Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al-Musta'li/archive1

Al-Musta'li

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the ninth Fatimid caliph, whose rise to the throne in 1094 was due to the machinations of the powerful vizier al-Afdal Shahanshah, and caused a major rift in the Isma'ili branch of Shi'a Islam. Al-Musta'li remained under the thumb of his vizier for the duration of his relatively short caliphate, and his reign is mostly a record of al-Afdal's actions. The article is a pendant to Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, al-Musta'li's elder brother, who was likely the legitimate successor. For the initial sections on the disputed succession and Nizar's revolt, there is considerable overlap between the two. Both articles were heavily rewritten, effectively from scratch, in 2020. Al-Musta'li passed GA in March 2022, while Nizar's article became FA in May 2022. As usual, I am looking forward to any comments and suggestions for further improvement. Constantine  ✍  12:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done.
 * File:Godefroi1099.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is that not covered by PD-Art? Constantine  ✍  14:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * PD-Art accounts for the fact that reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright in the US. It doesn't speak to why the original work was PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, thanks. US tag added. Constantine  ✍  18:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments

 * "when learning of al-Mustansir's passing" => "when learning of al-Mustansir's death"
 * Done.
 * Is there not more to say about al-Musta'li himself? The "reign" section, for example, barely mentions him
 * Unfortunately, no. As a younger son, he was not in line for the succession, and would have been a mere name, if that, in the footnotes of history. As caliph, he was a puppet ruler, and even on affairs concerning the Isma'ili da'wa, it is unknown whether it was al-Musta'li showing agency or whether, as figurehead, events were attributed to him. All historical and modern sources on his life focus on two things: the disputed succession, and then the events of his reign, which saw the arrival of the Crusaders. I have also given only a brief overview of these events, and not gone into as much detail as I could, since they properly belong to the article on al-Afdal, who actually was responsible for the government.
 * That's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * comments addressed. If I may ask, did you find the article easy to understand? Or is there more context/detailed explanation that can be added somewhere? Constantine  ✍  09:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, anything you wanted to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Kusma
Will do a naive non-expert review soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC) A very interesting article about a puppet ruler in a complicated time. As I said, I found the "Disputed succession" bit somewhat hard to understand, and as this is kind of the central issue from the religious split perspective, it would be worth clarifying it as much as possible. As I said, I am clueless about the period, so I apologise if I missed something obvious. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Lead: is "youngest of the sons" definite enough to be stated like that?
 * That appears to be the consensus. In the main article text, I was a bit more cautious given Walker's comments, but most sources don't hesitate in calling him that (e.g. Gibb and Özkuyumcu). Halm, as you point out, is an exception. I have rephrased it, however, to make clear that he at any rate wasn't the oldest.
 * I am wondering whether it is worth giving a little bit of historical context about the Fatimid Caliphate and where al-Musta'li stands within its history. (According to that article, the Fatimid Caliphate was in decline at this time and ruled only over Egypt). The capital was in Cairo?
 * Excellent point, done.
 * Much better. However, "Life" is no longer a very descriptive section header (and not all of the life is covered here).
 * Added a new subheader.
 * You could perhaps even drop the "Life" now (it is a biography, after all) and upgrade the Level 3 to Level 2 headings.
 * CE dates seem to be Julian; I assume this is standard?
 * Hmmm, since the Gregorian calendar wasn't around yet, I guess so? What would be the difference?
 * A few days :) I don't think you need to do anything here.
 * My point (very much not clearly made) was what you 'tipped you off', i.e. why the dates "seem to be Julian" ;).
 * I was curious and checked a calendar converter.
 * Life: "youngest of all of al-Mustansir's sons" Halm p. 88 has him as the fourth oldest of ten sons, quite a bit different from the youngest of seventeen. Would it make sense to state how much younger than Nizar he was?
 * Yes, this puzzled me for a while. I don't know where Halm gets this from. Walker, who lays out his investigation in some detail, is quite definitive: "it now appears even more likely that the future al-Musta'li was the youngest of al-Mustansir's sons. He was, moreover and perhaps most importantly, the only one born (and raised) under the dictatorship of Badr." The statement of Halm contradicts even Halm's own notes on the issue, since he remarks (p. 366) on the existence of Ahmad's older namesake brother. I guess what Halm means is that Ahmad was the youngest of the four surviving sons of al-Mustansir at the time of the latter's death, but this is contradicted by calling these four the 'eldest'. Given that Nizar, likely the firstborn, was born in 1045, thirty years before al-Musta'li, it beggars belief that al-Musta'li may have been among the older sons of al-Mustansir. As noted above, the communis opinio among scholars is that he was indeed the youngest son.
 * "no definite designation of Nizar" this makes sense only in conjunction with the footnote that talks about Nass (Islam). It might be worth moving some of that footnote into the main text. Or to just say "no formal designation"?
 * Changed.
 * The three paragraphs starting from "In 1122" are later explanations and justifications for al-Musta'li's accession. I found this a bit confusing, as the accession itself hasn't happened yet in the body of the article, and it seems we are jumping forward and backwards in time. Perhaps an introductory sentence would help, or some reordering (you could have the paragraph talking about al-Mustansir's death and the accession right after talking about Ahmad's wedding, and then tell us about al-Amir's proclamation and other attempts to justify what happened. In other words, first have the succession and then the dispute about the succession?
 * Good suggestion, done.
 * Would it make sense to cite some modern Nizari scholars? And do we know what other Islamic leaders/scholars at the time thought of this split?
 * Good question: I have tried to find WP:RS on the issue (or at least some source in a language I can read) while working on Nizar's article, but have failed so far. Modern Nizaris are obviously partisans of Nizar's succession, but remarkably for an event of such apparent importance I don't have the impression that it is a major talking point. As long as there is an 'imam of the time', the past is not so relevant, it seems. The reaction of other Islamic leaders is also difficult to know; within Ismailism, the reaction is known and given in the article. Outside, it must have been seen as a simple succession dispute, if it registered at all. If you are a Sunni ruler or scholar, and learn of these events, you would likely not attribute any particular religious significance to them, since you already reject Fatimid claims and legitimacy in toto.
 * Nizar's revolt and the Nizari schism: How long/when is the "in the meantime" (you mean the time between al-Mustansir's death and the "grand assembly of officials")?
 * Yes, but it is needlessly confusing. Have rephrased to 'After fleeing from Cairo'.
 * "allegiance of the Arab tribes" which Arab tribes? Are they important players? (I do not understand enough of the context here).
 * No names for the tribes are given here, although I could make an educated guess who these were (Juhayna, Tha'laba, Tayy). The point is that the Arab tribes were semi-autonomous, and could provide a crucial pool of military manpower (as well as an excellent and skilled, albeit undisciplined, raiding/reconnaissance force). Have slightly rephrased to emphasize the military dimension of this, but don't know if it is enough.
 * The main issue for me is that "al-Afdal managed to win back the allegiance of the Arab tribes" is surprising, as we didn't yet know that their allegiance had changed.
 * After further consideration, I decided to remove this. It is covered in a bit more detail in Nizar's article, and here it is rather redundant.
 * perhaps clarify "immured" to "immured and died" as in Halm?
 * Done.
 * Do we know anything about the rumours that he was poisoned? (Where do these rumours come from and who wrote about them?)
 * Well, the sources report it as a rumour, but as Halm notes ('wie üblich munkelte man'), this is the inevitable rumour that will always arise when a ruler dies at an early age, and in unclear power relationships, as here. The other sources don't even mention the rumours.
 * Mentioning this only in the body and not in the lead is fine.
 * Some comments above. Thank you for the interesting responses. —Kusma (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * a delayed thanks for the many valuable comments. Have responded above. Constantine  ✍  09:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I think there are a few smallish issues left (header levels issue above; Arwa al-Sulayhi is linked at second instead of first mention; I guess a native speaker will find some prose issues), but I think I don't have much else to add here. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think with the recent edits in response to others it is good enough now, happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Funk

 * I didn't get to review his brother, so will have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At first glance, there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.
 * Duplinks taken care of. Constantine  ✍  09:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * " All three refused, each claiming that he had been designated as successor by their father." When I first read this, I was confused, because I thought "he" referred to al-Musta'li. Not a big deal, but maybe "they" would be clearer?
 * Rephrased to 'each claiming to have been designated' for clarity.
 * "A letter sent to Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi" Link and present her at first mention, now this only happens further down.
 * Fixed.
 * Wow, I've never seen a footnote within a footnote before (b), but I guess that's the only way to do it in this case.
 * Yeah, not exactly ideal. I have moved the imam footnote up, so hopefully readers will see what an 'imam' is in this context before they get to nass. Have also trimmed the footnote to keep the essentials (although I fear even so it is information overload).
 * "to make common cause the Crusaders" Missing "with"?
 * Indeed, fixed.
 * "and main candidate for their father's succession, Nizar" The article body seems much less clear that he was actually designated as such.
 * Changed to 'most likely candidate'; given that Nizar was likely the oldest son, he would normally have succeeded. An many sources simply assume him to have been the de facto heir-apparent.


 * Support - not much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Unlimitedlead
I will review after Kusma's comments have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time, I've addressed your comments so far. Constantine  ✍  10:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Throughout his reign, al-Musta'li remained subordinate to al-Afdal, who was the de facto ruler of the state" Which state? I think this needs to be explicitly stated.
 * Clarified.
 * "While Egypt experienced a period of good government..." This is rather vague.
 * Have tried to clarify. What exactly do you think needs to be elaborated?
 * "Despite Fatimid attempts to treat with the Crusaders..." What does it mean to "treat with"? I would reword.
 * Done.
 * Cairo is double linked in the infobox.
 * Fixed.
 * "Ahmad's oldest half-brother, Nizar ibn al-Mustansir, was apparently considered at the time as the most likely successor to their father, as was the custom..." What custom? I would briefly explain or place a note.
 * Hmmm, have rephrased slightly, but do I really need to explain primogeniture in succession? That the eldest usually succeeds in a monarchy is common knowledge.
 * "...Abdallah and Isma'il made for a nearby mosque..." "made off" sounds quite colloquial; reword?
 * Done.
 * "In it he puts forth a number of arguments..." "puts" is present tense; please switch to past tense.
 * fixed.
 * "Modern historians point out that this was a deliberately misconstrued argument, as the princes were sent away for their protection, not because of their rank" Is it possible to have a citation for this sentence?
 * Clarified that this is Walker's view, and repeated the citation
 * Link Coup d'état?
 * Done.


 * As always, I am more than happy to give my suggestions on how to improve an article. However, I do not feel comfortable supporting or opposing this nomination at this time. Thank you for understanding. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I am thankful for any suggestions. But may I ask what you feel is missing for your support? Constantine  ✍  12:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just feel like the article does not discuss enough about the titular monarch. It talks plenty about the historical context and people close to Al-Musta'li, but I personally feel like a large portion of the article is unrelated and could probably be deleted. However, I recognize that there is a shortcoming in the historical record and modern academic discussion; that is why I do not oppose. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I fully sympathize with that. Thanks again for your time and suggestions! Constantine  ✍  09:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

 * The long reign of al-Mustansir ensured that he had numerous offspring... Is there a connection between the length of a ruler's reign and the number of his children? For instance, Sigismund of Luxemburg ruled for 50 years but he fathered only one child.
 * There definitely is, if you have a large harem at your disposal and not much to do since your viziers govern the country for you... But you are right, the statement is open to misinterpretation. Rephrased.
 * Other reports... No reports have been mentioned. Is his date of birth mentioned in the first sentence a fact or an assumption?
 * Removed and replaced with a variant date. The commonly mentioned/accepted date is the former (1074).
 * Do we know his mother's name?
 * No, at least not in the sources cited here, and I haven't been able to find anything anywhere else. Given the deliberate Fatimid policy of not allowing prominence to anyone from the family but the caliph and his designated heir (with some exceptions that are notable precisely as exceptions), her name was likely never recorded.
 * I assume Nizar was Ahmad's half-brother.
 * Indeed, aded.
 * Do we need a footnote within a footnote? I think the issue could be solved with a wikilink to nass (Islam) and a reference to the Ismaili conception of imamate in the main text.
 * I've resolved at least the first part. Frankly I don't particularly like the ultra-condensed information dump in the footnotes, so I would normally agree, but a) it has been expressly requested in previous reviews about Fatimid caliphs, and b) our various articles on the imamate of the various Shia branches are not a very inviting read.
 * ...was apparently considered as the most likely successor to his father... Is "apparently" necessary? By whom or when was he considered as his father's heir? Perhaps "their father"?
 * Rephrased a bit.
 * ...is often stated ... By whom or when?
 * Added.
 * ...favoured the accession of Ahmad. Why?
 * I would mention Cairo before referring to it as "the capital".
 * (father of the Caliph al-Hafiz) Do we need to know in the article's context? If yes, his reigning years should also be mentioned.
 * Yes because it is unlikely that he will ever have an article, and this is the only way to distinguish him. Added the regnal dates, good suggestion.
 * ...at the wedding banquet... I am not sure that all readers will understand that this is a reference to Ahmad's wedding.
 * Clarified.
 * Link Fatimid Great Palaces when the first reference to the palace is made (in the section's second paragraph).
 * Done at an earlier place, where it is now mentioned
 * Introduce (and link) Queen Arwa al-Sulayhi when she is first mentioned.
 * Done.
 * What does the term "Musta'li leader" mean?
 * Clarified.
 * ..., but the Fatimid vizier's efforts ultimately failed Consider deleting this text, because the following sentences contain a full account of the events.
 * Good point, done.
 * ...other Seljuk emirs of Syria... Were all of them emirs or some of them were leaders bearing a different title (such as atabeg)?
 * Good point. 'Rulers' is better.
 * ...to make contact with them... I assume with the crusaders/crusader leaders.
 * Clarified.
 * Do we have further information about his family? Was Sitt al-Mulk his sons' or al-Amir's mother? Borsoka (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Will give the same answer as above, in that Fatimid women and junior princes are rarely mentioned in primary sources and consequently even less so in modern accounts. If I find any such info, I will add it.
 * Mustaʽli Ismailism should be mentioned and explained in the main text.
 * Done.
 * I understand his date of birth mentioned in the lead is not a fact.
 * It is the commonly accepted date. The alternative is always mentioned as such, an 'also mentioned'.
 * ...and main candidate... Is this factual and neutral?
 * Have rephrased as 'most likely candidate', but the consensus appears to be so. Nizar was apparently the oldest brother, and custom and doctrine would suggest him as the obvious successor. If we take some of the medieval historians at face value, he may even have been the designated heir apparent, we just don't have any evidence for that (and it would make the usurpation even more blatant, so modern historians generally discount this).
 * Al-Musta'li died in 1101 and was succeeded by his five-year-old son, al-Amir. I think this could be the closing sentence in the lead. I would not repeat the year of death in the lead but would mention the rumours that he was poisoned.
 * Moved the death to the end. On the poisoning, Halm, who mentions this, makes pretty clear that it was the usual rumour that happens when a young monarch under the tutelage of a powerful minister dies. I.e., I prefer not to make it official by putting it in the lede.
 * Consider linking the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) in the lead.
 * Done.
 * ... a major victory over the Fatimid army ... Perhaps "a major victory over al-Afdal/al-Afdal's army"? Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In the sense that it was led by al-Afdal? Done.
 * many thanks for the extensive and helpful review. Anything else? Constantine  ✍  16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this interesting and well written article. I support the article's promotion. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review Pass

 * Brett, Michael (2017): Google books has preview
 * Added
 * Özkuyumcu, Nadir (2006): I would suggest removing hyphens from the ISBN (turn 0 results outside Wikipedia). Check unhyphenated ISBN for comparison.
 * Personally, as long as the ISBN is correct and worldcat etc can find the correct resource by it, I don't really care. The problem is that often there is an expectation of conformity for ISBN formatting, and usually the hyphenated forms are used in the other citations. As a result, I have also used the hyphenated forms in the template.
 * Daftary 2007, pp. 1, 39–86: this range is unreasonable. Suggest using 39ff instead.
 * Done, but again there appears to be no standard here: I have been admonished against using 'ff.' in several reviews in the past.
 * Brett 2017, pp. 205–218 : ditto
 * As above
 * Correct page for [35] is 249 and not 248
 * Thanks, fixed.
 * Spot checks done for roughly 20% of the citations. No problems found except for the minor point above
 * Sources are all high quality and correctly formatted except for the minor points listed above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough review, I have addressed your comments. Constantine  ✍  09:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Pass. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)