Jump to content

Talk:Ali al-Sajjad/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Albertatiran (talk · contribs) 06:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 11:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on during the next few days. Constantine ✍ 11:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few days turned into a month, but I finally found some time. The article is as usual of high quality and well researched and referenced. Some comments follow:

Lede
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life
  • The sections here are extremely brief. Is there a particular reason (e,g, reflecting traditional historiography)? Otherwise I suggest merging some of them (e.h. 'In Karbala' and 'In Kufa' could be 'Karbala and aftermath', 'Journey to Damascus' can easily be merged with 'In Damascus', etc). 'Aftermath of Karbala' now also comes several sections after 'In Karbala', which is at least a bit confusing at first glance when trying to gain an overview. Would suggest renaming it to 'Later life' or similar, and have the next sections be subsections of that.
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Optional: suggest merging 'In Karbala' and 'Aftermath of Karbala' in one, and 'Tawwabin revolt' and 'Mukhtar's revolt' with 'Role in the Second Fitna'. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done!
  • Shia Muslims annually celebrate the link should be to Shia Islam rather than the generic Muslims
Corrected! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • great-grandson of Muhammad link and contextualize Muhammad as the Islamic prophet
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • some believe some what? Modern historians? Shia theologians? Medieval sources?
This was changed to: some historical accounts. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both suggestions were implemented. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Persians 'with the Persians', or even 'with the Persian royal dynasty'?
This was corrected to the Persians, which matches the source. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look in the article, I am not sure that the reason for this singling out, namely "according to a tradition of the Prophet, the Kuraysh are the elect of the Arabs and the Persians are the elect of the non-Arabs." is made clear here. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, I didn't notice this earlier but here Madelung says that the title praises the Persian royal family whereas Chittick says it honors Persians as a whole. I've changed the text as follows to sidestep the issue altogether: Shia tradition thus refers to al-Sajjad as Ibn al-Khiyaratayn (lit. 'son of the best two'), a title that signifies his noble descent on both sides.
  • his mother was the daughter of Yazdegerd III...some Shia sources, Shahrbanu, the daughter of Yazdegerd III is there a reason the name is not given in the first mention? Are some Shia sources suggesting another identity for the shah's daughter? AFAICT Shahrbanu is only attested in Shia sources and no other source claims that Yazdegerd had daughters. This should be added.
To address this comment, her name is now mentioned the first time she appears in the text. Regarding Yazdegerd's family, apparently al-Masudi writes that he had three daughters, according to the Persian Wikipedia, but this is a primary source anyway. Do you happen to know of a better source? Thanks. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, unfortunately. Works specializing on Sasanian history (e.g. Pourshariati 2008, Daryaee 2009) do not mention it at all, unlike Yazdegerd's sons who are well attested. However, EI2 is explicit in attributing this to Shia tradition, so I do not consider it a stretch to point out that this is not a historical fact. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my attempt to incorporate that into the text: While it is not certain that Yazdegerd had a daughter,[citation needed] some Shia sources claim that she was brought… The [citation needed] template is to be replaced with Pourshariati 2008 and Daryaee 2009. Please share their details with me.
  • Add regnal years for Yazid I and the other Umayyad caliphs at first mention.
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After killing Husayn and his male relatives and supporters, the Umayyad troops looted his camp and found al-Sajjad lying deathly ill in one of the tents. lacks a citation
Fixed! The text was also slightly edited to read: ...the Umayyad troops looted his camp and some were intent on killing al-Sajjad but his life was ultimately spared. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the women unveiled link to hijab?
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • displayed from "village to village" if this is a quote, it is a very short one (i.e. it is trivial and can be removed), but at any rate it should be attributed.
I've removed the quotation marks. The quote must have been borrowed from one of the two works cited at the end of that sentence. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar accounts are offered by the historians...Such views are expressed by other authors it should be noted that all of these are modern historians, who interpret extremely biased medieval sources. So all these opinions should be treated with due caution. I would even recommend (although this is not required for a GA-level review) to note which medieval sources represent which side of the story, and are respectively relied on by modern historians. Some contextualization might also be in order, e.g. 'Yazid's reaction to, and culpability in, events in Karbala have been disputed ever since' or similar.
I understand. It couldn't trace the primary sources in the few secondary sources I just checked. Instead, I kept only the secondary sources for consistency and altered the paragraph as follows:
The captives were paraded in the streets of Damascus,[1] and then imprisoned for a while,[2] before being brought to the caliph. Yazid’s reaction to, and his culpability in, the events in Karbala have been debated in classical and modern sources alike.[3]
The first narrative is that he treated the captives kindly after an initial, harsh interrogation, saying that he regretted the conduct of his governor, and that he would have pardoned Husayn if he were alive.[4] Such accounts are offered by the Islamicists L. Veccia Vaglieri, W. Madelung, and H. Halm.[3][5] In contrast, M. Momen, another expert, believes that Yazid, fearing social unrest, released the captives as public opinion began to sway in their favor.[6] Similar views are expressed by some other authors, including J. Esposito,[1] R. Osman,[7] K. Aghaie,[8] D. Pinault,[9] H. Munson,[10] and the Shia scholar M. H. Tabataba'i.[11] In particular, the Islamicist H. M. Jafri writes that Yazid is not known to have reprimanded his governor in the wake of the massacre, which does not suggest any remorse to Jafri. At any rate, such claims of remorse are in stark contrast to Yazid's earlier orders to his governor to either exact homage from Husayn or kill him.[12]
The alternative narrative suggests that the captives were brought to the caliph in a ceremony, who gloated over avenging his pagan relatives killed fighting Muhammad.[7][13] Such accounts are given by the Islamicists T. Qutbuddin and R. Osman.[14][13] According to some reports, Yazid also dishonored the severed head of Husayn with blows from a cane,[15] although this last episode is sometimes attributed to Ibn Ziyad instead,[16] in line with the Sunni tendency to exonerate the caliph of killing Husayn and blaming Ibn Ziyad.[3] Part of the great mosque in Damascus, known as Mashhad Ali, marks where al-Sajjad was incarcerated.[17] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, the Sunni historian Ibn Kathir...An alternative account is presented by the Shia scholar Tabarsi (d. 1153) and by the early historian Abu Mikhnaf (d. c. 773) Having the medieval historians follow after the modern ones feels weird. As above, I would expect medieval sources to be analyzed first, and modern scholars to come after.
Please see the previous bullet. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link great mosque in Damascus
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captives were eventually freed is there any indication of the approximate date?
The freed captives arrived in Karbala dirty days after the battle, according to the religious folklore. But I don't know of any concrete information in reliable sources… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main article: Battle of al-Harra would rather suggest to have the entire Second Fitna as the reference here, with a corresponding section header (e.g. 'Role in the Second Fitna')
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tawwabin's revolt 'Tawwabin revolt' or 'Revolt of the Tawwabin'
Done!! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give some context about the Wahhabis (who they are, what they represent, their ties to the Saudi regime)
To address your comment, I added the following introduction for Wahhabism: ...a revivalist Saudi-backed movement that considers veneration of Muslim saints a form of polytheism and a grave sin.(shirk).[18] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shia sources add that the destitute in Medina discovered, after his death, that al-Sajjad was the benefactor who regularly brought them food at night, while covering his face to preserve his anonymity This might better be placed in the 'Character' section, where it is alluded to.
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference after secretly provided for destitute Medinans is now redundant. Constantine ✍ 15:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed!
Imamate
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who revolted under the auspices of Ibn al-Hanafiyyah 'auspices' may be unclear or misleading, since his connection with Mukhtar is unclear.
This was changed to in support of Ibn al-Hanafiyya… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ibn al-Hanafiyyah occurs a few times, suggest standardizing to 'Ibn al-Hanafiyya'
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Zubayrid Caliphate since this is not a proper historiographic name, 'the Zubayrid caliphate'; I would even suggest 'the Zubayrid counter-caliphate' or 'Zubayr's counter-caliphate'. Ditto for the mention further down.
Good point! I followed your suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet some Shia figures add 'contemporary' for clarity.
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But perhaps Ibn al-Hanafiyya had secret designs 'On the other hand, perhaps Ibn al-Hanafiyya had secret designs'
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kasaniyya was a Shia sect that traced the imamate through Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya and his descendants suggest merging with previous section, and rephrasing a bit, e.g. 'Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya's followers among the Shia became known as the Kaysaniyya, who continued to trace the imamate through his descendants' or similar, because the transition is somewhat abrupt.
Thanks, I implemented your suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when Ibn al-Hanafiyya died add year of death.
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most Zaydis, by contrast, do not count the quiescent al-Sajjad among their imams some more context is needed here, to make clear that Zaydi imamate is not hereditary, and must be politically activist. Alternatively, move this part to the later section where Zaydis are introduced and their doctrine mentioned.
To address this comment, some information about Zaysism is provided: Most Zaydis, by contrast, do not count al-Sajjad among their imams,[17][19] for his political quietism disqualifies him from Zaydi imamate.[20] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • majority views to the uninitiated, this is not clear; at least something like 'majority views that were not espoused by the early Shia' or similar is necessary for clarity.
I followed your suggestion. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • condemn the first two caliphs: Abu Bakr and Umar leaves the reader asking why they should be condemned; I would recommend moving most of whom view Abu Bakr and Umar as usurpers of Ali ibn Abi Talib's right to the caliphate immediately after that.
Changed that sentence as follows: to For instance, he did not condemn the first two caliphs, namely, Abu Bakr and Umar,[21] who are denounced in Shia Islam as usurpers of Ali ibn Abi Talib's right to the caliphate.[22] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done!
  • Some duplicate links, please remove them.
I removed at least one duplicate link… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titles and epithets
  • Gloss kunya
Changed that sentence to: Ali's teknonym (kunya) is… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abu al-Ḥasan, Abu al-Ḥusayn render 'H' according to the simple transliteration used throughout
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A gloss for Dhu al-Thafenat?
Changed that sentence to: He was also known as Dhu al-Thafenat, meaning ‘he who has calluses’ from frequent prostration in worship.[17] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Character
  • among Sunni Muslims as the Sunni-Shia divide is not quite there yet, perhaps 'non-Shia' or 'majoritarian' Muslims'? At the very least 'proto-Sunni'.
I used non-Shia Muslims, as you suggested. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much of this description comes from 'neutral' sources (e.g. al-Tabari) and how much comes from Shia sources?
Hard to tell because, except Pierce, the authors I looked at omit their primary sources. My guess is that this is a universal description of al-Sajjad, as it was (and still is) common for Sunnis to describe early Muslim figures as pious men with minor disagreements and misunderstandings (that somehow led to bloody wars). The part quoted from Pierce was changed as follows: ...to the point that his face was bruised and his legs were swollen from lengthy prayers, according to his Shia biographer.[23] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Family
Very good note. I wasn't aware of this. However, I did know about Tahir ibn Zayn al-Abidin, buried in Tehran, Iran. Unfortunately, none of them has been mentioned in reliable sources. That said, Abd Allah does appear in an article by Baghestani and Haeri in a Persian encyclopedia. I've added the following sentence to this subsection: Among his sons were Zayd and Abd Allah,[24] and the eldest of them was Muhammad al-Baqir.[25] Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works
  • often regarded as authentic by whom?
This is now clarified: The book, attributed to al-Sajjad, is often regarded as authentic by Shia scholars of hadith… Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • The years given for the EI2 articles are incorrect; EI2's last volume was published in 2004. Cf. Template:Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, which I strongly recommend to use (otherwise something from Vol. I, i.e. 1960, is erroneously presented as being up-to-date, and EI2 is shown as being later than EI3 articles).
I completely understand. Currently what's given is the “first-online” date, which is the only date given by brillonline, as far as I can tell. Since I don't have access to the printed articles anymore, it’d be difficult for me to address this particular comment. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the alphabetical ranges in the template link above. There is a remote possibility that an article is in the supplemental volume 12, but that should not be the case here. Also, have a look in your email inbox. Constantine ✍ 07:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your resources. I updated the bibliography accordingly.
Infoboxes
  • In the top infobox, Hasan al-Muthana is listed as his successor in Zaydism, in the succession box in the bottom, it is Zayd ibn Ali. I would suggest that both are wrong, as the article makes clear that the Zaydis didn't regard him as an imam at all.
You're right. I didn't notice that. That's been fixed. Albertatiran (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still in the succession box in the bottom of the page. Constantine ✍ 07:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now that's gone too.

That's it for a first pass. After the points above are dealt with, I will do a second read-through and a source review. Constantine ✍ 14:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Helpful and well-thought--of comments, as usual. Thank you very much! Please find my responses above.
@Cplakidas: Thanks again. Please see the second round of responses above. Albertatiran (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Esposito 2022.
  2. ^ Qutbuddin 2005, p. 9938.
  3. ^ a b c Madelung 2004.
  4. ^ Veccia Vaglieri 2012.
  5. ^ Halm 1999, p. 15.
  6. ^ Momen 1985, p. 31.
  7. ^ a b Osman 2015, p. 131.
  8. ^ Aghaie 2004b, p. 121.
  9. ^ Pinault 2001, p. 13.
  10. ^ Munson 1988, p. 23.
  11. ^ Tabatabai 1975, p. 177.
  12. ^ Jafri 1979, p. 194.
  13. ^ a b Qutbuddin 2019, pp. 118–119.
  14. ^ Osman 2015, p. 149n212.
  15. ^ Pinault 1998, p. 71.
  16. ^ Veccia Vaglieri 2012; Momen 1985, p. 31; Abu Zahra 1997, p. 118.
  17. ^ a b c Kohlberg 2012.
  18. ^ Ibrahim 2006, pp. 19–22.
  19. ^ Momen 1985, p. 328n5.
  20. ^ Haider 2014, p. 87.
  21. ^ Haider 2014, p. 89.
  22. ^ Kohlberg 2012b.
  23. ^ Pierce 2016, p. 55.
  24. ^ Baghestani & Haeri 2017.
  25. ^ Daftary 2013, p. 146.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ali_al-Sajjad/GA1&oldid=1246524672"