Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Safavid occupation of Basra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): LouisAragon (talk)

Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was the second time Basra had come under Safavid control. Though the Safavid military had considerably weakened by this period, the Safavids took the opportunity, ousted the Arab rebels led by Shaykh Mane from the city (they had revolted earlier against their nominal Ottoman overlords), and garrisoned it with their own troops. Not wishing to break the peace with their arch rivals the Ottomans, and due to persistent pressure on the city by the Arab rebels, the Safavids decided to withdraw from Basra in 1701, allowing the Ottomans to retake control of the Persian Gulf city. This event is especially interesting as it shows some Safavid "decisiveness" in a period generally known as a period of decline, weakness and unassertiveness. I recently took this article to GA and have decided to nominate it for A-Class on Gog the Mild's recommendation. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

That's right: blame me .

• All images need alt text.
  • Done.
• Sources: Longrigg requires a subscription, this should be noted.
  • Done.
• Al-Muntafiq and Constantinople are duplinked.
  • Done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

That's the standard bits done. I will hold back on a full review for now to give other editors a chance. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

G'day Gog. Any chance you'd do a full review here now that others have had a crack? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

• city of Basra by the Muslim Safavid dynasty of the Persian Unlink Muslim.
  • Done.
• the Safavid-appointed governor of Arabestan Province --> "the Safavid-appointed Governor of Arabestan Province"
  • Done.

• @CPA-5: Why do you think that "governor" here and in the six other cases below, should have an uppercase G, given MoS:titles of people?

• The noun "governor" is a title too and should be capitalised like MOS said "A title used as a stand-in for a specific person's name is capitalized: when the Queen and the President met on 22 April 2016." Okay there are more governors in this article but all of them are specified in a region so if you say "the governor of Baghadad" then the governor should be capitalised because you know who he is. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Not sure about this, I know about capitalizing Queen and President in certain circumstances, but having to capitalize "governor" and some other of such nouns (see below) is a new one to me.

"fiercely independent" Arab (in the south) Unlink Arab.

• • Why exactly? Its the first time mentioned in the body of the article.

• You're not wrong it is indeed the time mentioned in the body but it should be unlinked because of MOS:OVERLINK

• relief with which travelers coming from the west American travelers.
  • Why American? I re-checked the source and I couldn't find any mention about the travellers being American. Or am I missing something?

• No no I mean it is written in American English and I assume that this article is written in British English.

• en route to Mecca and Medina. Unlink Mecca and Medina.
  • Why exactly?

• As a non-Muslim I can tell that both cities are popular in these days. It's the same with Jerusalem, - see MOS:OVERLINK

• during the Ottoman-Safavid War of 1532-1555 --> "during the Ottoman–Safavid War of 1532–1555"
  • Done.
• Ottoman governor Ali Pasha sold Basra to a certain Afrasiyab --> "Ottoman Governor Ali Pasha sold Basra to a certain Afrasiyab"
  • Done.
• some 45 kilometres (28 miles) to the north of Basra No country used metric units so please switch over to miles or the local units as primary units.
  • "No country used metric units" -- First time I'm hearing this in a review. Could you please elaborate?

• Well I mean at the time so imperial units should be primary here.

• the Ottoman governor of Baghdad established direct control --> "the Ottoman Governor of Baghdad established direct control"
  • Idem; I don't see why "governor" should be capitalized.

• We know that there is one governor of Baghdad at that time so he or she is recognisable already like you the Queen is also recognisable even we don't use her name.

• ousted the Ottoman governor and troops --> "ousted the Ottoman Governor and troops"
  • Idem.
• captured Basra, prompting Shaykh Mane to flee.[8][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Done.
• The Iranian-appointed vali of Arabestan province --> "The Iranian-appointed Vali of Arabestan province"
  • Idem.
• the governor of Kohgiluyeh, to move on Basra.[9][2][1] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Done.
• the governor of Dawraq (modern-day Shadegan, Khuzestan) --> "the Governor of Dawraq (modern-day Shadegan, Khuzestan)"
  • Idem.
• to the Ottoman Sultan Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703) --> "to the Ottoman sultan Mustafa II (r. 1695–1703)"
  • "Sultan" should be capitalized as far as I can see?
• Husayn to offer the Basra to the Ottomans.[9][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Done.
• the city of Basra and demanded --> "the City of Basra and demanded"
• from its Safavid governor, Ebrahim Khan.[10][2] --> "from its Safavid Governor, Ebrahim Khan" and suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Idem.
• blockaded Basra, which caused a famine.[10][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Done.
• against the Safavid governor and looted --> "against the Safavid Governor and looted"
  • Idem.
• between the Ottomans and the Iranians.[4][2] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • Done.

Part two

• Under the rule of Shah Abbas the Great (r. 1588-1629) --> "Under the rule of Shah Abbas the Great (r. 1588–1629)".
  • Done.
• leader Shaykh Mane ibn Mughamis led his tribesmen in a revolt against the Ottomans Do we know what the name was of the revolt he organised?
  • Nope, unfortunately.
• Basra was of particular geo-political importance in the 16th I personally didn't find a dictionary who says that "geo-political" is a word or it is even a correct usage of the word.
  • Done. The dash was obsolete.
• semi-nomadic and "fiercely independent" Arab (in the south) Unlink Arab here because of common term.
  • Normally I'd agree, but in this article numerous peoples, empires and nations/regimes are discussed. Hence, I think its prudent to keep the link. It really doesn't hurt IMO ;-)
• acknowledged the Ottoman emperor Suleiman the Magnificent as his suzerain No reigns?
  • Done.
• The Safavid-appointed vali ("viceroy", "governor") Unlink "vali" here, there is already one linked in note a.
  • Indeed, its already linked once in the note, but not in main text. Had it been two links in main text, I'd have removed it straight away.
• from 1596 to 1668, Basra was considered a hereditary eyalet under the Afrasiyab family.[7][2] Suggest switching the refs in numerical order.
  • Done.
• Arabs blockaded Basra, which caused a famine.[11][2] Same as above.
  • Done.
• that Basra was well governed by the Iranians and hail both Shouldn't "Iranians" be Persians because Persia was the official name until 1935 so was the demonym too. Or do you mean the Iranian peoples?
  • "Persia" was the exonym officially used in the West for Iran till 1935. Hower since ancient times the inhabitants of Iran always referred to their nation as Iran (i.e. endonym). Many top-notch Western sources use Iran/Iranians for pre-1935 history, and its number is only increasing. In fact, even the particular source I used for that part (Rudi Matthee, 2006a) explicitly uses "Iranians".
• Ref 8, "pp. 67-69." --> "pp. 67–69."
  • Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

G'day CPA-5. Can you indicate if you are supporting or if you have any outstanding points? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hello PM I think I'd have another look in this article because of this one is long ago I'd like to have another review just in case I didn't miss some stuff. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hey LouisAragon, sorry for my long delay, I totally forgot this one. Anyway I just added some new comments please have a look and address them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Governor/governor

@CPA-5 and LouisAragon: I hope that you don't mind me moving the discussion down here to keep it focused.

Firstly, are we all agreed that we should "apply lower case to titles when used to describe a position", per point 1 of MoS:titles of people?

Secondly are we agreed that "when preceding a person's name as a title, begin such words with a capital letter" and "a title used as a stand-in for a specific person's name is capitalized" per points 2 and 3 of MoS:titles of people?

If not, can we discuss; if we are then it is, it seems to me, a case of whether when the article states "from its Safavid governor, Ebrahim Khan" or similar "governor" is used A. to describe a position, or B. preceding a person's name as a title. (It seems obvious that it is not a title used as a stand-in for a specific person's name, as the name is straight after it.)

If we are agreed so far, then it is my opinion that this formulation is not a title, any more than "Safavid" is, but is a description of the position.

Obviously I could be mistaken. In which case I would welcome someone pointing out where. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Shah_Ismail_I.jpg: source link is dead

• Unfortunately, I couldn't find a newer link.

• File:Imam_Ali_Shrine,_Najaf.jpg: as Iraq does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work.

• Done.

• File:Sultan_Husayn_by_Bruyn.jpg is tagged as lacking a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• Done.

CommentsSupport by Constantine

Will start reviewing shortly. Constantine ✍ 16:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I will comment here as I go through the article. In the lede section (without having yet read the body of the article other than a cursory glance) I already have quite a few remarks.

• "The Safavid occupation of Basra..." Either add the date directly there or call it, per the nomination blurb, "The second Safavid occupation...". For events that have been repeated, the disambiguations should somehow be factored into the bolded title. And in this context, it should also be mentioned that the Safavids had held the city before, when that was, and how they had lost it.
• "of the Persian, or Iranian, Empire" too much for the lede; pick one and stay with it throughout, at least in the lede. In the main article you can add details. Personally I lean towards Persian because that is the historic term, "Iranian" makes the casual reader think of the Islamic Republic, but it is your call.
• "In 1695, Shaykh Mane ibn Mughamis", what was this Shaykh? Something along the lines of "In 1695, the local Arab tribal leader Shaykh Mane ibn Mughamis..."
• "the Muslim Empire" no capitalization, this is not a proper name.
• "which controlled much of the Balkans and the Middle East." rather irrelevant that they controlled much of the Balkans; let's not confuse the reader.Focusing on Basra, two things are of importance here: a) that the Ottomans were the other major Muslim power in the wider region and rivals to the Safavids, and b) that they had ruled Basra up to 1695 (and would again after 1701).
• "They gained control of the city of Basra" Who is "they?" Currently it reads as if it was the Ottomans.
• "and wanted to attack Hoveyzeh, the provincial capital of Arabestan Province." Why? What was that attack in aid for? How would it help them retake Basra? Without context it looks like a dispersal of effort.
• "the Iranians took control of the city" per above re "the Iranians". In this case I would strongly recommend using "the Safavids" throughout. Pre-modern patrimonial empires are best referred to by the ruling dynasty.
• I think that the "Background" section is not really represented in the lede section, although it comprises more than half of the article body. This should be rectified, per WP:LEDE.

Will continue later with the main body of the article. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Cplakidas:. Your remarks prompted me to conduct a large-scale overhaul. I added quite a bit of content to the lede as the story and background are quite complex. Probably added too much, but I can always trim it down. Looking forward to the rest of your comments and suggestions.

Up to "Prelude" section

• "Basra was of particular geo-political importance in the 16th and 17th centuries as it lay on the frontier of the Ottoman and Safavid empires and the Arabian Desert.[1] As an important port it played a pivotal role in the growth of the Indian Ocean trade." I've some minor tweaks here. Other than that, I think these phrases mix up two different things: one is the political environment (Basra on the Ottoman-Safavid border) and the other is its geographical environment (at the edge of the Arabian Desert and a port for Indian Ocean trade). I would put these two in separate statements.

• Done, please let me know if you disagree.

• I've made some tweaks here. Please have a look and revise as you see fit.

• "in the orbit of the Ottomans as that of the Safavids" suggests influence, not rule over. I would suggest merging this with the next sentence

• Done.

• As above

• "Despite Basra's significance, it was located in a troubled region" why would its significance have bearing on its location in troubled regions? Strategically important areas have a bad habit of being in, or themselves, "troubled regions". Plus the explanation given, regarding the weather, is not really what is usually meant by "troubled region". Perhaps something like "During this period, furthermore, the wider region around Basra was unstable/troubled. Large parts of present-day Iraq..."

• Good suggestion, done.

• "be it merchants or pilgrims en route to Mecca and Medina" relink "pilgrims" to Hajj

• Done.

• link "Turkoman" to Oghuz Turks

• Done.

• "In 1508, during the reign of King (Shah) Ismail I (r. 1501–1524), the first Safavid ruler," move "the first Safavid ruler" before "King".

• Done.

• "This was the first time Basra had come under Safavid suzerainty." rather redundant, as you have just said that Ismail was the first Safavid ruler.

• You're right, done.

• "They would often act as Safavid proxies and were led by a Safavid governor. They participated in campaigns against the Arabs of southern Iraq and Basra." merge, something like "They would often act as Safavid proxies in campaigns against the Arabs of southern Iraq and Basra, led by a Safavid-appointed governor"

• Done.

• " they were nominal Safavid subjects" nominally perhaps?

• Done.

• "a buffer between" link to buffer zone or buffer state

• Done.

• " the Bedouin ruler of Basra" I would suggest moving the "Bedouin" part at the start, when you first introduce the al-Mughamis. "The Bedouin Arab tribe of Al-Mughamis, a branch..." or something similar

• Done.

• "exercised a great deal of independence" -> "enjoyed a great deal of independence at the time"

• Wow, how did I miss that... Done.

• "was tenuous at the time" -> "was initially tenuous"

• Done.

• "a force to Basra" -> "a military force to Basra", plus a question: did this mean that a garrison was installed in the city? If so, state it explicitly.

• Done.

• "Though Safavid control of central Iraq lasted for the relatively short period of 42 years," the relevance of this is not immediately apparent here. Make a link with Basra and the Ottomans, e.g. "Though Safavid control of central Iraq lasted for the relatively short period of 42 years before they were replaced by the Ottomans..."

• @Cplakidas: "42 years" was the result of a few years of control under Ismail I, a few years under Tahmasp I, a few years under Abbas I, and a few years under Safi I. So its like a "sum" of several discontinued years of control. Suggestion: "Safavid control of central Iraq, would, altogether, last for the relatively short period of 42 years before they were indefinitely replaced by the Ottomans. However the Safavids never gave up their rhetorical and theoretical claim to Iraq. The Safavid court historian, Iskander Beg Munshi, historicized this claim in his Tarikh-e Alam-ara-ye Abassi by describing "Arab Iraq" (ʿErāq-e ʿArab) "as territory that had always been under the control of Persian kings"."

• Ah, now I understand. I've made some minor tweaks here.

• "inhabited by many Shi'ites" the significance of this will be lost to the average reader. Add somewhere that the Safavids were Shiites, while the Ottomans Sunnis.

• Ah, absolutely. Done. Added it to the "Geo-political significance of Basra" section.

• "returned to Constantinople" relink to Istanbul, the Constantinople article is only for the Byzantine period

• Done.

• "Yet, apparently the Ottomans agreed to form a working relationship with Afrasiyab;" the "yet" appears unnecessary

• Done.

• "However already by the 1620s, Basra had long been an autonomous domain of the Afrasiyab dynasty, with the Ottomans only ruling in name" redundant, already covered by the previous sentence.

• Done.

• "Shah Abbas the Great" -> "The Safavid Shah Abbas the Great", as otherwise it may not be clear

• Done.

• "had come on friendly terms" -> "had come to friendly terms"

• Done.

• "retreated as there were more critical tasks" -> was withdrawn to deal with more critical tasks"

• Done.

• "fighting against Ali Pasha of Basra" this may be confused with the previous Ali Pasha. Perhaps simply "the Ottoman governor/pasha of Basra"?

• Thanks, good one; I chose "pasha".

• "continued and harsh Ottoman mistreatment", "and harsh" is rather redundant

• Spot on, done.

• "to plea for the ban" -> "to plead for the ban"

• Done.

• "Contemporaneous traveller Jean Chardin" -> "The contemporaneous traveller Jean Chardin"

• Done.

• "came to Isfahan in 1675 to ask Suleiman I" link and add regnal dates and the title "Shah" here, rather than further below

• Done.

• " a punitive expedition to Basra." punitive for what transgression?

• Done (Husayn Pasha refused to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Ottoman sultan).

• ", however, it did not last." -> "for the time being" or leave out altogether

• Done.

• "in relation to regaining Iraq however did not change" "however" is redundant

• Done.

• "his unassertive stance" -> "his unassertive nature" perhaps?

• Done.

• "Sultan Husayn was a Safavid ruler who actively", remove "was a Safavid ruler who"

• Done.

• "Shia", "Shi'i", and "Shi'ite", for example at "encouraged pilgrimages to the Shi'ite holy shrines in Iraq; during his reign, Iranian pilgrims were known to visit the holy Shia sites in unprecedented number" agree on a common form, perhaps "Shi'a" for the sect and "Shi'ite" as an adjective.

• Done.

• Did a couple more.

Overall, the section is really interesting, but I fear it unbalances the article (per WP:SS). I would strongly recommend trimming/merging information as far as possible to retain only the general outlines. Some parts, e.g. Shah Abbas'/Emamqoli Khan's campaigns could definitely be summarized without much loss; for example, the fact that the army was 30,000 strong, or who led it, or why he withdrew, is rather irrelevant to events that happened 70 years later. The important fact is that Abbas tried repeatedly and failed.

• Thank you Constantine. Sure I will remove/trim some WP:UNDUE information. There are two remarks remaing (^^) which I will probably address tomorrow.

• I removed the size of the army, the mention of Emamqoli Khan and the reason behind the second withdrawal. I felt that the reason behind the third withdrawal (i.e. Abbas's death) was of relative importance. If there are other things you think that could be removed/trimmed down, please let me know. It often gets difficult pointing out irrelevant content and non-irrelevant content when you've been working on the same article for an extended period of time.

• Yes, I know. Let me have a look later again, perhaps I will try to write a briefer version and get your feedback on it.

Will revisit the new lede and the rest of the article later today. Constantine ✍ 15:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• "had also plundered a number of hajj caravans " -> "had also plundered a number of pilgrim caravans" for consistency

• Well spotted, done.

• "which signified Shaykh Mane's expansionist ambitions" how exactly?

• Done.

• "of Arabestan province" -> "of the neighbouring Arabestan province"

• Done.

• "was also concerned. Some 5,000 dissatisfied members of the Moshasha". If the vali was concerned because of the links of the Moshasha with Shaykh Mane, then say so explicitly.

• Done.

• "Farajollah Khan and his Moshasha forces" perhaps "his loyal Moshasha"?

• Yeah that sounds better, done.

• "the former emerged victorious and captured Basra," then this should not be under "Prelude"

• Done.

• "On 26 March 1697 the Safavid troops took control of the city" I am confused, when had they lost it again? Last Basra was mentioned, it had fallen to Farajollah Khan...

• @Cplakidas: Valid point. The thing is, the Moshasha were basically some sort of irregular militia. Sources don't really regard them as Safavid/Iranian/Persian "troops" (i.e. Matthee 2006a, pp. 74-75). On 26 March 1697, Safavid troops sent by the government came to the relief of Farajollah and his men who had just taken Basra in "name" of the Safavid government. The entrance of these "real" Safavid troops into in Basra, signals the start of the so-called "occupation" (Matthee 2006a, pp. 74-75). Suggestion: "On 26 March 1697 troops sent by the Safavid government took control of the city"? Please let me know what you think.

• In that case I would suggest that you make the distinction between the two captures clear; the addition of "Farajollah Khan and his loyal Moshasha emerged victorious and captured Basra..." is fine, but then also add "in the name of the Safavid Shah", and later, at "On 26 March 1697 the Safavid troops", perhaps change it to "regular Safavid troops" or something to that effect.

• Done.

• "In late 1697, Shaykh Man...This forced Sultan Husayn to offer the Basra to the Ottomans." for chronological consistency, this should be mentioned before the mission to Constantinople

• Very well spotted, done.

• "entertained an Ottoman embassy in Isfahan between December 1698 and April 1699" not sure why this should be a quote; this is not an opinion or judgement, but a statement of fact

• Done.

• "the contemporaneous Carmelite records refer to Davud Khan as a "dog"' link the Carmelites, and why is this appelation important to know?

• Yeah its irrelevant. Removed.

Constantine ✍ 16:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The reworked lede looks much better. Just a few suggestions:

• "the provincial capital of Arabestan Province" remove either "provincial" or "Province" to avoid repetition

• Yeah looks better. Done.

• "the Safavids under Shah Sultan Husayn (r. 1694–1722) reacted by sending a Safavid force" for the same reason, remove the second "Safavid

• Done.

• "On 26 March 1697 the Safavids took control of the city" again, as in the text, it is implied that the Safavids took the city when they ousted Shaykh Mane; this would seem to contradict that. The sequence of events is rather unclear.

• Suggestion: "On 26 March 1697 troops sent by the Safavid government took control of the city"? Please let me know what you think.

• Yes, that looks better.

• Done.

@LouisAragon: most of the issues I pointed out have been done. i did some copyedits, and will probably try my hand at condensing the "Background" section in my sandbox. I've posted some replies/suggestions above as well. Constantine ✍ 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thanks a lot. I really appreciate it.

@LouisAragon: I've posted a condensed version of the Background section, along with a few comments/queries, at User:Cplakidas/sandbox/Basra. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 10:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Looks great, thank you very much! I addressed the dates and will fix "Matthee 2006b" as well. Can I copy-paste the material into the article or are there more things you'd like to discuss @ User:Cplakidas/sandbox/Basra? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: No, that's about it from me on the section. I will give it another pass after you are done making these changes, but I don't expect to find anything major. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day @Cplakidas:, can you check if you are happy with the responses please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've finally managed to have another look. No outstanding issues on my part, and thanks to the suggestions of Gog below, the prose looks much better, so happy to Support at this time. Constantine ✍ 22:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review

• All citations are properly formatted and the references are from highly-reliable sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

Hi Louis, a nudge re my points below. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Sorry, been mad busy lately. Will get to it today/tomorrow. Thank you for sending me a reminder. - LouisAragon (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louis. No rush at all from me - Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. So long as the coordinators are happy to leave this open I am happy to wait until you have the time to address the comments properly. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have made some minor changes which you will want to check.

• "De facto rule of Basra however, remained in the hands of" Optional: Consider deleting "however">
• "Basra, however, continued to be pulled towards" Likewise.
• You use "however" 5 times in the lead, and 7 times in the main article. I would suggest a review of them to see if some can be weeded.
  • Removed one from the main article. IMO, removing/tweaking more of them will result in a slight change of context.
• "between the rivalling (Sunni) Ottoman and (Shi'ite) Safavid empires" "rivalling" → 'rival'.
  • Done.
• "Basra was of particular geo-political importance in the 16th and 17th centuries, being at the border between the rivalling (Sunni) Ottoman and (Shi'ite) Safavid empires, as well as its location on the frontier of the Arabian Desert and its pivotal role in the growth of the Indian Ocean trade" This is not grammatical. Perhaps 'Basra was of particular geo-political importance in the 16th and 17th centuries, being on the border between the rival (Sunni) Ottoman and (Shi'ite) Safavid empires, on the frontier of the Arabian Desert, and having a pivotal role in the growth of the Indian Ocean trade'? Or feel free to amend however you wish.
  • Sounds good to me. Done.
• "although the two empires claimed rule over the city at various times" "rule" → 'jurisdiction'.
  • Done.
• "During this period, large parts of present-day Iraq were considered very unsafe, with weather harmful to health, and plagues contributed to turbulent periods in Basra's history." To my eye this is reviewing two separate issues - the unhealthy weather; and the turbulent history, partially caused by plagues - and should be split into separate sentences. It also seems to me that the following sentence - "Furthermore, large swaths of Iraq were made unsafe ... " would be better tied in with the reasons why "large parts of present-day Iraq were considered very unsafe".
  • Done.
• "be it merchants or pilgrims en route to Mecca and Medina" "be it" seems both obscure and imprecise. How about 'both for merchants and for pilgrims en route to Mecca and Medina'?
  • Done.
• The first paragraph of "From the 16th to the 17th century" is one (very) long sentence. I suggest replacing "but" with a full stop.
  • You're completely right. Done.
• "a broad scope of autonomy" I am not sure what this means. Can you think of a better way of phrasing it? Or replace with 'broad autonomy'.
  • Done.
• "This changed a decade later, when an Ottoman garrison was installed in the city" I suspect that a reader may have lost track of the date by now. Would it be possible to replace "This changed a decade later" with 'This changed in 1546'?
  • Done.
• "As Matthee explains" Matthee needs a proper introduction at first mention. Something like 'As the modern historian of Iran Rudi Matthe explains:'
  • Changed into "As the modern historian Rudi Matthee explains".
• "The Safavid attempts in 1624, 1625, and 1628–1629 during the War of 1623–1639 proved unsuccessful, through a combination of Portuguese interference, pressing concerns on other fronts and, finally, Abbas' death." I find it curious that there is more detail on this in the lead than in the article. Possibly a straight swap?
  • Done.
• "More cautious and conservative factions, aware of the decline in Safavid military strength, prevailed against it" Optional: delete "against it".
  • Think it reads a bit better with "against it".
• "the local level around Basra" Either "the local level" or "around Basra" is redundant.
  • Done, removed "the local level".
• "Relations remained fraught at the local level around Basra due to the continuous harassment of Iranian pilgrims by the Ottoman authorities, so that the Safavids even prohibited the passage of pilgrims on several occasions,[2] as well as the fact that upheavals in southern Iraq continued to spill over the border into Safavid territory." A long sentence. Maybe a new sentence after "occasions"?
  • Done.
• "Basra was drawn to the Safavids due to economic reasons as well" Optional: → 'Basra was also drawn to the Safavids for economic reasons'.
  • Done.
• "was famous for his unassertive nature" Just checking that you mean "nature" and not 'policies'.
  • Yep, Sultan Husayn was specifically known for his unassertive nature.
• "Unlike most of his predecessors, Sultan Husayn actively encouraged pilgrimages to the Shi'ite holy shrines in Iraq, which they did in unprecedented numbers" Not grammatical. Maybe 'Unlike most of his predecessors, Sultan Husayn actively encouraged pilgrims to visit the Shi'ite holy shrines in Iraq, which they did in unprecedented numbers' or similar?
  • Oh, thanks! Forgot to fix that part after tweaking the overal content of the sentence.
• "Ali Mardan Khan was appointed governor of Basra" "of Basra" is redundant.
  • Done, good one.
• "Sultan Husayn thus had keys made of pure gold" Why "thus"?
  • Done.
• "However, even though the Safavids continued showing a willingness" Optional: "even though" → 'although'.
  • Done.
• "the Dutch stated that" Any more detail on this? It reads as if it were a formal statement by the Dutch government.
  • Matthee cites the VOC (Dutch East India Company) as reference, so I substituted "Dutch" with "Dutch East India Company". That's as far as he goes in terms of providing further detail. Please let me know what you think.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

G'day LouisAragon|Louis, just a nudge that this is here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louis. Thanks for all of the changes. I am still not happy about the eleven "however"s. You may be over analysing the level of nuance a reader extracts from this word. However, rereading I feel that in spite of this the article as a whole is "in concise and articulate English" and "its prose is clear" and so I am happy to support. You have done another good job here. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time Gog the Mild. I find it difficult to rephrase/tweak basic material in articles in which I've been working for a long period of time. Had another look and removed two more "however"s. I do now agree that the word has been somewhat excessively used. As you're a native speaker, would you perhaps be willing to tweak or remove a few more of them? - LouisAragon (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.