Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Siege of Jerusalem (637)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Siege of Jerusalem (637)
Need suggestions to improve the article. الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo
I'm addressing my comments primarily to Sourcing and Referencing / Citation formats.
 * WP:MILMOS is your friend. You will want to pick a citation style and stick to it.
 * Centuryone is not an RS
 * Elliott Horowitz ""The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice": Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614" Jewish Social Studies 4 (2) [no date supplied in online version] is incorrectly cited. Locate the original.  It is a High Quality RS (peer reviewed).
 * Hunt footnotes from Gil, Moshe (February 1997). A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge University Press. pp. 70–71. and use them
 * Antiochus Strategos, [The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 AD] "Antiokh Strateg, Playnenie Jerusalima Persami [Manuscript, Georgian]" trans. F.C. CONYBEARE, English Historical Review 25 1910: 502-517. is miscited. Its also a primary source.  Anything you take from it should either be used as an illustrative photograph (ie: quoted).  Instead you're using it for Original Research, a big no no, "The True Cross was captured and taken to Ctesiphon as a battle-captured holy relic." is not sustainable from a corrupt Georgian MS.  Even then you'd need to say, According to Antiokh Strateg's transmitted account...  and that would still be OR.
 * Waqidi: Fatuh al sham vol: 1 page. 162, full cite required
 * Isfahani: Vol. 15, pp. 12, 56. full cite required
 * islamicperspectives.com is not RS
 * The Norman Golb interview is not RS
 * "Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies" 's briefing paper is not an RS
 * Edward Gibbon is grossly miscited, and links to a summary website
 * How to move forward. Find scholarly press histories of the city of Jerusalem.  Raid their bibliography for footnotes.  Acquire the secondary sources from scholarly presses / journals from the footnotes.  Read them, raid their bibliography.  Unfortunately the literature on Jerusalem's history is... corrupted... by religious and political people of all kinds publishing in popular presses.  Stick to academic presses.  Is there an Osprey?  Get the Osprey, raid the Osprey. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Laurinavicius
Well, the biggest problem that I see, other than the problems with the references and citations (which Fifelfoo has already pointed out), is that, overall, the article's grammar is quite poor. Simply, there are quite a few grammatical errors. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to give some specific examples, seeing as it's pretty late right now where I live and I'm about to go to bed, but, if you want me too, I'll be able to compile them tomorrow afternoon/evening (for me, that is about 19:30 UTC - 1:00). However, a good ol' copyedit should correct all of these problems, which I'll get to work on doing tomorrow. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey
Did Al Aqsa and the Sepulchre look roughly like that in the old days, or have lots of extra bits been added. If the latter, an old painting is probably a more accurate representation  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch
I'm taking a slightly different approach to this article than Fifelfoo did. First, while the previous capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 is relevant, you get too involved in the details of that capture (many of which are still disputed by experts) to remember to explain why it is relevant: the holiest city in Christiandom had been captured by a (gasp!) non-Christian. Although Heraclitus had recovered the city within a few years, to lose it again might cause another blow to Christian morale. That would explain why (1) Umar selected it as a target over Caesarea, & (2) its garrison held out for so long.

I see no problem referring to primary sources where the content is not controversial, it is a vital source for the historical event, or it is well-written. But in this case, there is really no point in using it to state that the True Cross was taken as loot to Ctesiphon -- especially since you fail to mention it again. (Was it back in Jerusalem when the Muslim army started their siege?) This is only one of many details of the earlier capture which are controversial -- & really unnecessary here.

On the other hand, you have very little about what happened during the siege. Was it a close siege -- or a loose one, which allowed the inhabitants to resupply themselves? Were they prepared? What condition were the walls of the city in? And did the Muslims have the ability to take Jerusalem by assault? Maybe they had the technology, but decided not to do so because an assault would have been more costly than a siege. These are all questions which need answers -- or at least an explanation that no one knows the answer.

Lastly, there is the passage about Sophronius inviting the Caliph to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There are some questions here which this article should not attempt to answer (e.g. did Sophronius actually think Umar was a Christian, even if a heretical one?), but if you are going to use Edward Gibbon here you should quote him -- or find another source to cite. (Sophronius mentions this incident, & cites a perfectly RS for it -- Runciman's A History of the Crusades, vol. 1.)

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Llywrch your advices are really constructive and many thanks for them i will shortly work on them. also user Fifelfoo and user Laurinaviciusput forward some really interesting issues i will work on them too. as for the question of user yellowmonkey, so yes thats a nice question indeed probably the images on article need a bit details to clarify the past and present status of the building.

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  15:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

الله أكبر Mohammad Adil  18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to the article as advised in the review, please check it again for further suggestions if any.