Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al-Hafiz/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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [1].

Al-Hafiz[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hafiz was the eleventh Fatimid caliph, and the last to actually exercise any power. His accession was disputed, and his reign was tumultuous to say the least, with even his sons turning on him and one another in pursuit of power. This is my first Fatimid caliphal biography FAC, and hopefully not the last. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and have tried to present the complex circumstances of rise to the throne as well as I could, given that the modern sources are often themselves contradictory in their assertions. Any suggestions for further improvement are, as usual, welcome. Constantine ✍ 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • All images are free and relevant. However, the "plan of Fatimid-era Cairo" and "Victory Gate in Cairo" break across sections. buidhe 01:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attar[edit]

Welcome back Constantine. My initial thoughts:--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would remove any citation from the lead, but thats just my personal taste
    • I put it in for the numbering, but I guess it is redundant. Removed.
  • I think a short section about the name should be added (maybe add it in the origin section which can be renamed name and origin). Readers need to understand what is the Kunya and what is the regnal name and what is the actual name...etc. I mean more about the naming traditions of those monarchs. A lead should not contain information not mentioned in the body of the article and right now this is the case as his full name and Kunya are mentioned only in the lead.
    • I added mention of the kunya in the initial section, but am wary of doing more: the full name given in the lede should be easy to understand from his parentage, and the regnal title is explained later on.
  • "As an adult, he is reported to have shown a strong interest in astronomy". By whom reported? a old or contemporary historian who wrote his biography for example? Obviously we may not know this so its not a must to include who reported this.
    • Walker just writes "One report credits al-Ḥāfiẓ with a strong interest in astronomy", and I haven't been able to find any more details on this.
  • "al-Amir had resumed the personal direction of government affairs". There should be a sentence about the background of this (like the caliphs formerly lost direct power and al-Amir restored it..etc)
    • Clarified.
  • "all-powerful Armenian viziers Badr al-Jamali and al-Afdal Shahanshah". Mention that they are related? Later we read that Kutayfat held the "titles of his father and grandfather" but we dont know that Badr is his grandfather as it is not mentioned before.
    • Duh, thanks, of course this should be mentioned
  • "the army, assembled at the Bayn al-Qasrayn square". Mention in which city (it is in the caption but should also be in the text)
    • I thought it was obvious from the "...carried through the streets of Cairo" that follows
  • "the appointment of Kutayfat, the only surviving son of al-Afdal Shahanshah". Maybe a note on how Kutayfat still had power in the army after his father's death (and the year of the latter's death should be mentioned in the text). Ofcourse if this information doesnt exist then there is nothing we can do.
    • I don't think it was personal influence, just the attachment of the army to the memory/legacy of Badr and al-Afdal. This is beyond the scope of this article, however.
  • "guarded by Ridwan ibn Walakhshi". Introduce Ridwan (the vizier, the leader...etc)
    • Done
  • "Fatimid claims to the imamate". Maybe a short note about the immamate concept and the Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism. Most readers understand that a caliph is a monarch but Imam and other concepts are not really familiar. Maybe a small background in the origin section could be of help.
Seconded. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Attar-Aram syria and Gog the Mild: I sort of knew this would be asked, but dreaded it TBH. After several drafts, I have a version which I think conveys the essence without being an article in its own right. Have a look, and feel free to criticize it as much as necessary until I get it right.
Looks good.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mu'tamid al-Dawla as head of the bureau, and his brother as naqīb al-ashrāf". An explanation between two brackets of what that title means should be good here.
    • Done.
  • " just as the Seljuk rulers had been vis-à-vis the Abbasid caliphs since the time of Tughril", mention when he reigned.
    • Done.
  • "Ridwan also continued correspondence with the Burids," Its not clear who they are. Introduce the dynasty (like the Burids who ruled southern Syria).
    • Good point, done.
  • "In 1142/3, Fatimid envoys visited the court of Roger II of Sicily, whose fleet had captured the old Fatimid capital of al-Mahdiya on the coast of Ifriqiya" A note here is helpful mentioning that the Fatimids no longer controlled that city by that time since it was under the Zirid dynasty, which was only nominally under the authority of Cario (if at all). Otherwise its weird for readers to read that the Fatimids were Okay with the capture of their old capital (I know its in note "g" but many readers wont read it I believe).
    • Good point, rewritten.

Thats it for me, cant see anything else that can be improved. The article's weak point is the complicated nature of Islamic concepts: imamate, Ismailism as a state doctrine (many readers wont know this- they would know that the Fatimids were Shia but not much more, or maybe I dont give the general reader much credit and need to work on that), the divisions of Ismailism...etc. In the articles about the Seleucids, I tended to have long background sections that summarized the history of that dynasty so I dont have to introduce it bit by bit in the body of the article. Maybe this article can benefit from that approach. For example, we read: "As a result, al-Hafiz's accession produced a major schism in the Musta'li branch of Isma'ilism".... If I was a reader without a background in this, I would be totally lost. Few sentences later, we read about what the Musta'li schism was about... I think this article would benefit from summarizing or moving these paragraphs to a background section where the events are told chronologically. This is just a suggestion ofcourse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered this, but I fear the result would be a huge intro section that would entirely put off anyone from reading the rest of the article (cf. my barely started work at rewriting Abdallah al-Mahdi Billah, where I've tried to keep things at a minimum). That is why I've deliberately chosen to deal with the concepts as they become relevant during the article. I fear the hurdle of unfamiliarity cannot really be overcome in such a way as to satisfy everyone. In the final analysis, we have to trust in our readers: if someone is interested, he/she will delve into the topic and the events and concepts presented here. For the casual reader, I can only recommend skipping the more troublesome sections during the first read and just try to get the gist (at least that's what I am doing in similar cases). On the specific example you gave, I admit I also was uncomfortable with name-dropping Musta'lism before explaining what it was. I've now reordered the section to introduce the 1094 schism first.
Thank you a lot for your input, Attar-Aram syria, I particularly value it because, as you say, you have to deal with similar niche topics. If you have any further suggestions (or remarks on where the article is most confusing) I would be very happy to have them. Constantine ✍ 16:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sometimes its inevitable to treat the readers as if they have some kind of knowledge of what they are reading. Happy to support this article which greatly expand the knowledge about that part of the world. Thanks alot for these efforts.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Attar. Again, if you have any further suggestions, beyond the confines of FAC, they are most welcome. Constantine ✍ 06:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • "and ultimately unable to halt the evolution" → 'and was ultimately unable to halt the evolution'.
    • Done
  • "Hasan's reign proved tyrannical". Did viziers "reign"?
    • For lack of a better word, yes. Viziers, especially by this time, were effectively viceroys, rather than simply chief executives.
It was an open question. I am aware of some of the nuances around this. I am happy for you to decide on the most appropriate phrasing. I note that viceroys of India, for example, were "appointed" and their 'reigns' were "terms" or "periods in office".
  • "caused a severe reaction by the Muslim public opinion". You can't phrase it like that in English. 'caused a severe reaction among the Muslim population'; 'caused a severe reaction in Muslim public opinion'? Or something else.
    • Thanks, done.
  • Some slightly long sentences, eg "Although largely accepted by the Isma'ili faithful in the Fatimid domains in Egypt, Nubia, and the Levant, al-Hafiz's highly irregular accession and claims to the imamate were rebuffed by some communities, chiefly in the only other major Isma'ili realm, Yemen: there the hitherto staunchly pro-Fatimid Sulayhid dynasty broke up, with the Sulayhid queen, Arwa, upholding the rights of al-Tayyib, whose birth had been announced to her in a letter by al-Amir, while the regional dynasties of the Hamdanids and the Zurayids recognized al-Hafiz's claims." Not the only possible example.
    • Went through the article a couple of times and tried to fix this.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "dismount when passing by a mosque, prohibiting them from riding horses" There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • They were still allowed to ride donkeys, mules, etc. Clarified.
  • "brought forth one of the Caliph's sons". "brought forth" seems stilted and archaic. Maybe recast in modern phraseology?
    • Done. In my defence, Tolkien's works were among the first English books I ever read :)
Ah. That explains a lot ;-) .
  • "but was repulsed before the city gates" Maybe 'in front of the city gates'?
    • Done.
  • "For the remainder of his reign, al-Hafiz no longer appointed any viziers" That's almost a triple negative. Maybe 'Al-Hafiz did not appoint another vizier for the remainder of his reign' or similar?
    • Done.
  • "whose fleet had subdued". What does "subdued" mean? Captured, sacked, blockaded?
    • Clarified.
  • "while mine and pestilence ravaged Egypt". "mine"?
    • Famine.
  • "which survived more thanks to inertia and the vested interests of large sections of society in keeping it running." Delete "more".
    • Replaced with "mostly".
  • "and the dynasty's very legitimacy was increasingly challenged". Optional: delete "very".
    • Done.
  • "Al-Hafiz was the last Fatimid caliph who rose to the throne as an adult; the last three Fatimid imam-caliphs until the end of the dynasty". "last twice in quick succession. Suggest changing the second to 'next'.
    • Done.
  • Note c: "His historicity is now considered as established by surviving reports of festivities ordered by al-Amir to celebrate his birth survive". This is not grammatical.
    • Rewritten.

Overall I found this heavy going. Much of this is of course due to the hopelessly tangled events you are trying to unpick. However, I feel that a reader is not helped by:

  1. Too many overlong sentences. Very few of which need to be so long; they usually have obvious break points.
  2. Your fondness for semi colons and colons in the middle of long sentences. Personally, I suspect that if every one were to be replaced by a full stop it would be a net gain.
  3. Some old fashioned language. Eg, brought forth the Caliph's son; defeated before the gate; water to the very gates. (These are from memory, not exact quotes.)
  4. Use of "he is reported to have" and similar. This causes a reader to doubt it. If it is in a RS, feel free to write it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice; if it's not. or you personally doubt it, miss it out - or name the reporter.

Finally, can I support Attar-Aram syria's request for a brief summary of "the immamate concept ... Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism", ideally in line.


All of that said, I enjoyed my visit to the disintegrating dynasty and it is good to see you back. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, as usual, for your thoroughness, Gog the Mild. I've addressed most of the points you raised. The topic is indeed very complex, but there's no need to make it difficult to read as well, so any help and criticism with the prose is welcome. Please have another look and make more suggestions, or, if you feel like it, edit the text directly. As you know, comprehensibility is always a concern of mine for niche topics like this, so a critical eye here is also appreciated. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his legitimacy was repeatedly challenged for the duration of his reign" Er, when else might it be challenged? Suggest deleting "for the duration of his reign". (Insert ', and his reign was troubled by ...'
    • Good point, done.
  • "Given his lack of legitimation". Should it be "legitimation" → 'legitimacy'?
    • "legitimation" is deliberate here, as in he was not legitimate in the eyes of a large segment of the dynasty's subjects.
  • "He also did not receive the customary titles of the Fatimid viziers implying control over the Muslim religious establishment". I think that this may read better as 'He also did not receive those customary titles of the Fatimid viziers that implied control over the Muslim religious establishment'.
    • Good point, done.
  • "from the Cairene street". Maybe 'from the common people of Cairo'?
    • Altered to "from the Muslim public opinion in Cairo", because this was not only the common people.

I have also done a little copy editing. As usual, feel entirely free to revert any you disagree with, or to query any you don't understand. I will try to finish up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is "head of the bureau" the same thing as ""supervisor of the bureaus" (nāẓir fi'l-dawāwīn)"?
    • No, clarified.
  • "Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade". Suggest 'Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade of 1147–1150 ...'.**Done.
  • "but in the end the rebellion was ended when". Is it possible to avoid "end ... ended"?
    • Removed the first instance.

All done. Just awaiting your comments on the bits and bobs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild, your copyedits are, as usual, fine. Looking forward to any further suggestions, if there are any. Constantine ✍ 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks good, and it reads very nicely. IMO. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48 (support)[edit]

The article is in good shape and certainly interesting. I have few comments and feedback:

  • Since you use diacritics in the lead name, I believe at least the z of Hafiz and the second s of al-Mustansir should also have one. Also, please make sure nothing else is missed.
    • Quite right. Done.
  • "(Roger II) ... adopted many of the practices of the Fatimid court for his own administration": this is not mentioned in the article body, but appears without reference in the lead. Can it be supported by the body?
    • It is stated that "the Sicilian court modelled much of its administration and titelature after Fatimid practices."
  • Rise to the throne and the Hafizi–Tayyibi schism: Would a diagram/tree help illustrating the Hafizi-Tayyibi and Nizari-Musta'li schisms? Seeing how it fits into the larger Ismaili grouping, or other Shia branches would be useful as well, but I'll defer to you whether it's within the scope.
    • Excellent point, done.
  • Reign: As background, is it possible to introduce why the vizier was so powerful, despite being appointed by the caliph and can even be filled by his own sons? What was the mechanics of it: does the office control something important like the command of the arm, the treasury, or something?
    • This is dealt with when Badr is introduced: "the vizier was now commander-in-chief of the army as well as supreme head of the civilian, judicial and religious administrations".
  • "This was a mistake" Similar to my comment in the other review, suggest rewording this, a little bit editorialized.
    • Changed, as in the other article
  • "against an amān" => "in exchange for an amān?
    • Changed, as in the other article
  • Other than the symbolic meaning, what does a secretary or a supervisor lack that a vizier has? Saying that the secretaries were " utterly dependent on the Caliph" seemed rather hand-wavy to me.
    • Rephrased slightly and explained: a) they were not viziers, hence institutionally much weaker (compare the powers of the Prime Minister of a country to those of a department permanent secretary), b) they were not military men, so had no ties to/influence in the army, c) they were "often non-Muslims", which made them still less of a potential threat to the caliph.
  • twisting his honorific al-akam (the Most Noble One): is this maybe al-akram?
    • Indeed, thanks for catching this.
  • Further embassies to Yemen in 1144 and to Damascus in 1147 are recorded: Which monarchs are meant by the two locations? Especially Damascus, because it was not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
    • Done, and expanded a bit on the relations with Yemen.
  • A map of the Levant is provided, how about a map of the Fatimid realm itself? Especially because several provinces/localities are pertinent to the discussion.
    • Well, at this point the Fatimid realm was essentially Egypt (plus the Cyrenaica, IIRC). There is no good map of Islamic Egypt in Commons, unfortunately. I will probably have to make one myself, when I find the time.
  • The Cairo map has the gate names in Arabic (e.g. Bab al-Nasr), but the article text has them in English (e.g. Victory Gate). Suggest adding the corresponding English name in the caption, or adding parenthesis containing the Arabic name when the English name is first mentioned, so that the reader can find the gates in the map.
    • Good point; switched to the Arabic name in the article, but added the English translation in parentheses
  • (in the footnote): "The imam is the supreme spiritual leader of the Islamic community … the Sunni mainstream ... attached minimal conditions to the imamate, which became little different from secular kingship" . I'm surprised that the Sunni was mentioned at all in this discussion, the term is rarely used in this context for the Sunnis, commonly just in the context of a scholarly authority figure or the leader of a mosque/religious service. The cited Daftary source does not mention any Sunni imamate at all, I wonder how widely accepted Madelung (the other citation)'s view on this is. Personally I would just not mention it unless you feel confident that the Madelung view reflects the scholarly consensus.
    • The term was quite common in the early centuries among Sunnis as well, while the exact distinctions of jurisdiction and authority were still fluid/being worked out. It was especially used by the Abbasid caliphs, who famously tried to claim the prerogative of interpreting the Quran. Madelung is probably the unquestioned authority on such matters, and I don't think his views have been much revised in the meantime, except in matters of detail. It is true, however, that the term is today almost exclusively associated with Shi'ism other than what you mention. So I am also thinking whether, to avoid confusion, I would not simply omit it.
    • I've rephrased it a bit, removing the explicit mention of the imamate from the Sunni part
  • Note: I intend to claim this review for Wikicup points.

In general the article is very well written, well-referenced. Not only the biography is thoroughly discussed, the context and the aftermath is sufficiently explained as well. Certainly a good FA candidate. HaEr48 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48, the last outstanding issues have been addressed/replied to. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 21:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no more feedback. Support HaEr48 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't see a citation for the specific date of death
    • Added and corrected to 10 October
  • The article text says he was born in 1074 or 1075, but the infobox says 1075 or 1076 - which is correct?
    • Clarified, the confusion arises from the fact that the Hijri years do not correspond exactly to Julian ones.
  • Walker 2017 appears to be a different edition of the Canard work, but is quite differently formatted
    • It is not a different edition, it is an altogether new work, see below
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
    • As far as I can see, all locations for books are included. For journals, it has been suggested to me that the location is not desired, and for EI3 (Walker 2017), it is an online resource.
  • Be consistent in how editions are formatted.
    • Can you be more specific please? If you mean the Encyclopaedia of Islam editions, the naming is deliberate: these are not new editions as you think of them, but entirely different works. EI2's articles are completely different to those of EI3, even if they are on the same subject. The names of these works follow the published titles/suggested naming guidelines.
      • This point was with regards to the "New Edition" versus the Daftary "Second Edition". With regards to Walker 2017, what kind of publication is this? Even if it's a new work and not an edition, the formatting is quite different to the other similar work. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: As I said, this follows the actual naming of the works in question. Daftary's work is indeed the second edition of his book, whereas the Encyclopaedia of Islam is an entirely new edition (hence the naming in the work itself), although it is often abbreviated as EI2. Likewise, the third edition of the encyclopaedia calls itself Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. The works are only superficially 'similar'. Constantine ✍ 20:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

          • Okay, but if they're both encyclopedia entries, I would expect them to be similarly formatted? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not necessarily. I mean, both use the cite encyclopedia template, but of course they are different works, with different parameters being relevant for each, since one is a print encyclopedia and one is an exclusively online one... Constantine ✍ 06:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Nikkimaria: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 19:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • It appears that both Walker 2017 and Madelung/Magued being accessed online though? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Nikkimaria: EI2 has been uploaded online, of course, like many older reference works, and for convenience/verification, the url to these entries is also provided. Again, EI3 is an exclusively online resource, EI2 is not (I actually consult the printed version). I fail to see what exactly the problem is, TBH: both works are cited by using a template (cite encyclopedia) filled with the data relevant to each of them. Of course, since they are not the same work, the data will be different and the instantiated template will therefore also look slightly different. That does not mean they are inaccurate or inconsistent. They are just different. Constantine ✍ 21:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't see a good rationale for them to be so different, but we will need to agree to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for having a look. I've answered your points above. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:19, 1 August 2020 (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/Al-Hafiz/archive1&oldid=973208692"