Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sack of Amorium/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 21:42, 30 May 2011 [1].

Sack of Amorium

edit

Sack of Amorium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most memorable events of the Byzantine-Arab Wars, and one with major religious consequences. The article passed thorough GA and MILHIST A-class reviews with positive comments. I added a few more details since then, and believe that it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 19:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Anatolic or Anatolian? Be consistent between captions and article text

Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 done, I've elaborated the captions a bit. On point 2, they are two completely different things: "Anatolian" refers to Anatolia, aka Asia Minor, while "Anatolic" refers to the Anatolic Theme, a province in central Anatolia. I have added "(Anatolia)" next to Asia Minor in a few places to try and make this clear to readers unfamiliar with the geographical context. Constantine ✍ 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Is Whittow 1997 or 1996?
  • When using citation templates, make sure you're consistent in which type you use - you're currently mixing "citation" and "cite book", and it's causing some formatting inconsistencies
  • Be consistent in providing or not providing publisher location
  • Consider bundling some of your citations
  • Publisher for Kiapidou?

Sources look appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I standardized citation format and content, and corrected Whittow's date. I'll try to find some time to do the citation bundling. On comprehensiveness, Bury and Treadgold are the only relatively detailed accounts of the period in English. There's also Alexander Vasiliev in French, but he too is dated and largely tells the same story as Bury (the primary sources, Byzantine or Arab, are the same after all). Treadgold is virtually the only detailed recent synthesis. The other sources have been used for corroboration and for specific details or for showing the wider picture. Constantine ✍ 09:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Quoting my review: "Holy $!@$%$, this is good writing." - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Theophilos reportedly fell ill upon learning of the humiliating disaster, and his death three years later before the age of thirty was attributed by Byzantine writers to his sorrow over the city's loss. This sentence is not awesome, especiallythree years later before the age of thirty - how about a year and a number? Also I understand you've cited two historians and they like to use weasel words like Byzantine writers but its not appropriate for an encyclopedia; honestly, I'd leave out everything after the comma!
    • If I can butt in ... it's not true that "Byzantine writers" is always bad; many history FAs are full of things like "according to chroniclers of the time" and "authorities were divided"; the alternative would be to list all the writers and what they said ... and really, for ancient history, almost no one cares for this level of detail, readers just want to get an accurate sense of what was said at the time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm...this is a FA criteria 1d concern; citation 36 actually reviewed some 'Byzantine sources', described the story, then says explicitly it was probably a legend; Constantine reworded that to "Byzantine writers" which I assumed he didn't review, cites the secondary source(s) and leaves out the legend part. Another way to resolve this is to transform the sentence into a note: "A Byzantine legend says shortly after the battle Theophilos fell ill and ultimately died of sorrow in 841 over the loss of the city." leaving the mysterious 'writers/sources' out of it and giving the reader some clue to the veracity of this story but then we just have a probably false story mixed in with a bunch of facts. I was just giving my opinion I don't see the point of including it at all.
        • I included it as an example of how the Byzantines themselves viewed the impact o the city's fall, or at least how they felt it should have been received. Later interpolations by historians are always indicative of the way an event is viewed by them. and the importance later generations attach to it. A military defeat due to which the emperor falls ill and dies is indicative of its influence in later minds. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm switching to oppose on this point; its simply not factual the emperor died of sorrow as an impact of the battle. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My preference is you delete both sentences but if you really want this in your article you have to make it clear its not true. A better beginning to me is 'A Byzantine legend says Theophilos' etc. Kirk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The sentences stay, per my reasoning above, and because Theophilos' health most likely did suffer from the psychological impact (see poor Samuel of Bulgaria for instance). At least Treadgold agrees with this. I have yet again rewritten it and added an explicit reference to his death being "most likely" a legend. I really cannot make anything else here, the statement "Byzantine historians attribute his death" is factual. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • It still bothers me your sources put a trivia item without any facts or analysis, but its at least better. I don't get the Samuel of Bulgaria comparison; these kinds of trivia or rumors don't really fly with modern historical writing. Anyways, if some other uninvolved editors think the current wording is ok I'll strike my oppose. Kirk (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another potentially troubling section was the second paragraph of the Impact section - its just the opinion of one historian, and without his opinions you really don't have much evidence the battle had anything to do with iconoclasm vs. iconolatry. I assumed he was a reliable source and it doesn't sound like a legend or fringe theory to me so i didn't say anything. But I think you could wikilink iconolatry/iconophiles and maybe define the two since neither are exactly everyday words. Kirk (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Treadgold is in this case used to summarize the prevailing scholarly opinion on this issue. I could likewise add Bury or other writers as refs, but IMO Treadgold is more than adequately established as a scholarly authority in the field. If it is felt necessary, I will add more sources. I have linked the relevant terms, and tried to give a short explanation on iconoclasm per Ealdgyth's advice below. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • BTW, Whittow too makes the connection between Amorium and iconoclasm, since he is available online, you can check this easily. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I second toning down the opinion and aim for WP:NPOV (i.e.:brutal sack made me chuckle...see below).
  • You need to work on describing the strength and casualties in the infobox with more detail; the numbers don't match up to the numbers in the text and it doesn't make sense to the average reader that an army of 30,000 could lose 70,000 men. There are additional parameters (casualties3) which are occasionally used for civilian casualties. Kirk (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On this issue, I clarified that the casualty numbers refer to a total count, including civilians. AFAIK, there is no separate estimate between military and civilian casualties, so separating them doesn't seem a good idea. I'll respond on the concerns above tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 22:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its at least less confusing now; weren't there 6,000 captured and sent into slavery?
  • What's a Khurramite? Needs at least a link but since Emperor T over-relied on them I think it needs a little description.
  • I think the instances of Sack of X is ok but I would suggest eliminating as many instances of sack as you can; use some synonyms.
  • The city was thoroughly plundered, with the spoils and the surviving population divided among the army, except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph. - what does surviving population divided among the (Army/Caliph) mean? Slavery? Kirk (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explained the Khurramites a little without going into too much detail, and clarified the issue of the captive population (they indeed became slaves). On their numbers, Mu'tasim executed some 6,000, others (unknown how many) escaped, still others (again of unknown number) were carried with the Arab army into captivity. Because of this, and since there is AFAIK no even an estimate on their number, I have therefore refrained from mentioning a total number of captives. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section still needs some work I think:
      • The city was completely sacked and thoroughly plundered... I don't think the adjectives help here - what would an incomplete sack or a sloppy plundering look like? Just describe the extent the plundering and sacking & you don't need this sentence. Kirk (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph. Reserved isn't the best verb maybe enslaved? Active voice with Caliph as the subject?
        • On the first, I replaced both with thoroughly, on the second, I rephrased it slightly, but IMO there isn't any apparent problem. Treadgold uses almost the same phrasing. Constantine ✍ 21:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not a fan of Treadgold's writing; you work with the sources in English you have I guess. Did they take any treasure as plunder before destroying the city or were the slaves the plunder? Kirk (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Arabs took everything they could from the city, which is why I have retained "thoroughly plundered". I've rephrased the sentence combining "spoils and slaves" to make it clearer. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Words like 'sack', 'plunder', 'spoils' with nice adjectives attached sound good but I think you could just delete the lead sentence, describe what happened and let the reader decide if this was a thorough plundering of spoils or not. Your sources substitute POV terms for facts so I don't know if you should use them as role models & maybe that's just the way Byzantine historians all write. Kirk (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I really don't understand where you see the problem. "thoroughly sacked and plundered" isn't POV as far as I can tell, neither the words themselves nor the phrase as a whole. This is not a subjective statement, but a description of fact, a summary of the paragraph. How is this statement biased, or how do I mislead the reader towards a wrong or one-sided conclusion here? I could substitute a direct quote, but I'd rather avoid it if possible. Anyhow, as I suggested, in your talk page, if it is a phrasing issue, by all means please propose an alternative that makes the same point in a more neutral fashion. Other than this instance, do you have any other objections? Especially re the issue of the legend surrounding Theophilos' death. Regards, Constantine ✍ 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Plunder, sack & spoil are all subjective terms which make it more interesting to read but don't really have a meaning without describing what happened; without the description they are POV; now they are just unnecessary fluff. Since it appears there's a consensus for promotion, I'll just get out of your hair; good luck!Kirk (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs) 16:21, May 6, 2011

Comments

  • The opinions about the size of the armies seem dubious: an "exceptionally large" army of 80,000; "huge army" of 70,000; "vast army" of 80,000. These seem like fairly typical numbers to me. It should be sufficient to just list the size of the army and let the reader decide. Alternatively, comparisons can be used showing the typical manpower of the time.
  • I was struck by the considerable amount of strong opinion expressed in this article; sometimes bordering on hyperbole. Per WP:NPV, I question whether the tone is sufficiently impartial and ask whether a quoted source shouldn't be provided for the more excessive remarks. (Alternatively, comparisons could be used to clarify why these are so.) Examples:
    • "reinstated harsh suppression of the iconophiles"; "outraged by the brazenness and brutality of the raids"; "city was subjected to a brutal sack"; "sack of Amorium was one of the most devastating events"; "humiliating disaster"; "disaster of this magnitude"; "brutal sack"; "major military disaster"; "traumatic event"; "heavy personal blow"
  • "Looting and devastating the countryside": how does one devastate the countryside after one has looted it?
  • How can this event be termed "devastating" and a "major military disaster" if there so little impact?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk)

I have tried to answer the first concern with a footnote. I have tried to tone down the article, although frankly, a sack where 30-70,000 people are killed qualifies as "brutal" in my book. On the third concern, I tried to convey not only the plundering, but also active destruction, i.e. setting fire to fields etc. However, since looting does contain that, I removed "and devastating". On the last issue, the impact was ideological: it put an end to Theophilos' pretensions of an iconoclast revival, and directly contributed to its abandonment. Given the importance of religion especially in the Middle Ages, I wouldn't say that it had "little impact". Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note on the tone issue, the "hyperbolic" language is very much the language used by the secondary sources. As an example, I inserted a verbatim quote of Whittow's (generally much less given to hyperbole or accepting inflated accounts than Bury or Treadgold) at the end of the article. It should give a good idea why terms like "humiliating", "devastating" and "disaster" are present in the text. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't support this. I'm going to abstain from further judgment and let others decide. Thank you for the reply.—RJH(talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps explain why you won't support? Is it the tone alone or are your other concerns unaddressed as well? The object of the review is first and foremost to improve the article, after all. Constantine ✍ 18:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, you just caught me on a particularly bad day. I read the article again and it looks much improved. Thank you for the updates. :-) Regards, RJH (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, and again sorry for the pestering. Constantine ✍ 16:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • Lead:
    • Ouch. "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 represents one of the major events in the long history of the Byzantine–Arab Wars." "represents one of the major events"... while I"m not a passive voice Nazi, this is a bit much. Perhaps "The Sack of Amorium by the Abbasids in mid-August 838 was a major/definitive/turning point in the long Byzantine-Arab Wars. Also, can we state where Amorium is and who the Abbasids are?
    • Why "exceptionally large"? And "eager to avenge"?
    • "The city fell after a short siege, probably by treason, and a large part of its inhabitants were slaughtered, with the remainder driven off as slaves." Do not like the construction of "probably by treason" here, it's awkward in my reading. Perhaps "After a short siege, the city fell - probably due to treason - and ..."?
  • Background -
    • you need to explain iconoclast and iconophile more than just links.
    • "...some 14,000 Khurramite refugees under Nasr..." Should we know who Nasr is? I see you link his baptised name, but a short explication about why Nasr was in charge of 14,000 folks might be good...
    • "His successes in these years were not spectacular..." Theophobos/Nasr or Theophilos? Context isn't clear here.
    • "In this spirit, he issued a new follis..." should explain briefly this is a coin. Yes, you've linked it, but you lose readers when you force them to click to something else to gain a basic understanding of things.
    • Who's army gathered at Tarsus? I THINK it's the Caliphates, since they are the ones who sacked Amorium, but the previous paragraph is all about Byzantine forces, so I'm not sure. Needs clarification. And WHEN did it gather?
  • Opening stages:
    • "His army included the men from the Anatolian and possibly..." this sounds like ALL the men in the theme went, which is surely not the case...
    • "The Byzantines expected the Arab army to advance through the Cilician Gates and then to Ancyra, but it was also possible that the Arabs would march directly onto Amorium." I'm unclear what the second part of this sentence has to do with anything..
    • Honestly, "...the surviving population divided among the army, except for the city's military and civic leaders, who were reserved for the Caliph." sounds like it came from a Victorian-era history - I'm assuming you mean that the survivors were made slaves by the army except for the leaders, who were prisoners of the Caliph, but this sort of phrasing isn't usual in historical writing any more. Better to make it clear.
  • Aftermath -
    • "al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun" linkage for him?
    • "..and offering to ransom the high-ranking prisoners for 20,000 pounds of gold and to release all his Arab captives." The "his Arab captives" is somewhat ambigous here, as the last "him" mentioned was Basil, the one before is the Caliph, and Theophilos is at two person's remove here - suggest "to release all Arab captives of the Byzantines."
    • "...and is thought to have executed Aetios in retaliation." Is thought? Surely there is some controversy over this, which needs explication.
  • General -
    • Definitely a few too many "weasel" words "brutal sack" "throughly plundered" "vast army" "major campaign". Some of these may indeed be justified, but you need to state more conclusively why they are justified, rather than just using them.
    • "6 March 845" but "July 22" and "August 1"... pick one and stick with it.
    • Images appear to be correctly licensed and tagged.
    • Earwig's tool showed no copyright issues.
  • I have some concerns about prose and with jargon/not giving enough context for those not familiar with the subject, but it's close to gaining my support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my absence during the past few days, but things have been hectic in RL and my own laptop picked the most inopportune time to have a disk malfunction... I'll be taking care of the voiced concerns gradually over the next few days. Thanks a lot for the input from everyone. Constantine ✍ 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth. I think that I have corrected most of the issues you raised. Again, for the adjectives qualifying the opposing armies, see the comment on army sizes. On Aetios, I'll check my sources tomorrow to see how this can be clarified. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "20,000 pounds of gold". Many readers have no idea what that amount is and will benefit from a kg value. It may be worth going back to the sources to check if it is avoirdupois, troy, roman, or other pound.
  • It says "impact" in more than one place. I think this would be better as 'effect'. Not a big deal.

Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. Constantine ✍ 21:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that it says "20,000 pounds of gold (about 9,000 kg)".
  • If it is avoirdupois, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 pounds (9,000 kg) of gold'
  • If it is troy, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 troy pounds (7,500 kg) of gold'
  • If it is roman, it would be better formatted as 'about 20,000 roman pounds (6,500 kg) of gold'
There are other pounds in use. It may well be that the source meant troy or roman pounds. Can this be resolved from the source? Lightmouse (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You are right, I forgot to take into account that the Byzantines used a different pound measurement for gold. It derived from, but was not identical to the Roman pound. Constantine ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a slight adjustment, hope it works for you. If not, just change it. I also went and added your definition of Byzantine litra to the 'pound' article. Please take a look and amend it as you think best. All my comments resolved now. Good luck. Regards. Lightmouse (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I notice that some of the books in the Sources section include external links to Google books when no view of the actual text is allowed. When adding references I do not include this type of link (although I can see some advantages in doing so) and wonder whether there is a Wikipedia guideline. Also, Bury (1912) is not viewable from London on Google books – but the same book is viewable on the Internet Archive. Would this be a better link? Aa77zz (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am not aware of any guideline, but I find it useful to link books to Google Books: some of the books that are currently not viewable sometimes become preview-able (or a preview-able edition is uploaded), and generally, I find Google Books as a good starting point for searching for related reference works. You are right on Bury however, the Internet Archive link is better. I have replaced it. Constantine ✍ 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good. After a quick review of the article's lead, the details of which have been moved to the FAC talk page, I am happy with the lead. --23:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic C62 (talk • contribs)

In 829, when the young emperor Theophilos ascended the Byzantine throne, the Byzantines and Arabs had been fighting on and off for almost two centuries - not thrilled with this - I do think "By" is a better preposition than "In" to start with as it relates to how long the Byzantines and Arabs had been fighting up to that date (the ascent is a subordinate clause).
Arab attacks continued unabated both in the East, where Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833) launched several large-scale raids, and in the West, where the Muslim conquest of Sicily was making headway - I think the tense would be better thus: " Arab attacks were continuing unabated both in the East, where Caliph al-Ma'mun (r. 813–833) had launched several large-scale raids, and in the West, where the Muslim conquest of Sicily had been making headway"
link "siege engines"
I think that some form of image in the infobox would be good. I hadn't a clue where Amorium is, so maybe a map with the paths of the relevant armies? I can do a map if I have an image of the original schematics to work on if you want.

Other than that, looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Made the suggested changes, and reverted only one of your copyedits, where the emphasis was changed. I have already been working on a campaign map based on the one already in the article, expect it in a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 07:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. all goodCasliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - leaning support - this is an interesting article, but I need to do another read through. For now, I'll start adding comments and more will be on the way.

  • Lead: "The Abbasids penetrated deep into Byzantine-held Asia Minor" > it's not clear that one part of the split army were the Abbasids - perhaps say that the Caliph split the army into the Abbasids and whatever the second portion was called.
    • I see the point, but I went with a minimal change: and -> while. I think that will divide them into 2 mutually exclusive piles for most readers, with a mimimum of words. - Dank (push to talk)
  • This sentence is too long and roundabout - needs to be split or shortened somehow: "An ambitious man and a convinced adherent of Byzantine Iconoclasm, which prohibited the depiction of divine figures and the veneration of icons, Theophilos sought to bolster his regime and support his religious policies by military success against the Abbasid Caliphate, the Empire's major antagonist"
    • Broken up.
  • In the "Siege and fall of Amorium" section some repetition: the wall was "badly damaged as a result of heavy rainfall" & the next sentence begins with "As a result"
    • as a result of -> by
  • In the "Impact" section more repetition of poor health occurring in close proximity
    • shortened
  • Why a legend that Theophilos died because of his reaction to these events? According to whom? Perhaps mention or attribute that sentence to a scholar or historian.
    • It says "Later Byzantine historians attribute ...". Most of Milhist's writers don't say "he said this, this other historian said that", although a few do.
  • Same sentence > "sorrow felt" should be reworded somehow
    • Ack, if I missed that, I suck. Fixed.
  • Last sentence in the same paragraph, I think "other side of the hill" is idiomatic and should be reworded
    • Okay, I know I didn't see that :) rewritten.
  • Last paragraph > brackets not necessary for ellipses. See MOS:ELLIPSIS for formatting.
    • Fixed.
  • I want to re-read the lead - it feels a little heavy to me. I was quite confused at the first reading, though less confused after reading through the article.
    • Okay, it looks like you copyedited this.
  • I also want to re-read the sections regarding iconoclasm. It seems iconoclasm was at the heart of this series of events and if that's true then I think the controversy about iconoclasm and schism it caused needs more clarification for the lay reader.

Will return later. Sorry for taking such a long time to get to this. TK (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more:

  • Regarding iconoclasm, this sentence: "Seeking divine favour, and responding to iconophile plots against him, Theophilos reinstated active suppression of the iconophiles and other perceived "heretics" in June 833, including mass arrests and exiles, beatings and confiscations of property" I think needs clarification to explain why Theophilos believed he would receive divine favor by moving against the iconophiles. I think a smallish paragraph explaining iconoclasm and Theophilos' philosophy regarding the schism is necessary. I think that would create a better context for the events.
  • The prose is a bit stiff in a few places but nothing overwhelming. Do you mind if a make a few copyedits?

I think that's all. Thanks. TK (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for taking the time to review! You can copyedit as you see fit, if you change the meaning too much, I'll just correct it myself. I'll go through the text clarifying the issues raised later today. Constantine ✍ 07:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note ... Sandy's time is going to be limited for the next few weeks, and I know she's going through seeing what she can promote tonight. It would be nice if we could get this one finished. Truthkeeper, I've reviewed your edits ... great work. I'm going through now trying to respond to your questions. On the question of adding a paragraph about iconoclasm ... iconoclasm is linked in the lead, and at some point in the copyediting process, I start to think that if that link was good enough for the first 10 copyeditors (many of whom were exceedingly thorough), then it's probably good enough. I'm not an expert, but IMO a discussion of the significance of iconoclasm could lead us far afield, and invite NPOV edits ... better to have those fights in the iconoclasm article than here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this has been sitting here for a long time and that Sandy will be promoting tonight so there's a reason to get it wrapped up. I wouldn't have bothered to review if I'd been more careful and realized there were already four supports. That said, I do think that a short blurb about iconoclasm is important. Given the manner in which the article is written, it suggests that iconoclasm was the cause for Theophilos' first campaign and the retaliatory campaign against Amorium. Any dogma that causes such a loss of life and destruction deserves a bit of description. As it happens I do know a bit about iconoloclasm and unfortunately was the last person to land here. Anyway, I think it's a nice page and the absence of the explanation won't keep me from supporting. Thanks for making the suggested fixes. TK(88) 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly. I'm happy with however you and Constantine want to handle it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank for your edits, you handled the issues better than I would have... On the Iconoclasm issue, in short, like most state-supported religions/ideologies it relied on military success for legitimization, particularly since it was always a sort of imperial pet-project and in the Roman-Byzantine culture the main secular aspect of the emperor is that of a triumphant general. Iconoclasm by itself was neither more nor less militant than other forms of Christianity, but it had become associated with military success during the time of Leo III and Constantine V who beat back the Arabs and Bulgars. The essential points of this argument are I think already mentioned in the article. However it would be wrong to say that Iconoclasm was the cause of these campaigns. The Byzantine-Arab wars were older than Iconoclasm, and Iconoclasm did not produce a perceptible change in their pattern. Even if Iconoclasm had been a non-issue, Theophilos as a Byzantine ruler would still have acted in pretty much the same way for the usual raisons d'État. The main difference is that Theophilos was more eager to up the stakes and risk a full-blown military confrontation than his predecessors. The 837 raid was almost unprecedented in size and geographical scope since Constantine V and a clear provocation to the Caliph to respond. On the other hand it is hard to tell in which measure Theophilos's actions were dictated by the need to prop up Iconoclasm or by his own rather extravagant character and apparent over-confidence. I could elaborate on the lines of this, but it enters the realm of historical speculation and it would derail the subject, which is first and foremost a description of the events of 838. Whatever Theophilos's set of motivations, it was Iconoclasm that was state doctrine, Iconoclasm that promised divine assistance and victory and Iconoclasm that suffered due to the emperor's failure. I am prepared to add more detail in the background section, but I won't have time today. Truthkeeper, could you tell me what exactly you'd like to see covered in more detail? Constantine ✍ 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've explained well above. Given the explanation, I think it's fine as is. I'll strike the comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the relevant articles that could provide more details are rather superficial. Byzantine Iconoclasm for instance focuses mostly on the religious aspects and events and completely ignores the socio-political aspects that first raised and later doomed Iconoclasm. Anyhow, my thanks for a thorough review. Constantine ✍ 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up trying to keep up with MOS; WP:BOLDTITLE has been edited to distraction and is no longer clear. It used to say we shouldn't include links in the bold title-- now I can't tell what it's trying to say, so ... anyway, fine article, but I don't see a spot check for WP:V or close paraphrasing or accurate representation of sources. Has that been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been done yet. Constantine ✍ 08:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Bury 1912: are you using the original pagination or that applied by the host site?
  • Ref 12: note 3 seems to be about the position of Theognostos, not about the size of the Arab army
  • Spotchecked a few of the other Bury refs, and none of them seem to support the material they're citing. I'm not sure whether this is a pagination issue, but this needs to be checked
  • Very limited spotchecks of other sources found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Bury references refer to the original book page numbers, not the versions of the Internet Archive, which for some reason are truncated. The actual book has some 550 pages, not 297... I included the Internet Archive link at the suggestion of another reviewer, because Google has apparently taken its version entirely off. Constantine ✍ 14:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Why is no ISBN listed for this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Byzantine-History-610-867-Aikaterina-Christophilopoulou/dp/9025610447/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1306791234&sr=8-3

Amazon shows one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I'd read it in the Greek edition and found its English-language equivalent on Google Books, which did not include an ISBN. Also corrected the date, volume 2 was published in 1993. Constantine ✍ 00:18, 31 May 2011 (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/Sack_of_Amorium/archive1&oldid=1138470647"