Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mukhtar al-Thaqafi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2019 [1].

Mukhtar al-Thaqafi

[edit]
Nominator(s): AhmadLX (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a controversial revolutionary from Second Islamic Civil War. The article is comprehensive and well cited, and was copy-edited recently by a GOCE contributor. Overall, seems to meet the criteria. Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Al-Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi.jpg: is anything more known about the provenance of this image?
I did search about that when nominating for GA, and did that again after you pointed to the issue, but I could not find anything on its origin. I contacted the website that hosts the image inquiring about origin of the painting and its current copy-right status. They responded that "The images were published in Iran and Iran does not abide by copyright law", which is not true I think. Paintings, written works etc are copyrighted in Iran. AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidance for our purposes is Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Countries_without_copyright_relations_with_the_United_States. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, this image is PD in US. But in Iran? I don't know. It says "it is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case..." So I don't know how to proceed with this. Your opinion? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons requires that images be free/PD in country of origin as well as US, which means that we need to consider its status there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would I remove it from the article then? AhmadLX (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it likely still to be under copyright in Iran? If so then yes; if no then it should be possible to find an appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the type of painting I can say it is old enough to be PD in Iran, maybe a couple hundred years old, but I can not prove it.AhmadLX (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mirror_writing2.jpg needs a US PD tag
Done. This image comes from the portal template however, and they keep changing it from time to time. AhmadLX (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kufa_Mosque_in_Iraq.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. Added new file with ref.AhmadLX (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source and prose review Support

[edit]
  • This is extremely well written.
Thank you ;) AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the authors of the sources used have wiki articles, so can be presumed to be of high quality. The books are all restively recent.
  • Ref 51 (Fitzpatrick) is displaying a Harv error
Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: Some give the location of the published others not. Be consistent
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with linking publishers; either all or none.
Linked where article on publisher exists. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For Howard Ian K. (1990), ISBN 10 exists in dash format. For Wellhausen, Julius (1975), I couldn't find dashed ISBN ;) I don't know how to fix that :D All others are in dash format. Could you please help in this regard? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I did that (manually), but it didn't work. If you search such isbn on google you don't get the book. With this tool, again same result. For example, try this original undashed isbn and this converted dashed isbn.AhmadLX (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see. For you the expectation is the user can copy and paste the isbn into Google and the book will come up cleanly as the first search result. I’ll admit I’ve never given much thought to that side of things, but you make a good point that it could be a worthwhile consideration, if that is indeed how most people use the isbn numbers. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I originally meant: Ibn al-Zubayr sent new governor to Kufa. Mukhtar bribed him and threatened to use force if he [the new governor] didn't go back. Instead of going back to Mecca, the new governor went to Basra since he did not want to face ibn al-Zubayr.AhmadLX (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Havent check, but then say that so, much clearer. Ceoil (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and asked for permission to rise to avenge the death of Husayn and to secure power for him - would also drop "to rise" as is implied.
Removed. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fearful of Mukhtar's activities, ibn Yazid imprisoned him - "activities" is vague.
Was going to change, but you already did it. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering Mukhtar obedient, ibn al-Zubayr sent Umar ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith as governor to Kufa. - is "sent" the right word here. "Appointed" seems better. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: During his rule, he killed several people involved in the murder of Husayn. He raised the social status of local converts to Islam. - really jarring. Can you disentangle so we don't get such opposites in such proximity. Ceoil (talk)
I was thinking to join them with "and":D These are the only important things that he did after coming into power. If I move one in either direction, wouldn't it affect the sequence? AhmadLX (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the sequence is historically accurate, then yes. If the record is vague, then phrase so its less bizarrly put. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this okay? AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were some Alid supporters from Kufa, and their loyalties were not with him but with Alids. AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered; can we be more descriptive than "the men". Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about replacing The men with They, which refers back directly to people just mentioned in previous sentence? Clarified.AhmadLX (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My quibbles above notwithstanding, this is very impressive, and am a Support on sources and prose. Ceoil (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support and the time and effort you put in reading the article, comments and ce. AhmadLX (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now......

Although he had pro-Alid tendencies from a young age, it is reported that in 661, when Muawiyah was approaching Iraq, and Hasan ibn Ali, injured by a Kharijite near al-Mada'in, was brought to Mukhtar's uncle's house, he suggested that his uncle hand Hasan over to Muawiyah to gain political favour. - this sentence is long and unwieldy. I had to read it a couple of times to take it in. recommend splitting.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky - I am totally unfamiliar with the main players in the story so got a bit lost, but then again I can't imagine someone coming to this article cold without having read some other related material. Still, I do think that in the Early life section, some comment on how these people link to Mohammed would be a good thing, just to set the context. It doesn't have to be long.
Except Umar, who is well known and already described as the second caliph in the text, I have tried to relate important persons in the story with Muhammad. AhmadLX (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mukhtar's movement impacted later Shia sects. - is "impacted" the right word? Surely more like "influenced"?
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of going back to Mecca and face ibn al-Zubayr,... - grammar --either "Instead of going back to Mecca and facing ibn al-Zubayr," or "Instead of going back to Mecca to face ibn al-Zubayr,"
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mukhtar came out of the palace accompanied by nineteen people, (the rest had refused to fight), and was killed in action - "killed in action" suggests he was killed in conflict....?
Changed to "killed fighting". Is that okay, or it should be just "killed"? AhmadLX (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if a 19 people come and face an army it's not a battle or contest in any normal sense - they would have cut him down fairly readily. Maybe just "killed" if there is no other information. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sources say he was attempting sortie. Anyway, changed to "killed."AhmadLX (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah it is a tricky one...
Many people consider Mukhtar a liar who claimed prophethood and consider him an enemy of the Alids - could we get rid of a "consider"?
Changed. AhmadLX (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise no prose-clangers outstanding....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall, tentative support on prose as it reads well now. I am really unfamiliar with the characters and subject matter so will take that on good faith, asuming that someone more familiar with islam will opine on that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Casliber. @Al Ameer son: Can you have a look please? thanks AhmadLX (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Good work has been done here, so it's great to see the work that's been carried out to bring the article to this point.

  • "Born in Ta'if, Mukhtar moved to Iraq at a young age" - If it wasn't "Iraq" at that point in time, I think that should be made clear. Maybe specify the name of the state at the time and then put "(modern Iraq)" in brackets after it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Arabs called the region as Iraq. Historians refer to it as Iraq as well as Mesopotamia. Should it be changed to Mesopotamia then? AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't object to it being called Iraq if that was the term used at the time. However, perhaps the current link is misleading, as it takes us to the article about the Republic of Iraq. Might it be better to link to something like History of Iraq#Middle_Ages? Obviously, it would be ideal if we had a whole article about Medieval Iraq that we could link to, but I don't think that we have one yet. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right, it links to modern Iraqi state:D My mistake, sorry. History of Iraq#Middle_Ages is itself a summary of Muslim conquest of Iraq. Wouldn't it be better to link to Muslim_conquest_of_Persia#Conquest_of_Mesopotamia_(636–638)? AhmadLX (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to History of Iraq#Middle_Ages.AhmadLX (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later Shia sects" - I'd definitely Wiklink "Shia" and maybe give a brief explanation here. There may be readers unfamiliar with the Shia and Sunni division. (Oh, I see that you Wikilink "Shia" on its second appearance; I'd ensure it is Wikilinked on the first mention instead.) Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Linked on first instance. As for explaining the term, there is a compromise. The term is a bit complicated and explaining it may affect brevity required for lead. Linguistically Shia means party. They were a political faction (i.e. supporters of Ali, during the first civil war). But after murder of Ali, this party started taking a unique religious colouring, and following murder of Husayn and Mukhtar's revolt, they became a religious sect, and the term Shia took this meaning thereafter. Wherever in the article first meaning is required by the context, I have used "pro-Alids" or "Alid partisans". For the latter meaning, I have used "Shia" with link. It can be explained a bit in the body of the article. What do you say?AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Added explanatory notes. AhmadLX (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved sentences around a bit, so now no repetition of "of". AhmadLX (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Any further comments?AhmadLX (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend dividing the very lengthy second paragraph in "Background" into two as I think that that would make it more appealing for the reader, and towards the end of the article various scholars are named ("Hugh Kennedy writes", "Moshe Sharon describes") and it might be worth explaining who these people are (i.e. "The historian Hugh Kennedy writes") however these are minor points and I would not want them to hold up promotion. Well done on this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Midnightblueowl. Changes done. AhmadLX (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Al Ameer

[edit]

Great work on the article so far. I've made some, sporadic minor edits in the past few weeks, but I'll take a comprehensive look today and throughout the week. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General points

  • Arabic terms that are not proper nouns should be italicized i.e. mawālī
Done, except where it appears in quote.AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instances of "ibn" should be capitalized when it's the first word in a name, so "ibn al-Zubayr" should be "Ibn al-Zubayr", "ibn Aqil" → "Ibn Aqil", etc.
Sources either write that as "b." or as "ibn", unless it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. So i have used "ibn".AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I disagree. I don’t mean when “ibn” is in between two names like “Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr”. Nearly the all the sources capitalize “Ibn” when it stands alone as in “Ibn al-Zubayr”. Anthony, Daftary, Dixon, Donner, Hawting, al-Abdul Jader, Kennedy, Sharon all capitalize “Ibn” when it begins the name, regardless if it’s at the beginning of a sentence or not. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right , changed. AhmadLX (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arabic article “al-“ should be lowercases unless beginning a sentence, so “Al-Mansur” should be “al-Mansur” and so on.
Had overlooked that. Thanks.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, the pipe links Umayyad caliphate should be Umayyad Caliphate, Alid should be Alids, Kharijites should be Khawarij. I’ll do these ones now, you can do the rest as you find them. At the end of the review I’ll do a once over. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bibliography should be sorted alphabetically.
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yasir Suleiman is the editor not the author. The author is Adel S. al-Abdul Jader. And in this case the chapter (The Origin of Key Shi’ite Thought Patterns in Islamic History) should be cited as well. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Done.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Early life section, it’s worth mentioning that his father belonged to the Banu Thaqif. His mother should be mentioned too—I believe she was also of Thaqif—because it’s mentioned in the infobox.
Mentioned tribe name and his mother in the article body; whether she was Thaqafi too, is not in sources.AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have something, I’ll add it if I find it. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he have any known children or descendants? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere in the article.
Perhaps he did. One religious source (Majlesi), as discussed in relevant section, talks about his son without naming him. Since RS don't say anything about it, it can't be added, I think. AhmadLX (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a journal article, so I have kept the page numbers with the full citation, as with other journal citations. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specific page number should still be mentioned in the citation. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar uprising

  • No need for "Mukhtar" in the heading. Just write "Uprising" or "Revolt".
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For quick context, either at the beginning of this section or in "Early life", it should be mentioned (with source) that Caliph Ali was assassinated by the Kharijites and Muawiyah became caliph in 661.
Added. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muawiyah was not supposed to" sounds naive, as rulers often do what they're not supposed to. I'd recommend changing it to "Toward the end of his rule, Muawiyah designated his son Yazid as his successor in violation of the treaty with Hasan ibn Ali, which stipulated that Hasan or his brother Husayn should succeed"
This is a bit tricky. Sources vary on details whether Hasan was to succeed him or if Shura was to elect new ruler. Examining what exactly the terms said, is better suited in the article on the treaty. Here, in my opinion, it suffices to say that according to the terms he could not have nominated successor (whether Shura elects new one or it is Hasan/Husain is left out).AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After his death, pro-Alid Kufans invited Husayn ibn Ali to lead a revolt against Yazid" should be "This angered Husayn's partisans and after Muawiyah's death, pro-Alid Kufans urged Husayn to lead a revolt against Caliph Yazid".
Nomination disturbing the Kufans is mentioned in the preceding sentence. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Kufa to investigate the political environment" should be changed to "to assess the political environment in Kufa".
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing "at his house" to "in his home"
  • Rewrite "The latter was sent by Yazid to replace Nu'man ibn Bashir as governor, since ibn Bashir, as Mukhtar's father-in-law, was benign towards ibn Aqil and his followers" to "The latter was appointed to replace Mukhtar's uncle, Nu'man ibn Bashir, as governor due to Ibn Bashir's benign attitude towards Ibn Aqil and his followers."
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably worth briefly mentioning that Ibn Ziyad was something of a committed Umayyad loyalist so as to give a better idea why his arrival forced Ibn Aqil to launch his revolt prematurely.
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tried" → "attempted"; "surrounding areas" → "Kufa's environs"; "defeated" → "unsuccessful"; "could return" → "returned"
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "brought to the governor", change "where he" to "but". And no need for "any".
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the last two sentences in the first paragraph to "While Mukhtar was imprisoned, Husayn was slain by Ibn Ziyad's forces at the Battle of Karbala. He was afterward released upon the intervention of Abdullah ibn Umar, an influential son of the second caliph and Mukhtar's brother-in-law, and ordered to leave Kufa."
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part of the section needs more dating. In particular, mention that Muawiyah died in April 680 and Husayn was killed in October 680. If the sources have a date for Ibn Aqil's execution, I'd mention the month and year of that too.
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Al Ameer (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last sentence of the first paragraph about Mukhtars release and expulsion needs a citation.
Was cited, but somehow it was rmvd in recent editing. re-added.AhmadLX (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kennedy page 81 citation in the first sentence of the second paragraph just mentions that by the time Marwan I came to power Ibn al-Zubayr consolidated his control over the Hejaz while his brother was attempting to do the same in Iraq. You need a citation that directly supports that Ibn al-Zubayr revolted against Yazid and established his caliphate. I can help with this if necessary.
Added another ref.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace “... that he consult him on important matters and award him a high post; ibn al-Zubayr refused him” with “... that he be consulted about important matters and awarded a high post, which Ibn al-Zubayr refused”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For better flow, add “then” between “Mukhtar” and “left for Ta’if”.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added reason. AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be clarified that Ibn al-Zubayr only revolted against Yazid but actually waited until Yazid’s death in 683 to declare his caliphate. I suggest replacing “The Umayyads retreated after learning of Yazid’s death” to “After Yazid died in November, the Umayyad army retreated and Ibn al-Zubayr proclaimed his caliphate.”
Done.AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about Mukhtar learning of the Zubayrid takeover of Kufa, the Kufans looking for their own leader and Mukhtar claiming he was the man they were looking for needs to be rewritten. I’d suggest “After learning of the Zubayrid takeover of Kufa and its inhabitants’ quest for a leader, Mukhtar pursued the role.”
  • I know this was briefly discussed above, but I propose you rewrite the sentence about his meeting with Ibn al-Hanafiyyah as: “While in Mecca, he sought permission from Ali's son, Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah, to avenge Husayn’s death and secure power for Ibn al-Hanafiyyah.”
It is already mentioned in this section. Perhaps you missed it ;) AhmadLX (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read this again. Not sure what I missed. I still think it needs to be written clearer. It’s a bit garbled as it currently stands. Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace “who he thought had not kept his promise” with “who he felt had reneged on their agreement”
  • No need for “Once back”
Rmvd. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line “perpetrators of the Karbala massacre” seems POV. Its not previously mentioned that there was a massacre at Karbala, only that there was a battle and Husayn was slain.
I used term massacre as sources almost unanimously call it as such, so I thought it was uncontroversial term. Changed now. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name for Sulayman ibn Surad should be consistent after the first full mention of his name. Right now there is “Sulayman”, “Suleiman” and “ibn Surad”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • “In response, Mukhtar was critical of the Tawwabin, as he considered their actions premature and hence destined to fail“ should read “In turn, Mukhtar criticized the Tawwabin’s actions as premature and destined for failure”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: ”had no experience in war” → “militarily inexperienced”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: ”were now looking to Mukhtar” → “shifted allegiance to Mukhtar”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”contain this threat” is vague and a POV, rewrite as “contain pro-Alid agitation”
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—Al Ameer (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @AhmadLX: I copyedited the first passage of "Relations with Ibn al-Zubayr" and am going to do the second passage, but I first need to know if the sources used are saying that Mukhtar's offer of support to Ibn al-Zubayr was duplicitous? Was the offer just an attempted ruse from the beginning? The passage makes it seem so. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some (eg. Dixon) say he was not sincere in his allegiance, while others (eg. Donner) say he was sincere. I have tried to avoid the discussion of his motives altogether. AhmadLX (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought of the wrong passage. Yes, regarding post-revolt letters, sources tend to portray that he was double-dealing.AhmadLX (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Thanks, I will copyedit accordingly. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death

  • Since there are no articles currently about the battles at Madhar or Harura, or articles about the locations themselves, we need a bit of context, particularly where these battlefields were located.
Will check sources for this. @Al Ameer son:Added, although did not add sources intentionally (Wellhausen 1901 and EI2 Vol. 5 respectively), as this is uncontroversial stuff, and adding new source for this will only increase clutter.AhmadLX (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context, it should be noted that Ibn al-Ashtar was in Mosul (from what I remember reading before) at the time of Mus'ab's siege of Mukhtar in Kufa. (And obviously all changes/additions need to be sourced.) --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned, based on Source already present. AhmadLX (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: So far, I have tried to keep the article as focused and as compact as possible, with the density of a neutron star :D But based on comments from reviewers in this FAC, several details have come to be expounded. As such, I now think that a explanatory note on nature of Mukhtar's claim of Mahdi, and one on the nature Mawali may also be appropriate. What do you think? AhmadLX (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I agree. Add what you feel is appropriate and we’ll copyedit it after. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • What is the Khutarnia?
A village near Kufa. Added note. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Yamamah and Najdah have not been linked elsewhere in the article, it should be linked in the block quote.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, throughout the article, all quotes should be directly cited, at least at the end of the sentence.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once these last few points are addressed, I’ll give the article one more full read. —Al Ameer (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Any further comments? AhmadLX (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was waiting for changes proposed in the FAC, including those of other reviewers, to be implemented before I do a full re-read and give my final thoughts. Things seem to be wrapping up so here are my notes:
  • ”Against the Umayyads” should be “Against the Umayyad Caliphate” in the first passage of the lead. This is for brief context, especially since you mention a couple sentences later that Ibn al-Zubayr was a “rival caliph”.
  • ”Caliph” should be linked in its first instance in the lead.
  • Need quick context for who Ali was in the lead. Either write “son of Caliph Ali (r. 656–661)“ after Husayn ibn Ali or after Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah. I prefer after Husayn because it comes earlier in the paragraph.
  • Instead of pipelinking “in October 680”, just write “Battle of Karbala in 680”
  • Replace “murder” with “killing” for neutrality.
  • For better prose and comprehension, change the “He took power” and “During his reign” sentences to: “He took over Kufa in October 685, after expelling its Zubayrid governor, and later ordered the execution of of those involved in the killing of Husayn.”
  • Write “Mukhtar’s death” instead of “his death” and “by the forces of” instead of “at the hands of” for clarity and precision.
  • “had far-reaching consequences” → “would have far-reaching consequences”.
  • For better flow, reformulate the Kaysanites bit as: “After his death, his followers formed a radical Shia sect, later known as the Kaysanites, who developed several novel doctrines and influenced later Shia ideology.”
  • Replace “Later” with “The” because you already write “went on” which implies later. You should also mention the year of the Abbasid Revolution. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. Ali's intro with Ibn Hanffiyah, since Husyan is more famous wrt to Muhammad himself and has been introduced as such. Adding Ali there would introduce confusion b/c of many names I think. AhmadLX (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine. Thanks for the quick response. Please see the two unresolved points I raised above about the page number of the Watt journal citation and the sentence formation about Mukhtar’s meeting with Ibn Hanafiyya.
Also, since you mention arbitration twice in reference to the talks between Muawiyah and Ali, it’s confusing when you immediately mention “arbitration” in reference to the talks between Ali and the Kharijites. Maybe use a different word for those talks. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all. AhmadLX (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the journal citations, the specific page number(s) should be used not all the page numbers for the entire article in the journal. Assuming this gets addressed, you have my support. Thanks for devoting your efforts to this subject area and to this historic figure in particular. I’ve only done a minor spot-check, but I’ve been editing the same topic area and have found this article to be factually accurate. It is comprehensive, focused and finely-sourced. My concerns have been addressed, the main one having been the prose since Featured articles need to meet the highest standards for this criterion. I believe that has now been met. That being said, I’m glad FunkMonk has turned his attention here as an extra pair of eyes. Good luck ;) Al Ameer (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Al Ameer. Pages done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

I think the article is on a very good way, but it can still be improved in terms of accessibility and comprehensibility. For somebody with little background knowledge it is somewhat difficult to follow. I made some suggestions below.

  • Above all, I would recommend to start with a "background" section, outlining important past events leading to the political situation Mukhtar was facing.
Where should such a section be added? Before Early life? New section on background added. Section "Early life" incorporated into it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the article frequently mentions the Umayyads, but a bit of background on the general situation of the Umayyads at this time would be really helpful. There is a helpful map in the article, including a green region labeled "Abd al-Malik". I guess those are the Umayyads, but Abd al-Malik is not mentioned in the article.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: He took power in 685 – here it was not clear to me what precisely he did rule. The whole Arabic empire? Obviously not. Please specify.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Husayn ibn Ali should be properly introduced and, above all, linked in the main text as well. Introducing him in the lead is not enough.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is oftentimes ambiguous, and I was not able to read and comprehend it in one go. Especially, it is often not clear to whom a given sentence part is referring, especially when you make use of the word "he". Examples below:
  • retaliation for Husayn's murder – You sometimes call him "Ali", and sometimes "Husayn". It would reduce potential confusion to stick to one, and use it consistently.
They are different persons. Husyan was son of Ali. "Ibn" means "son of", so Husayn ibn Ali = Husayn son of Ali. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • his elder son Hasan became Caliph – whose elder son? Reads as it would refer to Mukhtar, but I guess it instead refers to Ali?
Yes, clarified.
  • He was afterward released – I suggest "Mukhtar was afterward released" for better reading flow. While reading, I had to pause to think who "he" is referring to.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the murder of Husayn ibn Ali, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a son of a prominent companion of Muhammad, Zubayr ibn al-Awam, secretly started taking allegiance – I had to pause here as well: Quite convoluted sentence, and difficult to comprehend in one go, because of the many names.
Removed one name and shortened a bit. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most pro-Alid Kufans supported Ibn Surad because he was Muhammad's companion and refused to join Mukhtar. – This is ambiguous. Who refused to join Mukhtar? Ibn Surad or the pro-Alid Kufans?
Kufans. Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • attack on Medina with the ultimate intention of ousting the caliph. – There where two caliphs (a caliph and a rival caliph), so which of them was ousted?
Ibn al-Zubayr. Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the same time, Sulayman ibn Surad, a companion of Muhammad and an Alid supporter, rallied a group of people, who called themselves Tawwabin, to fight the Umayyads to atone for their failure to support Husayn during the battle of Karbala. – Where took this place, in the same city? Was it local only?
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the mawālī – could do well with a short explanation/definition in brackets.
On the first instance in lead, we have a short description and a footnote. The note can be moved down I think. Or?AhmadLX (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, didn't see that! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Abbasids used this as a propaganda tool during their revolution to boost their legitimacy and appeal to pro-Alid masses. Two of Muhammad ibn Ali's sons, as-Saffahand al-Mansur, would eventually establish the Abbasid Caliphate. – Maybe switch sentences for better chronology?
@Jens Lallensack: Sorry, I don't get this one. Abbasids claimed Imamate and used it for their propaganda while overthrowing Umayyads. When sucessfull, as-Saffah, and latter al-Mansur, became caliph. AhmadLX (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all good then, I misunderstood. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people hold Mukhtar a liar – who is "many people"? This is a very vague, imprecise formulation. Judging from what follows, I would guess that this is somewhat restricted to Muslims, and perhaps to Sunnites? It certainly does not apply to modern non-Muslim historians? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for bringing up the points. I will address the issues soon. This last point is a bit tricky. Originally I had used "Sunni", but actually no source specifically names any sect/group who consider Mukhtar liar. So I removed "Sunni". But it can be made "many Muslims" instead of "many people". Changed to "many Muslims". AhmadLX (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what got me confused about Ali and Husayn was the lead, as Husayn ibn Ali is introduced twice there (in the first and in the third sentence). Perhaps it would contribute to the flow if the second mention directly refers to the first mention to not sound as if a previoulsy unmentioned person is introduced? Even better would be if both mentions could be combined. Maybe you could delete "in revenge for the death of Husayn ibn Ali, a grandson of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, at the Battle of Karbala" from the first sentence and merge that information with the introduction of Husayn in the third sentence. In the first sentence, you could instead state that Mukhtar ruled most of Iraq for 18 monthes before being killed or something similar that is more general and summarizes the whole article. But these are just ideas to think about, the decision is yours.
Agreed. What about this? AhmadLX (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I am supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jens. AhmadLX (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • This has already gotten a lot of commentary, but since this seems to be the first biography FAC by the author and is a subject I am somewhat familiar with (several reviewers have expressed their unfamiliarity), I think an extra review is in order. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnotes should also have citations (three are missing).
Two missing ;) Added ref to one. the other one doesn't need ref IMO. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under "Counter-coup" Does not have any citations. I assume it is the citation used for the following quote, but then it should be repeated before the quote too.
Added. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Brother in law)" Why capitalised? You also say "(mother)" for example.
Changed. AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image seems to have no author or date info, so I have nominated it for deletion. It could very well be a recent, copyrighted artwork.
I can't find its source, so if it is deleted, I will be pleased AhmadLX (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from Medina to Kufa" I think you could state where both are located.
Image added, includes other useful locations as well. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to lead a revolt against Yazid and Husayn subsequently" I think you could have a comma before and Hussein", had to read the sentence a few times to see what you were getting at.
Separated. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequently sent Muslim ibn Aqil" You could state their relation.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mukhtar attempted to gather supporters from Kufa's environs" This seems to be a key point in the story, but do we know anything about his motivation for this?
Per sources, he was sincere in his support and the fault was Ibn Aqil's. According to plan, they had to wait for Husyan's arrival. Mukhtar was away when Ibn Aqil came in open. But once arrested, Mukhtar denounced Ibn Aqil's activities. AhmadLX (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this could somehow be expanded in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five hundred mawālī (sing. mawlā)" I think this term could be explained in the parenthesis. Seems you do this in the intro, but it should also be in the article body (the intro is just a summary of the article).
Explained in brackets and note moved down. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Territory controlled by Mukhtar (685–686)" You could state which colour in the caption.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this US or UK English? I see both "rumour" (UK) and "defense" (US), for example. You also say "ize" instead of "ise".
UK ;) Thanks for pointing out. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the troops absence" Troops'? Absence of the troops?
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They accused him of robbing their prestige" I wonder what kind of source the following quote is ultimately from?
The sources that the following quote is supported with. Added here as well. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was killed" Any info on how?
Sorry, I don't get this one. You mean something like "fighting"? AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean was he killed during battle or executed? FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
During the battle. It was mentioned, but was removed on another reviewer's suggestion. Re-added. AhmadLX (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is much better to be specific. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many Muslims hold Mukhtar a liar" Seems like a pretty broad statement? Muslims of specific sects, or wider than that?
Initially I had used "Sunni", but no source names any particular sect, so I removed it. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shias, on the other hand, regard him a sincere" All Shias, or some? This also leads me to think you should specify the above; some Sunni Muslims?
Only two sources, as far as I know, deal with this: Inloes (2009), an article by a Shia scholar in Journal of Shi'a Islamic Studies and Anthony (2011). Former doesn't specifically say "Shia", but since she is a Shia herself, so IMO it is okay to take her own views as representation of views of Shia Muslims. Anthony mentions of the reverence that Shia have of him, but doesn't say anything about if some or all of them hold him high. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later known as the Kaysanites" Link in intro.
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "revered by Shia because of his support for the Alids, but condemned by many others as a false prophet" You reverse the orde rof these sentiments in the legacy section, why not be consistent?
Because refutation requires prior statement of claims that are being refuted. Reversed order in lead. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but condemned by many others" Many others means who? Sunni Muslims? Why not be specific?
Same as above. AhmadLX (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FunkMonk. AhmadLX (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Subject to my own walk through the article, I'm looking to close this out soon -- @Nikkimaria, Midnightblueowl, and FunkMonk:, is there anything outstanding from your perspectives? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the rest of the article today. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image is currently tagged for deletion on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed from the article. AhmadLX (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2019 (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/Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi/archive1&oldid=1138467313"