Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arab–Khazar wars/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2023 [1].

Arab–Khazar wars

edit
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 7th and 8th-century conflicts between the nomadic steppe empire of the Khazars and the emergent Arab caliphate for control of the Caucasus. Especially the 8th-century conflict was one of the major wars fought by the Umayyad Caliphate, featuring its most prominent commanders, with rapid reversals of fortune and ultimately little gain, but draining it of manpower and contributing to its collapse. The conflict may also have driven the Khazars (or at least their elite) into embracing Judaism, a pretty unique event. The article has been built over several years, passing GA in 2016, MilHist ACR in 2018, and having grown a lot in the process. I think it is now one of the most comprehensive resources on the topic and ready for its FA review. I am looking forward to any comments and suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 12:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • File:Mauer_von_Derbend.jpg: what's the author's date of death? Ditto File:Nagyszentmiklos_2b_korso_-_Hampel_1894.jpg

UndercoverClassicist

edit

Good to see you back - this article has clearly been a labour of love. I am very out of my academic wheelhouse when it comes to this time period in this part of the world, but I should be able to provide the usual stream of prose and clarity nit-picks to help this article along its way to FA status.

Resolved matters
  • Is there a reason for the consistent choice of Transcaucasia over the South Caucasus? Seems to be taking a side: from the Arab perspective, this area was cis- the mountains; meanwhile, the latter phrasing seems more likely to be intuitively clear to readers.
    • That reflects the fairly common usage until recently, which actually reflects the Russian view. You are raising a good point though, in that usage has now shifted to the more neutral versions of North and South Caucasus. Will rename accordingly.* A period of relatively-localized warfare: for reasons I don't fully understand, the MoS (MOS:HYPHEN?) advises against the hyphen when the first part of the compound is a regular -ly adverb.
    • So be it, changed.
  • After securing submission by the khagan: slightly unidiomatic: the khagan's submission or the submission of the khagan. I'm not sure we've actually explained what a khagan was, though.
    • Fixed both.
  • The 737 campaign marked the end of large-scale warfare between the two powers: this is the second time that the war has apparently ended (earlier: Large-scale hostilities then ceased). Suggest modifying the first iteration to "ceased for the next eighty-five years" or similar.
    • added 'for several decades', as the precise count is... imprecise (do the raids after 707 count or not? etc.)
  • Occasional small-scale warfare continued in the region between the Khazars and the Muslim principalities of the Caucasus: not wonderfully clear as phrased: was the warfare or the region between the Khazars and the Muslims?
    • Clarified
  • the great eighth-century wars were never repeated: I thought there was only one great war in the eighth century, plus another in the seventh?
    • Indeed, I meant it in the sense of 'campaigns'. Have clarified further.
  • 40,000 Khazars or Turks: the MoS would advise a rephrase to avoid starting a sentence with figures.
    • Done.
  • The link on Apocalypse goes to an article about the literary genre: the closest article we seem to have is Eschatology via its soft redirect end times, so would suggest linking there if you want any link at all.
    • Good suggestion, done.
  • after the death of the Khazar or Western Turkic ruler in an internal conflict c. 630 – c. 632,: this is a bit confusing: are we sure of who died, but not what his job was, or are we not sure which of two identifiable people died? Separately, avoid using abbreviations in body text: try between approximately 630 and 632.
    • On the latter, done. On the former, this was actually identical to the last part of the paragraph, so I have merged them.
  • Note a reads On suggestions about its location, but multiple cities are mentioned: does Semyonov mention only one of these cities?
    • I have removed the footnote, as on looking it up again I found it less than helpful (aside from the fact it is in Russian).
  • the early Muslim conquests: would give a rough date here.
    • Done.
  • The nascent Muslim caliphate regarded itself as heir to the Sasanian—and, to a lesser extent, Byzantine—tradition and worldview: is this cited to Mako? Would be tempted to fish out a further citation to stick right on this sentence if possible: this smells like it could be controversial.
    • It is Mako, yes. I've rephrased it to tone down and relativize the statement.
  • David Wasserstein writes that the Arabs were "expansionists interested in conquest": this phrasing is unfortunate: all of them? Something like "the Arab caliphates/states were..." would be more neutral and clearer that we're talking about the foreign policy of their states rather than trying to psychoanalyse an entire race of people.
    • Oops, of course you are right, though it follows the original source. Rephrased.
  • This is reflected in the popular belief in Middle Eastern cultures that Alexander the Great had barred the Caucasus with divine assistance against the hordes of Gog and Magog: I'm not sure of the chronology here: as written, this sounds as though it's a present-day belief. If it didn't exist in the seventh century, though, it has relatively little explanatory power here. Do the sources allow us to tighten up the language? Separately, explain who Gog and Magog were (we've buried the fact that they were mythical giants).
    • Good point, clarified the chronology, and added the 'mythical' clarifier, but who the Gog and Magog were should be clear from Mako's quote after.
  • the extension of Turkic-Khazar control: could do with a rephrase for clarity: is this control by Turkic people and Khazars, or control only by those Khazars who were simultaneously Turkic?
    • Well, the Khazars were Turks, but here Turkic refers to their overlords, the Western Turks. I've corrected it to 'Turkic/Khazar', following Noonan. The point is that we don't know (and scholars disagree) on whether the Khazars exercised their own authority in the area or on behalf of the Western Turks.
      • I don't have any particularly good ideas to fix it at the moment, but slashes are rarely ideal: it's usually better to be clear on exactly what the relationship between the two things is. Will pass this baton to you for now, if that's OK. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have removed the slash, but I want to avoid getting into the scholarly debate about who the 'Turks' were that ruled in the North Caucasus in the 630s.
  • The eastern Caucasus became the main theatre of the Arab–Khazar conflict: perhaps fittingly, the Arabs rather came out of nowhere here: a sentence ago, it was 632 and the Sassanids appeared to be doing perfectly well. We need to briefly fill in the gaps and explain how it came to be Arabs, not Persians, on the southern side of the mountains.
    • It is a bit abrupt, but that is unfortunately due to the structure of the article: I would have to repeat half of the section 'First Arab invasions' to get to the point. I assume that the reader will know from the title and the lede that this is what the background has been building up to.
  • who appear in the Quran (Yaʾjuj wa-Maʾjuj): if that's their names in the Quran, suggest (under the names Yaʾjuj and Maʾjuj): few readers will parse the wa- as and.
    • True, but I find it wrong to separate it, it is a stock phrase or a composite name, like 'panem et circenses'. Not being able to parse it is fine, the understanding of the article does not hinge on it.
      • That's fair: I still think we need something in the brackets before that name ("under the Arabic name..."?). We wouldn't have "Socrates, who appears in the Clouds (Σωκράτης)": we'd do something like "Socrates, who appears in the Clouds (under the Greek name Σωκράτης)".
        • Good point, done.
  • emphasizing that "the early Muslim caliphate was an ideological state" dedicated to the doctrine of jihad, "the struggle to establish God's rule in the earth through a continuous military effort against the non-Muslims": would suggest paraphrasing the first quote (is there such thing as a state without an ideology?), and having a think about the second: this is at best a very partial definition of what jihad means in Islamic theology (that is, it does mean that, but only as part of a much bigger concept).
    • Well, there are states that have an ideology, and then there are ideologies that become states. The early caliphate was very much the latter. I've rephrased it accordingly. On the jihad, let's be honest about it: this is the primary meaning of the term and certainly the way it was understood in the time of the early Muslim conquests. Any esoteric or spiritual meaning is overshadowed by the sheer militancy of early Islam. When Harun al-Rashid was praised for conducting 'jihad and hajj', the former was his wars against the Byzantines. It is a bit like claiming that a crusade can also mean a noble striving...
      • On the jihad, let's be honest about it: this is the primary meaning of the term: that's, at best, a very complicated historical and theological question, and most views of Muslim theology see armed struggle as the lesser version of jihad (vis-a-vis personal struggle against evil, temptation and so on). We don't have to go fully into the weeds in this article, but should avoid saying anything that readers who know the subject will identify as wrong: that does no favours for the credibility of the article as a whole. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are quite right that the term is more nuanced, but this is not an article on the term or on theology. All works I have read and cited here use the term in its sense of 'holy war' without further distinction or elaboration, since the context is clearly political (Blankinship's is even titled 'The End of the Jihad State'). Even Michael Bonner, who wrote a quite well-regarded treatise on the term, has no problem to gloss it like this when the context is clear: "several of these successor states were also built out of the principles and practices of warfare against the enemies of Islam, which is to say, the jihad." (New Cambridge History of Islam, vol. 1, p. 313). The reader who knows that there is more to the term also knows which context we are dealing with here. I have added a clarification to this effect in the article, but apart from that I am not convinced that this is the right place for further explanations about the 'internal jihad'.
  • According to historian Bori Zhivkov, "It is no surprise that they fought fiercely with the Arabs precisely for these lands up to the 730s: not sure about this quote: it doesn't really add any information, and only reinforces the impression given by the evidence further up. Suggest paraphrasing to something like "the historian Bori Zhivkov has judged that these factors made war between the Khazars and Arabs inevitable".
    • Have rephrased but with more focus on Albania
  • in the few detailed descriptions of pitched battles, the Khazar cavalry launched the opening attacks: as we're talking about literary accounts, use the present tnese: launch.
    • Done.
  • less-rigidly-organized: remove second hyphen.
    • done
  • through Armenia was a grave threat to the Caliphate, especially given its proximity to the Umayyad Caliphate's metropolitan province of Syria: Armenia's proximity is better: current phrasing has the Caliphate as the antecedent of its.
    • Fixed.
  • Wasserstein says, Obolensky's proposition is a scheme of extraordinary ambition which "requires us to accept that Byzantium had succeeded already at this primary stage in persuading the Muslims that it could not be conquered" and the Muslims possessed "a far greater knowledge and understanding of the geography of Europe" than can be demonstrated for the time in question.: suggest reducing and paraphrasing these quotes: at minimum, we want a that before the second one.
    • Paraphrased the quotes.
  • Led by distinguished generals: "distinguished" is perhaps a word to watch.
    • 'Prominent' perhaps? The point is that unlike say the contemporary wars in Transoxiana or Spain, these were campaigns led by princes of the dynasty and some of the most well-known and celebrated Arab generals of the time
      • I think "Prominent" is better, perhaps with an explanation to the effect of what you've just written somewhere in the body text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maslama is already introduced as a prince, and Jarrah as 'one of his most celebrated generals'. I added Maslama's role in besieging Constantinople, which was a very significant event. I am not sure how this can be expanded upon. What do you think should be added for clarity? Constantine ✍ 19:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • northernmost Muslim outpost: we've gone from talking about "Arabs" to talking about "Muslims". This is a bit confusing, and I must admit I'm not totally sure if there's any distinction being applied here.
    • Have rephrased this to 'northernmost outpost of the Muslim world'. And yes, while Arabs=Muslims, the choice of words is deliberate here, as later Muslim polities in the Caucasus were not necessarily led by Arabs, and Derbent remained the northernmost Muslim city for several centuries (IIRC until the Seljuk invasions). Constantine ✍ 19:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider reworking the triple hyphen of early-eighth-century.
Lead
Background and motives
  • There are a few long sentences in this section with semicolons halfway through: generally speaking, I would look to split these for readability and punch.
  • The early Muslim state was geared toward expansion, with all able-bodied adult male Muslims subject to conscription. Its manpower pool was accordingly enormous: I'm not sure about enormous here: wasn't just about everyone, just about everywhere, theoretically able to be called up to fight in the early medieval period? I'd suggest that the main factor here is simply that the Arab Empire was itself, by this point, really big and that it covered some of western Eurasia's most populous areas.
    • Not quite: in most medieval states most of the population was not liable for military service. There was no conscription, but either professional armies (a la Rome/Byzantium and later the Abbasids) or military/aristocratic castes (European knights, Sasanian dehgans, etc.). Peasants could be drafted, but this was not a regular practice. The early caliphate was indeed unique in being the only state at that time where most of the male citizen population was liable to be called up to fight. But the point here is that 'citizen' just as in the times of the Roman Republic, was a restricted term: it meant the Muslim, and especially the Arab population, and only these were liable for military service (and its immense spoils), not the conquered populations. So the Arabs of the early caliphate were indeed an aristocracy set apart from the mass of the conquered peoples by their faith and ipso facto by their right to bear arms, and this set a pattern that was survived quite long; the distinction was largely upheld in the Ottoman Empire for example until the 1900s.
  • with historian Hugh N. Kennedy estimating that 250,000 to 300,000 men were inscribed as soldiers (muqatila) in the provincial army registers c. 700 Related to the above: firstly, "inscribed on the register" and "actually likely to end up serving" are two very different things: by the same logic, the US has 15 million soldiers today, thanks to the Selective Service act. However, if we're going to say that this was massive, I think we need to compare it against other comparable states of the period, or find some way of illustrating that there weren't any other comparable states in the period (I can see an argument that the Arab Empire is the only really big, centralised military power in the old Roman world at this time, for instance).
    • Have added estimates about the Byzantine army as a counter-example, and added some qualifications on the number that could actually be raised from the muqatila.
      • Suggest putting that EFN into the body text; it's worth knowing that the low estimate for Arab strength is twice the high estimate for that of the Byzantines. Do I read correctly that non-Arabs were allowed to serve as volunteers? Otherwise, I'm not sure who these volunteers could be, if all military-eligible men could be conscripted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • particularly the elite Syrian troops which were a de facto professional, standing army: what were they de jure? On a separate note, these people can't have been involved in the earliest Arab conquests, as Syria was only fully conquered two decades or so after they started.
  • gave them the advantage over their enthusiastic but disorganised enemies: there's a case being made here that the Khazars were enthusiastic but disorganised, but I'm not sure we've really shown it: I'd be more comfortable if we had a source focused on them to weigh in. I worry that we're repeating (via Kennedy) age-old tropes about wild, chaotic "barbarians" versus disciplined, organised settled people.
    • I share the concern, but couldn't find a better source. Plus one could argue that tropes stem from a kernel of truth, and it is certain that the Arabs were very disciplined indeed (infantry unsupported by its own cavalry has to be extremely disciplined to successfully withstand cavalry attacks). I hope it is also made clear that this does not mean the Khazars were bumbling or anarchic: their use of siege engines and excellent scouting testify to their military skills.
  • in exchange for 100,000 silver dirhams per year: can we give any idea of how much wealth this represented?
  • Albania was probably regarded by the Khazars as rightfully theirs, a legacy of the last Byzantine–Sasanian war.: needs a bit of explanation: what happened in that war to convince that Khazars that they should rightfully own (not sure what exactly that means in this context) Albania?
  • We seem to have a lot of Semyonov in this section: has anyone else written on this stuff? I get particularly uncomfortable with sentences like references to 300,000 men in the invasion of 730 are clearly exaggerated being cited only to this one source: how do we know that he represents a scholarly consensus, rather than being on its fringe?
    • There is a lack of scholarly treatments of the subject from a military historian's point of view. Semyonov cites a lot of literature which is not accessible to me, and I am not always in agreement with his views (which clash with other sources I've used), but modern historians generally disqualify such numbers from medieval sources as hyperbolic. On that I have no doubt that he reflects consensus.
      • OK: if it's possible to go "through" Semyonov to his sources, that might help, but then I appreciate that it might not be. Does anyone else cite Semyonov later on? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not that I know of. But the topic is not that popular, and the standard works on it were written already ages ago (Dunlop and Artamonov). Modern scholars focus on archaeological discoveries (cf. Noonan), the interrelations of the Khazars with other cultures that are better attested, and niche topics (for which I am grateful to Semyonov, otherwise I have been unable to find anyone trying to assess the Khazar military as its own topic). Constantine ✍ 19:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaining control of the northern branch of the Silk Road: my impression is that modern academics are rather sceptical of the Silk Road as a "Thing", but very much not my field.
    • True, but a) I think here historians use it as a shorthand for the trade corridors lin king China with Europe and b) this section briefly summarizes the various academic propositions. It is not meant to enter into further debate on the existence or not of the Silk Road.
      • I think this one's an edge case; it's a bit like if someone suggested "gaining control of the island of Atlantis" as a motive for the Peloponnesian War: yes, the fact that Atlantis doesn't exist is no barrier to them suggesting it, but we should probably avoid giving an uninformed reader the impression that it does. Will leave this one up and think on it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that Atlantis is fictional, whereas the Silk Road is a historical phenomenon, or at least has been treated as such. It is a matter of historiography, not mythology, and if historians have analyzed this conflict under this scope, I am obliged to mention this. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but we're equally obliged not to uncritically repeat outdated historical concepts: articles which have to discuss the Dorian invasion, the Marian reforms or the feudal system as explanatory concepts would rightly include something to the effect that these categories made sense to those using them at the time, but are no longer considered valid today. We had this when nominating Panagiotis Kavvadias: we had to mention that he was looking for the sites of the Homeric poems, but it would also have been a little irresponsible not to clarify to the reader that he failed because the whole concept is meaningless, not because he just didn't look hard enough. Similarly when we discussed Fallmerayer on Kyriakos Pittakis: using languages and folk songs to debate whether modern Greeks were "real" descendants of the ancients was meaningful to them, but we also needed to make sure that our readers didn't go away with the same ideas. Examples can be multiplied: perhaps phrasing it as "gaining control of the trade routes to China and the Far East" would fit both modern and historic scholarship? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop there for now: quite enough to throw at you in one go, I think. As ever, please do let me know if I've been unclear or unfair at any point. I am greatly enjoying the article so far and was hugely impressed by its mastery of what I am sure is a tricky and convoluted subject area. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Sincere thanks for the very in-depth review, and for tackling ambiguities or inaccuracies in the section I was likewise most unsure about. Looking forward to the rest of your comments :) Constantine ✍ 16:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First war and aftermath
edit
  • Arabic and Armenian sources: Arabic (a language) and Arab (a people) are not synonyms: unless we mean sources written by non-Arabs in Arabic, I would use Arab here to avoid confusion.
  • In 652, apparently, the Armenian princes submitted: per WP:EDITORIALISING, apparently should be switched out for a more concrete explanation of why we're unhappy to commit to that version of events, or else something like "around 652", "according to the Chronicle of Whatisface", etc.
  • As in Armenia, firm Arab rule was not established there: I think we mean that Arab rule was not securely established there, but this reads as if the Arabs ruled it without being too oppressive.
  • What does Dhu al-Nur mean?
  • Al-Tabari's History of the Prophets and Kings : we should introduce roughly when and what this was.
  • aid them against the unruly Caucasian peoples: that's definitely a bit strong for Wikivoice.
  • Shahrbaraz' proposal: add an S per MOS:POSSESSIVE
  • north as far as al-Bayda on the Volga, the future Khazar capital: need a comma after north. Is its future status relevant here? I worry that we're being a bit anachronistic, and ascribing to it significance that it would not have had at the time.
  • nothing of note, however, is recorded in the sources: raids seem to be notable; do we mean that nothing is recorded about what these raids achieved?
  • Abd al-Rahman and 4,000 Muslim troops were left dead on the field: perhaps a bit flowery for Wikipedia.
  • Note 68 seems to be citing a lot of quite high-level historical analysis: it also seems to be more a numismatic article for which this might not be entirely within its wheelhouse. Would be more comfortable with more, more recent and more specialist sources here.
  • After the Arab attacks, the Khazars abandoned Balanjar and moved their capital further north in an attempt to evade the Arab armies. However, Khazar auxiliaries and Abkhazian and Alan troops are recorded as fighting alongside the Byzantines in 655: I'm not sure how these two sentences fit together: who are the Byzantines fighting? In the next sentence, we say that there are no recorded hostilities involving them.
  • a few Khazar raids into the South Caucasus principalities which were loosely under Muslim dominion, primarily in search of plunder: a run-on sentence that gets a bit lost: it was the raids that were in search of plunder, not the principalities or the Muslim dominion.
  • several historians consider is cited to a single source: does he actually say several historians consider? Does he cite any of them, and if so, could we do so?
  • As we had a bit further up, there's a lot of reliance here on a single historian (Noonan), whose work is forty years old and only approaching questions of rulership and warfare from an indirect (numismatic) angle. Has anyone else written on this stuff more recently?
    • Per above, the numismatic angle is a misunderstanding. Noonan has an excellent command of the sources, both primary and secondary, and offers his own interpretations and summary here. And the age of the work is not that significant IMO; Dunlop and Artamonov are even older and are still the standard works, because the primary narratives they rely on haven't changed that much. Only archaeology can offer additional insights, but as you probably know, it leaves very big room for interpretation. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm sure that's the case. There is something to be said for citing more recent sources, even if they repeat the same narrative, because they confirm that it is still the consensus: you could cite a text from the 1980s in ignorance that it's now considered obsolete or debunked, but citing a text from the 2020s which uses it demonstrates that it's still considered current. I've no particular problem with Noonan as such, but is he really the entire field? If not, the comprehensiveness part of the FA criteria would like the bibliography to at least gesture at some of the other figures in it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am definitely not a Khazar expert, but I don't really see a problem here. The basic historical narrative has been in place since the mid-20th century, it is still consensus, and I have used Noonan only to add some details not contained in Artamonov or Dunlop. I have used Noonan more extensively in the raids section because he is one of the few sources I've come across to even speculate on the strategic motivations of the Khazars. Obviously, these speculations are his own views and not consensus, which is why I explicitly attribute them to him. Other scholars may disagree, but I have not yet encountered an explicit refutation or discussion on these views (and it is not as if the topic of Khazar studies is so productive, AFAICT). Constantine ✍ 11:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with any of that. At the moment, you yourself are the source we have for it, though. If it's true that the mid-century narrative is still the consensus, we should be able to find a secondary source that says so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FM

edit
  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there's a bunch of duplinks, and the modern state of Georgia is linked, though linking countries is discouraged.
  • Link more names and terms at their first mentions in image captions?
    • Done.
  • "Roderich von Erckert's map of the Sasanian fortifications" Give year of publication in caption for context?
    • Done.
  • Link shahs?
    • Done.
  • "are emphasized in the sources" What sources? Contemporary or modern?
    • Clarified.
  • "and Khazar princess Tzitzak" Why name her and not the first princess mentioned (who only got a piped link)?
    • Good question, I don't remember why; it may have been because Theodora's original Khazar name is unknown. But I've now linked her directly.
  • "Based at Derbent, Abd al-Rahman launched frequent small-scale raids against the Khazars and local tribes over the following years; nothing of note, however, is recorded in the sources." Seems self-contradictory? How is the former part of the sentence known, then?
    • Clarified.
  • "The only recorded hostilities in the second half of the centur" Could the century be named, now that we're in a new paragraph?
    • Good point, done.
  • "In the first incursion, Prince Juansher was obliged to marry the daughter" State what he was prince of? Not clear from the context (I know Albania is mentioned in the preceding sentence, but that is not certain enough).
    • Juansher is now mentioned earlier as the prince of Albania, per next response.
  • "in 661–62, they were defeated by the local prince" Why not name him, as you do with most other people mentioned?
    • Done.
  • "Excavations at Samosdelka" State year?
    • Done.
  • "under the general Alp'" His article indicates that should be Alp Tarkhan?
    • Tarkhan is not a name but a title that means as much as 'senior commander'. 'General Alp Tarkhan' would be something like 'General Alp the General'.
  • "At about the same time, 80,000 Khazars are reported to have raided Albania" and "In response, in 709 or c. 715, the Khazars invaded and raided Albania with an army claimed to be 80,000 strong" come in succession. Are they the same statement? If not, it still reads like one Khazar raid came as response for another Khazar raid?
    • Indeed, nice catch. Have fixed this now.
  • Adharbayjan is linked at second instead of first mention.
Hello FunkMonk, I have addressed your comments above. Anything else, even beyond the scope of FA criteria? I know the article is quite complex, so any suggestions for making it more approachable are welcome. Constantine ✍ 11:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I will review from "Escalation of the conflict" and onwards soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 735, the Umayyad general captured three fortresses in Alania (near the Darial Pass) and Tuman Shah, the ruler of a North Caucasian principality who was restored to his lands by the caliph as a client." I'm unsure of how the part after the comma relates to the first part. I wonder if "who" should be removed? Otherwise it's hard to make sense of.
  • You seem to randomly mention Ashot by his full title or only as Ashot. I think the full title is only needed first time around?
  • "and paganism remained widespread" Do we know what specific kind?
  • "Marwan also brought a large number of Slav and Khazar captives south, whom he resettled in the eastern Caucasus" Why?
  • "since those Khazars who actually converted to Islam had to be moved to safety in Umayyad territory" When and why?
  • Filan doesn't seem to link to anything relevant.
  • You end with the Khazars gradually vanishing, but would it make sense to also add whether the Arabs returned to the area later on?

Iazyges

edit
Lede
    • Done.
  • The Arab–Khazar wars were a series of conflicts fought between the armies of the Khazar Khaganate and the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid caliphates and their respective vassals think it might be nice to establish early on that this was a succession of states, rather than the Khazars fighting all three. Perhaps The Arab–Khazar wars were a series of conflicts fought between the armies of the Khazar Khaganate and a succession of Islamic caliphates, the Rashidun, Umayyad, and Abbasid caliphates, and their respective vassals or something similar.
    • Have rephrased a bit more, and removed the listing of the caliphates in favour of 'successive Arab caliphates' to reflect the article title.
  • You may also wish to append the period of the conflicts, such as adding from 642–799. to the end of the first sentence, to better frame the following sentence.
    • Done.
  • The first Arab invasion began in 642 with the capture of Derbent you may wish to specify the city of Derbent, as you do with the later Khazar town of Balanjar.
    • Done, and added context
  • the Khazars decisively defeated Umayyad forces at the Battle of Ardabil (killing al-Jarrah) suggest moving (killing al-Jarrah) from parenthesis to a comma.
    • Done.
First war and aftermath
  • offered to surrender the fortress to the Arabs and aid them against the unruly Caucasian peoples if he and his followers were relieved of the jizya tax might be useful to specify ...the jizya tax imposed on non-Muslims.
    • Good point, done.
Second war
Thanks for the correction suggestions, Iazyges! Anything else? Constantine ✍ 19:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, looks good to me. Happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Why are some articles from the 2nd edition and other from the 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam? I gather that the 3rd edition has been updated with a lot of new material since the 2nd edition was published decades ago.
  • Put the translations of the titles of Semyonov's articles into title case to match the rest of the sources. And Cobb as well.
  • Capitalize "centuries" in Zhivkov.
  • Aside the above minor things, all sources and references are consistently formatted.
  • Spot checks not done.
  • Sources are all highly reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mujinga

edit

Closing comment. Constantine hasn't edited Wikipedia since 29 October, and the number of unresolved comments are starting to pile up. With that mind, I'm regretfully archiving this in hopes that he'll return soon, resolve the comments and renominate it after the usual two-week waiting period. FrB.TG (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Arab–Khazar_wars/archive1&oldid=1184754945"