Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (637)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I realize that this is on the list for ACR at Military history, and the

Good Article list. While you've clearly done a lot of work on the article, there are serious prose issues here, and these need to be addressed before further action can be taken in either review. I've made the necessary tweaks on the lead, but will look to you to do the ones on the article itself. Please let me know when you've finished this, and I will take further action regarding passing or failing this article for GA status. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I have fixed some pronoun related problems where jerusalem was repeatedly used. I have also tried fixing some article related issues putting 'the' and 'a' in various places where they were missing. You can check it here [1]

As i said before that english isnt my native language and the user who helped me out in past in copy editing is now on indefinite leave so kindly help me out where ever i stuck, if you can.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is much improved by your work, and I went through it and did some copy edits. There are three things that still need to happen though. First, the last sentence of the first paragraph under Siege is very confusing to me. It starts with the weary Muslim troops.. This needs to be reworded. Second, the last sentence of that section, and the last sentence of the following section have no attribution (no citation). Third, please read it through once more to make sure I didn't change your meaning when I changed some words. Thanks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand that last sentence that starts with the exhausted Muslim troops.. What is the difference between starting Siege warfare and pressing the siege? Instead of starting a siege, they press the siege? what does this mean? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i have reworded it as ..and instead of the relentless assaults on the city, they decided to press the siege until the Byzantines would run short of supplies and a bloodless surrender could be negotiated.

I think its clear this time.

I have also provided a reference in the last sentence of the following section. While the last sentence of this section already had a reference.

Any other issue ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

638, not 637, is the scholarly consensus

@Doug Weller, Gilabrand, Huldra, Nishidani, and Zero0000: hi. Please check the very sources quoted by the article:

• Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634-1099, p. 51, Cambridge University Press (1997)
• Meron Benvenisti, City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem, p. 5, University of California Press (1996)
• J. F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, p. 301, Cambridge University Press (1990)
• Leslie J. Hoppe, The Holy City: Jerusalem in the Theology of the Old Testament, p. 15, Liturgical Press (2000)
• Bernard Lewis, Arabs in History, p. [ ], Oxford University Press (2002)
• Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 1 "The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem", p. 3, Cambridge University Press (1987)

Other sources for 638:

• Abd al-Fattah El-Awaisi (U. of Stirling), Umar's Assurance of Safety to the People of Aeia (Jerusalem): A Critical Analytical Study of the Historical Sources. Journal of Islamic Jerusalem Studies (Summer 2000), 3:2, 47-89. Page 1. Quote: "The first Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in Muhrram 17 AH/February 638 CE..."
• Theophilus of Edessa, Theophilus of Edessa's Chronicle and the Circulation of Historical Knowledge in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, p. 114, Liverpool University Press (2011). "(638) The capture of Jerusalem and the visit of 'Umar". Footnote 254 discusses the different dates from old sources (638, 637, 636/37) and the different scholarly discussions.

Yes, there are some primary sources indicating the year 636/37 or 637, too, and some secondary sources are offering both dates - see for instance Britannica, here for 638 and here for 637. The article should mention and discuss both dates, the title should be adapted - "Siege of Jerusalem (630s)" or "First Muslim conquest of Jerusalem" -, but under no circumstances should one opinion be presented as the only valid one, let alone the theory that is not the dominant scholarly one.

Cheers and stay merry & well, Arminden (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree both dates need to be shown, not sure how to title the article though. Maybe your latter suggestion with several redirects. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Fine, so "First Muslim conquest of Jerusalem" with redirects for:

• Siege of Jerusalem (636–637)
• Siege of Jerusalem (636–638)
• Siege of Jerusalem (637)
• Siege of Jerusalem (638)
• Fall of Jerusalem (637)
• Fall of Jerusalem (638)
• Conquest of Jerusalem (637)
• Conquest of Jerusalem (638)
  

Would you please do it? Many thanks. Arminden (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: considering today's events about another move, I think a formal move request is the best idea here. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I must admit I'm still not up-to-date with the procedure, and I've sworn I'll do some work other than Wiki editing, so I'll leave it to whoever has the time & skill. Thanks a lot and have a good time - if possible. Arminden (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch Arminden- I'm a complete fuckwit with technicalities. I think First Muslim conquest of Jerusalem (637/638) as a title would cover the issue.Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding passage - reference makes no mention of anything whatsoever which is written

This passage here: "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles, that at the time of the Zuhr prayers, Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar declined, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a place of Christian worship, and that Muslims might break the treaty and turn the church into a mosque."

references the following book: Gibbon, Edward (1862). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 6. J. D. Morris Publishers

The book which can be found here makes no mention at all of the passage written above and can be found on page 337 corresponding to page 321, which is from the reference. Although the book is another edition, it makes no mention at all of either Umar nor Sophronius. I therefore propose the passage to be deleted. Othmas biaggio (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

wrong book, try again next time serbo 132.176.221.21 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)