Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yazid I/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2021 [1].

Yazid I

[edit]
Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta), Al Ameer (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate, ruling from April 680 to November 683. The first person in Islamic history to benefit from hereditary succession, his reign was marred by opposition from the representatives of the old Islamic elite. His efforts to impose his authority resulted in the death of Muhammad's grandson Husayn, as well as attacks on the cities of Medina and Mecca. These disasters have earned him the reputation of evil among many Muslims. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: since you did the GA review, would you mind giving the article another look? Thank you. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Some thoughts

  • Can we refer to Michael Jan de Goeje as a modern scholar? He is an orientalist from before the Great War.
Thanks for the comments Guerillero. I have replaced de Goeje's views with a more recent historian's. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has the scholarship on Yazid I changed after colonialism? You use lots of sources from before 1940
No, there isn't much current research on this subject going on and Lammens' Le Califat is the standard, although a little pro-Umayyad, treatment of the subject. Hawting's article in Encyclopedia of Islam (published 2002) can be compared with ours. This article is modeled upon Hawting's treatment. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I just wanted to check --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncomfortable with Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 being used for facts. Can we get a more recent scholarly source?
It is cited only once now, twice previously, and that is for uncertainty in his birth year. Pretty harmless;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can be replaced with Lammens 1921 though. If you prefer that, I can replace de Goeje with it. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems reasonable as it is --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am skeptical of Lammens 1921 and Lammens 1934 due to their age and the fact that Lammens was a monk. Has his work been cited recently?
His Le Calfat (i.e. 1921) is the most comprehensive account of Yazid's caliphate. Hawting in Encyclopedia of Islam refers the readers to Le Califat for further information. The 1934 one is from the first edition of Encyclopedia of Islam and is very much reliable. It could be replaced with 1921, but is more recent and reduces reliance on the 1921 one. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of the area of islamic history is thin, so it seemed wise to check --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar feelings from Wellhausen 1901 and Wellhausen 1927
Wellhausen is arguably the Einstein of Umayyad studies. His Arab Kingdom is still used as textbook in the universities. Modern historians cite his views as an authority, although, of course, not always agree with him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of the area of islamic history is thin, so it seemed wise to check --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Encyclopaedia Iranica a high quality source?
Madelung is one of the foremost Islamicists of the current era, albeit a little anti-Umayyad. Although it is possible to replace that source with books, even those already present in the biblio, I decided to keep it for its easy accessibility. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of the area of islamic history is thin, so it seemed wise to check --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passes my source review. Spot checks are not done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Important article, I'll have a look soon. At first glance, Chronicle of 741 is duplinked.
Thanks for the comments FunkMonk. Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who became caliph in 661." This paragraph ends without citation.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yazid was born in Syria circa 646." The note says this, though, so isn't it better to just give the range than a made up midway number?: "His year of birth is uncertain. Reports vary from 22 AH to 30 AH".
Done, and clarified further.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Mecca?
Mecca is already linked at the first instance both in lead and body.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give a lot of information in the caption of the coin images in the rest of the article, but not for the one in the infobox. Could it get dates, links, and other such info?
Thanks for this. Previous coin was from Mu'awiya's time (I had never noticed that;)) Now changed and links/date added. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, perhaps the previous image[2] should have its description and categories changed accordingly? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested move on commons. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit arbitrary to show a 1950s photo of Damascus? Wouldn't some old artwork be more appropriate? The 1950s are only marginally closer to the time than we are now in any case...
Added a 19th century painting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Umayyad Caliphate from 661 until their replacement by the Marwanids in 684." Link the terms Umayyad Caliphate and Marwanids here?
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after which Ali, the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, became caliph" Perhaps state how/why he became so?
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On his way back to Damascus, he secured allegiance from the people of Medina. General recognition of the nomination thus forced Yazid's opponents into silence. The orientalist Julius Wellhausen doubted the story, holding that the reports of the nomination's rejection by prominent Medinese were a back-projection of the events that followed Mu'awiya's death.[29] A similar opinion is held by the historian Andrew Marsham." Where does the former belief come form then?
It is from the account of the medieval historian Ibn Athir. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instructing him to secure allegiance from Husayn ibn Ali" Any reason to spell his name out again, when you already did so earlier (and only refer to him as Husayn in the meantime)?
Shortened to Husayn. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No speculation on what he died from?
Detail added. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The killing of Muhammad's grandson caused widespread outcry" I think you could repeat his name here.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After first mention, yu don't need to spell out the full names of for example Bernard Lewis and Henri Lammens.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "His appointment was the first hereditary succession in Islamic history." Do you mean 'His appointment was the first hereditary succession of the Caliphate in Islamic history.'?
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several Muslim grandees from the Hejaz". Suggest adding 'region'.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His Caliphate was marked by". Why the upper case C?
@Al Ameer son: would you please look into this?
@AhmadLX: I would reserve capitalization when referring to the empire, as in "civil war in the Caliphate" as this would be a proper noun, while lowercasing in the case of the office, as in "he acceded to the caliphate". I could make these adjustments, if you agree. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Yes that would be great. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called for a shura to elect a new caliph". Shura needs an in line explanation - or replacing by one. Likewise its first mention in the main article.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The killing of Husayn caused resentment in the Hejaz, where Ibn al-Zubayr called for a shura to elect a new caliph and the people of Medina, who supported Ibn al-Zubayr, held additional grievances toward the Umayyads." I think there is too much in this sentence.
Sentence split into two. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After failing to gain the allegiance of." 'regain'?
Ibn al-Zubayr had not payed him any allegiance, so for him it should be "gain". On the other hand, you are right it should be "regain" for the Medinese people. But making it such in the lead would require splitting the sentence I think. What do you say?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see your point. I am easy. Leave it as "gain" if you wish.
  • "the city was plundered for three days" Was it plundered, or was it sacked?
I checked a couple dictionaries, and it seems both mean the same.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Plunder" can be a relatively civilised business, with valuables looted and money extorted. A sack suggests a less controlled affair, with rapine, drunken destruction, torturing of inhabitants to reveal the location of (possibly non-existant) buried valuables etc. It is something of a spectrum, but a sack is the nastier end. Eg see the Sack of Baghdad.
I've changed it to "sacked" for now. Let's see what Al Ameer has to say on this, as he knows the al-Harra stuff better.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the tribal nobility." Should that be 'tribal nobilities'?
I think no. Tribal nobility=elites and chiefs of the tribes.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what tribal nobility is. "the tribal nobility" means the nobility of one tribe. Is that what you mean. Or are you, and the sources, referring to the nobilities of two or more tribes?
I mean by "tribal nobility" the chiefs and elders of the tribes, and sources too usually refer to it as the tribal nobility/chiefs in addition to just ashraf.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Yazid was born in Syria between 642 and 649." Well, no, he probably wasn't. Ie it would be a very unusually protracted childbirth!
Haha lol 😂. How to formulate it then? "His year of birth is placed between 642 and 649"? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personnally I tend to use the formula "His year of birth is variously placed between 642 and 649".
  • "During his father's caliphate, Yazid led several campaigns against the Byzantine Empire". Perhaps a sentence or so on the reasons for the enmity between the Byzantines and the caliphate?
  • "annual Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca". Perhaps preface with a definite article?
  • "was recognized caliph by the Medinese people". 'as caliph'.
  • "In 656 Uthman had been killed by rebels in Medina." Perhaps a little background on the rebels and their motivations?
  • "and instructed him to defeat them if they did." Delete "him" - for grammatical consistency with the first part of the sentence.
  • "town of Basra, which paid homage to Yazid"; "paid allegiance to him." Suggest replacing "paid" with 'pledged'.
Changed to "pledged allegiance to Yazid" as "him" would imply allegiance to Mu'awiya. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "signalling that the latter should enter the city. The news of this prompted Yazid to". It is unclear to me how Yazid obtained this "news".
  • "which Husayn refused" → ' which Husayn refused to do'?
  • "while his family were taken prisoner". "were" → 'was'.
  • "played with Husayn's head with his staff". Link "staff" to the relevant meaning.
  • "He showed compassion towards the captives". Seems PoV; is this the consensus of scholarly sources?
Wellhausen: treated them compassionately; Vagliere: treated them kindly; Madelung: treated them well. I went with Wellhausen. Since Al Ameer also raised this issue previously, I take it does seem to come across as POV. I've modified it to match Madelung.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who secretly began taking allegiance in Mecca". I don't think one can "take" allegiance. I am unclear as to what al-Zubayr was doing.
I think I've clarified it now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were unpersuaded and on their return to Medina narrated tales of Yazid's lavish lifestyle and practices considered by many to be impious, including drinking wine, hunting with hounds, and his love for music." There is a lot happening here for a single sentence.
  • "the city was plundered for three days, whereas per the account of Awana (d. 764) only the ringleaders of the rebellion were executed." From this, should a reader assume that by the first account the city was plundered but the ringleaders were not executed?
No, they were excuted according to both accounts. But according to Awana "only that": i.e. no sacking. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during which the Ka'ba caught fire" And the Ka'ba would be?
I don't quite get this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You and I know what the Ka'ba is, but many readers won't. If this were a trivial or unimportant issue I may be content to leave it with just the Wikilink, even though I know that few readers click through Wikilinks, and feel that an FA should not rely on a non-FA explanation to be comprehensible, and it is against the MoS. But I feel it is an important point, and so would like to see a brief in line explanation of what the Ka'ba is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like Mu'awiya had". Suggest "like" to 'as'.
  • "He continued to rely on the governors of the provinces and local tribal chiefs (ashraf), like Mu'awiya had, instead of relatives, and retained several of Mu'awiya's officials, including Ibn Ziyad, who was Mu'awiya's governor of Basra, and Sarjun ibn Mansur, a native Syrian Christian, who had served as the head of the fiscal administration under Mu'awiya." Too long. Perhaps split after "relatives"?
  • "from the provinces in order to persuade and win their support". The use of "persuade" is ungrammatical. (And is it necessary? 'from the provinces in order to win their support' would work.)
  • Sources: Madelung (2004). Could you add the publisher location (New York) to be consistent.
Done upto here (exceptions responded to above). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Provinces retained much of the tax revenue". Maybe "the" → 'their'?
  • As you give the religion of the Najranee, it would seem appropriate to do the same for the Samaritans.
Samaritans have their own religion and are not considered Jews. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you think that I supposed they were? (Although there are those who would give you an argument.) I meant, could you indicate that the Samaritans were a religious group, rather than, or as well as, an ethnic or geographical one.
  • Is there a reason ashraf is not linked?
  • "forward bases they had occupied on the Byzantine coast." Is known where this coast was geographically?
  • "Yazid established and garrisoned the northern Syrian frontier district of Qinnasrin out of the district of Hims." This does not flow well. Maybe something like 'Yazid established a northern Syrian frontier district of Qinnasrin from what had been a part of Hims, and fortified and garrisoned it.'?
  • Link Ifriqiya and state in line where it is.
Was linked. Stated inline. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we be told in line at least roughly where Khurasan was?
  • "without gaining a permanent foothold in either place". You mention three places in the first part of the sentence.
  • "the authors of anti-Umayyad leanings". You need a different word to "leanings". ('chronicles'?) (Or do you mean 'authors with anti-Umayyad leanings'?)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pleurisy". Lower case p.
  • All foreign language non-proper noun words should be in lang templates, not just italics.
  • "By 692 Abd al-Malik defeated Ibn al-Zubayr" → 'By 692 Abd al-Malik had defeated Ibn al-Zubayr'.
  • "caused widespread outcry among the Muslims". Delete "the".
  • "After the Battle of Karbala, Shi'a Imams from Husayn's line". Why the upper case I?
  • "his ban on pilgrimage to the holy sites". "pilgrimages'.
  • "Among the Sunnis, Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzi considered cursing Yazid permitted". 1. Could we have some idea of when al-Jawsi gave this opinion? Likewise al-Ghazali, 2. 'Ibn al-Jawzi considered that cursing Yazid was permitted'.
  • "As such, his accession is considered by Muslims ..." The following three sentences are cited to Hawting. Is this the consensus of modern scholarship? Are there any dissenters? (You say "is", not 'was', so you are talking about the current view held "by Muslims".
Gimme a day or two for this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that this is outstanding.
Gog the Mild, let me first thank you for this Hawting talks about historical tradition and not Muslims in general. Modified to reflect that . AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extant Muslim histories"> I assume you mean 'Extant contemporary Muslim histories'
  • "as opposed to the title Commander of the Faithful". Lower case f and c.
Sources are split on this. Some use lowercase (e.g. Hawting), some uppercase (e.g. Kennedy) and some mixed (c and F/B; e.g. Donner). EI2 uses uppercase. I prefer EI2 on this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it doesn't matter what the sources do; the MoS mandates lower case.
  • "to exonerate Yazid of Husayn's death" This is missing something. Eg 'to exonerate Yazid of blame for Husayn's death' or similar.
  • "attempted to stress the positive qualities of Yazid" → 'attempted to stress Yazid's positive qualities'.
  • "stress .. stressed". Perhaps "stressed" → 'emphasised', to vary the language?
  • "Yazid was a transmitter of hadith". Should that be 'Yazid was a transmitter of the hadith'?
It is how the cited author, and I checked a couple others too, writes: "transmitter of hadith". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In view of Hugh N. Kennedy". 1. 'In the view of Hugh N. Kennedy'. 2. Kennedy needs introducing; as do Hawting and Lammens.
Lammens should be introduced at first mention.
  • "According to G. R. Hawting, he tried to continue". "he" → 'Yazid'.
  • "More interestingly" - PoV. According to whom?
It came from the cited source. Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although Ibn al-Zubayr had not publicly claimed the caliphate" → 'although Ibn al-Zubayr did not publicly claim the caliphate'
  • "roughly from the time of his accession" → 'from roughly the time of his accession'
  • "Mu'awiya died in Rajab 60 AH." → 'Mu'awiya died in the month of Rajab 60 AH.' Link Rajab.
  • Introduce Lammens and de Goeje, and indicate that they are not joint authors.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done all (exceptions responded to above). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments in response above. Otherwise it is looking good. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes implemented. Thank you for the review. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A fine piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot

[edit]

Only a couple of minor points before supporting:

  • "Thus the Sufyanid dynasty, named after Mu'awiya I's father Abu Sufyan, was replaced by the Marwanid dynasty." It seems worth clarifying that both these dynasties were part of the Ummayad dynasty. The accompanying image does so, but the article text does not.
  • "Another coin bearing the mint date 60, which is assumed to be the Hijri year, and mint location Nishapur, but without the name of Yazid, is also thought to be from Yazid's first regnal year." This sentence is a bit awkward; maybe it should be split. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments A. Parrot. I have addressed both points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Yazid_I/archive1&oldid=1014663128"