikilink to "concubine"? Concubine or slave concubine? (A following sentence refers to her low-status. A concubine may be of high-status.)
• ...his powerful grandmother and Qipchaq princess... And or the?
• ...whose mother was also a Qipchaq Her mother-in-law supported her son because of her ethnicity or of her higher social status? (A previous sentence states mentions the low social status of Jalal al-Din's mother as the reason of his grandmother's aversion to him.)
• ...his empire... Consider naming the empire and linking it.

Mongol invasion and accession

• I think a short background about the Mongol Empire is needed to introduce the Mongol invasion.
• Introduce Ghenghis Khan.
• Genghis Khan had chosen to ignore a skirmish ... Why past perfect?
• Genghis Khan had chosen to ignore a skirmish between the Mongol general Jochi and the Shah, in which Jalal al-Din's military acumen had saved the Shah from a humiliating defeat. As the article is dedicated to Jalal al-Din, the circumstances of his victory (?) should be narrated before Genghis Khan's decision is mentioned.
• ...he could not ignore the seizure of a trade caravan... He obviously could have ignored it. Alternatively, if he indeed could not ignore it, some explanation is needed.
• Introduce Otrar and Gurgenj.
• War between the two new neighbours was inevitable. A war can always be avoided.
• Terken Khatun is already linked in the previous section.
• In addition, his mother Terken Khatun still wielded substantial power in the realm – one historian termed the relationship between the Shah and his mother as 'an uneasy diarchy', which often acted to Muhammad's disadvantage. Her preeminent position should be mentioned in the previous section with some explanation. In this section, some more specific detail should be mentioned (her influence over part of the army?)
• The Shah also distrusted most of his commanders... Why?
• ..., as many of his commanders wished... Do we know why they proposed an open battle?
• ..., let alone quality... Is this for sure? The Mongols destroyed all powers between the Danube and the Pacific Ocean.
• However,... Delete.
• Otrar is already linked in the previous section.
• Gurganj is already linked in the first paragraph.
• The city's nobility, like Terken Khatun,... Can the Khan's mother be mentioned as member of urban nobility?
• ...were not prepared to accept Jalal ad-Din as Shah.. Were not prepared to accept or had not accepted him?
• Uzlagh or Uzlaq?
• Introduce Timur Malik.
• Why not Karakum Desert?
• Is Nesa a town or a fortress?
• Link Herat and Ghazni.
• ...lost the trail... Did he? Jalal al-Din was accompanied by tens of thousands of people.
• Timur Malik or Temur Malik. He should be mentioned as Jalal al-Din's maternal uncle when he is first mentioned. I understand he had joined Jalal al-Din at Gurganj.
• Gurganj, Merv and Nishapur are already linked.
• ...the Muslims... The Muslims or Khwarazmians?
• Introduce Kushteghin Pahlawan.
• Herat is mentioned (and not linked) in a previous section.
• ...that fortress... Name it or introduce Bamiyan as a fortress.
• ... to prevent the disparate Khwarazmid factions from uniting, one of whom al-Din managed to isolate and defeat. Unclear. What are the factions, which was defeated by Jalal al-Din and when?
• ...attempts to win back Ighrak and his men... Only a dispute over booty is mentioned in a previous sentence. Did Ighrak abandon Jalal al-Din's camp?
• ...is said to have drawn the admiration of Genghis Khan Who said this?
• Delete however.

Indian subcontinent

• After the battle of Indus, Jalal al-Din crossed the Indus... His cross of the river is mentioned in the previous sentence.
• A local prince... Could you name him? If not, mention that his name is unknown.
• ...Jalal al-Din's makeshift forces... Some more information about them? Did they consist of soldiers who had also managed to cross the Indus, or did he hire local troops?
• ...enhancing his Indian appeal... Enhancing or establishing?
• Introduce Iltutmish.
• ...al-Din's poor relationship with the Abbasid caliphs... Previous sections do not refer to this. Could the adjective "poor" be replaced? (This request may indicate the limits of my English but it is ambiguous for me.)
• Introduce Dorben Doqshin.
• Explain the term tumens with two or three words.
• ...one account... Could you name the source? What other sources say?
• ...who was so infuriated Doqshin was sent out at once... Ungrammatical?
• ...local princes... Could you be more specific? (Northeastern/Central Indian princes)
• ... the Mongol army took Nandana from one of the lieutenants of Jalal ad-Din, sacked it, then proceeded to besiege the larger Multan 1. Previous sentences do not refer to the conquest of the two places by Jalal al-Din. 2. Why Jalal ad-Din?
• ...managed to breach... Perhaps "broke"?
• Introduce Peter Jackson.

Persian and Georgia

• Khwarazm kingdom?
• Link Hamadan and Isfahan.
• ...were allegedly put to death... Why is the adverb used?
• Burak Hadjib is introduced as the ruler of Kerman in a previous sentence, but his daughter's marriage to Jalal al-Din is not mentioned.
• ...but after al-Din marched against him he was subdued... Perhaps "but al-Din quickly subdued him"?
• Introduce Chormagan and Taymas Noyan.
• ...against Ahlat again Again?
• Introduce Kayqubad as the Sultan of Rum.

Death

• Through the ruler of Alamut, the Mongols learned that Jalal ad-Din had recently been defeated; the Nizari Ismaili Assassins sent a letter to Ögedei Khan, proposing joint operation against Jalal al-Din. Unclear. The ruler of Alamut, as far as I know, was the head of the Assassins. Who is Ögödei Khan? Perhaps: "The head of the Nizari Ismaili Assassins sent a letter from his Alamut headquarter to Ögedei Khan, the new Mongol ruler of Central Asia/former Khwarazmian territories, informing him of Jalal al-Din's defeat and proposing joint operation against him." Why ad-Din?
• Ahlat is linked in the previous section.
• Jalal al-Din's kingdom ... Kingdom?
• ...the governor of Mosul. I assume he was the Mongol governor of the city.
• I think a reference to the sack of Jerusalem by the Khwarazmians in 1244 is inevitable in the article's context.

Legacy and assessment

• His biographer... Perhaps "His 13th-century/first biographer..."?
• Introduce Juzjani, Yaqut al-Hamawi. When primary sources are cited, a reference to reliable sources is also needed as per WP:SOURCE.
• Jalal al-Din is commonly depicted on artwork resembling that of the Persian epic Shahnameh, where he is associated with the mythological warrior Rostam. Unclear. Is he depicted as Rostam?
• ...is considered... has been attributed to By whom?
• Introduce Vasily Bartold.
• Vasily Bartold believed... Believed?
• I think Juvayni's PoV should be mentioned in the paragraph where other medieval historians' PoVs are listed.

Cultural influence

• The short section should be expanded or merged into the previous section.

Please find my comments above. After my comments are addressed, I will review the lead and the pictures. Thank you for this interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka; apologies, I rewrote this a while back and it looks like it's a) declined it quality since and b) isn't up to my current standards. I'd like to withdraw this GAN and rewrite the article again. Sorry for the inconvenience. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. I have to accept you decision. Borsoka (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)