This article is about an Arab aristocrat who led one of the largest rebellions against the Umayyad Caliphate in the early 700s. His story is essentially the story of the Iraqi Arabs under the Umayyads, and especially during the governorship of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. The article became a GA and A-class back in 2015, but was occasionally reworked and expanded since, especially in April-May of this year, and I have been waiting for an opportunity to nominate it since. I hope it is an interesting and understandable read, and look forward to all suggestions for further improvement. Constantine ✍ 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I emphasise that these are suggestions, not demands. Feel free to ignore them, with sufficient justification.
No death year in the first paragraph?
Added.
Is it 'the scion' or 'a scion'?
Changed.
"distinguished family of the Kindite tribal nobility" you mean that the family was an especially distinguished noble family, correct?
Yes.
Perhaps the first 'overbearing' could be removed, as you use it again in the same paragraph.
Good suggestion, done. It is an indication of just how overbearing al-Hajjaj was...
I've edited a slightly comma-heavy sentence in the third paragraph.
Thank you.
"and later led the Kindaite quarter in Kufa, where he died in 661". Could probably make this a separate sentence, for better flow.
Good suggestion, done.
Do we know the birth order of Ibn al-Ash'ath and his brothers?
Not as far as I know.
The rivalry section seems to be at odds with the description in the lead: here, it seems like Ibn al-Ash'ath is the haughty and overbearing one, as opposed to al-Hajjaj who just seems to be unpopular.
There is more than an element of truth in what you say. The tribal nobility were a prideful bunch, insisting on their 'rights', and with a mentality that reflected their tribal traditions (honour, spoils, vendetta, etc); and al-Hajjaj's actions can be seen in the light of him being the representative of a central government, whose authority he wanted to enforce against their parochial recalcitrance. Traditional historiography certainly has not been kind to him. Think how history remembers English kings who tried to restrict their barons' rights, or early Roman emperors who ran afoul of the Roman senatorial aristocracy (which wrote the histories). But it is also clear that al-Hajjaj (often deliberately) provoked the sensibilities of the Iraqis, and by the end of his tenure had made Iraq almost into an occupied country.
Slightly unsure about the differing ways used to attribute in-text quotations. Alternatively, you have:
"[quote]" (full name of historian, linked), with citation at end of following sentence;
"[quote]" (last name of historian, unlinked), with citation at end of sentence;
according to historian, "[quote]", with citation at end of sentence;
in what [historian] described as "[quote]", with citation at end of following sentence;
[historian] suggest that "[quote]", with immediate citation;
and some more. I think there needs to be a little standardisation, especially keeping the second example of WP:PLAGFORM in mind. I'll go over the motives and driving sources section after the above has been justified or fixed.
Hmmm. Full name of historian is always at first reference, last name after. AFAIK that is standard. The placement of the citation depends on whether the citation is used to support the quote and the rest of the sentence/section, or just the quote. Again, this is standard. If only one source is cited and the author is clearly named, then the attribution of a quote should not be a problem, nor is it plagiarism, even if the quote were located in a long paragraph. On the parentheses, I admit I don't like them too much either, but here it is the easiest and shortest way of including the quotes without either having to laboriously paraphrase them or have to constantly introduce constructs like "according to x". I can remove them, if that is necessary, though.
Is government the best word to describe the rule of al-Hajjaj?
Probably a bit archaic in this sense, changed to 'administration'.
"when the two armies met in battle" you should probably say where.
Done.
"The defeat turned into a flight, aided by al-Hajjaj's offers of pardon." is unclear. What did al-Hajjaj's offers of pardon aid, and why?
Clarified.
" this renewed defeat" perhaps second (or similar) instead of renewed?
Thanks a lot AirshipJungleman29 for your time and suggestions. Anything else? Was the article easy to understand? Constantine ✍ 13:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still a little iffy about the parenthesised author names, but that's a minor issue. Aside from that, there's nothing to stop me from supporting the article for promotion.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marking my spot, will review once I'm done with another review. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance there appear to be a few unneeded duplinks.
Fixed.
"and married Caliph Abu Bakr's sister" But the subject of this article is not a descendant of her?
It isn't stated anywhere AFAIK. Given the practice of polygamy, it is well possible that Abd al-Rahman is not her descendant. Will keep looking.
Strike that, she was indeed Abd al-Rahman's grandmother.
"in the Hadramawt." State this is in Yemen for context?
Good point, added.
Perhaps give dates to the caption of the first map?
Added.
"after an eventful journey" Sounds like some of that should be described here, or?
Good point. I have looked into the primary sources, and while things happened during the journey, there is IMO nothing really worth mentioning. So I have removed this.
"what historian G. R. Hawting calls" You don't present other historians by occupation, should be consistent.
Added the occupation to the other cases as well.
"known in history as the 'Peacock Army' (jaysh al-tawawis)" This is already mentioned earlier, but without quotation marks and Arabic name,and here you present it as if it was the first mention. Any way to consolidate this?
Removed the first reference.
"Modern scholarship on the other hand holds that the portrayal of the great personal animosity between the two men is likely to be exaggerated." This also largely repeats statements from the preceding section. Any way to make it seem less repetitive?
Good point, moved this up and integrated it into the previous section.
"The Zunbil drew the Arabs deep into his country" This makes it seem like the Zunbil was a person, when its article indicates it is a collective term for a dynasty?
'Zunbil' is a title, and gave its name to the dynasty. It is used here just like 'Pharaoh' or 'Caesar' would be used for the Egyptian or Roman rulers. It also reflects usage in the sources the article draws from.
"while its favoured Syrian troops did not share in the same dangers and received greater salaries (ata) to boot." Seems to repeat what was stated shortly before.
Removed the repetition.
"then morphed to a" Morphed into?
Fixed.
Much of the article seems to be details about the revolt rather than the person himself, which I guess there's not much to do about, since this is de facto also the article about the revolt. But if a separate article about the revolt was made, I'd think text such as that under "Motives and driving forces of the revolt" would be more appropriate there.
When starting to expand this, I considered splitting into two articles, one for the revolt and one for the man, as I have done e.g. with Battle of Fakhkh and al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Abid. But the fact is that the revolt is named after the man, and therefore quite inseparable from him. An article on the revolt would likewise have to deal with Abd al-Rahman's background and why he was the ideal leader around whom Iraqi grievances coalesced, so the overlap between the two articles would have been considerable. Plus in the sources, the two are also treated in one go.
"over one of the Iraqi towns" Which town?
Clarified.
Why say Kindite tribe in the intro but Kinda tribe in the article body?
'Kinda' is the tribe, 'Kindite' is the adjective. Hence 'the Kinda tribe' but 'the Kindite tribal nobility'.
"committed suicide to avoid being handed over to his enemies." This is not stated as explicitly in the article body.
Hmmm, I rather disagree: he was confined to a remote castle at Rukhkhaj in anticipation of his extradition to al-Hajjaj, and chained to his warden, but that he threw himself from the top of the castle (along with his warden) to his death clearly connects the anticipated handing over to his death.
It is implied, yes, but unlike the intro, the intention is not stated, only the act itself. I think the article body needs the word "avoid" to make it explicit. It's not a big deal, though, but the intro shouldn't be more explicit than the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, index, which has some good deal of info on Hajjaj's retaliation against the mawali, Zutt, Asawira etc., should be added.
Also see Hoyland, In God's Path, pp. 152-153 (gives numbers of the peacock army, and some other interesting info).
For a mention by Theophanes, see Hoyland, Seeing Islam as others saw it, p. 650; for some curious details reported in Aghani, see Kilpatrick, Making the Great Book of Songs, pp. 190-191. These two are optional though.
Sources are all high quality, and properly formatted. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Ash'ath "was instrumental in forcing Ali to abandon his military advantage" is just an allegation (likely unfounded). See EI3 al-Ash'ath b. Qays, and Wellhausen 1901, pp. 5-7
Thanks, rewrote the relevant section and clarified it.
"in 680 [Abd al-Rahman] revealed the hiding-place of Muslim ibn Aqil to the authorities." See also Tab. 19. p. 21.
Fixed.
"After Mukhtar was defeated and captured,...[he was] executed." He was neither captured nor executed, but killed while trying to break through.
Hmmm, I had another look at Tabari, and fixed that. No idea how this was misread in the first place.
"the Umayyad army suffered a heavy defeat,..." I would call it a government army. It was not an Umayyad vs Shayban affair, but a government vs rebels affair.
"Nevertheless, it is clear that al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular...pay to a level below that of the Syrian troops." This para should go the section on motives.
Good point, done.
Veccia Vaglieri suggests, Veccia Vaglieri described; Dixon points out, Dixon opined; Wellhausen comments, Wellhausen rejected;... The tense should be made consistent.
Indeed. Fixed.
"al-Sadusi's uprising": was it really an uprising?
Changed to 'mutiny'
Qurra' → Qurra
Done.
Ubayd Allah ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Samura al-Qurashi: Qurayshi?
Was 'Qurashi' in Dixon. Fixed.
Note: Qurashi is correct in this case, as this is how the sources transliterate the Quraysh nisba. Same with with Sulaym → Sulami, Muzayn → Muzani, etc. Al Ameer (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've restored al-Qurashi. I asked because Tabari writes al-Qurayshi. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Done this round as well. Looking forward to more :) Constantine ✍ 17:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A'sha Hamdan was not "a certain", but a famous poet.
Fixed. Thanks for the pointer! Constantine ✍ 20:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this here. Will wait for Funk and AhmadLX to finish with their reviews before making my comments/suggestions. Al Ameer (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiAl Ameer, if you'd like to comment, please do at your earliest... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'Ibn al-Ash'ath' common enough to warrant renaming this article?
Hmmm, good question. The EI2 article certainly implies so, but as it can refer to any male descendant of al-Ash'ath, I preferred to use the full name. I would not be opposed to renaming, however.
Have had another look at the sources, and almost all refer to him as 'Ibn al-Ash'ath'. So a renaming is in order. Constantine ✍ 21:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox has 'Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Ash'ath'. The full name should be mentioned
Done.
For year ranges when the exact Gregorian year is not clear, the style should be consistent ('686–687' or '686/7')
Done.
Fix new duplinks.
Done.
Sometimes he is referred to in the article body as Abd al-Rahman, and other times Ibn al-Ash'ath. Should be consistent.
Standardized to 'Ibn al-Ash'ath', primarily to avoid confusion with his namesake lieutenant.
Suggest replacing the map with something newer and clearer so readers could more easily identify the various provinces and major cities of the Caliphate.
Have replaced the map with one showing the Second Fitna, which has the added benefit of helping readers visualize that conflict.
Will continue tomorrow. Cheers Al Ameer (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is all from me. Al Ameer (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as usual, for your review and suggestions, Al Ameer son. Please have a look at my changes. Constantine ✍ 21:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those adjustments. I am happy to support. And here's one more nitpicky thought to consider: changing the 'Aftermath' heading to 'Legacy' since this is still technically an article on the person, or making 'Aftermath' a subsection of 'Revolt'. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments on the lead only (I didn't read more, but I think the lead should be self-sufficient?):
Should we add to the infobox and lead: "Born: Unknown"?
As a rule, I avoid putting entries like this into infoboxes. If only the death date is given, it is generally assumed/implied that the birth date is unknown.
Infobox: add the fields "native_name" and "native_name_lang"?
Added.
"after his grandfather": link "his grandfather" to Al-Ash'ath ibn Qays and add a footnote explaining the meaning of "ibn" and linking to Patronymic#Arabic ("sometimes the father is skipped and the paternal grandfather's given name is used instead"). Otherwise, it's hard to understand.
Added the links, but not quite as suggested.
"scion": I'm not a native English speaker, I had to Google the term. Why not use "descendant"?
Hmmm, the phrase 'scion of a dynasty/family/clan' is a fairly common one. As a non-native speaker myself, I try to not use obscure terms, but IMO this isn't one of them.
"viceroy": the term is only used once in the article. Elsewhere, we say "governor of Iraq and the eastern provinces". Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf's infobox only mentions "Umayyad governor of Iraq". Which term(s) is/are correct?
A governor who governs half of a realm is more than 'just' a governor, regardless what his official title is. Al-Hajjaj is frequently called a 'viceroy' in sources as a result. Added this to the text.
"the eastern provinces of the Caliphate": what are these provinces? present-day Afghanistan? Worth mentioning I think.
Not in the lede though. The most remote provinces are mentioned in the text, and there is a map of the Caliphate as well.
"Iraqi nobility": what does this mean? "the Kindite tribal nobility"? Were they Arab as well? Muslim?
Have rephrased this slightly to hopefully make the link clearer. But again, I don't want to get into too much detail the lede; plus, when talking about people with Arab names and in the context of a 'Caliphate', I have to assume that certain things are given to a reader.
"the army to rise in revolt" => "the army to revolt": simpler?
Done.
"with the Zunbil": singular or plural? Before we have "the Zunbils" but everywhere else only the singular form is used.
Nice catch: should be singular.
"the army started on its march back to Iraq" => "the army marched back to Iraq": simpler = better?
Done.
"religious scholars": should it be replaced by "religious zealots" or "religious purists" to be more specific. It would help to understand "acquired religious overtones" mentioned earlier.
Done.
"al-Hajjaj's Syrian troops": this first mention of Syria is unclear for the uneducated reader (that's me :) ). I suggest mentioning earlier "discontented with the Syria-based Umayyad regime" or "discontented with the Syria-based regime of the Umayyads"
Excellent point, done.
"fled to the east": to where in practice? to Zabulistan?
Not all of them. We know that Abd al-Rahman did, but others scattered in the eastern provinces, to fates unknown.
A455bcd9 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks A455bcd9 for some excellent suggestions. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 18:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I haven't read the whole article and I don't know enough about the subject to support, but you can consider that my review is done. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
