Talk:Al-Walid I

Untitled

I've added material from at Tabari volume 23. One thing I changed was the previous statement that al Hajjaj had appointed all conquering generals. From at Tabari I specified that Musa ibn Nusayr and his retainer (mawla) Tariq ibn Ziyad conquered al-Andalus. Al-Hajjaj was in command in the east and I saw no reference to him in this volume of at Tabari appointing people in Ifriqiyah and al-Andalus. I also replaced Iberia with the Arabic al-Andalus.Gallador 18:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Arabic script, removed {{Arabic}} from the talk page. skoosh (háblame) 22:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dubious tag - April 2015

@Arminden: You've inserted a dubious tag after Al-Walid's Arabic name in the lead, saying "Why is another Arabic-written name indicated in the Infobox? Either-or, but decide (or explain variations)." The Arabic name in the infobox and in the lead look identical to me. Maybe it's the typeface difference that is confusing you? - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

---

@HyperGaruda: Easiest check: 1) number of words: Infobox has 3, lead has 4; 2) copy-and-paste name into search engine of the page: proves they're not identical. 3) Next step: do the same one word at a time - only one out of three does overlap!

Now go to a transliteration engine. I'm using http://www.stevemorse.org/arabic/ara2eng.html. Infobox name reads "LWLD BN BDLMLK", so al-Walid ibn Abdulmalik; lead name "LWLYD BN BD LMLK" al-Walid ibn Abd-ul-Malik or alike. Almost the same, but not quite. So back to my note, please unify or offer some explanation, like: in India they like the -ul- style, but that shouldn't apply to purely Arabic names. Anyhow, one encyclopedia, one article - two ways of writing the article's name?Arminden (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Arminden: Ah, I see. It appears that a space is missing from the infobox version. Also, you might want to find a better transliteration engine. For some reason yours does not recognise the letter ی, which is the same as ي, except that the former should only be used at the end of words. Both are usually transliterated as Y. I'll fix the problem in a mo. - HyperGaruda (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: Thanks. I can't read Arabic, I just noticed there's a difference :-) Arminden (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Walid I/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AhmadLX (talk · contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I will review this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Misc.

• Earwig's clear.
• File:درهم ولید ابن عبدالملک از ایالت سجستان (سیستان.jpg: Source, author, license info wrong.

Holdover from the old version of the article. Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• "born in Medina in circa 674"? I think you don't need "in" with "circa".

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion of Hajjaj's influence on Walid is rather too strong compared to EI2: "strongly influenced", "viceroy's direction" etc. Would suggest softening a bit to match with the source.

I'll look into this tomorrow when I have the sources in front of me (EI2 and others). From my readings, he was quite influential over al-Walid. While Abd al-Malik depended on al-Hajjaj it was clear who was the boss, but things were different with al-Walid, under whom al-Hajjaj acted more as a partner than a subordinate. This is the gist. Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The EI2 entry on al-Hajjaj: "Although Abd al-Malik had now and then restrained the activities of his governor, al-Walid (86-96/705-15) gave him a free hand in everything and relied on him all the more in that he was indebted to him for his succession to the throne, which al-Hadjdjadj had urged to Abd al-Malik against the claims of Abd al-Aziz b. Marwan ... In domestic affairs also al-Walid conformed to the wishes of his governor, appointing and dismissing officials at his prompting." Wellhausen, p. 251: "Walid I, for whose succession he [al-Hajjaj] was anxious, gave him a free hand, and even in his own sphere of government gave in to him and consulted his wishes." I think the article reflects this accordingly. --Al Ameer (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Al-Walid patronized or encouraged the construction of great mosques throughout the Caliph..." This should be deleted from "Public works" section, since it is the subject of a more detailed section that follows.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• According to Blankenship, Walid financed his public works partly by decreasing pay of Syrian soldiers. This should be included.

This is already noted in the Patronage of great mosques section regarding the mosque in Damascus. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources & Verifiability

• You've Kennedy 2nd edition in biblio but pages from 3rd edition

Can't you tell how frustrating this particular source has been for me? ;) Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've decided for myself: will always use 2nd edition, since more pages are accessible in google books and my copy is also 2nd edition ;)

I have the full ebook of the Second Edition (2004), but before that I was using whatever edition Google Books allowed me access to, hence the confusion. Anyway, fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Google books link for Marsham 2009 plz.

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• "a man after the heart of the scholars of the Scripture" in Wellhausen refers to Umar II I think.

This quote isn’t in the article, are you referring to al-Walid’s insistence that the people surrounding him have knowledge of the Qur’an? Al Ameer (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that one.

@AhmadLX: Just re-read it. Wellhausen does state the Umar II was "a man after the heart of the scholars of the Scripture", but is referring to al-Walid when he says "and he emphatically insisted upon knowledge of the Qoran in the case of everyone, though he, to his father’s sorrow, no longer spoke in the old Arabic in which the holy Book is written." —Al Ameer (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes but " insisted upon knowledge of the Qoran in the case of everyone" is vague and is not equal to "[Walid] was adamant that those in his company possessed knowledge of the sacred Islamic book."

I think it’s more specific in Tabari. I’ll check. Otherwise, I’ll modify the text accordingly. —Al Ameer (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Tabari lists two examples of al-Walid's insistence on men coming to him for favors have knowledge of the Qur'an (vol 23, p. 220). I think this is undoubtedly where Wellhausen got his information. "Everyone" in this case must mean everyone in his presence as opposed to everyone in the Caliphate for instance. If it's problematic, I can revise it as partial quote attributed to Wellhausen. --Al Ameer (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I revised it as stated above, but honestly I think the previous version was better. --Al Ameer (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for revising it, but I'm quite unhappy with what we have there now. Instead of following Wellhausen closely, I think we should rephrase what Tabari says into something like ", yet he insisted, during his reign (this one optional, or you can change it the way you like), that everyone in his company must/should have the knowledge of Quran.

Agree, I rewrote it. --Al Ameer (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• "another of al-Hajjaj's appointees, Mujja'a ibn Si'r, wrested control of Uman, along Arabia's southeastern coast." I could not find this in Kennedy 2016 p. 91 (or Kennedy 2004 pp. 103-105) and Dietrich 1971 p. 41.

It's in Dietrich's entry on al-Hajjaj (p. 41, 1st column, 3rd para). However, the Oman affair was a bit confusing when I delved a bit deeper into it. I'm not sure now if it occurred during Abd al-Malik's reign or al-Walid's. --Al Ameer (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Oopps, had read that para 3 times, but somehow missed it ;) But there is another problem. Dixon (thesis, p. 263 ff.) places this in Abd al-Malik's reign.

I’m still not clear on the dating, but will remove it from here. Perhaps it should be noted in Abd al-Malik’s article. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• "After a lengthy siege in 707–708, the Byzantine fortress of Tyana was captured." Wellhausen p. 224 doesn't give the year of the siege. Please add one source.

@Cplakidas: I was going to copy it from the Siege of Tyana article but had difficulty finding which source exactly mentioned the years "707–708". Could you add the correct reference to this article? Al Ameer (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Done. Constantine ✍ 15:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

• Pass. 3b is a bit off, but not big deal. Otherwise great work. Congrats. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Short description

I edited the article's short description (SD) from Sixth Umayyad caliph (r. 705–715) to a more helpful Arabian prince and the sixth leader of the Umayyad caliphate (r. 705–715), but Apaugasma reverted this stating that "short descriptions should be under 40 characters wherever possible" and referencing WP:SD40. WP:BRD requires me to discuss here before processing further. The SD40 guidance does not require SDs to be under 40 characters but does state that 80% are, and that SDs should "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject", and "be short – no longer than is needed to fulfill [their] functions effectively". I do not believe the original SD fulfilled these requirements, hence my edit; in particular, I don't believe that "caliph" is a common term in everyday English (I had to read its article to find out what it means) and because of that it is unclear what Ummayad is. I propose a shorter version (52 characters rather than my original 75) to hopefully satisfy the requirement for brevity whilst being more useful as an SD: Sixth leader of the Umayyad caliphate (r. 705–715). I'm open to suggestions for rephrasing whilst keeping the SD requirements of using "simple, readily comprehensible terms". Bazza (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. Try to keep in mind what short descriptions are used for: when searching a term on a tablet or smartphone, they appear beneath the term as a way to disambiguate from similarly spelled terms. They longer they are, the longer the reader will do to pick the right article between the similarly spelled terms. Now ask the question: what are the chances that someone looking for al-Walid I does not know the word 'caliph'? And if they're in fact looking for some completely different 'Walid', say Walid Phares, isn't Sixth Umayyad caliph (r. 705–715) enough for the reader to quickly realize, even if they don't know the word 'caliph' or 'Umayyad', that this is not what they're looking for? Your second suggestion is already better, but still a bit long for this purpose. If you don't agree, hopefully we'll get some input from other editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You have assumed that SDs are only used by readers looking for something specific. WP:SD states that as the third of their three purposes:

• a very brief indication of the field covered by the article
• a short descriptive annotation
• a disambiguation in searches, especially to distinguish the subject from similarly titled subjects in different fields

I use them for the first and second when I scroll through random articles (during which process I also update SDs, one of the Wikipedia app's suggested activities), and rely on "simple, readily comprehensible terms" to judge whether I want to view an article or skip to the next. "Sixth Umayyad caliph (r. 705–715)" did not fulfil that requirement, interesting though the article seems to be.

You state that my 52-character proposal is still a bit long, without saying what the limit is. It's not 40 characters, which is a suggestion at WP:SDFORMAT, not a mandatory instruction; even 100 characters is listed as allowable but subject to scrutiny, and the Wikipedia app's physical limit is 250.

As you suggest, we can wait a bit longer to see if anyone else has ideas. Bazza (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It used to read "no more than about 40 characters" until very recently, that's where I'm coming from with this (I didn't realize it had changed). But is the way you use the SDs not rather more as an editor than as a reader? Readers do tend to look for something specific, and their interests should come first. Anyway, I'm personally OK with the 52 char description (though perhaps use 'ruler' rather than 'leader'), I just think the shorter one is better. Other editors are probably not very interested in this discussion at this point, but if we were to make this change to all our articles about caliphs, I suspect that editorial input would favor the shorter versions using 'caliph' rather than 'leader/ruler of the foo caliphate'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Coin image background

Would it be possible to switch to a transparent background for the coin image in the infobox? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)