Talk:Jalal al-Din Mangburni

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jelaleddin Meňburun.jpg

Missing information
Basic information missing from this article: the motivation behind Genghis Khan's invasion. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2021

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. This is a rather convoluted discussion to parse, but the core agreement here is that this is a subject for which many sources have used many different spellings of their name. There is a fairly clear consensus that the current title is suboptimal and should be changed. Of the options proposed, it seems more participants are okay with the proposal than are adamant about any specific alternative, which makes it the least bad option. The "ad-Din" versus "al-Din" issue seems to be resolved by the sources, and as for the rest, it is what it is unless someone later wants to propose another move based on more robust specific evidence. BD2412 T 05:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu → Jalal al-Din Mangburni – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Jalal al-Din (not "ad-Din") is undoubtedly the most common variant of his name. His surname is a bit more tricky; this is what Islamica says; "His name is read and explained in various ways. Earlier scholars had Mangubirti (or similar forms); the forms most frequently used now are Mangburnī (with a birthmark on the nose) (Mīnuvī) or Mingīrinī" --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~  (t, e &#124; c, l) 06:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Agree about 'al-Din' rather than 'ad-Din'. If more sources use Mangburni as the surname than Mingburnu, then no objections. IronManCap (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the issue. All the sources I possess spell his name differently lol. Some of them even simply call him "Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah." I'll show em tommorow. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You guys picked the wrong time, just as a popular TV series dedicated to him and his warfare with Genghiz khan is on air with a title "Jalal ad-Din"... Though agree with "Mangburni", because I had known him more as "Manguberdi" (God-given) for years. -- Visioncurve Timendi causa est nescire  04:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what I found regarding his personal name;


 * Jalal al-Din Mingebirdi - Iran After the Mongols (The Idea of Iran)


 * Jalal al-Din Mengübirti - The Coming of the Mongols


 * Jalal al-Din Mingburnu - The Mongols in Iran - The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History


 * Jalal al-Din Minkubirni - Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran


 * Jalal-al-Din Khwarazmshah Mengübirni - Iranica, Bosworth


 * Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah - The Objects of Loyalty in the Early Mongol Empire (Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries)


 * --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking about the series' impact on this person's coverage, but your argument is sounding less like WP:OSE and more WP:OR. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we would need a more convincing argument than that tbh., because it seems there is no single widely used surname amongst sources, how about just "Jalal ad-Din" as the title, with the current disambig page moved and adjusted accordingly? Similar thing was done for Ertuğrul as a move from Ertuğrul Gazi, although WP:TITLESINTITLES applied there, which it doesn't really here, so I dunno. IronManCap (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My statement was not an argument,, it was merely my modest opinion. An opinion needs to be supported with evidence to become an argument, at least that's what academic philosophy says. Sometimes rather than providing an actual argument, people simply articulate an opinion. -- Visioncurve Timendi causa est nescire  06:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I propose that we take Islamicas word for it and move it to Jalal al-Din Mangburni. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE THE AL-DIN PART: the title in dispute is of Arabic origin and the Arabic word has as -ad, rather than -al. The title Jalal ad-Din means "the guardian of the religion" in Arabic. So, the transliterated Arabic word (Jalal ad-Din) is not -al but ad
 * SUPPORT MANGBURNI: How his surname is to be pronounced is not known yet but in Juzjani's account about him Juzjani does mention his nickname Mangburni (whatever way it is pronounced) means "a nose with a mole". The Turkmen word Meňburun means that: Nose with a mole on it. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is also a Jalaluddin version. Harper's military encyclopedia calls him Jalaluddin --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As demonstrated up above, the majority of sources use the 'al-Din' spelling. The transliteration in Arabic is irrelevant, see WP:COMMONNAME. Also, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Do mind that we base stuff like this on (secondary) sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are right on that one. Most sources do seem to call him by -al version. Even a Turkish newspaper seems to call him with that variant: Defeated yet proud: Jalal-al-Din-Khwarazmshah. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * ,,, , , there hardly seems to be an opposition (I dropped my opposition). Why not edit the title now? VisionCurve states that after the TV series his coverage will be affected and it imples ad-Din version's usage will increase. However, we shall take a look at academic sources, rather than TV series or other popular culture. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and 81.213.215.83. IronManCap (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is my final proposal: The title should be "Jalal al-Din Mangburnu", then the content should start with "Jalal al-Din Mingburnu [1][2][3][4]" (these 1 2 3 4 should cite the sources that call him Jalal al-Din) and then we add "some sources call him Jalal ad-Din). Then we shall talk about his name "Mangburni" and other variants. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article should be rated again
This article is currently rated C class. I do not know when it was assessed but the article has been expanded since recently. It can be rated higher now, probably to B level --81.213.215.83 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this is not even close to B. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What are missing to be close to B for example? --81.213.215.83 (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realised. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , just took a look at some B-class royalty biographies and this article seems to be more detailed then them. Here are some for example: Al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun, Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia, François Blouet de Camilly, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (consul 6) . If all those articles are rated B-class then this article is more detailed, more notable, better referenced, more covered than them --81.213.215.83 (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those articles are B worthy maybe with the exception of Al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun, which is much better written and sourced, as well as barely anything is left to write about him. This article is far from better referenced and covered. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They ARE rated B-class. I do not know what metrics are used there, but this article is as good as Al-Abbas' though I would agree this article could still be expanded --81.213.215.83 (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , what about now? The article is vastly expanded (and will be expanded more). His resistance against the Mongols has been expanded, his life in India has been introduced as well as his spouses. --185.252.40.10 (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @185.252.40.10 Please seek help from WP:WikiProject_History. I think it is C. You can read about the criteria here on WikiProject_India/Assessment Venkat TL (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't rate this at more than C. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, what is missing, can you give me example? I fail to understand it. Look at the above examples from B-class, this article is at least as detailed as them and I am pretty sure superior to many of them --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is how the article was before I had edited it and here is how it is now (as of 28/10/2021). There is a huge difference. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The section "Mongol invasion" should be renamed and expanded
In the current version of the article, there is a section named Mongol invasion. I propose to rename it to "Resistanse against the Mongol invasion" and expand it significantly. Such as introducing the battles prior to the Battle of Parwan. And then his later war against the Mongols --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , can you rename the name of the section with leaving a redirect to the name name? e.g. when this link is clicked it will directly redirect to the new name of the section. --81.213.215.83 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of massive content on February 2022 - supposed "bloating"
Hello .You deleted so many accurate and notable informations cited from Western Historians' works on the Mongol Empire? All of them were attributed to academic sources, if you feel there were some un-needed exagerations or etc, you should have opened it into discussion first. there were many infos about his earlier than and after the Battles at Indus and Parvan.

Also, why the assessments of his contemporaries are deleted? None of the things you deleted were a bloat. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Grammatical mistakes, personal commentaries, personal agenda, distortions etc in the recent edits
The current version of the article has so many problems that make the latest edits un-encyclopedic. Here are some examples (citations are directly linked via URLs):
 * "The It is probable that Doqshin, having been instructed not to return unsuccessfully, eventually converted to Islam and joined al-Din." - First of all, it has a grammatical mistake: instead of possibly "theN it is probable...", the content has "The It is ...". Then the second problem is even bigger: it is a personal commentary (or even a fabrication). Doqshin's joining of Jalal al-Din is attributed to the editor's personal prediction.--185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " A local prince, who had six thousand men attacked Jalal al-Din's makeshift forces of no more than four thousand, but al-Din still triumphed, greatly enhancing his Indian appeal" - It is a distortion. Jackson Peter's article, which is cited in this sentence, narrates this battle as Jalal al-Din being outnumbered 10 to 1. The previously cited Turkish source similarly narrate the battle in the similar way but now the most recent edits distorted the source's content and presented their own version of history: instead of mentioning what Peter Jackson wrote in his article, they came up with Six thousand vs "no more than four thousand". --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "310  The Khan sent Dorbei Doqshin with two tumens to pursue al-Din, whom he still regarded as a threat, in early 1222; one account has Doqshin fail to secure al-Din, and return to the Khan in Samarkand, who was so infuriated Doqshin was sent out at once on the same task.[9 : 141]" - Note that the sources being non-linked, it is an coding error. Then, in the previous versions of the article, these parts had other commanders being sent by the Khan and then Dorbei being sent. It is again truncated and so distorted. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous editions of this article featured many informations about Jalal -Din's battles but now they are truncated.
 * The previous editions of this article featured assessments of Jalal al-Din by the medieval authors but all of them are deleted by, with the pre-text of all of them being a "bloat".

I have not checked each and every edit in regard to the above problems but most of the recent edits are by Airshipjungleman29. His coding errors, his adding of personal commentaries as well as truncating many informations about Jalal al-Din makes me think his edits are a personal agenda against Jalal al-Din.

As a result, I propose that all of his recent edits on this article should be reverted. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC) - Also, in the article Battle Near The Irghiz River, 's edit states the following after he deleted some content: "deleted pro-Jalal-al-Din viewpoints hich violated WP:NPOV ..." The deletions he did were what the academic sources about the Mongol Empire were stating, they were not violating anything. He seems to have personal agenda AGAINST Jalal al-Din. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, 185.252.40.20 (may I suggest you create an account?). I propose to keep discussions here focused on Jalal al-Din himself; if we need to discuss my edits made to Battle on the Irghiz River, let us discuss it on the talk page there.
 * Hello. Sanx for the suggestion but as I use public computer, I do not create account. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your first point - that of the grammatical mistake, was indeed correct and has been corrected. Your second point is incorrect, it is a point made by Peter Jackson in his excellent source, which you have provided. I quote from Part IV, p.50: "But what we learn from MS Hyde 31 of Chinggis Khan's menacing instructions on sending him a second time into India may well explain the curious statment by Juzjani that the Mongol general later joined Jalal al-Din and became a convert to Islam"; and, as for the instructions themselves, I cite part II, p.48: "According to this account, Dorbei rejoined the main army at Samarqand, but his lack of success so infuriated Chinggis Khan that the unfortunate general again set out for India under strict orders not to return without having secured Jalal al-Din".
 * Oh sorry then, I was unaware of that part. I tookthis charge of mine back but still assert the related part should be re-phrased to be in the way understandable that this prediction is of Peter Jackson. Kinda like this: "Peter Jackson hypothesizes that Doqshin might have joined Jalal al-Din due to the command he was given to not return back to the Mongol army without killing Jalal al-Din." Otherwise, the current wording of the content gives the impression of WP:SYN. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your second point presents a very interesting conundrum. The Peter Jackson source does indeed support your viewpoint; I cannot comment on the Turkish source, because it was in Turkish, a language which I do not speak. I believe for my sentence I was relying on Frank Mclynn's source (which you can find at the sentence afterwards), which states that Jalal al-Din gathered the 4000 men first, and then was attacked by Rana Shatra. We must look to the original text of both Jackson and McLynn - that of Jalal al-Din's personal biographer, al-Nasawi.
 * I checked the Jackson source only as that was cited there. If Mclynn proposes otherwise, that was not cited and so I did not check his account. IIRC, Mclynn was not talking about Jalal's battle against Rana Shatra. --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, I can tell you that it took a hell of a lot of effort to find, but I have found that original text, sadly in Russian, here, which I have translated using Google Translate: . This translation goes as follows: "On the other side, about four thousand people from his troops had already escaped, they were barefoot and naked, as if resurrected, who were gathered and taken out of the graves. Among them were three hundred horsemen..." (al-Nasawi, chapter 38. 105). I believe this to be the root of the confusion, but it is clear from the source that al-Din had not just 300 horsemen with him, but over four thousand total soldiers. I will cite this in the article.
 * Your third point insists that other commanders were sent to pursue Jalal al-Din. You cite a passage in al-Nasawi which states Tolui, Genghis' fourth son, was sent, and Jalal defeated him. There are numerous problems with this account. Most notably, the account states that Tolui was killed, when we know that he survived. It must also be noted that al-Nasawi's account makes no mention of the Battle of Parwan, against Shigi Qutuqu. I believe it is academic consensus that al-Nasawi was actually describing the battle of Parwan, not additional battles between Jalal al-Din and the Mongols. I am additionally unsure what you mean by "coding errors".
 * Yes, 185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your fourth and fifth points indicate that I have deleted a lot of information unnecessarily. Let me address that accusation all at once. The article as it was had spelling, grammatical, and syntactical errors all over the place. Around a quarter of the article was devoted to what the Mongols were doing at the same time - i.e. stuff which could be summed up in three sentences. As for the medieval assessments, I do not see any reason why five different quotes are needed, all saying the same thing: see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It was a very confused section - there was a line on his excellence in duels popping up in a paragraph about his poor rulership, etc. The entire article, in fact, was extremely confused - there was a section with two sentences, the personal life section got distracted and wandered into discussing political history, the warfare section hadn't a single citation, etc.
 * I do agree that the former editions had such mistakes, like grammatical mistakes or contents' section confusions but what I propose is those notable infos should be corrected rather than being deleted. There were noteworthy infos like Jalal al-Din believeing in astrology or him being accused of using magic.As for assesments, I would even say they were valuable as they come from Jalal al-Din's enemies rather than his secretary. All in all, I sank you U|AirshipJungleman29 hope you will find me constructive in our thread and look forward for constructive co-operation --185.252.40.20 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that will do for a response. Many thanks for your message, I will keep your viewpoints in the future. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

- Thank you for your response, User talk:185.252.40.20. I have changed the wording of that Jackson/Doqshin phrase to something like what you suggested. I have also inserted a source from al-Nasawi which confirms my view on the Rana Shatra encounter. Feel free to ping me when you find your sources - I meanwhile will have a look through mine to see if I have missed anything. If you do believe that the accusations of magic/astrologist information is correct and notable, you are of course welcome to add it, with good references of course. As for the assessments, I believe there are still enough in the article — but priority and weight must be given to modern authors over medieval ones, who are liable to exaggeration. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this constructive approach and I apologise of accusing you of [ intentional ] distortion. I take my charge back, --185.252.40.20 (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mingburnu.png