Talk:Mongol bow

External pics?

What's with the external links to images? Can't one be grabbed under fair use? Additionally, is there like a "requests" place on commons for pictures? It doesn't seem like getting a free pic of a Mongol bow would be that tough. Milto LOL pia 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't use the images under fair use because we are not commenting on the images themselves (or their overall context). See Wikipedia:Fair Use for more details. Vectro 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mongol bow vs. English longbow

This article cites that the draw strength of an English longbow was LESS than that of the Mongol bow. From the Wikipedia article on the English longbow (which has references addressing this point) and actually the reference that is used for this article next to this point, I gathered that the longbow actually had a much greater draw strength (150-180 lbs), but had a lower range because of the Mongol bow's better construction.

That should be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.74.101.130 (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

But now it doesn't make sense and is confusing (I mean the sentense) so I'm going to change it so it does. Ok? Ok. BTW, I'm going to say the draw strength is comparable to the longbow not greater or lesser than, cause the wide range of the possible numbers. K? If you don't like it change it back and leave a msg here. Ok? ParallelPain 06:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

K done. BTW I added the 80yard accurate range thing I found on either the archery or longbow pages.ParallelPain 06:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Duplication and mislabelling?

Most of this page is duplicated on the Composite bow page. Also, this page seems to be describing the Qing (Manchu) bow, with string bridges, not the sort that Chinggis Khaan and his people actually used. As far as I know they used bows like the Hungarian ones. I've also heard that the very strong Chinese bows were used to test strength, rather than for hunting or war, but I'd love some good information.

On the other hand there is some good stuff. I'd suggest removing the duplication. Richard Keatinge 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

edited for spelling mistakes

still needs more edits for spelling and grammar though 130.217.159.233 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Your information about the type of bow is incorrect. The Mongols used exactly what is described in the article (which also correctly explains the difference to the Hungarian type). I'm not aware of a "very strong Chinese bows" either. It is inevitable that there is some overlap with Composite bow, although there may be ways to find a better balance between the articles. You're welcome to fix any grammar and spelling problems you find. But when changing the actual content, please make sure to cite reliable published sources. --Latebird 18:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Latebird, you are so wrong! The old empirical Mongol bow was different from the one used today at Nadaams which is a clone of the Mandshu (Qing) bow with Mongolian Ibex horn used instead of Buffalo.The old bow was a true horse bow (!!!!) while the modern bow is far to large to be used comfortably from horseback using the ancient Mongolian tactics such as shooting backwards in a faked retreat. It is only used standing nowadays.Please do some research first before making such bold statements.Archery, and bowyery has been outlawed in Mongolia after they have been defeated by the Qing armies and only re_emerged in the 19th century with many of the bows supplied by Beijing bowyers.The design was then adopted by Mongolians for their sport events today.Hungarian bows are irrelevant in this context as the are differnt to modern and empirical Mongol bows.Reenactment bows sold in Hungary bear little historical accuracy though this is what they claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.19.189 (talk • contribs) 23:57, September 16, 2008

Stephen Selby's Archery Traditions of Asia (http://www.atarn.org/commercial/traditions.htm) is such a source. I propose to re-insert comments on the historical development of the Mongol bow. The author is one of very few world experts on the subject, and the posts I cited earlier do give links to sources, original artwork and so on - but I suppose that putting those in would count as original research. However, this book doesn't mention the exercise bows, so I'll leave that out until I can dig up something more reliable.Richard Keatinge 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you're actually getting close to convincing me... ;) Do you have that book/catalog? It looks very interesting indeed. --Latebird 12:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do, but no working scanner. It is indeed interesting, and well-presented. I'll give the scanner a kick and see if it works better.Richard Keatinge 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Kicking doesn't help, sorry. I'll make the changes though. Richard Keatinge 09:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Water Buffalo

But it's true!!! Water Buffalo horn preferred over Ibex horn!! Bowyers traditionally brought them in from China. Can't remember where my original information was from but did a quick google and hit a confirmation. I am sure there is more. Cheers.--Tigeroo 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately my best "arguments" are really original research, because the bow maker I met in UB told me some very different stories than the one in your source (it's called marketing). But hey, I've been surprised before! Just try to find some less casual sources than a travel report. And whichever animal they used, they must have killed millions of them over the centuries... --Latebird 17:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on exactly which Mongol bow we're talking about. Water buffalo seems to be about the best but not every impoverished nomad would be able to get it! On the other hand if you're Khan of all China you could presumably have any kind of horn you wanted, and so could a lot of your army. Csaba Grozer's website says that the horn of Hungarian grey cattle is good, and other nomads have used various horns from sheep and whatnot, but they are not usually available in such convenient long bits. With the globalization of the modern horn market I presume that the few modern traditional Mongol bowyers can now get water buffalo horn if they want it. What goes for certain Mongol bows/bowyers at one time and place may not go for all of them. Could I therefore suggest that any comments should be specific to time and place, as well as being referenced? Richard Keatinge 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point. What this article lacks is the morphology of the Mongol bow through history. Mongols bows are "still" in use hunting. We are not talking about a bow that was necessarily limited to war and is stuck in a historical narrative.--Tigeroo 13:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

decorations

I may be wrong, but I do not think it is easy to engrave a bow with a feather. My understanding is that either actual feathers were used as decoration, or that (images of) feathers were engraved. Can someone with an actual clue please try to sort that out? Regards, Yaan (talk) 10:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

modern Mongol bow vs old empirical Mongol bow

I have added information about the two types of bows as they where quite different in size and design and performance. Many historical articles about the Mongol conquest link to this page, but this page describes only the modern Mongolian bow in detail, not the empirical Mongol bow which was much smaller in size and more similar to the bows used by Crimerian Tatars and other turkic peoples. There is no article about the empirical Mongol bow. Please someone who is adept in this create one !I am not sure if the "old" bow even had string bridges at all, or if those where introduced with the use of the modified Qing bow used at nadaams today. I also agree with Yaan, its difficult to "engrave" a bow with falcon and eagle feathers, and there is no proof the Mongolian bows are/were decorated with felts/ hair or feathers as this kind of decoration might distract the archer during aiming.The feather part is being stated on an external website, but I doubt it.This kind of decorations is used in movies rather than reality.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.19.189 (talk • contribs) --Latebird (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What you wrote may or may not be correct. But as it radically changes the content and focus of the article, it must be supported with reliable published sources. Please add citations, so that other people can verify where that information came from. --Latebird (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool! You actually managed to dig up one of the most obscure sources possible. In a script that hardly anyone can read, without as much translating the title, let alone an indication of its author and date of creation. While foreign language sources are not prohibited as such, supporting your claims in a convincing way will take a little more work. --Latebird (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Latebird, in Asia these are well known facts, similar to your knowledge that the car you drive today isn't identical with the cars your ancestors used during the the early 20th century, the fact that present day Mongol bows are a modification of the Manchu bow is supported by huge amounts of archeological findings.If I get access to such material in English I will update the references.Meanwhile let us focus on how to make this wiki better together instead of spreading false information.

Wikipedia doesn't care of information is right or "false". It only cares if it can be verified, ideally through several reliable sources. And of course, the easier accessible the sources, the better. "Everybody in Asia knows" is not an argument if the information has never been published in verifiable form. --Latebird (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

77.176.19.189, I guess your statements are quite correct, but Latebird is right, we need references. I would be very interested to read them. Can you, for example, provide a translation of the source you gave earlier? Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we have another source, pointing to a promotional article by Munkhtsetseg, a multiple national archery champion. While she is undoubtedly an expert archer, it is also very obvious that she is not a historian, and her historical interest is very limited. Her explanations about the history of Mongolian archery are primarily based on legends. The events we're discussing here are only mentioned in passing, and even of the few details she gives, some are rather unlikely to be factual. As entertaining as it is to read, this is clearly not the type of reliable source that we need here. --Latebird (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We could certainly use more and better sources, but for the revival of archery from desuetude, an event still just within living memory, a current archery champion seems to me a reasonably reliable source. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm rather surprised at the apparent difficulties to dig up something really authoritative (which Munkhtsetseg's text clearly isn't, sorry). It's quite obvious that a revival happened, but I would like to learn more about the events that led to one being necessary. --Latebird (talk)

I'd be fascinated. But a quick look at Mongolia reminds me that a country going through a century of political turmoil, busy executing its shamans and Buddhist monks, under a Stalinist regime where any independent thought would be very dangerous, isn't going to keep many records of culturally-suspect activities. 1921 is within living memory, or at least people who were there are within living memory. While I take all your points about the rest of the history in that article, I do suggest that if a member of a family with a long-standing archery tradition says that Mongolian archery had to be revived from practically nothing after 1921, she is a reliable source for this particular purpose. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you added unreliability tags to my references. Those are not unreliable sources! I have not made changes to this article, just added additional information and pictures, while 99% of the rest of the topic doesn't cite any referenceces at all, you keep on bashing me.Are you interested to make this article better? Please do not add unreliabilty tags to my references again unless you can actually proof that they are unreliable or giving wrong information.Since this a sport related article, why would a statement by Munkhtsetseg, one of Mongolia's well known lady archers be unreliable? The Asian Tradtitional Archery Research Network aka ATARN is not known to host false or falsified information or those that are not well researched on their website.I am starting to have doubts about your true intentions, latebird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.12.34 (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear anonymous contributor, nobody is bashing on you. But if you post information to Wikipedia, then you'll have to accept that it will be subjected to careful scrutiny. And it is your duty to prove that your sources are reliable. On the other hand, if there are reasonable doubts about them (which I have shown to be the case), then it is justified to tag them accordingly. It is extremely bad style to remove such verification requests without actually verifying anything.

I've explained the reasons for my doubts above, but you seem to simply ignore any explanations. Just because a person knows well how to shoot arrows doesn't make her an expert on history. I've personally talked to another well known archer and bow maker in Mongolia, and he told me lots of interesting stories too. But similar to Munkhtsetsegs text, it was very hard to figure out which parts of his stories were just legends and which included historical facts. Because of that, I'm not going to add any of them to Wikipedia.

The thought that "it's on the ATARN site, so it must be correct" is very unrealistic. That site includes large amounts of material from many different authors, and each author is responsible for the reliability of his own contributions. The ATARN as not a scientific instistution (despite its name), and it does no fact checking on that material, so each text must be verified on its individual merits.

You are correct that other parts of the article could also use more sources, but that is no excuse. If you find parts that you consider incorrect, you can demand that they are sourced at any time, and you can ask that those sources be reliable. This is exactly what I'm doing now, and it's the only way to ensure the quality of Wikipedia.

Before you decide to attack me personally and doubt my intentions, may I ask you to very carefully study the Wikipedia policy on verifiability and the guideline on reliable sources. Hopefully this will give you a better idea about the requirements. Please also note that I didn't remove your sources (let alone your text), but I'm only asking for better verification. It can't be that hard to find something scientific on the topic, can it? --Latebird (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The user Latebird added unreliability tags my references again.Those are not unreliable sources!That is just his personal opinion.And nobody attacked him personally, I just have doubts about his intentions.Thats all! I won't try to make this article better. If he is of the type of first spreading false informations and then when he is corrected, he starts an edit war or adding citation needed tags and unreliability tags everywhere , there is not much I am willing to do further about it.I was sincerely trying to make this article better but user Latebird is somewhat opposed to any of my additions for no particular reason other than his personal opinion such as claiming Atarn being unreliable....etc. Well at last let me also quote one Wikipedia Guideline: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

77.176.24.40, while I strongly suspect that your general argument is correct, I will be leaving the tags in place. I really would like to see good evidence.

Latebird, I would suggest that the picture of Hulagu may be reliable evidence for what Conquest bows actually looked like (though I'd like to see the original reference in much more detail), and, as above, that Munkhtseseg can be relied upon for the fact of Mongol archery needing to be revived after 1921. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What do we know about that picture? Who made it and when? It's a pity the image description page doesn't contain any useful information, as I don't have Morgan's book to check on the details. But generally speaking it's a primary source that we can't draw any conclusions from by ourselfes without doing original research. We need scholarly secondary sources to tell us how much attention the painter paid to specific details, or if he even had first hand experience with the subject (not just copying from other paintings). At first sight, the overall geometry of the bow shown looks a bit strange, but that may have many different reasons. --Latebird (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. See what you think of my redraft later today... Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to M.V. Pevtsov, a Russian explorer who travelled to Mongolia in 1878/79, (emphasis mine) "During Maidar-Festival in July, more than 100,000 people from the most diverse parts of Mongolia gather in Urga. On this festival, besides divine services and other religious ceremonies there are horse races, archery, and competitions." Also note the date btw. (own translation of "Im Juli stroemen zum Maidar-Fest aus den verschiedensten Gegenden der Mongolei ueber 100000 Menschen in Urga zusammen. Auf diesem Fest werden neben Gottesdiensten und anderen religioesen Zeremonien Pferderennen, Bogenschiessen und Wettkaempfe veranstaltet." M.W. Pewzow, Wo man mit Ziegeltee bezahlt, Leipzig 1953,p. 202. This is a German translation of a Soviet shortened (sanitized?) edition of Ocherki putshestviya po Mongolii i severnym provintsiyam Vnutrennego Kitaya (sp.?), editor I. Margolin, from about the same time. The year of the Soviet edition is not given within the German translation, but probably after 1949.) Yaan (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks Yaan. I'm not sure how reliable a Soviet-era version would be, but if that's correct it is certainly evidence of some sort of archery in Mongolia in the Qing period. It doesn't really address the issue of continuity from the pre-Qing period. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Margolin sais the shortening deals mainly with Pevtsov's remarks on Russian commerce in Mongolia, and "incorrect conclusions" therefrom. I think we can very much trust Pevtsov in that archery was performed openly and on festive occasions. Even the date is very close to modern-day Ulsyn Bayar Naadam! This publication, however, says that archery was banned later, and by the communists. But no, I won't judge on whether it is a reliable source or not. Yaan (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently contradictory statements to the article just above can be found in Pavel Poucha, 13000 Kilometer durch die Mongolei, Leipzig 1960, p. 48 and 71. Mr. Pucha was a Czech Mongolist who traveled to the MPR in 1955, and he says how he (very casually) met some archers, that archery is one part of Naadam, that several high officials and even Choibalsan himself liked to shoot an arrow once in a while. I would say on the surface Poucha is definitely more biased than Pevtsov 80 years before him was, on the other side he does not at all shy away from mentioning how every monastery they came by had been destroyed by the communists (OK, he does not mention "by the communists"), or even how the grave of a Manchu princess had been dug out. Yaan (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Composite bow and delete?

It seems to me from all the above that there is nothing very special about "the Mongol bow" (or bows). The originals seem to have been part of the general development of the composite bow in Asia, and the modern variety is simply a copy of the Manchu weapon. Also, most the good stuff is already duplicated on Composite bow, [Arrow]], Bow string and other pages. Rather a lot is not good; it seems to represent modern syntheses (or fantasies) based on second-hand accounts of generic composite bows. I suggest merging the good stuff into Composite bow and making this page a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The special thing about the Mongol bow is, even if its modern sport version derived from Manchu design, that it got revived, its being used by large numbers of public at trad. naadams even though wrestling being more popular, there is more than just one bowyer and their numbers are increasing.The only other country where true composite bows are still being used by a large number of public being (South)Korea.There are attempts to revive it elsewhere, but this hasn't entered mainstream society yet.Given the fact that the Mongols created a world empire using similar composite bows I think it needs to have its own Wikipedia page.I am sure if I were to walk into a naadam festival and make a public announcement, stating that the bows Mongolians are using today derived from Manchu design, it will probably get me killed by the angry public on the spot ( at least it will cause total outrage).....in this regard you are right about phantasies, specially when a peoples national pride depends upon a phantasy......but what I am really hitting at is: this article is being linked to by many historical articles about the time of the Mongol conquests. Many of the military decisions of Mongols may have been taken in regard of climate and usability of composite bows - in areas with high rainfall, such as Europe, Burma , Vietnam and India certain campaigns would be conducted during the dry seasons (spring), because given the "fish glue based nature" of composite bows (adapted for continental climate) they would simply desintegrate when exposed to humid weather for a prolonged time.Yet the dry season posed another problem - the scarcity of fresh fodder for the large number of horses taken along.This may have had a strong impact on Mongol military decision making and may also explain why Mongols didn't care to hold on to many conquered areas of such climate for longer periods.Though the later Timurids had knowledge of creating a humidity resistant composite bow (aka Mughal bow or crab bow) using an unknown cement or resinous substance, I believe that knowledge wasn't available to the Mogols at the time of the conquest.Including all this information in the composite bow section would make it too large.I think that many facts about making bows should be omitted, or linked to the composite bow, references to Turkish and Hungarian bows should also not be part of the Mongol bow section, as well as comparison to the English longbow and the like. In this way I disagree with deletion and merging.Rather it needs to be abbreviated.Since I am not a "regular member" of Wikipedia and any anonymously done edits, though done with care, are viewed as vandalism by some proud regular Wikipedians, I am not the right person to do it.But I actually enjoy reading "detailed information" about any subject rather the merged lots with short information only.Others may disagree on this, but this is what I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.29.126 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

77.176.29.126, you have convinced me. I will have a go at redrafting the article in the light of all the above, and we will see what develops. Oh, and why not sign up for an account? It does give edits an initial hint of credibility. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, greatly improving the article, thanks! --Latebird (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Referenced edits please

Please could we have referenced edits, with some idea of what specific bows and dates are under discussion?

We still have comments that are not referenced and not specific about date or provenance. This is an area with a lot of secondary sources, most of whom I suspect are quite confused. They may have based their ideas to some degree on a composite bow of some sort, possibly on a bow made sometime by someone in or near Mongolia, but overwhelmingly on each other; I guess that many of the comments do not originate from actual Mongol bows at all. I have left them in so far, in the hope that someone better-informed will oblige. But nobody has done so for some months, and I am tempted to remove, for example, the factoids about preferred feathers and wood, string material, how to string the bow on horseback, and also the section about tactics which would be better if integrated into Mounted archery, and so on. Any comments before I do so? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Carry on Richard, according to what I know, the preferred Mongolian choice for bow strings is silk and not horse leather which can be used to make the fastening loops of the bowstring. The article about feathers seem wrong.It doesn't mention vulture feathers at all.Also, what does fletching have to do with bows.This belongs to "arrows".Please leave the section about the string bridge because it is very typical for this kind of bow and the section seems ok, even if it could be done better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.133.31 (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Today, the string is synthetic (one transparent wire coiled around another one for thickness, not sure about the exact material). Traditionally, it was made not of hide, but of cattle guts stretched and twisted. I've never heard of silk, and would expect that to be a legend. The feathers on the arrows I've seen were indeed from from Cinereous Vulture (Tas in Mongolian), which is probably the most common choice when the prestiguous but rare eagle feathers are not available. Unfortunately though, my information is directly from the bow maker and not from a written source, so it is also problematic to use in Wikipedia without further verification. --Latebird (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this about, really?

Not much here on the actual Mongol Bow. It's more about other bows that may have been influenced by the Mongols. Not much help with jargon. Someone needs to go back to Strunk and White. Malangthon (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Storage

"The bow is usually stored in a leather case for protection when not in use." Is it stored strung or unstrung? Kdammers (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed some statements that are general to [composite bow]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Peter Dekker is not a historian

Peter Dekker's Manchu archery website is not a reliable source. He is not a historian but is an amateur arms collector and auctioneer. He is not a reliable source for the history of archery and not even for archery mechanics (draw weight, poundage) because he doesn't have qualifications for those too. If no one can show Dekker's PhD in archery history or mechanics I will remove his citation and contents from the article.Hukris (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This policy specifically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Dekker does not have a degree in Asian history or archery history, he doesn't speak Chinese, Manchu or Mongol.Hukris (talk) 08:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It’s not about if he has a PhD or not, that’s irrelevant. It’s about the fact we have references, which you are disputing, with no evidence from your side substantiating the claims you are making. Bring some peer reviewed evidence from your side and you can edit away. Equine-man (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I call BS on your threats. Firstly removing content doesn't require references to replace it, all that needs to be proven is that the content and source are unreliable which Dekker is since Dekker isn't peer reviewed. Otherwise I can start my own archery website and add it as a reference and threaten and revert anyone who tries to remove it. Secondly I did actually replace it with the old references that were removed and replaced by Dekker like Eric Brownstein. So yes I brought over reviewed evidence unlike Dekker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=1172467871

Dekker's website which totally lacks peer review was used to replace Eric Brownstein, which I put back after removing Dekker's website which has no peer review at all. Eric Brownstein's paper is hosted on a .edu website and he wrote it with the support of Mongolia National University and Mongol historians unlike Dekker's website which is basically his blog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=735775768

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_bow&diff=prev&oldid=735777786

You also reverted my first edit at Chinese archery where I deleted an entire paragraph that had no source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinese_archery&diff=prev&oldid=1172467307

Prove Dekker has a PhD or that his website is peer reviewed (impossible for you to do since neither is true) or stop reverting me.

Dekker claims the Qing didn't violently replace Mongol bows with Manchu bows but Eric Brownstein says they did.

Hukris (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

This person seems to have a personal feud with Peter Dekker... Or not understand how sources work.

Dekker, while not having a "PhD" is well regarded as an authority in the very niche field of "archery history".

It's sounds very weird to be that aggressive about a source that pretty much every source in academia agree with, while replacing it by what is by his own standards a blog page written by a diplomat with even less expertise and who doesn't cite his sources.

I haven't been able to find who that "Eric Brownstein" is suppose to be. All I've found on this subject is a brief (non-peer reviewed) "study report" of high school level at best done for a private institution that (falsely) presents itself as a " school ". This is not a scientific article, its main sources are magazine articles, mainstream history books and, ironically, articles from ATARN. If I were to be charitable I would label that a failure to uphold WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.

Contrary to these very weird claims you don't have to have a PhD to be recognized as an authority in a specific academic field, you don't have to speak a specific language neither (fortunately for all the historians working on sources written in dead languages) especially when the primary sources are archeological in nature, nor (and especially) is being supported by a specific government.

I would strongly recommend that you continue to revert these edits. 2A01:E0A:157:A150:2956:F685:BABC:1C1F (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I finally read the so called "paper" from Eric Brownstein that is supposed to be the authority on the subject (while not being used as a primary source in the article for some reasons).

And oh my... It's even more ridiculously than it appeared at first.

The passage on the enforcement of the interdiction of the archery in Mongolia is very brief.

If we ignore the unsubstantiated claims that "Manchu solders marched in to gers and broke any bows that they found", that is in total contradiction with the existence of the eight Mongolian banners, we have two claims :

- The first one is that the Mongolian clothing was altered in a way that renders the usage of horseback bow impractical.

- And a second one, somewhat unrelated but in the same paragraph that states that the "points of the shoes" were rendered "ill suited for fighting".

Ignoring for a minute that it's not consistent with the archeological record, the sources are, I quote : "an interview" with "the Head of horseback archery association " (which one, the "peer reviewed" paper does not say) "In his car at Uriankhai competition" and a certain "Bazarsuren" who seems to be teaching at the local military academy (with no publication nor special expertise on the matter).

Can we be serious for a minute and undo those botched edits? 2A01:E0A:157:A150:2956:F685:BABC:1C1F (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Richard Keatinge said this about Peter Dekker's website on 13 April 2016 and warned a person not to use it.

the site you quote is not usable for Wikipedia, nor are its arguments which are circumstantial and would be the worst kind of original research if presented here.

Talk:Composite_bow#More_commentsHukris (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)