Jump to content

Talk:Mongol invasion of Khorasan

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

Hazara legend

[edit]

This is your first warning after you removed well cited content from the article for no legitimate reason. You cannot remove info on a whim or if you find it embarassing or uncomfortable. If you continue with your vandalism you will be reported to be blocked. 60.198.47.154 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60.198.47.154 (talk)

The legend should not be in the category of truth.--Shxahxh (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying it is truth. The paragraph is very specific in saying "A common belief, also held among many Hazara". The edit is well sourced and relevant to the article. Legend, or not, you have not provided a legitimate excuse for your mass removal of well sourced content. This is your second warning. 60.198.47.154 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60.198.47.154 (talk)

I can modify this article as editor although it has a source. Like other articles. False sources should be deleted. --Shxahxh (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided above the reasons why your removal is incorrect. You have not addressed my reasons. Wiki policy does not permit the removal of "legends" if they are well sourced and relevant. Many ethnic groups are founded on legends and their Wiki articles include these legends. As long as it is specified in the article that the "legend" is not established fact then there is nothing wrong or deceptive. 60.146.121.125 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60.198.47.154 (talk) You do not accept the reason. --Shxahxh (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded thoroughly to your claim "The legend should not be in the category of truth". 1) The "legend" is never presented as "the truth." 2) Legends are allowed for inclusion if they are presented as such and are well sourced — as provided in this case. 3) Similar legends appear for other ethnic groups. You must respond to these points to justify your mass removal. 60.198.47.154 (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not repeat your removal of this section again. This discussion should be kept here for future reference if the article runs into the same issue of the Hazara content removal. I am also going to revert your edits on the article because once again you have removed the paragraph while ignoring answering my above points. I am also undoing your other edits because they lack citations to support them. You have now received your third and final warning from me and any repeat content removal and i will report you for vandalism. 60.198.47.154 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Please do not remove this section again — it reflects poorly upon your case — especially since it is needed now since i am engaging in a third opinion here. 60.198.47.154 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
At a glance I see no issue with the text in question, and I agree with the IP editor: I don't think the text should just be removed from the article. The wording could possibly be tightened up, but in my view that's not a compelling rationale to remove it wholesale. Even if the legend is not true, we can certainly discuss how a group believes it. Of course, here we must be mindful of due weight. /wiae /tlk 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Military unit of 1,000 soldiers

[edit]

The Mongol Military unit of 1,000 soldiers can not be Hazara's ancestors during 700 or 800 years ago. The current population of the Hazara people does not express this while about 62% of them are killed and displaced. The population of a village could be.

--Shxahxh (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mongol invasion of Khorasan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 10:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Khwarazmian Empire will be an interesting one to have at User:Thebiguglyalien/Articles per country#Selected former countries. I'll have a review done some time in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, the review is posted below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29: nudging, do you have a timeframe on this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll be on it within a couple of days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General:

  • The article should give more coverage to the aftermath. How long did the Mongols control Khorasan? Did any destroyed parts of the region successfully rebuild? has never recovered sounds important; is there information about how it's affected the demographics of the modern population?
  • Since there's only one level two heading, it would make more sense to delete it and bump the level threes up to level two.
  • "However" should be removed if it doesn't change the meaning of a sentence.

Lead:

  • The lead doesn't reflect the body. "Merv, Nishapur, and Herat" is by far the largest section, but it gets very little attention in the lead.
  • To this point, only one sentence of the lead covers the actual events of the invasion: Tolui systematically besieged and captured them in turn, pillaging their wealth and executing their inhabitants. The invasion itself should be the main focus, with the background and other details supplementing it.
  • The article doesn't mention the Silk Road, and it gives much more attention to the mass killings than any pillaging that might have taken place.

Background:

  • This section should be refocused away from a detailed sequence of events and toward a broad overview of the lead up to this invasion. A lot of what's in there now can be summarized in a few sentences explaining the capture of northeastern cities and the rebellions.
  • Conversely, there's a lot of context missing, and the article assumes an in-depth prior understanding of the Mongol Empire's activities in the early 13th century. Looking at the first sentence of the body: During the invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire, which began in 1219, Tolui initially accompanied his father's army. It feels like I was dropped into the middle of the article. I don't know what the invasion is, who's doing the invading, what the significance of the Khwarazmian Empire is, who Tolui is, or who his father is.
  • and the cities which had earlier submitted to them in the Khorasan region had become bolder – Who was doing this when it says "the cities"? I assume it's "rebels" specifically? Something more descriptive than "had become bolder" might help too, so we understand that they were bolder in their resistance against the occupying Mongols or whatever it may be.
  • Genghis dispatched Tolui to Khorasan – Only Tolui? Were Jebe and Subutai involved with the invasion of Khorasan specifically?

Merv, Nishapur, and Herat:

  • This section is on the longer side. Not a huge issue, but if it's possible to split it in two or divide it with subsections, that would be good.
  • He marched westwards – Maybe "Tolui" marched or "The army" marched? Right now it's an ambiguous "he" which could refer to "historian Carl Sverdrup". Which would be very funny but probably isn't true.
  • Tolui came to the conclusion – Could we use something more concise like decided, determined, or judged?
  • Having been subjected to a general assault on the seventh day – This threw me off. Is it saying that Tolui launched an assault the next day? If so, that's what it should say.
  • and put to the sword – It should be clarified if this is a quote, and if not, then it should say something more direct.
  • Is there a way that more of Nishapur in 1220 can be summarized in "background" so the article can be more chronological?
  • who requested them to reads awkwardly to me.
  • reduce their walls – "Reduce" implies making them smaller but otherwise keeping them intact.
  • the now-deceased Muhammad II – This feels like we skipped over the actual death. Can we squeeze an "after Muhammed II's death" or "by this time Muhammad II had died and been succeeded by" somewhere in there?
  • immediately sought to agree surrender terms – Grammar
  • the killing of the khan's son-in-law had been – Maybe "the killing of the khan's son-in-law Toquchar had been" so it's easier to follow?

Historiography:

  • The death tolls traditionally attributed to Tolui's campaign in Khorasan are considered exaggerated by modern historians – I'm not sure if there's a better option for this, but I don't like that the reader is given a bunch of numbers throughout the article and then at the end they're told that the numbers probably aren't true.

References:

  • All sources appear to be reliable.
  • [4] Boyle 2007, pp. 311–314; Manz 2010, pp. 134–135. – Good. While this isn't a GA concern, the citations could be more precise. For example, the first sentence of this paragraph looks like it's entirely supported by p.312 and doesn't need the other pages.
  • [7] Boyle 2007, p. 313. – Good.
  • [12] Biran 2012, p. 60; Boyle 2007, pp. 310, 314; Jackson 2017, p. 80. – Good.
  • [17] Jackson 2017, p. 80. – Good. Out of curiosity, any reason why these specific four were chosen as examples?
  • [24] Biran 2012, pp. 64–65. – Good.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongol_invasion_of_Khorasan&oldid=1253443491"