Talk:Khanjar

Comment

i feel like this should probably have a picture associated with it. -- 23:18, 10 November 2005 129.2.200.29

spelling

I have usually come across it spelt Khunjar. -- 84.69.241.1 16:16, 21 May 2006

It is often spelled khunjar in the Middle East. North Africa and Eastern Europe. I think the khanjar spelling is used more in Asia. Morinae (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The spelling in the middle east is خنجر which the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic transcribes as khanjar... AnonMoos (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Image links

Might be better to link to the pages where the images are displayed, instead of to the images directly... AnonMoos 12:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside Oman

The khanjar is not unique to Oman, and neither is the jembiya unique to Yemen. The words khanjar and jembiya are often interchangeable in Arabic so these two articles should be more inclusive. In South Asia, the word khanjar is more commonly associated with swords while a dagger is called khanjarli. Morinae (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Khanjar are a well know dagger in India, Persia and other countries, there are a lot of references both written and visual to back this up, the article needs to include this information if it is to be accurate and factual.70.196.131.82 (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matty.007 (talk · contribs) 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

So I don't forget... I may take a few days coming to it, but this is so that I do review it. Thanks, Matty.007 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please expand lead
• Is it possible to expand 'History'?
• Gold or silver: wikilink both or neither

• Fixed. Wikilinked both. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• However, with the international ban on the ivory trade, the usage of other materials – such as wood, plastic, and camel bone – have become more prevalent--> "However, with the international ban on the ivory trade, the usage of other materials – such as wood, plastic, and camel bone – has become more prevalent"

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• It use to form part of everyday attire--> "It used to form part of everyday attire"

• Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Traditionally, the dagger is designed by its future owner himself: couldn't find in source given

• At the end of the second last paragraph: It is traditionally crafted to its owner’s specifications, including body proportions and personal preferences in terms of style. Not too sure if my own words match the essence of what is stated in the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• The source says "The khanjar is customarily commissioned at the time a boy becomes sexually mature. It is traditionally crafted to its owner’s specifications, including body proportions and personal preferences in terms of style", and the article's "designed by the future owner himself" does not appear to feature. All other responses good (please can you respond to the FLC?). Thanks, Matty.007 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• I do believe that having the owner specify his personal stylistic preferences is exactly the same as he designing it himself. Granted, he doesn't make it himself (the craftsman does), but its clearly designed by him, since he has the final say on how it will look like. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Although the khanjar was originally created as a weapon to attack and defend, it is utilized solely for ceremonial and practical purposes today: simply repeating from earlier, *however, it is now carried as a "ceremonial dagger",[11] and worn only for formal events and ceremonies – such as weddings, parades, meetings, and diplomatic functions – among many other occasions

• I still feel it is necessary to highlight its past usage as well as its current practical use, which the latter sentence does not do (it only covers the ceremonies it is worn at). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• weddings, parades, meetings, and diplomatic functions is similar to the source, "parades, weddings, diplomatic events".

• Yes, and that is permissible per WP:LIMITED. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• 'Other uses': perhaps one picture on the right, one on the left?

• Normally, I would agree. However, in this article, that would necessitate having one of the images appear on the left at the start of the subsection. I forgot where I read this (either MOS or some guideline) but it's preferable not to have any images to the left at the beginning of a (sub)section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• 'Symbolism' section
• Similarity to Janbiya?

• According to this PDF, the janbiya is a local term from Yemen (and eastern Arabia), while khanjar is the Arabic term for a dagger (and used in western Arabia). The term guide at the end of this novel says that the khanjar is similar to the jambiya, while this encyclopedia says that there are differences between the two. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• If you could verify any of this information and add it that would be great (ignorethe mistranslation, sorry about that)

• As the German WP article doesn't have any sources or external links, I'm reluctant to trust it as a source for adding info. However, after a quick glance it seems most of the info is already included in this Eng. WP article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Italian Wikipedia states "It is often mistakenly confused with the Jambiya the Arabs , from which it derives." (Google translate, so possible errors). Is this true?

• Haven't read that in any sources, but it sounds likely, given that the terms are frequently (and incorrectly) interchanged in English, according to the PDF I provided above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Italian WP also disputes origins, claiming Italy and Iran. Any truth/English sources backing this up?

• I haven't read that in any of the English refs I've consulted. They all seem to universally agree that it is from Oman. I have read somewhere (I forgot which website) that terms that are similar to "khanjar" (perhaps corruptions of the word) are used in Iran and India. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• On both Italian and German WP, this image is given as a khanjar. Is it?

• Doesn't look like it. The "J" curve isn't as extreme as the one depicted in the Eng. WP pic – that's a key distinguishing factor for Omani khanjars. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Italian WP also has 'Construction' section, maybe useful info to add if verifiable
• Mention Bait al Zubair?
• Perhpas section on it in media, such as the film involving it, the ship
• In Poland, seems to be called Handżar, and they claim it gave its name to an SS division, worth checking on
• Wiktionary gives the word as coming from Iranian, which seems to back up the claim it comes from Iran
• Info in [1]
• Encyclopaedia Brittanica says "Many men continue to carry a short, broad, curved, and often highly ornate dagger known as a khanjar (sometimes called a janbiyyah or jambiya), which is worn tucked in the front waistband"-maybe some useful info

I think that's enough for now. Sorry for all the bizarre links, but I think it needs some more info to be complete. Thanks, Matty.007 13:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As I warned you several times, it is now infeasable to complete this review before the end of the WikiCup as I am going away until the end of the month (and am trying to stay off Wikipedia anyway). I can continue the review upon my return from holiday, or can stop reviewing it and put it back in the pool, whichever you prefer. Thanks, Matty.007 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with you putting it back in the GAN pool (or failing it, whichever one is simpler to do). I'll ask for your 2006 CECAFA Cup GAN to be reposted, and we can call it even if that's alright with you. Cheers, and enjoy your holiday! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I decided to hold off reviewing the CECAFA Cup article after reading the retirement statement on your talkpage earlier in the month. I didn't know when you'd be back, but I'm still willing to review it if you want. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Got it! Returned to pool with no fail notice on talk page. Re CECAFA Cup, I don't think it's really fair on you to ask you to do a review in return for one which I didn't complete, so please return to the pool/fail. Thanks for understanding, Matty.007 07:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Khanjar/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll start on this one today or tomorrow. −--Coemgenus (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Checklist

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• This seems to be up to standard. It looks like you had a thorough review before that ironed out most of the sticking points, so I don't have too much to add.
• The title: are you sure it should be italicized? I get that it's a foreign word, but I've not seen that before as a reason to italicize.

• Yes, I'm pretty sure. Per MOS:FOREIGN, this is an "isolated foreign word" that does not "have common usage in English". MOS text formatting also appears to support this position. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm all for redlinks, but do you think anyone will write an article on camel bone?

• Don't know. Depends on whether it has enough sources to establish notability. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I see that owning a khanjar is no longer restricted to the upper classes, but is it common among the lower classes now? If one were to visit Oman, would one see khanjars on every hip?

• Probably not. The sources in the article say that it's restricted to special occasions nowadays. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I think you've covered everything. I'll pass this. Nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)