Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marwan I/archive1

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) 5 November 2019 [1].

Marwan I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Marwan I, the fourth Umayyad caliph. His reign was short, less than a year, but impactful—he founded the Marwanid house which ruled the Caliphate for a further 65 years. Having been expelled with his whole clan from Medina, where he had served as the right hand of Caliph Uthman and governor for Caliph Mu'awiya I, Marwan reestablished Umayyad power across Syria and Egypt after it was reduced to the environs of Damascus as a result of the Second Muslim Civil War and set up his sons Abd al-Malik and Abd al-Aziz for great political success. I started work on the article in January 2017. It passed GAR in March 2019 and has appeared on the DYK column. I've been editing it on and off since then and believe it is ready for the Main Page. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

OK, I know nothing about this stuff, so these are purely procedural tweaks, I can't comment on the accuracy of the substantive content:

Lead

when Caliph Ali is mentioned, it is worth mentioning that he was the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, as the history of Islam is pretty scratchy during this period, with members of Muhammad's family fighting each other for the spoils

Thanks for reviewing this Peacemaker. Mentioned that he was a cousin—not sure if son-in-law is necessary. Uthman was also a son-in-law of Muhammad.

same with Caliph Mu'awiya I, it is worth stating he ended up as one of Muhammad's scribes

I don’t think this needs to be mentioned here. He’s much more relevant here as Marwan's kinsman and founder of the Umayyad Caliphate. For non-expert readers especially it would not be pertinent. Aisha is most relevant for being Muhammads wife, Ali for being his cousin, Talha for being a particularly close companion and all these things were directly relevant in the First Muslim Civil War. Muawiya is most famous for governing Syria, opposing Ali and founding the ruling dynasty to which he and Marwan belonged. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As he was prepared to give allegiance" Who was prepared to give allegiance? Marwan or Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad? It isn't clear.

Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"loyalist tribes" loyal to whom?

Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the historian Clifford E. Bosworth"

Done.

Body

could we get Julian calendar years inserted, as well as CE, which are confusing to non-Muslims

Added (AD) next to CE. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to father al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As and mother Amina bint Alqama of the Banu Kinana tribe→ His father was al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As and his mother was Amina bint Alqama of the Banu Kinana tribe

Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

link Nepotism

Done.

"the quarter of Marwan" was this a quarter of the city, or are you referring to his residence?

I’m assuming neighborhood, but I’m gonna look into this further. I doubt he controlled a whole quarter. Might revise to something like “sought safety with Marwan”.

"Upon Marwan's return to Syria from Egypt in 685, he had designated his sons" as the narrative has passed the point where he has died

Done.

"In the view of the historian Wilferd Madelung"

Done.

That is all I could find. I struggled a bit with the amount of unfamiliar names (which says more about me than anything else), but it otherwise reads very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Peacemaker67. I’ve addressed the last of your points. A lot of these names I had to learn along the way. Some are more important than others, but I believe they each warrant a linked reference as they played important enough roles as commanders or advisers. Their articles also provide more details that give additional context and details about this period that would not fit in this article. —Al Ameer (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, very happy to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

Really happy to see another Umayyad caliph here. Will review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 20:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After a short term by Ali's son and successor the 'short term' is a bit unclear here; perhaps rephrase to the effect that Hasan was declared caliph in succession to his father, but Mu'awiya eventually prevailed, and provide a link to the Hasan–Muawiya treaty.
before serving two stints as governor of Medina for the uninitiated, it should be mentioned that Mu'awiya moved the capital to Damascus, and the centre of power of his regime was the province of Syria (with the implication that the governorship of Medina that Uthman held was a prestigious, but 'ordinary' gubernatorial position).
~~which was significantly larger than 'significantly more numerous than' (optional)~~
to the unusual step of naming his own son Yazid as heir to the caliphate during his own lifetime, to claim the caliphate based on the legitimacy of his father, abūʾl-jabābira (father of tyrants) because his son and grandsons later inherited the caliphal throne for a modern Western audience to understand this, it should be mentioned (a footnote would be fine) that the caliphal office was not originally hereditary, but elective, whence the accusations of tyranny habitually levelled against the Umayyads.

Otherwise I found nothing amiss, the article is very comprehensive, and, as usual, well written. I did a few copyedits here and there, nothing major. I will have a look in my own sources to see whether I missed anything, but otherwise, after the above points are dealt with, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I also really wanted to express my appreciation for the map. Really well done. Could you please upload it also in svg format, for use/adaptation by others? Constantine ✍ 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thanks for the taking the time to look this over and your helpful suggestions. Please check my latest revisions to see if your points have been addressed. As for the map, I created it on Publisher and Paint and don't see an option on how to save it as an .svg file on either program. I'm still an amateur with this stuff. Any advice on how best to do this? --Al Ameer (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions have definitely been taken care of, and better than expected (I hazily half-remembered that someone had some comments on Medina after Mu'awiya's triumph and Marwan's appointment, glad you dug Wellhausen up). As stated, I will check my sources whether there is something that I have missed, and get back to you. On the map, yes, now I see that it is a bitmap and not vectorized (which is a compliment, at low resolution it fooled me). Let me have a look, I may be able to cook up a vectorized version quickly. Constantine ✍ 17:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Here you go: a vectorized version of the map. Please have a look whether I missed something. I did a few tweaks (Arminiya as a province, not a sub-province, Derbent outside the caliphate at this time) but otherwise tried to be faithful to your original. Constantine ✍ 19:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow amazing Cplakidas, how did you do that so quickly!

(I'm lurking for now, but will probably review this soon) HaEr48 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second HaEr48 on that. Very nice work ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was easy, after finding an almost identical base map, the only issue was copying over the data from Al Ameer's map. And now it can be used for other maps related to the early caliphates (unfortunately the base map does not include the western Maghreb and the Iberian peninsula). Constantine ✍ 08:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son:I looked around but did not find anything really missing. Of the major reference works for the period, the only one that appears to be missing is Rotter's Die Umayyaden und der zweite Bürgerkrieg (680-692), but I doubt it will contain anything not covered already. I also found, if you want to include it, a brief discussion on Marwan's succession in the legal/customary framework of early Islam, in Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp. 22–25, who classifies it as a contest between the "Islamic principle" (the 'best Muslim' should be caliph, here that would be Ibn al-Zubayr), the strict hereditary principle (in which case Mu'awiya II's successor should have been Khalid) and the 'tribal principle', of selecting the eldest and most capable from the tribe or wider clan, which led to Marwan's selection. I can send you the text if you want to incorporate this somehow. That's all, and as this is optional, I will support the nomination regardless. Constantine ✍ 15:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Interesting find. Please send me the text and I'll incorporate it. And thank you for your efforts and support. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Please check the info I added and let me know your thoughts. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Your additions look good to me, well done. Constantine ✍ 11:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Medina_1916.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

Found the author: Bernhard Moritz, died 1939. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flickr_-_…trialsanderrors_-_Minaret_of_the_Bride,_Damascus,_Holy_Land,_ca._1895.jpg needs an explicit tag for the minaret, an author date of death, and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: For this photo I could not find the original author/photographer. As it was created/published between 1890 and 1900 does the PD-US tag here suffice even without the author or should it be "PD-old-assumed"? Also, I'm not sure what is meant by explicit tag for the minaret. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was it published between 1890 and 1900, or was it created in that period? PD-US applies in the former case but not the latter. As to explicit tag, as Syria does not have freedom of panorama, we need to include a tag that indicates the public-domain status of the minaret. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX

General comments

Per MOS, diacritical marks should be avoided, except for the first sentence in the lead and 'ayn in middle of a word: (sahaba instead of ṣaḥāba, rashidun instead of rāshidūn etc.)

If the MoS Arabic indeed recommends that we should drop the diacritics from all italicized Arabic terms except the lead sentence, I’m not sure if I agree with it—unless it’s strictly because of potential software compatibility problems. They’re truer to the original Arabic term and are helpful to readers—at least those familiar with diacritics. Is this a major sticking point or could we leave this be for now? For the record, I wouldn’t normally italicize Rashidun as it’s a proper word, but since it’s part of a quote in this case I kept it exactly as Donner spelled it. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in quotes is of course exempt from it, but MOS compliance is part of the criteria. Also, as Donner says, anyone who doesn't understand these won't need them, and anyone who understands them also won't need them ;)AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I read WP:MOSAR correctly, it just discourages (not ban) diacritics and give authors some wiggle room. Personally, I feel for common words like "sahaba" using diacritics is a little too much, but it is very helpful for less commonly known words such as "khayṭ bāṭil" or "ṭarid ibn ṭarid" to be able to know the original Arabic word. Of course, deciding which words are common enough and which can benefit from diacritics is a bit subjective, which is why I suggest letting authors decide. HaEr48 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: the page you are referring to is not a policy page. I was talking of MOS:ISLAM, specifically MOS:ISLAM#Arabic_transliteration. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: Yes, I was also looking at MOS:AR instead of MOS:ISLAM. I still don't agree here, but will fight that battle another day ;) I removed the diacritics from the Arabic terms outside of those in quotations. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Donner (2014), p. 106, Marwan was maternal brother of Uthman; should be mentioned.

Intriguing, but likely a mistake. I added and removed it previously as I found it fishy since Uthman was Marwan’s senior by between 33 to 50 years (depending on the source). Indeed, no other source I came across corroborated it. I think it’s a rare error on Donner’s part, probably stemming from Amina’s kunya being “Umm Uthman”. In no other RS have I found Uthman’s mother to be Amina bint Alqama. His mother was Arwa bint Kurayz of Abd Shams. Moreover, none of the sources discussing Marwan mention that he was a half-brother of Uthman—which, if true, would have been an unavoidably notable fact to neglect—they only refer to him as a cousin. This may have also been confused with al-Walid ibn Uqba who was Uthman’s maternal half-brother and also his (distant) paternal cousin. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He cites Ibn Sa'd, but yes, I checked at a few other places and it is Arwa. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on his activities/life under the first two caliphs?

He emerges during Uthman’s reign from the shadows it seems. I’ll look into al-Tabari to see if there’s anything notable. Let me know if you have anything from your end. It wouldn’t be surprising; the Islamic sources hold that his father al-Hakam was exiled by the prophet and according to some, he may have remained exiled until Uthman’s reign. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea; maybe something in Ansab, but I can't read Arabic. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"confiscation of crown lands in Iraq drove the Quraysh and the dispossessed elites of Kufa and Egypt to oppose the caliph." Crown lands? Does this refer to the lands of Persian King? Also, it should be clarified why was this a big deal.

Yes, the sawafi in Arabic, which had been considered communal property for the benefit of the conquering Muslim troops. I’ll elaborate more on this tomorrow when I have my sources. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: I added a footnote about the crown lands and why they were important to the Kufans. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Marwan recommended a violent response to the rebels." Narrative goes very fast here. It should be mentioned that the caliph was besieged by rebels from Iraq and Egypt.

You’re right. Filled in the gaps now, I believe. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Uthman publicly recanted his behavior and desisted from military action". I don't think desist is the right word here.

Just scrapped this sentence altogether. The material I just added together with the material I kept should suffice. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Marwan's first dismissal from the governorship was the result of his criticism of the caliph's declaration that Ziyad ibn Abihi,..." It is only that Mu'awiya told him so. It may not necessarily have been the reason. Madelung relates the story, but doesn't comment himself on the reasons of dismissal. It would be better it present it as it occurs in the source: that upon Marwan's inquiring, Muawiya said so and so.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Marwan encouraging Ibn al-Zubayr to refuse settlement proposal of Yazid, or prior to that his threats to Husayn.

I only saw in Madelung (p. 348) that Marwan secretly encouraged Ibn al-Zubayr to claim the caliphate with the Machiavellian idea that this would contribute to the downfall of the Sufyanids and that Marwan would then replace them and deal with Ibn al-Zubayr later. It all seems rather far-fetched and Madelung doesn't give us any indication where he got this particular bit of info. Do you have another source that discusses this? And for that matter the threats to Husayn? Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madelung is a crackpot. But I got this info from Wellhausen. Let me look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wellhausen p. 148, Tab. v 19, pp.190-191. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Some of these ashrāf, such as Husayn ibn Numayr, had attempted to reach a similar arrangement with Ibn al-Zubayr" It was only Ibn Numayr, and the cited source is clear on that.

Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to EI2, it is not certain whether Marwan sent the expedition to Hejaz. This article seems to be quite certain, perhaps based on Yauqbi. EI2's assessment should be given preference.

Tabari (vol 20, pp. 161–163) also holds that Marwan sent Hubaysh on the Hejaz expedition before his death, though it isn’t clear if Marwan died by the time this army was crushed at Rabadha. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS, Muhammad should be mentioned just by name or as Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

E. J. Brill & Brill

It’s Brill, but the Encyclopedia of Islam templates are E. J. Brill. Should we change it in the template since it’s the same publisher? And since Cplakidas toiled over these useful templates, his input would also be appreciated here. Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think template should be left as is, since changing it would create inconsistencies in other articles; also for the one below. Thanks.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 02:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: So then change Brill to E. J. Brill and SUNY Press to State University of New York Press? Or leave it all alone? Al Ameer (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Should be consistent: I would prefer E. J. Brill and State University of New York Press. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State University of New York Press & SUNY Press

Similar issue as above; The History of al-Tabari templates have the written-out version, while in the other sources the same publisher is abbreviated. Which should it be? Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albany, New York & Albany

Done, went with the former.

I. B. Tauris and Company & I. B. Tauris

Done, went with the latter.

Donner, Fred M. & Donner Fred.

Done.

Rihan, Mohammad (2014): location=London & New York

Done.

Donner, Fred (2014): chapter range needed.

Done.

Duri, Abd al-Aziz (2011): Translator name needed.

Done.

Duri, Abd al-Aziz (2011): Google Books link.

Done.

Mayer, L. A. (1952): Journal name instead of publisher name: "Israel Exploration Journal"

Fixed.

Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000). (Banu Umayya): Co-author Bosworth, C. E.

Done.

Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000). (Banu Umayya): pp=837-839; title= Umayya b. 'Abd Shams

Fixed.

Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000) (ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān): Co-author Khoury, R. G.

Done.

Both instances of "Della Vida 2000" link to "Banu Umayya": one should link to "Uthman b. Affan"

Fixed.

All sources high quality.
I have no issue with different ISBN formats.

Made them consistent anyway.

Surprisingly, no Kennedy error found --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: Indeed, hard to believe ;) As always, your thoroughness is appreciated. Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Marwan led his horsemen through Medina and launched a rear assault against the Medinese defenders fighting Ibn Uqba in the city's eastern outskirts." is not in Wellhausen 1927, p. 156.

Done, I added Vaglieri's "al-Harra" entry in EI2. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan thanking tribes that supported him is not in Rihan p. 104, but p. 105. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From HaEr48 (support)

Lead: "including Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a rival claimant to the caliphate": I think this anachronistic, because Ibn al-Zubayr did not claim the caliphate until after Yazid died?

Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: In the months that followed, Marwan reasserted Umayyad rule over the pro-Zubayrid territories of Egypt, Palestine and northern Syria, while keeping the Qays in check in Upper Mesopotamia: I think to put this in context, the loss of those territories needed to be mentioned before talking about reclaiming them.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan was born in 623 or 626 CE: any Hijri year? Also suggest adding Hijri date/year for other key dates, such as accession, death. This is commonly done in scholarly article about early Muslim rulers.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in this capacity Marwan "doubtless helped" in the revision "of what became the canonical text of the Qur'an" in Uthman's reign: Is there any article that can be wikilinked here (about Uthman's compilation)?

Unfortunately, there isn't a specific article about this. I wikilinked the "Compilation" section of Quran until such an article is started. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as a result of Marwan's pervasive influence, which they blamed for the caliph's controversial decisions: I know the next sentence includes arguments about the lack of specificity, but can we have more detail here? E.g. which of Uthman's decisions? Or which traditional Muslim sources/historians put the blame on Marwan?

Between all the sources I've researched, it's been difficult to find anything specific of note, other than the trivial. Originally, this nagged at me because I couldn't find anything in the English-language sources (even in Madelung who's almost unabashedly ill-disposed towards the Umayyads) until I came across Donner (2014) who explicitly notes the lack of specific charges and the likelihood of these being polemical digs towards Marwan and the Umayyads in general in the anti-Umayyad traditional Muslim sources (whether Shi'a or early Abbasid) and at the same time could reflect an attempt by the (Abbasid-era Sunni?) sources to salvage the reputation of Uthman (who they classified as one of the four 'Rashidun' caliphs) by pinning the blame on Marwan. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman was assassinated by the rebels, which became one of the major contributing factors to the First Muslim Civil War: I think how it becomes a civil war can be explained a little bit more, if I recall correctly there was a dispute about punishing those responsible for the killing.

I expanded this a bit without getting too much in the weeds. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He used that occasion to kill one of A'isha's partisans, a prominent companion of Muhammad Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, whom he held responsible for Uthman's death: Are there more details about this, e.g. how it happened or what was the reaction? Just curious how one intentionally kills someone in their own side during a battle without causing disorder or outrage.

Added what I could find, i.e. that Marwan shot Talha with an arrow that fatally struck the sciatic vein in his leg and did so when it appeared their side was on the cusp of defeat and A'isha would be in a weak position to call Marwan to account for the murder. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali was assassinated in January 661: by whom?

Added. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to abandon their arrangement" : what arrangement?

The funeral arrangement. Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who entered Kufa victoriously : How about "entered Hasan's capital at Kufa", to describe the significance of the city?

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" marking the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate" was he also declared caliph in Kufa & did he receive allegiance there?

Complicated and perhaps unnecessary to delve into detail in this article. Mu'awiya was already recognized as caliph by his Syrian supporters and Amr b. al-As in Egypt in 657 and/or 658. His treaty with Hasan months after the assassination of Hasan's father Caliph Ali and Mu'awiya's gaining of homage in Kufa marked the establishment of his rule over the whole Caliphate. I could work a footnote here, I just don't want to keep adding information (other than the necessary context) that takes focus away from Marwan. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the fatherless Ziyad ibn Abihi, Ibn Amir's successor in Basra, as his paternal half-brother: Does this mean Muawiya claimed that Abu Sofyan was Ziyad's biological father, or did he just declare an adopted relationship?

By "his paternal half-brother" it means the son of Mu'awiya's father Abu Sufyan from a different mother. I replaced with an explicit reference to Abu Sufyan and filled in a quote later in the same section about Mu'awiya's possible motive in adopting Ziyad as his paternal brother. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan's nephew, Amr ibn Uthman ibn Affan: If Uthman is Marwan's cousin, Uthman's son would be a removed cousin rather than a nephew? Or is this referring to the theory that Uthman and Marwan were half-brothers?

Removed nephew. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afterward, Marwan participated in the funeral : Did Hasan end up buried beside the Prophet, or somewhere else?

Clarified, it was somewhere else. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan was among the most senior Umayyads at a time: is it "most senior" by age, by experience, or?

Both, and clarified. Actually, looking in Bosworth again, he says that (by the end of 683) Marwan was the most senior Umayyad and the only surviving member of the clan to have known Muhammad. I might try to fit this tidbit somewhere as well. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After Mu'awiya died in 680: also mention the accession of Yazid here

It's implied by the opponents refusal to recognize Yazid and the previous info about Mu'awiya's designation of Yazid as successor, but I mentioned it more explicitly toward the end of the sentence. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the first para of "Leader of the Umayyads in Medina" is cited directly to a translation of al-Tabari (Tabari might be too outdated to be an RS on its own). Do we have modern sources mentioning this? Especially the rather detailed account of Yazid's meeting with Husayn.

Wellhausen's in there for extra measure. I try to directly reference Tabari only sparingly or use the annotations rather than translated original text, but in this case I could not find the details elsewhere. AhmadLX Do you know of any modern secondary sources that mention the episode with Husayn? Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[39] can be replaced with Wellhausen/Donner/Hawting, [44] with Vaglieri (Husayn in EI2). [42] is fine with Wellhausen, you can rmv [43] (Tabari) if you want, but I think it is unnecessary. That leaves [45] and I think Tabari is enough for that, but if you want replace it, it can be done with Jafri's Origins and Early Development or Ayoub's Redemptive suffering. Google books doesn't have page numbers for the former, so the formula is then same as with Dixon: finding page numbers with 1979 edition's snippet view (available on Battle of KArbala article).AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it Ahmad. I kept 39 because it's not cited directly to Tabari but rather to I. K. A. Howard's note. I removed 43, and kept the rest. That leaves only 3 out of 9 citations in the first passage of this section cited directly to Tabari and I believe that should be fine. After all, Tabari is most useful for filling in these kinds of gaps and, along with al-Baladhuri, is the mainstay of modern scholarship on Islamic history. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter died several weeks into his reign: mention the fact that he did not have heirs or designated successors.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the governors of the Syrian junds (military districts) of Palestine, Homs and Qinnasrin subsequently gave their allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr, who proclaimed a rival caliphate based in Mecca." I think it flows better if first you introduce (1) IAZ proclaiming himself caliph and then (2) the governors changing side, in that order, rather than the opposite.

Yes I noticed this earlier and sought to rearrange it. It's now clarified in the previous section that Ibn al-Zubayr declared his caliphate on the departure of the Syrians from the Hejaz and gained recognition in most provinces of the Caliphate. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, Marwan "despaired over any future for the Umayyads as rulers"...": From reading Second Fitna, it appears at this stage Umayyad control only remained in parts of Syria. I think it's worth mentioning that first to illustrate the desperateness of the situation for the Umayyads.

Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"...forming the new super-tribe of Yaman": Maybe just "forming a new super-tribe"? The name Yaman and Yamani was already introduced.

I think it's necessary to keep "Yaman" in this case for clarity since we did not mention previously that it was the result of an alliance of the Quda'a/Kalb and the Qahtan tribal confederations until this moment. That's when the Yaman truly came to existence. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the victory at Marj Rahit, Marwan faced numerous challenges to his rule throughout the Umayyads' former domains: This is a rather vague description, I suggest being more specific like: "Despite having won a victory at Marj Rahit and consolidating Umayyad power in XXX, Marwan's authority is still not recognized in the rest of the Umayyad's former domains", better describing the limits of his powers at this time.

Done (with some modification). Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

to conquer Iraq from the Zubayrids and other anti-Umayyad factions: Can we name the other "anti-Umayyad factions"?

Done. For the record, at this time, both components of Iraq (Basra and Kufa) were under Zubayrid allegiance, but in Kufa you had partisans of Ali and his family agitating to avenge Husayn's death and they apparently acted independent of the Zubayrid authorities. Only in April 685 did the Alids take over Kufa from the Zubayrids. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a poem attributed to him, Marwan thanked the following tribes: Is it possible to quote a few verses of the poem in-text, for flavor?

I added the poem in a blockquote. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

re-instituting the principle of direct hereditary succession: Does this mean this principle were also followed in the next successions? If yes, suggest mentioning

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In later anti-Umayyad Muslim tradition: Does this refer to pro-Zubayrid tradition, the Alid and Shia tradition, Abbasid tradition, or others?

I believe it's a catch-all for the Abbasid-era tradition but it isn't specified in the source so I didn't write "anti-Umayyad, Abbasid-era tradition". Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that in this article the al- gets shortened in Abu'l-Ash but not in Abi al-Ash?

Just following Bosworth; but I prefer the fuller "Abu al-As", so it's switched now (except for the quote). Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair amount of direct quotation from modern scholars here, e.g. about the internal state of mind ("No wonder he cast envious looks", "may have been fears of the family of Abu'l-As that impelled him"), as well as evaluations (e.g. "a military leader and statesman of great skill"). This is fine, but I wonder if we can also supplement them with similar quotation from traditional historians/biographers, especially if they were quoted by RS?

I'll look into this. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: any luck on this? HaEr48 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HaEr48 I have yet to find any such quotation of a medieval historian in the secondary sources (Bosworth, Donner, Madelung, Kennedy, etc.). There's plenty of tidbits of alleged/attributed conversations or comments from Marwan's contemporaries, including Mu'awiya, Ali, his own sons, the tribal chiefs of Syria, etc. but a lot of this is directly from primary sources (Tabari and Ya'qubi) and also not what you're looking for. Even in those two primary sources, I could not find the authors' opinions or the opinions of their transmitters. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than assessment from historian, are there assessments from later religious authorities that we can include? E.g. do notable religious authors in the Sunni or Shia traditions have something specific to say about him and his impact? Or is this actually covered by the third para of "Assessment"? (hard to see because the sources are named very vaguely)

It's a bit scanty here. A lot of it is "the prophet Muhammad said so-and-so" about Marwan's father al-Hakam being the father of evil progeny, which is most likely words being falsely attributed to Muhammad by partisan opponents of the Umayyads in Iraq generations after the prophet's death and Marwan's death for that matter. I have not found any notable religious scholars assessments but tried to attribute the origins of the negative or neutral reports to the specific medieval sources. Let me know your thoughts. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Apologies if it's quite long, and hope that they can improve the article. Overall, I think the article is well-researched, written carefully in a neutral manner, and I enjoyed reading it. I hope you'll work on even more high-quality articles in this important era of Islamic history . I'm sure those article have high impact in terms of readership! (See this, for example) HaEr48 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thank you for pointing out some glaring gaps in the context and some important issues in the chronological order, among other helpful suggestions. I believe I've addressed your concerns the best I could and the article is indeed the better for it ;) Let me know what your thoughts are regarding the latest revisions/additions. I'm going to go over everything again a couple times myself to make sure everything reads smoothly and concisely. I'll also add the extra context about the cause for avenging Uthman's death and the First Fitna shortly. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: I believe all concerns should be addressed now. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Thank you very much for your responses. I am very happy with your updates, and I left a ping about one unanswered item. I'll give the article another look in a day or two, but I think it is looking excellent. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comments and the responses above, and after reading the article again, I'm happy to support this nomination. Thanks, Al Ameer son for your responses and for your great work. HaEr48 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:51, 5 November 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.