Talk:Battle of Karbala/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs) 05:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination can be accepted after a few modification and correction. First, I mention some clear issues and then check the Good article criteria one by one.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Karbala.jpg This picture's copyright situation is dubious. There is written "This work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. " Do you have more evidence to support this claim.
You are right. I hadn't removed it earlier because it was relevant to the text, but yes copyright status is unknown and I don't know who created it and when. Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dates: In some cases the Gregorian calendar and in some others Hijri have been used.
Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
" Then he sent his cousin Muslim ibn Aqil to assess the situation in Kufa. Ibn Aqil attracted widespread support in Kufa and informed Husayn of the situation, suggesting that he join them there Yazid removed Nu'man ibn Bashir al-Ansari as governor of Kufa due to his inaction, and installed Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, then governor of Basra, in his place. Ibn Ziyad suppressed the rebellion and killed Ibn Aqil.": Please clarify how the situation changed so rapidly.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox: The strength of Yazid's army was too much more. According to File:Battle of Karbala.jpg, it was about 30000 men.
According to Abu Mikhnaf's rendering in Tabari and Baladhuri and all the secondary sources (pls see biblio), it was 4,000. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should check the other sources. However, even in the lead of this article, the strength of army is about 5000.

"his caravan was intercepted by a 1,000 strong army" and "where a larger army of 4,000 arrived soon afterwards"!--Seyyed(t-c) 18:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is mainly religious sources that assert this number. I haven't come across a credible source on this subject which would report this big number (note that the total number of muqatila in Kufa and its dependencies was 60,000). If it were anything near reality, Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica would at the very least mention that army may have been that big; they don't. If the scholarly sources don't, we too shouldn't. On your second point, yes it is a valid observation. I had thought of making it 4,000–5,000, but didn't because as mentioned above, sources assert it to be 4,000. But I think this much OR is allowed. Will make it 4,000–5,000. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. "4,000-strong Kufan army" only were Umar ibn Sa'ad's forces. Also, as of Ansab al-Ashraf and Manaqib Of Ale Abi Talib, Shemr ibn Dhil-Jawshan had 4,000-strong forces, Husayn ibn Numayr Al-Tamimi had 4,500-strong forces which 500 of them were Archers, Al-Hurr ibn Yazid Al-Tamimi had 1,000-strong forces, Shabath ibn Rab'i had 1,000-strong forces, and etc. Total of Umayyad Corps in Battle of Karbala were 30,000–31,000 forces. Benyamin-ln (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Manaqib is not RS. If Ansab says this, please bring ref. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. Ansab mentioned some of them at vol. 3, pp. 178–179. Also, Ibn A'tham's report in Al-Futūḥ, vol. 5, pp. 86–90 contains below:

by order of enterance to Karbala
#	Commander	Forces
1	Umar ibn Sa'ad	4,000 Cavalry
2	Al-Hurr ibn Yazid Al-Tamimi	1,000 Cavalry
3	Shemr ibn Dhil-Jawshan	4,000 Cavalry
4	Arabic: يزيد بن رکاب الکلبي	2,000 Cavalry
5	Arabic: حصين بن نمير التميمي	4,000 Cavalry
6	Arabic: مصار بن مزینة المازني	3,000 Cavalry
7	?	2,000 Cavalry
8	Shabath ibn Rab'i	1,000 Cavalry
9	Arabic: حجّار بن أبجر البجلي	1,000 Cavalry
Umar ibn Sa'ad		22,000 Cavalry

Benyamin-ln (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansab v 3, p. 178 doesn't contain this. Ibn Atham's account is highly embellished and legendary [1]. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansab v 3, p. 178. Benyamin-ln (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. @Al Ameer son:, since your Arabic is very good, could you please have a look at this? Thank you. From google translate I could count 10,000. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AhmadLX: I can only read Arabic at a most elementary level unfortunately... there's no English translation? In any case, I'd highly recommend taking any figures directly from the medieval primary sources with a grain of salt as they are often inconsistent or exaggerated. Since this battle is well-covered by reliable, academic secondary sources, the numbers provided by such sources should be used, if available. If unavailable, then the numbers cited by the primary sources like al-Baladhuri and others should be used strictly with attribution. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many cited the Shemr's troops by sources? Benyamin-ln (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer for the response. I had thought you were either an Arab or had a very good command of Arabic ;) AFAIK, there is no English translation of Ansab. I have said this very same thing several times on this issue here and on the article talk. I don't get what is with insistence on 30,000. @Benyamin-ln: I would suggest getting wider input on this (eg. through RFC or talk page), if you think we must add 30,000. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you ask the exact address of matter in Ansab and had challenged the address (Ansab v 3, p. 178 doesn't contain this) i had thought you have familiar with Arabic. Doesn't it? However, you can bring amount of Shmer's troops, Hurr's troops and other commanders' troops from every RS that you have access. Regards Benyamin-ln (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used OCR+Google translate. Number of Hurr's troops, as Sa.Vakilian has noted above, was 1,000 and can be easily found in sources, e.g. EI2, Iranica etc. That is not the case with Shemr. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Please add the number to infobox of battle. But number of Shemr's troops is also necessary because his name mentioned in infobox. @Sa.vakilian: Hello. Have you a RS for numbers of other commanders' troops specially Shmer? Benyamin-ln (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added "at least" to the infobox. We should search more to find more accurate information about the issue. However, I think we can leave it for Featured stage.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consequence: This battle undermined the legitimacy of Omayyad caliphate. You can find some information in Abbasid Revolution. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Religious views on motivations and essence of Husayn's uprising": Although you have mentioned some religious views below "Impact", but I think there should be a separate section besides "Modern historical views on motivations of Husayn". There are some religious views, particularly among Shias, which should be discussed in the article. Since 20th century, there has been a severe discussion among traditional, rationalist and modern approaches to interpret the battle and the new understanding which is put forward by some revolutionaries like Ali Shariati had major role in the revolution. While traditional approach insists on divine decree and religious passion, new ones focus on Jihad, political act, etc. You can find more information in these sources: [2], [3], [4]. In fact, Hussayn's uprising and martyrdom is the main justification for Shia activists against quietists. On the other hand, there are some Sunni views about the issue, as well. Some classic scholars like Ghazali have condemned the uprising while some others like Rumi have shown more sympathy with him.
Thanks for the sources. I have incorporated Shariati's views and modern interpretation in the Iranian revolution section. On Ghazali's opinion etc, I couldn't find much in the sources.Rumi's view is given in the section on Sufi poerty. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I think we should separate "Religious views on motivations and essence of Husayn's uprising" from political impact. However, we can leave the issue for Feature review.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sa.vakilian: Yes, I have no objection to making separate section. But I wanted to find more info on Sunni view etc, which I couldn't. Do you have any source in mind which has discussed that or Ghazali's view in detail? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's add it whenever you nominate it as feature article.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can add more information about the "Battle" : For example you have mentioned "Ibn Sa'd ordered the tents to be burned" while there is another report which said Husayn ordered his army to gather some plain and burn it to prevent enemies attack from besides and behind.
It is mentioned in the article: "ditch was dug behind the tents and filled with wood ready to be set alight in case of attack." AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources" is sufficient for this stage , but if you want to reach FA criteria, it should be improved. There are some authentic works about history of "Maqtal al-Husayn" in Persian, however I do not know about Arabic or English. However, As I know, there are some renowned Maqtals which should be mentioned among primary and classic sources including Kitab al-Irshad, Maqtal al-Husayn by Ibn A'tham, Ibn Sa'd, al-Kharazmi, Ibn Tawus, etc. You can, at least mention their names and dates.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose of the section is to list and discuss earliest historical sources. I have now added names of authors of some earliest monographs as listed by Fihrist of Ibn Nadim and others. The other ones you list are either secondary or are religious books rather than historical documents. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are important sources, primary or secondary, which should be mentioned somewhere in the article. However, we can leave the issue for Feature review.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Mufid's Irshad can be added, as can be Ibn Ath'am and Ibn Sa'd. Problem, however, again is the same: finding a source that lists these. I can find something on Mufid's work, do you know of any sources which would mention the other two? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 10:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more secondary works. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a good Persian encyclopedias and books. I will use it to add their names.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: The sources section is now complete. I have incorporated Mufid and Ibn Atham, although on Ibn Sa'ad I couldn't find anything. However, comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: Do you intend to continue the review? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment:

1. Well written?: I prefer a native speaker assess this issue.

2. Factually accurate?: Yes. Of course.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very well.

4. Neutral point of view?: Completely neutral.

5. Article stability? Stable.

6. Images?: No problem.

Excuse me for delay. My review has been completed. Just one minor issues has remained. Madelung is not the only academician who has mentioned Muawiya violated the peace treaty by chossing Yazid. For example there is another one in this source.[5] I suuggest to ask another reviewer to check lingual aspects of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sa.vakilian. The article was recently copy-edited by GOCE volunteer, so I think prose-wise it is good enough. On the second point, I don't want to go in debate mode here (;)), so please see Talk:Battle_of_Karbala#Recent_changes_in_the_article, where I have argued that the author of that article has presented the religious claim, rather than his own point of view. Nonetheless, if you find it unconvincing, sure tell me and I will add this too. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sa.vakilian: I am the GoCE volunteer. I usually copy edit pre-FAC articles, but given the importance of this topic I picked it up immediately pre-GAN. At that point its prose was well up to that required for GA. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seyyed, I notice that you haven't edited for a while. Could you let us know what the status of this assessment is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. Seyyed finished review and passed the article almost a month ago, but it seems he missed to update this page. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and congratulations AhmadLX, and apologies Seyyed. The bot seems to have missed archiving this page. I have reported it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]