Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Fitna/archive1

Add links
From 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20 August 2019 [1].

Second Fitna[edit]

Nominator(s): AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an early inter-Muslim civil war that ensued after the death of the first Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I in 680 CE. It was a highly complicated and multi-faceted affair, that left a lasting impact on later Muslim governments and deepened sectarian divide. The core issue of the dispute was "who should rule the caliphate". The article is comprehensive to the best of my knowledge, and is thoroughly referenced with high-quality sources. An informal peer-review resulted in great improvement in the structure and accuracy of the article, while prose was improved recently by a GOCE contributor. All comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, except for two maps, where alt wouldn't add anything unique. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Second Fitna heavily influenced the later development of Islamic history in a variety of ways." Needs source.
This is just, sort of, a summary of what follows in the section, which is referenced. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Syria remained under Umayyad control." Likewise. All paragraphs should end in citations.
As above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it would still be encouraged in both cases, though. The average reader can't know whether it is just a summary or not by just reading the sentences. And if there is any doubt, the default should be to add a source. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the one above, as it may sound like synthesis. This one is plain fact in view of the sources. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this[2] image have a large white border? Should be cropped out.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quraysh (a powerful grouping of Meccan clans, to which Muhammad and all caliphs belonged)" All caliphs? The Ottoman caliphs were hardly of that clan, for example? Or do you mean until that point?
Until then. Although Qurayshi caliphs ruled at-least until the fall of the Abbasids, here first three are meant. Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All the above killed in action Umayyad leaders killed by the pro-Alid leader Mukhtar al-Thaqafi during his reign in Iraq" Is this supposed to be one sentence? Reads odd.
Removed, is discussed in the article body anyway. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bernard Lewis notes" You present other writers, should be consistent.
Sorry I don't understand this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce the writers; in other cases, you say "Historian Fred Donner", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muawiyah moved to settle the issue in his lifetime by designating his son Yazid as his successor.[6] With no precedence in Islamic history, hereditary succession aroused opposition." and " `In 676, Muawiyah announced his plans to nominate Yazid.[8] This was met with some resistance from different quarters as the nomination was considered the corruption of the caliphate into monarchy." seem repetitive, could the sentences perhaps be merged?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battles fought during the civil war" Which of them? Perhaps best to just specify first or second fitna.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More terms and names could be linked in image captions.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alid, Hejaz, Messiah, and Kufa are not linked in the article body. Also, the term Alid could be explained.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Syrian army headed for Mecca" Might be confusing for most readers, why not just be consistent and call them or similar? If not, you might want to explain the Syrian angle further, because the rulers weren't Syrian as such after all.
Changed to Yazid's army .AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had fought the Umayyads and the Syrians during the First Fitna" Similar to above, you haven't explained who "the Syrians" were.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Iraq and Egypt came under his fold" The and and reads awkwardly. How about "which brought Iraq and Egypt under his fold", "with Iraq and Egypt subsequently coming under his fold", or similar, to avoid repetition?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pro-Zubayrd" Missing i.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allied with the Kharijites" Duplinked.
Duplink removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—a rebel faction opposed to the Umayyads and the Alids who had emerged during the First Fitna—" They should be presented at first mention, which is much earlier in the article.
There they are mentioned in the due context. Further elaboration that they were opposed to Umayyads isn't necessary at that point, as the focus is upon their desertion of Ali. Here (i.e. at this second mention) it serves to recall who they were and to add that they were also opposed to Umayyads. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia. They began destabilizing his rule." Why two fragmentary sentences? Could make more sense as "A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia, and began destabilizing his rule."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tawwabin now came out in the open and called on the people to revenge Husayn's death" Explain what Tawwabin is.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a significant of number of whom" Of is not needed here.
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent in whether ibn is capitalised or not. You seem to only capitalise it when not spelling out a full name, but shouldn't it be consistent? What do the sources do?
I used to write it as "ibn", but a reviewer pointed out (correctly) in my previous FAC that sources capaitalize Ibn when giving short name. See for example here. Same is for the rest of the sources. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rabi'a's opponents Mudar" Which are what? The article linked gives little explanation.
The linked articles are really bad and need to be improved. Added some context here. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while situation in Hadharamaut" The situation.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under Sufyanids" The?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Zubayrdis" Misplaced i.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Qaysis proved invincible again" A bit too hyperbolic.
Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the Karijites" Missing h.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fall of Mukhtar meant there were now only two belligerents in the war—the Umayyads and the Zubayrids" But seems the Kharijites were still active too? In fact, it is unclear in the article what they wanted from their continued fight. And shouldn't they have a column in the infobox?
They weren't a faction for the control of the state like the other three factions. They would control sparesely populated areas and then and raid and harass cities and towns. They had no workable framework on how the state should be governed and run, and they often would fight among themselves, depose and kill their leaders on a regular basis and disintegrate into further factions. That's why historians don't consider them a real party in the quest for leadership. I will add a footnote on this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I'll support once the footnote is added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk: Footnote added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the Abbasid Revolution in 750" Link them a first mention.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arabic coinage replaced that of the Byzantine and Persia" Persian?
Sorry, don't get this one. Why Persian? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so shouldn't it be "Byzantines"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Mahdi who was to appear in future" The Mahdi and the future?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hen he defeated Zubayrids" The.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looking good to me now, nice to see such an important article here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 10:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Battle_of_Karbala_-_Abbas_Al-Musavi_-_cropped.jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Don't know, but I think Brooklyn Museum description can be trusted. Their page says "No known copyright restrictions". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image currently has a tag stating the author died at least 70 years ago. If we can't confirm that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It stated "and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal." Anyway, changed to pd-us-no notice.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Silver_dirham_of_Abd_Allah_ibn_al-Zubayr_690-91.jpg needs an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Weird thing is that pd-art-3d didn't generate the text that is displayed on template page. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From HaEr48[edit]

Started looking at this. So far, the article seems well-researched, well-written and with neutrality carefully preserved. Thank you for your work on this significant topic. Now, my feedback:

Thanks for reviewing. I was afraid this will be archived ;) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali was subsequently assassinated by one of the Kharijites in January 661, after having killed most of them at the Battle of Nahrawan": Did the Khajrites only fight Ali at this point? Or Muawiya as well?
At that stage only Ali, Muawiya was out of their reach. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • invaded Iraq: Was Iraq Hasan's base on power? This wasn't mentioned before.
Mentioned that Ali had transferred capital to Kufa, Iraq. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capital was transferred to Damascus: But where was it before? Medina or Iraq? Both seems plausible based on the previous text.
Done by the one above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Election through consultation had been problematic in the past: could we briefly explain why? And why was it "unworkable" for Muawiya?
This was added to make room for Lewis quote. Its elaboration-that it caused first civil war-will be OR. "Unworkable" is Leiws' assertion and is probably based on the consideration that most of the 1st generation of Muslims and people of Muhammad's inner circle were all dead by now, and Muwiyah didn't command respect and authority as Umar did while formulating his Shura which included only 6 people. Again, elaborating that in the article will be OR. So, I think it should be left as is. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I agree that elaborating it using your own reasoning would be OR. If Lewis didn't explain his, please consider looking at other sources that might offer an explanation. Not only this is assertion is non-obvious, it is open to different explanations as well, e.g. is it unworkable in the technical sense? or "unworkable" because Muawiyah wanted his descendants to have the caliphate?. By the way, thanks for your excellent responses to my feedback. I think this is my last suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Thanks. I think I have addressed all your points. As to whether he wanted to avoid further disputes in future or he wanted to establish a dynasty, it is both. Sources say he wanted to arrange a smooth transition, and wanted to see his son on the throne. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This led to a sequence of events resulting in another civil war. : Suggest removing this sentence, because it's already obvious given that it's in the background section of that very civil war.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Husayn was killed along with 72 of his male companions on 10 October 680: Maybe there's more in the main article of the Battle of Karbala, but can we say how they died? E.g. was it a "battle" or simply an execution (given that it's 72 vs 4000), and who started the fight?
The number of people in his army is uncertain. But 70-72 dead are reported based on body count. Changed to less precise 70. Most of them were killed in single combats. Modified so it doesn't look like execution. Umayyad army started it. Do you mean it should be mentioned, or? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking to mention it, but after your change I don't think further addition is needed. HaEr48 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a son of Muhammad's companion Zubayr ibn al-Awam: Would his status as Abu Bakr's grandson also relevant here? The previous section hinted to his claim from being a caliph's descendant.
Added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Ibn al-Zubayr's refusal: Refusal of what? Of negotiation or of submitting to Yazid?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition in the Hejaz: I'm worried that a layman reading this section will miss the fact that the Hejaz is the region containing Mecca and Medina. I suggest either renaming the section to "Opposition in Mecca and Medina" or describing Hejaz very early
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Syria remained under Umayyad control.: Add citation for the sake of consistency? Pretty sure the following section has the ref.
I wanted to leave it without ref to prove a point ;) The point is that citations are required for claims that are controversial or are likely to be challenged. This one is none of that as it is a historical fact and the matter is further discussed in the section below it. This makes it similar to lead section where we don't normally add citations. But you are second reviewer to ask this, so I think that makes this claim "challengeable" to some extent. So added ref. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chronology of "Counter-caliphate of Ibn al-Zubayr": IAZ gaining Iraq and sending governor there was mentioned before the Umayyads losing it and the Iraqis throwing out the Umayyad governor. Seems wrong chronologically.
Modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muawiyah II died after a few months with no suitable Sufyanid .. candidate to succeed him: Later in the paragraph we discover that he had a brother Khalid. Could we explain why he was not considered suitable?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue commenting soon. Thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Khurasan and Sijistan: Because these names don't correspond to modern-day nations, can you add their rough location, e.g. which modern day country or region?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia: where was their base at this point?
In Mecca, defending the city against Syrian attack. Do you mean before assisting Ibn al-Zubayr? Yamama. But they were dormant back then, only the death of Yazid and collapse of government caused their resurgence. It has been mentioned in a footnote. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until now he had been supported by Kufan nobleman Mukhtar al-Thaqafi : Was he part of the khajirite as well, or not? It appears not, so I suggest adding "Additionally, " or similar to mark the paragraph's shift.
Added "pro-Alid". If it's not enough, "Additionally" can be added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro-Alid movements: Was the pro-Alid faction called "Shia" at this point? Would it be appropriate to note that, or that they were the predecessor of the Shia subdivision in Islam? It will help the reader's understanding if they could relate it to modern day concepts.
Yes it was called "Shia" from the time of 1st civil war, but it was in the sense of the original meaning of the word: "Party". Supporters of Muawiya were also called "Shia of Muawiya" during the 1st war. Doctrinal developments took place during the 2nd war (although some after the murder of Ali as well) and later. RS call them Shia at this stage but without missing to note that "Shia" at this stage does not refer to religious sect. Here, "pro-Alids" is used for "Party" and "Shia" for "religious sect" to keep things separate. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I still suggest adding a gloss like "(precursor of today's Shia)" or similar. To casual reader, "Pro-Alid" sound like a random faction, while mentioning Shia gave them something more concrete to associate from. HaEr48 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • were struck by a sense of guilt for abandoning Husayn : Is "abandoning" the right word here? Husayn did not even get to Kufa, correct?
Yes, he couldn't enter Kufa, but it was largely because Kufans deserted his emissary Muslim ibn Aqil. "Not helping" or something similar can be added if you are not happy with abandoning.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Failing to help" or similar is better, IMHO. HaEr48 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mukhtar was killed along with some 6,000 of his supporters: battle, execution, or?
He was killed fighting, his supporters were then executed. Clarified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibn al-Zubayr's forces surrendered and he was killed in September/October 692: same here
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of commanders getting killed in this article. It's worth clarifying whether they were killed in battle or executed.
All the executed now described as such. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath - Ashraf: can we provide some names of Ashraf here? (especially those that feature in the preceding section) I think will help make the aftermath discussion more relatable to the rest of the content.
Sorry, which ones feature in the preceding section? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article body about the course of the civil war mentioned tribal chiefs that switched sides. For example, I assumed Dahhak ibn Qays was one of the ashraf that we're talking about in #Aftermath. HaEr48 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not only him but also Ashraf of Iraq and Syria and Khurasan. Some examples are Zufar ibn al-Harith, Abd Allah ibn Khazim, Abd Allah ibn Harith, Amir ibn Masud etc. Dahaq and Ibn Khazim added.can be added as examples if you like. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to some historians, Ibn al-Zubayr's role as the anti-caliph shaped the later development of the concept of Mahdi: Name the historians.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some aspects of his career were already formulated into hadiths ascribed to Muhammad during Ibn al-Zubayr's lifetime: This rather vague explanation could benefit from some example of those "aspects".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the conditions of the Hasan-Muawiyah Treaty, Hasan ibn Ali surrendered power to Muawiya on the conditions that he be just to the people and protect them and, second, Muawiyah could not appoint a successor and would let the Islamic world choose the caliph after him. The lead generally summarizes the article body, but this info is not in the body. Any reason why?
Somebody else added it recently. Removed it because numerous conflicting terms of the treaty have been reported. They are better suited in the article on the treaty. This is in line with the (modern) sources, which generally omit them. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a note to explain what "Fitna" means and why Islamic civil wars are called that.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work in this often neglected area. HaEr48 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 18:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support this article. It is well written, well-researched, written carefully to be neutral, has an appropriate structure and an appropriate lead section, and stays focused on the main topic. I can't say I'm 100% happy with the explanation for "unworkable" above, but it's a minor point in this excellent work. Thank you for your work and your responses, I hope my review was useful. HaEr48 (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HaEr48 for detailed review and support. I have kept "unworkable" quote as is to avoid my personal analysis, and also to keep the narrative balanced. "Corruption of caliphate into kingdom" narrative of early histories written in the Abbasid era, has to be balanced with modern views. But to avoid asserting things in Wikipedia's voice, I kept the thing in quote so it is clear that it is an opinion of a historian. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment from Mimihitam[edit]

Hi, great job on the expansion. I only have one short comment. Would it be apt if you could also provide a discussion of the primary sources used by the scholars cited in this article? Because some might suspect that the article is based on Al-Tabari, and some might ask if it could be enriched with scholarly works that are engaging with Ibn Atsir, Ibn Katsir, or Ibn Asakir. This is just a suggestion. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mimihitam: The secondary sources cited here don not only use Tabari but also others including Madaini, Baladhuri, Ibn Sa'd, Yaqubi etc. But I have rarely seen Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir being cited. Could you please provide some examples where secondary works have based on these? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX that was just an observation brought by a user in the Indonesian Wikipedia (as the article has been fully translated): id:Pembicaraan_Pengguna:HaEr48#Pandangan_sedikit_utk_bung_HaEr. So there is no problem then. Thank you for your help. Mimihitam (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber[edit]

I am unfamiliar with the subject matter. I think you have done a good job in attempting to clearly describe a complex internecine struggle for the reader. I can't see how it can be improved so am tentatively supporting on prose. I just don't have a clue about comprehensiveness (though it looks pretty comprehensive) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Casliber. Should I take "tentatively" to mean that you have some objections? Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No no, it means that I read it, I followed it, you did a good job of explaining a complex situation. It came across as cohesive and comprehensive. I just say "tentative" as I have no idea if it is slanted in its POV (though it is written neutrally) or leaving out some important facts. It is good to have a FA candidate read by people both familiar and unfamiliar with the subject matter as the former are better judges of comprehensiveness and balance and the latter for accessibility. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer son[edit]

I reviewed this article earlier (see "informal peer review" mentioned above), but will take a deeper look at the article over these next couple of days. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Second Islamic Civil War" should be bolded as it's the common alternative name.
  • The word "afflicted", which is better suited for a disease, should be removed or replaced. Perhaps just: "in the Islamic community"
  • As a general rule of thumb explained to me during the Abd al-Malik FAC, "caliphate" should be capitalized when referring to the state i.e. "Umayyad Caliphate" or "ruled the Caliphate", and lower-cased when referring to the institution, i.e. "Mu'awiya's caliphate" or "claimed the caliphate"
  • "Umayyad dynasty" should be wikilinked as it refers to the ruling family specifically as opposed to the already linked Umayyad Caliphate.
  • Remove "some" before opposition, it's too vague.
  • Replace "company" with "retinue", better wording
  • Remove the sentence which starts as "Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr based ..."
  • Instead of "attacked Medina", write "assaulted anti-Umayyad rebels in Medina in August 683 and subsequently besieged Mecca, where Ibn al-Zubayr established his headquarters." ...
  • Then modify the following sentences that begin with "With Yazid's death" to: "After Yazid died in November, the siege was abandoned and Umayyad authority collapsed throughout the Caliphate except in certain parts of Syria; most provinces recognized Ibn al-Zubayr as caliph. A series of pro-Alid movements demanding revenge for Husayn's death emerged in Kufa beginning with Sulayman's Penitents movement, which was crushed by the Umayyads at the Battle of Ayn al-Warda in January 685. Kufa was then taken over by al-Mukhtar in October. Though his forces routed a large Umayyad army at the Battle of Khazir in August 686, al-Mukhtar and his supporters were slain by the Zubayrids in April 687 following a series of confrontations. Under the leadership of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the Umayyads reasserted control over the Caliphate after defeating the Zubayrids at the Battle of Maskin in Iraq and killing Ibn al-Zubayr in the Siege of Mecca in 692."
  • Change "modifications" to "reforms", change "increased" to "increasing", change "restructuring of the army" to "restructuring the army". "Changes in the bureaucracy" should also be rephrased, it's too vague. Perhaps "Arabizing and Islamizing the bureaucracy"?
  • Change "factions" to "sects".
Done all, with slight modifications, except "caliphate" thing. Sources don't capitalize it anywhere. See for example "Khalifa" in EI2, Kennedy's "Caliphate, History of an Idea", Hawting's "First Dynasty of Islam": its always "caliphate", "Sunni caliphate", "Abbasid caliphate", "Umayyad caliphate" etc. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's more a stylistic point to distinguish the Caliphate (as in the Arab/Islamic Empire) from the office, but no serious objection. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yazid's succession

  • The first two sentences in the second passage about Mu'awiya's specific warnings and remedies to Yazid about Husayn and Ibn al-Zubayr should be removed. They seem suspect and are hard to prove, probably a foreboding in the Muslim tradition. This is just a suggestion, but I think we're better off without it even if it's mildly interesting.
  • Mention that Walid ibn Utba was Yazid's cousin, so "charged the governor of Medina, his cousin Walid ibn Utbah ibn Abu Sufyan"
  • Change the second instance of Abd Allah ibn Umar to just "Ibn Umar" for consistency.
  • Was Marwan a "close relative"? Replace with "kinsman".
  • The sentence quoting Fred Donner should be relocated to the beginning of the second passage.
Done all, except removing Muawiyah's warnings. It is part of the will that he left to Yazid and, AFAIK, no source has questioned its authenticity. Also, it included Ibn Umar's name, but I've skipped it, because he did nothing whatsoever. See, for example, Lammens, Le Califat. He reproduces the whole testament. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this to me. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt of Husayn ibn Ali

  • Remove "which had been the capital during the reigns of his father and brother", it's already noted above that Ali had his capital there and is implied that Hasan had been based there as well.
  • After making preceding change, replace "Kufans had fought" with "its inhabitants had fought".
  • The Battle of Karbala should be linked in the section (other than the hatnote).
  • Hejaz should always be preceded with "the".
Done all. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-caliphate of Ibn al-Zubayr

  • No need for "of the Muslim world".
  • Remove "Syria remained under Umayyad control", it's a bit redundant as the situation is explained below and it's not a totally accurate picture since most of Syria (Palestine, Homs, Qinnasrin/Jazira, even Damascus) recognized Ibn al-Zubayr.
  • Ashraf should be lower-cased throughout.
  • I copyedited the "Struggle for Syria" section a bit and did some minor c/e elsewhere. Will continue this review later today or tomorrow. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dissensions

  • Please introduce some dating to the events describe in the section.
Added for Mukhtar. I couldn't find exact date for Kharijites, but it is stated it happened after he became caliph, so is fairly clear I think. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abandon the usage of "now" as in the present tense. Replace "Until now" with "Until then"; Remove "Now" from "Now Ibn al-Zubayr".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "Feeling abandoned, Mukhtar left him and returned to Kufa to incite pro-Alid sentiment among the people in his favor..." with "As a result, Mukhtar defected and incited pro-Alid sentiment in Kufa." Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Alid movements I did some copyediting here, but there are a few points that should be addressed:

  • Don't the sources prefer "Penitents" rather than "Repentants" as the translation of "Tawwabin"? The article on the Tawwabin uprising uses "Penitents".
Just for variety ;) Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find that the Tawwabin attracted large-scale support in pages 71–74 of Wellhausen. Maybe I missed it. Could you check this and specify the exact page number(s)?
"Sie hatten die Sympathien der Menge für sich, wenn auch die Aschräf nichts von ihnen wissen wollten." : "They had the sympathies of the masses, although the Ashraf wanted to keep aloof from them." Oppositionsparteien, p. 72. --AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Battle of Ayn al-Warda in northern Syria". It should either be clarified that we're speaking about present-day Syria or "Syria" should be replaced with "the Jazira" or "Upper Mesopotamia".
  • "Mukhtar had been active in Kufa once his alliance with Ibn al-Zubayr fell apart" is redundant. We already know he was active in Kufa from the preceding passage and the "Dissensions" section. Should be removed.
  • Replace "He had advocated" with "Mukhtar called for"
  • Revise "left the leadership of the Kufan pro-Alids in his hands" to "left him as the leader of the Kufan pro-Alids."
  • Revise "within the city" to "in the city".
  • Replace "thousands of people fled to Basra" with "thousands of Kufans fled to Basra". Actually, if the fleeing Kufans in question were Arab tribesmen or ashraf this should be specified.
Done, but I don't think 10,000+ people all would have been Ashraf. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the ashraf and their families and associates. But in any case, you can drop "thousands" and just write ashraf as they are the main factor here. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "to fight" with "to confront" and "recapture" with "reconquer".
  • Take "August 686" out of parentheses, just write in "in August 686"
  • "Mukhtar's relations with Ibn al-Zubayr worsened." I think this is unnecessary, I'd remove it. We already know Mukhtar broke with Ibn al-Zubayr and seized Kufa and much of Iraq from him.
  • Revise "Kufan refugees in Basra persuaded Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr, the governor of the city and younger brother of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, to attack Kufa" to "In Basra, the Kufan refugees persuaded its governor Mus'ab ibn al-Zubayr, the younger brother of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, to attack Kufa". It should also be clarified that these "Kufan refugees" were the disaffected tribesmen or ashraf, you can even link the senior nobleman Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath as he was their ringleader. And why did they want Mus'ab simply "to attack Kufa"? We should be more specific. They wanted Mus'ab to help them eliminate Mukhtar and restore their lost influence. These are important things that should be mentioned because it helps illustrate the other factors at play in Iraq during the Second Fitna other than vengeance for Husayn or opposition to the Umayyads.
Yes, you are right. done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "palace of Kufa" → "Kufa's palace"; "and were besieged by Mus'ab" → "where Mus'ab besieged them" or "where they were besieged by Mus'ab".
  • "The fall of Mukhtar meant there were now only two belligerents in the war—the Umayyads and the Zubayrids" → "Mukhtar's fall left the Umayyads and the Zubayrids as the remaining belligerents in the war".
Done the others as well. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victory of the Umayyads

  • I understand why some of the material in the first passage is repeated from above. Wherever you can reduce redundancy here without sacrificing necessary chronology, please do so.
This is complicated. Since various developments were happening simultaneously, it is really hard to present them in a concise chronological way without risking some repetition. Anyway, the only repetitions here are Tawwabin and Khazir. Former is already a short sentence, I've trimmed the latter further.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Qaysi stronghold in northern Iraq? I believe we're talking about al-Qarqisiya (Circesium)? If so, mention and link it. Also, "northern Iraq" would be inaccurate as Qarqisiya was part of the medieval "Jazira" and in any case, would be located in modern-day Syria, not Iraq.
Thanks for catching this. fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "against the government"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword "the Kharijite faction of Azariqa" to "the Kharijite Azariqa faction" or better (in my opinion) "a Kharijite faction, the Azariqa". In the same sentence, replace "who" with "which" (tongue twister), and "pro-Zubayrids" with "the Zubayrids". Also, no need for "had been active against him".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rmv "extreme". "Repression and slaughter" suffice.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it specifically "half his forces"?
Yes, but can't remember where it was. Changed a bit to avoid the tedious task of searching again;)AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reword "was no match for"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "again"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify how much longer the Azariqa revolt continued. "For some time" is too vague when we have information as to when the Kharijite revolts (whether the Azariqa or others) broke out and were ultimately suppressed. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • Revise "set out to reshape the administrative nature of the caliphate" to "enacted significant administrative changes in the caliphate"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Muawiyah developed a professional army in Syria and that Abd al-Malik developed a professional army in Syria. Wasn't Muawiyah's army one of "tribal masses" or "citizens' army", i.e. not a professional one? This being one of the major changes implemented by Abd al-Malik and his successors?
Yes you are right. I had meant Syrian Army- Ahl al-Sham- which was characteristically different from tribal volunteers of other provinces and was trained more rigorously through regular attacks on Byzantines, but yes it was not standing army like that of Abd al-Malik. So modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within the caliphate" means the provinces or Syria and the provinces? If it's the former then write "In the provinces", if it's the latter then write "Domestically" or "Internally"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the ashraf are already define above, remove "tribal nobility" and take ashraf out of parentheses.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "governors of the provinces" → "provincial governors"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the first "Also,". Just start it as "The military units ..."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise "Provinces could retain much of the revenue after sending a small portion to the capital" to "Provinces retained much of the tax revenue and forwarded a small portion to the caliph". It's clear the provinces kept the bulk of the surplus, but in principal most governors were supposed to forward it to the caliph. Also specify that it was tax revenue.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace "Persian" with "Sasanian Persian" at first instance then replace "Persian" with just "Sasanian" for the remainder of the section.
Sasanian Persian would seem as if there were other Persians around as well. I linked Persians to Sasanian Empire but kept it as "Persians". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree (after all, we use "Byzantine" instead of "Greek" or "Roman" even though we know there we no other Greek or Roman powers at this time), but it's not a huge point. If you prefer your way, then at least write out "Sasanian Persian" at the first instance for the reader to know which Persian empire we're referring to as there had been others prior. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to Sasanian, and removed Persian altogether. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I restored "Persian" at the first instance of "Sasanian" since many (if not most) interested readers would be totally unfamiliar with the word. Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Byzantine and Persian coinage was used". Not sure, but I think this should be "were used".
  • Revise "decentralized system of governing with personal connections and diplomacy" simply as "decentralized government", we already mention the other details of connections and diplomacy at the beginning of the passage.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After you make the above change merge that sentence with "and he thus centralized power".
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • change "to impose" to "and was used to impose"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a period instead of a comma after "... authority in the provinces". Start the next sentence as "Moreover, key government positions ..."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "also" from "Abd al-Malik also required"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "In addition" why not "Most consequentially" since the coinage and language reforms had the longest term effects on the Caliphate's history. You can find it in the EI2 entry on Abd al-Malik by Gibb.
Yes but it would require elaboration as to why was it "consequential" which I think better suits in Abd al-Malik's article.
That's fine, though we could afford some elaboration on this point in the article. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise "Arabic coinage replaced that of the Byzantine and Persia" with "Islamic currency replaced Byzantine and Sasanian coinage".
What is the difference? They just removed Sasanian/Byzantine symbols and inscriptions with Arabic ones. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal was to improve the grammar. As for why "Islamic" and not simply "Arabic" for the coinage, it's because the significance stems from the Qur'anic and other Islamic religious formula that were inserted and the non-Islamic images that were removed rather than simply a change in the inscription's language. After all, Arabic was already being used (to some extent) in the coinage before this reform. This was the main strictly "Islamization" reform that Abd al-Malik/Hajjaj instituted. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Mudar–Rabi'a/Azd split also played out in Khurasan not just Iraq.
Iraq implied its eastern dependencies, but added specifically now. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it mainly played out in Khurasan and Iraq as opposed to Sistan, Fars, Kerman, Jibal, Bahrayn, etc. which would also be "eastern dependencies". Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did wherever there was a significant Arab population, including Iraq, Khurasan as well as Sistan. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "block" → "bloc"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise "but this division, and the implacable rivalry between the two groups, became" to "but their implacable rivalry became"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The constant quest" → "Their constant struggle"
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a widespread outcry" → "widespread outcry"; "helped to crystallize → helped crystallize" I believe I'm correct here.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the Battle of Karbala "often cited as the definitive break between the Shia and Sunni sects". I thought this developed later. Additional reliable source(s) would be useful for this line.
Yes Sunni and Shia sects developed later, but there existed political factions. Husayn's killing catalyzed the transformation of political affiliations into religious sect. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then instead of "a source of definitive break between the Shi'a and Sunni sects" it should be "contributed to the development of the Shi'a–Sunni sectarian division in Islam". If you have a source that says what century they truly developed into Sunni and Shia (I think the 9th century, no?) then please add this. It is important to clarify this point and it could be done succinctly. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made further adjustments to make this sentence clearer/cleaner. Still think we should add "in the 9th century" (if that's the right century) instead of "later". Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son It depends. Early Imami Shi'ism had developed many of its doctrines during 8th-9th centuries. Twelver Shi'ism (the most significant denomination today), which eventually emerged from the Iamami Shi'ism, did not fully develop until 9th-10th centuries.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 22:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This event" → "The battle" since it's not entirely clear if the event is the Day of Ashura or the Battle of Karbala (I assume it's the latter). If it's the former, then specify accordingly.
"This event" here means killing of Husayn. How is day of Ashura different from the battle of Karbala?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The battle of Karbala is the actual battle and killing of Husayn and his retinue; the Day of Ashura is the commemorative holy day that did not truly start until centuries later. It's not entirely clear which is being referred to here exactly (even though I know it's the battle itself) and should be clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see what was causing confusion. I just moved the Ashura ritual sentence. It should be clear now. Also, Day of Ashura is the Day of the Battle, so it is fine to call the Day of Karbala as Ashura Day. Ashura Ritual/Mourning etc on the other hand comes in commemorative category. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Never before in Islamic history had non-Arab Muslims played any active role" I'm a bit surprised by this statement (but I could very well be wrong) because of the hard "Never before played any active role" No non-Arab Muslim played an active political role whatsoever prior to this revolt? Could we be more specific if possible?
Prior to this, it was only the Arabs who mattered politically and locals were in the background. Mukhtar's mawali came to the fore and at the latter stages he was mostly supported and defended by them. They then became main instrument of the Abassids, but before Mukhtar, they didn't have any significant political role.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. My concern was about the comprehensive and absolute current phrasing "never before played any active role." Certainly, there had been non-Arab Muslim individuals or groups from the time of Muhammad until the revolt of Mukhtar who played some kind of role in Islam. It should be clarified that until then, the non-Arabs did not play any significant political role in Islamic history, as Hawting and Kennedy say/imply (can't read Wellhausen). Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here non-Arabs/locals is meant as a group, not as individuals, otherwise Salman the Perisna, for example, was of course a non-Arab. Anyway, modified. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the adjustment, I copyedited this further. Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for various reasons" is too vague, either specify or just remove this bit. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

  • Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra is listed as a commander in the infobox but not once in the article body. He should either be briefly introduced (probably in relation to Mus'ab's fight with the Kharijites or against Mukhtar or his remaining with the Basran troops when Mukhtar set out against Abd al-Malik.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath, as probably the most eminent sharif among the Kufan ashraf, should also be linked in the article body in the segment on Mukhtar and Mus'ab. His son would later be Abd al-Malik and al-Hajjaj's most serious opponent after the civil war.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copyedited the footnotes. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once you address these last concerns, I'll read the article start to finish once more and see if I missed something. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, why do we have "Umayyad caliphate" and then just "Zubayrids"? Shouldn't the latter be "Zubayrid caliphate"? After all, Ibn al-Zubayr was recognized by the most of the Islamic provinces for a good part of the civil war. A major (if not the major) aspect of the war was the struggle for legitimacy and leadership of the Islamic community. Alternatively, we can also remove "caliphate" and just list them as "Umayyads" in the combatants section of the infobox. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Zubayrid caliphate" emerged during this very conflict. I initially wanted to add note on Hodgson and Robbinson's characterization of Ibn al-Zubayr as legitimate caliph and Marwanids as anti-caliphs but then decided to leave it out to keep it simple and more accessible. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 20:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We could elaborate more on this when we have more sources. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For stylistic consistency, we should choose one type of transliteration for Arabic names and terms and stick with it throughout the article. For instance we use "Muawiyah" instead of "Mu'awiya", but then we use apostrophes and drop the "h" for others, i.e. "Nu'man", "Mus'ab", "Ash'ath", etc, or use both "Najda" and "Najdah". A wider discussion about which style we should use across the board in this subject area should be started at some point (I personally favor the "Mu'awiya" form), but for the purposes of this nomination either style would be fine if it's consistently applied. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Following Donner and Hawting, I made it "Mu'awiya". Also, removed h from Najdah. This is in accordance with MOS:ISLAM, which says apostrophe for Ayn is to omitted in the first letter of a word (eg Ali instead of 'Ali) but is retained in the middle (Mus'ab instead of Musab). AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I went and applied this on a few other names I could find (Talha, A'isha, al-Hanafiyya, etc.)

Thank you for making those changes; I tweaked them further in some instances. Just did a final mop up of the article to catch any missing spots and am now finished. Fantastic work overall—comprehensive, well-written, accurate and objective—on this extremely formative, wide-ranging conflict in Islamic history. Glad to lend my support. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer for useful suggestions, edits and support. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Has this had a source review that I'm not seeing? I've requested one, unless one of the current reviewers can sign off that they've reviewed the source comprehensively for reliability, formatting, etc. --Laser brain (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Could you please add the original date in Arjomand's 2007 book?
Thanks for the review. This is not a book, but an encyclopedia article. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please tell why New York is one of the locations where the book of Crone is made?
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the URL of Dixon's book. Because it hasn't a preview via Google Books.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donner's book is from 2012 not from 2010 that's what OCLC and my Google Books told me.
Google books is wrong. Date is what is printed on the book itself, which is 2010. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the link, ISSN, ISBN, OCLC or any other code from Gardet's source? Same with Gibb's source?
This is EI2 template. Will see if I can add ISBNs to the template. ISBNs added. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the second Gibb's source and just add the page numbers in the first source.
These are encyclopedia articles, volume is same but articles are different. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add an apostrophe in Shia in Halm's book. Also, OCLC claims that the book is from 1999 but Google Books claims it is from 1997?
Book itself says it is from 1997. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should New York be added in the locations of Hawting's book?
Locations are reported as written on the book. There it says "Routledge: London and New York". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennedy his 2001 book shouldn't be linked to Google Books because it doesn't show a preview.
Added new link. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kennedy's 2007 book doesn't show Boston in OCLC on my screen, it says instead London?
If there is no location on the book, publisher headquarter location is reported, which is Boston. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More later Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strange ISBN of the 2016 Kennedy's book doesn't go to Google Books nor Open Library. Amazon does have the ISBN but it is a different title it says "The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates (A History of the Near East)" instead of the current book?
Google books' (or Amazon etc) bibliographic info shouldn't be trusted too much. Most accurate source for such info is the book itself, and the best thing to do if one doesn't have the book is to open the book in google and see the book's own info page. In this case, ISBN does lead to google books; second result in google search of the ISBN. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please translate Lammens' 1921 book, also where's the link or a book code?
URL and OCLC done. Citations include original titles, unless a translated work is cited. In this case no translation exists and the original French work is cited. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please standerise the usage of Brill and BRILL in the sources.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please translate Rotter's book title from German to English.
Same as above (Lammens). AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standerise the ISBNs. Some of them have hyphens other don't.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharon's book needs a vol. 1 in its cite.
Google books' characterization of it as Vol. 1 is wrong. Yes, there are two books on the subject by Sharon but they are not volumes of the same book. First one is "Black Banners from the East: The Establishment of the Abbasid State : Incubation of a Revolt", second is titled "Revolt: The social and military aspects of the Abbasid revolution : Black Banners from the East II". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add Scotland in Watt's book location. And doesn't the book have a book code?
ISBN added. The publisher is headquartered in Edinburgh and the same is given in the book, so is fine. State names are given when there are more than one famous cities with same name. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please translate Wellhausen's title of his first book from German to English.
As above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wellhausen died in 1918, could you please explain me how he is the original author of the "The Arab Kingdom and its Fall"?
Das Arabische Reich was published in 1902. The Arab Kingdom is its 1927 translation. Also, many authors' books are published posthumously. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. All the sources look good and are academic. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CPA-5. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great, pass sources review. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2019 (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/Second_Fitna/archive1&oldid=1138471031"