Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Arab–Khazar wars

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.

Article promoted by Cinderella157 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Arab–Khazar wars

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Featured article candidates/Arab–Khazar wars/archive1

I've been working on this article since 2012, and have now finally managed to complete it after finding a copy of Dunlop's 1954 history of the Khazars, which is still the standard reference for the field. I feel the article is complete and comprehensive, providing both a detailed description of the conflict as well as placing it in context. Any suggestions for further improvement are, of course, most welcome, as I intend to eventually bring this to FA. Constantine ✍ 16:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating topic of which I know very little and I enjoyed the education; I'd like others to read it as well and my comments are designed to ensure that.

I find it hard to leave out facts I find fascinating but may not add value for the general reader, so this is like giving myself feedback :)). I do a job where I think a lot about the user experience so my bias is 'Will people using Wikipedia read and understand it?'

In General; I found it hard to read, especially the Background and Motives. Suggestions;

Editing; Too much information eg the paragraph that starts Some Byzantinists, notably Dimitri Obolensky... I get the point but as a newbie to the topic, its confusing.

So (for example), I would redo this by saying 'While there are different opinions, it is generally accepted that the northward expansion of the Arabs beyond the Caucasus...' A lot of this could be shorter.

Chunking; break it down eg it would be useful to have a separate segment on the different military practices (for example);

Pictures; it needs more! I found the amount of uninterrupted text intimidating :) More (and detailed) maps;

Quotes; too many quotes that don't really add much for me or could be shortened eg According to Georgian sources, the khagan desired to marry the beautiful Shushan, daughter of Prince Archil of Kakheti (r. 736–786), and he sent his general Buljan to invade Iberia and capture her. Most of the central region of K'art'li was occupied, and Prince Juansher (r. 786–807) was taken off into captivity for a few years, but rather than be taken off captive, Shushan committed suicide and the furious khagan had Buljan executed.[100] Arab chroniclers, on the other hand, attribute this to the plans of the Abbasid governor al-Fadl ibn Yahya (one of the famous Barmakids) to marry one of the khagan's daughters, who died on her journey south, while a different story is reported by al-Tabari, whereby the Khazars were invited to attack by a local Arab magnate in retaliation against the execution of his father, the governor of Derbent, by the general Sa'id ibn Salm. According to the Arab sources, the Khazars then raided as far as the Araxes, necessitating the dispatch of troops under Yazid ibn Mazyad, as the new governor of Transcaucasia, with more forces under Khazim ibn Khuzayma in reserve.[87][99][101]

This provides two different versions (ie Georgian and Arab) and at the end I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude from this.

Specific Points;

Lead paragraph is too long; my understanding is it should be 7-8 lines max. (Wrong :)).

I'm not clear from this article what the differences were between Khazars and Arabs (plus - just my curiosity :)) what does 'Arab' mean in this context? ie I thought a lot of the Steppe peoples were Turkic.

As someone who grew up in the Middle East, still works in Lebanon etc and whose family comes from Belfast :), I have some understanding of the length of memory in these places (people in Jhelum still talk of Alexander as if he left the day before) - so it might be useful to have an Aftermath section ie what was the impact? How is this reflected in todays modern Caucasus etc?

If it's helpful, I'd be glad to edit a paragraph and show you what I mean. As I said, it is a great topic and I enjoyed learning about it.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinvp11, and thanks for taking the time to review this article! Regarding your comments, I have already made a major rewriting and restructuring of the "Background" section as I was also not really satisfied with it. It now is, to my mind, more logically structured in coherent thematic sections (which also deals with the "Chunking" concern). Feel free, however, to either suggest emendations or tinker around yourself to improve prose.
On the degree of detail, I try to keep it to a tolerable level, without sacrificing accuracy; for instance, Obolensky is known as the foremost proponent of this idea, and for anyone who wants to know more, his name should be mentioned. Due to the relative eminence of Byzantine studies compared to Khazar ones, the Byzantinist viewpoint has been pretty prevalent in the relevant literature, and thus needs to be examined. For the average reader, this may be useless, but I do not feel it is really a burden (if one feels compelled to delve into every link included in the article, then that is not the "average reader"). In the article I have for instance mostly abstained from analyzing the primary sources as Blankinship and Dunlop do, precisely to avoid tiring the reader; in only a few areas have I felt compelled to include the alternative or disputed facts or dates, where they impact directly on the larger narrative. One such case is precisely what you mention as a problem regarding the Abbasid-era raids. There are two divergent narratives for the same event, and I am obliged to mention them both without indicating a preference, if no such preference is stated in my sources (per WP:NOR). If that is confusing, I cannot really help it, because history is almost never neat and tidy...
On pictures, I also like a well-illustrated article, but there is preciously little to use; a relatively obscure 8th-century conflict between non-Westerners does not generate much in terms of illustrations. On the maps, I have worked on a new and more detailed map (now in the infobox), but anything more is beyond my source material; unless someone happens to have some Russian or Iranian encyclopedia of the Caucasus or something similar, I've hit a barrier here. Ditto for photographs or medieval drawings: what little there is on Commons I've used, and I am looking for more online, but it is a) a little like searching for a needle in a haystack and b) even when I find something, its copyright is often prohibitive or unclear.
The lead should be commensurate to the length of the article and be just as long as needed to summarize it adequately. There is no hard limit either way; MOS:LEADLENGTH has some suggestions, but they are not at 7-8 lines level, certainly not for an article of this size.
"I'm not clear from this article what the differences were between Khazars and Arabs" I've already tried to make this clearer in the reworked Background section. For more one would have to follow the links to the respective articles.
"so it might be useful to have an Aftermath section ie what was the impact? How is this reflected in todays modern Caucasus etc?" I have not found any indication in the sources that this is much of an issue today; it may linger in some folk memory, but as the article states, such events were inevitably described in pre-existing terms ("Gog and Magog") etc, so there is probably little that would be specific to this conflict. Likewise the political, economic, etc effects have mostly vanished since with the waves of other conquerors that passed over that region. It is likely that there are studies on this (I guess in Russian, Arabic or Azeri) but I couldn't really find any indication of it in the sources I know; Kemper for instance lists several Russian-languagestudies, but these appear to be generalist works or otherwise to focus on far more recent history of the region or aspects of it unrelated to the present one. The one discernible long-term impact is already stated clearly in the article: the early Arab expansion (and the expansion of Islam) was halted for centuries at Derbent.
Looking forward to any further feedback and suggestions. As stated, feel free to work around with the text yourself. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinvp11: re. "7-8 lines"—not sure where that comes from? WP:LEADLENGTH recommends a lead of "3 to 4 paragraphs2 for articles of over 30,000 characters in length: this is >40,000. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was writing too fast and thinking about something else. Sorry :)

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're the subject matter expert :) so its up to you to decide what to include - I'm thinking in terms of the reader, plus I'm a huge fan of Oscar Wilde 'I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.' I'll have a look round for pictures - its about making the article more accessible and pictures play a large role in that so even modern pictures of the terrain help. Let me take a look. 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robinvp11, as mentioned above, feel free to make whatever additions or improvements you see fit. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits, but I had to revert some of your additions for the following reasons:

the role of the Caucasus as a barrier against the northern barbarian, much predates both the Arabs and the Persians, and is a constant topos in the literature of these regions since the Babylonians and Assyrians. Ditto the belief about the Gates of Alexander, it does not originate with either Persians or Arabs. The Silk Road also considerably post-dates the start of steppe invasions through the Caucasus. Describing the Scythians and Huns as "northern savages" without qualification (later on, where I use the term, the context is the perception of contemporary southern civilizations) is a judgment that one should avoid. The section title was also reverted; "The Caucasus frontier" implies the frontier between two states; the section is about a zone of conflict and interaction between two civilizational models.
the whole "arguably continue today, albeit with different players." is textbook WP:POV and WP:OR, I am afraid; there is no linking these conflicts in the article cited, and drawing parallels between the Azeri-Armenian conflict today and a conflict from the 7th-8th centuries, or between two modern nation-states and a steppe people invasion of a settled Near Eastern empire is very unusual and does not rest on very sound ground. Saying that the Caucasus is a trouble spot today and has been so throughout history is not the same as what this phrase implies.
Please don't remove the |alt= descriptions, they are not the same as image captions. I've removed Kavkasioni.JPG, as, while it is visually impressive, it is also misleading; the war did not take place among the peaks of the mountains, but in the lowlands around the Caucasus. I also rearranged the photos to avoid image clutter.

I have kept many of your copyedits, as they are more elegant. If you want to continue with the copyedits, feel free to do so, but please discuss the insertion of new material or changes that might alter the sense of the text with me first. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth

Wow, this is massive and very interesting. I'm reading as an editor the first time, and straight off in the lead I can see some issues that you might want to address.

for example:

but the Arab–Khazar military confrontation involved several sporadic raids and isolated clashes over a period from the middle of the 7th century to the end of the 8th century. involved sporadic raids and isolated clashes from...

Done. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the Arabs were able to capture Derbent and even the southern Khazar capital of Balanjar, but this had little impact on the nomadic Khazars, who remained able to launch devastating raids deep into Transcaucasia The Arabs captured Derbent and even the southern Khazar capital of Balanjar, but these successes had little impact on the nomadic Khazars, who continued to launch devastating raids....

Done. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, the long wars weakened ... The continuing warfare weakened....

Done. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasus needs a link; also, typically there wouldn't be citations in the lead, because you'd clarify anything fuzzy in the body of the article....?

Done, and re the links I know, but in this case I think it is required, as the nomenclature isn't really dealt with anywhere else. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the more "helping" verbs used, the more confusing it gets. I'll be happy to help if you would like some assistance, but you might wish to run through it yourself. auntieruth (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your attention, auntieruth. As I wrote to Robinvp11 above, feel free to make whatever changes and improvements you see fit, and I will go over the changes afterward in case they distorted the meaning somehow. A new pair of eyes throwing a fresh look on the article is always better :) Constantine ✍ 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I will be on vacation and possibly without a good internet connection until early August, so my response to any new comments may take some time. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntieruth55 and Robinvp11, I am back from vacation. Constantine ✍ 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dank, as usual, for your improvements. Best, Constantine ✍ 18:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PM

Had a couple of reads through, and made a few very minor tweaks here and there. Rv if I've changed anything. Not having any idea of this period or region, I couldn't see anything substantive that needed adjustment. The only thing that I found odd was the use of the terms Iberia and Albania. I know they are introduced as being the Caucasian versions initially, but it might benefit from using the "Caucasian Iberia" and "Caucasian Albania" form throughout. It is quite a dense article, but it flows well and is understandable to a novice. Also did a source review, all sources appear to be reliable and of high quality, the only query I have is probably for FAC, and that is whether there is more recent scholarship out there that should be included, a quick search of Google Scholar indicates there might be, but you'll be the best judge of that. You could also change the References to 20em to eliminate more whitespace. Great work! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peacemaker67 for the review and your corrections. On Iberia and Albania, I had prepared a version like this, but it quickly grew tiresome to read it so many times; I will however try to emphasize this somehow more in the article. On the sources, I did some research but could not really find anything more, at least, anything that would add anything of particular value to this topic; there are of course too many works on the Khazars or the Umayyads and I may easily have missed something, so if you found anything, please let me know. Constantine ✍ 14:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I was referring to these results. Wondering if there is anything there that you could get via WP:RX to ensure all current scholarship on these wars is represented? This is really meant as a question for a future FAC rather than something that is necessary to action at ACR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks. I was aware of these, but most deal with the Khazars in general or specific aspects not related to this conflict. Czegledy's article is useful, but it concerns a single episode, and would be more suitable for writing a dedicated article on these raids than for the present article (for reasons of consistency in detail of coverage). Otherwise, the scholarship in the article is pretty up-to-date. The heavy use of Dunlop may create a wrong impression here; for one, Dunlop's account is still the single most important study on the Khazars, for the other, the article was originally written chiefly by using Blankinship and Brook, who are both up-to-date. I did not have access to Dunlop then, and he was added later because he provides more details (and because he is fundamental to the subject), but I took care to include the corrections provided by Blankinship and Brook into account. There are possibly dedicated articles on the conflict, or aspects of it, in Russian or other languages, but I don't know where to begin looking for them, unless they are referenced in Western sources that I have access to already. Constantine ✍ 09:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CPA-5

Greetings the page looks good in my view but there are here and there little issues.

First, can see some Britsh English and American English like this words

"centre" (UK English)

"civilizations" (US English)

"uncivilized" (US English)

"kilometres" (UK English)

"civilizational" (US English)

"civilized" (US English)

"materialize" (US English)

"defenses" (US English)

"recognized" (US English)

"marginalized" (US English)

"localized" (US English)

"colour" (UK English)

"maneuver" (US English)

"formalized" (US English)

"favoured" (UK English)

which English should the page use?

Generally, I prefer British English. The -ize forms are also used in British English. Fixed defense and maneuver though.

Second, I just found there are two differents between the "10th-century" and the "10th century" if the "10th-century" should be the used one on the page, then other centuries like "7th century", "8th century" and "9th century" should change to "7th-century", "8th-century" and "9th-century".

Hmmm, I am not sure which spot you mean here; Generally, if the century is used as an adjective, e.g. "a 17th-century painting", then a hyphen is used (just like with a "ten-year-old child"), otherwise it is not. I think I've been consistent in that in this article, if I've missed a spot, please indicate that to me.

Third, titles like in this case "emperor Justinian II " should be capitalised or in this case "the Caliph" it should be too. this should be used too if its about plural titles like Byzantine emperors and it should be use too if its about the future/former/new like "future emperor Constantine V".

This is actually a similar case to the above; if "emperor" is used as a job description, then it remains uncapitalized; it is capitalized only when used in lieu of a proper name or comes directly before a name, e.g. "the Caliph", "Caliph Hisham", but "the caliph Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik".

Fourth, the army should be capitalised if its from an ethnic group or nation like "the Arab army" only if there is a the before the ethnic group or nation if there is an "a" before the ethnic group or nation like "a Byzantine army" then it shouldn't be capitalised.

No, "the Arab army" is not about an organization named "Arab Army", but a purely descriptive term; it remains uncapitalized. "The Arab army" in this case refers to this particular army during this particular conflict/campaign, mostly composed of Arabs.

Fifth, which one should be used "Al-Jarrah" or "al-Jarrah".

Some people treat the "al-" element as an integral part of the name and capitalize it always. I prefer to follow the scholarly use and write it with a capital "A" at the beginning of a sentence, otherwise lower-case.

Sixth, generals and sience titiles should be capitalised like "the British orientalist Douglas M. Dunlop", "general Sa'id ibn Salm" and more.

As with the emperors, job descriptions are not capitalized, per common English orthography.

Seventh, using seasons can make some confusing to people who live in the southern part of the hemisphere. Like in the examples "In the summer of 732", "there to spend the winter.", "in spring 733" and more. Use months instead seasons or if you put "(in the northern hemisphere)" after the seasons then its ok.

Well, first, the month is often not known (when it is, I've always incorporated it). I also assume that the climatic implications of seasons are well known, so that a reader understands that campaigning in spring is better than campaigning in winter, for example, which is crucial to understanding the narrative; and since the calendar we all follow is based on the northern hemisphere, it should also be clear that "spring 733" means sometime in February-May 733.

I disagree by MOS:SEASON, the phrases are not specified even everyone knows the (Gregorian) calender is based on the northern hemisphere the phrases are still wrong it still should have be specified. If you still want to use seasons then specify it, by adding "northern" in the phrases like in an example "In the northern summer of 732" not "In the summer of 732", Or use like you said months instead seasons, in an example spring is between March–June 733. It also specify people who're around the equator who only use and have wet and dry seasons. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The events related in this article clearly took place in the northern hemisphere. Furthermore, we don't actually have any historical data about the southern hemisphere at that date (7th/8th centuries). Consequently a confusion is rather unlikely. Constantine ✍ 22:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closest date I could find below the equatorial line was about the Canggal inscription and establishing of the Medang Kingdom which made Sanjaya of Mataram king of the kingdom in the year 732 of course there is no official date record (for now at least) but because the kingdom lies in Java wich use dry and rainy seasons so 6 months for every season in a year time its possible that they'll be in the similar moment as the events in this page are. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but still it does not impact the main point: events in the northern hemisphere clearly follow northern hemisphere seasons. Could I bother you for any additional comments on content, understandability, referencing, or your final vote on the article's candidacy? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before there is no official date of the Canggal inscription. Which means I can see your point and the page can indeed use seasons. If there is still no confirmed date (or northern season), or the confirmed date is not in the seasons which we are talking about. However if the confirmed season is on the same momment as the season on this page, this would be an issue in the futere but not now. I have no comments anymore. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eight, Umayyad empire --> Umayyad Empire

As with the job titles or the army, here "empire" is used descriptively

Support I hope this would help you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks for taking the time to review. I've answered the issues you've raised. Anything else? I am particularly interested in the article's understandability for the lay reader. Constantine ✍ 08:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Nikkimaria, this nom is progressing well, would you mind running your eye over the image licensing? Thanks as always, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Only the lead map is particularly clear at that scale - suggest scaling up the others and/or adding legends to captions

I've added captions to the two older map, the map on the Derbent wall is unfortunately not suited for this

File:Mauer_von_Derbend.jpg: per the Flickr tag, is a more specific copyright tag available? Same with File:The_student's_manual_of_ancient_geography,_based_upon_the_Dictionary_of_Greek_and_Roman_geography_(1861)_(14769210685).jpg

Done.

File:Califate_750.jpg: what was the author's date of death?

1934, added to the description.

File:Khazar_1.gif: source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much I can do about that, unfortunately, I AGF'd it since it's been around for ages. In any case I can replace it with another picture like File:Nagyszentmiklos 2b korso - Hampel 1894.jpg if necessary.

If no archive link is available, that potential replacement would work with a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

@Nikkimaria: mostly done, on the last image please advise. Constantine ✍ 15:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.