Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)/archive1

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the largest expedition ever launched by the Caliphate against the Byzantines after the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Although not as dramatic, it was a climax in the long history of Arab–Byzantine wars: a long period of peace followed, before warfare resumed in the 830s. The article is a bit old, and passed MILHIST's ACR back in 2012, but I have continued working on it, adding some more details. I feel confident that it is as comprehensive as I can get it, but any suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome. Constantine  ✍  18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Alt text, external links etc are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Dank

 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I checked a diff since I copyedited this at A-class (a long time ago). As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

 * Haj is duplinked, but permissibly so IMO.
 * "Harun retaliated at once, launching a raid" It is not clear what Harun is retaliating for. From the text Nikephoros had not done anything that needed retaliation. Indeed at this point in the article there has been no mention of any actions at all by him.
 * Good point, it was left rather unclear. Fixed now.


 * "he barely escaped with his own life" Delete "own".
 * Done.


 * "Having settled matters in Khurasan" Do we know what the nature of this settlement was?
 * Clarified the original problem, and rewritten/added some details. Also took the opportunity to re-check and re-order the references to a more fine-grained pattern.


 * "against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus" suggests that Cyprus was Arab occupied; while "admiral Humayd ibn Ma'yuf al-Hajuri was prepared to raid Cyprus" suggests that it wasn't.
 * Clarified.


 * "asked Harun to send him a girl from Herakleia" Suggest something like 'asked Harun to send him a young Byzantine woman who had been taken captive when Herakleia fell'.
 * Good suggestion, done.


 * The related quote shortly after: consider putting it in a block quote per MOS:BQ.
 * Done.


 * "Abbasid efforts was compounded" Either 'efforts were' or 'effort was'.
 * Done.


 * "Influenced by the events of Harun's 782 campaign" Is this a typo? If not, why is in an article on the 806 campaign?
 * What I meant was that the later narratives conflated the two: the 'famous' expedition was that of 806, and Harun's letter to Nikephoros is widely quoted; but in 782, the Arabs had actually come within sight of Constantinople, so the later sources 'tweaked' things a bit, and had Harun advance to Constantinople twice during Nikephoros' reign. I've tried to clarify this.

And that's all I have. Masterful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words Gog the Mild. As usual, you also caught (hopefully most of) the stuff I overlooked. Please have a look at my changes and let me know of you have any further comments. Best, Constantine  ✍  21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The changes and clarifications are all good. I am happy to support. Although a cite immediately after the block quote may be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
An interesting and engaging article, dealing most informatively in a sphere of history which is entirely new to me. I'm much inclined towards support, but meanwhile have a few issues for discussion or action:
 * The article is quite short, just under 2,000 words ex. lead, of which 680 words deal with background, and 750 with aftermath and impact. That leaves only 550 words on the campaign itself; I just wonder if this constitutes full, comprehensive coverage of the action?
 * A reasonable question, which IMO touches on two issues: one, the comprehensiveness of coverage of the 806 campaign, and two, the relation of the 'main' section to the rest of the article size-wise. On the first, the sources are very brief regarding these events. If you check Tabari's or Theophanes' accounts (which are our main sources), you will see that they only mention towns taken, generals involved, etc., pretty much the same as you can read in the article. This is sadly the case with most of the conflicts of the period, sine chroniclers on both sides give a somewhat sanitized, not to say sterile, version of events. Kennedy makes this point when describing the Siege of Kamacha, where for once we actually have details for an event that otherwise would have been an one-liner in Tabari's account. So there is--unfortunately--nothing more to add on the account of the actual campaign. On the second issue, although we don't know much detail about the actual campaign, it still is of importance in the historiography of the Arab-Byzantine conflict, as it represents a certain climax, and impacted both sides: Nikephoros turned west instead of east, etc., not to mention the erection of a victory monument by Harun, the echoes in later literature, etc. So this definitely needs to be unpacked somewhere. The first half of the 'Aftermath' section properly belongs to the denouement of the campaign itself either way. Similarly for the 'Background' section, because the interplay between Harun and Nikephoros needs to be explained in order to give sufficient context for the campaign itself. If you think there is anything redundant, feel free to add it to the list below for discussion
 * Prose: a bit of final polishing is necessary:
 * Lead: "to retaliate for..."? I think you retaliate against.
 * I don't know, but "retaliate against the Byzantine successes" reads odd to me; how can you retaliate against a success?
 * During my review I started to make the same complaint, anticipated Constantine’s response and left it. It seems to me that the meaning will be entirely clear to a reader and that it is the least grammatically messy way of expressing it without completely recasting it. Wicktionary’s sole quote on the usage of retaliate has “retaliate for”. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still unhappy with this form, but won't press it unduly. I'll just make one rewording suggestion which I think would work, retaining "for": "In retaliation for the cessation of tribute and the violation of the peace agreement concluded with Irene, Harun launched a raid under his son al-Qasim in spring 803". Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is indeed much better, done.
 * Background:
 * I'm not sure of the purpose of "also" in the first line.
 * Leftover from early drafts. Removed.
 * Some pronoun confusion in the first para: we have "when he learned", and in the next line, "he was determined", a different "he". You need to clarify who the different persons are.
 * Good point, fixed.
 * Formulaic phrases like "in addition" should, if possible, be avoided. (It occurs again in the fifth paragraph.)
 * Rephrased, have a look.
 * Now we have "retaliated to"
 * CHanged to "for", see above.
 * I'm not sure that "confronted" is appropriate in the circumstances you describe; exchange of letters doesn't amount to confrontation. Perhaps "faced one another"?
 * Good suggestion, done.
 * Campaign
 * Per MoS, section heading should be just "Campaign", rather than "The campaign"
 * Done.
 * Link "freebooter". The best is probably a pipelink, thus: freebooter
 * Done.
 * "Harun's lieutenant Abdallah ibn Malik al-Khuza'i took Sideropalos, from where Harun's cousin Dawud ibn Isa ibn Musa, with half the Abbasid army, some 70,000 men according to al-Tabari, was sent to devastate Cappadocia." Needs reworking for clarity – too many sub-clauses at present.
 * Rephrased.
 * Impact
 * Third para: I got somewhat lost in the convoluted sentence beginning "Influenced by the events..." There seems some fusion of fact with fiction – needs clarifying
 * Rephrased, please have a look
 * 4th para: Another redundant "also"
 * Removed.
 * I'd replace "due to", another ugly form, with something simple like "left incomplete on Harun's departure..."
 * Done.

Source review follows. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

 * No spotchecks carried out
 * Links: The archived links in refs 3, 24 and 41 all go to the same place, although the refs cite different chapters. The archived link to Kiapidou in the list of sources isn't working at all.
 * Hmmm, this is troubling, since the original url also appears more often down than not. Google cache still displays at least the text content. Well, there are two options: One, we link to the Google cache and at some point in the future, when the website is again up and running, I will try to archive it again at the Web Archive, although since I can remember and know that the url had been archived, my hunch is that it has been removed by request and therefore is likely to be removed again. Second, I can remove/replace Kiapidou altogether. It was a major source at the inception of this article (as well as its inspiration, TBH), but that is no longer the case; I can simply remove the references and the content would still be more than adequately cited. It would, however, be rather dishonest to do it, for the reasons mentioned before.
 * I think I see a solution to this:
 * The linked source for refs 3, 24 and 41 is this, which has three sections: 1. Historical background; 2. Beginning and outcome of the campaign; 3. Consequences.
 * I assume these sections are the three "chapters" referred to in your refs?
 * Then, all you need do is reformat refs 3, 24 and 41 in harvard short form, and replace the dead link in your sources list with the working link.
 * Would that resolve the matter? Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hah, I feel really stupid, I didn't check that the links in the footnotes were working, I just went with the main source link, which was dead. I've fixed it now: the correct archive url is in the "Sources" section, and the footnote links point to the relevant sections in the archived copy. I also renamed from the apparently unclear "Chapter X" to the actual section headings. Constantine  ✍  17:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the link in the source works now. However, you don't need to keep the links in the individual refs, and as suggested above these can be replaced with short citations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done


 * Formats:
 * Refs 42 and 43 both carry open-ended page ranges, which make verification difficult. Is it possible to be more specific?
 * Certainly, will do this ASAP
 * Done, I reworked and expanded the section somewhat in the process.
 * You could add an oclc number to the 1923 Cambridge medieval history, vol. 4. It is 241580719
 * Done, thanks


 * Quality/reliability: The sources appear to be of a scholarly nature within our FA criteria for quality and reliability. My lack of subject expertise means I can't judge whether they fully cover the topic, but in the absence of any challenge I accept your word that they do.

Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Correction! all is not quite well – the link in the Meinecke source is returning "Page not found". Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks.
 * just a heads up, can you please have a look at my edits and replies above and indicate whether any outstanding issues remain? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No further issues: sources are fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks :). What about the general/style comments above? Constantine  ✍  16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your responses to my expressed concerns are fine. I intend to read (slowly) through the whole article again, in a few days' time (you can ping me in a week, if I haven't done so by then) before making a final decision on supporting - so far, I've only speed-read it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Take your time and be as nitpicky as you like :). Constantine  ✍  21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Support with a few additional comments/suggestions:
 * Lead: delete "ever" from first line
 * Done
 * Background:
 * Para 2, 4th line: delete "himself"
 * Changed to "in person"
 * Para 4, line 2: "that summer" – specify year
 * Done, with some rewriting around

An impressive article, deserving of FA status. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Campaign: since here you state that the number 135,000 is "certainly exaggerated", perhaps you should mention this in the lead, where the number is first mentioned.
 * Good point, done
 * Aftermath: "surprisingly" is perhaps editorial comment?
 * Indeed, removed.
 * Impact: "Nikephoros's efforts would end tragically in the disastrous Battle of Pliska". A bit vague – you could say "would end with his death". And presumably, the story of his being hanged from the Hagia Sophia is fictional – that needs be be made clearer.
 * Good point, I rewrote the section a bit, I think now it is clear.
 * Thank you for your time and contributions, Brianboulton! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  14:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review by PM
All the images are appropriately licensed and have appropriate captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by CPA-5
That's anything that I found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Unlink Arab.
 * men from Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt Maybe pipe Persia to the medieval Persia?
 * Was unaware of the link, done.
 * Despite the sack of Herakleia, which is given prominent treatment in Arab sources Isn't the sack a proper noun?
 * You mean it should be capitalized? No, here it is used descriptively, not as a named event.
 * victory monument about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) west of Raqqa Round the nought here.
 * Done.
 * your points have been addressed. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  18:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Arab is still linked? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooops, indeed. Replaced with "Abbasid". Thanks. Constantine  ✍  11:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a question do we really not know the casualties and/or strength? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from what is mentioned about the size of the Abbasid army, we know nothing. That is the norm for the period and the kind of sources we have available, I am afraid. Constantine  ✍  16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's sad to hear but maybe one day we'll find it out anyway I think I can support now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Fowler&fowler
I have read the lead. I feel that the prose in it (which includes, syntax, coherence, and cohesion) is as yet insufficient to meeting the requirements of an FA. Here are its sentences.

General comment: The determiner "the" is most commonly used to refer to things that are a part of the writer's and the reader's shared world. (or Websters: "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something previously mentioned or clearly understood from the context or the situation.) (Or, OED: "Marking an item as having been mentioned before or as already known, or as contextually particularized) There seem to be several confusing uses of "the" in the lead.


 * Sentence 1: The Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 806 was the largest operation launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire.
 * "The largest." We know nothing about these invasions, at this point. The definite article presumes familiarity with the context.
 * What is an "operation?" In general, it does not even connote a military operation. Did they overrun or merely infiltrate? Was it an army operation or naval or both. You need to be more specific.


 * Re the second point, I've changed to "military operation". It is clearly stated to be an "invasion", which excludes the "infiltration" aspect; whether they overrun the Byzantines or not, by land or sea, that is why one should keep reading.
 * On the first point, I disagree. 'Familiarity with the context' is not a given in any article, and it is an impossible prerequisite to fulfill; if I read an article about a niche topic on the politics of Namibia, on which I don't know anything, I do not expect the article author to go out of his way to fill in my ignorance, especially not in the first sentence of the lede of all places. I will read on, try to visit the provided links, and gradually form a picture. IMO, the broad context is quite clearly given: it is a military operation between two historical states who are understood to have been engaged in a prolonged confrontation. The links to the states are there, and more context is provided later on. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Byzantine Empire?" The page name makes no mention of the empire, whose geographical extent in 806 CE, in any case, is not a matter of common knowledge. The lead sentence needs to explain the terms in the page name, among other things.
 * Continuing in the same vein, where is "Asia Minor" in this explication? It doesn't help that Anatolia (to which it redirects) makes no mention of this invasion, incursion, expedition, or military operation.


 * Re the title, it analogous to the "Allied invasion of Sicily", or the "Invasion of Normandy". Asia Minor was at the time either in Byzantine hands (to 90+%) or a disputed no-man's land (e.g. Cilicia). For the persons familiar with the period, the mention of the Byzantines is therefore redundant. Yes, we could rename the article to "Abbasid invasion of the Byzantine provinces of Asia Minor (806)", but why should we make things complicated? If it is impractical to provide (and unrealistic to expect) a complete explanation of the context in the first sentence of the lede, it is even less so in the title. You do raise a very good point about the role of Asia Minor in all of this, however, so I have added a further sentence to explain this.
 * On the non-inclusion of the operation in Anatolia, that means nothing. The article there has to cover a period beginning in the 24th century BC, and the Abbasid invasion is clearly not among the most significant things to have ever happened in Anatolia during the past 5000 years. Nor does this article claim so. I also note that the Byzantine, Seljuk, and Ottoman periods are generally almost non-existent in that article, which says a lot about the comprehensiveness of the article in question. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sentence 2: "The expedition was commanded in person by the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid ((r. 786 – 809)), who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I ((r. 802 – 811))."
 * Sentence 2 (part 1): The expedition was commanded in person ...
 * "The expedition?" Again, "the" assumes familiarity.  All we know at this point is an invasion taking place. An expedition is different from an invasion, besides we have no idea how many expeditions took place concurrently.


 * "The" expedition is the invasion just introduced. I don't think any one will get a different impression, if one is not actively looking to get a different impression. Still, I've changed it to "invasion". --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "In person," means, "by one's own action or physical presence." What other forms of command were available to an individual in the early medieval period?


 * There are plenty of cases for rulers to have accompanied the troops to some border station and let their generals handle it from there, or simply tagged a long until some point and then returned home to claim victory. Plus, was not the whole point of the discussion above about not presuming prior knowledge on behalf of the average reader? This certainly does include "what other forms of command were available to an individual in the early medieval period". Furthermore, the mere fact of the caliph himself leading a campaign was unusual and ought to be stressed, as it is by the medieval sources (there is an extensive footnote to that effect). --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sentence 2 (part 2): "who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year ..."
 * "the Byzantine successes" We know nothing about them at this stage.  The definite article presumes familiarity.
 * To retaliate means to take revenge for, or to avenge, an injury, harm, insult, etc. to a person, nation, etc. A "success" is too much of a euphemism for that injury, harm, or insult. You have to tell us more precisely which Byzantine action constituted an insult.  Note I thought BrianB had suggested an improvement, but I don't see it implemented in the lead.
 * You probably want to say something like, "who wanted to avenge the loss of life, property, and livestock incurred during the Byzantine incursions of the previous year." (I'm making that up, but you get the idea.)
 * Or if you want to use retaliate: "the loss of life, property, and livestock of the previous year at the hand of the Byzantines, caused him to retaliate by invading Anatolia." ("Retaliate" does not go with "for," except very rarely.)
 * You probably don't want to mention the "frontier region," at this stage. Where else would an incursion have taken place in medieval times if not at a frontier?  You especially don't want to link it to thughur which in turn redirects to al-ʿAwāṣim.  Too much recondite information for a second sentence. You could point to direction if you like, e.g. "northeastern region," if that is the case.


 * I have extensively rewritten the section in question. I disagree on "northeastern region" rather than frontier region because it again presumes prior knowledge of the Caliphate's geography, which is not a given. The frontier region may be a 'natural' place for hostilities, but military operations can also penetrate quite a bit beyond. So in our case, the Byzantine attacks being in the frontier area, whereas Harun retaliates by invading deep beyond that area, shows the respective strength (and intentions) of the two sides. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sentence 2 (part 3): and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I ((r. 802 – 811)).
 * What does it mean to impress might upon? Are we saying after avenging an insult he wanted to insult in return, or to display a medieval version of shock and awe in return? This is all too vague.


 * The latter. I don't see how it can be read as the former; all the examples I know of (and I had a look at some Google Books samples as well) mean this one thing: create the impression of might and superiority on others. The talk about avenging insults is nowhere in the article. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sentence 3: "The huge Abbasid army—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806, crossed Cilicia and the Taurus Mountains, and invaded Cappadocia."
 * Sentence 3 (part 1): "The huge Abbasid army"
 * Again, "the" presumes we know about this army or about its relative numerical size.
 * Huge is an informal word, like gigantic, or enormous, meaning very numerous. How is a reader to know what constituted "huge" in 806?
 * Sentence 3 (part 2): "—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—"
 * m-dashes, unless appearing in fiction, or creative non-fiction, should be replaceable with commas. That is not the case here.  The third sentence in the lead is not the place for an off-handed aside.
 * "with exaggeration" generally implies that the exaggeration was a deliberate, or an invariant, feature of such estimates. Whether or not that is the case, the reader does not know that.  How do we know it is an exaggeration?  If there is a source that suggests that, then what is their more realistic estimate of the army's strength?
 * What are "Arab sources?" Do you mean "contemporaneous Arabic language sources?" Do you mean "historical Arabic language sources?" Do you mean Abbasid court historians? This is the first time you have used Arab. The reader is left confused.


 * I've changed the phrasing a bit, especially because I too did not like the emdashes here. I've left detailed explanations for later in the article. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sentence 3 (part 3): "set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806,
 * Here we are using Raqqa the modern name for a medieval city, (whereas elsewhere we are using medieval names for a modern region (such as Asia Minor for Anatolia) which is fine, but you should tell us what was Raqqa's significance. Why did the army set out from Raqqa?


 * First, Raqqa was the name of the city in Abbasid times as well. Second, it is simply where Harun assembled his army, and he did that because it was his favourite residence (not the capital). Is that information necessary for the lede? No. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you will be better off saying: "On 11 June 806, a large army, numbering 135,000 by some (optimistic) estimates, set out from the Abbasid capital of Raqqa."


 * Raqqa was not the Abbasid capital, and "some (optimistic) estimates" is weird phrasing. This is not a prediction of future earnings, or estimate by a modern scholar, but a historical report from medieval sources. The chroniclers who reported these numbers were not optimistic or euphemistic, nor even impartial: they either took at face value numbers given by the Caliph's propaganda (which are impossible to verify today) or simply invented them outright to suit their respective narrative purposes. Theophanes, for example, reports 300,000 men, just to illustrate how much of a threat these unbelieving Saracens were. Again, have a look at my rewrite. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * These are just the first three sentences. But they point to the kind of issues appearing in many later sentences in the article.  Besides, the lead is too short for the article. As BrianB has mentioned, the article is already too short.  If I had more time, I would oppose its candidacy and stick around to help it improve, but I recommend that my critique be taken as a model of a longer one.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Fowler&amp;fowler, I will respond to your prose criticisms later, but I just want to point out that article length is not a criterion for Featured Article. Article comprehensiveness is, which has not been challenged by any editor thus far. Unless you know of information I have missed, the article length will therefore not change much. I am also rather confused by your final statement "If I had more time, I would oppose its candidacy and stick around to help it improve, but I recommend that my critique be taken as a model of a longer one". What exactly is this review in service of if you don't intend it as a basis for improving the article here and now? Do you suggest a quickfail based on prose and/or length? And your critique thus far does not touch anything that might actually increase article length (apart from a bigger lede, perhaps), so I fail to see how it can be taken as a "model of a longer one". Constantine   ✍  17:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know the rules, but why are we in this business? To write something that is worth reading for an average layperson, or to Wikilawyer our way to a bronze star? There is obviously an unstated lower limit for length. You have two articles, Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (782) and Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806).  The first begins with, "Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 782 was one of the largest operations launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire," the second with, "The Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 806 was the largest operation launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire."  Well, how many operations were there?  If there is no lower limit, can we go lower?  What I mean is, both articles are relatively short, use the same sources, have the same organization, and are part of the same context, involving the same Caliph, or would-be Caliph. Neither, for example, is mentioned in the Britannica article on Harun al Rashid. If there truly are no more sources, then why not combine the articles? The need for context in one of the FA criteria would almost require that.  And even if you don't want to combine them, consider the one paragraph that I have read in the lead.  It is already full of references, by way of either direct mention or the use of the definite article, to a wider context, which leaves the average reader puzzled. Examine the first sentence of the next section: "The deposition of Byzantine empress Irene of Athens in October 802 and the accession of Nikephoros I in her place marked the start of a more violent phase in the long history of the Arab–Byzantine wars."  How does a deposition or accession by itself mark a violent phase?  That long history, according to the link, lasted from the seventh century to the eleventh.  Did the violent phase last from 802 until the end of the eleventh century? Imagine yourself in the shoes of an ordinary reader, who clicks on the link Arab–Byzantine wars and happens upon the paragraph: "'Wishing to emphasize his piety and role as the leader of the Muslim community, Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809) in particular was the most energetic of the early Abbasid rulers in his pursuit of warfare against Byzantium: he established his seat at Raqqa close to the frontier, he complemented the thughur in 786 by forming a second defensive line along northern Syria, the al-'Awasim, and was reputed to be spending alternating years leading the Hajj and leading a campaign into Anatolia, including the largest expedition assembled under the Abbasids, in 806.'"  Though it needs tidying up, it at least explains the background.  Do you see the issues? I could help you but there is some basic reorganization, expansion, and improvement of accessibility (for an ordinary reader) that you need to do yourself. You don't need new sources for that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you think that my asking a few questions and challenging your approach is my "wikilawyering" after another bronze star, then you have a massive lack of WP:AGF. You can ask some other editors in this very review whether I "wikilawyer" myself though nominations or whether I insist on details and proper work before I pass any work, or indeed put my own work forward for judgment. But that is beside the point. What I object to is your arbitrarily moving (or inventing) the goalposts, and I have every right to be upset by this.
 * First, "There is obviously an unstated lower limit for length." is simply not true; either the rules prescribe a limit or they don't. Criterion four insists on an article being"focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style". The topic is the 806 invasion, and the article deals, AFAIK, with it in the most comprehensive way. I repeat, if you find the article lacking in its treatment of the subject, i.e., the 806 invasion, be my guest to hold up the nomination for as long as it takes for me to address this deficiency. But you don't even try to make this argument. Instead you now propose to "combine the articles", because they "are part of the same context, involving the same Caliph, or would-be Caliph", even though they deal with events 24 years apart. This is, sorry to say, complete nonsense. By this argument, we should also merge the articles on the War of the Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War... Likewise, "Neither, for example, is mentioned in the Britannica article on Harun al Rashid." is yet another invented goalpost... You'd be surprised how much that is not mentioned in Britannica is actually mentioned in high-quality Wikipedia articles... FWIW, I usually don't even consider submitting an article to GA, let alone for FA, before it is considerably more complete than the best tertiary source I can find on it.
 * Now, on the heart of your complaints, as far as I can see they concern prose style. Prose is not a structural problem, it is a matter of adjusting the exposition of the content already in the article. That is precisely the sort of problem that can easily be addressed within the confines of a FA review. So please, if you think the prose has problems, point them out and let me try to correct them now. But summarily dismissing the article in toto because of "length" and prose problems in what amounts to an "I don't like it" review is neither useful to me, nor to the article, nor to this project. Constantine  ✍  13:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Prose: Hello there.
 * General: The determiner "the" is most commonly used to refer to things that are a part of the writer's and the reader's shared world. (or Websters: "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something previously mentioned or clearly understood from the context or the situation.) (Or, OED: "Marking an item as having been mentioned before or as already known, or as contextually particularized) There seem to be several confusing uses of "the" in the article
 * Specific prose issues:
 * Fourth sentence, lead: "The Abbasids met no opposition and raided at will, capturing several towns and fortresses, most notably Herakleia.
 * At will means "as they wished" or "as and when it suited them." When there is no opposition, how else will they have raided?


 * I don't see a problem. There is a causal link here: they raided at will because there was no opposition. If it were broken up into "The Abbasids met no opposition. They raided at will, ..." for example, you would probably not object to it, but it is the same thing. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "several" is too vague in a description of military success. You need to give us a better idea.


 * The sources are vague, unfortunately; would you prefer "a number of towns"? Feel free to suggest a better phrasing --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to tell us something about Herakleia, and why its capture was notable, why its capture would have precipitated a Abbasid impulse to seek peace, alluded to in "This" in the next sentence.


 * Good point, I've rewritten this part. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fifth sentence lead: "This forced Nikephoros to seek peace in exchange for the payment of tribute, including a personal tax levied on Nikephoros and his son and heir, Staurakios."
 * Generally not a good idea to use "This" in a vague way.


 * Removed and rephrased. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know the "peace" in the expressions "seek peace," "negotiate peace," "sign peace," is a count noun, meaning a treaty of peace, a pact to end a war, etc. The tribute is a part of the peace terms. You can't really seek peace terms in exchange for something that is a part of them. Was the tribute offered by the Abbasids or extracted from them by the Byzantines? (It is usually the latter.)  That is not clear in the sentence.


 * I have rewritten it to be clearer. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand the distinction between tribute and personal tax in early- to mid medieval times in what most likely was a fiscal-military state. How could the peace terms ensure that the "personal tax" was somehow not passed on to (the medieval version of) taxpayers? Overall it would be better to say, "N. sought peace terms.  These included ..."  More soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To this I can only say, once again: read further than the lede. The lede is not (meant to be) a complete article. And as to whether it was passed on to the taxpayers, why would that be a concern of Harun? The tax (if you read on) was a mark of personal submission for the emperor and his son, not a way to get his treasury full. The rewrite will have made this clearer, hopefully. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sixth sentence lead: "Following Harun's departure, however, Nikephoros violated the terms of the treaty and reoccupied the frontier forts he had been forced to abandon."
 * Sixth sentence lead (part 1): "Following Harun's departure, however, ..."
 * We know nothing, from what has been established thus far, about the extent of the agreed-upon retreat in the treaty, from how far forward to how far back. So "Following Harun's departure, however" stated matter-of-factly, comes as a surprise.  Not all treaties involve retreats.  Many simply agree to a cessation of hostilities at the existing lines of control.
 * In other words, you need to add a sentence about the terms of the treaty before "Following ..."


 * That is a very 20th/21st-century way of seeing military operations, and, TBH, trying to read too much into a simple situation. The lede already states that Harun's intent was not to conquer territory, but to "impress his might" on Nikephoros, and get him to play nice, as Irene had done before. The peace terms mentioned also say nothing about any territorial concessions. So if there is peace, with the resumption of tribute, Hariun's aims are met and the invading party returns to its territory. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sixth sentence lead (part 2) "... Nikephoros violated the terms of the treaty and reoccupied the frontier forts"
 * the chronological order is: (a) N reoccupies the towns, (b) he violates the peace terms. not the other way round.  In other words, you should be saying, "He reoccupied the frontier towns, thereby violating the peace terms."


 * Rewritten to better reflect what happened. Also, I feel that the mention of border forts he was forced to abandoned played some role in you thinking about territorial changes above. If so, it was an unfortunate phrasing.
 * Sixth sentence lead (cont): "... he had been forced to abandon." --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

General observation: Sentences with long subjects or long dependent clauses) are creating issues of coherence in the prose.
 * "forced to abandon" is both redundant and POV. It wasn't forced. He signed the treaty.  Those were the terms.
 * "It wasn't forced." is blatantly not the case. A treaty signed at swordpoint is legally binding, but it doesn't mean that the disadvantaged party does this voluntarily. For the rest, see above. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Overall, you should be saying something like, "X-many days/weeks/months after the withdrawal of the Abbasid army, N. ordered his forces to reoccupy some frontier towns, thereby violating the terms of the treaty." But say this only after you have told us in one sentence earlier what the treaty entailed for either side.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If we had this information, I would gladly add this. Again, I've rewritten this a bit, please have a look. --Constantine  ✍  16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seventh sentence lead: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later, prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale.
 * The subject here is the noun phrase: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later,"
 * Again, we know nothing about a rebellion, let alone a preoccupation; we know nothing about who rebelled. We know nothing about his death, whether unexpected or after a long illness
 * So when the reader encounters the predicate, "prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale." They expect to read, "However, a reprisal on a lesser scale was conducted in ..." But nothing is mentioned.  Question: Was there any reprisal?  If there was, why is it not mentioned?
 * A coherent sentence would be: "However, a punitive invasion (on the scale of that of 806—add this only if there was a lesser reprisal) by Harun's army did not take place on account of a rebellion by < > soon thereafter in the province (?) of Khorasan, which was to keep the army engaged in its suppression. Nor did one take place later, as Harun was to die in 809."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the detailed comments and suggestions, I will go through them over the next few days. Constantine  ✍  09:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A response, which in parts, is appearing three weeks after my initial post, after two editors whose reviews were posted after mine were answered. A response whose every step is controverting my points, even when accepting them, a dense response is not good enough.  I am therefore changing my comment to a formal oppose.  I will now be directly editing the article to improve the lead.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A note to the coordinators: Beyond the poor writing I encountered in the lead until I took a stab at improving it, I found the article to be too short and the editor to be argumentative.  Needless to say, the nominator argued that it did not matter.  I made my first edits here on 7 December.  I made my last comment on 14 December.  As you will have noticed, the nominator made a short post on 20 December. No apologies or explanations were offered.  Two other editors posted here after me.  He replied first to their posts, changing the sentences of my queries before he replied to me on 26 December.  That is a long time for a reviewer to wait.  As I say, I have edited the lead with a view to improving it.  I will however not be returning to this review.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, but I was a bit busy with digesting your points and with other work. I did not want to start doing this before I had cleared my board of other concerns. If you think the delay is unreasonable, I apologize, but there was no malicious intent here. Still, I need to answer some of the aspersions cast above:
 * "after two editors whose reviews were posted after mine were answered." is incorrect. I began working on your comments on December 24, but did not make any changes to the article (and confirm my replies to you above) until the 26th, because it took attention and work. I answered Mimihitam's concerns below on the 25th, because that was something I could do quickly, being something I had considered myself for some time. I did not start looking at/answering HaEr48's comments until after I had gotten off my first batch of replies to you. Again, this has nothing to do with you.
 * "A response whose every step is controverting my points, even when accepting them, a dense response is not good enough" So what is it? If I accept your points, how am I controverting them? What is "good enough"? The reality is simple: I am not obliged to agree with everything you say, and have a right to point out when I think you are wrong or have unreasonable expectations, just as much as you have a right to criticize this article. Our 'contention' is about prose style, which is a matter of personal preference (all the other reviewers didn't have a problem with it, for example), so of course there will be disagreement. You make some good points, and I think the lede has been much improved as a result (haven't gone through your last changes yet). But it became clear, as I read your comments, that you never proceeded beyond the lede to read the article itself. And I insist that it is a fallacy to assume that the lede will be a full explanation of a topic; it simply cannot be, from its very nature.
 * "I found the article to be too short and the editor to be argumentative" and I will be even more argumentative, because the former is no requirement or criterion for FAC, and I refuse to accept arbitrary demands.
 * "He replied first to their posts, changing the sentences of my queries" for the first, not true, see above. For the second, where did I change one iota of your queries? Please provide the diffs for this serious allegation. Constantine  ✍  08:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment by HaEr48 (support)
Having read the article, in my opinion it is well written, well researched, well referenced, and informative. Thank you for working on this. It is probably an area of history unfamiliar to most people, but context is provided through the background section and links. Unlike another reviewer above, I find the prose easy to follow and I don't think there are fatal mistakes that make the article hard to understand. The lead certainly is well balanced between being accessible and not being distracted by too much explanation up front. I have some minor feedback below: Thank you. HaEr48 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region: How about just "retaliate against the successful Byzantine raids in the Caliphate's frontier region"? "Retaliate for … success" reads kind of weird IMO
 * This has been extensively reworded. Please have a look.
 * I like the reworded lead. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * " including a personal tax levied on Nikephoros and his son and heir, Staurakios": what do you think about including "symbolic" and/or "jizya" in this sentence? "Symbolic" because in the body we found out the personal tax (in addition to the regular tribute) is added because of the symbolic meaning (making it sound like the emperor accept the caliph's suzerainity), and "jizya" might help people familiar with the topic to grasp the symbolic meaning.
 * Good point, this has been added now
 * " while a Byzantine-instigated rebellion against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus, which for over a century had been an Arab–Byzantine condominium" : as context, is there anything that can be linked about the condominium situation in Cyprus? Seems quite unusual given that the two powers fought each other a lot.
 * Done
 * allegedly wearing a cap with the inscription "Warrior for the Faith and Pilgrim": Since you said "allegedly", can we attribute the historical source that mentions this anecdote?
 * Done
 * Why does Sharahil ibn Ma'n ibn Za'ida link to Ma'n ibn Za'ida al-Shaybani? The name probably implies Sharahil is the son of Ma'n, and not the same person?
 * Of course Sharahil is Ma'n's son. But as we don't have an article, and are not likely to get one, for Sharahil, I preferred to link to his father. If it causes confusion, I can simply link after the "ibn".
 * Personally I'd just leave it unlinked - I think it's very unusual to link to someone's father when their article doesn't exist, and a reader unfamiliar with Arabic name convention might think that they're just the short and long versions of the same name. But I'll leave it to you to decide. HaEr48 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it redlinked for now; I don't think there is enough material for an article on him, but I'll have a look. In the worst case, Ma'n's page could get a 'Family' Section, and we could link there.
 * Rashid then recalled his forces: Harun (instead of Rashid) for consistency?
 * Done
 * Poem by Marwan ibn Abi Hafsa in praise of Harun al-Rashid's 806 expedition against Byzantium: There is no mention of this poem in the article body, is it possible to add some prose so that there's a connection to the text? Especially if we could mention who Marwan was and when (how long after the campaign) he composed it.
 * I've had a look, and Marwan actually died in 797/8, so the poem was written for one of Harun's earlier campaigns. It is nevertheless indicative of the attitude presented by court panegyrists (and official propaganda), and shows the place that jizya played in the rhetoric and public consciousness of the Muslim world. I've expanded a bit on the role Harun in particular played here, and linked to the footnote. Al-Tabari (pp. 241-244) and El-Cheikh (pp. 96-97) provide a couple of poems with more direct references to Nikephoros, which can be substituted if necessary.
 * I'd prefer substituting it with a poem more directly related to the 806 campaign if it was available. Using earlier poem sounds like we're going out of our way to emphasize one point. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done
 * "If Harun had taken the advice offered by some of his lieutenants and proceeded further west to sack major cities, he could have inflicted long-lasting damage on Byzantium": can we name the source of this counterfactual analysis here?
 * Done
 * Also, can the advice to continue west and the decision to ignore it be discussed in "campaign" section too? Especially if there were reasons given for not following up, or more details surrounding what Harun and his generals were thinking during the campaign
 * Done, plus a bit of rewrite/additions in that area.
 * I mean, can you consider adding the episode in the #Campaign section, because it also had to do with the course of the operation? 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that where Treadgold gets it from are the (semi-mythical) legends attached to the siege of Herakleia: one of the border emirs who Harun asked for advice said that Herakleia was unimportant and that he should attack some large city elsewhere, whereas another emir praised Herakleia as a strong and important fortress. Treadgold (most likely rightly) takes this to mean that there were in reality advisors who recommended that Herakleia was unimportant (which it was, despite the hype of Harun's propagandists) and that the Caliph should attack something more vital to the Byzantines. I can't really figure a way of putting this inside the 'Campaign' section without it feeling like too much exposition, so I've added it as a footnote.
 * Arabische Eroberung 2.jpg: According to WP:PIC, in order to make the image larger than normal "the size should be specified as a value relative to the user's preferred base size, using the upright parameter rather than pixel values." Please do so.
 * Done
 * Is there a good map of the entire Abbasid and Byzantine territory together, for context? Maybe something like File:Abasside-empire-vers-820-es.svg?
 * I wouldn't consider that a 'good map', TBH. Droysen's map serves that purpose (hopefully). It may be cluttered as it tries to cover four centuries in a single map, but it is rather reliable.
 * I like Droysen's map too, but I think the downside is: 1) it appears too late in the article 2) as you said it is cluttered so it's not immediately clear to a new reader which part is relevant. I take your objection to File:Abasside-empire-vers-820-es.svg, but at least it immediately show the user where the Abbasid Caliphate and Byzantine Empire are, and that they're two major neighboring powers in Eastern Mediterranean. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Give me a couple of days, I am preparing a new map.
 * Re sources, how sure are we about the reliability and neutrality of the two old work (Brooks 1923 & Canard 1926)? Is there a more recent scholarship we can use?
 * Brooks (and Bury) wrote the broad narrative on the Arab–Byzantine wars that is still being used today. That remains reliable, because the main sources we know today are the same ones they used (Tabari, Masudi, Theophanes, etc); where details are in question, I have eschewed using them, but I find no problem relying on them (many modern sources still reference them directly BTW). On Canard, much as for Brooks, he was one of the pioneers in his field, is still widely referenced, and is among the most reliable historians I've ever come across. Plus, the topic he is being used in here is not one where the information or interpretation changes much over time. Ditto for his 1962 work, now added, which forms the basis for pretty much every modern narrative of the campaign.
 * Thanks for the explanation HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I note Bosworth 1989 is actually direct reference to al-Tabari's 10th century work . But it's probably okay because nearly all of them appears alongside one or more other citations.
 * Thanks for the thorough review and the kind words HaEr48. I'll start dealing with your points, as with the above, tomorrow. Constantine  ✍  19:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and adjustments  I've commented to some of them above, please take a look when you have the chance. HaEr48 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to support now, although I still recommend adding the geopolitical context map. HaEr48 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Mimihitam
I have a concern with regard to the title, "Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)". Is this title used by historians or academic sources? Because I have some concerns with regard to the scope of the article, both geographic and temporal.
 * From a geographic perspective, the title is "invasion of Asia Minor". However, the geographic scope of the invasion also includes the island of Cyprus. Furthermore, if we include Abbasid retaliations in 807, the geographic scope extends further to Rhodes and even the Peloponnese on the Greek mainland.
 * From a temporal perspective, the title mentions "806", however the article also includes Abbasid retaliations in 807.

My concern is that the title is not representative of the events described and that it is not a title commonly used in academic sources, so I think the author should seriously reconsider the title and if possible back it up with the term used by historians. Thank you. Mimihitam (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mimihitam. As stated above, I based this article on the equivalent article in the Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, which is written by academics (this is the author). So yes, the title is used by historians and academic sources. Regarding the scope, it does indeed spill over a bit into the years preceding and following the 806 invasion, but the scale of the latter (as well as the importance it is given in historical and literary sources) makes it clearly the 'main event' of this period; everything else either leads up to it or is a denouement from it. The same applies to the raids in Cyprus and Greece; these are subsidiary operations at best, and the former in particular is clearly subordinated to the main event.
 * Of course, if we had more information from our sources for the other years than already included here, we might rename and rescope to something like Abbasid–Byzantine wars (803–808). Inevitably, however, the sources provide more details about the exceptionally big 806 operation, and far fewer for the other years, when 'normal' warfare took place, as it had done, and would continued to do for about three centuries. Have a look at the length that al-Tabari, for example, devotes to this event compared to the others mentioned here. In titling the article thus, I (and Ms. Kiapidou before me) merely follow the sources. This is nothing exceptional, BTW; the article on the Siege of Constantinople (717–718) also discusses what came before the siege itself and what followed it, but we happen to have much more information about the main event; the Battle of Akroinon has more content on what happened before and after than about the battle itself, etc. etc. Focusing on a few salient, impactful (and rather better documented) points is an inevitable way to tell a story where little information is otherwise available. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  19:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-thought explanation :) Mimihitam (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Happy holiday season! Constantine  ✍  11:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  14:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)