Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mu'awiya I/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 December 2021 [1].

Mu'awiya I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) and AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about

first Muslim civil war, bringing the caliphate under his rule. Considered controversial in Muslim tradition for seizing power, being less religiously devoted than his predecessors and establishing dynastic rule, unprecedented in Muslim politics, he is also admired for his competence, leadership skills and mild rule. Al Ameer (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps
  • Some of the maps present a concern wrt
    MOS:COLOUR
    . Additionally for File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg it is unclear even for a non-colour-blind person which portion of the map is being referred to as "red" in the caption.
  • File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg: where is the CC0 claim coming from?
Since the inscriptions are three-dimensional, I'm not sure if PD old applies for such a recent photo. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png: what is the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:Lead_seal_of_Mu'awiya's_dismissal_of_Ibn_Amir,_ca._664.png
  • File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg needs tag(s) for the status of the coin itself
  • Tag for US status of the coin still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Statue_de_Okba_ibn_Nafi_al_Fihri_en_Algérie.jpg: where specifically is this statue located?
  • I do not know. I could only assume somewhere in Tunisia, possibly Kairouan. Removed for now. Will try to find out from author in meantime but not hopeful. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The filename would indicate it's in Algeria? FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't I feel like a dummy. Thanks for pointing that out FunkMonk. Modified the description in the file and restored the image to the article now that we have the location. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tomb_of_Caliph_Muawiya_Bin_Abi_Sufyan.jpg will need a tag for the original work, and where is the CC claim for the photo coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed this image for now as it is not clear where the CC claim is from. The source link does not indicate that the author has given permission to use the image. I may try contacting either the uploader or the author to get clarity on this. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1) File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg
2) File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png
3) File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg? Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last just needs an additional PD old tag for the artwork I believe (as the others have). But as for the first two, as they're not entirely two-dimensional works, I'm not sure they can be assumed to be PD, as the photographer would still hold copyright (unless they specifically released the photos under free licences themselves). FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk. Not good news though, probably will have to remove them (the seal and the Greek inscription) if that's the case. Are seals not considered two-dimensional works like coins—and if so, would that make a difference here? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure, perhaps Nikki has some input. Are there any licences listed on the website they are from? mFunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coins are considered 3D (see commons:COM:COIN); I would expect we treat seals the same way. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately; I think plainish inscriptions are ok though. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki;@FunkMonk:@Johnbod: Regarding the seals: File:Lead seal of Mu'awiya's dismissal of Ibn Amir, ca. 664.png comes from SixBid, whose [terms of use] appear to prohibit using the content for our purposes. I have removed the image from the article. As for File:Seal of Muawiya dismissing Abd Allah ibn Amir as governor.jpg, the terms of use of NumisBids indicate they post the pictures of the objects with permission, the "copyright, where applicable, remains with the original holders". I cannot determine any licenses from their site, not sure where to look other than the terms of use link. If this means that, short of the discovery of any suitable licensing, neither of these seals could be used here per PD-Old/PD-US, is there a decent chance at a Fair Use argument due to the rarity of the two seals, which very much contain the same inscriptions? There are no documents out there that we know of where Mu'awiya's name is inscribed in Arabic. There are a few coins from a Persian mint where his name is inscribed in Middle Persian and then the inscription from the Galilee where his name is written in Greek. Besides the uniqueness from that perspective, the seal is the sole epigraphic corroboration of the much later Arabic historical tradition that Mu'awiya established a government department for correspondence/chancellery (all other evidence was likely destroyed or otherwise lost following the demise of Umayyad rule). The seal is also the sole epigraphic evidence of Mu'awiya's dismissal of his governor from Basra, which the much later Arabic literary history records. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely to meet
WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could take a picture of the seal and release under a free license. (t · c) buidhe 22:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, I have removed both the seal images. Al Ameer (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Greek inscription, would it be considered "plainish"? This inscription is also a unique document in that it is remarkably the only known epigraphic proof of Mu'awiya's rule in the Levant, where his 40-year rule as governor and then caliph was based. It is also the only known Greek inscription of his name. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[[User:Al Ameer son|Al Ameer] ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was waiting to see if the inscription would be considered 'plain' enough to qualify as a two-dimensional work. If not, was going to attempt a Fair Use approach. In the meantime, while these matters are decided, I have removed the image from the article. Al Ameer (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges

Reviewed the article at GAN recently, will support once the issue with the ref "Ali 1974, p. 82" not having a bibliography is fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iazyges: Thank you for supporting and again for your efforts during the GAR. Al Ameer (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

  • Nice to see this here, marking my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it make sense to mention that he was pagan or what exact beliefs he had before becoming a Muslim? I can imagine many readers would have no idea what Arab religion was before Islam.
  • Yes, I think it would be best to note that his tribe was polytheistic for context. Will add. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Muslim and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Arab, Byzantine, other such terms in article body?
  • The link to Arabia should thereafter be removed form the later "Moreover, the focus of Arabian tribal".
  • "against Byzantine Cilicia and proceeded to Euchaita, deep in Byzantine territory.[17] In 644, he led a foray against Amorium in Byzantine Anatolia." The first areas are also in Anatolia, so perhaps mention it earlier?
  • "principal Arab allies, the Ghassanids," Perhaps add they were Christian?
  • "Although Syria's rural, Aramaic Christian" You could say "Aramaic-speaking" to avoid the contentious ethnic issue.
  • "the historian J. W. Jandora" Full name like the others?
    Name is John W. Jandora, added full name in bibliography. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the historian J. W. Jandora, "Mu'awiya was thus confronted with a population problem"." Does it need to be a quote or can't it be paraphrased?
  • Decided to remove altogether unless you think otherwise. It would be a bit complicated to paraphrase because I would need to get creative on what Jandora means when he says "population problem". My understanding is that in Syria's critical urban centers, Mu'awiya had to contend with either a depleted and/or outright hostile population. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in that case, I think it could stay, but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to pay a tribute equal to that which they paid the Byzantines" But did they have to pay both? Or should it be "which they had paid the Byzantines"?
  • "and they bested the Iraqis" Is that term appropriate in this context? I can understand Syrians, as the region was called that, but was Iraq in the modern sense used then? And in any case, didn't Ali and his army come from Arabia? How do the sources distinguish the factions?
  • In this context, Iraq is also the appropriate term and was used by the early Muslim sources to refer to the region that is southern/central modern Iraq. The sources actually identify the sides as Syrians and Iraqis, something of a theme of rivalry between the two geopolitically important regions throughout the early Muslim period. As for Arabians, the "Syrians" in this case were also Arabians, some being tribes established in Syria in centuries prior and others having arrived with the conquest armies. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "greeted Mu'awiya as amir al-mu'minin" Could need explanation.
  • Clarified that this was in effect a signal of their recognition of Mu'awiya as caliph. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was aborted as a result of Ali's assassination by a Kharijite" I believe there is an article about this that could be linked, Assassination of Ali.
  • Linked.
  • "This year is considered by the traditional Muslim sources as "the year of unity" What does "traditional Muslim" mean? I doubt Shias agree with this, so specifically Sunni?
  • Maybe, but I am not sure "traditional Muslim sources" should be synonymous with Sunni sources. @AhmadLX: Thoughts on this? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the historians were not strictly "Sunni"/"Shia" in a sense scholars of hadith and jurisprudence were. It was more like some being pro-Alid historians and some not so pro-Alid historians. I remember seeing a source expressly saying that "Muslim tradition calls the year, year of jam'a", but at the moment I can't find it. The sources cited in the article name Tabari and Khalifa. Now, both of these historians were in the category of not so pro-Alids. I think, one can just add in the article "considered by some of the traditional Muslim sources..." for now. When a source listing other primary sources or expressly calling it a year of unity is found, we can change it back. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, I think it's important to note it was not the universal opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally not a fan of the word "some", but have modified accordingly for now. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the caliph's name is preceded by a cross" Any images of these coins to show?
  • "the spring in Jeddah [sic]" What does the sic denote?
  • Fixed. The source used the less common spelling of "Juddah". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Yamama in central Arabia" You could add "region".
  • "During the reign of Mu'awia" Missing y from the name.
  • "According to Hinds, in addition to Yazid's nobility, age and sound judgement, "most important of all was the fact that he represented a continuation of the link with Kalb and so a continuation of the Kalb-led [tribal] confederacy on which Sufyanid power ultimately rested" Does this need to be a quote?
  • "Mu'awiya's grave was a visitation site as late as the 10th century." Is its location known today?
  • Not really. There's a tomb supposedly containing his tomb in the
    Bab al-Saghir cemetery but this is a relatively recent "rediscovery". His "real" tomb may be hidden somewhere in Damascus. As of the 19th century, his tomb in the cemetery had disappeared. I will check to see if there are sources that mention its existence later than the 10th century. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You are somewhat inconsistent in whether you present historians by occupation or not.
Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mu'awiya died of an illness" Any further details or context? How long was he sick, etc?
  • No details here. Many of his Umayyad successors died from illnesses that a modern source proposes were recurrences of the plague of Amwas, but Mu'awiya is not included among them.
  • "after the decade-long civil war" You could add "second".
  • "Caliphate" is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.
  • Caliphate has been capitalized when referencing the state/empire, lowercased when referencing the office of the caliph. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This has led some modern historians" Could they be named?
@AhmadLX: Does Hoyland mention any specific historians? If not, I will modify the wording. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, added names in a footnote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mu'awiya and the Umayyads are given the title of malik (king) instead of khalifa (caliph), though the Abbasids are recognized as caliphs." Specify if this is by the aforementioned writer.
  • Attributed to the Islamic tradition. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Syriac writer notes that he did not wear a crown like the traditional kings" and "The Maronite Chronicles also maintain that Mu'awiya "did not wear a crown like other kings in the world"", seems to be the same info, is one redundant?
Certainly not;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Afterward, Mu'awiya became one of Muhammad's scribes." This doesn't seem to be specifically stated in the article body until way down under Assessment?
  • It is mentioned in the Origins and early life section "Mu'awiya was made one of his katibs (scribes)". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, must have overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "condemned Mu'awiya and other Umayyad caliphs" The article body doesn't seem to clearly state he was Umayyad until this point far down?
  • There are earlier mentions of him being an Umayyad family member, but I added a sentence in the "Early military career ..." section about him and the Umayyad caliphs, as well as their differentiation from the first four caliphs who are considered the "Rashidun". Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considerable admiration for Mu'awiya in the sources" Add "contemporary"?
  • "Rashidun" don't seem to be mentioned by this name outside the intro.
  • Only a few unanswered points left before I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: Please let me know if there is any other point that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your patience. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, now Caliphate ("to shore up support for the Caliphate") seems to be a duplink of Rashidun Caliphate, I think you could just make it a link to the general Caliphate article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the preceding "
caliph" in this section links to Caliphate, so I will leave "Caliphate" un-linked, unless you think otherwise. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments Support by Borsoka

  • ...a prominent Meccan merchant who often led trade caravans... Is "often" necessary?
  • ... preeminent leader... Is the adjective necessary?
  • ...during the early stages of its conflict with the Islamic prophet... Perhaps "the Quraysh's/Banu Abd Shams' conflict"?
  • ...Mu'awiya and his father may have reached an understanding with Muhammad... WP:WEASEL. You may want to say that they reached an agreement as it is demonstrated by the marriage of his sister to Muhammad in 629.
  • Had to keep "may" as the source does not make it certain or even likely.
  • If the source does not make it likely, why do we need to mention it? What is sure that Muhammad wed his sister in 629. I assume they must have reached an understanding before the marriage. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I revised this passage. I hope it is clearer and less weasely now. Let me know. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...with his tribesmen... Perhaps "with his Quraysh tribesmen"/"with the Quraysh"?
  • ...The family... Who? (He, his father and his brother were mentioned. Do you refer to the three persons?)
  • Changed to Abu Sufyan's family as it may have included the rest of his surviving children and wife. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking back on the source, it says "Abu Sufyan and the Umaiyids". Just kept Abu Sufyan. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...Yazid, whom he later dispatched... Is "later" necessary?
  • ..., where Abu Sufyan already owned property in the vicinity of Damascus, in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams. Unclear sentence. When and from whom did they receive the property?
  • Need to do further research on this and will update you here. He owned property, according to the Muslim sources, in Syria (various sources mention the "vicinity of Damascus", "the Balqa", or a particular village in the Balqa) from before his conversion to Islam. None of the sources mention from whom he received it though.
  • In this case, why are we sure that they received it for their loyalty? Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abu Sufyan obtained this property before Islam and before the conquest, it was not given to him by Muhammad or Abu Bakr. The point the source is suggesting is that Abu Sufyan had economic interests in Syria and to obtain Abu Sufyan's and his family's backing, Abu Bakr gave them a prominent role in the conquest of Syria. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider deleting the text ", in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams" - it is misleading, because the context suggest that he received it for his loyalty towards a Muslim leader.
  • Consider introducing Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, Iyad ibn Ghanm and Umayr ibn Sa'd al-Ansari.
  • ...Umar's efforts to curtail the influence of the Qurayshite aristocracy in the Muslim state in favor of the early Muslim converts. This is a statement out of the blue. Perhaps "Umar's well documented/otherwise obvious efforts"?
  • Are you sure that the statement is about Umar (not about Uthman)? Please also check whether Umar or Uthman is the subject of the paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is Umar, not Uthman that is being discussed. Cplakidas below raised a valid question about "well-known"; perhaps, I need to tweak the phrasing again. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Medina consistently courted the Kal....Medina's entreaties... Perhaps the central government/the caliph instead of Medina?
  • Could the statement "Medina consistently courted the Kal..." also be changed? I am not sure that all readers could easily realize that Medina refers to the Caliph or his government. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not unusual to use a state's capital when referring to its government or leadership. In the "Origins and early life" section Medina is mentioned "as the seat of the Muslim government". Should this suffice for further mentions of Medina in this context, until of course it was replaced by Kufa? I will mention in the article that Kufa became the new seat under Ali. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the Byzantine emperor practically conceded when he withdrew from Armenia... We were informed that the emperor had moved to Sicily not to Armenia.
  • Not contradictory, as far I could tell. He (or his army) withdrew from Armenia in 653; he was leading the Byzantine fleet against the Arabs in 654 or 655 when he was forced to sail for Sicily. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...Uthman's confiscation of crown lands... Is "confiscation" the proper term?
  • To me, "confiscation" would be the correct term as these were lands that belonged to the "Community", i.e. the Muslim settler troops, and they were seized by the caliph for the treasury. This is still a specific area I am not too clear on though. @AhmadLX: What are your thoughts on this? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO "confiscation" is correct. Borsoka what would you suggest? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, the term "confiscation" refers to the transfer of property to the fiscus (or Crown), not from the fiscus (or Crown) to an individual. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean. Now, Umar's view was that these lands were in principle state assets, but were de facto controlled by the warriors. Uthman's argument was that they are state assets and as state head he can use them the way he saw fit. He did not declare them his personal property.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you say confiscation is the proper term in context, I will accept your decision. I am not a native speaker. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...his alleged nepotism drove the Quraysh ... to oppose the caliph... The footnote states that he preferred the Quraysh.
  • @AhmadLX: Also on this. Uthman gave favor to his own clansmen, i.e. specifically the Umayyads/Banu Abd Shams, and this was opposed by the rest of the Quraysh, i.e. Zubayr, Talha, A'isha, Amr, Ibn Abi Waqqas etc. While his motive is not fully understood (whether it was to make it easier to rule the new vast empire by relying on close relatives or if it was simply to empower and enrich his own family), it is undisputed that he gave political and economic favor to his immediate relatives and Umayyad/Abd Shams clan. For reference, Donner 2012 pp. 152–153, Kennedy 2004, p. 74, Madelung 1997, pp.86–87. So I am thinking to change "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" to avoid the confusion pointed out by Borsoka. Opposed? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree here. Several Quraysh including Talha, and Zubayr, who eventually opposed him for whatever reasons, were among the beneficiaries of his grants. Amr's opposition was likely due to his removal from the office. MOreover, this is what Hinds and Donner say. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka it was like this: Umar diverged from Abu Bakr's policy of relying on the Quraysh in governing the caliphate. Uthman tried reversing it but in that favored his own Umayyad clan more than other Quraysh. This has been interpreted by the traditional sources as sort of nepotism and influence of his secretary Marwan, an interpretation accepted wholesale by Madelung. Other historians, including Kennedy, Hinds, Donner etc see it as centralization and stabilization effort in view of the enormous size of the empire and anarchist nature of Arab Bedouins of central Arabia, who were in the majority in the garrisons. These were angered by decreasing of their prestige, while the non-Umayyad Quraysh were dissatisfied with the increasing Umayyad influence. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: We still may need to clarify the wording in the note. Should we 1) modify "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" or 2) keep "Qurayshite control" but change "appointment of his relatives" to "appointment of his close relatives" or 3) "appointment of his kinsmen from the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abd Shams"? Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for the late response. I would prefer the second option ("appointment of his relatives" --> "appointment of his close relatives"). Even better, in my opinion, would be to attach to it the 3rd option as well: "appointment of his close relatives from the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abd Shams". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AhmadLX, I modified the footnote accordingly, plus some minor c/e. Al Ameer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to the east and west... Is this necessary? I am not sure that Egypt is located to the east west of (early medieval) Syria.
  • Himyar is linked to the article "Himyarite Kingdom" and it ceased to exist in 525 AD.
  • Will have to expand that article to include the Himyarites' Islamic descendants. Plan on doing this over the next few days. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Borsoka, how are you going with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will continue the review in a couple of days. I have been realy busy in RL. I think the article is very close to a FA. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...some of the traditional Muslim sources... WP:WEASEL: "some" and "traditional". Could we say "the earliest/widely accepted sources" or something similar?
  • Agree on "some", this was a little compromise reached above due to valid concerns raised by Funk about the universality of the sources' view of Mu'awiya's leadership of the politically united caliphate as the "year of unity". As for "the traditional sources"/"the Muslim tradition", this is generally used in modern literature about the subject to broadly refer to the early Muslim sources. Rarely are these sources "contemporary", the earliest usually date to the 8th century and most to the 9th and 10th, but also as late as the 15th. These sources cite chains of transmission that supposedly go back to people contemporary to the days of the Prophet Muhammad, the first four caliphs and the Umayyads. Understandably, it could confuse readers, so I changed it to "early Muslim sources" in most instances, exceptions being when the "tradition" is the subject of the section.
  • ...Mu'awiya is credited by the traditional sources... Who? Could we say "the earliest/reliable sources" or something similar?
  • ...the crown lands that he confiscated in Iraq and Arabia... Did he confiscate crown lands for himself or did he confiscate lands for the Crown?
  • ...the absolute government practiced by Caliph Ali... Could Ali's government be described as "absolute"? Based on the article, I understand he was not in control of significant parts of his empire.
  • ...After Ziyad's death in 673, Mu'awiya gradually replaced him in all of his offices... Perhaps because of may poor understanding of English, but I cannot imagine how a dead person could be replaced with anybody gradually.
  • Hope I modified to be clearer. Ziyad's son was installed to his father's offices gradually between 673 and Mu'awiya's death. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...According to the Muslim traditional sources, the raids peaked between 668 and 669. Could we say "nearly contemporaneous/reliable/widely accepted sources"? For instance, an article published in a newspaper in 2021 is a more traditional source than an online article from 2018.
  • ...though the traditional Muslim sources offer divergent details... Again, I do not understand what a traditional source means. Perhaps "earliest/relieable/widely accepted/primary sources"?

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @Borsoka:. Forgive my slow response time (real life's fault), but I will get to all of these asap. Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Himyar article or create a new one about the Himyar tribe of the Islamic era to avoid confusion with the pre-Islamic Himyarite royal family, from whom the Islamic-era Himyar supposedly descended. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thank you for this thoroughly researched, interesting article. Only one issue is pending, but I assume it will be solved soon. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review Borsoka. That issue (regarding the privileging of the Quraysh or his closer relatives) should be addressed pretty soon, just a matter of tweaking. Waiting to hear Ahmad's thoughts on my proposals. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the final issue that was pending has now been addressed. Al Ameer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Back for the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sake of use, I'll separate these by category.
Standardization
  • Decide if you are going to link the author at each mention, or only the first, there is currently a large mixture of them. I generally prefer to link only the first mention, but either one is acceptable as long as it is standardized.
  • I also prefer a single link, but most of these are templates which provide the author-link. To make it simple, I just linked all mentions. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if locations will be "Location, State", "Location, Country", "Location", or no location, and standardize to that.
Brill search
  • Bosworth, C. Edmund (1991) links to a search within Brill, not to the article itself, change the link to this. Please note that I don't have full access to Brill, and if that changes the way the links would work, please disregard this. I'm also OK with changing these links myself if you'd prefer, as it's not very impactful (in the way changing dates might be) and somewhat tedious. Adding a url= parameter to the EI2 templates works and automatically adds the url-access parameter.
  • Christides, Vassilios (2000) ditto, use this.
  • Dixon, 'Abd al-Ameer A. (1978) change link to this.
  • Gardet, Louis (1965), same as first two, as Brill search, use this
  • Gibb, H. A. R. (1960 Brill search, use this link.
  • Hasson, Isaac (2002) Brill search, use this link.
  • Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) this
  • Hinds, Martin (1991) this
  • Hinds, Martin (1993) this
  • Lammens, Henri (1960) this
  • Shahid, Irfan (2000a) this
  • Shahid, Irfan (2000b) this
  • Sourdel, D. (1965) this
  • Vaglieri, L. Veccia (1960) this
  • Watt, W. Montgomery (1960a) this
  • Watt, W. Montgomery (1960b) this
  • I added the urls, though the versions I used were the (digitized) books. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dates
  • For almost all of these, use whichever date comes from the edition you used to write the article, and the orig-year as mentioned if needed. Most of them probably have google books links for different editions and I'm happy to hunt them down and add them if you mark which date should be used.
  • Crone, Patricia (1980) and Crone, Patricia; Hinds, Martin (1986) both have links which lead to a 2003 reprint, although the ISBN is appropriate for both per WorldCat; may wish to change the date to 2003 for both with original-years of the 1980 and 1986 (use |orig-year=); however, if the edition you used for this is the original, retain 1980 and 1986 dates with no original year.
  • Done on Crone-Hinds 1986. I could do this as well with Crone 1980 by replacing the templates and writing out a full citation. @Cplakidas: Would it make more sense to modify the template? Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: I can modify the template so that |year= is editable when |orig-year= parameter is provided, that should cover it. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • de Goeje, Michael Jan (1910) where does the 1910 date come from, given that the work itself is from 1911? I've been unable to find a 1910 edition of it.
  • Donner, Fred M. (1981) Link gives the year of 2014 but ISBN is appropriate for both, I suggest the usage of 1981 original-year and 2014 date year.
  • Donner, Fred M. (2010) The link gives the 2012 date, ISBN is appropriate for both, suggest the original year 2010 the date year 2012.
  • Elad, Amikam (1999) link gives a date of 1995, WorldCat gives 1994; suggest using an original-year of 1994 and a date of 1995 (unless you used a physical book with the 1999 date, in which case retain 1999 as the date with 1994 as the original-year.
  • The link I have is for the Second Edition and it shows publication year of 1999. See here. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ende, Werner (1977) my German is not flawless (or even good...) but it looks like the publishing year was 1974, if so, use the original year of 1974 and date of 1977.
  • Foss, Clive (2010) In a complex situation the link gives the date as 2013, and WorldCat as 2016, although 2010 is also an appropriate date for the ISBN; if you wish to retain 2010 date, change the link to this; you also may wish to change the date to 2016 and orig-year the 2010 date, and link to this, in line with WorldCat, which would also give the publisher as Routledge, rather than Ashgate; I would generally consider Routledge to be of higher quality than Ashgate, but I will admit limited experience with Ashgate, and I won't challenge Foss as HQRS in any academic source.
  • Hawting, Gerald R. (2000) link gives a date of 2002, and ISBN is appropriate for both; you may wish to change the date to 2002A (and the current Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) to 2002B) with an orig-year of 2000, or more simply just change the link to this
  • Kaegi, Walter E. (1992) link gives the date of 1995, suggest a date of 1995 and orig-year of 1992
  • Kennedy, Hugh (1998) firstly, link author at first mention, secondly, the link gives a date of 2008, suggest using that date and orig-year of 1998.
  • Shaban, M. A. (1971) has an orig-date of 1971 and linked date of 1976; suggest the date of 1976 and orig-year of 1971.
IDs
  • Crone, Patricia (1994) three IDs seems somewhat excessive, suggest dropping S2CID 154370527; also decide if all or only one mention of the author will be linked.
  • Miles, George C. (1948) again, three IDs seem excessive.
  • Sprengling, Martin (1939) same.
Author-links
Notes
  • Hawting, G.R., ed. (1996) Link was broken, I have changed URL to a working one.
  • Humphreys, R. Stephen (2006) Oneworld isn't ideal as a publisher but I'll accept on author's merit.
  • Jankowiak, Marek (2013) while Academia.edu is very useful, it does at times host information without authors permission; it does look like the work was uploaded by the author themselves in this case.
  • Kennedy, Hugh 2004, 2007 and 2016 all have publishers that aren't ideal, especially De Capo press, but I will accept on the author's merit.
  • Hasson, Isaac (1982) and Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (1976) I've added the translated titles.
  • @Al Ameer son: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iazyges: most academic publications hold the copyright to what they publish and don't allow authors to post the final versions of the work on sites like Academia.edu, so it would legally be a copyright violation. The author's work (preprint) they are usually allowed to publish, but the final version should be cited anyway. (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buidhe: That is fair, should it be presumptively removed then? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that's what I would recommend based on the
      requirement not to link to copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

User:Iazyges Is this source review passed? (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: yes, source review passes. I had thought some were not yet done but they were just unresponded to, but fixed in the article itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

  • Not my area, so comments will be general. It looks pretty good, and well-sourced.
  • Lead: only 3 paras, but the 4th is very long, but the first para is pretty short. Split? At "Although Mu'awiya confined the influence of his Umayyad clan to the governorship of Medina ..." Probably. Several other paras lower down are pretty long. Or is another new para needed? The final section of the article "Muslim views" is important, and not really covered in the lead.
  • I broke the third lead para. Further down in the article, I broke up two particularly long passages in the "War with Byzantium" section and one para in "Assessment". There are a couple others I noticed, especially in "Early military career" and one in "Assessment", but I believe in those cases it would be better not to split. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead. Would a mention, or more emphasis here, that M was much less closely associated with the Prophet than his Rashidun predecessors, until the last 3 years?
  • Added the following sentence: "Unlike his predecessors, who had been close, early companions of Muhammad, Mu'awiya was a relatively late follower of the Islamic prophet." Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali turned his attention toward Mu'awiya, who, unlike the other provincial governors, had a strong and loyal power base, demanded revenge for the slaying of his Umayyad kinsman Uthman and could not be easily replaced" at the least, needs a comma after Uthman.
  • Definitely. Broke up the sentence, and added the comma as well.
  • The pic captioned "Lead seal announcing Mu'awiya's dismissal of Abd Allah ibn Amir from the governorship of Basra, which occurred in 664 CE. He was replaced by Ziyad ibn Abihi" duplicated the one in the infobox (not the same piece I think.
  • They are different pieces, same subject though. Should I remove one? Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe - they are not that informative. Aren't there any decent photos of buildings he would have known? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Johnbod, any idea when the further comments might be coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Soonish, but they haven't dealt with the first lot yet. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing: "...holds that Mu'awiya had further developed a mosque originally built by Caliph Umar on the Temple Mount and received his formal oaths of allegiance there" - isa this the Al-Aqsa Mosque or another?
  • Nothing of the structure built under Umar and/or Muawiya is known to be archaeologically extant, but modern sources consider it something of a precursor to the Aqsa Mosque, which was built by the Umayyad caliphs Abd al-Malik and al-Walid (690–715). Let me know if the revised wording properly reflects this. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How big was the standing Muslim army during his reign? Do we have estimates?
  • There was no standing army in his time. There were various important garrisons, mainly those of Basra and Kufa in Iraq; Fustat and Alexandria in Egypt; and across Syria–Upper Mesopotamia, presumably including the soldiers along the frontier area with Byzantium. Numbers mentioned by the early sources are generally unreliable. Hugh Kennedy, author of Armies of the Caliphs cited in this article, proposes 100,000 combined in Iraq, about the same in Syria, and 40,000 in Egypt. They were composed of tribesmen and their clients. These were not professional troops that could be mobilized upon command by the caliph as a standing army, though the tribal soldiery in Syria were the closest thing to that, being more organized, disciplined and motivated to heed Mu'awiya's orders. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mu'awiya died of an illness in Damascus in Rajab 60 AH" better say something vague about his age.
Essentially, yes, so Support. On reflection, I think a mention of the very hostile later Shia view should be slipped into the last para of the lead, but I won't hold it up for that. Seems a very thorough piece of work! Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Fair point. Added the general view of Mu'awiya in Shia and Sunni tradition. Also made a few other improvements to lead. Thank you for your suggestions and support. Al Ameer (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

Good to see this here, will review over the next couple of days. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per
    MOS:SINGLE
    , glosses of words, e.g. for Rashidun, should be in single quotation marks.
  • Fixed. Mentions of the "Rashidun" were the only instances I saw. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this includes terms translated from Arabic and denoted as such, e.g. "Night of Clamor", "the year of unity", etc.
  • who led trade caravans to Syria. perhaps add here that this was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time?
  • Yazid, whom he dispatched I'd recommend replacing the comma with a full stop, and separating the two conflicts (Ridda wars and the conquest of Syria).
  • contradicted Umar's well-known efforts to... 'well-known' to whom? Why is it even relevant that they are 'well-known'? Perhaps rephrase to 'contradicted Uma'rs efforts to otherwise...'?
  • Agree. Changed to "otherwise"; discussing this above as well.
  • central government's entreaties which central government? Presumably Medina is meant, but this is not entirely clear.
  • I prefer Medina; currently discussing this above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend redirecting 'Greek Christian' to
    Rûm
    , esp. since Eastern Orthodoxy is an anachronism for the 7th century.
  • Link 'garrison cities' to Amsar
  • Be consistent in the capitalization of Caliphate when referring to the state vs. caliphate when referring to the office (e.g. maintain the caliphate's influence on the island)
  • Ran through them again, should be good now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "early Muslim" is used in two different senses in the text: on the one hand for the first followers of Muhammad (e.g. "early Muslim converts"), and on the other for the early Muslim period (as in "early Muslim sources", which however are much later than the events discussed). In "early Muslim commander" or "early Muslim elite", I am actually unsure what sense is meant. I recommend changing the first case to something else, like "earliest Muslim converts" or "first Muslim converts". In the case of "early Muslim elites" perhaps "nascent Muslim elite" or simply describe them as the Ansar or Muhajirun or the specific group they belonged to.
  • enabling the governor (optional) for some reason it feels odd to read of Mu'awiya as 'the governor', especially if just mentioned by name. Perhaps 'the governor of Syria'?
  • nascent Muslim community link "Muslim community" to ummah
  • collapsed and by then... "collapsed, but by then..."?
  • wrap italicized Arabic terms with {{transl|ar|}}

User:Cplakidas Do you consider your comments to be resolved? (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @Buidhe: My comments above are addressed, but I am currently looking at the remainder of the article. Constantine ✍ 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the War with Byzantium section, I know that there is a recent revisionist tendency on the chronology of the campaigns, but as far as I am aware, the 'traditional' narrative based on Theophanes is still the one commonly accepted in modern histories. I would suggest adding a comment before the section beginning with Al-Tabari reports... to the effect that the culmination of Muawiya's campaigns was an assault on Constantinople, but that the chronologies of Arabic, Syriac, and Byzantine sources are at odds with one another, and that the traditional view is of a great series of naval-borne assaults against Constantinople in the 670s. Conversely, I would highlight that Jankowiak's reconstruction is exactly that, a revisionist (though quite likely accurate) modern challenge to the established chronology. In short, the reader needs to be made aware that there is a controversy, and what the two opposing opinions are. Having Jankowiak's view only is not enough.
  • Fair point. Let me know if my revisions suffice and please feel free to make substantive changes where needed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 670, Mu'awiya appointed Uqba as Egypt's deputy governor over the North African lands under Arab control west of Egypt and, at the head of a 10,000-strong force, Uqba commenced his expedition against the territories west of Cyrenaica a rather convoluted sentence, please split it up.
  • The significance of the appellation 'Khosrow of the Arabs' will likely be lost to the reader, add an explanation to the effect that this likens him to the autocratic Sasanian monarchs, commonly called 'Khosrow' by the Arab historians and likened to the Biblical pharaoh.
  • Another good point. I am working on finding a source for this, having trouble particularly with the connection to Pharoah. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Shia view, perhaps add that the ritual cursing of Muawiya is a central hallmark of the emerging Shia Islam, both in the Twelver and Ismaili traditions.
  • Also having difficulty finding an RS for the ritual cursing being the a central hallmark of the Twelver and Ismaili traditions. What I have found is that under Shia influence, the Abbasid caliphs began having Mu'awiya cursed in the Friday prayers in the 10th century and prohibited people from invoking blessings on Mu'awiya. @AhmadLX: Do you have any helpful sources? Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Have to look. Give me a couple days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: will also have a look in my sources, on both this and Khosrow. Constantine ✍ 07:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've found something on cursing ritual although it is about Shia in general and doesn't talk about specific subdivisions of Twelver and Ismaili. Going to add soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On Mu'awiya and the Shia: Donohue (The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq, 2003) p. 46 and Busse (Chalif und Grosskönig, 1969) p. 421 write that under the Buyids, the Shia in Baghdad wrote curses against Muhammad's companions; these were taken down, but the Buyids did allow curses on Mu'awiya in the mosques, to which the Abbasid faction also assented. Busse (Chalif und Grosskönig, 1969) p. 409 notes that the Baghdadi water-carriers cried 'Got have mercy on Mu'awiya' as an anti-Shia slur, and that the more theologically active Abbasid caliphs like Ma'mun and Mu'tadid had contemplated prohibiting the veneration of Mu'awiya and the Umayyads but had backed down in the face of popular sentiment, widespread even in Mesopotamia. Halm (Die Kalifen von Kairo, 2003) p. 192 writes that in 1004 al-Hakim prohibited a vegetable soup said to have been favoured by Mu'awiya, and in p. 90 that during anti-Fatimid riots in 972, the "usual anti-Shia slogan 'Mu'awiya is Al'is uncle' was heard." Constantine ✍ 15:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crux of it is already present in the article. Adding specific details would, IMO, be undue weight. Al Ameer son What do you think? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX:@Cplakidas: Depends on the details. The information above does help illustrate how Mu'awiya figured in the rising sectarianism between the emerging Shia and Sunni factions, but I agree we could get lost in the weeds. I found a different source, Kraemer 1992, pp. 64–65, which I think helps put this in a summarizing way. I added it to the article, along with a general comparison with Fatimid Egypt. Let me know if it flies. Al Ameer (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On Khosrow, the EI2 article 'Kisrā' by Morony (col. 5, pp. 184-185) attests to the fact that the proper name had become the typical appellation for all Sasanian monarchs, and that the Arabs associated royal splendour, cultured manners and worldliness, but also the 'arbitrary exercise of power', with it, as opposed to the spiritual and humble message of Muhammad. I remember reading explicit references to Khosrow entering early Muslim popular consciousness as a sort of Pharaoh-like figure, and that vice versa that references to the Pharaoh in the Quran actually were allusions to Khosrow, but can't remember where... Constantine ✍ 15:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explained the Khosrow comparison per Morony's entry. Still no luck with that Pharoah comparison. Al Ameer (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I've made some tweaks here and there in the prose. Otherwise the article is a splendid piece of work, extremely thorough and very readable, on such a pivotal historical figure. Well done, once again. Constantine ✍ 20:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cplakidas, for your review/suggestions and copyedits. We will hopefully resolve the remaining points shortly. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mu%27awiya_I/archive1&oldid=1070868215"