This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gunpowder empires article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 April 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zbklein,
Lcat29.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 June 2019 and 31 July 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Kamigonn,
Jiawei Zou.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
"an artillery corp of 12,000 and 500 cannons as well as 12,000 musketeers"
Is this intended? For the time being, I'm removing "12,000 and".--
Adûnâi (
talk)
22:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"Rallying under Tahmasp's personal leadership, the infantry of the center engaged"
Should it be "rallying" or "rallied"? The meaning is basically the same, but the alternative variant would emphasise Tahmasp's role.--
Adûnâi (
talk)
22:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
The current name of this article, Period of Gunpowder Empires, makes no sense to me, and will likely confuse readers.
First, why is it capitalized? Is it supposed to be a proper noun? Even early modern warfare, which this subject is a part of, isn't treated as a proper noun; its just a description of a period, even if a unique one. Isn't that the same here? Do the majority of sources treat it as a proper noun? If not, WP cannot do so.
Second, shouldn't the local be part of the subject name somehow? Several empires in Europe at that time also based their military on gunpowder, but I don't think this subject is supposed to include them.
In short, wouldn't something like Islamic gunpowder empires be far better? ("Period of" could be appended before, or "period" appended after, but I think "period" sufficiently redundant as both the "gunpowder" and "empire" terms already denote a restricted period in history, just as we don't say Early modern warfare period.) -- A D Monroe III( talk) 18:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Moving to Gunpowder empires per above, requires admin since it's over an existing redirect, requested here. Thanks all. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 21:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 23:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Per the above, the disruptive moves by banned/blocked users are fixed, and this article's name is in sync with its contents, and properly lower case. That's much better.
I now want to move onto the more nuanced question I brought up above: should this article cover the Islamic empires, as stated in the lede and infobox, or should it cover any empires (and non-empires?) that used gunpowder, in keeping with the article's current contents?
I think the original intent of this article was as stated in the lede and infobox. Those empires share notable aspects involving their use of gunpowder, and share a time, place, fate, and religion. These together indeed seems worthy of an article. But the article was titled Gunpowder Empires, as if that was a proper noun that applied (apparently) only to these empires. This isn't correct; there's no majority of sources using this term specifically for these three empires, and none as a proper noun.
It seems to me that later editors found this article, and based on the name, added sections attempting to widen the scope of the article to fit the over-general name. But, I think the name is too vague to ever be a coherent subject.
I propose we reduce the scope of the article to fit the lede/infobox, even though this means removing most of this added content. Included with that proposal is to again rename this article, this time to Islamic gunpowder empires, or something similar.
Comments? There's no need to rush on this one. -- A D Monroe III( talk) 00:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I am picking up the suggestion of the admin in the closing comment of the AfD and stubify the article in its present form WP:boldly. I repost my reasons here:
On the surface the article may look neat: it has a longer introduction, two sections that define the subject and then follows with historical examples. However, a closer look reveals it is a big mishmash of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
The scholarly definition of a gunpowder empire is an empire that was built or maintained by the use of gunpowder weapons by the central state, usually headed by an autocratic ruler. As such the term is typically employed to describe the rise of the early modern, territorial, centralized state against both internal, factionalist enemies and foreign rivals that could not afford the same level of armament. The term "gunpowder empire" thus refers to a relation between use of weaponry and state power. Thus, the article should be concerned mainly if not exclusively with scholarly literature that focuses on this relation.
What the current article does, however, is citing a few such texts as a rough outline of the subject, but then it goes on to ignore what they say and fills the article space instead with unrelated literature on the development of weapons technology. This is synthesis. The subject of the article is not another history of gunpowder warfare, but about the impact these weapons had on state formation. In other words: The article should evolve primarily around military and political history, with a stress on administrative matters, but in its current form it is more a fleshed out timeline of the history of (weapons) technology.
In more detail, some of the bigger problems with the current version are:
The sections on the other empires are, as been said, more accounts of the history of the spread of cannon and handguns than on the subject. Since the subject is notable but so thoroughly missed that the article is beyond repair, the article should be stubified and reworked. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Lansonyte, Gehenna1510, Jiawei Zou, HistoryofIran, MB, Windyplan688, Everedux, Bradeos Graphon, Naviguessor, Info-Screen, Lukia32, A D Monroe III, Gun Powder Ma: a new "Islamic Gunpowder Empires" article has been created by Kapokbirdnotflying using content from this article on 26 April and then moved to Age of the Islamic Gunpowders. Please can you have a look at the new article as it may have inherited some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR problems from this one. TSventon ( talk) 05:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The 1453 to 1736 range should be portrayed as more approximate, probably, as the gunpowder empires era, could be seen as starting earlier (with Ottoman cannons) or starting later (with Safavid and Mughal establishment); or ending earlier (based on Safavid fall) or ending later (based on Mughal or Ottoman fall).
Can we find some sources to give more exact start and end dates, or change it to approximate centuries? -- Rauisuchian ( talk) 05:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)