Talk:First Herat War

McNeil

Who is McNeil? This article would be improved if someone could insert a brief clause to describe his role at the place in the article where he is first mentioned (I assume he was sent on diplomatic mission to the Shah from Britain, but this is not clear.) Please feel free to remove this message when you've done this. RuthLivingstone (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone pulled him out on 3 January. I thought they would continue so I did nothing. He's back now. The whole thing looks anglocentric and I expect someone will overwrite it with the Persian version.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is heavily based on obsolete, 19th century or so British sources (aka old propaganda). It mentions almost nothing about the other side. See also Izydor Borowski - article about the Polish commander of the Iranian side. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I noted the same thing 4 years ago (above). I am still waiting for the Persian version. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 09:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• Siege of Herat (1837–1838) → First Herat War
• Siege of Herat (1856) → Second Herat War

– Both articles are about the entire campaigns not just the sieges of Herat. This leads to awkwardness in the lead. The proposed titles are used in, e.g., War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implications Past and Present, edited by Roxane Farmanfarmaian. "First Herat War" is in fact the common name; "Second Herat War" is rarer since it is usually treated in the context of the Anglo-Persian War. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 12:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Iran has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• @ModernDayTrilobite and Extorc: No minimum participation is required for requested moves. If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Srnec (talk) 20:39, 19 May 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.

WP:BIAS

ain't great but oikophobia ain't called for either. Most English sources on this can get hagiographic about Pottinger but, based on the body of the article as it stands, he deserves much clearer and better treatment in the lead than the current "British person who happened to be in the area". In the same way, the local warlord has a section on his contributions but nothing in it actually reflects the lead's claim that his actions were in any way related to the siege at all, let alone definitively important. Instead, it just seems to be the low-scale random local raiding against an invading army which is standard—but generally not decisive—in any invasion of any country ever.

The lead should highlight Pottinger more clearly; clarify the actual roles of the other 3 Westerners (more emphasis on the Russian who oversaw military action and less on the Brit who just lodged a few ineffectual protests and then left); and either tone down its treatment of Sher Mohammad Khan Hazara or add some additional cited context to the article to discuss in what way the raiding was decisive (or even related to the siege at all). — LlywelynII 20:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Obviously there are contradictions in different sources but the best modern accounts (possibly this?) should also be used to clarify, e.g., whether Pottinger had been long established in the city as an Islamic mulla and was instrumental in reversing the emir's initial inclination to surrender to the Persians using a stratagem with a white flag in the midst of the Persian camp (as here); arrived on 18 August as a horse trader—the same as his uncle Henry Pottinger in 1810—and was supported by the vizier as the commander of defense against a combined Russo-Persian army (as here); or arrived as a Hindu physician as part of a specific mission, was enthusiastically embraced by an emir committed to resistance, continued his disguise in public as late as March, and was supported by several English delegations who arrived during the siege as well as (decisively) a Persian vizier who intentionally sabotaged the offense at Herat to prompt greater aid from overpromising and underdelivering Russia (as here). It certainly seems dubious that he "just happened" to be in the area at the time, as official British accounts have held, starting with the Indian newspaper accounts of the era. Ditto that the entire unit of Russian soldiers involved in the siege (currently omitted from our article) were Persians recruits from among "Russian deserters". — LlywelynII 21:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)