This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siege of Baghdad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Siege of Baghdad has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 29, 2005, and
February 10, 2024. The text of the entries was:
| |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 10, 2009, February 10, 2010, February 10, 2013, February 10, 2014, February 10, 2015, and February 10, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 28 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Siege of Baghdad (1258) to Siege of Baghdad. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Shouldn't this be Sack of Baghdad or something similar? There seems to have been some actual battle involved, but this article is really on the whole campaign, which mostly consisted of an advance, a siege, and a sack. As such, I think Sack of Baghdad or Mongol Sack of Baghdad would be a better title for this article. john k ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that we don't have Battle of Constantinople (1453) or Battle of Rome (1527), for some analogous situations. john k ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why wasn't the name changed? 68.4.127.102 ( talk) 21:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the extreme sacking of Baghdad as a military tactic. What about the looting and destruction of the House of Wisdom (i.e the Great Library of Baghdad), does it have any military significance over the next Mongolian military campaigns? The Mongols tended to plunder a city for it's wealth, not concerning the next and possible future use of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.60.197 ( talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on this article lately, and expect to be intermittently revising/restructuring until next weekend or so, given a GA review that may get in the way. I will remove the tag by Thursday if work is progressing slowly. dci | TALK 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Guo Kan was a son of the Chinese commander Guo Baoyu who served the Mongolian Empire. He and his family served the Mongols and was usually in charge of Chinese artillery and troops recruited under the banner of the Mongolians. They had never been major military commanders. If we need to mention every sub-commanders, the article simply cannot contain it, so that I removed his name. But his name can be mentioned in the article along with other Mongolian officers.-- Lauren68 ( talk) 12:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
An Arab historian said, "The Moslems, being few, were defeated." Before that, we were told that military victory was proof of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.116.118 ( talk) 15:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
While Ian Frasier's New Yorker article is fine for a life-style magazine, he's hardly a scholar of Mongolic/Persian studies, as his intro to the cited article states. We can do much better. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added some material and will tighten the prose a bit. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; note that this doesn't preclude another RM on a different title such as "Fall of Baghdad", it merely established that of the two options "Siege of Baghdad (1258)" and "Siege of Baghdad", the better title is the latter. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Siege of Baghdad (1258) → Siege of Baghdad – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of long-term significance and in terms of usage. In the first case, it is a level-5 vital article and one of the most famous battles in Muslim history, traditionally seen as the end of the Islamic Golden Age. This is shown by the usage statistics: this article gets an average of around 935 views per day, compared with an average of 20 per day for the other sieges of Baghdad throughout history. [1]
References
~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs ( talk) 16:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 07:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
a fair deal of literature on the subject simply refers to it as the "siege of Baghdad". Yes, but a much larger share refers to it in other ways. Even if the siege of 1258 were the primary topic for "Siege of Baghdad", that alone does not indicate that that should be the title of the article. My argument was precisely that "Siege of Baghdad" does not rise to the level of a recognizable name on its own because of alternative contenders like "fall", "sack" and "capture". For example:
as long as it remains at a variant of Siege of Baghdad, then the 1258 qualifier is unnecessary. Nothing is gained by removing the date, no matter what the guidelines say. Nothing. This is not THE siege of Baghdad. It is a siege of Baghdad. The most famous and consequential one, yes, but dropping the date will not make it more recognizable. Srnec ( talk) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
would be an improvement? I do not understand this view at all. To me, 1258 is the most important component in the current title. More important than "siege" and at least as important as "Baghdad". This article is about an event that, rightly or wrongly, is traditionally treated as a world-changing event, not just another siege. Adding the year(s) to some titles, e.g. Battle of the Bulge, would be positively misleading, but in this case there were other sieges of Baghdad, so I see only benefit in making sure the reader knows this is the big one. Given that it has been demonstrated that the proposed title is NOT the common name, why should we assume readers would understand the short title to refer to the 1258 event? Srnec ( talk) 21:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
In response to
Firefangledfeathers: No, I'm saying precisely that I don't see how to choose which of the three terms—"siege", "Baghdad", "1258"—should go, so they should all stay. I just stumbled across a comment from
Levivich at
Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 23 January 2024: Treating the date as just a disambiguator is missing the forest for the trees: the year is what makes it recognizable as a current event, it's the most important word in the title, it's not just a disambiguator.
Obviously, that refers to the Israel–Hamas war, but I think the same thing applies here.
Srnec (
talk)
16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result was: promoted by
Schwede66
talk
18:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Siege of Baghdad (1258); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
There has been a trend of adding "kingdom of Georgia" and "kingdom of Armenia" to the infobox.
Weirdly, these are always copy-pasted from (a presumably Slavic) elsewhere; this is shown by the citations to "Vederford, Dzek (2007) Dzingis Kan i stvaranje modernog sveta", which is in reality the slavicsation of "Weatherford, Jack (2004) Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (in any case, not a truly reliable source: see Timothy May: "Considering the numerous factual errors and misguided etymological speculations this reviewer cannot recommend using this as a standard text for a world history class with the exception of using it as a point of discussion on historiography.")
The other two sources are non-English sources I will request a quotation for per WP:RSUEQ. This should be done before the citations are added into the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
FYI User:Malik-Al-Hind:
As chronicled in the "Background" section of this article, Hulegu was acting on behalf of his brother Möngke, ruler of the Mongol Empire. Now, the fundamental dispute here is whether Möngke had ordered Hulegu from the start to take the Middle East as his own. That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256, the year Hulegu himself arrived in the region. But crucially, he did not start calling himself "Ilkhan" until after this siege (Atwood 2004 p. 231). In the recent The Mongol World (2022), George A. Lane says this explicitly: "The Ilkhanate was established by Hülegü Khan after the fall of Baghdad in 1258". (p. 283) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256
Now, the fundamental dispute here is whether Möngke had ordered Hulegu from the start to take the Middle East as his own. That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)1)-Look what Britanica says.
"Hülegü, a grandson of Genghis Khan, was given the task of capturing Iran by the paramount Mongol chieftain Möngke. Hülegü set out in about 1253 with a Mongol army of about 130,000. He founded the Il-Khanid dynasty in 1256"
- [2]
2)- Ilkhanate was built by Hulagu, the son of Tolui, the fourth son of Genghis Khan. In 1256, IIKhanate was founded. When Kublai Khan called himself the Mongolian Khan, IlKhanate recognized him as the patriarch until his death.
- [3]
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siege of Baghdad article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Siege of Baghdad has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 29, 2005, and
February 10, 2024. The text of the entries was:
| |||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 10, 2009, February 10, 2010, February 10, 2013, February 10, 2014, February 10, 2015, and February 10, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 28 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Siege of Baghdad (1258) to Siege of Baghdad. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Shouldn't this be Sack of Baghdad or something similar? There seems to have been some actual battle involved, but this article is really on the whole campaign, which mostly consisted of an advance, a siege, and a sack. As such, I think Sack of Baghdad or Mongol Sack of Baghdad would be a better title for this article. john k ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that we don't have Battle of Constantinople (1453) or Battle of Rome (1527), for some analogous situations. john k ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why wasn't the name changed? 68.4.127.102 ( talk) 21:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the extreme sacking of Baghdad as a military tactic. What about the looting and destruction of the House of Wisdom (i.e the Great Library of Baghdad), does it have any military significance over the next Mongolian military campaigns? The Mongols tended to plunder a city for it's wealth, not concerning the next and possible future use of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.60.197 ( talk) 08:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have been working on this article lately, and expect to be intermittently revising/restructuring until next weekend or so, given a GA review that may get in the way. I will remove the tag by Thursday if work is progressing slowly. dci | TALK 00:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Guo Kan was a son of the Chinese commander Guo Baoyu who served the Mongolian Empire. He and his family served the Mongols and was usually in charge of Chinese artillery and troops recruited under the banner of the Mongolians. They had never been major military commanders. If we need to mention every sub-commanders, the article simply cannot contain it, so that I removed his name. But his name can be mentioned in the article along with other Mongolian officers.-- Lauren68 ( talk) 12:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
An Arab historian said, "The Moslems, being few, were defeated." Before that, we were told that military victory was proof of philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.116.118 ( talk) 15:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
While Ian Frasier's New Yorker article is fine for a life-style magazine, he's hardly a scholar of Mongolic/Persian studies, as his intro to the cited article states. We can do much better. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I've added some material and will tighten the prose a bit. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Rough consensus to move; note that this doesn't preclude another RM on a different title such as "Fall of Baghdad", it merely established that of the two options "Siege of Baghdad (1258)" and "Siege of Baghdad", the better title is the latter. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Siege of Baghdad (1258) → Siege of Baghdad – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, both in terms of long-term significance and in terms of usage. In the first case, it is a level-5 vital article and one of the most famous battles in Muslim history, traditionally seen as the end of the Islamic Golden Age. This is shown by the usage statistics: this article gets an average of around 935 views per day, compared with an average of 20 per day for the other sieges of Baghdad throughout history. [1]
References
~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BegbertBiggs ( talk) 16:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 07:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 10:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
a fair deal of literature on the subject simply refers to it as the "siege of Baghdad". Yes, but a much larger share refers to it in other ways. Even if the siege of 1258 were the primary topic for "Siege of Baghdad", that alone does not indicate that that should be the title of the article. My argument was precisely that "Siege of Baghdad" does not rise to the level of a recognizable name on its own because of alternative contenders like "fall", "sack" and "capture". For example:
as long as it remains at a variant of Siege of Baghdad, then the 1258 qualifier is unnecessary. Nothing is gained by removing the date, no matter what the guidelines say. Nothing. This is not THE siege of Baghdad. It is a siege of Baghdad. The most famous and consequential one, yes, but dropping the date will not make it more recognizable. Srnec ( talk) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
would be an improvement? I do not understand this view at all. To me, 1258 is the most important component in the current title. More important than "siege" and at least as important as "Baghdad". This article is about an event that, rightly or wrongly, is traditionally treated as a world-changing event, not just another siege. Adding the year(s) to some titles, e.g. Battle of the Bulge, would be positively misleading, but in this case there were other sieges of Baghdad, so I see only benefit in making sure the reader knows this is the big one. Given that it has been demonstrated that the proposed title is NOT the common name, why should we assume readers would understand the short title to refer to the 1258 event? Srnec ( talk) 21:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
In response to
Firefangledfeathers: No, I'm saying precisely that I don't see how to choose which of the three terms—"siege", "Baghdad", "1258"—should go, so they should all stay. I just stumbled across a comment from
Levivich at
Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 23 January 2024: Treating the date as just a disambiguator is missing the forest for the trees: the year is what makes it recognizable as a current event, it's the most important word in the title, it's not just a disambiguator.
Obviously, that refers to the Israel–Hamas war, but I think the same thing applies here.
Srnec (
talk)
16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell ( talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The result was: promoted by
Schwede66
talk
18:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by AirshipJungleman29 ( talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Siege of Baghdad (1258); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
There has been a trend of adding "kingdom of Georgia" and "kingdom of Armenia" to the infobox.
Weirdly, these are always copy-pasted from (a presumably Slavic) elsewhere; this is shown by the citations to "Vederford, Dzek (2007) Dzingis Kan i stvaranje modernog sveta", which is in reality the slavicsation of "Weatherford, Jack (2004) Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" (in any case, not a truly reliable source: see Timothy May: "Considering the numerous factual errors and misguided etymological speculations this reviewer cannot recommend using this as a standard text for a world history class with the exception of using it as a point of discussion on historiography.")
The other two sources are non-English sources I will request a quotation for per WP:RSUEQ. This should be done before the citations are added into the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
FYI User:Malik-Al-Hind:
As chronicled in the "Background" section of this article, Hulegu was acting on behalf of his brother Möngke, ruler of the Mongol Empire. Now, the fundamental dispute here is whether Möngke had ordered Hulegu from the start to take the Middle East as his own. That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256, the year Hulegu himself arrived in the region. But crucially, he did not start calling himself "Ilkhan" until after this siege (Atwood 2004 p. 231). In the recent The Mongol World (2022), George A. Lane says this explicitly: "The Ilkhanate was established by Hülegü Khan after the fall of Baghdad in 1258". (p. 283) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256
Now, the fundamental dispute here is whether Möngke had ordered Hulegu from the start to take the Middle East as his own. That is why some authors teleologically place the "foundation" of the Ilkhanate in 1256
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)1)-Look what Britanica says.
"Hülegü, a grandson of Genghis Khan, was given the task of capturing Iran by the paramount Mongol chieftain Möngke. Hülegü set out in about 1253 with a Mongol army of about 130,000. He founded the Il-Khanid dynasty in 1256"
- [2]
2)- Ilkhanate was built by Hulagu, the son of Tolui, the fourth son of Genghis Khan. In 1256, IIKhanate was founded. When Kublai Khan called himself the Mongolian Khan, IlKhanate recognized him as the patriarch until his death.
- [3]