Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Al-Mu'tasim


 * 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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Al-Mu&

 * Nominator(s): 

One of the Abbasid "warrior-caliphs", al-Mu'tasim may have not had the intellectual calibre of his predecessor al-Ma'mun, but as the founder of a new capital, and of a new, militarized regime that formed the prototype of Islamic governance for centuries, he had a disproportionate impact on history. The article has been under development in stages since 2014; it passed GA in 2015, but has been rewritten and expanded since. I feel that the article covers all aspects of the reign in appropriate detail, and that it meets the A-class criteria. As the eventual goal is FA, I would appreciate any feedback on readability, need for context and/or clarifications, or any further improvements that you might suggest. Constantine  ✍  10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by PM That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When al-Ma'mun died unexpectedly in on campaign
 * Fixed Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of referring to him as "the future al-Mu'tasim" it would be worth restating in the Early Life section that this chap was Abu Ishaq before using the name to refer to him. It is currently a bit confusing.
 * Good point. restructured, and added a clarification of the name. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The "October 796 (Sha'ban AH 180), or earlier, in AH 179 (i.e. spring 796 or earlier)" seems to reverse the year systems in the second bit. Suggest leading with one and sticking to it as the lead system.
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In New elites and administration, aṭā is introduced without explanation
 * I forgot to move the explanation when I restructured the article. Good catch. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This measure was probably intended
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * the in-text attribution is a bit non-standard. Suggest "who, according to C. E. Bosworth, was "always one of al-Mu'tasim's closest advisers and confidants" " Same with Kennedy and Tayeb El-Hibri
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "and try tried to shore up the finances"
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mazyar and Wasif are introduced in the body without explanation
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * more to come, down to Foundation of Samarra Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * subsequent mentions of Caliph al-Mutawakkil could probably just be al-Mutawakkil
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * link Umayyad
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * suggest "After two weeks, however, taking advantage of a short truce for negotiations requested by one of the Byzantine commanders of the breach"
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * probably mention that Bosworth is an Orientalist when he is first mentioned
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * add the oclc for Vasiliev
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * add date of death of Droysen to the author field of File:Arabische Eroberung 2.jpg to prove the licence
 * Done, and added name and date of original work to caption as well. Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * images are all appropriately licensed and captioned.


 * Hi Peacemaker67, thanks for taking the time. I've fixed the troublespots. Could I bother you for a more general review on the article's structure and content? The subject is complex, and I wavered long between a chronological and thematic presentation, and I would like some opinions on what could or should be improved. Best, Constantine  ✍  16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I actually like the way you've done it, it captures themes but provides a good chronology too. Not an easy task with such a complex character. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * "Al-Mu'tasim continued many of his brother's policies, like the partnership with the Tahirids and the support for Mu'tazilism and the miḥna, backed by the powerful chief qādī, Ahmad ibn Abi Duwad." - I think the last bit about Duwad could go, which could free up some room for a bit of context on the rest. I had no idea what Mu'tazilism or the mihna were without clicking the links, so something along the lines of "...the support of the Mu'tazilist doctrine and the mihna, the persecution of opponents of the doctrine."
 * Good point, I have rephrased this. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some Arabic terms are untranslated, but many others are given as translations of English (i.e., "kunya", but "slave (mamlūk or ʿabid)", etc.). Can you standardize how these are presented?
 * It is not so straight-forward. "kunya" for instance is commonly translated as "teknonym", but for the average reader, the one is probably equally as obscure as the other. Later on, at "referred to as slaves (mamlūk or ʿabid), but rather as mawālī ("clients" or "freedmen") or ghilmān ("pages")", the purpose is to highlight the fact that they are not called "slaves", and then mention which specific terms are used for them. Generally I feel standardization to be unnecessary and even counter-productive in such cases. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "This strengthened of the position of the Turks" - think the first "of" needs to go
 * Indeed. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Some publisher locations are fully spelled out (eg: Albany, New York) but others are abbreviated (Cambridge, MA). Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Parsecboy. Any further comments, as to style, detail comprehensibility? Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing else that jumped out at me. I think the thematic choice works well here, by the way. Parsecboy (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know, I was a bit worried about that. Cheers and thanks, Constantine  ✍  10:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Arabische Eroberung 2.jpg - this needs a US tag too. The standard PD-US should be fine, since it was published before 1923.
 * Everything else looks to be in order. Parsecboy (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * US tag added. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  12:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support. This is about 900 years before any bits of history that I'd consider myself well-read on, so take these with a pinch of salt, and bear in mind that I might not be able to offer much on the substance. — HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  18:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the second paragraph of the lead, you have a "despite" and a "however" in quick succession. That's quite a lot of contradiction. Also, the use of "despite" in that context (Despite his own disinterest in literary pursuits) suggests his disinterest has been discussed earlier in the article, which could confuse the reader.
 * Hmmm, I've tried to rephrase this. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph of "Formation of the Turkish guard", can we specify what "the sources" referred to are?
 * I've clarified them as "Arabic historical sources", it would be pointless to list them all by name. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Another image or two in the first half of the "caliphate" section, if there are any that would be appropriate, would be nice to break up the text and make the article more visually appealing.
 * The lack of images is not by choice; I am constantly on the look-out for some suitable (and suitably licensed) material, but have not had much luck here. There is little photographic material on contemporary art, and modern depictions (like the excellent images of Angus McBride) are copyrighted. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * was lucky enough not to suffer further punishment "Lucky enough" could be seen as editorialising.
 * The remark comes from Kennedy (in adapted form). Given that departing officials were usually imprisoned and tortured at the time, he was indeed lucky, but I did not want to digress into a discussion of such practices here. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * in the words of Hugh Kennedy I think "Kennedy" will suffice at this point; he's been mentioned several times now
 * I've trimmed down some of the occurrences of the first name, where he is mentioned frequently. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * God-guided imām to interpret Imam is a well-known term in English; I don't think we need the italics or the diacritic (this probably also applies to Hajj and jihad as well)
 * You are probably right. Nevertheless, I still feel a need to distinguish between the modern/colloquial use of "imam" (Muslim 'priest') and the more nuanced, technical meanings of the term for a 9th-century audience. The "God-guided imām" is not any "imam", but the head of the community of believers, the imam-Caliph, in a very specific theological and political sense. I've simplified the other two, though. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "acquired the reputation of being one of the warrior-caliphs of Islam" Do we need a quote for this fairly simple statement? If so, it needs to be attributed in-text.
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * all male prisoners were executed and the rest If they were all executed, there wouldn't be a "rest"
 * Clarified. Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, this an excellent and very well-written article but it's a relatively long one (6,700 words) and I wonder if it doesn't stray off-topic a little in places. For example, the second paragraph under "Formation of the Turkish Guard" looks like most of the detail wold better suited to an article on the Turkish Guard, rather than the biography of its creator, "Rise of the Turks" looks like it could be consolidated to focus on Al-Mu'tasim's role in the events, "Founding of Samarra" contains a lot of detail that's not directly related to Al-Mu'tasim, etc. Some context is of course helpful for readers who aren't familiar with the history, but too much can be off-putting. You can always use hatnotes like main and see also to signpost readers to additional details elsewhere.
 * Hi HJ Mitchell and thanks for taking the time to review this. On the last comment, you are partly right; but Mu'tasim's reign is a point of divergence, and his policies and their impact need to be discussed in some depth. Almost every scholarly treatment of the reign also devotes some time to treating these issues. I've kept them as brief as possible, but in "Founding of Samarra" for instance, a discussion is necessary on its relationship with Baghdad or the urban landscape and the association of quarters with prominent officials and cantonment areas for army regiments, because Mu'tasim himself set the pattern for it. Samarra is an expression in urban form of Mu'tasim's regime. Ditto for the Turkish Guard, which was shaped by Mu'tasim and in turn shaped his regime. Particularly due to the role Afshin played in the reign and the opposition of the Arab-Iranian elites, I simply cannot avoid a discussion of the ethnic and social origin and composition of the Guard. On other issues, like Mu'tazilism, or the cultural renaissance, that were begun by Ma'mun, I have indeed restricted coverage to Mu'tasim's role in them. If you have any further comments or suggestions I'd be glad to have them. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  09:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you've stayed true to your sources then you've probably done the right thing. If it were my article, I'd be inclined to use hatnotes and try to trim a few hundred words to hold the reader's attention on Al-Mu'tasim, but that's just a difference of writing style. I' happy with everything else, so I have no qualms about supporting. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, once again. Best, Constantine  ✍  11:44, 2 April 2017 (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.