Talk:Mu'awiya I

The intro

The term “tide turned” is incorrect and baseless. Even after the siege of Constantinople the Arabs continued ruling parts of the once Byzantine Anatolia (such as Cilicia). Thus the Arabs were still ruling parts of Anatolia even after the siege and throughout Mu’awiyah’s rule lol Loverofediting (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Loverofediting: the summary in the lead read: "Externally, he engaged his troops in almost yearly land and sea raids against the Byzantines, including a failed siege of Constantinople, though the tide turned against the Arabs toward the end of his reign and he sued for a truce." You removed "though the tide turned against the Arabs toward the end of his reign and he sued for a truce", citing you explanation above. However, the article itself contains the following, very well-referenced information:

Under Emperor Constantine IV (r. 668–685), the Byzantines began a counteroffensive against the Caliphate, first raiding Egypt in 672 or 673, while in winter 673, Mu'awiya's admiral Abd Allah ibn Qays led a large fleet that raided Smyrna and the coasts of Cilicia and Lycia. The Byzantines landed a major victory against an Arab army and fleet led by Sufyan ibn Awf, possibly at Sillyon, in 673 or 674. The next year, Abd Allah ibn Qays and Fadala landed in Crete and in 675 or 676, a Byzantine fleet assaulted Maraqiya, killing the governor of Homs. In 677, 678 or 679 Mu'awiya sued for peace with Constantine IV, possibly as a result of the destruction of his fleet or the Byzantines' deployment of the Mardaites in the Syrian littoral during that time. A thirty-year treaty was concluded, obliging the Caliphate to pay an annual tribute of 3,000 gold coins, 50 horses and 30 slaves, and withdraw their troops from the forward bases they had occupied on the Byzantine coast.

Do you have any sources that contradict this information and justify your removing a summary of it from the lead? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is a summary on the peace pacts between Mu'awiya and the Romans.[1]. Apparently, the peace treaty of 678CE is not mentioned in Arabic or Syriac sources. Some suggested that it has no historical basis: "Jankowiak 2013, 254–56, has convincingly argued that there is no historical basis for Muʿāwiya’s alleged 30-year peace treaty with Constantine IV of 58/677–78 or 59/678–79."[2] I have yet to read Jankowiak's arguments, but given these doubts we should consider not mentioning this treaty in the lead. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wiqi55: You make a fair point, imo. However, I am not sure if Jankowiak's argument has become the common or accepted version. While this definitely needs to be mentioned in the body, I am not sure if we should delete the bit about the treaty from the lead. @AhmadLX:@Cplakidas: Any thoughts? Al Ameer (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem with not mentioning it in the lead. We can end the sentence right after 'failed siege of Constantinople'. On the rest, Jankowiak is, once a again, an interesting and valuable revisionist view, but it is not yet consensus. Constantine ✍ 06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

We should mention his view in the article body. But it hasn't become the mainstream view yet, so IMO the current lead shouldn't be changed on its basis. Challenges to the established versions of historical events occur all the time. When the peers of the proponents accept the arguments, we follow suit. Until then, we stick to the mainstream view, while noting the challenge in the article body. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Cplakidas's suggestion sounds reasonable. I doubt there is a clear consensus about this treaty in recent scholarship. The quote above describes it as an "alleged" treaty and further deems Jankowiak's arguments as convincing. Could you please cite a recent source that rejects Jankowiak's arguments concerning this treaty? And considering its absence from Arabic sources and later events, what makes it significant for the lead of Mu'awiya's biography? Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Its absence is enough proof that it is dubious anyway. And revisionist views are only accepted from experts with a respectable degree. I wouldn't trust a random person on Wikipedia trying to disprove scientists when they themselves are not scientists. Period. Get a degree or have fun lurking on Wikpedia. BESTMAHMOUD10 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

Please add the reign template infront of Ali, since there is reign templates infront of the first three caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, so why not have a reign template on the fourth caliph 119.73.112.164 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed guideline regarding Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Islamic honorifics and user-generated calligraphic images. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Muawiyah's Role in the Battle of the Camel

I would like to urge ☿ Apaugasma and others to not delete my sentence on Muawiyah's role in the Battle of the Camel. Muawiyah did not intervene militarily to assist either side in the battle, which in turn meant that Ali did not face a war on two fronts, one of Basra and the other in Syria. It is a historical fact that Muawiyah did not send forces or any military assistance during the Battle. He did also not declare war on either side and remained largely neutral, which is seen in historical sources which do not expand on the role of Muawiyah in the lead-up to the battle. Islamdefence (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, we need you to wp:cite a wp:reliable source for any info you add here.

Re [3], unfortunately https://www.al-islam.org is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. What we need in this context is scholarly material published by an academic press (please see WP:SOURCETYPES). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you comsider it false that Muawiyah didn't intervene miliarily? If not, please support my edit. Islamdefence (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether one considers your proposition true or false. The point is, we don't add anything just because it is true. We write based on what matters and what matters is decided by RS, not by us. There would be thousands of other things about Mu'awiya that are true, but we don't add them simply because they are true. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)