Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fatimid conquest of Egypt/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [1].

---

Fatimid conquest of Egypt

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the conquest of Egypt by the Fatimids, who would make the country their seat and rule it for almost exactly two centuries. The conquest itself is an excellent example of successful political subversion, as the Egyptian elites were gradually induced to not oppose the invasion itself. As a direct result of the conquest, Cairo was founded, Egypt became once again the seat of a Mediterranean imperial power, and the Fatimids were brought one big step closer to their (ultimately unfulfilled) goal of taking Baghdad and overthrowing the Abbasid Caliphate. The article was begun in October 2019, and has passed GA and MILHIST's ACR since. I am confident it is the most complete treatment of the topic available, and look forward to any suggestions to improve it further. Constantine ✍ 16:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

Wow. Written with considerable deft and skill, this is an absorbing, engaging read throughout. Its not often you see a 6k word article written with such consistent clarity. Support on prose. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Ceoil. Is there anything at all that might be done to further improve the article? Anything left unclear? Constantine ✍ 09:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

Agreed. I went over it with a fine tooth comb, and cannot find any problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Images are free and placement meets MOS (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

It is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I had a look at this at both GAN and ACR, let's see if I can find anything new to pick at.

• A minor point, but why "organized a large-scale expedition" rather than just 'a large expedition'?
  • No particular reason, changed
• "the expedition set off from Raqqada on 6 February 969". Maybe 'the expedition set off from Raqqada (in modern Tunisia} on 6 February 969'?
  • Good suggestion, implemented it somewhat differently: Added the clarification about Tunisia to Ifriqiya, and then clarified that Raqqada was in Ifriqiya
• "failed to take the capital of Fustat" → 'failed to take the Egyptian capital Fustat'?
  • Good point, done
• A couple of words on who the Makurians were would be helpful.
  • Good point, done
• Qarmatians similarly.
  • Done.
• "The domestic situation in Egypt was only worsened by a series of low Nile floods". Does "only" add anything here?
  • Removed.
• "aggravated still further by the outbreak of a rat-borne plague". Similarly "still".
  • Removed.
• "25 times its normal price". Suggest "normal" → 'pre-famine'.
  • Changed.
• "leaving Egypt in a virtual power vacuum". This doesn't sound very encyclopedic and am not sure what it means. Is there not a more felicitous turn of phrase?
  • Changed to "effectively without government"
• "who had a special interest in having stability restored". Perhapsa few words on why this was the case?
  • Done.
• "even Ibn al-Furat is suspected by modern historians". By modern historians, or by some modern historians?
  • Good catch.
• "The Fatimids' own experience made them well aware of this fact." Optional: delete "fact".
  • Removed.
• "that the military refused to accept it, and resolved to fight and bar passage over the Nile." Insert 'had' before "resolved".
  • Done.
• "The resistance of the troops had broken Jawhar's amān and made the city licit for plunder according to custom, but Jawhar consented to its renewal". This doesn't make sense. I think "its" needs elaborating.
  • Done.
• "but Damascus was enraged" A picky point, but maybe 'the citizens of Damascus', or whatever?
  • Done.
• "forced to recognize Fatimid supremacy so by a joint Fatimid–Medinan expedition". Is "so" a typo?
  • Indeed.
• Should "Lev" have an upper case L?
  • Since it is a proper name, and not the Bulgarian currency, of course.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, and thanks for the usual thorough review. Your comments have been addressed above. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 19:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that all looks fine. Just as good as the last two times I went through it. More than happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Funk

• Though the article has the necessary support, it is a subject I'd like to know more about, so I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• "The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya in 909" You could state where this is today.
  • Done
• "The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya in 909, when they overthrew the reigning Aghlabid dynasty" Could more background to this be added? How recently had the Fatimids arrived to the region, and from where? To give context for how focused they were on taking over.
  • Done
• "The interior courtyard of the Mosque of Amr ibn al-As" Perhaps give more context in the caption, like "where Jawhar led the Friday prayer after entering Fustat"?
  • Done
• "as the sources report different detail." Details?
  • Changed
• Link Alid.
  • Done
• "inhabitants of Damascus was enraged" Were?
  • Corrected
• "Egypt was not yet wholly under Fatimid control" you then go on to events in the Levant, but could it be elaborated how Egypt itself was not fully under their control? I see you mention it in the section below "and extend Fatimid rule to the north (the Nile Delta area) and south (Upper Egypt)", but I wonder if it should already be stated earlier that these areas remained?
  • You are right that this is a bit confusing. Moved this further down, to the section about Jawhar's administration of Egypt
• Maybe show a photo of the Al-Azhar Mosque, since it seems significant it was begun as a result of the conquest?
  • Done
• You are inconsistent in whether you give conversions for distance measurements. You have "10 kilometres (6.2 mi)" but also "some five kilometres".
  • Fixed, thanks for catching this.
• "The Fatimid general called almost the entire population of Fustat to arms" The male population, I assume? If so, could be specified.
  • Done
• It is confusing that you mention Cairo a bunch of times before the part about its foundation.
  • Added a mention when writing about the new capital founded by Jawhar
• "which he renamed as al-Qāhira al-Muʿizzīya" and "and their capital, Cairo", so when did it become known as Cairo? A bit confusing when you refer to two names.
  • darkblue
• Link ecumenical.
  • Done
• "the Abbasid Caliphate had collapsed" That's not the impression one gets from reading the article, only that they were weakened?
  • Well, when "the Abbasid caliphs themselves were reduced to powerless pawns", it is pretty much equal to collapse, isn't it? Sure, the institution of the caliphate didn't vanish, but the caliphs went within a couple of decades from being emperors to having less power than the Queen of England currently has.
• "which became the seat of the Fatimid Caliphate for the remainder of its existence" The last section could state how long the Fatimid rule over Egypt lasted, when and how it came to an end.
  • Added, and in the text as well

@FunkMonk: Thanks a lot for taking the time and the good suggestions. Have replied to your points above, please have another look. Constantine ✍ 21:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The added context looks great, one last thing in the text you added: "of their rightful place leaders of the entire Muslim world" Missing as? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Fixed, thanks. Constantine ✍ 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I'm happy I read it after all, very interesting! FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

Thank you for this well-written, interesting article!

• The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya... Consider explaining Ifriqiya with modern/better known geographical term(s).
  • Done
• ...as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent from Fatima... I think a "sect" could not claim descend from Fatima. Maybe "family", "clan"?
  • Done
• ...take their place at the head of a universal empire. Were the Abbasids the head of a universal empire? They may have laid claim to universal leadership.
  • Clarified: since Islam held ecumenical aspirations, the caliph, theoretically at least, was a universal monarch (much like the Roman/Byzantine emperor). This was even more so for the Fatimids, who as imams were supposed to be God's 'proof' on earth.
• As the Abbasid Caliphate entered a severe crisis in the 930s,... A wikilink to "severe crisis" or a short explanation ("economic/political/military/general")?
  • We don't have a single article on this, unfortunately. Added 'general' as it was indeed a systemic collapse.
• Abu Yazid A short introduction? ("the anti-Ismaili Berber leader",....)
  • Done
• Consider shortly mentioning the Ummayad conquest in the Maghreb in the "Background" section, because the article only writes of the Fatimid reconquest of the region.
  • That takes as too far back, I am afraid, and is not really relevant to this article. Plus the Fatimids did not reconquer the region, since they never held power there (or anywhere) before. They were a secret movement that rode a religious-social-political movement to power against the Sunni establishment, but their origins are not related to the Umayyad conquest of the Maghreb, as the Isma'ili sect was a recent import into the region.
    • In this case the following text in section "Fatimid preparations" is misleading: By 965, his armies under Jawhar had triumphed over the Umayyads of the Caliphate of Córdoba, reversing their gains and once more extending Fatimid authority over what is now western Algeria and Morocco. It suggests a reconquest.
      • Ah, of course. The reconquest here refers to the first wave of Fatimid expansion over the Maghreb in the 910s and 920s. Clarified now.

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Thanks for your suggestions and kind words. Looking forward to the rest :) Constantine ✍ 22:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• ...the balance of power gradually shifted in the Fatimids' favour...Gradually deprived of its outlying provinces... The word "gradually" is used twice in a short paragraph
  • Removed the first occurrence, it was not necessary
• The first paragraph in section "Collapse of the Ikhshidid regime" is not clear. 1. I assume Kafur was the vizier until his death and al-Furat became his successor, although the commanders of the army wanted to achieve the appointment of one of their number to the post. 2. We are informed that the Ikshidiyya and the Kafuriyya were rivals, but we are also informed that they wanted to have one of their number appointed to be Kafur's successor. (Maybe al-Furat was a compromise to avoid a clash between the two military factions?)
  • Kafur was the power behind the throne for about 20 years before becoming emir himself in 966. He was not the vizier, Ibn al-Furat was. I wanted to avoid delving too much into the details of the Ikhshidid period except in so far as it impacts the events shown here. I've added a brief summary, just to give an idea why Kafur's loss left such a vacuum. On the second part, of course the military wanted to continue the 'tradition' of having one of their own in charge. But I think the article makes clear that in the end, they backed down and a compromise between the various factions followed.
• ...slave-soldier... Consider changing it to ...ghulām, or slave-soldier... and de-link "ghilmān" in section "Occupation of Fustat".
  • Done
• The Caliph made no secret of his ambition... Consider naming him or mentioning him as the "Fatimid Caliph".
  • Done
• ...the massive influx of high-quality gold from sub-Saharan Africa... A short explanation? Only the footnote clarifies that it was not a tribute, but it was imported.
  • Altered influx to importation
• ...Kutama homeland... Where? (I assumed that it was in the Maghreb, but we are informed that the Maghreb was recently (re)conquered.) Consider mentioning against that the Kutama were Berbers. (I know that it was mentioned, but a repetition helps to memorize it. :) )
  • Done. Just as a note, the Maghreb includes Ifriqiya, but the 'reconquered' area was the western half of the Maghreb, so the Kutama homeland was not actually lost.
• ...short-lived regent... Is "short-lived" a proper adjective?
  • It is, but incorrectly (and redundantly) used here. Removed.
• ...al-Hasan ibn Ubayd Allah is said ... By whom?
  • That is unclear; in Halm's reference for this passage, a few sources are listed. Likely it was a pro-Fatimid source, like the Sirat Jawhar, but I can't be certain.
• ...Modern historians stress... Too general? Do we know that all modern historians stress it?
  • Rephrased; it is indeed a factor stressed in all accounts I have read on the events
• ...by the Abbasid-aligned Muslim rulers of the region... I may be wrong, but as far as I remember Shiite families dominated northern Syria in this period.
  • You are correct, e.g. the Hamdanids; but they were Twelvers and still recognized the Abbasids as leaders of the umma, not the Fatimids.
• ...do Jawar homage... Is this the proper term? I have only read the "do homage" expression in the context of European feudalism, but I am not a native speaker.
  • I am also not a native speaker, but I've often encountered the phrase in a more general use to mean a public gesture of respect and'submission. The feudal terms are used in the same way in French and German, BTW.
• ...the unfamiliar phrases from a note... Clarify. (I assume the preacher was Sunni, that is why he did not know the Shiite phrases.)
  • Good point, done
• ...the khuṭba was proclaimed in al-Mu'izz's name in 969 or 970... Consider changing: ...the khuṭba was proclaimed for the first time in the Fatimid Caliph's name in 969 or 970....
  • Done
• ...The Hasanid Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Hasani... is said... By whom?
• ...one account... By whom?
  • Clarified, as far as possible. Like above, the references are not always clear.
• Delete "(see below)". (We will see it.)
  • Done
• ...900 of them... Who? Two different groups of Ikhshidid troops were mentioned in the previous sentences.
  • Clarified.
• Consider mentioning that the Ikhshidid troops were familiar with the conditions in the Nile Delta in this section, because many of them were not dissmissed for their special knowledge. (Now this is mentioned in the section "Pacification of the provinces and the Qarmatian invasion".)
  • Done, good suggestion.
• Introduce Tibr.
  • Done
• Explain the term "ashrāf" in footnote "d."
  • Done
• Consider consolidating the text of footnote "g." in the main text.
  • I considered that, but I felt it would break the chronological narrative.
• ...the Abbasid Caliphate had collapsed... I am not sure this is the proper term (although I read your explanation above).
  • Well, the problem is what we mean by "the Abbasid Caliphate": it can mean both the caliphal institution, in which case of course it did not 'collapse', but also the territorial state, the "Abbasid empire" for lack of a better term, which most certainly did vanish entirely. After 946, the Abbasid caliph had no power outside his palace walls, and often not much within them either. Only after the partial restoration of their temporal power in the 11th century did they again become actual rulers instead of figureheads. If you can think of a better description, of course, I am open to suggestions.

End of my comments. I really enjoyed reviewing this article. Previously my knowledge of the events was limited, but now I have a picture. Again, thank you for your hard work. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: I've fixed the issues you raised or otherwise answered you above. I am happy that you found it interesting and (presumably) accessible, this is always one of my big worries with my articles due to the rather obscure (for a Western audience) topics. Is there anything else, even beyond FAC concerns, that might be improved? Constantine ✍ 12:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. My principal concerns were addressed. Where not, I mainly understand your concerns. Could you rephrase the three sentences containing the phrases "is said" and "one account"? They suggest me unrelevance and force me to raise the question "By whom?". Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Did a bit of tweaking on the "is said", but short of removing the qualifier altogether (which I won't do, for obvious reasons), the ambiguity will always remain until I can somehow trace the exact source. The "one account" bit has been fixed already. Constantine ✍ 09:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand your position, so I think I have no choice but to support. :) Thank you for the article. Borsoka (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for a thorough review that helped improve the article further. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I think we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Nb. I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

• "Sources": J comes before K.
  • Done
• Canard: are you sure that you have the details right? Are you referring to this?
  • Yes, but I don't see the problem. The worldcat reference says "Extrait de : "Annales de l'Institut d'Etudes Orientales", VI, 1942-1947, p. 156-193." which is what I am referencing as well.
• Lev (1988); one should be Lev (1988b).
  • It is linked via the harvid feature. Or do you mean that the year in the visible reference should also be changed?

The cite should be trackable by eye, without having to click on anything. So it needs to be visible in the Sources list as well. I have made the change; let me know if you have a problem with it.

That's fine and makes sense, thanks

• Cite 97: I am struggling to find support for your text in the article on p. 456 of "Zaydi Shiism and the Hasanid Sharifs of Mecca". Could you point me towards the text in the work you are relying on?
  • The citation is for page 457, not 456: "The Sharif Ja'far b. Muhammad is reported to have mentioned the name of the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah in the ritual sermon (khutba) during the Friday prayers in the Great Mosque at Mecca as early as 358/969, after having been informed of the Fatimid conquest of Egypt" for the first instance, and "whereas al-Maqrizi (d. 845/1442), relying on contemporary Fatimid sources since lost, claims that the khutba was not recited in the name of al-Mucizz li-DTn Allah until the following year, 364/975." for the second.

Tick.

• "Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn al-Athir put the recitation of the Friday prayer[99] as late as 974". 1) I think that the cite should be moved to after "as late as 974" 2) the page should be pp. 65-66, not p. 65 3) the source given supports a date of 970, not the 974 in the article.
• I suspect that cite 96 should be pp. 65-66 not pp. 64-65; and further suspect that it may have become confused with cite 99.
  • Fixed ref 96. On 99, there's indeed a mix-up inadvertently introduced during my last edits in the section: the citation concerns the khutba at Mecca, not Medina. So the correct reference should have been Mortel 1987, p. 457. Corrected now, thanks, Gog the Mild.

Tick.

I will let you come back to me on these before I go any further. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• "Against this backdrop of internal problems and external threats, and following the permanent decline of their former imperial overlords, the possibility of a Fatimid takeover became an increasingly more attractive prospect to the Egyptians." is cited to Welker, p. 136. Looking at the page I can't see any of this, could you assist?
  • Should have been pp. 136-137, but the relevant info does begin at "With a caution..." and ends with "making Baghdad even less important". The context given here checks the following boxes: a) the decline and increasing irrelevance of Baghdad ("the distant and increasingly impotent Abbasids"), b) deterioration of the internal situation ("As economic conditions along the Nile deteriorated"), c) the external threats (Byzantine advance and Qarmatian raids), and d) the increasing appeal of a Fatimid takeover ("many Egyptians wondered if the Fatimids would not be preferable").

Tick.

• "Fatimid propaganda was quick to exploit the Byzantine offensive, contrasting the ineffectiveness of the Ikhshidids and their Abbasid suzerains with the Fatimids, who were fighting with the Byzantines in southern Italy, as vigorous champions of Islam". Similarly. I thought that I must be doing something wrong, but the similar cite - 33 - to " "intended the conquest of Egypt from early in his reign" " is there, as is 33d. Help! Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • p. 136: "His propaganda apparatus leaned heavily on the need to bring strong leadership to the jihād against the Byzantines in northern Syria. This was a theme designed to appeal in the east and was something the Abbasids, by implication, were not doing". "By implication", also, the Fatimids were publicly known to be active in the jihad, namely through their wars with the Byzantines. This is only hinted at in p. 136 ("complicated dealings with the Byzantines", rather a euphemism), but I gave the relevant link for clarification. I have now added the relevant passages from Halm's work on the Fatimid offensive in Italy.

My bad; not sure how I missed that.

@Gog the Mild: Answered. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives is represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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