Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2021 [1].

Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik edit

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the seventh Umayyad caliph Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik. He governed Palestine for over ten years during the reigns of his father and brother, founding Ramla, the district's capital until the Crusades. He succeeded his brother as heir apparent in 715, ruling for two years, during which the mass territorial expansion of the Caliphate under his predecessor came to a virtual halt due to increased resistance along the frontiers. It was under Sulayman that the Arabs made their most concerted effort to capture Constantinople, which ended in disaster. Before he died, he appointed his cousin Umar II as his successor, an unconventional choice over his brothers or sons. Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Many had been handpicked by al-Hajjaj and had led the war efforts which brought the Caliphate to its greatest territorial extent, including the conqueror of Transoxiana (Central Asia), Qutayba ibn Muslim, who was killed by his own troops in an abortive revolt at the beginning of Sulayman's reign, and the conqueror of Sind (the western Indian subcontinent), Muhammad ibn Qasim, who was executed." possibly an over-long sentence?
  • "from local forces". What is meant by "local forces"? Both in the lead and the main text.
  • I replaced with "indigenous". This may not be the best substitute, but more specific than "local". Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "culminating in the sieges of Constantinople of 717 and 718, which ended in Arab defeats." "sieges"; "defeats". I understood it to be a single siege and a singlr defeat.
  • From my understanding of the sources used in this article there were two successive sieges (part of the same general effort, of course). I will look into this further. On this point, and the related one below regarding more details about the siege during Sulayman's reign, I also defer to Cplakidas, who may have some useful information. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: the Ramla photograph - as the caption is a sentence, should it not end in a full stop?
  • Sulayman's mother is red linked in the infobox but not in the text. It should be both or neither.
  • "At an unknown point, Abd al-Malik made Sulayman governor". Suggest "point" → 'date'.
  • "(military district of Palestine)". Would this flow better as '(the military district of Palestine)'?
  • "had previously supervised Abd al-Malik's construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem<" I think you mean 'had previously supervised the construction of Abd al-Malik's Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem' or similar.
  • who held him in "the highest regard". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • What is the best approach here? Removing the conversion template and just sticking with 10 kilometers? Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sigfig is your friend. You happy with how I have tweaked it?
  • "efforts to transfer settlement to Ramla". I don't think that "settlement" is the right word.
  • Revised to "transfer Lydda's inhabitants to Ramla". Let me know if this is better. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by appointing allied officials," Is there a better word than "allied"?
  • "Kennedy asserted that the caliph's reign". Upper case C. And elsewhere.
  • "but was nonetheless dismissed, summoned to Wasit and was tortured to death" The second "was" is redundant.
  • "716/17" → '716 and 717', see MOS:DOB.
  • Revised. In this case, however, the slash means that it was in 716 or 717. Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to besiege the Byzantine capital of Constantinople via land"> I think 'from the land' conveys the sense better than "via land".
  • Could Elias of Nisibis and Abu Mikhnaf be introduced. preferably with some idea of when they were writing?
  • "ṭāʿūn al-Ashrāf". Foreign language words or phrases which are not proper nouns should use the Lang template.
Assuming that is Arabic, this one: ṭāʿūn al-Ashrāf.
  • "He also cultivated ties to the religious opponents of al-Hajjaj in Iraq, was financially generous toward the Alids (the closest surviving kinsmen of the Islamic prophet Muhammad), and installed as governor of Medina Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad al-Ansari, a member of the city's pious circles, despite his family's role in the fatal rebellion against the early clansman and patron of the Umayyads, Caliph Uthman (r. 644–656), revenge for whom had served as an ideological rallying point and foundational event for the Umayyad dynasty." I think that this is a little much for a single sentence.
  • Indeed, broken up into three sentences... Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "future pretender to the caliphate". Either Caliphate or caliphate should be used throughout.
  • In this particular case, the office of the caliphate is being referred to, as opposed to the entity/empire. I have capitalized "Caliphate" when referring to the entity, should the office of the caliphate also be capitalized? Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see your point. I had missed that. You are correct.
  • Possibly a little more detail on the Siege of Constantinople? At least up to Sulayman's death?
  • Cites 16 and 33 have p./pp. errors.
  • Ahmed and Bosworth need publisher locations.

A very fine piece of work. And you are clearly on top of your sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and the many suggested improvements. Most of the points you have raised have been addressed now, with the exception of a few, namely the information about the siege(s) of Constantinople and the two points about the distance conversion and language templates, where I would like further advice. I hope to have those last few addressed asap. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Distance tweaked in the article; lang template demonstrated above. That just leaves the siege(s): 1. Are you happy to include a little more detail? 2. Lets both dig into our sources to see to what extent it is meaningful to split the events into two sieges and whether modern RSs do. As you say, Constantine will probably have a magisterial opinion on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tweak and the tip. As for the siege(s), definitely happy to include more detail, especially as this was a monumental event. I'll look into the sources I have today and am looking forward to what you could find on your end. I also see that Constantine will be leaving comments below, and am expecting his thoughts on this as well ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My sources all agree that 717-718 was a single siege. Siege of Constantinople (717–718), taken to FA by Constantine, says the same. Do you have anything different? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the sources I have mention very little about the siege, but none appear to call it two sieges, it just took place over two summers. Eisener, Blankinship have it as one siege, Powers does not mention it in his annotations of al-Tabari. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I you want to tweak the text from sieges to siege in the various places it is mentioned, I should then be able to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gog, the text has been tweaked by Constantine. I will be addressing the points he raised below, but otherwise let me know if there is anything else that should be done. Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that you need a little more detail on the siege.
  • "Already from early 716, the Arab commander Umar ibn Hubayra al-Fazari had launched a naval campaign against Constantinople." What happened to the naval campaign.
  • "Sulayman's efforts ultimately failed as the Byzantines repulsed the Umayyad attacks in the early summer of 717 and the summer of 718." This seems a little confused to me. Maybe something like. 'The Byzantines repulsed the Umayyad attacks in the early summer of 717, but Maslama continued to blockade Constantinople's landward approaches. [sentence on naval activity] Maslama renewed the the Umayyad assault in the summer of 717 but was again defeated. He abandoned the siege and withdrew through Anatolia, losing most of his army en route.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have expanded the section, mostly by copying from the main article about the siege, with some revisions and minor additions, and with a mind toward your proposed structuring of the passage. From my understanding, Maslama's army retreated relatively intact to Syria after the casualties endured during the siege, but the relief army sent to aid him was routed and driven out of Anatolia. Will request Constantine to do a source check for the books I could not access or read. There will be more fine-tuning, but let me know if, content-wise, this issue has now been addressed. I will also be adding one summary sentence about the repercussions of the expedition's failure at the end of the section. I will update you. Al Ameer (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am content with everything except for the minor suggestion:
  • "The Umayyads' first blockade of the city under Mu'awiya I had failed." → 'The Umayyads' first blockade of the city under Mu'awiya I in 674 to 678 had failed.'
So am happy to support. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk)
Thanks Gog. I intentionally omitted the date since there seems to be credible disputes by historians to the dating of the siege or whether it was siege at all. What is agreed is that the raids and/or naval blockade of the city occurred under Mu'awiya I. Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Pass image licensing looks good to me. (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If possible would suggest improving File:The_Caliphate_in_945_(centred_on_the_southern_Caspian_Sea).jpg - it's not clear what is green vs lime green. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I lack the know-how to do this, despite it seeming simple enough. How about I crop out the lime green portion at the bottom left corner of the map? Alternatively, I could replace it altogether with this detailed map of the region in question: File:Northern Iran and its surroundings during the Iranian intermezzo.svg. The main benefit of the current map is that it shows the conquest of Tabaristan in the context of the conquests undertaken by Sulayman's predecessors, though this may not be terribly important. Thoughts? —Al Ameer (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe first try Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The request has been made: Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Dec 2020#Coloring adjustment for map, per FAC recommendation. Al Ameer (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The map has now been improved by Amitchell125, and updated in the article. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Constantine edit

Glad to see this here, will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done some copyedits in the article, feel free to revert/discuss them.
  • Muslim religious scholars link faqih, if that is what is meant.
  • For the transliterated Arabic terms, you should use {{transl|ar|}}, e.g. {{transl|ar|[[shurta|shurṭa]]}}, as this helps automatic parsers of the Wikicode determine what the terms are.
  • I am not sure that "security forces" is the proper translation of shurta; to a modern reader, this implies entities like the FBI or armed police. Perhaps "elite guard"?
  • Yes, shurta is a tricky one, and a term that seems to have evolved a number of times even just in the early Islamic period. I changed it to elite guard as suggested, since this seems like the appropriate use for this case. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Files need alt descriptions
  • Working on this, will update you when completed. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • militarist policies link militarism, if that is what is meant here.
  • more effective resistance from indigenous forces add where this happened; as a small conqueror class, the Arabs faced 'indigenous forces' everywhere. What you mean is that they faced increased resistance on their frontiers.
  • I need to look into where specifically the Muslims faced increased resistance tomorrow and will update you. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have clarified and expanded this area now. Let me know your thoughts. Al Ameer (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC, the conquest of Tabaristan and Jurjan was mostly nominal and definitely ephemeral; not only were many local princes like Farrukhan the Great left effectively undisturbed, but the conquest had to be repeated under the Abbasids. This needs to be added.
  • Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I clarified and added context, let me know if it suffices. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made some additions & copyedits there, and added Madelung's chapter in the Cambridge History of Iran as a source. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the failure of the siege of Constantinople, I would suggest adding the destruction of the two fleets sent against the city; it was the failure of the naval component that decided the outcome more than anything else. Some context might also be advisable here, after The Caliph's principal military focus was the war with Byzantium, to the effect that Sulayman's campaign was the culmination of two decades of encroachment into Byzantine territories, and the second major attempt to seize Constantinople. It should be easy to mine the article on the siege for whatever details you need (ping me if you need to verify sources).
  • I owe you a debt here, as I indeed went ahead and copied much of the new material from the article, which you mainly authored. I do in fact need you to please verify at least Lilie and Guilland for I am illiterate in German and French ;) Also, if you do not mind, please see Nikki's query below about Lilie being a high-quality RS, as you may be able to offer a better response than me. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the sources right now, will do ASAP. On Lilie, done. Constantine ✍ 20:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I was able to check Treadgold and Haldon, so that just leaves Guilland. Al Ameer (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made some additions & copyedits here too, chiefly for chronology/context, but also added a bit on the impact and aftermath, since this event was one of the most significant in world history and a turning-point both for Byzantium and the Caliphate. Feel free to adapt my additions. I also checked Guilland, and it does correspond with the article text. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember reading a brief exposition about the emergence of the figure of Mahdi in connection with Sulayman in Patricia Crone's God's Rule - Government and Islam, that would fit in really well here. I probably can send you the relevant pages, if required.
  • Thanks for this tip as well. I incorporated the relevant material into the article. Al Ameer (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it after a first pass. Looks like the usual thorough job one has come to expect of Al Ameer son. Constantine ✍ 15:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC) PS on the siege/sieges issue, I suspect the sources used considered the two different 'active phases' of the siege as different events; they were not. Maslama and his troops wintered in Byzantine soil, in Europe, but they never abandoned the siege, at least not from the landward side. That's why the quick neutralization of the Umayyad fleets was critical. Constantine ✍ 15:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • as his age of death in September 717 is cited as 39, 43, or 45 I guess this means Islamic years? They are not equivalent to our solar years, so this should be pointed out. I will go through the article once more when I have a bit more time just in case I missed something, but otherwise I am very happy with its current state. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came across this so thought to add it as a footnote. The 39, 43 or 45 are not calendar years though. They are the various ages of death cited for Sulayman by the sources, according to Bosworth. Would it be better if I just did the math and subtract those various ages from 717 to get the approximate years of birth instead? Al Ameer (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference still applies, since the lunar Islamic year is ten days shorter than the solar Gregorian one. If Bosworth directly references the medieval sources, then the ages of 39, 43, or 45 Islamic years correspond to 38, 41, and 43 solar (our) years. Constantine ✍ 19:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the best solution? I could remove them altogether as they are not very important, only to further comprehensiveness. Al Ameer (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep it, just add "is cited as 39, 43, or 45 (Islamic) years" or smth similar, unless you can check the original sources and Bosworth has already done the conversions. Constantine ✍ 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another read-through and made some minor tweaks. I can't find anything missing or to complain about, so I am happy to support at this point. Once again, well done. Constantine ✍ 21:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • spotchecks not done
  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as burial place, don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Burial has now been cited. The names of all the children listed in the infobox are cited in Note C. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a child mentioned in the infobox and text but not that note - is there a reason for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note mentions the sons of Sulayman listed by al-Ya'qubi. Muhammad is not mentioned by al-Ya'qubi, but is mentioned as the eldest son to have survived Sulayman, according to an annotation by David Powers citing al-Dinawari in the edited History of al-Tabari. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their first attempt to capture the city during Mu'awiya I's reign had failed. " - source?
  • Just added this but forgot the cite. Revised and sourced, now. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing full bibliographic details for Guilland 1959
  • This now includes publisher and location, which the other journal citations do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Bibliography?
  • Chronologically. The Hinds sources have now been ordered accordingly. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaban 1970 is missing location
  • Bacharach appears to be a journal publication rather than a book
  • Biesterfeldt is an editorial board member, but the volume credits specific editors who should be included in the citation
  • This will now need to be moved to alphabetical order. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bosworth: what was the original publisher?
  • Apparently, Variorum. I removed “Reprints”. I cannot find anything other than it was published in 1982 by Variorum. I guess the particular link used here was for a reprint (though an original year does not seem to be indicated, so I am assuming it was 1982). Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the linked source does include "Reprints", it shouldn't be removed from the citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haldon: edition statement should be separate from title
  • Done. Also a bit confusing to me upon inspection. The title mentions it is the “Revised Edition”, but nothing indicates it was published in a different year than the original year, 1990. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawting is a dead link
  • What makes Lilie a high-quality reliable source?
  • I defer to Constantine on this one. I copied information cited to the source from the main article about the Siege of Constantinople (717–718). I do not see why it would not fit the bill. On a related note, I have also requested Constantine verify the material sourced to Lilie and Guilland (see above)—want to make sure all content is still true to the sources after the modifications I made to the copied text. Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on why you believe it to be reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain the formatting of the Madelung source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added this, but at the very bottom of the online article is information about the citation of the article in the print version. Is this ok, or should it be formatted differently? Al Ameer (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referencing the online article, the citation should reflect that and not the print version. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I re-did the reference. Let me know if this works, or please propose the best way. Al Ameer (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ImTheIP edit

Fantastic article. Very well-written and informative. Here are some thing that struck me while reading it:

  • Sulayman resented al-Hajjaj's influence over his brother. Is it known why he resented al-Hajjaj?
  • Great question. This is unfortunately unclear. Hawting (2000) discusses it on page 74. He mentions the mutual hostility between them stemming from al-Hajjaj's desire for al-Walid's son to accede instead of Sulayman, but "whether this was its cause or a symptom is not clear". Before that, Hawting notes that Yazid ibn al-Muhallab escaped prison and took refuge with Sulayman, "taking advantage of the antagonism that existed between al-Hajjaj and the heir apparent [Sulayman]", implying it was already established from early on. Wellhausen notes the hostility existed while Sulayman was still heir apparent. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among them were the conqueror of Transoxiana (Central Asia), Qutayba ibn Muslim, who was killed by his own troops in an abortive revolt at the start of Sulayman's reign So Qutayba tried to stage a revolt because he got fired?
  • He was a loyalist of al-Hajjaj and supported Sulayman's replacement as heir with al-Walid's son. Following Sulayman's accession, he anticipated hostile action from the new caliph, despite Sulayman's confirmation of him in his post, and revolted. I will tweak the lead since it reads as if Sulayman dismissed him, when it was not the case. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At an unknown date, Abd al-Malik appointed Sulayman governor of Jund Filastin (the military district of Palestine) According to Nur Masalha, Sulayman became governor in 705. That may be wrong though.
  • I am leery of this, it may be a presumption by Masalha. Sulayman was appointed during Abd al-Malik's reign and appears to have been well-established there before his brother's accession to the caliphate. We know there were two other governors of Palestine under Abd al-Malik: his uncle Yahya ibn al-Hakam could not have been governor after 694, as he was reassigned to Medina and afterward led campaigns against the Byzantines until his death around 699 or 700. Although governors of Hims, Qinnasrin and the Jazira were known to lead army campaigns against the Byzantines, this was not apparently a purview of a governor of Palestine. Then there is Abd al-Malik's brother Aban ibn Marwan. It is not clear if he preceded his uncle or succeeded him, though the sources mention that al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf started his career in Syria as part of Aban's shurta in Palestine, which would have been in the latter half of the 680s. It seems likely Sulayman was appointed after Yahya. None of the sources offer the years of appointment, so I am staying away from it. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About Ramla, Nur Masalha writes: "According to the conventional wisdom, the name Ramla is derived from the Arabic word raml, meaning sand (Palmer 1881: 217). But it is more likely that the new Arab capital was named by Suleiman ibn ‘Abd al‑Malik not for its sand but in memory of Ramla, a remarkable woman who was the daughter of Caliph Mu’awiyya ibn Abu Sufyan, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Ramla’s reputation among the Umayyad ruling elite was enhanced by the fact that she also married to a son of Uthman, the third Caliph of Islam (Roded 1994: 57). The likelihood of a major city being named in memory of an important Umayyad woman in the history of the ruling dynasty could easily have been overlooked by the post‑Umayyad almost exclusively male (Abbasid‑leaning) Muslim historians of the Middle Ages."
  • Interesting, but again I am wary of this, as it seems entirely presumptuous on Masalha's part. Masalha may be a high-quality, academic source, but this appears to be way out of his area of expertise. Does make me want to start an article on Ramla bint Mu'awiya, though. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A protege of al-Hajjaj, Qutayba ibn Muslim, whose relations with Sulayman had been antagonistic, was confirmed in his post by the Caliph, but remained wary that his dismissal was pending. In the lead it says he was fired?
  • Yes, I will tweak this in the lead and update you, per above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter was assassinated on Sulayman's orders, and his head was delivered to the Caliph by Habib ibn Abi Ubayd al-Fihri in 715 or 716. That wasn't very nice! Is there some explanation as to why Sulayman had Abd al-Aziz assassinated?

ImTheIP (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not nice at all. The source used does not elaborate. Upon further research, it appears there are a few different narratives. In EI2's entry on Abd al-Aziz b. Nusayr, it just says "He was assassinated in Seville, where he had fixed his residence, by a certain Ziyad b. Udhra al-Balawi, at the beginning of Radjab 97/March 718, and was succeeded by his maternal cousin Ayyub b. Habib al-Lakhmi." Tabari (used in this article) only says "In this year [715-716] Abd al-Aziz b. Musa b. Nusayr was killed in al-Andalus and Habib b. Abi Ubayd al-Fihri brought his head to Sulayman." Hitti tells of a story that Abd al-Aziz was murdered after Sulayman caught wind of rumors he became a Christian under his wife's influence. Then there's the History of Ibn al-Qutiya (ed. David James) where Sulayman orders Musa imprisoned after the latter's arrival in Syria after some tensions between him and the heir apparent (Musa had been on his way to visit his "benefactor" al-Walid, but arrived after Sulayman's accession) and orders "five of the leading Arabs of al-Andalus", among whom were Ziyad and Habib, to assassinate Abd al-Aziz. Nothing is mentioned of the victim's head being delivered to Sulayman or why exactly the deed was ordered; one may presume it was related to the caliph's tension with Musa. Need to sort all of this out. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a bit more. The EI2 entry on Musa notes the stories about his later life are filled with legend and David James, the translator and editor of a 10th-century Andalusian manuscript I just used to expand this section, also makes note of legendary elements in the narrative about Musa's imprisonment. Perhaps the multiple narratives about his and his son's fates ought to be discussed in further detail in the articles about Musa and Abd al-Aziz. Thoughts? Al Ameer (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by AhmadLX edit

  • Diacritics from the infobox should be removed per MOS.
  • Also Wallada bint al-Abbas ibn al-Jaz' → Wallada bint al-Abbas ibn al-Jaz, dīwān → diwan, shurṭa → shurta, al-Sab' → al-Sab, mawlā → mawla, and ṭāʿūn al-Ashrāf → ta'un al-Ashraf
  • Why is there a change from past to past participle mid-paragraph in section Early life?
  • I believe I fixed this now. Let me know. Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Al-Ya'qubi (d. 839) noted the Caliph razed the houses of Lydda's inhabitants". Please change "the Caliph" here to Sulayman.
  • "Although Yazid acted with a staunch preference for the Yaman, there is no indication that Sulayman favored one faction over the other." Other historians' views on the matter are presented as views, but Wellhausen's as fact.
  • I attributed the view to Wellhausen. Hate to attribute so much, but there are multiple differing views about this caliph. Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hadith (sayings or traditions attributed to Muhammad) ..." → A hadith ... or The hadiths
  • Crone 1994, p. 18, 21, note 97. → Crone 1994, pp. 18, 21, note 97.
  • Kennedy 2004, p. 105–106. Ditto (finally some form of Kennedy error, I was looking for it;))
  • Brill and E. J. Brill
  • This would require changing the content of the template or replacing the templates altogether. Is it necessary? And if so, @Cplakidas: would it make sense for me to change "E. J. Brill" to just "Brill" in all the EI2 templates? Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can change Brill in other sources to E. J. Brill.
  • That Walid died on 23 February is not in Tab (it just says late February). EI2 article on Sulayman says Walid died on 24 February.
  • Thanks, changed date and replaced Tab with EI2. Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 701, Sulayman led the Hajj pilgrimage caravan to Mecca." According to the cited source, "he led hajj", which by default means he led the hajj rituals.
  • The section Assessment sounds like minutes of a meeting. For modern historians, you could use "notes/has noted", "agrees/has agreed" etc instead of noted/concurred/agreed.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 02:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AhmadLX: Yes, I see that now. I tweaked the wording a bit, let me know if this is sufficient or not. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "Shaban agreed", but the rest seems good. It would be fun to imagine Crone, Shaban, Wellhausen discussing Sulayman, something like this;)
Changed the wording, hopefully it's better now. Al Ameer (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yazid used his tribal connections with the district's large Yamani Azdi population to gain Sulayman's protection." You might need to change the page number of Crone 1980 citation here.
  • Thanks for finding this. Wrong year actually. Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The funeral for another of his sons, Abd al-Rahman, was held in Ascalon." This is irrelevant and completely trivial.
  • Removed. May add that through another of his sons, Abd al-Wahid, he had descendants recorded by the sources in Islamic Spain with the nisba "al-Sulaymani". Al Ameer (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eisener mentions the general hostility of early sources. One or two sentences can fit in the Assessment section. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AhmadLX: Great point, do not know how I missed that. Took a stab at it, but the language may need to be modified. Let me know your thoughts. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it seems to be hitting the bull's eye. I can't write that good, lol. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comprehensiveness-wise quite good, other aspects well. Prose vetted by others. I am supporting now. If there isn't overlap of Brill/E. J. Brill using templates, all Brills should be changed to EJs. If overlap exists, then no change needed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AhmadLX and Al Ameer son:, on Brill, it is a matter of chronology: after a certain point (c. 1998, IIRC), E.J. Brill became simply Brill (I don't know the reason). But the reference is still correct and appropriate, we cannot retroactively change the publisher merely for consistency's sake. Constantine ✍ 19:58, 20 February 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/Sulayman_ibn_Abd_al-Malik/archive1&oldid=1014591649"