Talk:Siege of Damascus (634)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Damascus (634) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Siege of Damascus (634) was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
December 28, 2009	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
January 17, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
February 8, 2010	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved
September 20, 2020	[[Talk:Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Siege of Damascus (634)/1\|Good article reassessment]]	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 19, 2013, September 19, 2016, September 19, 2017, and September 19, 2020.
Current status: Delisted good article

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Early Muslim GA‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Broken link

The link: | http://library.auraria.edu/generalhelp/libnews/islam/index.html is broken. It is link nr. 10 under References. Wereldburger758 (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

online links are less reliable if we plan to take article for GA class or feature article. I will shortly provide its links from David nicolle's muslim conquest of syria. and Kergi's byzantium and islamic near east.

regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally its ready now. I am nominating it for peer reviews.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editor

I'll work on this article and try to help you pass the peer review with some copyediting. Tell me what you think so far of what I've done. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the copyediting, it look good now !

looking forward for your more contributions الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks, Mohammad. I appreciate that. We'll get this article bumped up to the next grade soon. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy editor's comments

Hi, Leonidas was not able to finish this, so I took it over. I've made some copy edits, and added some tags where it needs expansion. Take a look and see what you think. There are some areas that are very unclear, such as the bit about the fiance--was the Jonah's or the bishop's? Sounds like Jonah's (based on what comes later), but what does the bishop have to do with anything, then? You also need to explain the practice of killing the inhabitants of a city that resists (I added a sentence but it isn't cited, and it needs elaboration). And the Muslim rationale of allowing Christians and Jews to remain without conversion...and the tax. Drop a note on my talk page when you want me to take another look. As I understand it, you want to go to Military History ACR Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Siege of Damascus (634)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delist Unfortunately no one has stepped forward to address the concerns or ask for more time. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that this article is tagged with several CN and clarification needed, the dates in the article are disputable. The dispute is noted but I cannot be sure the article is giving weight to the most reliable sources when it comes to the time period of the siege. This Appendix #21 has an analysis of the chronology, but interpreting it is beyond my expertise and I am not even sure if it is the best source. Maybe the dates in this source come from the best sources. Maybe they do not. Please reassess this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That "Appendix 21" is the work of J.B. Bury, who is a reliable, albeit dated, source for the Byzantine period. I know there are more recent works with chronologies that could be used, though. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch writes

There are a few points missing in this article I would expect to find:

In the lead, the individual who betrayed the city is described as a "bishop"; in the relevant section, he is said to have been a priest who later converted to Islam. Which is right?
This article focuses too much on the military angle, & none on the social history. This overlooks a strong motivation for the fall of Damascus: by this point the Byzantine authorities had been persecuting the local Monophysite Christians for generations, so there was little love between the civilians & the military. Had Jonah not betrayed the garrison, another citizen of Damascus likely would have.
IMHO, too much reliance is put on Gibbon who wrote in the late 18th century. (He can & should be quoted for opinion, of course.) More use should be made of contemporary experts on this period -- there are many, & they not only have better access to the historical records than Gibbon had, they are more likely to access the archeological findings & have visited the scene of the battle.

I'll note that any revision of this article will be hampered by the fact most public libraries are either closed or offering reduced services due to the pandemic. If someone wants to tackle these criticisms, they should be given more time than usual. -- llywrch (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]