Talk:Siege of Damascus (634)

Broken link

The link: | http://library.auraria.edu/generalhelp/libnews/islam/index.html is broken. It is link nr. 10 under References. Wereldburger758 (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• online links are less reliable if we plan to take article for GA class or feature article. I will shortly provide its links from David nicolle's muslim conquest of syria. and Kergi's byzantium and islamic near east.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Finally its ready now. I am nominating it for peer reviews.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy editor

I'll work on this article and try to help you pass the peer review with some copyediting. Tell me what you think so far of what I've done. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the copyediting, it look good now !

looking forward for your more contributions الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks, Mohammad. I appreciate that. We'll get this article bumped up to the next grade soon. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

copy editor's comments

Hi, Leonidas was not able to finish this, so I took it over. I've made some copy edits, and added some tags where it needs expansion. Take a look and see what you think. There are some areas that are very unclear, such as the bit about the fiance--was the Jonah's or the bishop's? Sounds like Jonah's (based on what comes later), but what does the bishop have to do with anything, then? You also need to explain the practice of killing the inhabitants of a city that resists (I added a sentence but it isn't cited, and it needs elaboration). And the Muslim rationale of allowing Christians and Jews to remain without conversion...and the tax. Drop a note on my talk page when you want me to take another look. As I understand it, you want to go to Military History ACR Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment

Siege of Damascus (634)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Unfortunately no one has stepped forward to address the concerns or ask for more time. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this article is tagged with several CN and clarification needed, the dates in the article are disputable. The dispute is noted but I cannot be sure the article is giving weight to the most reliable sources when it comes to the time period of the siege. This Appendix #21 has an analysis of the chronology, but interpreting it is beyond my expertise and I am not even sure if it is the best source. Maybe the dates in this source come from the best sources. Maybe they do not. Please reassess this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

That "Appendix 21" is the work of J.B. Bury, who is a reliable, albeit dated, source for the Byzantine period. I know there are more recent works with chronologies that could be used, though. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

llywrch writes

There are a few points missing in this article I would expect to find:

• In the lead, the individual who betrayed the city is described as a "bishop"; in the relevant section, he is said to have been a priest who later converted to Islam. Which is right?
• This article focuses too much on the military angle, & none on the social history. This overlooks a strong motivation for the fall of Damascus: by this point the Byzantine authorities had been persecuting the local Monophysite Christians for generations, so there was little love between the civilians & the military. Had Jonah not betrayed the garrison, another citizen of Damascus likely would have.
• IMHO, too much reliance is put on Gibbon who wrote in the late 18th century. (He can & should be quoted for opinion, of course.) More use should be made of contemporary experts on this period -- there are many, & they not only have better access to the historical records than Gibbon had, they are more likely to access the archeological findings & have visited the scene of the battle.

I'll note that any revision of this article will be hampered by the fact most public libraries are either closed or offering reduced services due to the pandemic. If someone wants to tackle these criticisms, they should be given more time than usual. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)