Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kharijites/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2022 [1].

Kharijites

edit
Nominator(s): AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being Top Importance in WikiProjects Religion and Islam, this article is about the first Islamic sect. The sect appeared during the First Muslim Civil War in late 650s when a group from the army of the fourth caliph Ali seceded protesting against the proposal to settle the dispute with his opponent, the Syrian governor Mu'awiya, through dialogue. They weakened Ali's authority in his home base who then proceeded to defeat them. One of the survivors killed him in retaliation thus inadvertently assisting Mu'awiya's rise to the caliphate. They vigorously fought the subsequent governments labeling them unjust. The governments on their part severely suppressed them, which eventually caused their disappearance, except for one of their non-violent sect, the Ibadiyya, who survive to this day. I have been working on this article for about two years now. With content help from a subject expert and prose improvements by Al Ameer son, I think the article is now in a position to be judged against the FA criteria. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by

edit
  • References should be in chronological order.
Thanks SN54129. I prefer ordering by last name, and then by year. They seem to be all correctly ordered. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll get a thorough source review—probably spot checks—but you've got a few p/pp anomalies in your refs, and some of your sources are missing publisher locations and/or page ranges for book chapters. SN54129 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, AhmadLX I sent you up a blind alley: I meant, "inline citations should be in numerical order" (e.g., not [31][34][33], but check for more?). My poor choice of words completely mislead you. Sorry for the confusion! SN54129 12:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is no rule about whether inline citations should be in a particular order. (t · c) buidhe 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the reason there's no rule about this (and so many other aspects of the process) is because WP:FA/ has very few rules about anything. However, it is clearly an acceptable request for a reviewer to make and in line with generally accepted custom and practice. See, for example, the following FACs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]; [10]; that last is fresher than a duck's nostril. The point has been suggested by highly experienced FAC reviewers and as—if not more—pertinently, accepted by your co-ord colleagues as legitimate requests. Yes, you consider them cosmetic, and I don't necessarily disagree; but consistency, particularly of citation, is one of the few "rules" we have, and this has clearly become something of a community norm. SN54129 13:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 and Buidhe: That is news to me. I have always been against this and list my cites in the order they occur in the text, or randomly. With the exception of a now-retired reviewer at ACR I can't recall ever being picked up on this, and not at FAC. I quite probably have been, have complied in order not to trivially stretch out a review, and have since forgotten. But I am a little startled to discover that this a "rule", if only because I have never made any effort to comply. Skimming some of my recent FAs, they do seem - serendipitously - to comply. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, just because something is sometimes requested by FAC reviewers does not make it a "rule" unless there is a basis for it in the FA criteria. As a coord, the only thing I'm looking at is whether the article meets the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog, custom and practice, best practice, whatever one calls it, =/= a rule, and only you and one other editor have, in fact, called it one. SN54129 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thank you for the feedback and the links. I sort citations based on authoritativeness of the sources, and if two sources are more or less equally authoritative, I give first the one which is more easily accessible. I think it too is a reasonable choice. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up maps and charts, and see MOS:COLOUR
Scaling done. Have to read MOS:Colour. Will get back on this afterwards. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Allah-green.svg: what "public domain artwork" was this copied from?
It was in a template, which I've now removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Battle_of_Siffin_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg
Done both. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Dirham_of_Qatari_ibn_Fuja'a.jpg needs a tag for the original work
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced map. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

edit

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 10:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did some copyedits, feel free to revert if necessary.
Thanks. They look very helpful. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • amounting supposedly to a total of 4,000 men why 'supposedly'?
At Adam Gaiser's suggestion. He said that the numbers in the sources are exaggerated. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would state it like this, e.g. "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men, although the number is likely exaggerated." Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "numbering reportedly up to 4,000 men". I think "reportedly" does the job of alerting the reader. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • elected Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi as their caliph. was al-Rasibi really proclaimed caliph, or just their leader?
Yes he replaced Ali as the caliph in their view. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were called Khawarij; the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites' can we add the Arabic singular here as well? It will make clear where the English form comes from.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the photo of the Nahrawan Canal in a different section?
Just because of space; moving it up breaks the section border and looks a bit ugly. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • where he was taking the Kufans' oath of allegiance link oath of allegiance to bay'ah.
I think you've already addressed this in your ce. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we link the major figures? Even if only as WP:REDLINKs.
I've added links to the most important ones. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed until 'Beliefs and practices', will continue from there as soon as I have some time. Constantine ✍ 07:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • although Ibadi communities in these regions ceased to exist do we have a timeframe for this? Otherwise I would suggest rephrasing to something like 'although the Ibadi communities in these regions disappeared over time.'
Not really, so I went with the second option. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the use of the tahkim by the Kharijites the tahkim is mentioned for the first time here, and needs to be explained here, or given earlier, when the motto is introduced.
That was a stupid mistake on my part. Should have been la hukma. Now fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to him, the main role in forcing Ali Who? Shaban or Hinds?
Shaban; specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also had economic origins according to whom? Better still, something like "X attribute the Kharijite rebellions after Siffin also to economic motivations".
Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The article is well written and impressively comprehensive, as far as I can tell. Being somewhat familiar with the subject, I could follow it without any problems, and didn't find anything major missing. Will do another read-through once the above points are dealt with, but I am ready to support it as it is. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine. Looking forward to the rest. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my points above have been addressed, and I've marked them by crossing them out. I've done some additional copyedits, and have some final questions:

  • the emerging orthodoxy I assume Sunni orthodoxy is meant here? Then I would mention this.
Actually both Sunni and Shia authors are hostile to the Kharijites; specified now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a probable reconstruction of the events I am uneasy with 'probable' here. You mean something like 'reconstruction that might be close to actual truth', but I am not sure this is understood.
Modified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the sources sometimes used the Kharijites are we still talking about the heresiographers here, or the later sources generally?
Both; histories and heresiographies. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As these are minor issues, I also don't hesitate to support at this time. Constantine ✍ 20:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine. I think I've addressed all points. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Constantine. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild: Thanks. Just give me a week. I will ask a few blokes. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also put it on urgent list?AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 16:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

edit

Placeholder. First impression (from reading the lead only) is that this is very well written. Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing is impeccable, all high quality, recent (ie up to date), and consistently formatted. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from non-Kharijite authors, and are hostile toward the sect. - should the word contemporary be used here
Not quite contemporary, but I got your point. I added that they were mainly from the 9th and 10th centuries. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small thing, but would right-align File:Nahrawan-Canal.jpg, and place just after the "Under Mu'awiya" sub-header.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They held that Uthman had deserved his death because of his faults deserved his death is awkward, and "because of his faults" is hopelessly vague.
Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Ceoil. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Al Ameer

edit

Received a request by nominator to give my thoughts. The subject covers a major group and formative period of Islamic history. I reviewed the article just prior to its nomination, believing it to be ready, but I will review with a keener eye once Ceoil finishes. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "anti-government activities" → "rebellion" or "rebellions".
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... their defeat by the Umayyad general al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf" → "their defeat by the Umayyads"
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites of the Second Muslim Civil War and beyond, condemning them as extremists" → "They, however, deny any links with the Kharijites, condemning them as extremists"
This cannot be done really. As mentioned in the article body, the Ibadis respect and fully own the Muhakkima and the Basran quietists (e.g. Abu Bilal). They disown only the Azariqa, Najdat, and Sufriyya (who in the classical narrative originated during the 2nd Fitna). AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood. Is “and beyond” necessary then? —Al Ameer (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, because the classical narrative of the tafriq during the 2nd Fitna is incorrect as discussed in the moderates' section. Also, Suffriyya in any case survived for centuries, as did Najda splinters (e.g. Ajarida, Hamziyya) beyond the 2nd Fitna. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "branded as unbelievers any Muslims" → "branded as unbelievers Muslims"
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists and having left the Muslim community" → "have viewed the Kharijites as religious extremists who left the Muslim community".
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless pertinent, I recommend trimming the details of Mustawrid's revolt. Maybe split off to an article about and expand it slightly.
The section on the Kharijite activity under Mu'awiya was added at Gaiser's suggestion; according to him the discussion of the Kharijites of the period b/w Nahrawan and 2nd Fitna should be expanded else it leaves a significant gap in the article. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend deleting the following, because these details do not seem necessary for this article: "The Azariqa, under the command of Ibn Mahuz's brother Zubayr ibn Mahuz, returned to Iraq, ravaged al-Mada'in, evaded pursuit from Zubayrid forces, and then besieged Isfahan. They were driven from Isfahan and fled to Fars and later to Kirman." Then, I would slightly revise the next sentence to "Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." Then link the next mention of Kirman.
  • On second thought, it seems important to note their attack on al-Mada'in and siege of Isfahan. Recommend adjusting to "The Azariqa plundered al-Mada'in and then besieged Isfahan, but were defeated. They fled and eventually regrouped in Kirman. Reinvigorated by their new leader, Qatari ibn al-Fuja'a, the Azariqa attacked Basra's environs afterward and Muhallab was redeployed to suppress them." (link Isfahan) Al Ameer (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for "His election came about as a result of his leadership qualities, which convinced Abu Talut's followers to depose him in favor of Najda." We already state in the previous sentence that he became this group's leader. Alternatively, if you want to emphasize Najda's leadership qualities, you could revise those two sentences to just the following: "Najda's leadership qualities convinced Abu Talut's Kharijite faction to elect him as their leader and they became known as the Najdat after him."
Had added it to emphasize the vulnerability of the position of Kharijite leader. But yeah was a bit repetitive; removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the towns Najda raided in Ibn al-Zubayr's domains in Bahrayn? If so, you could remove that bit, and just state that he took over Bahrayn and repulsed a 14,000-strong Zubayrid army deployed against him. Ignore if this was not the case.
Will check the source tomorrow. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ameer (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Sufriyya became extinct with the passage of time" → "the Sufriyya eventually became extinct"
  • "Sufriyya and Ibadiyya sects at this stage are ahistorical" Please specify which stage.
  • I see inconsistent use of Sufri and Sufriyya. Sufri should be used as an adjective as in "Sufri revolts" and Sufriyya as a noun, as in "the Sufriyya were led by". I made the change in the Sufriyya section, but this should be done throughout. Same with Ibadi and Ibadiyya, etc. Alternatively, eliminate the dual use altogether and strictly use "Sufriyya" and "Ibadiyya" (in which case I will revert my change). Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed a few instances. Will do the rest soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ameer son I think I've done all of them. You might want to have a look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link taqiyya at first mention.
  • Should imams be de-italicized as this is an 'integrated' English word by now?
  • Link Tripoli.
  • "the Abbasid army" → "an Abbasid army", unless this was the empire's main army.

Finished with the History sections, will continue the rest tomorrow I hope. Al Ameer (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sunnis, who later went on accept the leadership" → "Sunnis, who accepted the leadership". Since we are talking about Sunnis and not 'proto-Sunnis' or some other predecessor group.
  • "as long as they were Quraysh" → "provided they were Qurayshite" or "provided they were of the Quraysh"
  • "Shi'a, who were to assert" → "Shi'a, who asserted", same as above, since you are talking about Shia, not 'proto-Shia'.
  • "displaced" does not seem like the right word, perhaps "deposed", unless the Kharijites specifically mean exile or expel (in which case I would use one of those two terms).
  • "Although militant like the Azariqa", I would either drop this since it's been well-established by this point in the article that the Najdat and Azariqa were both militant/radical factions of the Kharijites, or, if sourced, something like "While the Najdat generally shared the Azariqa's view toward unbelieving Muslims [or kafirs if you prefer], they allowed marriages with non-Kharijites"
  • "Of the moderates, the Sufriyya and Bayhasiyya—followers of Abu Bayhas, who is said to have criticized the Azariqa for going too far and the Ibadiyya for not going far enough, although it is almost certain that this sect too developed later and not during the second civil war as the sources assert—considered all non-Kharijite Muslims as unbelievers, but also abstained from taking up arms against them, unless necessary, and allowed intermarriage with them" → Unless there is an appropriate place to introduce the Bayhasiyya beforehand in the article, in an exclusive sentence, I would move this: "followers of Abu Bayhas ... as the sources assert" to a footnote.
  • "Going too far" or "not going far enough" is vague, could this either be specified or revised?
  • "fighting jihad" → just "jihad" (with link)
  • Should "dhimmi" be de-italicized?

Almost done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The majority of the leaders of the Kharijite revolts in the Umayyad period were Arabs" → "Most Kharijite leaders in the Umayyad period were Arabs"
  • You spell out two-digit numbers in the "Tribal affliations" section, but use the numeric form elsewhere. Choose one form for consistency.
  • Why does the South Arabian influence on the southern Arabs' culture and collective thinking attract them "more to Shi'ism than Kharijism"? I understand why this would steer them away from Kharijism, but why would it specifically attract them to Shi'ism?
  • When kufr is first introduced, mention that kuffar is the plural form, since kuffar appears a couple times in the article without being defined to the general reader.
  • "traditional Muslim historians and heresiographers of subsequent centuries" Might help general reader to clarify which centuries are covered by "traditional Muslim historians" since you mention the heresiographers are "of subsequent centuries".
Basically 9th to 12th centuries. I changed it at first but it looked ugly, so didn't save the change. Can you think of a suitable formulation? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Made some copyedits here and there that you may want to check. Al Ameer (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Al Ameer. I've addressed most points. The two exceptions responded to above. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ahmad. I trust the Sufri/Sufriyya inconsistency will be cleared up. This is an exceptionally fine article and I am happy to support. Al Ameer (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Al Ameer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

edit

I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue when Al Ameer's issues are fixed, so we don't thread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Funk, ready for you I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably has the necessary support already, but beginning now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost no primary Kharijite sources survive, except for Ibadi works" I wonder if Ibadis should somehow briefly be presented here, as it's the first time you mention them outside the intro.
  • The second paragraph under "Primary and classical sources" is a huge wall of text which is difficult to perhaps, could be broken in two.
  • Link people and places mentioned in image captions too, such as Uthman, Umayyad, and similar.
Thanks Funk. All done. --AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(sing. Khariji); the term is anglicized to 'Kharijites'" Shouldn't this be in he etymology section? Seems odd that you in a way present the word twice.
  • "During their time in Ahwaz, doctrinal differences caused a split between Najda and Ibn al-Azraq." But what were these differences? Or is this what's described in the subsequent section?
  • "All the other uncategorizable Kharijite" uncategorizable or uncategorized?
  • "which might have been called "Sufri"." According to what, and what does it mean?
  • "who sent 4,000-strong army" Sent a?
  • You mention Jazira and Jaziran without introduction, would perhaps warrant some sort of context?
  • "Abbasid influence in Oman was mostly nominal, and Ibadi imams continued to wield considerable power.[111] Ibadi imamates were reestablished in subsequent centuries.[112] Ibadis form the majority of the Omani population to date." But when did they finally take control, and how?
  • Any total population number of modern Ibadis that could be mentioned under Ibadiyya?
  • You have maps showing Kharijite dynasties in various parts of the world, except where Ibadis have their stronghold now, in Oman, perhaps some historical map of that area would be relevant somewhere?
I couldn't find a suitable historical map of Oman which has references to its data sources. Essentially none on the Ibadi imamates. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sunna?
Seems it is linked long after first mention, at "although they added to its sources the sunna of Muhammad", should be at first mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is intentional because in the earlier references sunna likely refers to tribal code of conduct and not Muhammad's sunna. Please see footnote [i].AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hold that the story, due its prevalence in the sources" due to?
  • "It contrasts Kharijites' extreme piety with extreme" The Kharijites'? The extreme piety of the Kharijites'?
  • "It contrasts Kharijites' extreme piety with extreme violence, justifies Ali's attack on them at Nahrawan, certain versions have anachronous references to isti'rad, it is similar in structure to an incident of a later date, and mimics the actions characteristic of the later Azariqa group." Very long and a bit confusing sentence. Perhaps break it a bit up?
  • ", else he forfeited his right to rule and was subject to deposition" Or else? The current wording may also be possible, not sure.
I think it is correct. Maybe we can again ask Gog on this. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an archaic usage, but IMO acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog. I've changed it to "or else".AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You present some modern historians/researchers by occupation, others not, should be consistent.
  • "A famous example is the warrior and poet Layla bint Tarif" I came across another example with an article, Ghazala, perhaps worth a mention in that sentence?
  • "One of the Kharijite groups also refused to recognize the sura" Which group? You name the others, but perhaps this one doesn't have a name?
The source doesn't name them, and I haven't been able to locate it in any other sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link ethnic terms such as Arab, Greek, and Bedouin?
  • Any names of the poets that authored the last two quoted?
  • "But their goals were impractical and hostile to culture:[166] "let justice be done, though the world perish".[168]" This quote is a bit puzzling, what does it quote and in what context? Wellhausen stating this was akin to their doctrine? Could be stated more clearly.
I think the link was already implied in "But their goals were impractical and hostile to culture". Further elaboration would be counter-productive IMO as it is a minor point. I just removed the quote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "influenced the development of the mainstream theology" Add "Muslim"?
  • "in relation of faith and deeds" Relation to?
  • " In Levi Della Vida's view" No need to spell out full name after first mention.
  • "the Mu'tazila in particular were likely influenced by them" Could these get some kind of context?
  • Islamist needs a link?
  • "The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who rebelled against his acceptance of arbitration talks to settle the conflict with his challenger, Mu'awiya," you should state here it was a challenge for power over the Caliphate?
It wasn't really a challenge for caliphal claim. Mu'awiya became a contender after the Adhruh meeting. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ali was assassinated in 661" Link the article about his assassination here?
  • "What is known about Kharijite history and doctrines derive from" Derives? "What is known" is singular, no? Pinging Gog the Mild as usual when I'm in doubt about some grammar issue... FunkMonk (talk)

14:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well now. I have an opinion, but am not 100% certain, so I am pinging who I refer to my grammar uncertainties to: Tim riley Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without question the singular "what is known" must have a singular verb following it – "derives". (I take it you are tweaking my tail by writing "who" when you mean "whom", but I let it pass.) – Tim riley talk 17:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thank you. That is what I thought, but I was struggling to articulate why. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah, so I guess the same applies to the point below. Just need to be sure AhmadLX has seen any of this? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @FunkMonk: Yes I've addressed both and most other points. The remaining ones I'll do soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are hostile toward the sect" Likewise, is hostile?
  • "proto-democratic tendencies" The article body doesn't use this term, there shouldn't be unique info in the intro.
  • Could be interesting to have a category for extinct Islamic sects (would apply to some of the sub-sects covered in this article)... Not sure if there are equivalent categories for other religions and sects, maybe I should start some... All we have now is a List of extinct Shia sects.
Made an inquiry about it here:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've created one now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Funk. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Borsoka

edit
  • The term al-Khariji was used as an exonym by their opponents for leaving the army of Caliph Ali (see below). Consider completing the sentence instead of placing a "see below" text within the article. For instance, "...for leaving the army of Caliph Ali during the First Fitna".
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They called themselves al-Shurat ("the Exchangers"),... Are you sure Gaiser (2010) verifies the sentence?
Actually Gaiser (2016); Gaiser (2010) also, but on a different page number. Fixed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As representatives of the emerging orthodoxy... To which branch of Islam does the term "orthodoxy" refer? Sunnite, Shiite or both?
As far as the Kharijites are concerned, both. Now specified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the authors tend to portray their own sect... Is the term "sect" neutral? I assume co-religionists of these "sectarians" are mentioned as representatives of "orthodoxy" in previous sentences.
On neutrality please see my response to point 6 below. As for "Orthodoxy", we are not actually declaring the non-Kharijites as "Orthodox" from a religious point of view but from a historical point of view. The source itself uses the term "Orthodoxy". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...(see below)... Do we need this text?
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the first sect to arise within Islam ... Is the term "sect" neutral?
I think there is nothing non-neutral in the term. They were a sect just like other sects of Islam such as Sunnis, Shi'a, Mu'tazila etc. The source starts the Introduction with "The Khārijites were the first sect to crystallize in the Islamic world...". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider deleting "First Fitna" from the "Further information" part of section "Origin" (because the First Fitna is linked in the text).
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Abd Allah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi.
Well, since his primary claim to fame is him being the first Kharijite caliph, not sure how can one introduce him in other terms. I added "pious" before his name. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kharijites continued to launch insurrections against the caliphate. Five small Kharijite revolts following Nahrawan, involving about 200 men each, were suppressed during Ali's rule. Move it to the previous section before mentioning Ali's assassination. Borsoka (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Farwa ibn Nawfal al-Ashja'i.
Stated his clan; I couldn't find anything more suitable to introduce him. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...near al-Mada'in (Ctesiphon) Is this necessary taking into account that Behrasir is linked?
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...killed Ibn Ziyad's deputy... In the previous sentence we are informed that Ibn Ziyad was expelled from the city. Did his deputy remain in the city?
He appointed the deputy when he left. Clarified. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Shabib ibn Yazid al-Shaybani (see below) ... Is the "(see below)" part necessary?
Removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Modern historians consider Ibn Saffar to be a legendary figure ... Does the cited source verify the statement about modern historians?
I think I've now added enough sources. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... The heresiographers, whose aim was to categorize the divergent beliefs of the Kharijites, invented the Sufriyya to accommodate those groups who did not fit neatly anywhere else. I assume this is not a fact, but a widely accepted scholarly theory. Perhaps we could say, "The heresiographers .... likely/probably/obviously invented the Suffriyya..."
It is continuation of "Modern historians consider..."; now added specifically. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the last days of the Umayyad empire, a major Sufri revolt erupted in 744. Consider mentioning that this happened in Iraq because the previous sentence referred to northern Africa and Oman. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ruling position remained exclusively within the Quraysh for centuries. Is this necessary?
Admittedly, it was placed in a wrong place and did not fit in the context. Moving it one sentence past also broke the flow, so I had just put it in this wrong place. Now I have moved it to a footnote and rephrased it a bit. Hopefully the context is now clearer. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...first four caliphs... Consider linking Rashidun.
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., especially Iraq and Persia ... Is this necessary (taking into account that a mawla of Greek origin is mentioned in one of the following sentences)?
The vast majority of the mawali was in fact of Persian/Iraqi origin. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider introducing Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Michael Cooperson is introduced in a following sentence).
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first Kharijites were supporters of Ali who had rebelled... Perhaps "who rebelled"?
Done. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of my comments. Thank you for this interesting, well-written and thoroughly researched article. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Borsoka. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Can you provide ISBNs for Abbas, Bosworth, and Donner?
Thanks Mike. ISBNs for these do not seem to exist. Bosworth is an online article, whereas for the other two, I haven't been able to find any. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For Abbas try OCLC 584091175; and 587950873 for Donner. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog. OCLCs added. Contacted template creator for loc. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent about providing publisher locations; they are missing for Gaiser (2020), Gaiser (2021), and Lewinstein (2008).
Yes, these are online publications and do not have locs. Also Gaiser (2013), and Sonn, Tamara; Farrar, Adam (2009). Bosworth (2009) has one, but it shouldn't; it comes from the template. I will replace the template soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources all look reliable, and I can't find any formatting problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes; I see Gog suggested a couple of OCLCs above, but no reason to hold up for that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:44, 16 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kharijites/archive1&oldid=1083090438"