This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Index
|
|
Something should be said about the theory that he suffered from madness near the end of his life. One could also mention the beliefs of the Druze people.
I have never heard of the theory that he suffered from madness. In fact, the article is biased and does not give the perspective of the Druze.
Without any malice to the authors, I think this entire article needs to be re-written and more organized along chronological lines. One comes away from it with the feeling that one has learned nothing about the subject. True, the Caliph was extremely controversial, but even the talk page is a mish-mash of criticisms without any contributions towards clarity. Just the fact that he is the center of the Druze religion is enough to warrant a ton of research into this person, and an article that explains the man in relation to his times, rather than comes across as a list of names he was called, is needed. A lack of valid original research may be the cause of all of this, so one may not be able to fault the authors of the article, but I believe that this person is too important to leave an article in wikipedia.org about him in the chaotic state in which it currently stands. Daniel Sparkman ( talk) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
None of the information is cited, therefore there is no justification for its inclusion. There is no proof for any erratic or eccentric behavior in the academic literature. It needs to be removed or cited ASAP. Until it can be cited, I am removing it from the article.
I have here a copy of 'Millennium' by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto in which al-Hakim's disappearance is claimed to have occurred following his retirement to his observatory where he studied astronomy with the aid of an astrolabe rather than during a night-time journey into the al-Muqattam hills. Can somebody clarify which it is? --J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.36.143 ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems the question of the label "Mad Caliph" has been edit warred here a number of times, including the two discussions below (which I have brought here to centralise the debate), the discussion immediately above, as well as Talk:Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah/Archive_1#Huge_NPOV_Issues.3B_No_sources.2Foriginal_research from the archives.
==> Bringing from my talk page
==> Bringing from DistributorScientiae's talk page
Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Certainly it should be mentioned, but not in the lead paragraph, where it is currently. Maybe a "legacy" section or something. Adam Bishop ( talk) 10:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those scholars who take issue with the term, I have expanded the segment by taking quotes from the sources you found, hopefully that should help balance the article. I couldn't determine that they were Sunni, so I changed that to "partisan" as that seems easily supported by the referrences. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not indulge in elaborate religious discussion in this historical article. Please do not add entire quotes of Nissim Dana as this an independant article and must be written as originally as possible. Thanks. DistributorScientiae 12:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DistributorScientiae ( talk • contribs)
And now i have reversed your reversal. FYI - Muawiah was not a warrier. So much for the the scholarship of Nissim Dana. DistributorScientiae ( talk) 00:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The opening sentence states he "was the third Fatimid caliph", with a reference to a MIT handout, but surely he was the sixth (and the third was Al-Mansur Billah). Jojairus ( talk) 11:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I corrected this, notes from a college course are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. I changed it and pointed to a reliable source that clearly has him as the sixth Fatimid caliph like every other reliable source. - Wowaconia ( talk) 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the following material that was added and asserts things about the Druze and/or "aggressive historians" who are unnamed and apparently are deemed "aggressive" solely by the opinion of the editor who inserted the statements. The reference given appears to merely be a self published web site and as such would not raise to the level of reliable source by wiki standards.
Perhaps if the statements were reworked they could meet wiki-standards as a critique of the Druze position. I place them here, should anyone wish to under take this endeavor -- Wowaconia ( talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the current lead image as it is not a portrait of al-Hakim, it's just a fresco from the 11th-century at Cairo's Islamic Art Museum. The museum's own literature and other sources make this clear (e.g. p.50 of this book, p. 14 of this book, and so on). The file name, which is merely chosen by whoever uploaded it, is the only thing claiming otherwise and is not a reliable source in itself. Maybe the image could be relevant here as an example of art from this time, but it should not be used as lead image either way: per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, an article about a person should not have a lead image that portrays a person other than the subject. Obviously, it would simply mislead readers of the page who expect the image to be of Al-Hakim. Articles for other Fatimid caliphs feature coins minted with the caliph's name as their lead image, so I've followed that example and replaced it with one such image from al-Hakim's time, but feel free to pick another. R Prazeres ( talk) 06:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The citation style in this article is generally way too slapdash for WP today - so many citations are to 'Random, P45' or 'Bunkum, 1847' - I'd argue for a complete cleanup of what is a really quite Augean stable. In particular, I intend to remove the section claiming he established the 'House of Wisdom', which pretty much every source available will tell you was established by Harun Al Rashid something like three hundred years earlier. Any objections? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Is Nasturis a misspelling, or the Arabic version of Nestorius? Arminden ( talk) 09:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
And yet the sentence added by Snowstormfigorion states:
As such I will be removing said sentence, since it clearly contradicts what the source provided by Snowstormfigorion states. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Half of the entire lead shouldn't be taken by one historian's quote on al-Hakim. It really should be (traditionally) a summarization of the most important points of this article Danial Bass ( talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Index
|
|
Something should be said about the theory that he suffered from madness near the end of his life. One could also mention the beliefs of the Druze people.
I have never heard of the theory that he suffered from madness. In fact, the article is biased and does not give the perspective of the Druze.
Without any malice to the authors, I think this entire article needs to be re-written and more organized along chronological lines. One comes away from it with the feeling that one has learned nothing about the subject. True, the Caliph was extremely controversial, but even the talk page is a mish-mash of criticisms without any contributions towards clarity. Just the fact that he is the center of the Druze religion is enough to warrant a ton of research into this person, and an article that explains the man in relation to his times, rather than comes across as a list of names he was called, is needed. A lack of valid original research may be the cause of all of this, so one may not be able to fault the authors of the article, but I believe that this person is too important to leave an article in wikipedia.org about him in the chaotic state in which it currently stands. Daniel Sparkman ( talk) 16:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
None of the information is cited, therefore there is no justification for its inclusion. There is no proof for any erratic or eccentric behavior in the academic literature. It needs to be removed or cited ASAP. Until it can be cited, I am removing it from the article.
I have here a copy of 'Millennium' by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto in which al-Hakim's disappearance is claimed to have occurred following his retirement to his observatory where he studied astronomy with the aid of an astrolabe rather than during a night-time journey into the al-Muqattam hills. Can somebody clarify which it is? --J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.36.143 ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems the question of the label "Mad Caliph" has been edit warred here a number of times, including the two discussions below (which I have brought here to centralise the debate), the discussion immediately above, as well as Talk:Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah/Archive_1#Huge_NPOV_Issues.3B_No_sources.2Foriginal_research from the archives.
==> Bringing from my talk page
==> Bringing from DistributorScientiae's talk page
Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Certainly it should be mentioned, but not in the lead paragraph, where it is currently. Maybe a "legacy" section or something. Adam Bishop ( talk) 10:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those scholars who take issue with the term, I have expanded the segment by taking quotes from the sources you found, hopefully that should help balance the article. I couldn't determine that they were Sunni, so I changed that to "partisan" as that seems easily supported by the referrences. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please do not indulge in elaborate religious discussion in this historical article. Please do not add entire quotes of Nissim Dana as this an independant article and must be written as originally as possible. Thanks. DistributorScientiae 12:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DistributorScientiae ( talk • contribs)
And now i have reversed your reversal. FYI - Muawiah was not a warrier. So much for the the scholarship of Nissim Dana. DistributorScientiae ( talk) 00:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The opening sentence states he "was the third Fatimid caliph", with a reference to a MIT handout, but surely he was the sixth (and the third was Al-Mansur Billah). Jojairus ( talk) 11:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I corrected this, notes from a college course are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. I changed it and pointed to a reliable source that clearly has him as the sixth Fatimid caliph like every other reliable source. - Wowaconia ( talk) 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I reverted the following material that was added and asserts things about the Druze and/or "aggressive historians" who are unnamed and apparently are deemed "aggressive" solely by the opinion of the editor who inserted the statements. The reference given appears to merely be a self published web site and as such would not raise to the level of reliable source by wiki standards.
Perhaps if the statements were reworked they could meet wiki-standards as a critique of the Druze position. I place them here, should anyone wish to under take this endeavor -- Wowaconia ( talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the current lead image as it is not a portrait of al-Hakim, it's just a fresco from the 11th-century at Cairo's Islamic Art Museum. The museum's own literature and other sources make this clear (e.g. p.50 of this book, p. 14 of this book, and so on). The file name, which is merely chosen by whoever uploaded it, is the only thing claiming otherwise and is not a reliable source in itself. Maybe the image could be relevant here as an example of art from this time, but it should not be used as lead image either way: per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, an article about a person should not have a lead image that portrays a person other than the subject. Obviously, it would simply mislead readers of the page who expect the image to be of Al-Hakim. Articles for other Fatimid caliphs feature coins minted with the caliph's name as their lead image, so I've followed that example and replaced it with one such image from al-Hakim's time, but feel free to pick another. R Prazeres ( talk) 06:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The citation style in this article is generally way too slapdash for WP today - so many citations are to 'Random, P45' or 'Bunkum, 1847' - I'd argue for a complete cleanup of what is a really quite Augean stable. In particular, I intend to remove the section claiming he established the 'House of Wisdom', which pretty much every source available will tell you was established by Harun Al Rashid something like three hundred years earlier. Any objections? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Is Nasturis a misspelling, or the Arabic version of Nestorius? Arminden ( talk) 09:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
And yet the sentence added by Snowstormfigorion states:
As such I will be removing said sentence, since it clearly contradicts what the source provided by Snowstormfigorion states. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 01:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Half of the entire lead shouldn't be taken by one historian's quote on al-Hakim. It really should be (traditionally) a summarization of the most important points of this article Danial Bass ( talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)