# Talk:Siege of Khujand

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work
North8000 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

G'day, I note that Morrison uses the casualty figures provided by Romanovsky, ie 71 killed or wounded, 65 suffered "contusions", and 6 missing, but the article only relates Mamadaliev's figures (which seem extremely low given the number of Khujandis killed). To achieve NPOV I think that the article should at least reflect what Morrison says, and contrast that with Mamadaliev's figures. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Not including Morrison's figures was entirely an oversight on my part. Given the relative weight of each parties claims, I believe that Romanovsky's estimate should be placed in the infobox and body, while Mamadaliev's estimate should be placed in a note. If we want to directly contrast them in the infobox without a note, what would be a good way of concisely conveying that information, given the overlapping counts between each? CitrusHemlock 00:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Peacemaker67. After some review, it seems the number only significantly varies when it comes to contusions, with Mamadaliev citing 57 and Morrison reporting 65. Mamadaliev's sum of 5 killed and 65 wounded almost perfectly adds to the 71 total killed or wounded that Morrison reports. Both draw on the same source written by Romanovsky. CitrusHemlock 13:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Khujand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: CitrusHemlock (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Source review

Why do you think Abaza (1902), Grebner (1897), Novitsky (1913), Terentyev (1906) are to be regarded reliable sources?
How do you secure the neutrality of the article taking into account that the above listed works were published in the Russian Empire? Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi Borsoka, thank you for reviewing my article! Evaluating the reliability of claims made by Abaza, Grebner, and Terentyev (Novitsky was only used to confirm a location) has been a challenge while writing articles on the Russian conquest of Central Asia. I have relied on the writings of the few modern historians of the subject to understand where these older, nationalist sources tend to be correct, and where they tend to err. Terentev, the source I most draw on, possesses quite clear biases. Quoting Morrison, he had "little interest in Russia’s Central Asian opponents" and would often characterize them as brutish savages. However, Morrison also notes how comprehensive his history on the conquest is, and heavily draws on it throughout his own book. Similarly, Grebner's Sieges and assaults of Central Asian fortresses and settlements exclusively holds the perspective of Russian soldiers, without considering the Central Asian side of the conflict. Despite this, it is an excellent account of the course of battle, and Mamadaliev describes it as "the standard work on Russian sieges in Central Asia". Abaza is a more special case. I have not seen his Conquest of Turkestan referenced much by modern historians, and so am more doubtful of the narrative he presents. As such, I have mostly used his work to support claims made by other historians, and not included statements unique to his work. On the whole, older Russian sources seem to be generally accurate when it comes to base facts, such as the precise actions taken during the course of a battle and the movements of armies. However, I would never rely on them for claims about Central Asian armies, or their broader analysis of the war. For that, I draw on modern authors such as Mamadaliev and Morrison who are able to analyze the conflict with a more neutral view. CitrusHemlock 13:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
OK. I understand (and in theory accept) your approach. I will check the neutrality during the detailed source review. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Could you quote the texts from the cited sources verifying the following sentences here:

In the mid-1800s, Russia conquered territory in Central Asia to establish a secure, productive border with the Central Asian states to the south. While this territory was secured by 1865, in 1866 war reignited with the neighboring Bukhara after they detained the Russian embassy.
In the summer of 1865 it appeared that the Russians had succeeded in their main strategic aim in Central Asia, which was to create a secure new frontier running through a settled grain-producing region, anchored on the trading entrepôt of Tashkent... Instead this strategy unravelled almost immediately, as war broke out with the Emirate of Bukhara in 1866.(Morrison 2021, p. 255)
The detention of the ambassadors was not the only grievance which the Russians felt they had against the Bukharans... The upshot of these disagreements and misunderstandings was the crushing defeat of the Bukharans at the battle of Irjar on 8 May 1866. (Morrison 2021, p. 271–273) I clairified the section to note that it was not only the detentiopn of the embassy
Russian forces stopped 3.3 miles (5.3 km) from the city on the bank of the Syr Darya river. Reconnaissance was carried out on the fort, revealing that it would be extremely difficult to take.
The Russians initially took up a position about ﬁve versts from Khujand on the Bukharan road, right by the banks of the river, which at this point was very close to the mountains, creating a narrow neck of ﬂat ground that could be easily held. They began the siege in cautious fashion, carrying out reconnaissance on which would depend the seizing of one point or another (Anon. 1866, 292–293). This reconnaissance revealed the strength of the fortress and led to an initial attempt to avoid storming it and seek to seize it through diplomatic negotiations. (Mamadaliev 2014, p. 174)
Russian forces conducted a second reconnaissance expedition on May 18, one column approaching the city on the left bank of the Syr Darya, and another column approaching from the right.
On 18 May the Russians carried out reconnaissance on bothbanks of the river, that on the right by a column under Colonel Kraevskii and that on the leftby a small force led by Romanovskii himself, made up of six platoons of infantry, three Cossack sotnias (companies), six guns and a battery of Congreve rockets. (Mamadaliev 2014, p. 174)
The captures of fort Nau and Khujand during Romanovsky's expedition intimidated the Kokand Khanate, which viewed Khujand as part of their state. On May 28, Khudayar Khan delivered a letter to Romanovsky in which he declared himself a friend of the Tsar, wished for goodwill, and indicated openness to an alliance against Bukhara. Borsoka (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Russian: Хань коканскій принялъ, повидимому, безъ непріязни извѣстіе о паденіи Ходжента. Прибывшій 28 числа коканскій посолъ доставилъ письмо Худояръ-хана, который, признавая себя другомъ Бѣлаго Царя, выразиль надежду, что въ случаѣ вступленія въ коканскіе предѣлы „непріятеля", мы не оставимъ оказать ему содѣйствіе. Это уже походило на союзъ! Ханъ обѣщаль также „уважать и любить" пріѣзжихъ русскихъ „болѣе, чѣмъ своихъ подданныхъ".
English: The Khan of Kokand accepted the news, apparently without hostility about the fall of Khujand. On the 28th a Kokandi ambassador brought a letter from Khudayar Khan, who, recognizing himself as a friend of the White Tsar, expressed the hope that in the event of the "enemy" entering Kokand's borders, we would not fail to provide him with assistance. (Terentyev 1906, p. 354)
Comments

I would introduce Kokand and Bukhara as "Muslim/Turk/... states in Central Asia".
Went with "Islamic states" CitrusHemlock 14:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I miss a reference to Russian expansion in Central Asia for context.
Done CitrusHemlock 14:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...to Russian forces...to Russian forces...Russian forces... Rephrase.
Done CitrusHemlock 02:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I miss detailed information about the city's defenders.
In what context? Military, political, cultural information?
Primarily political and military.
I added the fact that the city operated a garrison to the lead. While Mamadaliev states the city had a qazi-kalan, a chief jurist, there is not enough in any source I could find to make out even the general political situation in Khujand during the siege. As such, I don't think further political information can be added yet.
...hosting both independent powers of governance... Some info about the government? (Elected magistrates, appointed governor,...? Democratic, oligarchic, despotic?)
Unfortunately I could not find a shred of information on how Khujand was governed during its short period of independence. While there does seem to be a source referenced in Mamadaliev (2014), it is in Farsi, and wasn't uploaded to the internet. CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...Kokand's defeat at Tashkent... By whom?
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...fall of Irjar To whom?
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...attack on the city... Which?
Clarified CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...war would reignite with Bukhara in 1866. 1. Why? 2. Why future in the past?
Added cause and rephrased sentience CitrusHemlock 02:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
On May 14... Year?
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Some words about Nau's importance, relevance?
Done CitrusHemlock 14:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I would convert versts to kilometers.
There is no clean conversion from versts to either miles or kilomiters, so I made miles the primary unit in accordance with the rest of the work CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...a wealthy local... Was he from Khujand?\
Corrected to claify where the local was located CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...under Colonel Kraevsky... Is this relevant? If yes, some info about him is needed ("experienced/unexperienced/old/young/talented/Romanovsky's most trusted commander/...")
I cut the first mention of Kraevitsky. However, I preserved the second as to distinguish his group as seperate from the other columns storming the city. CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I would link "jurists" to ulama, quadi or other more specific link.
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Explain "aqsaqal" with one or two words: for instance "("elders")".
Done CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
While he promised... For me, "While" is a misleading adverb or conjunction in context.
I rewrote that section CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...lasted for two days until May 24... Delete either "for two days" or "until May 24"?
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Could Baranov, Mikhailov, Nazarov, Bergbaum be introduced very shortly? If not, do we need to name them?
As individuals they are not important. However, they are the main way of identifying the various columns. Its less an introduction of the people, and moreso an introduction of the columns.
Could the Qala-yinau gate be located (southern/eastern/...)?
Done CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
If you want to link Cossack, link it when first mentioned.
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...scaled it into the city... This must be the consequence of my poor English, but I do not understand it.
Cut the 'it', as it confused the meaning. CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...presenting a traditional offering of bread and salt ... Is this a local tradition, or imitated the Russian tradition?
Based on phrasing in the source, it seems local.CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Could you name the emir of Bukhara?
Done CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...despite its independence Delete.
Done CitrusHemlock 12:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
...by proposing extradition rights and free trade for Russian merchants I would say "by demanding...".
Done CitrusHemlock 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Rephrase the first sentence in note "a". Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Done CitrusHemlock 14:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Please do not strike my comments. Let me decide whether they were addressed. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, this is only my second review and I'm not fully familiar with common practice CitrusHemlock 02:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this interesting article. I pass it because it meets GA criteria. I propose you could request a peer review for ideas on further improvemments. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing it, its been great working with you! CitrusHemlock 11:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)