Talk:Baljuna Covenant

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that several of the closest companions of Genghis Khan were known as the "Muddy Water Drinkers" because they had sworn the Baljuna Covenant? Source: Ratchnevsky, Paul (1991). Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy. Translated by Thomas Haining. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 73. ISBN 978-06-31-16785-3.
  • ALT1: ... that the Baljuna Covenant, an oath sworn by the future Genghis Khan in summer 1203, encapsulated his ideals of social equality and personal choice? Source: Weatherford, Jack (2004). Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Crown Publishing Group. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-307-23781-1.
  • ALT2: ... that no-one knows precisely where the Baljuna Covenant was sworn? Source: Man, John (2004). Genghis Khan: Life, Death and Resurrection. London: Bantam Press. pp. 96–97. OCLC 1193945768.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WHTN

Created by AirshipJungleman29 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Baljuna Covenant; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @AirshipJungleman29: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Unclear wording: "the Mongol leader was cornered..."

Temüjin should be mentioned by name here instead of being referred to anaphorically because most readers are not familiar with Central Asian history, and will not understand implicitly who "Mongol leader" is referring to. Both Temüjin and Toghrul seem to have been Mongol leaders. Clarity is more important here than avoiding repetition. For reference, I was confused the first time I read the article, so I had to check the body for clarification, which shouldn't be necessary for understanding the lead. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is unclear about "the Mongol leader" when only one person has been defined as "Mongol" in the three sentences beforehand? Toghrul was not a Mongol—if you believe so, please provide a reliable source. If you or anyone else start reading the article under a false impression, it is not the article's job to correct that, in the same way that our article on evolution doesn't begin with a primer for creationists, ArcticSeeress. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I clicked on Torghul and it says he was the leader of the Keraites. That articles in turn states that they were Mongolians (or Turkic? Both? The article isn't very clear), so per definition, he would be a Mongolian leader. I clicked around and saw them listed in several places as Mongolian; Khanate lists them as Mongolian. I looked at Google Scholar and saw them mentioned as "Mongolian Keraites", though I'm not familiar enough with the literature to make a call on that. Maybe it's just cherry picking, but that's beside the point anyway: I still think clear communication is better than reducing repetition, regardless of whether Torghul or the Keraites were Mongol or not, especially for people in the English speaking world who likely have little familiarity with Central Asian history beyond the basics. I'm not usually one to point to essays to provide grounding for my arguments, but I'd like you to read the following if you want to understand my perspective more clearly: Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. ArcticSeeress (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and Mongolic peoples is not the same as Mongols, if that is your sticking point ArcticSeeress (see the hatnote at the top of each page). The article's prose quality should not be weakened for the benefit of the Western Anglosphere; this is meant to be a globally neutral encylopedia, and I do not appreciate the WP:BIAS inherent in demanding that a non-Western article contain extra unnecessary information. It's a bit like saying that Battle of Halidon Hill, to take a random example, should contain more information on who the Scottish and English are for people unfamiliar with Europe. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

demanding that a non-Western article contain extra unnecessary information - I'm not sure where I wrote that (either implicitly or explicitly), but that's beside the point. If you saw my comment as wanting to introduce bias, then I'm sure I could've worded myself better, as that wasn't my intention. Regardless, my main point is that rewording the phrase would increase clarity, which would improve the prose. (I've bolded this because I feel like my other comments might have made it less clear what I actually want). You seem to disagree, which is why I decided to come here to reach a consensus on the issue instead of edit-warring. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that increasing clarity improves the prose. 1a) of the Featured Article Criteria requires that the prose be of "a professional standard". To my mind, five occurrences of the same name in exactly 100 words is not a professional standard. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have rewritten the first paragraph. What do you think, ArcticSeeress? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I was just about to propose a revision of some of the wording to avoid repetition. I agree that it isn't ideal to repeat the same name several times, but the lack of clarity seemed like a bigger issue to me. Your edits seem to have addressed both concerns, so thanks! ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Who were the Baljunatu?

I am currently translating this featured article into French. It occurred to me that it could be interesting to add a list of the 19 men who are supposed to have sworn the Baljuna Convenant, provided there are sources allowing us to do so. After skimming Cleaves' 1955 article, I see that he does provide a list of 14 names (p. 402), with a fifteenth added afterwards, while also noting that further study of Arabic and Persian sources would be required (p. 403). – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Cleaves' list of fourteen remains the basic formulation, but there has not been sufficient resolution on the identities of the remaining men, to my knowledge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

So you'd argue against having a list of the known participants based on Cleaves'? – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)