# Talk:Emirate of Crete

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emirate of Crete/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer:   Miyagawa     talk   12:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll give the article a read through now and post points below as I come across them.   Miyagawa     talk   12:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Links in the infobox aren't working properly. Rather than linking to Byzantine Crete, the links are going to [[File:Simple Labarum.svg]]. I'm no expert with the former countries infobox, but I think if you look at Byzantium under the Komnenos dynasty (where the same images work), I'm sure you'll be able to work it out. Done
History: Levant needs a wikilink. Done
Conquest of crete: Drop the "however" in the first line. Flows better without it. Done
Needs some sort of explanation of who W. Treadgold is in the paragraph, even if it's just "Historian W. Treadgold..." Done
"According to Byzantine historians, the Andalusians were already familiar with Crete, having already raided it in the past." - perhaps "having previously raided it's shores." or something similar - the already just seems out of place. Done
*"this is probably later invention" - needs an "a" between probably and later. Just re-read this line, and it's fine.   Miyagawa     talk   14:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"some think that it was at the north coast" - "some historians...." otherwise inevitably someone is going to come along and stick one of those  tags in there. Done
Other than those points in the first portion of the article, it all looks good. Nice concise article that you might want to look at working up to FA in the future.   Miyagawa     talk   13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for undertaking the review, and for the comments. Take your time and be as thorough as you can! I definitely intend to take this to FA eventually, once I gather some more sources to flesh it out. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Happy to mark this one up as GA. Good job. :)   Miyagawa     talk   23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

-"was one of the major foes of Byzantium." Really? And here i thought the Abbasid 
Caliphate was the only major foe the Byzantine Emp had until Manzikert were the Seljuk turks took over the title, until the 4th crusade with a brief crusader holdup.
Then the Osman turks became it's major foe and vassallord until it's destruction.
Minor foes could be ->Slavs,Bulgarians and Normands,Venice,Genua, and Emirate of Crete.
the Emirate of Crete were never a threat to the Byzantine Empire,
they were merely a nucience, a small thorn on crete + a few islands ,
Just like the Crusades and their holy land states never were a "major foe" to the Abbasid Caliphate. In short, the choice of words is of major diffrence here.
It's allsow very intresting that the byzantines themselves thought of the Emirate like this, that they(the emirate) was just merely a small annoyance to be removed when the empire had recovered and mustered enough strengh to deal with it, nothing more.
Allsow, the useage of "Byzantium" suggest the writer/s of this article is unaware/intentionally calls the empire as "Byzantium" were as it's a latin name of the hellenistic pre-byzantine town, a more suitable name would be calling it >Constantinople< ,
since it's inhabitants were of greek-ortodox belif living in the middle ages (700-900etc) and not hellenistic pagans besieged by romans...
Im allsow suprised how somewhat biased this article is:
it says "Byzantine historians are biased, yeat if u look u see in the article there's a hole bunch references from greek aka "byzantine" sources(!), making this hole article biased "muslim" friendly when it should hold neutral view.
Allsow, im interesting if the repeated useage of words like "booming" and "agricultural"
really should be used at all, considering Crete relied more on fish as food more then agricultural food/products.
It is also possible that sugar cane was introduced to Crete at the time.[57]That's pure speculation, which is not adviced/suitable for wikipedia.
The picture painted by the few and scattered pieces of evidence from the Muslim world however is that of an ordered state with a regular monetary economy and extensive trade links, particularly with Egypt, and there is evidence that Chandax was a cultural centre of some importance.[54][55] a quite highly biased pro-muslim message here.
It's like with the Vikings, they raided and traded, only they've been later on glorified by some later modern historians as some sort of innocent traders that never touched anything..
It is unclear what happened to the island's Christians after the Muslim conquest; the traditional view is that most were either converted or expelled.[19]
 again, there's no mention of christian cassulties/deaths, they're simply "converted or expeleld", more biased please?
-and there is evidence that Chandax was a cultural centre of some importance...Seriously?
Of course it was an cultural centre of some importance..*sigh* as an automous provincial capital in the islamic world.
And let's not mention the byzantine reconquest section.
It looks more like a biasd muslim fairy-tale story found in One Thousand and one Nights,  with references & sources taken and writen in a biased way, rather then a non-POV wikipedia wants article to be.--Byzantios (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We follow what the Reliable Sources state, not what you think they should state. 50.111.51.247 (talk) 10:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Burning the boars was a conventional trope reported of the Greeks as an emblem of a resolute, committed landing, with no turning back: conquer or die. The Athenian exile Cimon: "Deserted by the Egyptians, who came to terms, the Athenians burned their ships and prepared to make a stand; the admiring Persian commanders offered them free passage from Egypt, and they left by way of Libya and Cyrene." (J Barns, "Cimon and the first Athenian Expedition to Cyprus" in Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, 1953) With the Greek examples in mind, Cortez literslly did so on the Mexican shore in 1519. Is it not also a trope in the legend of Tariq ibn Ziyad landing at Gilbraltar? "To burn your boats" is idiom in the on-line Free Dictionary" and in Wikipedia's "Point of no return". --Wetman (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/englishhistorica28londuoft/page/442
Can anyone help me decipher the citation number 66 of the page 442 of the above book?
Ed. Dozy i. 106 = Amari p. 358
There is no explanations for the abbreviations used, not in the start not in the end :/
Any Ideas?
Thanks W5ry3 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi W5ry3, this would seem to mean some edition of al-Baladhuri by Dozy, Vol. I page or section 106, which corresponds to Amari's work (probably the Biblioteca arabo-sicula is meant) page 358. Constantine   ✍  12:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Constantine I haven't find any editions of Dozy about al-Baladhuri, if you have any time take a look yourself, Thanks againW5ry3 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)