Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 01:31, 12 January 2025

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Idrissids/Fatimides

Hello,

I may have missed a discussion or consensus but I do not understand why it is considered that the Idrisids do not have continuity with the Fatimids? Is it because of vassalage or the Zenata? If so, does a solution like the one on fr:Idrissides not seem fairer to you? The end of the Idrisids if it is recorded at the Zirid expedition does it not fit into the framework of a continuation with a Fatimid entity? (I would quote Daniel Rivet, "The first of the Zirids - Buluggin - confirmed this strong reestablishment of the Ifriqiyans in Morocco; he subdued all the Zenetes in 972 and finished reducing all the Idrissides to nothing..." ). Thank you for your help. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This period is very complicated, but in short, it is more exact to say that they were succeeded by various Zenata chieftains and principalities, who were variously allied with either the Fatimids or the Umayyads of Cordoba (some of them even switching sides at times). The Fatimids never directly controlled the western Maghreb (and there are reliable sources which explicitly say this), and we have an article that covers the Zenata rulers, so the latter should be listed. The only reason Caliphate of Cordoba is additionally included among the successors of the Idrisids is because, as the article explains, the last Idrisids in the north were removed by a direct intervention from Cordoba.

By the way, keep in mind that the French Misplaced Pages (and other Wikipedias) is not a reliable source and there's no requirement that one Wiki follows the example of the other Wikis. The lead and infobox of an article here should follow what that specific article currently says. R Prazeres (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Fatimids had a certain and imperial presence on present-day Morocco. There are indirect ways of domination that you rightly point out (Zenata emirs), but also armed Fatimid interventions (or Zirids mandated by the Fatimids). An article exist on the subject: with different passages on the subject Chafik T. Benchekroun, Les Idrissides entre Fatimides et Omeyyades, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée : «qu’il livra bataille à l’armée fatimide venant de Nakūr » «à l’arrivée des troupes de Buluqqīn b. Zīrī dont le but était d’imposer à nouveau l’allégeance fatimide progressivement perdue depuis le départ de l’armée de Jawhar en 349/960 (Ibn Abī Zarʻ, Al-Anīs al-muṭrib : 111)».

The summary of coins minted in the Western Maghreb is evocative of this Fatimid domination , as well as the minbar of the Andalusian mosque (from the Zirid-Fatimid period, the mentions of which were modified in favor of the Umayyads).

Obviously, wp:fr is not a source, I don't claim it to be. But the idea of ​​the representation seemed good to me, if your opinion differs I obviously respect it. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is really to summarize straightforward information in the article as best as possible, so in the case of the "successors"/"predecessors" there we should really stick to the most pertinent and direct items. Indirect domination does not qualify in my mind, so I disagree in this case. Throughout the history of the region there were various regimes that claimed to rule on behalf of one caliphate or another but were otherwise independent or autonomous, and we usually list the local rulers/dynasty rather than the indirect caliphal rulers, because it's the former topic that should give us the most direct information on what happens next in that area. I hope that makes sense to you. R Prazeres (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. In this case, do the Zirids not fall into the definition of “various regimes that claimed to rule on behalf of one caliphate or another”? Shouldn't they be added (since the minbar of the Fatimids in Fez is due to this period) ? Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the sources indicates(exemple : Aurélien Montel, , p.12)], that it was an Umayyad expedition led by the general of Ġālib ibn ʽAbd al-Raḥmān in 974 which put an end to the Idrissids, my last point (on the Zirids) should therefore be withdrawn, unless you have other sources. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

About the term Iran and Turan

Where is the sources providing us that the empire was named "Iran and Turan". I see only "Turan" David.galikaev (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't write this part of the article, so you should bring it up at Talk:Timurid Empire, where all the editors can more easily see your comments and potentially respond. From a superficial look, there is a paragraph with citations on this in the first section of the article ("Names of the state") and there seem to be other references that bring up this name, e.g.: , . So deleting this without discussing and finding a consensus on the talk page first would not be constructive. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Fatimid map

Hello R.Prazeres, shouldn't the Fatimid map in the article include Zirid territories ? Suglette's atlas of Islamic history (p.26), Karim chaibi's atlas historique de l'Algérie (p.76 and p.78), Philip Naylor's history of North Africa (p.81). Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Nourerrahmane. That would depend on what the map is representing exactly. But if you're referring to this edit I reverted, I explained the various problems with that map in now-archived comments here. In short: the borders added by at least one editor to that map (and its variants) are WP:OR. We also have multiple specialized sources on the Fatimids stating that they did not effectively govern anything further west than Tahart. We can find maps that show otherwise, but also plenty of maps from Fatimid-focused references that don't, and likewise Sluglett's map doesn't show Fatimid control that far either. There were indirect vassals in various regions in all periods, some temporary and some long-term, but if we include those then I think all of the maps available at the moment would be inaccurate/incomplete. The current map could be improved but it is a fairly good and cautious depiction of what the sources (and the article) describe. R Prazeres (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

actually it’s not related to that edit. I’m talking about literally including autonomous states into the caliphate’s realm. Aghlabids are part of the Abbasids just like Zirids are part of the Fatimids and Algiers to the Ottomans. These maps might speak about direct Fatimid control prior to 972 AD. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Then yeah, that goes to my first statement then. But the current map does include Zirid territories then, depending on which date you're looking at in the legend: at c. 1000, the legend includes both Ifriqiya (Zirids) and Sicily (Kalbids), while at c. 1050 it omits the former and includes the latter, reflecting the formal allegiance or independence of both around that time. There could be an argument for amending the legend according to another logic, though if I understand your point correctly the current map is reasonable as is.

Side-note: a vassal I can think of that's missing from the map are the Sulayhids in Yemen (who are also mentioned in the article). They're often not included in some of the published maps, which could be an oversight, or there could be a logical distinction in that the Zirids and Kalbids were direct political appointments by the Fatimids. Yet another complication/imperfection inherent to map-making of this type. R Prazeres (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking about Buluggin's campaigns and Zirid maximum extent, he was a pretty devout Fatimid governor and vassal. Although Fatimid influence west of Tahert was almost none existent. Because although Islamic autonomous states had their own foreign policy and local administration, their legitimacy was still based on caliphal sanction and blessing, their existence depended on it unless they had to change radically because of internal and external pressures. I hate to showcase autonomous/semi-independent states as if they were not representatives of their respective religious and secular suzerain, the caliph, or as if their autonomous status made them outside the caliphal borders. Caliphates could include both provinces and states. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Buluggin's campaign was only a temporary gain for a few years. We may have chosen to represent it at Zirid dynasty, which seems reasonable given the more specific scope of that article, but it's a stretch to present it as a regular territory in any other context. The current map still represents well the regular Fatimid/Zirid territories in the Maghreb. R Prazeres (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, in that case i have no complaints, Fatimid direct or indirect control did not go beyound tahert, however i do beleive that Morocco and western Algeria were disputed territories between Umayyads and Fatimids, don't you think it needs some kind of representation on the map ? The Zirids kept trying to extend Fatimid influence in Morocco at the expense of the Umayyads who used their Maghrawa clients for the same purpose for much of the 10th century, assuming that the Fatimid power reached its peak in late 10th century. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Or let's leave it like this. Better keep with RS. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Banu Hilal

Don't you think it's time we started a SPI (you can guess the SP I'm referring to)? M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I do and I was thinking that too, hehe. Unfortunately I'm too busy with real-world work this week to draft another one, but will try to help if I can. Feel free to ping me if you do start one. R Prazeres (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

List of banu khazrun rulers

Hello, excuse me can i understand why you deleted my work on list of rulers of bani khazrun ?? i used an original arabic source by al-tahir al-zawi an old libyan historian. what makes your source more trusted then my source ?? and for your knowledge banu khazrun didn't only rule in tripoli they ruled in sijilmasa and zirids kicked them siveral times from tripoli ,excuse me if you didn't give an answer im gonna need to get my work backWinipitia (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Sulaimān b. ʿAbd Allāh as-Sālih b. Mūsā al-Jawn

https://en.wikipedia.org/Sharif_of_Mecca#/media/File:Scherifen_von_Mekka_Stammtafel_I.svg 161.253.74.225 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment here, but see my explanation here. It's simply not helpful or necessary to name every ancestor of a person in their name like this. In very formal contexts, the full list of names might be presented, but this is uncommon practice in regular prose, which is what we use on Misplaced Pages. For the average reader (especially the average English reader), it just creates a long list of names that's hard to follow. The article clearly states his immediate common name, that this is where the term "Sulaymanid" comes from, and that he is a fifth-generation descendant from Hasan ibn Ali. This is all the important information presented clearly for the average reader. But feel free to make further suggestions at Talk:Sulaymanids. R Prazeres (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Dome

I'm not at all happy with this editor. I think they got this from WIkiwand ,the source says "Hesychius, their “royal tents and courts of round awnings were called Heavens.’’*” The general shape and appearance of these royal tents of Persia were presumably similar to the great domical tents of the Mongol Khans, which so impressed the Western travelers in the Middle Ages, and hence were not essentially different from the vast audience tent " Do you think that's sufficient/ Doug Weller talk 09:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder on this, I was too busy and forgot to follow up. Indeed it is not sufficient, as I explained on the talk page. (The author makes no claim about the Achaemenids building domes, only that their tents might have resembled later circular tents and discusses the wider symbolism involved.) In any case, the editor edit-warred and refused to discuss on the talk page, so I'll revert it. I also see that you've now blocked them for subsequent behavior. R Prazeres (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent problematic edits by Therealbey

User:Therealbey has created an article Twelve revivers of Caliphate which has some problems. I was going to alert WikiProject Islam but it seems like you are familiar with his work. thank you --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Imam Hakim

kindly refer to the talk page of Al Hakim be Amrillah in the article which explain why I had tagged the page. Rukn950 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I did, and my edit summary was based on that. I've explained it again at the talk page for your benefit (). R Prazeres (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)