Talk:Ahmad ibn Tulun

Untitled

I have started a separate article for Tulunids - a lot of the stuff here (from 'Collapse of the Dynasty' onwards) could be merged into that, since it's not directly relevant to Ahmad ibn Tulun himself. Also Khumarawaih is a separate person and should have his own entry, not be redirected here.

There is a separte article for the mosque (Mosque of Ibn Tulun), and quite of lot of stuff could be moved there.

Copyvio?

{{cv-unsure}}

I'm not sure about these, but they're awfully suspect. Ahmad ibn Tulun (history · last edit) and Mosque of Amr (history · last edit). Both by the same author. Both had "By A.I MAKKI" at the top of the article. I was unable to locate online sources for either of these articles, but searching for "By A.I MAKKI" returns a ton of hits, such as [1] and [2], suggesting that the legitimate author is a writer somewhere, and that these works are copied. I didn't place the copyvio notice on the pages since I can't find a source, but if anyone else is able to come up with anything, feel free to add the notice. —Brim

---

The author, as you mention, is awfully prolific, and never sources any of his articles - he's either a genuis with total ability to recall minute detail, or he's writing research papers without citing his sources (which in academia we like to call "plagiarism").

More to the point with his article is that very little of it is about Ibn Tulun himself - most of it is about the mosque, which has its own page. The text isn't wikified, and while overflowing with detail, it's not well written. If it is kept, it needs an awful lot of editing. (And I'm not just saying that because I contributed to the Temp page).

Khowaga 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and replaced it with the temp page written by Khowaga. Accordingly I've un-transcluded Brim's cv-unsure template above. Thanks to all. Chick Bowen 15:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ahmad ibn Tulun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 13:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Seems a bit scant on images, no more photos of for example associated buildings, people mentioned in the texts, or illustrations of mentioned battles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• No map showing the extend of his rule? Like those in the Tulunids article. Or Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tulunid_dynasty
  • Well, there is no map showing the extent of Ibn Tulun's domains, rather than those of his son, and most of the maps in Commons are not very reliable. However you are right that a map would be of great value, so I included the map of Khumarawayh's realm. One ought to be able to at least gain an overview of cities and regions from it.
    • User:Ro4444 has kindly made a map with the extent of Ibn Tulun's realm in 881.
• Seems the gold coin image is a bit misplaced under early life, might be better in a section about the time it was produced? "Final years and death" Mentions them.
  • Good observation, done.
• You mention his mother far after his birth, no name or nationality for her?
  • I couldn't find anything in the sources I consulted. There are a few primary sources I haven't consulted as I don't have access to them, I'll definitely add it if I find anything.
• Turkic is a pretty broad term, any info on where his father was from originally? Bukhara?
• *It is not mentioned anywhere. "Turk" is a catch-all term used by medieval Arab authors for the slave-soldiers recruited from Central Asia, but mostly, and Tulun's case definitely, it refers to Turkic people. Further distinctions cannot be made due to lack of information. I've added the relevant information.
• "At about the same time, for the first time the Muslim population began surpassing the Coptic Christians," Perhaps add "in numbers" just for clarity.
• "Arabisation and Islamization" Perhaps be consistent in whether you use "ise" or "ize", but what does the source do?
• "millenialist revolutionary movements in the province under a series of Alid pretenders." This sentence will be nonsense to most readers, perhaps explain the first and last terms in parenthesis?
  • I fear that it is one of those cases where it is impossible to explain it briefly; one will have to follow the links.
• "led to the strengthening of ties with Ifriqiya to the west." Perhaps mention what this was.
• "When Isa refused" Why use first name here, and last name for others?
  • It's not exactly "last name", but you are right that "Isa" may e incongruous; changed throughout to "Ibn al-Shaykh"
• There is inconsistency in whether you say ibn Tulun or Ibn Tulun, should use the former throughout.
  • This is no inconcistency. In transliterated Arabic names, when the full name is given, i.e. given name and patronymic, the "ibn" is uncapitalized; when only the patronymic is used to refer to the person, it is capitalized.
• "black African (Sudan) and Greek (Rūm) slaves" From these places, or what is meant?
  • ethnicity/regional origin is what is meant. I have delinked Sudan as the term refers to black Africans in general, not the modern state of Sudan.
• "but no sooner had he arrived at al-Arish with his army in summer 870 than orders came to turn back." Why?
  • This is not clarified in the sources. One can assume that the caliphal government did not want to see him in control of Syria as well, but I've found no concrete statement to that effect.
• "and Ibn Tulun bequeathed Khumarawayh a fiscal reserve of ten million dinars." Khumarawayh is not mentioned before this point, so the reader would not know who he is.
  • I've removed the name and put in "successor" instead.
• "refused to recognize his new suzerain" Which is what?
• "and over Barqa tried to take over Ifriqiya." Not sure that this sentence means. "Over"?
• "Defeated (probably in the winter of 880–881, he retreated back east to Alexandria, where he was finally defeated" Double defeated looks clumsy.
• "Only then, in April 879, did Ibn Tulun return to Egypt." Why does the sentence start bwith "only then"? Doesn't seem to connect to the former sentence.
  • Oversight during copy-paste. I've moved the previous sentence to the final section, where I think it is more appropriate.
• "Ibn Tulun was forced to besiege the city" Forced seem a little too strong here, what does the source say?
• "but Yazaman opened diverted the local river" Something seems to be wrong here.
• "humarawayh was able to preserve his authority against the Abbasid" Easter Egg links are discouraged.
  • the article gives a good summary of the background and aftermath of these attempts which would be superfluous to cover in any detail here, and I considered this the simpler solution than trying to shoehorn in a direct reference to the battle.

I'm not saying the link should be removed, "easter egg" refers to the destination of the link being hidden, when the title at least could be mentioned clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• It was a bit unclear for me from reading when exactly Tulun began to break with the Abbasids?
  • It was a gradual process, and he never really "broke" with the Abbasids. He exploited the situation to amass power for himself, and inter alia used the domination of al-Muwaffaq over the Caliph as a justification of his actions. One cannot say whether there was any conscious decision or a moment where he decided upon it, or if it was an incremental process, but from the moment he became master of Egypt he was certainly concerned with maintaining and increasing his power. It was the weakness of the central government as much as his own ability which allowed him to be more successful where others before him had failed.
• "that a wāli, whose legitimacy derived from the caliph who had designated him, was succeeded openly by an amīr" Neither wali or amir are mentioned before this point.
  • Well, there is no point to mention them; the quote is self-explanatory enough even without knowing what the terms stand for, "wali" is linked for anyone who wishes to know more, and amir is simply the original form of "emir".
• "Originally a Turkic slave-soldier" Was he so himself? Or just his father?
  • It definitely refers to Ibn Tulun as well. His biographers take pains to stress that unlike the "other Turks" he was well-read in Arabic culture, but both his ethnic background and his career are almost archetypal for a Turkish ghulam.
• "Exploiting the volatile political situation and the preoccupation of the Abbasid regent, al-Muwaffaq, with the wars against the Saffarids and the Zanj Rebellion, within four years Ibn Tulun established himself as a virtually independent ruler by evicting the caliphal fiscal agent, Ibn al-Mudabbir, taking over control of Egypt's finances, and establishing a large military force personally loyal to himself." Perhaps this very long sentence should be broken up.
• Last thing, there should probably not be transliteration accents when the name is first mentioned in the intro.
  • This is actually done per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Arabic#Lead_paragraph.

It is incredibly hard to find pictures of the Tulunid Era, except for their architecture and of course the city Fustat (old cairo). I was wondering if it is possible if people can provide drawings. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Might be a bit like OR if we were to make our own drawings, if that's what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk! Sorry for the delay, work got in the way. I've begun answering your issues one by one. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I was out of reach of my PC for the past few days. I'll make some major revisions over the next few days, I've found a couple of sources that can clarify some stuff and add a few details. Please be patient. Constantine ✍ 23:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I always keep GANs open for as long as it takes to finish. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello FunkMonk! With the kind assistance of User:Ro4444, who is pretty much an expert on early Islamic history, I've been able to complete my revisions of the article. The issues you have raised before have been addressed, and a bit of new information has been added here and there so that I feel the article is done. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Not much to do than pass then, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your time, and for your comments! Best, Constantine ✍ 13:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Update assessment to GA in WikiProjects?

Shouldn't the WikiProjects be updated to GA? Adamdaley (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)