# Talk:Arab–Khazar wars

User:Cplakidas moved the page Khazar–Arab Wars to Arab–Khazar Wars on 15 October 2012 stating: by far the preferred form, especially in the more relevant bibliography (Brook, Mako, etc). 
Google web hits are far greater for Khazar–Arab Wars than Arab–Khazar Wars (67,900 cf. 9,110).  However, the result on Google books is the other way round, 223 cf. 72.  
"Brook" refers to The Jews of Khazaria, p. 125, at Google Books
I am therefore completing the renaming done by User:Cplakidas by changing remaining mentions within this article and in the page Khazars. – Fayenatic London 20:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Google web hits are not a reliable indicator, as there is a great number of Wikipedia clones out there, which would naturally reflect the former name. Constantine   ✍  20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arab–Khazar wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this image[1] is PD, since it is not entirely two-dimensional.
The sourcing of this image[2] seems a bit strange.
Hi FunkMonk and thanks for taking the time to review! I've replaced  both images, although the new map is in German. Looking forward to the rest of the review. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  13:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"the northern barbarian hordes" Isn't this a bit loaded?
Rephrased and clarified.
Show some of the fortresses mentioned?
You mean in the map? I'll try to create a new (and English-language) version of it over the next few days.
Could be nice as well, but I meant photos, if we have any. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the Khazar sites are unidentified. Derbent however is still there, and there are many more pics in Commons no than when I wrote this article. I added one.
"an echo of invasions by the Scythians and the Huns." Add probably? Or is it somehow a fact?
Rephrased and clarified.
"(G. Mako)" What is this? The cited author? Then spell it out and present him.
"whose location has yet to be established with certainty" I'd add by "modern historians" for clarity.
"Since the nascent Caliphate" I'd add "Umayyad" before Caliphate, just to make it entirely clear for layreaders at first mention.
The Caliphate here is a shorthand for the "early Muslim state", not specifically the Umayyads. In the context of this article, it includes the Rashidun period as well.
""House of War" (Dar al-Harb), to which the pagan Turkic nomads were consigned." Could be briefly explained what this means.
Hmmm, I'd think the name and the juxtaposition are pretty clear and even self-explanatory, and the terms are linked to the relevant articles for more details.
"to a Khazar princess in 705." Any name for her, as you name the other one?
"the First Arab–Khazar War" Why is first capitalised, part of a name?
It is a proper name used in scholarship, yes. It is explained in the lede.
"the Khazars exercised some control over Iberia" Link Kingdom of Iberia or such, so readers aren't confusing it with the other Iberia... I see it is linked further down, but should be at fist mention.
"and Alan contingents" Link Alan at first mention.
"trying, without success, to subdue the "Huns" living north" Is this meant to convey that the Muslims called the Khazars "Huns"? If so, it could be made clearer.
"were heavily defeated in battle" I would make the (otherwise discouraged) easter egg link include "in battle" for clarity.
"the Khazars raided in force" What is meant by in force? How does one raid without force?
"in force" means in considerable numbers, more than e.g. a couple of hundred raiders; it is an established military term, e.g. "reconnaissance in force".
What religion did the Khazars belong to at this point? Could be mentioned somewhere for context.
They are included among the generic "pagan Turkic nomads" mentioned further above. I've linked Tengrism there.
Easter egg links to various battles are often used here, but it might be better to spell out the names of each battle.[3]
Well, the problem is these articles are titled all "Battle of Balanjar (date)", and it would get confusing after a while. I don't really share the aversion to easter egg links; IMO it helps keep the text flow clean, and if the easter egg link summarizes the target article well enough, then it is more helpful than simply mentioning the battle name. Anyone who wishes to know more will follow the link.
"722 (or 723)" Why is the latter only in parenthesis if it is equally possible?
"they employed mangonels" Explain what this is, so we udnerstand its significance.
"apparently lost in the meantime" Meantime of what?
You show how a "steppe warrior" might have looked at the time. Could you perhaps show other weapons or euipment used, or how an Arab warrior of the time would have dressed?
There is no suitably licensed depiction of an Arab warrior, whether contemporary or modern (the only ones I can think of are Angus McBride's depictions for the Osprey books). I have added some info on the respective armies though.
". Although the forces he could muster immediately (...) were small" Any number?
No numbers are mentioned in the source.
"resulting in another marriage alliance, between the future emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) and the Khazar princess Tzitzak in 733.[13]" You mention this at length twice, are both needed? I'd snip the first one.
I've kept the first, as it is IMO better placed in context in the overview provided in the first section, and reduced the second mention.
"outbreak of dysentery among his troops" Dysentery could be linked.
"reports that Marwan attacked the Slavs" Which Slavs? You haven't mentioned these before. You also link Slav far after first mention.
"during the civil wars of the 740s" I'd add Muslim civil wars for clarity.
"and he sent his general Buljan to invade Iberia." He invaded to get the daughter, or how?
Why is Arab–Khazar War capitalised in headers when it isn't in the article title and text?
Same as above; modern historiography names the first two conflicts explicitly as the "1st/2nd A.-K. War", whereas the uncapitalized term  refers to the wider series of conflicts, including the Abbasid-era raids
"each resulting from failed efforts to secure a marriage alliance between the Arab governors of the Caucasus and the Khazar khagan" It seems from the article that it is disputed whether the 799 marriage involved an Arab governors, so perhaps it could be reworded.
Hello again, I'll start working on this. I'll either strike through the issues as I deal with them or respond accordingly underneath. Constantine   ✍  20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Changes look good so far, a few points seem to be unaddressed? FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk. Finally done, except for the map, which I have to find time for. Constantine   ✍  14:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
All looks good to me then, will now pass, the map could of course be nice, but not a requirement for GA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments, time, and patience. Constantine   ✍  17:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

In the section "First Arab–Khazar War and aftermath" there is the double link [[Caucasian Albania]]/[[Arran (Caucasus)|Arran]]. I think we should pick one. It is fair to tell the reader that (Caucasian) Albania is also called Arran (and is basically modern Azerbaijan)... but how is the average reader to know which internal link to click to learn more? I am not sure which one, but I would probably go with Caucasian Albania, since that article is about the politics of the region in the period in question, while Arran (Caucasus) is a broader article. Srnec (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Busulb Vash! Could you please add some reliably sourced information about Aguk Shagin to the main body of the article before adding him to the infobox? In any case, we need a source to verify this (if must be in the infobox, though that would be far from ideal). I will revert your edit in the mean time. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked up two of the sources that I could get access to, and one doesn't mention him at all (the page number given is the bibliography index) and the other just mentions his existence, without any of the details given here. Neither Dunlop nor Artamonov, in their quite detailed examination of the conflict, mention him. As things stand, his existence is quite dubious. Constantine   ✍  13:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Uploaded this coin yesterday, thought you might be interested :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks LouisAragon (talk · contribs), added it to the article :) Constantine   ✍  12:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)