The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh was a Zirid prince who became a vizier of the Fatimid Caliphate after assassinating his step-father, and was overthrown after murdering caliph al-Zafir? Source: summary of the article
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Claire von Greyerz

Created by Cplakidas (talk). Self-nominated at 10:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - n
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Overall: @Cplakidas: Good article. But it does feel non neutral with the very expressive wording that kind of feels unencyclopediac in a way. Some examples look to be

• Most medieval historians, obviously drawing from the same account, report that Usama ibn Munqidh (is obviously a good word here?)
• This was easily achieved, as Ibn al-Sallar's rule had been oppressive, and the caliph apparently had already sought to get rid of his over-mighty vizier. (oppressive could probably be okay but what's with the use of over-mighty?)

So i'd propose a better wording in some sentences. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Thanks for taking the time to review this. 'Obviously' is indeed perhaps too strong, so changed it to 'apparently', but it is what modern scholars all agree on. They equally call Ibn al-Sallar's regime 'oppressive' or 'tyrannical', and I don't know how else to describe that. I have added a 'was regarded as' to make clear that Wikipedia doesn't take sides, but that was what contemporaries thought. Likewise, with 'over-mighty', the problem for the caliph was that the vizier held enormous power, to the point, as became evident, of being able to threaten the caliph himself. Getting rid of an 'over-mighty' subject is a very old theme for monarchs. I am open for suggestions of different phrasing to convey this, but at the moment I cannot think of another formulation. Constantine ✍ 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess i'll just approve this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]