Talk:Marwan I

Untitled

This article is clearly biased against the ummayads. --Bentaguayre (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violations

According to Copyvio Detector, the article has copyright violations issue. Also, the lead of article has copyright problem and copy/paste from this site.Saff V. (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Since redirectify.com copies its content from Wikipedia, it is not really a surprise that the text on redirectify.com is simply an old version of the Wikipedia article. Please self-revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please rewrite this section with reliable source.Saff V. (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marwan I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060222100230/http://www.dartabligh.org:80/books/ebooks/Role_vol1/page139.asp to http://www.dartabligh.org/books/ebooks/Role_vol1/page139.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Bosworth, p. 621 and 622

Please could someone clarify which book is referred to by "Bosworth, p. 621" and "Bosworth, p. 622". We need to know both the title and the edition (pagination is not aways the same in all editions of books). The author, CE Bosworth wrote more than one book.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1: No worries I'll add this today. I had to leave abruptly when I was expanding the article so I just saved what I had. I'll continue working on the article shortly. It's the Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed, "Marwan I b. al-Hakam" article. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marwan I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eperoton (talk · contribs) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Al Ameer son. I'll be reviewing this article. It's good that you've been through this process quite a few times, since I'm doing my first GA review, and you'll be able to tell me if I do something wrong. :) Eperoton (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Meets GA standards. I think the prose is about as clear as one can expect for the content, and easier to read than the sources I checked. I did some light copy editing. Not sure if others would perceive "pay allegiance" as unidiomatic like I do. In any case, the things I changed would not have affected the outcome.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Very strong sources and good citation format. No issues noted.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all the major aspects of the subject I see in the sources.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Uses standard references and a couple lesser known sources I wasn't aware of. Representative selection, no NPOV issues noted.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Pass.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Pass. I'm not aware of any other images one could use here. Interestingly there's a coin with a portrait of Talha on Commons, but seemingly not one of Marwan I.

I’ll check for any coins dating to Marwan’s caliphate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t any considering his very short reign which was limited to Syria and Egypt. That’s actually not a portrait of Talha, who was killed by Marwan prior to his reign, but the image of a Sassanian king. Muslim rulers and governors, including Talha, continued to use these Sassanian prototypes until the era of Abd al-Malik and al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.

Ah, good to know. Eperoton (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass. Kudos for the great article, Al Ameer son, and thanks for your quick response to my comments. Eperoton (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Your kind words are appreciated. Thanks again for the review. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the general reader may have a bit of trouble grasping the Sufyianid/Marwanid transition from the current text. I would recommend something like this as the second sentence in the lead "He ruled for less than a year in 684–685, founding the Marwanid ruling house, which took over power from the Sufyanid branch of the Umayyad clan and remained in power until 750."

Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many of Uthman's erstwhile backers among the Quraysh gradually withdrew their support for him as a result of Marwan's increasing influence over the caliph's decisionmaking. Was it because they didn't lilke the fact that the Caliph was influenced by Marwan, or because they didn't like Uthman's decisions, or both? Madelung's discussion is too long and complex to tell at a glance.

I'm still not 100% sure of what decisions Marwan was accused of being responsible for. Indeed, historian Fred Donner notes the lack of specific charges against Marwan and ascribes the blame he gets in the generally anti-Umayyad Muslim traditional sources as polemical. I hope I've clarified the text with my recent changes. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• In response, Marwan criticized Mu'awiya at his court in Damascus. This is confusing because one doesn't expect to find Marwan in Damascus and because it could mean intriguing against Mu'awiya behind his back. I would suggest a connecting phrase mentioning that Marwan traveled to Damascus to confront Mu'awiya in person.

Clarfied. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• ...realized the importance of the Syrian troops'... This will be confusing to the general reader, who doesn't know that Yamani tribes were established in Syria.

Hopefully clarified. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Marwan modeled his administration on the reign of Caliph Uthman. To that end, he made his family the foundation of his power, giving his sons Muhammad and 'Abd al-'Aziz key military commands, and ensuring 'Abd al-Malik succeeded him as caliph. This implies that hereditary succession was somehow modeled on Uthman's reign. Does Kennedy give more detail or a clearer formulation regarding this?

Eperoton (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope I've clarified this now. Uthman did not designate a successor and as such was not a proponent of dynastic succession, but nonetheless heavily relied on his kin, appointing them to key provincial posts or administrative roles and often favored them financially. As opposed to Mu'awiya, who nominated his son as successor, but neglected his family as an institution, relying instead on his personal relations with key individuals, such as tribal chiefs or local and religious notables. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: Thanks for reviewing this article. All excellent points and suggestions. I’ve addressed a couple of them, but will give a more detailed response later today. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Eperoton: I've addressed the remainder of your points. Let me know what you think. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Link and page number in Ref 12 (Kennedy) are of third edition, while ISBN, year etc of 2nd edition. AhmadLX (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Thanks for spotting that. Fixed now. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that Madelung's assessment of "intrigues" be properly connected with Madelumg himself in last sentence of the para too. Currently it shows as if this opinion of Madelung is historical fact. Madelung is criticized for his supposed far-sightedness of characters he considers villainous. AhmadLX (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: Madelung has been criticized for this, but I believe both the positivist/neutral views of Marwan, held by most western historians, and the suspicious views of Marwan, namely by Madelung who relies almost exclusively on the generally anti-Umayyad sources, need to be represented in this article. Certainly, the former should be (and has been) given more weight. As for the sentence in question, the way it's written now explicitly attributes this as Madelung's view. However, I'll make an alteration to it now that might help this attribution clearer. Otherwise I'm open to suggestions. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Al Ameer Most of the information about Marwan bin Hakim in this article have been copy pasted from different sites and without references.as most of the information is unauthentic and unreliable, so I am putting once again . Beside that I am approached by one of the Sunni group of muslims that the article has been manipulated by Shi'ats group of muslim. So the information needs to be authenticated.

@Aparytai: Every single you thing you just stated is false. If you are referring to the introductory section of the article being unreferenced, it is because we do not add references to this section—it is a summary of the article's body, which, in this case, is completely referenced to scholarly secondary sources. The article is not "manipulated", it is only a balancing of the available secondary scholarly sources which, in turn, reflect their analyses and interpretations of the relevant medieval-era literature (mostly the Islamic traditional sources) as there is no other source material available about this caliph. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Al Ameer No! All asserted information is copy pasted and have the prove beside, whole article represents the views of a certain entity, who throughout ages have portrait things out of context again the caliph. Scholarly secondary sources of whom? Shi'at Scholars or backed! You should also listen and read about the other group scholars and their narrative about the caliph. "Balancing". A certain medieval era historic book or references is available in plain words,do we suppose to need further interpretations? I don't think so, that source will need further interpretations for instance"He Is going"..What interpretation it will require?. about 95% of all medieval literature have been translated in plain english language, so it could easily be standardized in light of those source without being biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aparytai (talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If we look at this this edit of 15:12, 13 March 2020, the editor removed citation needed tags saying in their edit summary: All of this is already cited to reliable sources. The paragraph is the second paragraph the lede (i.e. a summary of the contents of the article), so MOS:LEADCITE applies. @Aparytai: can you list any statements in that paragraph that are not covered in later paragraphs by statements with citations? Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Aparytai: I'm not going to further respond to your wholly unfounded and clearly biased accusation that this article is somehow based on the views of Shia scholars, an assertion far from the reality, but I do want to be clear: there was no copy and pasting done in this article whatsoever and there are no copyright violations, with the exception of some referenced quotations. The text and references meet the FA criterion of being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate", as well as the FA criterion of "presenting views fairly and without bias". --Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Killing Talha

I think we should add other views to the statement that he killed Talha. The earliest sources mention two explanations:

1. Talha was killed by a stray arrow.
2. Marwan deliberately shot Talha.

Here is what al-Tabari wrote in his two accounts of the battle:

• "As for Talha, an arrow from an unknown archer [sahm gharb] pinned his knee to the side of his horse." (SUNY Press, vol. 16, p. 124)
• "After the camel was hamstrung and the force was routed, an arrow hit Talha and killed him. Some say [yazʿamūn] that it was fired by Marwan b. al-Hakam." (Ibid., p. 127)

Both explanations are found in later sources, like this brief summary by Abu Nu'aym.[1]

Modern historians also came up with different conclusions, as Madelung states: "The reports that Talha was killed by Marwan have been dismissed by L. Caetani and other modern scholars as anti-Umayyad fiction." Another example is Ella Landau-Tasering who maintains that "Talhah and al-Zubayr were not killed in battle but repented their move and retreated. They were nevertheless killed by ‘Ali's supporters."[2] There is a report where Imran bin Talha tells Ali "you killed my father" (Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat, vol. 3, p.206; see also p.205 where Ali's supporters make the same point).

Since we have multiple views and a number of discrepant reports, we should avoid stating contested assertions as facts. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: Thank you for this detailed breakdown using traditonal and modern sources. I agree that both views should be presented. Please feel free to add; otherwise I’ll incorporate this information tomorrow. Cheers —Al Ameer (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Short description

I recently changed the short description from the fourth Umayyad Caliph to Seventh-century Umayyad caliph, which has been reverted by Aza24. Explaining my rationale:

• Short descriptions are supposed to be sentence case, and almost never begin with the article "the".
• "Caliph" is not capitalized in the lead here, and I wanted to follow the lead's lead.
• Given that short descriptions are intended to be a disambiguator in search results, not to fully describe the topic, I think it's more important to communicate the historical period with the century than the ordering with "fourth". I'm not fully sure about "7th" vs. "Seventh". Including both would put the description over the 40-character target.

Thoughts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

My two cents: The capitalization and "the" changes are fine, but in my opinion "fourth" is more descriptive than "seventh century", because the former places the subject as one of the early Umayyad caliphs. The Islamic calendar and the start/end of each caliphate are more often used as marker in Islamic history than the Julian/Gregorian year, so I feel that "seventh-century" is not as useful as a descriptor, but maybe it is just me. Using the Islamic calendar directly will confuse many people, so we should avoid that. "Fourth Umayyad caliph" should give a good enough context for people with different backgrounds. HaEr48 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Sdkb, I don't normally revert, especially to admirable editors like yourself, I was just concerned that such a change made Marwan the only Umayyad caliph whose short description would be done in that manner. I agree with you and HaEr48 above; the absence of "the" makes sense, as does lowercasing caliph. In my mind using "7th century" is a rather unnatural division for a Dynasty that is not usually seen century by century, numbering may be clearer. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: do you have any thoughts on this? Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Fourth Umayyad caliph" is better than "Seventh-century Umayyad caliph", a description which could be equally applied to to Mu'awiya I, Yazid I, Mu'awiya II and partly for Abd al-Malik. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb, HaEr48, and Al Ameer son: based on the conversation above, I've adjusted/standardized the short descriptions of the Umayyad calpihs from Muawiyah to Marwan II. Aza24 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking

Is it true that Marwan killed Talha ibn Ubayd Allah? I don't know the source from Sunni Muslim historians Iylaq (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)