Talk:Al-Mu'tasim

Full name (Kunya, Laqab, Nasab)

Generally Muslim rulers had long name. Most readers don't know and don't understand what means this long name. Let me give some examples:

Abu Ishaq Abbas ibn Harun al-Rashid al-Mu'tasim Billah - Abbasid caliph

Yamīn-ud-Dawla Abul-Qāṣim Maḥmūd ibn Sebüktegīn Ghaznawi - Ghaznavid sultan

Abū Abdullāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmi - father of Algebra

Jalāl al-Dawla Mu'izz al-Dunyā Wa'l-Din Abu'l-Fath Hasan Malik-Shah ibn Alp Arslān - Seljuk sultan

These long names usually contain Kunya, Laqab, Nasab, Nisbah. We have to explain these long names with easy way (infobox) so they have to be in the infoboxes. Also famous Seljuk vizier Nizam al-Mulk explained importance of these titles in his book, Siyasatnama. --Qara khan 21:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

First, as I wrote in your talk page, regarding the caliph's ism, you are wrong. Second, WP:BRD means that you discuss first, before reverting. Third, this is not a medieval genealogical work where it is needful or even interesting to list all a man's ancestors, regardless if it is possible. The relevant names to this man's identity and history, i.e. his kunya, ism, laqab and patronymic, are already in the article. Anything more is useless pedantry. This is the practice followed by reference material such as the Encyclopedia of Islam and other scholarly works on the period. Constantine ✍ 21:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... what part of "discuss first, and don't revert" don't you understand exactly? Reverting while saying "see talk page" is still reverting. You are already at the WP:3RR limit, do you really want to get blocked? Constantine ✍ 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that his name was Muhammad. See this article Abd-ar-Rahman III. There is even more information than al-Mu'tasim's in the infobox. By the way, User:Cplakidas you will get blocked if you continiue speaking that way. Read the article, Wikipedia:Civility. --Qara khan 21:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is a rule in WP called WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't care about Abd ar-Rahman III, I care about this article, which I spent considerable time researching and writing... And I repeat that most reference works stop the nasab after a couple of places, especially if the rest of the family tree is well known and can be traced. Which, BTW, is exactly the case with the examples you cite above. Theoretically, we could trace this all the way back to Noah, but what would be the point? Anyone who wants to know his descent can simply click on the Abbasid dynasty link. Constantine ✍ 22:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

PS, as for civility, I don't think that I have been uncivil. Just irritated, because you evidently did not research before editing, yet still reverted when I corrected. Constantine ✍ 22:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit

Hi Constantine. Copy edit underway. Note that I normally have at least two runs through an article, so an edit is not necessarily my final version until I say I am finished. Nevertheless feel free to flag up anything I have got wrong or you don't understand as I go.

A note: "His generals led the fight against internal rebellions." I don't see what this adds and was tempted to delete it, but I shall leave it to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Query

"of the civil war by Ibn Tahir". You can't use "by" in this way. Maybe 'of the civil war started by Ibn Tahir'? Or 'of the civil war between al-Ma'mun and Ibn Tahir'?

Hi Gog the Mild. On "His generals led the fight against internal rebellions." the point was to contrast this to the caliph leading the only major external campaign in person, but was not well made. Hopefully clarified now. Ditto for the second query. Your other edits were mostly fine, in a couple of places they exposed unclear wording on my behalf, and I've corrected accordingly. Thanks a lot, once again. Are you going to do another pass? --Constantine ✍ 10:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Good. Thanks. Yes I am. This is taking longer than I anticipated - apologies for that. I will now do another pass looking for fine detail, reviewing my previous changes, and yours; and possibly a third looking mostly at flow, focus, breadth etc. As this is a GOCE copy edit I have been a little bolder than I would be for say an ACR assessment copy edit, so do feel free to revert anything you're not happy with, or to ask me why I have made any particular change. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries, take your time and be as bold as you want with your edits. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Notes

The source Canard should have an OCLC, as it was published in 1965, too early for an ISBN. Probably 311253899.

In "legacy" the Bosworth quote seems overlong to me. I was tempted to paraphrase and just directly quote snippets from it. What do you think?

And I think that I am done. I may have another run through in a week or so, but I expect to be seeing it at FAC before too long.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. The ISBN is the 1991 reprint of the volume; it is identical to the 1965 version. I am not an expert on these issues, so I don't know whether it really requires a change (I'd have to change/add an option to Template:Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition). On the quote, I've tried it myself before, but my attempts all ended up closely paraphrasing him, so I preferred to keep it verbatim. If you can think of an elegant solution, simply change it. Before I go to FAC, can I bother you for some feedback on it as an article in terms of comprehensibility, completeness, etc? Do you think you have a good grasp of the man and his time after reading it (presumably not being well versed in Abbasid history)? Did reading it generate any major questions that remain unanswered? This is properly FAC stuff of course, but since we are here... ;) Constantine ✍ 21:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the ISBN issue seems to be in the template. Let's see if it gets picked up at FAC or not. If it does, perhaps the pickee knows a solution.

Bosworth: I have had a go. Feel very free to revert.

A last query. "Some captives were so exhausted that they could not move and were executed, whereupon others found the opportunity to escape." It is not clear to me why "others found the opportunity to escape" as a consequence (whereupon) of the executions. (Possibly replace whereupon with while?)

Comprehensibility etc. It seems very complete and of a whole; obviously I am restricted here as I don't know what I don't know. I found all of the Arab, Persian etc names confusing, but there is no help for that. There is a tendency for the same event(s) to me mentioned more than once, and/or out of chronological order, but that is inherent to thematic approach, which think is far the best. As you ask, if I were assessing it for FAC I would complain loudly that there is no 'Background' section. Any casual reader is going to need to be well into the article to pick up what is happening. (Yes, obviously the lead will fill them in, but I like the actual article to make sense stand-alone.) "Abbasid" isn't mentioned until the last line of the (long) first paragraph, and is nowhere defined. "Muslim" only comes up in the third section, in passing: "the old Arab elites who had ruled the country since the Muslim conquest of Egypt". Ah, so the caliphate is Muslim? Is it? Still? What is a "caliphate"? If you see what I mean. I think that a glossary disguised as an introduction would help. Or do I mean an introduction disguised as a glossary? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

On Bosworth, it looks good, I've also tweaked around a little. On the query, clarified now. On the background, I both agree and disagree. I agree that the casual reader will find it difficult, and I am generally in favour of providing some context if possible, but not when it collides with WP:SS. I do expect the average reader to know what a caliphate is and that by definition it is Muslim; this is basic knowledge that any educated person who has finished school should possess. If one begins explaining things at that level one could never write an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, not knowing who the Abbasids were, or even that they were a Muslim dynasty, is another issue (although it has to be pointed out to me ;)) and I will try to introduce some more context on the world Mu'tasim was born into in the first sections of the article tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that your expectations are high; I didn't know what a caliphate was when I left school (which was a good one) or even university (which wasn't). (I do not mention this to score points.) But you miss much of my point. A brief background section could state something like:

In the ninth century all Muslim-ruled lands were claimed by the caliphate based in Baghdad. The Abbasid dynasty had ruled there since 750. al-Maʾmūn, the seventh Abbasid caliph, came to the throne in 813 and oversaw a flowering of science, culture and philosophy known as the Golden Age of Islam. The caliphate was also the pre-eminent military power of the time.

Rough and ready. I'm not wanting to defend exactly what I have written, but wanted to give you an idea of what I had in mind by an 'orientating introduction'. Anyway, over to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I felt inspired, and wrote rather a bit more than expected (I partly reused/adapted some material from Fourth Fitna). I also took the opportunity to streamline the early sections even more on a thematic basis. Have a look. Constantine ✍ 19:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That's good stuff. Just what it was missing.

• I would link Golden Age and not use inverted commas.
• Can I (strongly) suggest switching the first and second paragraphs of the main article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Done, although I did not switch the paragraphs entirely; the location and date of birth and his parentage should still be mentioned first. I think it's now ready for FAC, you? Constantine ✍ 20:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I am no expert, but it looks ready to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)