Talk:Nizari–Seljuk conflicts

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Nizaris (Assassins) managed to disrupt their superior opponent, the Seljuk Empire, through effective use of assassination? Source: "The Nizari were a weak and relatively isolated group who could not confront the might of the Seljuk Empire and its allies directly, but in assassination they found an effective tool for disrupting the empire." [1]

• Reviewed: Lisa Kearney

5x expanded by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 16:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC).

• Unfortunately, the article fails the supplementary criterion D7, completeness. There are several 'expand section' tags, and one section that is entirely missing. Until this is dealt with, the article is disqualified from the front page; even in the event this is rectified, it would fail the time constraint for DYK. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, although a great deal of work is needed to satisfy D7, since the nomination has already been made within the seven days as required, the DYK time criterion is satisfied. The work should be done as soon as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm going to fix it then. --Z 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ZxxZxxZ: You have done a lot of work on the page. Please let us know when you're ready for a full review. Yoninah (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, I expect it to be ready for DYK review withing a couple of days. I will comment here as soon as it is done. --Z 14:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ready for a DYK review now. I also want to change the hook (any improvements are welcome): --Z 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the minority Nizaris (Assassins) of medieval Persia disrupted their superior adversaries by effective use of strongholds and assassination? ("socio-political power in the Saljūq empire had come to be increasingly localized ... the strategy best suited to the objectives of a revolutionary movement had also to be decentralized. The Persian Ismā � ı̄lı̄s adopted precisely such a piecemeal strategy ... there scarcely existed a major or central target ... Consequently, the Nizārı̄ strategy was based on the seizure of a host of strongholds ... so as to overwhelm the existing decentralized socio-political structure from within." Source: Daftary (2007), p.327)
  • @ZxxZxxZ: Hmmm, I remain unconvinced, unfortunately. The article appears complete, content-wise, but even for me, who am somewhat knowledgeable on the subject, it is heavy going trying to read it. The prose needs extensive copyediting for grammar and typos, but more than that, the context is very poorly presented. Just a couple of examples out of many, you introduce terms and events (the Ilkhanate, the Mongol invasions) in the "Sources" section that are unlinked and unfamiliar to the vast majority of our readers, and in the 'The participants and the nature of the conflicts', where you should introduce just who the Nizaris and Seljuks are and why they were fighting, you write of a 'simple Nizari vs Seljuk [conflict]' as if readers are familiar with it. If I were to review this for GA, for example, the list of corrections, remarks and suggestions for improvement would be very long. Technically nothing in the DYK rules states anything about the article quality, but there is an unstated assumption that it should be well-written; after all, the aim of a DYK article is to get readers to read it and learn something new, and for me, at the present state, the article is frankly off-putting. I strongly recommend that you request a copyedit at WP:GOCE and then submit it either for a peer review and/or a GA review, pinging the Military History project for assistance by experienced editors. Then you can resubmit for DYK based on the eligibility of recent GAs. Added to the previous concerns, I object to the renaming of the article to "Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts", because the article does not cover the Fatimids' conflict with the Seljuks at all. Constantine ✍ 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I myself believe the most important problem is the prose, I was just unsure how bad it was. This is a broad subject and needs a lot of work to be an acceptable article; the GA route is probably a good idea. I hereby withdraw this nomination to make a new one in the future.
    • Regarding the title, I'm still thinking about a proper title (I'm also considering expanding the scope of the article to include conflicts with the succeeding Khwarezmian Empire as well). The "Nizari" in "Nizari-Seljuk" was an imperfect word since the revolt took place before the Nziari-Musta'li Schism, i.e. at a time when there was no such thing as a Nizari, and those Isamilis were actually subordinate to the Fatimids, although this subordination was practically limited at that stage. --Z 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#Ismaili–Seljuk conflicts until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nizari–Seljuk conflicts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) 17:04, 27 March 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):

   The lead does not properly describe the subject. For one, it should introduce the subject as "The Nizari–Seljuk conflicts refer to the wars and conflicts between the Nizari Ismaili Shi'as and the Sunni Seljuk Empire between 1090 and 1194." or something along these lines. Other than the introductory sentence, the lead needs to be expanded to summarize the article. Stylistically, passages should be more than one sentence or two, as is the current case. Also, please remove all duplicate links, which you can find via the 'Highlight duplicate links' tool in the right sidebar.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The references sections currently contains both citations to sources but also several footnotes, which should be in a separate section called 'Notes' or 'Footnotes'. Also, while GAN does not require consistent formatting of sources, I highly recommend you apply a single style by adding all the book and journal sources to a Bibliography section, the Daftary 2007 sources, which is just 'hanging' in the References section without a proper home. 80 out of 135 citations (rough count) are to Daftary 2007 (~60%), which should be OK for GA, but recommend further diversification of sources.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   See under 'Sourcing' below.

   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:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Review

• Regarding "The Ismailis in Persia, and by extension, Da'i Hassan-i Sabbah were already aware of the declining power of the Fatimids.[4] During his nine years of activity in service of the Fatimid da'wah in different parts of Persia, Hassan had evaluated the strengths and the weaknesses of the Seljuk military and government." Needs some dating: when were they already aware of the Fatimid decline? And specify the "nine years of activity".
• Are Rudbar and Alamut interchangeable names for the same place. If so, any reason why articles uses both terms throughout? If they refer to separate places, then define Rudbar, since currently it just links to Alamut.
• The caption for the image depicting the assassination of Nizam al-Mulk contains specific information not found in the article. Either add a citation to the caption or better still, add the content to the article text itself.
• Introduce Juwayni.
• For historic regions like Egypt and Iraq that are also modern countries, links should directed to articles covering the historical region, as in Egypt in the Middle Ages and Medieval Iraq (or Lower Mesopotamia), etc.
• The sentence beginning "The Nizaris failed to establish ..." needs a citation.
• Who are the Banu Ulaym? Does this refer to the branch of the Kalb tribe?

  That's plausible, but unfortunately, my source (Daftary) does not provide any information about this name other than the strict transliteration (which makes the Arabic term بنو عليم), so I'm not sure. I remove the wikilink for now. --Z 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Where approximately is "al-Sharif Castle"?

  I couldn't find any information about it in The Eagle's Nest. It is possibly unlocated, which is understandable since it was a small castle that was demolished already in 12th century. --Z 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Were the local hostile tribes in Wadi al-Taym Druze? If so, mention this; if not or unclear, then ignore.

  It mentions the name of the tribal chief (Baraq ibn Jandal and his brother Dahhak ibn Jandal) and that the population was mixed, but does not specify further. --Z 13:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Can you identify "the prefect and the military governor of Damascus"? Is this one person or two people?

  I added a note for this and further clarified the text. --Z 13:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• "The Nizari resistance amazed their adversary" should be reworded for objectivity.
• Please clarify: "The nature of Nizari–Seljuk relations gradually changed in this period: the ultimate Nizari aims were no longer renounced, but their subversion in inner Seljuk territories was halted and they began to consolidate the remote territories they held instead." what are the "ultimate Nizari aims"? The Seljuks were no longer renouncing these aims? Is renouncing the intended word? What is "their subversion in inner Seljuk territories"?
• The heading of this section includes "recognization of the Nizari state". First, recommend replacing "recognization" with "tacit recognition", or just "Stalemate".
• Specify the final years of Hassan-i-Sabbah (when he did he die).
• Define "local support". Locals from Alamut?
• "At the end of Buzurg-Ummid's reign ..." Specify when his reign ended.
• Why did the Nizaris of Alamut rejoice at the assassination of al-Mustarshid? Did he oppress them or was it because he was the official head of the Sunni caliphate?
• Were the attempts to penetrate Ghur successful or unsuccessful?
• Regarding "... shortly after the toppling of the Fatimids by Saladin six years earlier." Was this related to the Nizari assassination of the Abbasid vizier? Otherwise, there is no demonstrable relevance to this sentence and the fall of the Fatimids should be mentioned separately or elsewhere in the article. Also, "six years" should not be described as "shortly after".
• Are the Zengids and other Turkish atabegs in Syria and Mosul being defined as Seljuks or their offshoots in this article? The relationship, if any, between them and the Seljuks should be explained briefly for context. If there is no relationship, then might need to rethink the whole "Nizari foothold in Jabal Bahra', Syria" section and its place and whether it belongs in this article.
• "Hassan-i Sabbah's objective was not realized" What was his objective?
• Who is Rukn al-Din?
• Who is "Mar'ashi"?
• Define the "many lands"
• "These are attributed ..." Who attributes? Daftary? Modern historians?
• "the genius of their early leaders" In wikivoice this is not objective language; suggest quoting and attributing to source or revising.
• "total dedication to their ultimate ideal", again what is their ultimate ideal? The article does not define it anywhere.
• For consistency, use either digits or spell out centuries, i.e. fourteenth century or 14th century.
• In general, define the reigns of all Fatimid and Abbasid caliphs, Seljuk sultans, and the Nizari chief da'is.

Sourcing

• Need complete citation information (i.e. original publication year/date not just access date) for the Iranica articles for Refs #3 (B. Hourcade), #34 (Daftary), #100 (B. Hourcade)
• Need full page numbers for Ref #10 (Lewis).
• Does Ref #30 have a specific author?
• Need English translation for the titles of the Persian-language works cited in article (Ref #39, #67, #74). I am taking on good faith that they are reliable sources, since I cannot verify personally.
• Fodor's Israel is a travel book/guide, not appropriate for a history article.
• Need a full citation for Ref #79, which should be a footnote in any case.
• All footnotes need to be cited to RS. Al Ameer (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Al Ameer, ZxxZxxZ, what is the status of this nomination? It has been over six weeks since the review was posted, and no edits have been made to article since then to address the issues raised. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: This slipped from the radar. If ZxxZxxZ has been inactive or semi-active but wishes to continue with this nomination, I am happy to continue as well. Can we give the nominator another few days or a week to respond? Al Ameer (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I'm sorry for the late responce. I'm looking at the issues right now, and trying to estimate how long it takes to fix them. If you give me a couple of days, I'll see if I can finish it or not. --Z 15:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Al Ameer, ZxxZxxZ, it looks like a couple of dozen edits were made from May 11 to 14, and nothing more in the month since. Where does this leave the review and nomination? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one of the issues was make all the citations to Bernard Lewis more precise by mentioning the page number, but unfortunately, I no longer have access to that book, so I'm unable to fix it. --Z 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: Thanks for taking care of some of the points above, especially in regard to the referencing; however, most of the points have not yet been addressed. If you believe you can tackle these under the current review, please provide an idea as to how long you will need. If it's more than a another 2 weeks, I'd suggest we close this review and re-nominate at a later time. Regards Al Ameer (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest closing this review, until I or another editor open it again in the future. Regards --Z 15:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As the nominator wishes to fail the review, and there have been no edits to this page in a month, I'll go ahead and fail. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.