This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize that this is on the list for ACR at Military history, and the
Good Article list. While you've clearly done a lot of work on the article, there are serious prose issues here, and these need to be addressed before further action can be taken in either review. I've made the necessary tweaks on the lead, but will look to you to do the ones on the article itself. Please let me know when you've finished this, and I will take further action regarding passing or failing this article for GA status. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller, Gilabrand, Huldra, Nishidani, and Zero0000: hi. Please check the very sources quoted by the article:
Other sources for 638:
Yes, there are some primary sources indicating the year 636/37 or 637, too, and some secondary sources are offering both dates - see for instance Britannica, here for 638 and here for 637. The article should mention and discuss both dates, the title should be adapted - "Siege of Jerusalem (630s)" or "First Muslim conquest of Jerusalem" -, but under no circumstances should one opinion be presented as the only valid one, let alone the theory that is not the dominant scholarly one.
Cheers and stay merry & well, Arminden ( talk) 16:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Would you please do it? Many thanks. Arminden ( talk) 13:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This passage here: "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles, that at the time of the Zuhr prayers, Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar declined, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a place of Christian worship, and that Muslims might break the treaty and turn the church into a mosque."
references the following book: Gibbon, Edward (1862). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 6. J. D. Morris Publishers
The book which can be found here makes no mention at all of the passage written above and can be found on page 337 corresponding to page 321, which is from the reference. Although the book is another edition, it makes no mention at all of either Umar nor Sophronius. I therefore propose the passage to be deleted. Othmas biaggio ( talk) 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Siege of Jerusalem (636–637) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reviewer: Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize that this is on the list for ACR at Military history, and the
Good Article list. While you've clearly done a lot of work on the article, there are serious prose issues here, and these need to be addressed before further action can be taken in either review. I've made the necessary tweaks on the lead, but will look to you to do the ones on the article itself. Please let me know when you've finished this, and I will take further action regarding passing or failing this article for GA status. Auntieruth55 ( talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
الله أكبر Mohammad Adil 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
@ Doug Weller, Gilabrand, Huldra, Nishidani, and Zero0000: hi. Please check the very sources quoted by the article:
Other sources for 638:
Yes, there are some primary sources indicating the year 636/37 or 637, too, and some secondary sources are offering both dates - see for instance Britannica, here for 638 and here for 637. The article should mention and discuss both dates, the title should be adapted - "Siege of Jerusalem (630s)" or "First Muslim conquest of Jerusalem" -, but under no circumstances should one opinion be presented as the only valid one, let alone the theory that is not the dominant scholarly one.
Cheers and stay merry & well, Arminden ( talk) 16:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Would you please do it? Many thanks. Arminden ( talk) 13:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This passage here: "It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles, that at the time of the Zuhr prayers, Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar declined, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a place of Christian worship, and that Muslims might break the treaty and turn the church into a mosque."
references the following book: Gibbon, Edward (1862). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 6. J. D. Morris Publishers
The book which can be found here makes no mention at all of the passage written above and can be found on page 337 corresponding to page 321, which is from the reference. Although the book is another edition, it makes no mention at all of either Umar nor Sophronius. I therefore propose the passage to be deleted. Othmas biaggio ( talk) 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)