Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Al-Mu'tasim/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2019 [1].

---

Al-Mu'tasim

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the eighth Abbasid caliph. A younger prince who under normal circumstances would never have become caliph, as a person al-Mu'tasim was in stark contrast to his erudite predecessors, by being a military man through and through; indeed he cemented his fame as a warrior caliph by leading one of the most famous early Muslim feats of arms, the Sack of Amorium. More importantly, his reign saw the completion of the process of dis-empowerment of the older elites, including the Arab settler communities that had held power in the provinces since the Muslim conquests, in favour of the Turkish slave soldiers as the main military (and inevitably also political) support of the monarch. In this way, he inadvertently created the preconditions for the downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate, but also established a new norm of political organization that was widely emulated and prevailed in large parts of the Muslim world even until the early modern era (think of the Mamelukes or the Janissaries). I've been working on this since 2013, and the article in previous forms has passed GA (2015) and ACR (2017). Gog the Mild recently copyedited it and made some critical suggestions on content and structure. I think the article now provides a thorough, balanced, and approachable coverage of its subject, and is suitable for FA. Constantine ✍ 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all three maps and the family tree

• File:Dirham_of_al-Mu'tasim,_AH_221.jpg should have an explicit tag for the coin itself
  • Done, with PD-art, as a coin is well-nigh a two-dimensional work. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The [Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet Commons documentation] indicates that that tag shouldn't be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The coin photo itself is licensed as a photo with the CNG license; the coin as a design or artwork (which is what I understood by "an explicit tag for the coin itself") is two-dimensional art. Constantine ✍ 15:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • You've understood my comment correctly, but the coin is legally considered 3D art, not 2d. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • But surely that rationale applies to the photo of a coin ("Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image"), not the original artistic design of the coin itself, which, especially in the case of a coin featuring nothing but Arabic text, is 2D. Constantine ✍ 15:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I think we're talking past each other a bit here. What I'm trying to say is, we need a copyright tag for the photo and for the coin itself, and the tag for the coin itself can't be PD-Art because the Commons documentation doesn't allow that tag to be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion and court ruling referred to in Commons is that a coin should be regarded as a 3D object when considering the photo of a coin, as the photographer might position it in such a way that an artistic effect is created; for that, the CNG license suffices, as they took the photo. The design of the coin is two-dimensional design (text), which happens to be expressed on a (barely) three-dimensional medium. Anyhow, to avoid going around in circles over this, I've changed the tag to {{PD-1923}}, I hope that is suitable. Constantine ✍ 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Babak_parleys_with_the_Afshin_Haydar,_the_Caliph_al-Mu'tasim's_general_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • Done, with PD-art. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• File:Abbasids_Ninth_Century.svg is sourced to a Commons file that does not itself have a source - suggest adding a reliable reference that verifies the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Done Constantine ✍ 14:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk

• Looks interesting, will have a look soon. The beginning of your description here reminds me of a certain modern day Arabian prince, much less successful on the battlefield, tough... FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• There are a lot of duplinks, this script[2] can be used to highlight them (I may have linked it before).
• Any relevant buildings that could be shown in the article for flavour?

Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this on, looking forward to your comments. On the duplinks, I've followed the rule of always linking in the first occurrence in the body, not counting the lede, per MOS:DUPLINK. I will re-check though, it is likely that some have slipped through. On buildings, the most notable buildings of Samarra and Baghdad date from different periods; I am not aware of any building of Mu'tasim's reign still surviving to this day. I might add some fragments of pottery or frescoes, though. There's not much in Commons, but perhaps something suitable can be found elsewhere. Constantine ✍ 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't say "a lot" of duplinks on second looking (maybe I was confusing it with Alodia that I looked at right before), Baghdad is linked twice within the intro, and a couple of words are linked after first instance in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• "Political instability at the highest levels" This WP:Easter egg link to Barmakids is not very transparent (who would guess what was meant here?), I'd suggest making it clearer what is meant.
  • Done
• "inspiration for the first of the stories of the Thousand and One Nights" Does that story have a name? If so, could be mentioned.
  • Clarified, not the "first story", but rather among the earliest stories
• "supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi" This appears to have been his "half uncle", perhaps worth a mention?
  • Indeed
• Mashriq could be explained in parenthesis (supposedly as "countries bounded between the Mediterranean Sea and Iran").
  • Done
• "he supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi against al-Ma'mun" You don't explain how he could turn from al-Mahdi to al-Ma'mun; there were no hard feelings between them even after that?
  • He did not play a prominent role in the opposition, and Ibrahim's regime was more a protest by the Baghdad elites at al-Ma'mun's long absence from the capital, even after winning the civil war, rather than a serious attempt to dethrone him. Will add this in a footnote.
• "one of the original Arab conquerors of the country" and " since the Muslim conquest of Egypt", why don't you place the link to "Muslim conquest of Egypt"at the first mention?
  • Done
• "won a minor skirmish against Theophilos in person" Against him and his army, I assume? Reads like it was just the two...
  • Clarified
• "but he suddenly fell ill and died" Any idea from what?
  • There are only anecdotal stories, and no definite or even half-way reliable indication. One tradition holds that he caught a cold from bathing or washing in the river, another that he fell ill after eating some dates, another that Ibn Hanbal prayed for his death, etc. I've included the couple of stories that blame Mu'tasim (almost certainly to be disregarded as slander) in a footnote Constantine ✍ 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• "with the regnal name of al-Mu'tasim" The meaning should be stated here.
  • Added.
• "disappear from the court, and distaff members of the Abbasid family ceased" Why jump to present tense out of nowhere?
  • It was meant as "disappear from references about the court", seen from a modern perspective; amended.
• "to reject Tahirid control (see below)" I think such internal directions are discouraged, but I can't find a relevant guideline.
  • I don't know, but since MOS:SECTIONLINKS exists, it probably is sanctioned.
• "and of being accorded divine status" I wonder if Shirk (Islam) would be a more appropriate link than Sacred king.
  • Excellent suggestion, changed.
• "that the Quran was created" You should probably specify that what is meant is it wasn't created by god...
  • That would be an even greater heresy; no, the createdness dispute concerns the creation of the Quran at some point in time (by god), or its eternal existence. I've linked to Quranic createdness for anyone interested.
• I wonder if this[3] image is relevant here?
  • It is, but it doesn't really fit in terms of space; the map is rather more useful to the average reader.
• The place and person-names mentioned in the caption of the map under Confrontation with Byzantium could be linked.
  • Done.
• "bankruptcy of the Abbasid government and the eclipse of the caliphs' political power with Ibn Ra'iq's rise" Could specify his non Arab origin and that the fall of the Abbasids also lead to the fall of Arab rule of the Caliphate? Since this seems to be connected to his policy of employing non-Arab soldiers.
  • Hmmm, Arab rule was effectively dead with Mu'tasim and his immediate successors; the caliphs themselves were Arab, but power lay with the soldiers, and they were Turks. Added Ibn Ra'iq's ethnic origin though, as it fits the narrative.
• "Al-Mu'tasim is featured in the medieval Arabic and Turkish epic Delhemma" Specify if it was fictional or based on real events?
  • Clarified.
• "the story The Approach to al-Mu'tasim by Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges" From when?
  • Added.
• There are a lot of author duplinks in the Bibliography.
  • I thought that since each entry is in effect stand-alone, this did not matter. Is there a MOS guideline for this?
• "his proved useful to his half-brother, Caliph al-Ma'mun, who made use" Seems repetitive.
  • Fixed.
• The infobox image caption could state a date, so the reader will know it is not a contemporary depiction.
  • Added.
• Support - looks good to me now, and everything that wasn't changed was explained well above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you FunkMonk for your time and your excellent suggestions. Constantine ✍ 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Attar

Very nice article. I will review it monday.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Attar-Aram syria: a friendly reminder ;). Constantine ✍ 08:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah sorry. Its like the university is afraid I will run away if it doesnt shower me with three exams before Christmas holiday. I will add my notes as I read through the article. First two comments I have are:

• I think a new section should be created. The second paragraph of the early life section seems to be more of a background. Therefore, I suggest the creation of a background section before the early life section. The paragraph: "in the judgment of posterity"----->"Thousand and One Nights.[a][5][6]" will constitute this section. The sentence "The young prince's early life coincided with what, in the judgment of posterity, was the golden age" will remain in the early life section and can be reworded to something like: The young prince's early life coincided with the Golden Age of the empire. I will leave the implementation of these changes to the judgment of Constantine.
  • I will keep this in mind, but I need to consider whether and how this might be best done.
• It is not clear who the Barmakids are. A sentence explaining their origin and influence will be helpful for the casual reader.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
• In the last paragraph of the early reign section, we read that a civil war ensued between al-Ma'mun and al-Amin. We dont read about the result of this conflict and Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi suddenly appear without a context. I suggest clarifying that al-Amin was defeated and a sentence to explain how Ibrahim came into the conflict.
  • Good point. I am adding a few more details on the course of events during the 810s, and the power vacuum in Iraq that allowed Mu'tasim the leeway to emerge as a player in the politics of the day.
• At the end of the early reign section, we read that al-Ma'mun elevated Al-Mu'tasim as part of the new elite. Earlier, we read that Al-Mu'tasim opposed his brother and was part of the elite eliminated by al-Ma'mun. I do not see this as a contradiction as the Caliph can change his mind, but maybe a scholarly explanation, if it does exist, can be given for why al-Ma'mun restored Al-Mu'tasim to favor.
  • Per the previous, al-Ma'mun was absent from Iraq until 819, and when he returned he had to be conciliatory, as the nomination of Ibrahim was very much the result of Ma'mun's own mistakes, and as Ma'mun's position was still weak. Furthermore, precisely because Mu'tasim had created his guard, he proved useful and was utilized by his half-brother. The disempowerment of the old elites was not really a physical elimination, nor indeed a firm "political programme" by Ma'mun, but rather an outgrowth of the fact that they had supported al-Amin, so this is not contradictory.
• In the Formation of the Turkish guard section, I see that Al-Mu'tasim began forming his guard (in reality army) in 814. How was he able to do that? I mean in which capacity? was he a governor of a province? If he is just a prince in the capital, then it is helpful to explain why al-Ma'mun allowed his brother (an opponent and a potential rival at that time) to build an army in the center of the Caliphate (or that Al-Mu'tasim simply took advantage of the chaos and the inability of his brother to stop him). I understand that al-Ma'mun found his brother's troops useful to counter-balance his own Eastern Iranians, but did he consider this when Al-Mu'tasim first started building this army (I understand that Al-Mu'tasim was on the side of al-Amin. If he was not, then he was not a suspect yet when Al-Ma'mun won in 813 before the rebellion of Ibrahim in 817. Still, it is weird that the Caliph allowed his brother to build an army)?
  • Well, Mu'tasim began this on a small scale, amidst the turmoils of the civil war; per above, Ma'mun did not return to Iraq from the east until 819, so he could very much do as he pleased, far from caliphal authority. The official sanctioning of his private army probably occurred only after Ma'mun returned to Baghdad.
    • The new edits help clarify many things. However, the establishment of the Turkish guard needs more elaboration. There are many indications that it was al-Ma'mun who ordered his brother to create this guard. I found this source: The Breaking of a Thousand Swords: A History of the Turkish Military of Samarra (A.H. 200-275/815-889 C.E.) Starting in page 25, an in depth analysis is given. Therefore, the establishment of the guard should incorporate all arguments and this book is a good starting point.
      • I've rewritten the entire section, and added some details both on the civil war and on Gordon's comments on the background of the Turkish guard's formation. I had deliberately not included this until now, because this is not a topic where I want to get too drawn into, unless it serves to indicate Mu'tasim's role and intentions. Ideally, at some point a full article on the Turks in Abbasid service should be written, because this is a major subject that cannot be treated fully here. However, upon review, prompted by your comments, at least a mention of the interplay between Mu'tasim's initiative and Ma'mun's requirements and policies at the time, which led to the official sanction of Mu'tasim's "pet project" (Gordon) was definitely required.
• No mentioning of Al-Mu'tasim's role in the rebellion of Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi in the Campaigns under al-Ma'mun section. This role was between 817-819 as I read earlier, and the section of Campaigns under al-Ma'mun starts in 816, then jumps to 819 when al-Mu'tasim led a force against the Kharijites. So his role in the rebellion of his half-uncle can fit between "but no details are known.[28]" and "In 819 Abu Ishaq commanded a force sent"
• "When Abu Ishaq's governor, Umayr ibn al-Walid, tried to raise taxes,". Isnt it more accurate to write: "When Abu Ishaq's deputy" since al-Mu'tasim was the official governor? And why wasnt he is Egypt? If he chose to stay in the capital to maintain his influence, or in Syria, and appoint deputies to run his assigned provinces then this should be clarified.
  • I hope this has been clarified by the recent rewrite, which allows for a more chronological progression of the "Career under al-Ma'mun" section.
• "In early 832, al-Ma'mun came to Egypt, and soon after the last elements of resistance, the Copts of the coastal marshes of the Nile Delta, were subdued.[33][34]" So now we are in 832, but the next paragraph starts in 830. I suggest (but its up to your judgment), to move this sentence to between "before withdrawing to Syria in September.[36][37]" and "In 832 al-Ma'mun repeated his invasion of the Byzantine borderlands," in the next paragraph. I understand that you are trying to focus on the topic of the Byzantine war in this last paragraph, but I was confused by the chronology a little.
  • Rewritten on a more chronological basis.
• "but also, according to Hugh Kennedy". He was already introduced earlier, so no need for his first name.
  • Done.
• Im not sure about the rise of the Turks section. His reliance on them increased after a plot discovered in 838, during the Amorium campaign. So chronologically, this section fits more suitably after the confrontation with Byzantium section. The rise of the Turks is kind of a legacy of al-Mu'tasim, and thats why I suggest the move. Again, these "reorganizations" suggestions are up to the judgment of Constantine and implementing them isnt necessary for me to support the elevation of the article to FA.
  • The part of the article concerning his reign is structured thematically, not chronologically, and this is the major event/legacy of his reign, so it merits a section of its own, and one prominently positioned, as it provides the context in which many other events of the reign should be understood.

I can not see any thing to comment on for the rest of the article. It is very well written and admirably comprehensive. Great work. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. Amazing article, very comprehensive and well written.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi Constantine, although commentary is so far quite positive, this has been open a month and a half and really needs one or two more comprehensive reviews to be safe -- do you want to try scaring those up? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is the result of much effort and it would be a shame for it not to pass because of too few reviews. I wonder if User:Dudley Miles can help if he have time??--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I will notify some of the editors involved in the article, and/or involved in early Muslim history and knowledgeable about the subject and the period; Kansas Bear, Ro4444, Srnec, Al Ameer son. However, given the holiday season, any response may be delayed. Constantine ✍ 19:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, looking better, be worth seeking out a source review for reliability and formatting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

• When al-Ma'mun died unexpectedly on campaign in August 833, al-Mu'tasim was thus well placed to succeed him, overriding the claims of his nephew, al-Abbas ibn al-Ma'mun. – Not clear to me who the "his" in "his nephew" is referring to; I first thought it was al-Mu'tasim's nephew.
  • I thought that the patronymic of al-Abbas would be enough, but clarified now, changed to "al-Ma'mun's son".
• The abrupt downfall of the powerful Barmakid family – here it would be good to know when this was.
  • Good point. Done.
• During the remainder of al-Ma'mun's reign, the old elites—the abnāʾ, the old Arab families settled in the provinces since the time of the Muslim conquests, and the members of the Abbasid dynasty itself—who had largely supported al–Amin, lost their positions in the administrative and military machinery, and with them their influence and power. – this is a bit long, especially the part starting with "the abnāʾ, the old Arab families" is convoluted and hard to read.
  • Rewritten so that it is hopefully clearer now.
• When Abu Ishaq's governor, Umayr ibn al-Walid – but previously it was stated that Abu Ishaq himself was the governor?
  • Abu Ishaq held the governorship, but usually for persons of his eminence this was exercised by a deputy, while the nominal governors remained at court. Changed "governor" to "deputy in Egypt" to avoid confusion.
• Soon after his departure from Egypt, however, the revolt flared up again, – has no connection to the preceding paragraph.
  • Fixed.
• otherwise excellent work. More soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• with the rise of the Khazar officer Ibn Ra'iq rise to the position of amīr al-umarāʾ. – two times "rise"?
  • Fixed.
• That is everything, happy to support as soon as the above queries are addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Jens Lallensack, and thanks for taking the time to review this. I've addressed the points you raised, please have a look. If you have any other comments or recommendations, beyond FAC criteria and concerns, please let me know. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks! And support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

ro4444

Saw I got pinged, so I thought I'd put in my two cents. Also separately made some minor spelling and link changes.

• "As an adult, Muhammad was commonly called by his kunya, Abu Ishaq, including during his caliphate." - I'm not sure if the last part of this sentence is correct (see Kennedy, When Baghdad Ruled, p. 218.)
  • The incident Kennedy describes is an affront because a commoner used the familiar form instead of the formal one, especially in a public setting. However you are right that it is probably confusing, so I am removing it; "as an adult" should suffice.

• "However, al-Ma'mun remained in Khurasan and allowed his main lieutenants to rule in his stead in Iraq." - For those not familiar with the geography, it might be worth clarifying that Khurasan was far removed from the center of power here.
  • Good point. Done.

• "under an agreement with the local Samanid rulers" - "Rulers" makes them sound like they were independent.
  • Clarified by footnote.

• The term shakariyya appears to be a nebulous one in the article; at one point members are described as the personal retinue of senior officers, while at another it is described as a separate ethnic regiment.
  • Initially I thought about solving this in a footnote, but the ethnic regiment is really not that important here; removed it.

• "For the same reason he placed the Arab tribal levies of the Mashriq (the region of the Levant and Iraq)" - Does this description come from the source? It sounds kind of odd otherwise.
  • Which description exactly?

• "In 819 Abu Ishaq commanded his Turkish force" - This paragraph currently comes off as rather anecdotal. It might be worth adding in some information, such as where the rebellion took place, and mentioning that Ashinas would grow to become one of his most senior officials.
  • I've added some details on the rebellion and rephrased the Ashinas incident.

• "distaff members of the Abbasid family ceased to be appointed to governorships or senior military positions" - "Minor" seems to be a more appropriate term here than distaff.
  • Good point. Done.

• "The one exception to this process were the Tahirids" - Might be better to say "The one major exception," given the presence of the Aghlabids and Ziyadids during this period.
  • Good point. Done.

• "The post was held throughout al-Mu'tasim's reign by Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn Mus'ab" - Could be helpful to add in "by Abdallah ibn Tahir's cousin Ishaq..." to better establish this individual's identity.
  • Good point. Done.

• "Their mood is conveyed by al-Tabari, who reports two of the leading conspirators," - Would recommend retaining this sentence, but perhaps rewording it - the prose seems to be at variance with the rest of the paragraph.
  • Indeed. Moved to a footnote, with some rewriting.

• "and in 840, al-Mu'tasim appointed him as his deputy during his absence from Baghdad." - Shouldn't this be "from Samarra?"
  • Corrected.

• "and had him crowned." - Would recommend changing this to something like "and awarded him with a ceremonial crown" to avoid confusion.
  • Corrected.

• The map of the mihna can be reduced in size, as the text is unreadable either way.
  • Done, standardized all maps to landscape image size.

• The spelling of Ujayf ibn Anbasa's name should be standardized throughout the article.
  • Corrected.

• "In 835 al-Mu'tasim took action against Babak himself," - This passage could possibly be clarified; I initially read it as al-Mu'tasim having personally taken action.
  • Corrected.

• The final paragraph of the "Domestic Campaigns" section could probably use an introduction of some sort - currently the two topics it mentions are completely unconnected to each other.
  • Restructured the entire section a bit to follow a more chronological approach, focusing on each theatre of operations at a time.

Very good expansion overall though, as usual. Ro4444 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ro4444, I've gone through the suggested changes. Most are done, I think, but please have a look. Constantine ✍ 10:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Cplakidas:! And for the record, Support. Ro4444 (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review: All sources look reliable and high quality. They all seem to be academic too. Formatting of sources fine, just one minor issue. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• The Marius Canard book has an ISBN but the ISBN is not for the edition of the book cited. If the later edition was used, that one should be cited instead. If it was the 1965 edition, there is no ISBN. An OCLC number could be given instead but that is not essential. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Sarastro, fixed in the template. Constantine ✍ 15:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.