Talk:Khalili Collection of Aramaic Documents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 SL93 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Aramaic document from the Khalili Collection
Aramaic document from the Khalili Collection

Moved to mainspace by MartinPoulter (talk). Self-nominated at 16:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Note: the document pictured is not just an example of an object from the collection, but the specific document that mentions Alexander.

plenty big enough. hook reffed and reliable to source. interesting hook. QPQ done. article well referenced as as whole. good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Illegally looted?[edit]

The statement that "over a hundred Bactrian documents emerged, in the bazaar of Peshawar and other sources" seems to be a circumlocution for the fact these unprovenanced documents were clandestinely excavated without official permission. The Khalili Archive is mentioned in the book chapter "Consensual Relations? Academic Involvement in the Illegal Trade in Ancient Manuscripts" by Neil Brodie, p.43. I think this origin should be mentioned in the article, ideally in the lead section, as it is for the similarly important, but also unprovenanced, Schøyen Collection. Lt1896 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxerxes III vs Darius III?[edit]

Hey MartinPoulter, so we meet again, hope you are doing well. I was wondering; the lede states that the documents are dated between 353 BC to 324 BC, during the reigns of Artaxerxes III and Artaxerxes IV. However, as far as I can see, the body of the article adds to that that documents from Darius III's reign are also included. Doesn't that mean that the lede should be changed to "from the reign of Artaxerxes III to Darius III"? Or something along those lines? Please don't hesitate to let me know if I misunderstood something. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:LouisAragon I continue to be delighted with what you're doing with the Khalili content. This is well-spotted, and teaches me for mindlessly copying what's in the text. I don't have the book near me now but I will take a look and something will have to be fixed. I may have made a statement about the whole collection which only applies to the documents and not the tally-sticks. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:LouisAragon Thanks again for spotting this. I had misinterpreted a bit of the book, and I've now corrected the body text and lead to clarify. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MartinPoulter: Glad I was able to help. Keep up the amazing work! Please don't hesitate to let me know if there are additional matters that I could help with in relation to the Khalili Collections. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Khalili Collection of Aramaic Documents/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review Ganesha811. At the top of the References section is an attribution template which links to https://www.nasserdkhalili.com/the-eight-collections-2/ . At the foot of that page is a CC-BY-SA 3.0 declaration. That is why I've been able to use some text from that page. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MartinPoulter, thanks, looks good - and I see the credit down in the article as well. I'll continue with the review. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MartinPoulter, just wanted to let you know I will be very busy for the next week, but will return to this review immediately afterwards. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 No problems, thanks for telling me. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MartinPoulter, returning to this today. Appreciate your patience. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 Great to see progress. I've created a Background section as you requested and deleted the text about specific other collections. As to how to describe Khalili himself, you've seen on the article about him that he is notable for collecting art, for philanthropic work, and he has published research and a textbook. I've removed "scholar" if we have to cut down that description, but if we remove "collector" or "philanthropist" that really seems an incomplete description. Note that this is just factual description: there's no opinion expressed about the value of his philanthropic work and whether it makes the world a better place, just that he does it. He's different from a pure "collector" in that he funds public exhibition of the art, funds research in universities, and so on. Hence "collector" on its own might give an incorrect impression.
You don't have to take on faith that the Naveh and Shaked book is credible: it was reviewed in a scholarly journal by someone with no connection to the Khalili organisation (ref 7 in the current version). This ref is used to support that the documents are significant for study, and if the book were promotional rather than scholarly I expect that would have been brought up in that review. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MartinPoulter, thank you for your edits. I'll keep going through the review. Forgive my general air of suspicion - it's just that my antenna are always up for promotionalism, and never more so than when we are borrowing content directly from a source, as in this article. You also have a (properly declared) conflict of interest as the Wikimedian in residence for this foundation, so I view it as my role to be more skeptical than usual during the review to keep Wikipedia as it should be. Nothing to do with you personally (or Khalili for that matter), just on principle. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - nothing personal taken and I hope I'm not coming across as defensive. I'm conscious of my own conflict of interest, and valuing the input of those whose antennae are up for promotionalism (or other problems) is just why I'm putting my work through these review processes. Some choices I've put a lot of thought into and want to defend; others can clearly be improved upon and I'll happily make suggested improvements. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the one thing left is my suggestion on neutral language - other than that we're all set. Let me know what you think! Ganesha811 (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the two "considered the most important" clauses as you suggested. Honestly, it's now looking to me like the article needs to be more informative. When I read that this collection is one of eight Khalili Collections collected by Khalili, it's natural to want a bit of context (that can be given in one sentence) about how these collections relate to each other or to other collections in the world. Since the other bits of further information have been ruled out, would you be okay with me adding that the eight collections have a total of 35,000 artefacts? That would give the reader a clearer picture of what's meant by the Khalili Collections, it would allow them to infer that Aramaic Documents is one of the smaller collections, and it's an objective quantity that can be found in multiple sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MartinPoulter, sure, that sounds fine. I'm going to assume that this addition will not have a negative impact on the article, and say that otherwise, this is ready to pass GA! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on the article. I'll do the needful now. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • For prose, I often find it easier to just go through and make prose edits myself - take a look and let me know if you have any objections to my changes. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One prose question - what is "Official Aramaic"? Is that the same as Imperial Aramaic? The term is used without explanation, so more specificity in the Wikilink might help clarify to the reader what this means.
  • Your changes seem to be improvements. I hadn't thought about Official Aramaic/ Imperial Aramaic until you prompted me, and all the sources seem to use "Official Aramaic" and not "Imperial Aramaic" for these documents. Then I noticed that the catalogue numbers for the documents begin with IA because it stands for "Imperial Aramaic". So I think we can treat them as synonyms. I'll change the wikilink. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues addressed, pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • No issues, pass.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Pass, no issues.
2b. 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).
  • I'm not sure all of the sources are as independent as they should be. We want to avoid promotionalism. Citation #13 (Gagarina) appears to come from a book published in association with an exhibit at the Kremlin Museums which would have been arranged by the Khalili Collections organization. I think from an organizational standpoint, it makes sense to combine "The Achaemenid Empire" and "Khalili Collections" into one section, called "Background", and delete from "These include...in terms of size and quality", since that information is not actually relevant to this page.

The source this article most relies upon, Naveh and Shaked, was published by the Khalili family trust. Given their credentials, I'm willing to accept it, but it would be worth scanning the article closely again to make sure it does not resemble any kind of advertising for this private collection. For instance, do we need to describe Khalili as "scholar, collector and philanthropist"? We could probably pick just one of those words and be fine.

  • Issues discussed, pass.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass, no issues here.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Some questionably close phrasing from this site found by Earwig, especially of the paragraph there that follows:

The Collection comprises 48 historically significant Aramaic documents from Ancient Bactria, consisting of mainly letters and accounts related to the court of the satrap of Bactria. Together these letters and accounts make up the oldest known correspondence of the administration of Bactria and Sogdiana. The documents, written in Official Aramaic, were likely to originate from the historical city of Balkh and all are dated within a period of less than 30 years, between 353BC to 324BC. The newest of the documents were written during Alexander the Great’s early reign in the region. It feels as though this has just been broken broken up a little and scattered into the article. Needs to be fixed to avoid borrowed phrasing.

  • Addressed, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Coverage is good, no significant areas of information missing.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Pass, no issues found.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • I think one of the simplest ways to improve the neutrality of the article would be to remove the phrase "each of which is considered among the most important" both times it appears. While this may be true, it is unnecessary for the article and gives the appearance of promotion. The last sentence of the lead could be slightly expanded instead, to talk about why this collection is important.
  • Issue addressed, pass.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • No issues here. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • I'm not seeing a copyright release on the Khalili collection website. The only page I can see that has one is the page about Dr. Khalili himself (link). Could you point me in the right direction?
  • Addressed above, pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Images look good, captions are good as well.
7. Overall assessment. Pass
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalili_Collection_of_Aramaic_Documents&oldid=1207961024"