Jump to content

Talk:Demolition of al-Baqi

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

Copyedit

[edit]

Twofingered Typist, thank-you for your recent copyedit of this article. I was watching it as an example to see if I would have caught all the changes (not quite, as it turns out). I have a couple notes, though maybe these could be better answered by someone more familiar with the article and its subject matter. (Unfortunately, I have not had great luck following the sources.)

  • The translation "the field of thorny threes" seems questionable to me. Should it be "thorny trees" from boxthorn?
  • Could the list of destroyed domes be made a little clearer? Particularly the list at the end of Second demolition? I like to use semicolons to separate groups in complex lists but I'm not absolutely positive of the intended meaning to do it myself.
  • In the first paragraph of Motivations, is making a typo of marking?
  • With Shia Imams, should Imams be capitalized? It seems to me that in the generic sense, as a title not specifically connected to a name, it should be lowercase and thus Shia imams.

I'd appreciate any thoughts on these - Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Reidgreg: Thanks for copyediting the article. Here are your answers:
  • Yes, it should be trees.
  • Whats vague regarding the domes?
  • Yes, "marking" is wrong and it should be 'making'.
  • "Imam" initiates with an uppercase letter.
Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the capitalization, I was looking at MOS:JOBTITLES and the article Imam, but certainly I understand that there's context of application and style choices, so I'll leave that to you
  • If I'm being honest, the names are unfamiliar to me so I'm relying on the punctuation. Maybe it's the way commas are used before distinguishing the father and mother but dashes before the uncles and son. The inconsistency in format might make the reader question the intended meaning. You could put a dash for the parents, but MOS recommends against more than two dashes in a sentence. I personally prefer semicolons and might have written it as Some of the destroyed domes included those of: Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib and Aminah, Muhammad's father and mother, respectively; Isma'il ibn Jafar; Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib and Hamza ibn Abdul-Muttalib, both uncles of Muhammad; Ibrahim ibn Muhammad, Muhammad's son; Malik ibn Anas; Uthman ibn Affan; four Shia Imams;[10] and 7,000 people who supposedly had ties with the prophet Muhammad. I added punctuation after the final and for consistency with the rest of the article (serial commas, though in this case it's a semi-colon). I'm assuming the "supposedly had ties" is meant to refer to the 7,000 people but not the Shia Imams. (Could a semicolon be confused with any Arabic accented characters?)

You're welcome. I'm trying to learn more about copyediting and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reidgreg: Sorry for my belated response. Please change the text as you have written in green, that seems better to my eyes. Shia Imams are descendants of the prophet and have ties with him by default so the term "supposedly had ties" refer to the 7,000 people. Btw, I don't think a semicolon be confused with an accented Arabic character. Thank you again. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Mhhossein, I was doing copyedit on a half-dozen articles last week so I had a full plate. I made the changes as mentioned, and also put the block quote in a quote template (for future generation of metadata). I appreciate the opportunity to help with an important article like this one. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Merger proposal

[edit]

It was proposed to merge this article to Al-Baqi'. The users opposed the suggestion. --Mhhossein talk 13:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Demolition of al-Baqi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this. Interesting article. HaEr48 (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • ‘Al-Baqi cemetery, "the oldest and historically most important Islamic graveyard".’ Is the designation as historically most important the consensus of the experts, or just the opinion of a particular expert? If the latter please attribute to who said it.
The cemetery is almost unanimously "the oldest" per the sources I found. See the first and the third ref of the article both from Brill, and this book. However, regarding the importance I found this source calling it equally important with Al-Mala cemetery. What's your suggestion? --Mhhossein talk 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the oldest Islamic graveyard, and one of the most important" ? Or "one of the oldest and most important graveyards" sounds fine too. And if it is unanimous we can lose the quotation marks. HaEr48 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can call it "the oldest" per sources. Regarding the importance, I'm partially in agreement with you; Apparently Al-Mala cemetery and al-Baqi are the most important cemeteries of Medina. So, calling it one "one of the most important graveyards" does not give the impression that al-baqi is one of the two most important cemeteries. --Mhhossein talk 19:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine if you want to say "one of the two most" if there's no other contender, given that the Danforth source says so. HaEr48 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: I did the edit. However, there's only one remaining concern; The cemetery is described by the sources as "historically most important" and "historically the most significant", and "most famous". Can we say that Al-baqi is even more importation than Al-Mala cemetery from historical viewpoint? --Mhhossein talk 12:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro talks uses the word “Wahhabis” several times, which, without context means a broad movement or branch of Islam. Can you name the actual entity being involved in this destruction? 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It's mentioned that the destruction was done at the order of/by House of Saud. I think the context is provided in the lead. "...by forces loyal to the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance in 1806 and 1925," gives the reader enough info on the exact entity. --Mhhossein talk 17:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel 'Wahhabi-Saudi alliance' is not precise enough. The Wahhabi is a movement which also exists in other places and time (compare with attributing Soviet Union's actions to "the Communists": it's kind of true, but not precise enough). Maybe something like "followers of the Wahhabi movement in Arabia"? And also a general reader might not get what the adjective "Saudi" means - in today's use it is the adjective for Saudi Arabia, which didn't exist at this time, maybe "Forces loyal to the House of Saud"? Probably we can split the first sentence to a second sentence describing the actor as an alliance of these two forces. HaEr48 (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found references to the "First Saudi State" (Emirate of Diriyah) and the "Second Saudi State" (Emirate of Nejd) which fit your timeline. I think this is what we're looking for? HaEr48 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But as you know, there's only one 'Wahhabi-Saudi alliance' in the world and throughout the history. Moreover, we know that the demolition happened at definite years, i.e. Wahhabi-Saudi alliance was an alliance between the Wahhabi movement and Al-Saud clan at the time. --Mhhossein talk 19:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be clear for people familiar with the history of the region, but I doubt that the general reader is that familiar with the history of Wahhabism in 19th-early20th century Arabia. Is there any concern from identifying the specific entities? HaEr48 (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no concern. According to the time span, first demolition (1806) was done by the First Saudi state (1744–1818). But, who did the second one? --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Searched some more and the event in which the Saudi took over Hijaz is this: Saudi conquest of Hejaz (maybe it's a good idea to mentionlink this somewhere in the article), and the entity at the time is the Sultanate of Nejd. HaEr48 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. See if it's correct. --Mhhossein talk 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I edited further for clarity, please see if it's better. HaEr48 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I named the first companion buried in the cemetery. --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I linked it to Imamah (Shia doctrine). Alright? --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it important to mention the details in this article? --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, briefly as historical background for the events mentioned. Related to my point "I suggest adding a paragraph" below. HaEr48 (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • European traveler Johann Ludwig Burckhardt visited the cemetery in 1815 => this seems to be out of order, since the following paragraph taks about events in the 1805-1807. HaEr48 (talk)
1815 falls after the first demolition and it's natural that the ruins could have been there till 1815. --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Mhhossein talk 13:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Mhhossein talk 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest adding a paragraph or two about the historical context - Who were in power in Hijaz, what are the relation between the Ottoman, the Saudis, the Wahhabis. Possibly the Shias as well. HaEr48 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Mhhossein talk 19:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this unnecessary detail after I checked the source and understood that it could be removed. --Mhhossein talk 18:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Non-Wahhabi Muslims were prohibited from performing the Hajj pilgrimage at the time.” this statement seems to be an inappropriate generalization of the following statements. Looks like Iraqi + Iranians are forbidden in 1805, Syrians in 1806, and Egyptians in 1807, not a general ban on non-Wahhabis HaEr48 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that. The facts regarding Iran, Syria and etc is not in contradiction with the general ban. We may make attribution to the source, if you think we should. --Mhhossein talk 18:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know the source says that, but we shouldn't have statements that contradict each other. "Non-Wahhabi Muslims were prohibited" is a universal statements, it contradicts the following statements that pilgrims are only banned on specific years based on nationality. I clarified this paragraph a little bit, using another source. Please take a look if it's okay. HaEr48 (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Sultan Mahmud II, Ottoman emperor at the time,” . drop the “at the time”. Also the designation of “emperor” for Ottoman sultan is a bit unusual, usually they’re called Sultans or Caliphs? HaEr48 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the term used by the source. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but no need to use the quotation mark. For example, MOS:PMC said that "Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can often seem to imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted". HaEr48 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • “to attack the rebels” . Who are the rebels? HaEr48 (talk)
The Brill source uses the term "rebellious clans" to describe the group of Wahhabis destructing al-Baqi. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but this is the first time the article associated the Saudis with rebellion, so a reader might not know what "the rebels" refer to here. HaEr48 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Najdi clans" are those Wahhabis destructing al-Baqi and Ibrahim Pasha defeated them on the behalf of his father, Muhammad Ali Pasha. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So please clarify that in the article. Currently, this is the first mention of the "Najdi clans" and the relation to the other events are unclear.
Both issues (rebels & Najdi clans) were addressed. --Mhhossein talk 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found no useful info in these regards. --Mhhossein talk 07:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does “Ibrahim” buried in the cemetery refer to Abraham, or the son of Muhammad? The article says the latter, but the source no 12 * "Mapping the Saudi State” seems to say that it is Abraham. HaEr48 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Son of Muhammad was buried there. Abraham is buried in Hebron (see Abraham in Islam).--Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the dates are accompanied by citations to reliable. However, Shahi's source (Ref #13) regard 1925 while Brills entry on al-Baqi written by Bahramian (Ref #4) says that 1926 is correct. --Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So please discuss the different reports and sources somewhere in the article. It's okay that sources disagree on the exact year, but don't just have the mysterious "1925 (or 1926)" peppered in various places without explaining the different dates somewhere :) HaEr48 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point but there's no special discussions regarding the dates, just different dates are reported without any details. --Mhhossein talk 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's a researcher in Islamic Studies field, AFAIK. I did not find any special title for him just [1], [2], and [3]. --Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can say "Islamic studies scholar Adeel Mohammadi", or something like that. HaEr48 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said that! --Mhhossein talk 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Islamic justification described in the “Motivation” section seems to rely on sources that are self-published, non-scholarly and/or biased againt Wahhabis. I think for neutrality sake it’s important to not misrepresent the Wahhabis here, so please use more scholarly source (esp. Third-party published one) The Adeel Muhammadi source is good. HaEr48 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind elaborating on those sources? --Mhhossein talk 17:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the Mohammadi article that you already cited - the article discusses the religious justification used by the Wahhabis (see "The Destruction within a Legal Context") section. The article is scholarly, and published by editors and the author is an Islamic studies scholar. I think it's far preferable to use it as source rather than using [4] or [5] which seem to be less scholarly and has less editorial control? HaEr48 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced those sources with more reliable ones. Al-Islam source was replace by another work by the same author but different publisher, i.e. an scholarly research center. --Mhhossein talk 13:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks to Twofingered Typist. --Mhhossein talk 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘This consisted of the religious authority of Najd Wahhabi scholars and the political authority of the Saudi family to broadcast their "newly acquired political power"’ the syntax of this sentence doesn’t sound right HaEr48 (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. --Mhhossein talk 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed them. --Mhhossein talk 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still worry that the use of such wording went against the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch policy. I opened a thread asking others' opinion here. Let's see what they think. HaEr48 (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I acted based on the solution presented at here. --Mhhossein talk 19:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are added. --Mhhossein talk 18:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Mhhossein talk 14:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was almost certainly taken prior to 1926. The info provided there is not correct. --Mhhossein talk 14:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source. --Mhhossein talk 11:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the reviewer

[edit]
  • @HaEr48: Thanks for the precise review. I'll deal with these issues and suggestions. Which way do you think is more suitable: 1) I will make my points here in this section and you may put the check mark when ever they are resolved. 2) I'll put my comment under each item. --Mhhossein talk 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Thank you for addressing my feedback. I took another read through the article, and did minor edits here and there. As you have addressed my feedback I'm happy to pass this nomination. Congratulations on the good work :) HaEr48 (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thanks for your precise review, the article is now something! --Mhhossein talk 06:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some points needed

[edit]

Hey Mehdi ghaed. Regarding your recent edit; The material is parts of some one's memo, so it should be attributed to him. However, we need to see if that man is notable enough to be credited here? Btw, please provide the link to the exact pages supporting the material. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 13:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the person's memo could be considered as a valid sources for the article. It is the experience and description by Hamoudi which other article also refers to it.please see this article which refers to the memo as important source for the subject of Baqi:http://toumar.info/fa/note/%D9%85%D8%B5%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%A7%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%B4-%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%85-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%BE%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D9%82%DB%8C%D8%B9/--m,sharaf (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't open that URL, does that really work? Also. you forgot to provide direct link to the mentioned book page. --Mhhossein talk 11:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
URL This is the http://toumar.info/fa/note/%D9%85%D8%B5%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%AA-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%A7%DA%A9%D9%86%D8%B4-%D9%86%DB%8C%D9%85-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%86-%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B4-%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%BE%D8%A7%DA%A9%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D9%82%DB%8C%D8%B9/ URL, note that the website is in Farsi/Persian. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks of the user Emir of Wikipedia for correcting the URL. The reference information is as below:
  • Abdellah Hammoudi (2006). A Season In Mecca : Narrative Of A Pilgrimage. p. 95-96. ISBN 9780745601540.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry m,sharaf, I have hid your edit until you can show us where they are written in the book. I could not find them in the book! --Mhhossein talk 18:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hey User:Aircorn, I think this article matches best among Philosophy and religion articles rather than Architecture ones to which you changed the link. Read the article and you see that it is talking about a religious cause. --Mhhossein talk 12:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it doesn't really matter much. I was just trying to fit it into a category at WP:Good Articles. If you let me know which one under Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion it fits in best I will move it. AIRcorn (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at other articles on religious buildings they are generally put under Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture – Religious so I thought this might fit best there too. Keep in mind the cats are not perfect and will never be as we have a vast diversity of articles here. It is more so editors can relatively easily find good examples of articles similar to one they might be looking to improve for inspiration. It won't effect anything here or in project space. AIRcorn (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear AIRcorn: Thanks for the response. In terms of accuracy, 'Demolition of al-Baqi' is an event, i.e. destruction of Baqi, not a building. That was why I though that would be better to be in Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion#Religious doctrines, teachings, texts, events, and symbols. That's just my opinion of course. --Mhhossein talk 18:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back and added to events. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demolition_of_al-Baqi&oldid=1197568593"