This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In fact, the base of operations in the videogame "Assassin's Creed" is Masyaf, not Alamut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.209.216 ( talk) 03:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree (with the template) that some of the examples here need more descriptive text. Perhaps some should also be removed, but it would seem a better option to organize them a little: (a) chronologically, and (b) by medium (books, video games, films, etc.). The parade of examples is useful in the sense that it illustrates the impact "Alamut" has had in (mostly Western) culture - which is an important point in the previous section of the article. Filursiax ( talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we really use the term "Hashhashin"? I'm changing it to the historically correct and academically accepted "Ismaili". I will try to add a reference to the Bernard Lewis book on the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FelixRex ( talk • contribs).
What was "unusual" about the fortress's water supply? 76.23.157.102 ( talk) 00:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Since this article reads: In fact, the Seljuqs and Crusaders both employed assassination as a military means of disposing of factional enemies. Yet during the Alamut period almost any murder of political significance in the Islamic lands became attributed to the Ismailis.[46]
Shouldn't we provide some examples of Crusaders using assassination of political rivals? When making somewhat irrelevant statements like the one above, it should at least be accompanied by examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.56.25 ( talk) 04:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this article is mainly on the subject of the Ismali, and not Alamut. may i please question the relevance of all the ismali stuff in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.29.237 ( talk) 01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As there was no Muslim religion in AD 602, there were thus no Zaydi missionaries then to take over Alamut. Thus, this whole article and many associated with it are utter rubbish as far as accuracy goes. They should be completely begun over again by people who are qualified to write about them, and checked for accuracy by other qualified individuals. Just junk here! Daniel Sparkman ( talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Information from a well-researched article in a Polish paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcin862 ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alamut Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The term "orientalist" is used 4 times in the section, without reference to Said (I guess that's what the author is thinking of). There are other authors who would wholly or partially disagree with Said's argument. As Said uses the label it is inherently critical to certain tendencies in Western historical, literary etc. writing. NPOV would seem to advise us to avoid such labels, or at least explain them and state the authority which uses the label. Thus, the present text says: "The infamous Assassins were finally linked by orientalists [sic] scholar Silvestre de Sacy..." This makes it sound as if "orientalist" was a neutral label, on a par e.g. with "historian". Wouldn't it be better to either strike this out, or say smth about that SdS, according to /Author XXX/, tends to exoticize Middle Eastern history and should thus be regarded as an "orientalist" (ref. Said). Smth along those lines...? Filursiax ( talk) 21:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In fact, the base of operations in the videogame "Assassin's Creed" is Masyaf, not Alamut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.209.216 ( talk) 03:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree (with the template) that some of the examples here need more descriptive text. Perhaps some should also be removed, but it would seem a better option to organize them a little: (a) chronologically, and (b) by medium (books, video games, films, etc.). The parade of examples is useful in the sense that it illustrates the impact "Alamut" has had in (mostly Western) culture - which is an important point in the previous section of the article. Filursiax ( talk) 21:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Should we really use the term "Hashhashin"? I'm changing it to the historically correct and academically accepted "Ismaili". I will try to add a reference to the Bernard Lewis book on the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FelixRex ( talk • contribs).
What was "unusual" about the fortress's water supply? 76.23.157.102 ( talk) 00:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Since this article reads: In fact, the Seljuqs and Crusaders both employed assassination as a military means of disposing of factional enemies. Yet during the Alamut period almost any murder of political significance in the Islamic lands became attributed to the Ismailis.[46]
Shouldn't we provide some examples of Crusaders using assassination of political rivals? When making somewhat irrelevant statements like the one above, it should at least be accompanied by examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.56.25 ( talk) 04:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this article is mainly on the subject of the Ismali, and not Alamut. may i please question the relevance of all the ismali stuff in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.29.237 ( talk) 01:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
As there was no Muslim religion in AD 602, there were thus no Zaydi missionaries then to take over Alamut. Thus, this whole article and many associated with it are utter rubbish as far as accuracy goes. They should be completely begun over again by people who are qualified to write about them, and checked for accuracy by other qualified individuals. Just junk here! Daniel Sparkman ( talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Information from a well-researched article in a Polish paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcin862 ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alamut Castle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The term "orientalist" is used 4 times in the section, without reference to Said (I guess that's what the author is thinking of). There are other authors who would wholly or partially disagree with Said's argument. As Said uses the label it is inherently critical to certain tendencies in Western historical, literary etc. writing. NPOV would seem to advise us to avoid such labels, or at least explain them and state the authority which uses the label. Thus, the present text says: "The infamous Assassins were finally linked by orientalists [sic] scholar Silvestre de Sacy..." This makes it sound as if "orientalist" was a neutral label, on a par e.g. with "historian". Wouldn't it be better to either strike this out, or say smth about that SdS, according to /Author XXX/, tends to exoticize Middle Eastern history and should thus be regarded as an "orientalist" (ref. Said). Smth along those lines...? Filursiax ( talk) 21:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)