This article is about the sixth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, the last Muslim state on the Iberian peninsula. The five preceding sultans, as well as his successor Yusuf I have passed FA review, I hope this can continue the series. Compared to his predecessor and successor, there is somewhat less content here because he only ruled for 8 years, and some of it while he was underage. His rule included a civil war between his general and ministers, an invasion by an alliance of Christian kingdoms, the arrival of the North Africans who then captured Gibraltar with his help, and ended abruptly when he was assassinated in a conspiracy by his own military leaders. I believe it is ready to be considered for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look at this soon. Disclaimers: I know little about the subject matter, and I might end up claiming this for WikiCup points. Hog FarmBacon01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"was the ruler of the Emirate of Granada on the Iberian Peninsula from 1325 to 1333. He was the sixth sultan of the Nasrid dynasty, succeeding the throne at ten years old when his father, Ismail I (r. 1314–1333), was assassinated. - The end of Ismail I's regnal span does not make sense. So if Ismail was assassinated when Muhammad IV was 10, and Muhammad IV was born in 1315, that would imply Ismail's death date as 1325. How did Ismail I reign until 1333?
You are correct, this is a mistake - Ismail's death was at 1325. Article corrected.
" reconciled with Uthman" - I'm not familiar with Islamic naming concepts. Is this Uthman the same as Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula or Abu Said Uthman II?
Good observation, indeed without context it can refer to either. Added full name (Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula) to disambiguate, as well as several other instances in the article where the identity of "Uthman" might be in doubt. Let me know if you think there's more places where I should spell out his full name. HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could generally puzzle out which Uthman was being referred to through context in the other areas, so I think the changes should be fine.
"the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula[1] Through a combination of diplomatic and military" - Lacking a full stop before the ref
@Hog Farm: Thank you for taking a look and for your review. I have addressed all of your comments above. Let me know what you think, or if you have more feedback HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Founded by Muhammad I in the 1230s, the Emirate of Granada was the last Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula. Do the two cited pages verify the sentence? Maybe page 22?
the sultans of Granada swore fealty ... to the kings of Castile... Do the cited page verify this part of the sentence?
You're right, the fealty part is not in this page. The instances of such oaths by the individual sultans can easily be found, but I can't find a source that says it in this manner - so I deleted the fealty part. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider mentioning the imposition of illegal taxes in Granada to finance the tribute to be paid to the Castilian kings. (O'Callaghan 2013 p. 456)
added "a heavy burden for Granada", which should suffice as a background info. Unqualifiedly calling it "illegal" might be too strong. Even though O'Callaghan used this word, he qualified it as "not sanctioned by the Quran", and also mentions that there are legal opinions justifying it in the following sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...while Muslim sources never described the relationship as such The cited source does not state this. Harvey writes that the concept of "vassalage" was alien to Muslims, and Muhammad made "repeated acts of submission to Muslim suzerains".
And in the following sentence he explains: "It seems likely that we have to do with a problem at once political and linguistic: a lack of communication between two incompatible worlds." (page 27) Harvey also writes that "That Muhammad I made an act of feudal submission to the Christian monarch at Jaén in 1246 is confirmed by all the Christian sources, and his political conduct over the next two decades is consonant with his continuing acceptance of such status". (page 27). I still think the article does not reflect Harvey's approach: from Castilian PoV, Muhammad was a vassal and he acted as a faithful vassal for lengthy periods, but from a Muslim PoV the Castilian interpretation was irrelevant and Muhammad was ready to repeatedly express his loyalty to other Muslim rulers.
...his father was assassinated by a relative, Muhammad ibn Ismail of Algeciras. 1. Catlos writes of two assassins, Muhammad ibn Ismail and his unnamed brother. 2. Catlos clarifies that the assassins were Ismail's cousins. 3. Can we refer to the governor of Algeciras as "of Algeciras"?
1) My reasoning of writing this way is that Vidal Castro's more detailed account explains that it was the named Muhammad ibn Ismail who actually stabbed him and the other person was just an accomplice (see p. 371 about the identity of the assassin and p.375-376 for the full account of the event). I mentioned the brother in the following sentence "as well as his brother who participated in the attack". 2) Similarly, Vidal Castro has analyzed the identity in more detail and proposed that the "sahib al-jazira" (lord of Algeciras) and the cousin of the sultan was as actually the father of the named assassin, and calling the assassin as the cousin/lord of Algeciras was a misreading of the sources. By calling him a "relative" we avoid having to go too much into the details (a longer discussion of this assassination in Ismail's own article if you're interested), I hope that's fine 3) removed "of algeciras" . HaEr48 (talk)
The direct motive of the attack was a personal grievance, but Christian sources state that it was secretly masterminded by Uthman ibn al-Ula, the powerful commander of the Volunteers of the Faith, North African troops in Granadan service. 1. Harvey refers to a single Christian source (Chronicle of Alfonso XI) 2. Harvey refers to the same chronicle when writing of the assassins' personal grievance. 3. Is the adjective "powerful" necessary? It is not verified in the cited source. 4. Harvey emphasizes that an alternative narrative (by Ibn Khaldun) exists.
1) named the chronicle. 2) the personal motive is also attested by another historian and appeared to not be in dispute. Added another citation. 3) removed "powerful". 4) Added "According to Ibn Khaldun, Uthman was instead the person who found and executed the murderer", which was how his narrative differ from the previous one. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Among the people who swore their allegiance were judges, preachers, sufis, ulama, grammarians, and secretaries of the chancery. Is this important?
Arié mentioned it, so I thought it can be considered notable. It can be removed if you think it's too much, but I feel it adds a nice flavour to show what kind of courtiers were present in an bay'ah in Granada.
...his link to the vizier made him a powerful figure in the young sultan's court. Catlos writes of the conflict between Uthman and the vizier.
Their conflict would be covered in the second paragraph of "The young sultan" section, as well as in the "civil war" section, but initially it appears they were allied. Added a better source for the statement you quoted HaEr48 (talk)
Is reference 15 correct?
Are you referring to Catlos 2018, p. 437? (the numbering might have changed since my last update). If yes, the purpose was to identify the full name/identity of Ridwan (Rubiera Mata, also cited in the sentence, only call him "his [Muhammad's] tutor Ridwan"). If this is confusing I can remove it. HaEr48 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uthman ibn al-Ula, the commander of the Volunteers of the Faith and Uthman, who kept his post as Chief of the Volunteers (shaikh al-ghuzat). 1. The Arabic term should be added when his post is first mentioned. 2. I would change the "Chief of the Volunteers" term to "volunteers' commander/commander of the volunteers", because now the article contains two translations for the same group of soldiers (Volunters of the Faith/Volunteers).
Mentioned the Arabic term in the first mention, but it now looks a little awkward because I have to introduce the translation of the title, as well as the organization, in the same sentence. Let me know if you have a better idea. As for shortening the name to just "Volunteers", I think it's fine to do so in order to avoid too much repetition of the long nae, as long as the reader is clear that it's the same thing. Similar to, for example, after introducing the Knights Hospitaller in Great Siege of Malta the text can just refer to it as "the Knights". HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem look awkward for me: both parts of the Arabic term are explained in the same section. :)
...he had to surrender Ronda and Marbella, followed by Algeciras in the next year, to the Marinids in exchange for troops. Is this presented as a fact or as a possibility in the cited source?
On 6 November 1328 Muhammad's household slaves assassinated Ibn al-Mahruq when the vizier was visiting Fatima's residence to discuss state affairs. Vidal Castro writes that Muhammad ordered the assassination of Ibn al-Mahruq. Vidal Castro also writes that Ibn al-Mahruq was assassinated in his own palace.
Added "Muhammad ordered" (I thought it was implicit by saying they're his slaves), and added Vidal Castro's reported location in addition to the location mentioned by the other sources. HaEr48 (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want to know where he was murdered? I deleted this info ([3]). Do you agree?
Meanwhile, Muhammad, now 13 years old, began to exercise effective control of his government. I think the reconciliation with Uthman and the assassination of Ibn al-Mahruq - facts mentioned in the previous sentences - are the signs that Muhammad began to exercise effective control of his goverment. Could this sentence be an introduction to the changes? Now the sentence is unexplained at the end of the section: it does not contain actual information, because his actual acts are explained in the previous sentences.
However, James II died in 1327 and was succeeded by his son Alfonso IV, who took a more belligerent stance towards Granada. Alfonso's more belligerent stance towards Granada is unexplained, although O'Callaghan writes that Alfonso was "disturbed by Muhammad IV's alliance with Abu Said, the Marinid emir, who was reported to be preparing an invasion of Spain".
He cancelled the Aragon–Granada treaty in March 1329. O'Callaghan writes that "In March, protesting persistent Muslim attacks he nullified his pact with Muhammad IV..."
Arie does not say by whom, and her footnote only points to another modern source. Reworded the sentence to not beg the question of "by whom". HaEr48 (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 1330 campaign was a declared a crusade, according to O'Callaghan. This info is not mentioned in the article.
Alfonso IV sent his troops to Granada in early 1330, while Alfonso XI personally led his troops from Córdoba in July 1330. Does the cited page verify this sentence?
O'Callaghan and Catlos use the Tabit form. Could you check it?
Harvey (p 188) and Latham & Fernandez-Puertas use "Thabit". ثابت (standard English transliteration = Thabit) is a moderately common name in Arabic, frankly I don't think there's any doubt that it was the actual name. It is possible that O'Callaghan & Catlos used a non-standard transliteration. By the way, I don't see O'Callaghan mentioning the name of Uthman's sons, but in p. 121 he is referring to another Abu Thabit who was the Sultan of the Marinids in 1307-1308, see Abu Thabit 'Amir. HaEr48 (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Castilian forces ravaged the Granadan countryside... The statement is correct, but I think it does not present the facts properly. I understand crusaders (mainly Castilians) under the command of the infante Juan Manuel ravaged the countryside. O'Callaghan emphasizes that the infante did not want to cooperate with the Castilian king (we do not need to mention this fact in the article).
Changed to "Crusading forces operating independently from Alfonso XI ravaged ..."
...sent his representative to pay homage to Alfonso XI Do the cited source verify this statement? O'Callaghan indeed refers to this act of homage, but he writes of more than one representatives.
Alfonso XI soon broke the truce by stopping the food exports to Granada. O'Callaghan mentions that a general rise in prices persuaded the King to stop the food export to Granada.
Not sure if it follows from the source. It mentions one of his courtiers manipulating prices, and later asking the king to stop the export, but I don't read it as the prices causing the stoppage. HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...the Castilian nobles who were supposed to oppose Muhammad rebelled and attacked the Alfonso's castles... I cannot check the cited source, but O'Callaghan writes of 1. Castilian nobles deserting Alfonso's camp, and 2. the infante Juan Manuel who not only deserted Alfonso's camp, but also plundered Alfonso's realm (page 164)
Hills mentioned that Juan Manuel was one of the plunderers, but not only him. Added his desertion and pillage to the text. Also, is he an infante? HaEr48 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...together with many other nobles Could we delete this part? Too many nobles are joining each other. :) O'Callaghan refers to him as "Infante Juan Manuel" (page 431). Borsoka (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the Marinid military involvement on the Iberian Peninsula caused the two brothers—who were the leaders of the Volunteers of the Faith—to lose the influence they previously had as the dominant military force fighting for Granada. 1. The cited source only refers to Abu Thabit/Tabit succeeding their father as Chief of the Volunteers of the Faith. 2. The Volunteers of the Faith (not the brothers) were the dominant military force.
According to the historians L. P. Harvey and Brian Catlos, who follow the report of the Castilian chronicles,... 1. Harvey only quotes text from the Chronicle of Alfonso X, without stating that he accepts the chronicle's report. (Actually, he emphasizes that the Castilian chronicle and Ibn Khaldun provide concurring explanation for the murder.) 2. Vidal Castro is cited instead of Brian Catlos. 3. A single Castilian chronicle is quoted in Harvey's book.
The contrast is not about the manner of the murder, but the manner in which Yusuf was proclaimed as Sultan. 1. Reworded to not imply that Harvey endorses it 2. Vidal Castro also cites it (also without endorsing) - reworded to make it clear 3. Vidal Castro says "las fuentes cristianas" (in plural), so keeping it in plural.
...after consultation with Fatima,... Do any of the cited sources verify this statement?
It's based on this: "with assent and collaboration from the queen mother, Fatima, ..."
The proclamation took place the next day. Does the cited source verify this statement?
It's from this: "Fue proclamado el ... 26 de agosto de 1333, solo un día después de que su hermano fuese asesinado."
There is only one pending issue: Thabit/Tabit (see above), but this does not prevent me from supporting this candidate. I hope you are plannig to improve the articles about Muhammad's successors. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any portraits of Muhammad IV that could be used in the infobox?
Unfortunately no. It's very rare to find a portrait of any Nasrid Sultan: Muslims rulers at this time usually didn't get themselves drawn and I guess Muhammad IV is not important enough to be drawn by someone else. HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The map of the Emirate of Granada seems to be aimed at a broader period of history than just this article. I wouldn't oppose over this, but it would be nice to have a map that only showed territorial changes and locations relevant to Muhammad IV. Several place names mentioned in the article are not included in the map -- Pruna, Ayamonte, Torre Alháquime, and Ronda, for example.
Ronda is in the map, but you're right about the other location, as well as territorial changes. I'll see what I can do in the medium term, but in general modifying maps has been hard for me. HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Abu Sa'id Uthman II includes the ayn; you omit it, but you include it in some other names -- any reason for the inconsistency?
You're right, I have been inconsistent. I think more names have their ayn omitted than included in this article, so will remove the remaining ones (mostly Abu Nu'aym, unless I'm missing something else)
He was already involved during the civil war between Muhammad's ministers: I don't understand "already": the open civil war doesn't start until 1327, and Alfonso XI reached his majority in 1325.
Removed. My intention was to show that the first two sentence of this paragraph 'rewinded' the events a little bit (the previous section already talked about the end of the civil war). Any suggestion? HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why I was confused but I think I'm not yet clear on this. It seems definite from the previous paragraph that we can't say "civil war" until January 1327 at the earliest. If Alfonso XI is fighting on Uthman's side, he must have been doing so in 1327 or 1328, but we contrast this with James II's preference for renewing the 1321 treaty, which he does in 1326, before the war starts. Am I missing something? I don't think we can contrast these positions without making it clear that James had already renewed the treaty by the time Uthman starts the civil war; we would have to say something like "His neighbour, James II of Aragon, preferred to keep to the terms of his peace treaty with Granada, signed the previous year", and then give the details. In fact we never mention the 1321 treaty earlier in the article; it might be good to do so in order to abbreviate the explanation at this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: No, you're not missing anything. It's just the article explains Alfonso's situation first (which covers 1325-1327), then that of James (covering 1326-1327), to avoid having to interleave accounts about the two monarchs if we attempt to write it strictly chronologically. I gave it another try, can you take a look? HaEr48 (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad then moved to Gibraltar to join Abu Malik's relief forces. Muhammad initially encamped on the banks of the Guadiaro, and then went to the Sierra Carbonera to join forces with Abu Malik. This appears to repeat itself, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Sorry if it was unclear. The intention of the first sentence is to show that Muhammad shifted from his raids to the siege. The second was to show the tactical movement. I reworded a little bit, any suggestion how to make it better? HaEr48 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know how there come to be contradictory versions of Yusuf's proclamation? Are there two conflicting contemporary sources? And I'd suggest introducing Harvey and Vidal Castro as historians, as you do with Catlos.
Added the "historians" introduction. I suspect that is what happens. For sure one version comes from the Castilian chronicle (and it is noted in the article), Vidal Castro does not say from which sources he got the other version, but I suspect it is from one of the Muslim sources.
Spotchecked Catlos (18, 51, and all of 10); O'Callaghan 2011 (6) – Didn't have access to the other sources/or they were in Spanish. This is a an expierenced FA nominator though so I doubt looking further would reveal any issues. Aza24 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. When I was going through the sources I didn't find anything to suggest unreliability – mostly academic sources anyways. And yes sorry I don't know why I didn't see the location for Cornell (especially since I commented about it in the following point...!) Aza24 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
