Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Muhammad III of Granada/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2019 [1].

Muhammad III of Granada

edit
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the third Nasrid Sultan of Granada. Unlike his predecessors Muhammad I and Muhammad II (which I also improved to FA), his rule was rather short and he was deposed in a coup. Recently passed GA, and I subsequently expanded the article to be more comprehensive. I hope I have covered all major facts and details of his life and 7-year reign now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

edit
Looks good to me with this context. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of the Sultan" Not sure, but aren't such titles only suppsoed to be capirtalised when they are followed by a name? Like president and such.
    • MOS:JOBTITLES is relevant here. It is not the clearest guideline out there, but my understanding is that it should be capitalized when referring to a specific person, as is the case here. 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " and the two Christian kingdoms—without mentioning the Marinid collaboration—asked the Pope Clement V" You haven't mentioned the Marinids were also Muslim yet, though it may be obvious to many readers, the point of this sentence may be lost to some if you don't state it explicitly.
    • Stated explictly now in "background"
  • "a palace coup deposed Muhammad and executed his vizier" Organised by who?
  • "He was replaced by his 21-years old half-brother Nasr." Was he in on the coup.
  • "a raven followed him there from the Alhambra" Alhambra has not been linked or presented until this point. You link it further down.
  • "There was an attempt to restore Muhammad III during Nasr's reign" By who?
  • "and like many monarchs of Al-Andalus" Seems a bit odd that al ndalus is only mentioned way down here. I think it could even be mentioned and explained under background, all readers may not know what it is.
  • "the elegance of this mosque, which do not survive" Does not?
  • "was in turn deposed by their nephew Ismail I" I doubt that's the Ismail I you mean, the one linked is a Safavid. Seems Ismail I of Granada is the one.
  • "(destroyed by Philip II in the sixteenth century)" Link Philip? And I wonder if the church built instead has an article?
  • "epithet al-Makhlu'" You don't capitalise makhlu in the article body.
  • "One of the poems that he composed is preserved in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." Since you even mention this in the intro, which is supposed to cover the most important parts of the article, I wonder if the poem could be shown here?
Cool! There is an incongruence here: "the wine of that lovely lips!" those lovely lips or that lovely lip? FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the Arabic it is singular, but I guess in English it is more natural to talk about lips as plural, so I've updated it to "those lovely lips". HaEr48 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

edit
  • File:Fernando IV el Emplazado, Rey de Castilla y León.jpg needs a source. The PD claims can't be verified without one. It also needs a US PD tag.
    • Replaced with another image with a better source and license.
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, captions should not end in a full stop unless they contain at least one full sentence.
All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Haukurth

edit

The thing about reading well into the night is mentioned in two sections, which seems unnecessary. Also, does reading by poor light really cause vision problems? When I try to Google this, I only get pages rejecting this as a misconception. Haukur (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Good find - I did not know that. Probably the historians just assumed causation between these two things. The sources that debunk this seem very reliable, so I removed any implication from the article, and also it is no longer repeated in two sections. HaEr48 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Haukur (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is this: "Historical sources, such as Harvey 1992, p. 166 and Real Academia de la Historia mentioned his night-time reading habit as a possible cause of his eyesight problem." I think the past tense here is odd, I would say 'mention'. But I also think it's odd to refer to Castro as "Real Academia de la Historia", is there a reason for that?

Updated to use present tense and to use "Vidal Castro". My original reason was because it doesn't have a year like other sources named by author name, but on second thought I see it doesn't help anything. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography of Castro's article lists 38 sources. Are there no more there that you feel would be worthwhile for us?

So, most of those are raw materials for historians (e.g. primary sources or old historians), probably only one-forth or less of the 38 are published in the last 50 years, and we have covered many of those. I will look at one or two new sources mentioned there, but in my experience at this point there is unlikely to be anything substantial to add. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images feel a bit low-effort; "the map might not correspond to its territories during Muhammad III's rule" and "Borders might differ slightly from those during Muhammad III's reign" sounds like we could barely even be bothered to look closely at them. For a featured article, I think it's reasonable to expect more. It would also be nice to have images showing artifacts connected with Muhammad III. Coinage was presumably issued during his reign and would be interesting to see. A manuscript page with his poem would be another idea. Haukur (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the map with one specific to Muhammad III's reign, thanks for the suggestion :) Also added a page of his poem quoted in his article, but it was from a 1928/1929 edition rather than an original manuscript. Do you think it's still worthwhile to add? I totally agree with you that it would be nice to have more artifacts, but I spent hours looking for coins and other such artifacts, but could not find anything. We have to remember that he was just a ruler of a small kingdom for 7 years, likely we do not have as much artifacts from that narrow period and place. Fortunately, the Partal Palace that he built still exists, and the article has a picture of that HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do have some coin experts around. Maybe User:T8612 would know where to look, even if this isn't his time period. Haukur (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, couldn't find one, but even if I did, the problem is to have copyright free pictures. A large ancient coin dealer has accepted to release all their coin pics in the public domain, so we have plenty of them as a result. It would be great if we could have the same arrangement with a dealer of modern coins, but I don't know how to do that. T8612 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it! Haukur (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Thanks for the additional comments. I replied above. Let me know if you have more. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updated map. That's much better. And I do think the page with the poem adds a little something. Haukur (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think showing the page is helpful. It allows anyone who can read Arabic to quickly dig deeper into M's poetry. And I think it's a nice touch visually. Haukur (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke

edit

Just a small comment. This biography has a picture of a palace ("Partal Palace") and claims that its construction is attributed to Muhammad III. Muhammad II's biography has a different picture of the same building, but calls it "Tower of the Ladies" and claims that Muhammad II built it. One of the articles has the wrong picture, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. I recently noticed it too and was in the middle of researching when you added this comment. After looking up online, right now my theory is "Tower of the Ladies" is just the tower, and Muhammad III subsequently built a palace (including gardens, etc.) in its site. For now I changed the picture in Muhammad II to just zoom in on the tower. It's still bothering me though, so I am trying to find more sources that can tell me for sure, and for that I added a request in WP:RX. I will update again when I have more information. Thank you for your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: After some research, I've updated Muhammad II to no longer include the picture of the building - the current building was built by Muhammad III even though Muhammad II previously built a tower in that site. I've also clarified Muhammad II's contributions to the Alhambra in that article. The usage of the picture in Muhammad III is appropriate though. HaEr48 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Thank you for clarifying the matter, even going out of your way to research some more. I know we're not reviewing Muhammad II here, but I wasn't sure if you had spotted this inconsistency between the two articles. (And I'm quite enjoying these articles so they better be consistent between them!) RetiredDuke (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mimihitam

edit

Outstanding work! I have a few comments:

  • "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry—and cruel." --> reputation among whom? You might have to specify it in the lede.
  • " His blindness or poor vision forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials" --> if he was blind, how could he engage in poetry? Also was he born blind or did he become blind later in his life?

Mimihitam (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He was not born blind—#Early life section mentioned that he initially had a habit of reading into the night. Added "Later in his life" to lead to make this clear without having to read the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • @HaEr48: Look at this sentence in the lead On April 8, 1302 he ascended the Granadan. I also replied to your response below. Cheers.
I see it now. Thanks. The inconsistency is removed now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Fowler&fowler

edit

An article that passes GA on September 5 is not ready for an FAC review on September 9. That is a general principle of courtesy to the WP community, regardless of the rules. Here is a list of errors in the first few sentences of the lead:

"He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which unconfirmed rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him."
"which unconfirmed rumours" (Rumors, by definition, are unconfirmed)
"rumours said" (Rumours can't speak. They ascribe, attribute, implicate, etc., ...)
The full sentence: "He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which unconfirmed rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him." (It is best to break it up, as the reader is attempting to digest new information: "He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne upon the death of his father Muhammad II. Rumors at the time implicated him (or Muhammad III) in the death which was attributed to poisoning."
Removed "unconfirmed". I retained "said" per WP:SAY, and did not split because the resulting sentences would be too short on its own, but long in total. This is the lead section, conciseness is important too. I don't think a reader will have too much trouble processing two info in the same sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think that F&f's objection is not to the use of the word "said" per se, but to the fact that rumours, like theories, ideas, etc, can't say. Suggest you reword as: "According to rumours..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton User HaEr48 already put "According to rumours...", but this user is still unsatisfied. Mimihitam (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry and reading—and cruel." (A more extreme version of this would be, "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved reciting poetry and reading histories while riding bareback—and cruel. In other words, if you are going to exemplify one, viz "cultured," by giving an instance, then you must balance the sentence by exemplifying the other, "cruel.")
Removed the "—he particularly.." part to make it balanced. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Later in his life, he became blind or suffered poor eyesight," (If you're not sure which, then you need to say something more general like, "he became visually handicapped.")
Good suggestion. Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials," (Blindness doesn't necessarily "force." The response to it is person-dependent. Absenting oneself doesn't automatically imply that high officials will step in. He is the Sultan, his duties are of the Sultan. So, it is much better to say, "which caused him to rely on high officials in the performance of his duties."
Reworded the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar"
"Inheriting a war against" (In figurative or literary language one could say that, (another example is: "Churchill inherited WWII from Chamberlain."} but generally not in encyclopedic language, which requires more precision.)
"Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he" (Usually, the first reference to the subject in a paragraph is not to a pronoun, unless the noun is close at hand, in the same sentence; so it's better to say, "Inheriting ... , Muhammad III ...")
" expanded his father's territorial gains" ("territorial gains" refer to an increase in the area of sovereign lands, in other words, to "territorial expansion." You can't really expand an expansion. Better to say, "continued the territorial expansion begun by his father." or "furthered the territorial gains of his father." Probably, it is most encyclopedic to say something like: "During his reign, Muhammad II had expanded the kingdom's territory by annexing blank, blank, ... and blank from Castile; Muhammad III continued the territorial expansion by annexing Bedmar. This sequence of presentation has the least number of chronological surprises for a reader. The participial clause, "Inheriting a war ...," however, transports the father, who very likely did most of the annexing, to much later in the sentence (to the predicate in the main clause}. Until then, we have no idea that the father had made any territorial gains.)
"Receive or be left with from a predecessor" is a dictionary definition of "inherit", so it is appropriate here. As for your suggestion, it will make the passage a lot longer, while we want the lead section to be a summary. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute."
"He then" ("then" is not needed. It is understood that it is what he did next.)
Removed. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which confirmed" (a treaty doesn't really "confirm;" it recognizes. The Sultan's parliament, if he had had one, would have confirmed the treaty.
Changed to recognized. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Granada's new border" (you didn't tell us anything about a border until now; what you mean is something like, "negotiated a treaty with Castille which recognized Granada's sovereignty over the territories it had recently annexed."
Changed to "recognized Granada's conquests" which is more concise than your suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am feeling overwhelmed by the lack of clarity. So, imagine the plight of a new reader. Your article needs more clarity in the presentation. We haven't got to the sources, to how comprehensively the article covers them, to how accurately it reflects the consensus, the controversies, and so forth. But a reviewer cannot delve into them when the presentation is opaque. The sentences above are examples. Fixing them alone will not fix the article. I will check again in a couple of weeks time, but not before. The presentation requires that much time to improve, and perhaps more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on the issues brought up here, but the statement "An article that passes GA on September 5 is not ready for an FAC review on September 9" is false, FAC nominations don't even have to be GAs first to begin with (and are routinely sent to FAC straight after passing GAN). The time it takes to go from GA to FAC is even more irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "Regardless of the rules." It is a value judgment. You do not agree with it. That does not make it false. Furthermore, just because it is routinely done does not make it right, nor its submission any less of a discourtesy to reviewers. I'm sure the Greeks have a name for that fallacy. My oppose, I hasten to say, has to do with the errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for your comments. I've replied above and I've followed those that I feel useful. I'm afraid I have to push back on some of the others because they do not look like improvements. For example, I do not want to expand sentences that are meant as summaries in lead with longer sentences that explains too much detail. As for time between GA and FA, not only there is no rule about it, I am also not sure what it has to do with being "general principle of courtesy". Looking forward to improve the article if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are looking for compression, want to suggest that M-III personally delivered the poison to M-II, are hesitant to use pronouns, fearing ambiguity, nowhere does it say that,
"He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him." is to be preferred to:
"Muhammad III ascended the Granadan sultan's throne upon the death his father Muhammad II. Rumours cast the death as poisoning by Muhammad III." Please take my comments in the spirit in which they are meant. It goes for all my comments. It goes for the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 copyedited this passage, hopefully this looks good for you now. HaEr48 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns of Fowler&fowler I: The rephrased versions of some early senteces
Unfortunately, in my experience, if the author is not making the edits himself or herself with care, eliciting instead edits from others, the text keeps stumbling from one error-ridden version to another.

It now reads: "He ascended the throne following the death of his father, Muhammad II. Contemporaries rumoured that the younger Muhammad had poisoned him, and in later life he gained a reputation for both culture and cruelty."

I don't know who finally edited this version, but it is much worse than what you had before.

  • There are issues here with the pronoun "he" and its various forms. In the first sentence "he" and "his" refer to Muhammad III. In the second sentence "him" refers to Muhammad II but the "he" to Muhammad III.
  • In the second sentence, "and" implies that there is a connection between poisoning one's father and becoming cultured later in life. Surely, that is not what you intended.
  • "Contemporaries," has the additional implication of peer-group. We have no idea who the rumor mongers were. They could have been contemporaries of the deceased king for all we know.
  • And "the younger Muhammad?" The reader does not know at this stage whether Muhammad is a name or the Sultan's title. If it is a title, then it wasn't assumed at the time of the poisoning, so "that younger Muhammad had poisoned him," is confusing. Also "Younger Muhammad" is generally too colloquial for an encyclopedia, at least in the lead.
  • "Later life," is not the same thing as "later in life." ("Later life," generally, refers to the latter period of life, as in "diseases of later life, such as cancer." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All you want to say is something simple. If you don't like my versions, you can write something along the lines of what Brianboulton has suggested: "According to rumors then current, the death was by poisoning and the perpetrator (was) Muhammad III." But there are bigger questions here, that only you can ask yourself, and answer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not be interacting here, but reading through this, it needs pushback.
1) Nobody is going to confuse the world's single most common name for a title. For the record, the title was introduced in the first sentence of the lede as "Sultan". Moreover, the "younger Muhammad" has already been introduced as the son of Muhammad II by this point, but it is a tad colloquial.
2) Contemporaries also means "those alive at the time", which they must have been, else they would not have been able to rumour it.
And 3) As to pronouns, short of concluding that "the younger Muhammad" is a separate, un-introduced son of Muhammad II there is little confusion to be had here. Or do you want to suggest that Muhammad III poisoned Muhammad III and "gained a reputation for ..." after that.
Here: He ascended the throne following the death of his father, Muhammad II, whom, [it was/contemporaries] rumoured, he had poisoned. In all instances he/his refers to Muhammad III. Whether Muhammad III poisoned him directly or indirectly will impact the proposed rework from "he had poisoned" to "he had had poisoned". Although, I must caution the nominator, that F&F will find no less than six issues with it, say it is utterly illegible, and conclude that it must have been written by a particularly vicious group of monkeys bashing their heads against a type-writer. Let me get you all started: the comma placement is probably entirely fucked. Something something operative, subordinate, submissive clause something something. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the fuss. In my opinion, the sentences that were mentioned here are completely clear and understandable. Furthermore, the "problems" that were raised by this particular user seem to be excessively fabricated, like "reader confusing Muhammad as a title" - LOL?? In my opinion, the nominator should just dismiss nonconstructive rebuke like this. Mimihitam (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr rnddude and Mimihitam for chiming in. I thought it was just me who find this review a little... nonconstructive. Fowler&fowler we need a better way to make the review more effective. I'd suggests rather than focusing on rebukes we could try to make the review more specific and actionable, like the other reviews in this page. If what you propose is clearly an improvement, you don't even need to include argument; if it is less clear I can ask clarification. Ideally, most of the comments should be clear, so only a few clarification will be needed. If you look at the reviews from FunkMonk and CPA-5, most comments are sppecific action item without needing arguments. This way we're able to cover the entire article effectively, while in your review after so many words and back and forth we barely made any improvement to the lead section, and we end up with a lot of confused editors. HaEr48 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: By "title" I obviously mean a regnal name. George, Edward, John, Henry, Charles, William, are all among the world's common names. But we don't say, "At the time of George V's death, George VI was chiefly known for having lived a sickly childhood in the shadow of his flamboyant brother Edward VIII." We say, "Prince Albert was chiefly known for having lived a sickly childhood in the shadow of his flamboyant brother Prince Edward." Like I said, "contemporary," the noun, can mean what you state, but usually with "of" or a possessive; but, it can also mean, "A person of approximately the same age as another or others." (OED); "one of the same or nearly the same age as another" (Webster's Unabridged), especially when used after a reference to a person by name. In fact, it has an implication of peer-group (including, sometimes, social status). It would be unwise to use "contemporaries" if the rumor had been begun by poor teenagers in a slum. As for "... whom it was rumored he had poisoned," while it is grammatically correct, it elevates the rumored poisoning to the same semantic level, and thus implied significance, as the death of the father. If you are Lytton Strachey and writing provocative prose, this is acceptable; if you are writing for an encyclopedia, it is not. Without having looked, I am reasonably sure that the major English language sources have phrasing much closer to mine than what was in the article when I first encountered it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the text critiqued by the reviewer above has been since rewritten, so let's move on to looking at the current text. HaEr48 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns of Fowler&fowler II: Death, poisoning, regnal name
@HaEr48: I just looked at one of the sources, Hugh Kennedy's Muslim Spain and Portugal. Here is what Kennedy says:

"Muhammad II was succeeded by his son, Muhammad III (1302-9). He seems to have been a strange character, with a reputation for bizarre cruelty, and it was alleged that he had in fact poisoned his father. However, he played much the same diplomatic and military game as his father and grandfather had before him. For the first year he continued his father's policy of raiding Castile and maintaining an alliance with Aragon and the Merinids. In 1303, however, Fernando IV established effective control in Castile and forced a complete turnabout in policy. Muhammad was obliged to make peace and to pay the tribute his father had paid to Sancho IV."

Do you see the separation into two sentences of the information about M-II's death and the rumor of the poisoning? Do you see the relegation of the poisoning to the second part of the second sentence, prefaced by "in fact?" That is because Kennedy does not think it has the same significance as M-II's death. Do you see (1302-1307)? That means Muhammad III is a regnal name. Do you see, "continuing his father's policy," along the lines of what I had suggested earlier without being aware of Kennedy's existence? I am paying attention not only to grammar, to style, but also to what sounds historiographically plausible, i.e. to what is in consonance with the writing of history. You need to read the sources again and again. I mean this earnestly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again an extremely fabricated concern. No reader is going to give a damn about whether the poisoning part is as important as M-II's death or not. What is important for the common reader like me is that M-II is M-III's father, that M-III succeeded his father, and that there were rumours that M-III poisoned his own father. This is consistent with the source that was cited, which is all that is important for a good Wikipedia article. I really suggest to @HaEr48 to stop responding to this user, his rebuke is completely nonconstructive (if not downright useless). I've had academic peer reviews before, and they won't fuss over such trivial matter. Mimihitam (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that what we want is to present the death, the succession and the rumour of poisoning. I disagree that we have to split the sentences exactly as Kennedy has it, not only because Kennedy is just one source, but because a Wikipedia lead section serves a different purpose (mostly a summary) than certain paragraphs in a book (which often serve as transition between one section to the next). HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns of Fowler&fowler III: The Lead Sentence
@HaEr48: Please explain the lead sentence, "Muhammad III (16 August 1257 – 21 January 1314, ruled 8 April 1302 – 14 March 1309) the third Nasrid ruler of the Emirate of Granada in Al-Andalus on the Iberian Peninsula." Britannica, for example, defines Al Andalus as:

"Al-Andalus, also called Muslim Spain, Muslim kingdom that occupied much of the Iberian Peninsula from 711 CE until the collapse of the Spanish Umayyad dynasty in the early 11th century. The Arabic name Al-Andalus was originally applied by the Muslims (Moors) to the entire Iberian Peninsula; it likely refers to the Vandals who occupied the region in the 5th century. In the 11th century, when European Christians began to reconquer the peninsula, Al-Andalus, or Andalusia, came to mean only the area still under Muslim control and thus became permanently attached to the modern-day region."

  • But those regions of Spain under Muslim rule had reduced to nothing but Granada by 1302, when Muhammad III succeeded as ruler. So, what does that sentence really mean? ("Muhammad III was the ruler of Granada in Muslim Spain, which by 1302 was nothing but Granada") Why do we have such an opaque and tautological formulation in the lead sentence?
  • Why have you not explicitly mentioned in the lead sentence the most important fact about Granada in 1302, one supported by sources,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] that it was a small vassal state of Castile? You have only obliquely mentioned it later in the lead. In other words, most sources have a far less grandiloquent formulation, along the lines of: "Muhammad III was the Nasirid ruler of Granada, a (small) Muslim vassal state of Castile on the Iberian Peninsula in the early 14th century."
On the subject of classifying Granada as a "vassal state" of Castile, Harvey pp.26-28 provides an explanation why it is a simplification to call it that. As you see in the article, and other Nasrid biographies, while Nasrid kings from time to time pledge "fealty" and pay tribute to the Castilian king, that relationship is intermittent (in other times Granada is independent and/or fighting against Castile) and even when it is in place, it lacks many other features of a feudal vassal state. I'll let you read Harvey if you want to know more, but for this article I believe it is better to mention the specific acts of oath or tribute payments rather than classifying Granada as a vassal state. HaEr48 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you have, "Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar. He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute." only five days ago?
As I said, I'm fine with describing specific acts of vassalage/fealty, as was done by Muhammad III in 1304 in the sentence you quoted. But as per Harvey, I don't want to simplify matters too much by classifying Granada, an entity lasting 250 years with a complicated relationship with Castile, as a vassal state. HaEr48 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you weren't talking about 250 years, only five. Harvey (1990) is only one source, but there are many sources. Harvey is a monograph. You need to examine tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias or textbooks for assessing due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY) Britannica, for example, says, "Muḥammad I secured the recognition of Ferdinand III of Castile (his neighbour on all landed frontiers) in return for a vassalage which, though often ignored, remained in force until the kingdom’s disappearance in 1492." Callaghan's textbook, A History of Medieval Spain, 2013, Cornell University Press, says, "Granada was a vassal state of Castile from 1246 onward, owing an annual tribute, though the tie was often broken." (see here). Another textbook, Bernard Reilly's The Medieval Spains, Cambridge U.P., 1992, says, " By any measure, then, Muslim Granada was a tiny kingdom surrounded by formidable foes on whose lassitude or forbearance it must count to survive. It could and would attempt to play the one against the other and the North African Muslim realms against one or both. In the end, all was to prove unavailing yet that end was successfully delayed for some two and a half centuries. During all of this time, Granada was, by Castilian reckoning, a vassal state and either paid or owed parias in the amount set variously between 15o,000 and 300,000 maravedis per annum. It would be a pretty task to compute how much was actually paid but it was sufficient to maintain the crown of Castile's gold coinage fairly stable through the economically troubled years of the period." Clearly, due weight requires us to mention a vassal state, a tributary state, qualified, if you will in some way, to be mentioned in the first few sentences in the article, well before cruelty and culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the day, we have medieval vassalage, for which we have the well-worn usage of feudalism. Why are you using (in the lead) terms such as "government," "coup d' etat," or "foreign policy," which don't belong to feudalism? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (2013), A History of Medieval Spain, Cornell University Press, pp. 625–, ISBN 978-0-8014-6871-1 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  2. ^ Bradbury, Jim (2 August 2004), The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Routledge, pp. 223–, ISBN 978-1-134-59847-2 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |authormask=, and |laysummary= (help)
  3. ^ Kohn, George Childs (2013), Dictionary of Wars, Routledge, pp. 463–, ISBN 978-1-135-95494-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  4. ^ Reilly, Bernard F. (1993), The Medieval Spains, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–, ISBN 978-0-521-39741-4 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  5. ^ Bouza, Fernando; Cardim, Pedro; Feros, Antonio (9 September 2019), The Iberian World: 1450–1820, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1427–, ISBN 978-1-00-053705-5 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  6. ^ Findlay, Ronald; Lundahl, Mats (16 November 2016), The Economics of the Frontier: Conquest and Settlement, Springer, pp. 52–, ISBN 978-1-137-60237-4 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  7. ^ Hough, Jerry F.; Grier, Robin (30 April 2015), The Long Process of Development, Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–, ISBN 978-1-107-67041-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
I'm replying primarily to acknowledge that I've read F&F's reply to myself (via ping) and HaEr48. It was not obvious to me that you meant regnal name, as opposed to title. I don't know the value of playing with semantics, and I've not seen anyone else concern themselves with it (anywhere on Wikipedia except AN/ANI and ArbCom). If it matters, there are viable solutions. E.g. He ascended the throne after the death of his father, Muhammad II. He had a reputation [for culture and cruelty/of being cultured and cruel], and was rumoured to have poisoned his father. For the record, Harvery writes:

The agreement, ratified in January 1302, was never put to the test, for in April 1302 Muhammad II died. A story was put about that he had been poisoned by a sweetmeat administered by his heir. We have no means of telling what really happened. Reports of extreme cruelty inflicted on others by Muhammad III do indicate that his was an abnormal psychological make-up.

As far as I can tell, both Kennedy and Harvey reference the rumoured murder in relation to Muhammad III's cruelty and mental state. In which case, semantically, cultured does not belong in that sentence. E.g. He had a reputation for cruelty, and was rumoured to have poisoned his father. Although, refer to p. 166–167 of Harvey for both cruelty and culture. But, let me repeat myself, I don't know that this matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sentences about the Castile-Granada relationship and the vassalage (from the Castilian point of view) to the background. I disagree that we should delve into that much detail in the very first sentence of the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested, I've removed "coup d'état", but in my opinion "government" and "foreign policy" are generic and descriptive term and I disagree that we can't use them for medieval kingdoms. But I'm open to suggestion if you have other terminologies in mind. HaEr48 (talk)
Concerns of Fowler&fowler IV: The Poetry section
@HaEr48: I was looking at the poetry/personality section. It would be nice to have the poem written out in the original Arabic in the left column, the Romanized Arabic transliteration in the middle column and the English translation in the right column. Can you do that? It would be a nice touch giving readers, most of whom are unlikely to have even a smattering of a knowldge of the script, a feel for the sounds of the language and its poetry. Something along the lines of Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua or Sare_Jahan_se_Accha#Text_of_poem, which are, of course, Urdu poems composed by the Pakistani poet Muhammad Iqbal. As it stands, the Arabic script—an image, File:Muhammad III's poem in Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha (cropped).png, from one page from a book you added a few days ago—seems disconnected to the translation accompanying it, Muhammad_III_of_Granada#Personality. The script has 16 rhyming lines, split into groups of 7 and 9; the translation has only 14. Or is it a translation of the top half of the script page (with seven lines each separated into two halves)? Is the word before the colon in the top half أملطولات ? Is that the name of the poet? The speaker? What does it mean? Is it ومنها before the second colon? Again, what does it mean? Is the poem a ghazal? If so, what is the radif and what is its meaning? I can see that it rhymes, of course. The script has a title and two lines below it, which the translation does not have. Some illumination for an ordinary reader will be most helpful. It doesn't have to be as detailed as I've asked for ... but still. It is not unreasonable to ask for this in an FA, given that the other pages above are just stubs, have been stubs for years, maintained by fans, with no higher ambition than preserving memories of long ago. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Updating after adding ping. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted poem is the 7 lines separated into halves - now I clarified this in the caption. I've added answers to your question about the parts of the book page in the description of the File:Muhammad III's poem in Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha (cropped).png Commons page, let me know if you have more questions. It is not the right period or place for ghazal, so I don't think so. As for the Arabic transcription, per WP:NOFULLTEXT I think it will be better for wikisource, I'll work on that in the next few days hopefully. HaEr48 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are unwilling to add a Romanized Arabic transliteration citing, WP:NOFULLTEXT, then why do you have the full printed Naskh (Arabic) versions of two poems in the image, taken from a screengrab after the FAC had begun? Why do you have the full English translation? I asked; "Is the word before the colon in the top half أملطولات? Is that the name of the poet? The speaker? What does it mean? Is it ومنها before the second colon? Again, what does it mean?" You did not reply. I asked, "Is the poem a ghazal? If so, what is the radif and what is its meaning?" You replied, "It is not the right period or place." But, Cynthia Robinson in her chapter in Leoni, Francesca; Natif, Mika (2013). Eros and Sexuality in Islamic Art. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-1-4094-6438-9. mentions ghazals in the anthologies of al-Khatib. Another scholar, Shamsie, says, "The ghazal, ... were written in al-Andalus until the ban on all Arabic literature and customs after the fall of Granada of 1492." (here (scroll down to the fifth paragraph)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOFULLTEXT does allow shorter texts like a short poem to be added. I think it is a subjective matter of judgement, personally I feel an English translation (that can be understood by most readers) and and a page scan as illustration is enough, but more details on this historical text belong to Wikisource in my opinion.
As for your questions, أملطولات is not the name of the author, it is just the end of the preceding paragraph introducing Muhammad III's poetry. I added some explanation in the Commons file description (where I think it belongs). ومنها ("and [also] among them:") is similarly just introducing the next poem. I might be wrong on the period of ghazal (I apologize), but still the sources I have at hand do not refer to this particular poem is a ghazal or mention anything about radif. 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You cite NOFULLTEXT as the WP page for disallowing a Romanized Arabic tranliteration. Yet you also cite it for allowing the English translation. You are right, NOFULLTEXT, allows short pieces to be displayed from sources out of copyright. It gives Lincoln's Gettysburg address as an example of such a source. But LGA has 271 words and 1450 characters; your poem has 110 words and 573 characters. NOFULLTEXT will clearly allow a transliteration to accompany it. Otherwise, I don't see the value of a screen grab from a book found on archie.org. My concern is that you have very little that is reliable about his poetry. No criticism, no secondary sources, only a text. Yes you seem reluctant not only to add a Romanized Arabic transliteration, but also a translation of the two lines of introduction in the poem's of the screen grab. Not in the image's file, but in the article. I'm afraid you'll have to do some work. Otherwise, it is best to remove both the screen grab and the translation, both added without ample justification long after the FAC had begun. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say WP:NOFULLTEXT disallows original text, I just think it discourages excessive inclusion of it. The inclusion of the English translation and page scan was added after suggestions by other reviewers (FunkMonk and Haukurth), and I think those are reasonable enough (and not excessive) so I added them. The first two lines that you want added are just Ibn al-Khatib's (relatively unremarkable) intro, it is not relevant enough to translate/quote in full in the article. It might be appropriate for Wikisource. HaEr48 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: The suggeston of FunkMonk and Haukurth was a fine suggestion, but you can't reproduce a poem written before 1309 in Andalusia without giving some details. Was the poem written in Andalusian Arabic (which is somewhat unlikely as it wasn't the language of high culture}, or Classical Arabic but with some stylistics of Andalusian Arabic? Is the 1927 edition of al-Khatib a rendering in Modern Standard Arabic? (Despite the Quran, there are literary distinctions in the two.) For the purposes of giving a reader a sampling of his poetry, the entire poem is not needed. You can give us only the last three of seven lines, beginning with: "I hid my ailment from the eyes of men ..." But it is important that you present the Arabic script along with the English translation in the text and not in a scan, so that interested readers can read the Arabic clearly and check the translation for its accuracy. (As done, for example in the left and right columns in Urdu in Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua.) The last three lines in Arabic, and their English translation will together be less than what you have currently in place. So, NOFULLTEXT will not be an issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In my opinion, the purpose of the addition is to give flavour and illustration of Muhammad III's personality, not to engage in a critical analysis of the poem or the Arabic text. If someone wants to check the translation, that's absolutely fine, they can always go to the cited source (which is freely available online, btw) and verify it, this is the usual practice in Wikipedia. This is a biography of a king, who happens to write poetry. It is different than the Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua example you gave, which is indeed about a poem. I feel cutting the English text to just 3 lines in order to make space for the Arabic transcript (which most readers won't understand anyway) will not serve the illustration purpose. HaEr48 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the original Arabic to the ref tag as quotation, I hope it's a reasonable compromise? HaEr48 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but it is not clear at this point which poem Rachel Arie is referring to, which edition of Al-Lamha, etc. I have requested of you (a) from Rachel Arie's work, a quotation of the the current sentence about the qasida, the sentence before the current sentence, and the full citation after the current sentence, mentioning the edition, date, location of publication of the Al-Lamha and (b) from the Spanish translation (2010) the introductory two lines above the poem, and the first two lines of the poem. The request is in accordance with MOS:QUOTE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: I am requesting you (some of which I have requested before and am requesting again) for: (a) Where does Ibn al-Khatib say in the 1927/28 edition of Al Lamha that "both poems are works of Muhammad III? Please provide the page number and the Arabic script. (b) What is the full French citation of Rachel Arie, and the (French) sentence before the sentence that you have kindly provided? (c) Please provide the introduction in Spanish (two lines) and the first two lines (again in Spanish) of the poem from the Spanish translation of Ibn al-Khatib, 2010 and (d) Why does page 49 (the poems) of a 152 page (with possibly 119 pages of real text) correspond to page 157-158 in the Spanish edition of 285 pages? Does the Spanish edition have a long introduction? If so how long? On what page does the actual Al Lamha text begin? All this is in consonance with MOS:QUOTE. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the two additional quotations from the sources as you requested. I have added six full quotations to the footnotes as per your request. To be honest this is quite time consuming, please consider just reading the online source (this is avalable for Rubiera Mata 1996, Rubiera Mata 1969, Vidal Castro, and Ibn al-Khatib Arabic which you requested), and getting the rest from WP:RX. They can give you full pages, which will give you more context and understanding than just piecemeal sentences.
  • to understand why both poems are works of Muhammad III, you need to read the page in context. The poems is in p.49 of the cited Arabic editor (you can read it here, it's a big pain for me to type because I don't have an Arabic keyboard). It is in the chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, aand began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry, and that Ibn al-Khatib has seen a collection of them. Then he says one of them is the following, then a poem follows, and then he added "and [also] among [the poetry]:", followed by another poetry. In this context, I think anyone would conclude that Ibn al-Khatib is saying both of them belong to Muhammad III.
  • added full citation as given by Arié, it is practically the same as the full citation given at the end of the article. The preceding sentence pertains to Muhammad II (not III), so I don't feel it relevant to quote. If you'd like to read it though, you could request from WP:RX.
  • I added the first two lines of the poem. The introduction is quite long, please request WP:RX to give you a copy if you want to read it.

HaEr48 (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right that it is in page 157-158 of the Spanish edition because the Spanish edition begins with a long introduction chapter from the translator/editor. The actual translation starts from page 100 or so.
@HaEr48: It doesn't matter that the preceding sentence of Arie pertains to Muhammad II, I have still requested it to see what context the current sentence is written in. I am also requesting the sentence after the current sentence. Three sentences and a citation is not a violation of MOS:QUOTE. Understanding the context is important. You have to understand, you have chosen to write and article using non-English language sources. The burden is on you to help a reviewer in making sure that the information is cited to the correct page, to the correct text on that page, and that it has been correctly paraphrased. I'm sorry that you do not have an Arabic language keyboard, but you should have thought about that before using a blurry scan of a 1927 book. Also, the English translation that you have presented, is it a translation of the Arabic (1927) or the Spanish (2010). We need to be clear about that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: As for: " chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, and began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry," please tell me the exact page numbers and lines for these in the 1927 edition. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter title for Muhammad III is in page 47. "His poetry" heading is in the first line of p. 49. Intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry is in the next three lines after the "his poetry" heading. HaEr48 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax and sourcing:

  • Sentence 1: Historian Ibn al-Khatib, active in mid-fourteenth century Granada, wrote about Muhammad III's "brutishness and cruelty" that at the start of his reign he imprisoned his father's household troops and then refused to feed them. (I will add my rewrite at the end.)
    • Harvey's book, to which this is cited, in fact, prefaces this with a summary preview of sorts: "Ibn al-Khatib depicts a personality schizophrenically dominated by conflicting traits." It is important to paraphrase this first so that the reader knows what the account that follows it is about.
  • "Historian Ibn al-Khatib."
    • You have already mentioned IaK in several places. He is a bit of a polymath. Now is not the time to tell the reader matter-of-factly add that he is a historian when earlier he was mentioned only by name. There shouldn't be surprises for a reader when he reads. New information needs to be added incrementally and explicitly, not implicitly and absuptly. It is better at this stage to write, "Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry, ...
  • active in mid-fourteenth century Granada
    • "active" is not a precise word when describing a creative polymath. We are not talking about being active (i.e. participating, Webster's Unabridged) in the beach volleyball league of Andalusia. It is someone who flourished (flourish: to be in a state of activity or production — used chiefly of creative workers such as painters or writers, Webster's Unabridged). So, formally, it would be better to have: ... and who [[floruit|flourished]] in the period 1331–1354,<cited to Kennedy, page 288> described ... (but something simpler might suffice; see below)
    • We don't need "Granada." It is understood.
  • wrote about Muhammad III's "brutishness ..."
    • al-Khati (b. 1313, d.1374) only heard about the personality disorders of M-III (d. 1309). Harvey's sentence is: He sets out in full "what is related concerning his brutishness and cruelty," i.e. what is told, what is heard, what is recounted, etc.
  • "brutishness and cruelty"
    • "brutishness and cruelty" is in quotes, implying this is taken from someone. The text cites Harvey, but Harvey who also has quotes, cites Ibn al-Khatib, Lisān al-Dīn; 1973, Kitāb al-Iḥāṭa, Volume I, Cairo, pages 547–48. So, in my view, you will need to cite both.
  • "... and cruelty" that ...
    • grammatically, you will need a comma after cruelty,
      • "That" has dozens of meanings. When you use "that" in such a grammatical form, what follows it in the sentence is usually understood to be a relatively self-contained addition. But in your case, that description continues long after the sentence has ended, several sentences after. In Harvey, there is no "that," only another, longer, direct quote, from the same 1973 volume.

Summing up, I would rewrite this as: Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry in the period 1331–1354,<cited to Kennedy, page 288> considered Muhammad III to have been ruled by conflicting impulses.<cited to Harvey's preview) al-Khatib told a story he had heard about Muhammad III's irrational cruelty.<cited to Harvey, Ibn al-Khatib 1973> (I would forego the direct quote, "brutishness and cruelty," for in any case it is translated, forego even floruit, but would keep both citations, then paraphrase the quoted paragraph in Harvey) @HaEr48: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thanks for including specific recommendations. I've updated—mostly following your suggestions—and this passage now reads: Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry in mid-fourteenth century, considered Muhammad III to have been ruled by conflicting impulses.[1] Ibn al-Khatib told a story he had heard about Muhammad III's irrational cruelty: at the start of his reign, [the cruelty story follows]. HaEr48 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)~[reply]
You are very welcome, but I hope you do understand that the above post is more than just a specific, actionable, recommendation; it is a specific example of how to cite, interpret, and paraphrase. I might be able to do this here and there, but I doubt I will be able to do this for every sentence. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final note: I will shortly be taking a vacation from Wikipedia during which the article will come up for a decision. I'm not reassured that there is no original research in the article. As you will see in my poetry critique above, I've had to squeeze the nominator for every little bit of information. This reluctance is probably nothing deliberate on his part, just the style in which he has communicated with reviewers in the past. After much urging, the trail of evidence and logic that has emerged about the poem in the poetry section seems to be:
    • A blurry text, Al lamha, written by Ibn al-Khatib (died 1374 CE), available on archive.org, probably (but this too is by no means certain) in a translation into Modern Standard Arabic (ca 1927).
    • In it appears a poem claimed to have been written by the Sultan of Granada, Muhammad III, who died in 1309 CE, and who normally spoke Andalusian Arabic, but wrote in Classical Arabic.
    • The claim is based on a 1973 book in French by Rachel Arie, which states that one poem of Muhammad III appears on page 49 of the same blurry 1927 Arabic text.
    • However, there are two poems on page 49. This too is the result of my questioning; before it, only one had been acknowledged.
    • There is also a 2010 Spanish translation of the same Al lamha (1927) text, which is not available online even in snippet form.
    • The nominator then uses an argument to establish that both poems on page 49 are written by the Sultan. This is best expressed in his words, "it's a big pain for me to type because I don't have an Arabic keyboard). It is in the chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, aand began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry, and that Ibn al-Khatib has seen a collection of them. Then he says one of them is the following, then a poem follows, and then he added "and [also] among [the poetry]:", followed by another poetry. In this context, I think anyone would conclude that Ibn al-Khatib is saying both of them belong to Muhammad III."
    • There is an English translation appearing in the poetry section. It is not at all clear to the reviewer if this is the nominator's translation of the 1927 Arabic or of the 2010 Spanish. Nothing is transparent, and this is just the poetry section. In light of this tangled tale, my considered decision is to continue to Oppose Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»
      • I disagree that "nothing is transparent". I'll not object to your rewording of the sentence as "One qasida composed by him is presented in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." even though I prefer the old version. This sentence is supported by Arié (and I have provided the quotation supporting this in the footnote as requested). The actual poem appears in two edition of the page referenced by Arié: one Spanish translation from 2010 and one Arabic edition from c. 1927 (no one is saying that it's "a translation into Modern Standard Arabic" as you claimed, it's just an edition published by a modern editor). The Arabic is available online, and linked in the Sources section. I understand you repeatedly said that it is "too blurry". I agree it is not the best resolution possible, but it is still very readable and verifiable by anyone who reads Arabic. Zooming in will help (if you haven't done it). And anyway I've transcribed all its 9 lines in the footnotes section, despite it being hard to do without an Arabic keyboard. There is also the Spanish translation, and I've given you quotations from that too. Indeed snippets are not available online, but I listed it in order to give people an additional way to verify the source (e.g. if they have offline access). HaEr48 (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators @FAC coordinators: : Multiple editors have questioned the usefulness or constructiveness of this part of the review, and I agree. Many of the "concerns" are semantic quibbles with little value, and they are accompanied by long and argumentative rebukes that make it hard to see what specific actionable improvements the reviewer is proposing. I think (Mr rnddude and Mimihitam, who weren't involved in authoring this article) agree with this, if I understand their comments above correctly. When we tried in good faith to address this reviewer's concerns, the reviewer comes up with more argumentative quibbles. Since this reviewer commented, this discussion page has grown from 19,000 to 51,000 bytes and several days later we're still in the lead section. With respect to the reviewer, I don't think this is a productive way to spend everyone's time. If it's okay with coordinators, I'll still read the comments, but will only act on the more actionable and useful ones, if any. Mimihitam has even suggested to stop responding to this reviewer entirely, but I hope I don't have to do that. HaEr48 (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problems of grammar and style stem in great part from a lack of integrating the sources. For example, the nominator doesn't know how much significance to assign to the rumored death by poisoning of the subject's father. The nominator's reply to my point about Granada being a vassal state (supported with seven sources) speaks to something similar. A few days ago, he had the sentences, "Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar. He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute." (See here) When I pointed out some syntactical and stylistic errors in the first sentence, he removed both sentences, which wasn't what I was suggesting. He changed the second to: "He negotiated a treaty with Castile the following year, in which Granada's conquests were recognized in return for Muhammad making an oath of fealty to the King of Castille, Ferdinand IV, paying him tribute." When I asked him why vassal was not mentioned, he cited Harvey, a monograph on Muslim Spain, which states that Granada was not a vassal in the strict sense of the term. But intermittent vassalage or uneven tributary status were not uncommon in medieval or early modern times. (See the lead of Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)) The nominator can use, "a nominal vassal state," "an intermittent vassal state," a "formal tributary state," ... there are all sorts of ways of succinctly expressing those nuances in the writing of history. An encyclopedic account does not shirk from using these terms and veer off instead to tell us about fealty and fidelity. The problem is that every sentence of the article has these errors. I suggest something. The nominator balks and replaces it with another error- or POV-ridden formulation. It took me a while to realize that it stems from the incomplete integration of the sources. This is not promising. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harvey: The Castilian assertion of Granada's vassal status has been so successful, however, that the theory underlies most thinking on this aspect of peninsular history and, on p. 54, The year 1264 is also a vital date in the history of Granada. From this point onwards there may be truces and long periods of peace between Castile and Granada, rather empty mention may even be made at times of Granda's vassal status, but nobody is taken in. In other words, at most, Granada was a "vassal" but it was never really a vassal.
Kennedy maintains a similar view: The Christian sources say that he became [Fernano III's] vassal, but too much importance should not be attached to this. At various times Ibn al-Ahmar pedged his loyalty to Ibn Hud, the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad and Hafsids of Tunis. All these moves were temporary and tactical. More striking was his policy of accepting the Castilian alliance, buying peace for himself with the catastrophe of other, expendable, Muslims. In other words, Granada was a "vassal" to whomever it suited them to be a "vassal" of at the time. That's two sources who treat the vassalization as near fictitious. So it would be blasé to write that "Granada was a vassal state of Castile".
I think tributary state works, because this would reflect the reality of Muhammad III's rule – After inheriting a state at war, and staying at war for a year, he negotiated a peace with Fernando IV which included an "acknowledgement of vassalage" (Harvey p. 167) and tributary payments (Kennedy p. 286). Keep in mind the spirit in which "acknowledgement" is meant, had Harvey wanted to say that Granada became a vassal of Castile, he would have done so. Semantics, you see. I think the suggestion that "there are errors in every sentence" is hyperbolic at best. There is not an error in stating that Muhammad III ma[de] an oath of fealty to the King of Castille, Ferdinand IV, paying him tribute, as currently written in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Harvy is just one dated monograph. As I say above: You need to examine tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias or textbooks for assessing due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY) Britannica, for example, says, "Muḥammad I secured the recognition of Ferdinand III of Castile (his neighbour on all landed frontiers) in return for a vassalage which, though often ignored, remained in force until the kingdom’s disappearance in 1492." Callaghan's textbook, A History of Medieval Spain, 2013, Cornell University Press, says, "Granada was a vassal state of Castile from 1246 onward, owing an annual tribute, though the tie was often broken." (see here). Another textbook, Bernard Reilly's The Medieval Spains, Cambridge U.P., 1992, says, " By any measure, then, Muslim Granada was a tiny kingdom surrounded by formidable foes on whose lassitude or forbearance it must count to survive. It could and would attempt to play the one against the other and the North African Muslim realms against one or both. In the end, all was to prove unavailing yet that end was successfully delayed for some two and a half centuries. During all of this time, Granada was, by Castilian reckoning, a vassal state and either paid or owed parias in the amount set variously between 15o,000 and 300,000 maravedis per annum. It would be a pretty task to compute how much was actually paid but it was sufficient to maintain the crown of Castile's gold coinage fairly stable through the economically troubled years of the period." Clearly, due weight requires us to mention a vassal state, a tributary state, qualified, if you will in some way, in the first few sentences in the article, well before cruelty and culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I suggest respectfully that you not nip at the heels of my every edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above argument about vassalage/tribute is the same argument as already discussed above, so I'll reply above to consolidate the discussion. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged back here three or four times now. I wouldn't even know about these latest comments if I hadn't been pinged by HaEr48. You might notice that I've replied three hours after your comment, and four since the ping. I am not following your edits, I am following my pings. Laser brain – do take note of that fact as well, I've edited here only after being pinged (with the exception of my first edit, which came from things I saw on my watchlist and concluded needed intervening (and I was not alone in that conclusion)). Actually, amidst all the hattings and third-party comments, I was thinking of suggesting that some of it be moved to the article talk page, since reviews are not usually where content disputes are hashed out. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: If you don't want to act on a comment, as a coordinator I'd prefer that you state your reasons for disagreement and our job when we close the nomination is to determine if there's consensus to promote despite open opposition. There are collegial ways to disagree with someone's remarks and move on. I'm dismayed to see a good faith reviewer's remarks dismissed as "rebukes" or "quibbles" and I'd be inclined to archive the nomination if harangues of reviewers continue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain Sorry, I don't mean to harangue reviewers or doubt their good faith. I apologise to everyone (especially Fowler&fowler) if that's how it comes across. I was just hoping to get some guidance from coordinators. You're absolutely right, I'll continue to engage respectfully and adopt the suggestions that are useful and constructive (and explain the reason if I think otherwise). HaEr48 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 51 requires pp. not p.
  • Vidal Castro needs language
  • Template error (date=) in the primary sources.
  • Ibn al-Khaṭīb (2010): "Translated by Emilio Molina López" - translated into what from what?
  • Quality/reliability: I can't comment on the foreign-language sources although their provenance looks good. Otherwise, the sources appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by T8612

edit

Coordinator comment - I struggled with actioning the nomination due to the depth of commentary by F&F and the outstanding opposition. However, after reading throught the other reviews I've determined there is consensus for promotion. HaEr48, please don't take the promotion as an indication that I thought F&F's review was without merit. I'm sure his comments were in the interest of improving the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Harvey 1992, p. 166.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Muhammad_III_of_Granada/archive1&oldid=924456834"