- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keepâ. After delete vote and nomination statement have been withdrawn or struck, I see a consensus to Keep this article. This closure was complicated by the fact that an editor moved this article during the AFD discussion which messes up an AFD closure so I have moved it back. Please do not do this again. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Second ParthianâKushan War
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Second ParthianâKushan War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) â ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another battle/war article that looks more like an attempt at glorification than anything else. None of the refs have a page cited. One of the cited refs (by Peter Fibiger Bang, page 339), which I just removed for being misused, literally says the following about this so called "second" "war", which was for some reason ignored: "There is also this exaggerated reference to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians".
To add to Bangs statement, it goes without saying that "900,000 killed" is an incredibly absurd ( WP:REDFLAG) number for a "ten year war" during the Late antiquity. Iranica: "The largest army the Parthians organized was that brought against Mark Antony (50,000: Justin 41.2)." HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Central Asia, and Iran. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. The refs do actually have pages cited (in the URL, just not in the metadata), but they don't fully support the text. I'm not finding anything for "Second Parthian-Kushan War", either. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- Technically in fact the first Parthian-Kushan War took place when Kujula Kadphises conquered some regions from the Parthian Empire Jonharojjashi ( talk) 05:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: So Jonharojjashi completely disregarded both my comment here and my edit summary, reverting me and restoring the misused Bang citation, accusing me of removing it to "easily nominate the article for deletion" and referring to me as "an Iranian" twice instead of my username
[1]
[2]. I think that says it all. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
12:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The Oxford source says "there is also this exaggerated to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians" So why remove the source when the uncertain claim is unsure whether it is exaggerated or unsubtantiated It is needless to say that does not disapprove the Chinese sources which refers to that conflict Jonharojjashi ( talk) 13:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- ...What? "Unsubstantiated" means "not supported or proven by evidence" and "exaggerated" means "excessively or inappropriately heightened, inflated, or overstated". -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also Zurcher a German historian who translated the inscription about Kanishka's conquests mentions the 900,000 casualties on the Parthian's side Jonharojjashi ( talk) 15:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think I have addressed your both concerns-
- 1. "None of the refs have a page cited" which asilvering has denied such concern and actually it is cited or redirected to the archive.
- 2. "900000 killed" yeah I have addressed it too and edited it properly according to your concern. But you should not confuse 900k Parthians with 900k Parthian army, as the sources never stated any 900k Parthian army. That is why I didn't put this number to the strengths of belligerents.
- Now consider removing the deletion tag from this article If I had addressed all of your concerns and talk further if it was not.
Jonharojjashi (
talk)
04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please read Bangs statement, WP:PST and WP:REDFLAG. You have not addressed anything. HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as notable (but re-title). AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it for dealing with problem users. See, e.g., Ghirshman, Iran, p. 262. Or Thorley, "The Roman Empire and the Kushans" JSTORÂ 642511. These (and there are a few others) are enough for me. The Buddhist source in question is not terribly late, which is presumably why it is treated seriously. Ghirshman thinks an obscure reference (he does not provide a full citation) in a Syrian (Syriac?) source may be corroborative. Srnec ( talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to
Vologases III of Parthia and
Kanishka? --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Probably "KushanâParthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topicsâthey don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept.
Srnec (
talk)
01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here.
Jonharojjashi (
talk)
06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either
[3]. If this article is to be
WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously).
HistoryofIran (
talk)
11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey everyone. If the discussion is not closed yet then I would like to suggest that we should keep the previous Parthian casualties as the sources have mentioned it boldly and I don't think we should shadow or neglect it, as this Chinese source [4] is well translated by a renounced Sinologist and historian Erik ZĂŒrcher. Like even if it's exaggerated or wrongly, partially interpreted, still we should add it by just adding further- 900,000 killed (highly exaggerated) or According to some Chinese sources 900,000 killed. So in short I think we all should stick to the sources. I hope y'all will look to this suggestion. And I'm very much interested in Ancient warfare history so I can give my minuscule contribution to this project/article. Msangharak ( talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either
[3]. If this article is to be
WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously).
HistoryofIran (
talk)
11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here.
Jonharojjashi (
talk)
06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Probably "KushanâParthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topicsâthey don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept.
Srnec (
talk)
01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to
Vologases III of Parthia and
Kanishka? --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not move articles that in the middle of an AFD discussion as it complicates the closure procedure. Also, an AFD is not the proper place to debate details about content, this is just a forum to determine whether or not this should be a standalone article and Kept or Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Content changes can be discussed if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep; ambivalent about title (the present title or any of
Srnec's options seem fine). Meets WP:N; no suitable merge target. I'm not sure an infobox is appropriate for this article, since the date, venue, and forces involved are all between very approximate and wholly unknown.Anyone expecting accurate casualty figures from early Chinese sources is not familiar with their universal trope of inflating the enemy's numbers, commonly by an order of magnitude (I
OR-suspect this figure is inflated by two orders of magnitude). I'd love to track down the name of the Chinese source this evidently traces back to; it's presented as transliteration only in ZĂŒrcher 1960 (which I fixed the citation for) and is apparently some little known Buddhist text from the Southern and Northern dynasties. Brill have yet to publish the ebook of the conference proceedings.Might it be entirely fictional? Sure: anything tracing to exactly one old enough document could be, but that's not our determination to make. Benjamin 2020 (another incorrectly attributed cite, probably Citoid's fault, referred to above as "Bang" after
|editor1-last=) wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but several different authors have touched on this, whether or not they believe it happened as described (although no one believes the casualty figures; why would anyone?). Anyway a massively inflated casualty figure is not a reason in itself to call this a hoax or a legend, and I don't see another reason to delete. Needs cleanup, but most articles do. Folly Mox ( talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
|
- Keep. WP:HEY at this point, thanks to multiple editors, especially Folly Mox's excellent work. â siro Ï o 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I guess that settles it. Great and sensible points (and edits) made by both Srnec and Folly Mox - I'm taking back my support for its deletion. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: striking my delete so nom can withdraw. Thanks for all your work on this, Folly Mox! -- asilvering ( talk) 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keepâ. After delete vote and nomination statement have been withdrawn or struck, I see a consensus to Keep this article. This closure was complicated by the fact that an editor moved this article during the AFD discussion which messes up an AFD closure so I have moved it back. Please do not do this again. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Second ParthianâKushan War
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Second ParthianâKushan War (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) â ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another battle/war article that looks more like an attempt at glorification than anything else. None of the refs have a page cited. One of the cited refs (by Peter Fibiger Bang, page 339), which I just removed for being misused, literally says the following about this so called "second" "war", which was for some reason ignored: "There is also this exaggerated reference to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians".
To add to Bangs statement, it goes without saying that "900,000 killed" is an incredibly absurd ( WP:REDFLAG) number for a "ten year war" during the Late antiquity. Iranica: "The largest army the Parthians organized was that brought against Mark Antony (50,000: Justin 41.2)." HistoryofIran ( talk) 21:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Central Asia, and Iran. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Delete. The refs do actually have pages cited (in the URL, just not in the metadata), but they don't fully support the text. I'm not finding anything for "Second Parthian-Kushan War", either. -- asilvering ( talk) 00:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)- Technically in fact the first Parthian-Kushan War took place when Kujula Kadphises conquered some regions from the Parthian Empire Jonharojjashi ( talk) 05:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: So Jonharojjashi completely disregarded both my comment here and my edit summary, reverting me and restoring the misused Bang citation, accusing me of removing it to "easily nominate the article for deletion" and referring to me as "an Iranian" twice instead of my username
[1]
[2]. I think that says it all. --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
12:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- The Oxford source says "there is also this exaggerated to a bloody but otherwise unsubstantiated campaign against the Parthians" So why remove the source when the uncertain claim is unsure whether it is exaggerated or unsubtantiated It is needless to say that does not disapprove the Chinese sources which refers to that conflict Jonharojjashi ( talk) 13:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- ...What? "Unsubstantiated" means "not supported or proven by evidence" and "exaggerated" means "excessively or inappropriately heightened, inflated, or overstated". -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 13:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Also Zurcher a German historian who translated the inscription about Kanishka's conquests mentions the 900,000 casualties on the Parthian's side Jonharojjashi ( talk) 15:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think I have addressed your both concerns-
- 1. "None of the refs have a page cited" which asilvering has denied such concern and actually it is cited or redirected to the archive.
- 2. "900000 killed" yeah I have addressed it too and edited it properly according to your concern. But you should not confuse 900k Parthians with 900k Parthian army, as the sources never stated any 900k Parthian army. That is why I didn't put this number to the strengths of belligerents.
- Now consider removing the deletion tag from this article If I had addressed all of your concerns and talk further if it was not.
Jonharojjashi (
talk)
04:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please read Bangs statement, WP:PST and WP:REDFLAG. You have not addressed anything. HistoryofIran ( talk) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as notable (but re-title). AFD is not cleanup. Nor is it for dealing with problem users. See, e.g., Ghirshman, Iran, p. 262. Or Thorley, "The Roman Empire and the Kushans" JSTORÂ 642511. These (and there are a few others) are enough for me. The Buddhist source in question is not terribly late, which is presumably why it is treated seriously. Ghirshman thinks an obscure reference (he does not provide a full citation) in a Syrian (Syriac?) source may be corroborative. Srnec ( talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to
Vologases III of Parthia and
Kanishka? --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Probably "KushanâParthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topicsâthey don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept.
Srnec (
talk)
01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here.
Jonharojjashi (
talk)
06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either
[3]. If this article is to be
WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously).
HistoryofIran (
talk)
11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey everyone. If the discussion is not closed yet then I would like to suggest that we should keep the previous Parthian casualties as the sources have mentioned it boldly and I don't think we should shadow or neglect it, as this Chinese source [4] is well translated by a renounced Sinologist and historian Erik ZĂŒrcher. Like even if it's exaggerated or wrongly, partially interpreted, still we should add it by just adding further- 900,000 killed (highly exaggerated) or According to some Chinese sources 900,000 killed. So in short I think we all should stick to the sources. I hope y'all will look to this suggestion. And I'm very much interested in Ancient warfare history so I can give my minuscule contribution to this project/article. Msangharak ( talk) 22:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonharojjashi Please don't make any hasty decisions on your own. This also requires your collaboration and you reading our guidelines (you're not helping by reverting Srnec either
[3]. If this article is to be
WP:NPOV, that number will not be treated seriously).
HistoryofIran (
talk)
11:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- I'm renaming the article from Second Parthian-Kushan War to Parthian-Kushan war for better context in order to not confuse readers/viewers, I hope this will fix all of the common concerns, Thanks for your proposal. Also, if you don't mind Please help me improve the article or suggest any new changes, as I'm new here.
Jonharojjashi (
talk)
06:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Probably "KushanâParthian war" (alphabetical order, lower-case for a descriptive title) or, if that is judged ambiguous, "Kanishka's war with Parthia" or perhaps even "Parthian invasion of the Kushan Empire". My reason for preferring a standalone article is precisely that it is not obvious why the information should belong exclusively at, say, Kanishka's article. It would then need to be duplicated at Vologases III and perhaps elsewhere in the absence of an article to link to. (This is a general problem with trying not to treat conflicts as standalone topicsâthey don't "belong" to one side.) Just put up a short, well-sourced article that can deal independently with the question of dating and the reliability of the source material. In this case, I'm happy to help if the article is kept.
Srnec (
talk)
01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Srnec. Do you have a proposal on what we would rename it to if it ended up getting kept? I looked at the sources you listed, but it seems that this event is incredibly obscure. I agree that AFD is not a place for cleanup nor dealing with problem users, but I made this AFD because I genuinely think (still do) that this event is not notable enough to warrant its own article, let alone under a made up name. It could perhaps be added to
Vologases III of Parthia and
Kanishka? --
HistoryofIran (
talk)
22:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Please do not move articles that in the middle of an AFD discussion as it complicates the closure procedure. Also, an AFD is not the proper place to debate details about content, this is just a forum to determine whether or not this should be a standalone article and Kept or Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Content changes can be discussed if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep; ambivalent about title (the present title or any of
Srnec's options seem fine). Meets WP:N; no suitable merge target. I'm not sure an infobox is appropriate for this article, since the date, venue, and forces involved are all between very approximate and wholly unknown.Anyone expecting accurate casualty figures from early Chinese sources is not familiar with their universal trope of inflating the enemy's numbers, commonly by an order of magnitude (I
OR-suspect this figure is inflated by two orders of magnitude). I'd love to track down the name of the Chinese source this evidently traces back to; it's presented as transliteration only in ZĂŒrcher 1960 (which I fixed the citation for) and is apparently some little known Buddhist text from the Southern and Northern dynasties. Brill have yet to publish the ebook of the conference proceedings.Might it be entirely fictional? Sure: anything tracing to exactly one old enough document could be, but that's not our determination to make. Benjamin 2020 (another incorrectly attributed cite, probably Citoid's fault, referred to above as "Bang" after
|editor1-last=) wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but several different authors have touched on this, whether or not they believe it happened as described (although no one believes the casualty figures; why would anyone?). Anyway a massively inflated casualty figure is not a reason in itself to call this a hoax or a legend, and I don't see another reason to delete. Needs cleanup, but most articles do. Folly Mox ( talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
|
- Keep. WP:HEY at this point, thanks to multiple editors, especially Folly Mox's excellent work. â siro Ï o 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Well, I guess that settles it. Great and sensible points (and edits) made by both Srnec and Folly Mox - I'm taking back my support for its deletion. -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: striking my delete so nom can withdraw. Thanks for all your work on this, Folly Mox! -- asilvering ( talk) 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.