This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
The commonly used modern translation of Amir is "Commander," not "Prince." Yusuf's title should more appropriately be rendered as "Commander of the Muslims."
Origins
In his book The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain, the author Abd al-Wahid Dhannūn Taha, based on several sources including bibliographic of
Ibn Khaldun, provides, on pages 26 and 29 of his book, information on the geographical distribution of Sanhaja tribes. He does the same for the different tribes and tribal Berber branch of the
Maghreb and information on the different tribes or ethnic groups (Arabs, Berbers and sub-Saharan African) who participated in the Muslim conquest of Visigoth Spain.[1]
The exact meaning of "Murābiṭ" is a matter of controversy. Some have suggested that the word might be derived from the Arabic ribaṭ, meaning fortress (a term with which it shares the root r-b-ṭ), while others believe that it refers to ribat, meaning "ready for battle" (cf.
jihad).[2][3]
When the Almoravids began their political rise, the Kingdom of Fez (Morocco's first name) of the
Idrisid dynasty was split into a series of small emirates located mainly north of the country, and headed by relatives of the royal family (No source).
According to French historian Bernard Lugan and others, the lure of wealth from trade in the South (Sahara) and marketed to the North (the West) attracted various tribes to crossroads city such as
Marrakech, which become the capital of various dynasties, especially those from the South (Almoravids,
Almohads, Saadian) (For the lay reader, who is this French historian? No source of his book, scholary work etc).
Kevin Shillington proposes that the Almoravid movement had origins in efforts of the Sanhaja of the
Awdaghust area, especially the Lamtuna tribe, to defeat the influence of the
Ghana Empire in the area.[4] Almoravid unity also protected other tribes from the domination of the
Zenata tribes to the north.[5]
The most powerful of the tribes of the
Sahara near the
Sénégal River was the
Lamtuna, whose culture of origin was 'Wadi Noun' (Nul Lemta) (POV) (No source). They later came together as the upper Leger river culture, which founded the city of
Aoudaghost (No source). They converted to
Islam in the ninth century (No source).
About the year 1040 (or a little earlier) one of their chiefs,
Yahya ibn Ibrahim, made the
pilgrimage to
Makkah (No source). On his way home, he attended the teachers of the mosque at university of Al-Qayrawan, today's
Kairouan in
Tunisia (No source); the first Arab-Muslim city in
North Africa (No source), who soon learnt from him that his people knew little of the religion they were supposed to profess, and that though his will was good, his own ignorance was great. (POV) (No source). By the good offices of the theologians of
Al Qayrawan (POV), one of whom was from
Fez, Yahya was provided with a missionary,
Abdallah ibn Yasin, a zealous partisan of the
Malikis, one of the four
Madhhab, Sunni schools of Islam (No source paragraph and puffery).
His preaching was before long rejected by the Lamtunas[4], so on the advice of Yahya (Is this a story?), who accompanied him, he retired to
Saharan regions from which his influence spread (No source). His creed (POV - tone) was mainly characterized by a rigid formalism and a strict adherence to the dictates of the
Qur'an, and the
Orthodox tradition (No source).
Ibn Yasin imposed a penitential scourging on all converts as a purification, and enforced a regular system of discipline for every breach of the law, including the chiefs themselves (No source. This sentence really needs rewording) . Under such directions, the Almoravids were brought into excellent order (POV) (No source). Their first military leader, Yahya ibn Ibrahim, gave them a good military organization (POV) (No source). Their main force was infantry, armed with
javelins in the front ranks and
pikes behind, which formed into a
phalanx; it was supported by
camelmen and
hor semen on the
flanks (No source).
References
^ʻAbd al-Wāḥid Dhannūn Ṭāhā (1998). The Muslim conquest and settlement of North Africa and Spain. Routledge.
ISBN0415004748. (online at
Google Books)
^Nehemia levtzion, "Abd Allah b. Yasin and the Almoravids", in: John Ralph Willis, Studies in West African Islamic History, p. 54
^P.F. de Moraes Farias, "The Almoravids: Some Questions Concerning the Character of the Movement", Bulletin de l’IFAN, series B, 29:3-4 (794-878), 1967
^
abShillington, Kevin (2005). History of Africa. 175 5th Avenue, New York, NY, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 88.
ISBN9780333599570.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
From the year 1053, the Almoravids began to spread their religious way to the Berber areas of the Sahara, and to the regions south of the desert (No source. If the first source in this paragraph also support this account, please indicate it). After winning over the
Sanhaja Berber tribe, they quickly took control of the entire desert trade route, seizing
Sijilmasa at the northern end in 1054, and
Aoudaghost at the southern end in 1055[1] (Even with the source, POV and editorial issues comes to mind). Yahya ibn Ibrahim was killed in a battle in 1057[2], but Abd-Allah ibn Yasin, whose influence as a religious teacher was paramount (No source. Reword this), named his brother
Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar as chief (No source). Under him, the Almoravids soon began to spread their power beyond the desert, and subjected the tribes of the
Atlas Mountains (POV) (No source). They then came in contact with the
Berghouata, a branch of the
Masmuda of central Morocco, who followed a "heresy" founded by
Salih ibn Tarif, three centuries earlier (POV - tone.) (No source). The Berghouata made a fierce resistance, and it was in battle with them that Abdullah ibn Yasin was killed in 1059 (No source). They were, however, completely conquered by
Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar, who took the defeated chief's widow,
Zainab, as a wife (POV. This whole paragraph reads like an story) (No sources whatsoever)
In 1061,
Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar made a division of the power he had established, handing over the more-settled parts to his cousin
Yusuf ibn Tashfin, as
viceroy, resigning to him also his favourite wife Zainab. (No source) For himself, he reserved the task of suppressing the revolts which had broken out in the desert (No source), but when he returned to resume control, he found his cousin too powerful to be superseded (No source). In November 1087, the Serer King
Ama Gôdô Maat gathered his warrior Serer army, defeated Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar and killed him with a poison arrow .[3][4][5] (In spite of the sources, the tone of this sentence needs reworded I admit) (This whole paragraph needs rephrasing).
Yusuf ibn Tashfin had in the meantime brought what is now known as Morocco,
Western Sahara and
Mauretania into complete subjection (POV) (No source). In 1062 he founded the city of
Marrakech (No source). In 1080, he conquered the kingdom of
Tlemcen (in modern-day
Algeria) and founded the present city of that name (No source), his rule extending as far east as
Oran (No source).
References
^Cite error: The named reference shilling89 was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^Institut fondamental d'Afrique noire. Mémoires de l'Institut fondamental d'Afrique noire, Issue 91, Part 2. Published by: IFAN. 1980.
^Patience Sonko-Godwin. Ethnic groups of the Senegambia: a brief history. Published by: Sunrise Publishers. 1988.
ISBN9983860007
Ghana Empire
There has been a belief by some (Who? See end of section) that the Almoravids conquered the
Ghana Empire sometime around 1075 AD. According to Arab tradition, the ensuing war pushed Ghana over the edge, ending the kingdom's position as a commercial and military power by 1100 (See end of section), as it collapsed into tribal groups and chieftaincies, some of which later assimilated into the Almoravids while others founded the
Mali Empire (See end of section). However, the Almoravid religious influence was gradual and not heavily involved in military strife (See end of section) as Almoravids increased in power by marrying among the nation's nobility (See end of section). Scholars such as Dierk Lange attribute the decline of ancient Ghana to numerous unrelated factors, only one of which can be likely attributable to internal dynastic struggles that were instigated by Almalvorid influence and Islamic pressures, but devoid of any military conversion and conquest (See end of section).[1] (End of section comment: This whole section has weight issues with its one source. Other reliable sources needs to be added. Many of the sentences in this section can be contradicted with several reliable source one of which has been previously given. POV issues are also everywhere. Since this section is addressing the southern wing of the Almoravid movement, the religious wars etc should not be minimise by the use of clever wording. This section needs re-writing).
References
^Lange, Dierk (1996). "The Almoravid expansion and the downfall of Ghana", Der Islam 73, pp. 122-159
Southern Iberia
In 1086
Yusuf ibn Tashfin was invited by the taifa Muslim princes of the
Iberian Peninsula (
Al-Andalus) to defend them against
Alfonso VI, King of
León and
Castile (No source). In that year,
Yusuf ibn Tashfin crossed the straits to
Algeciras (No source), inflicted a severe defeat on the Christians at the
Battle of az-Zallaqah (Battle of Sagrajas) (POV - tone) (No source). He was prevented from following up his victory by trouble in
Africa (POV - tone), which he had to settle in person (POV - tone)(No source) (This whole section is written like a big fan and like someone who is boasting).
When he returned to Iberia in 1090, it was avowedly for the purpose of deposing the Muslim princes, and annexing their states (Am I the only one who thinks this sentence does not make sense whatsoever?). He had in his favour the mass of the inhabitants (How do you know? No source. Tone), who had been worn out (Worn out!) by the oppressive taxation imposed by their spend-thrift rulers (POV) (No source). Their religious teachers, as well as others in the east, (most notably,
al-Ghazali in
Persia and
al-Tartushi in Egypt, who was himself an Iberian by birth, from
Tortosa) (No source), detested the native Muslim princes for their religious indifference (Tone) (No source), and gave Yusuf a fatwa -- or legal opinion—to the effect that he had good moral and religious right, to dethrone the rulers, (No source) (POV) whom he saw as heterodox and who did not scruple to seek help from the Christians, whose habits he claimed they had adopted. By 1094, he had removed them all, except for the one at
Zaragoza; and though he regained little from the Christians except
Valencia (No source) (POV), he re-united the Muslim power, and gave a check to the reconquest of the country by the Christians. (Very essay like section, big fan and boasting with no sources whatsoever).
After friendly correspondence with the caliph at
Baghdad, whom he acknowledged as Amir al-Mu'minin ("Commander of the Faithful"), Yusuf ibn Tashfin in 1097 assumed the title of Amir al Muslimin ("Commander of the Muslims") (No source). He died in 1106, when he was reputed to have reached the age of 100.(No source)
The Almoravid power was at its height at Yusuf's death (No source), and the Moorish empire then included all North-West Africa as far as
Algiers, and all of Iberia south of the
Tagus, with the east coast as far as the mouth of the
Ebro, and included the
Balearic Islands.(No source)
I would say this is worth mentioning in text (which makes those sources very useful!), but not adding to the infobox. It confirms once again the use of a certain colour with the Abbasid connection, but not whether those banners had other details, or whether they flew other banners, etc. Like a lot of other states/dynasties in early periods, we still don't have a visual record of their flags so it still requires a bit of
WP:SYNTH. A black rectangle isn't very informative to readers at the end of the day and doesn't do much as a preview image, so I'd rather leave it as is (but mention this in text). That's my opinion at any rate.
R Prazeres (
talk) 17:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I thaught that, since the flag of the almoravid was in fact the flag of their investiture by the Abassids, then they can have the same thing in the infobox as the Abassids (with something below like : Black flag of the Abassids or Flag of the Abassid investiture), since the Almoravids represented the Sunni power in the region headed by the Sunni Caliph in Baghdad, but adding this to the text using the sources could be very informative, also some additions to this article:
Islamic flag would be good.
Nourerrahmane (
talk) 17:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
In the Abbasid case the flag's role and description is very well-established I think, I'm not sure if that translates to the same certainty here. But others may disagree and it's fine if there's a consensus otherwise. And yes, again, definitely good material for the body of the article and maybe worth mentioning at
Black Standard too. Either way, thanks for this research!
R Prazeres (
talk) 18:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
per Mouline, Drapeaux du Maroc (2024), I have uploaded
a variation of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids onto Commons. I would not be opposed to using this in the Flag parameter and using
this file in the Second Flag parameter with the caption of "possible appearance of variations of the
Black Standard used by the Almoravids".
An
interview with Mouline regarding the book states that "the founders of Marrakech, the first capital of a unified Morocco, adopted a black flag, as a badge of power and sovereignty". The book coroberrates this statement adding that "After having created an immense territory whose capital is Marrakech, the representatives of the first imperial dynasty of Morocco sought to strengthen their legitimacy by obtaining an official investiture from the caliphs, honorary heads of the Ummah. This gives these sovereigns, among other things, the right to wear a black suit and display a flag of the same color during all their public appearances. To highlight this badge of sovereignty, the Almoravids surrounded it with flags, standards, banners and pennants mainly white, red and variegated. While some are richly decorated with images and floral designs, others are embellished with profession of faith and Quranic verses." (p. 27) and appends this with
these pictures, the illustration on the left seems to show
a version of the Abbasid caliphate flag which has Kufic script rather than a poorly-vectorized Naskh as seen in the Commons picture (which says it is fictional, but I have no clue about this) while the illustration on the right shows a new variation of the Black Standard which seems to be unique to the Almoravids.
Thank you very much,
NAADAAN (
talk) 21:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I may still need to read the book, but the thing is, I don't know where Mouline is getting these details. The existence of a "
black banner" in general, whatever its full details may have looked like, is historically attested. There are occasional representations of flags in Christian illustrations (which may or may not be accurate). But there are definitely no surviving flags/banners of this period and, to my knowledge, no detailed accounts of what they looked like.
Maybe Mouline is merely compiling various depictions found in present-day sources. That seems to be supported by the fact that
this flag, as you pointed out, is also in the book, even though it's just a conjecture from a modern book illustrator (
Angus McBride) with no direct historical evidence (as pointed out by
Cplakidashere). Mouline's book (which just came out) probably has good discussions that could be cited, but I think the images should not be taken too literally. Even the book itself captions them as "probable appearance".
So I recommend keeping the flags out of the infobox. (Also per previous discussions.) These medieval banners are not equivalent to standardized modern flags, there's just too much uncertainty about them, and the infobox doesn't allow room for much nuance.
However, this article currently has a section dedicated to the "emblem" of the Almoravids, including the black banner. Maybe one of Mouline's flags would be OK there. As always, an image complimenting an explanatory text is much more informative. I welcome other opinions.
R Prazeres (
talk) 22:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
R Prazeres, Here are the citations used in the article regarding Almoravids:
Ibn al-Qattân, Nouzoum al-joumân li-tartib mâ salafa min akhbar al-zamân, Dâr al-Gharb al-islâmî, Tunis, 1990 (2011), p. 168;
Ibn Abi Zar', al-Anis al-moutrib bi-rawd al-qirtās fi akhbâr mouloûk al-maghrib, al-Matba'a al-malikiyya, Rabat, 1999, p. 176;
Ibn 'Idhârî, al-Bayân al-moughrib fi akhbar al-Andalous wa al-Maghrib, Dâr al-thaqafa, Beyrouth, 1998, t. IV, p. 89;
Ibn Simâk, al-Houlal al-mouwashshiyya fi al-akhbar al-mourrâkoushiyya, Dâr al-Rashad al-haditha, Casablanca, 1979, p. 122.
I am not awfully familiar with those primary sources though, but they seem like they were from their respective era so I doubt that Mouline would just be compiling modern-day accounts. I don't see why a flag based on a description wouldn't warrant to be in the infobox, the
Roman Empire article uses a flag which was based on a description and that there are no surviving physical copies of.
FYI the book focuses on a tradition that started with the Almohads stopped with the Alaouites, the use of a white flag with golden writing named al-'Alam al-mansoûr which would have been the flag used in major battles and would signify the dynasty's central authority. There's actually a fair bit of detail regarding these so they could probably warrant their own article on Wikipedia. I have vectorized and uploaded them per dynasty:
Almohad (a description on the flag is also on
this Wikipedia article),
Almohad (alternate),
Marinids,
Saadians. Now excuse me while I watch fireworks
NAADAAN (
talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Mouline is neither an authority on flags nor a historian. Their fancy looking flags are just claims by a non-specialist that don't even belong in an encyclopedia, let alone be presented as facts.
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Please do your due research before starting to act like this.
NAADAAN (
talk) 23:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
starting to act like this what do you mean by that?
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remember to AGF is this some kind of joke? Need I remind that you that you wrote starting to act like this (which is nothing short of an unprovoked and totally unjustified personal attack?
I don't see why you'd need to question everyone's authority and credibilityi I am free to question anyone's authority on any subject, especially when they make extraordinary claims.
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't want to argue with you about this, you initially attacked the author with no justification whatsoever with questions that could have been easily answered by a Google search, I would like to focus on the main topic of discussion now. His work has been cited in
other reliable sources, his credentials in the CNRS and the CJB
are as a historian, and he has
authored three books with reputable publishers. Do you now accept that he is indeed a historian and his works are reliable sources?
NAADAAN (
talk) 23:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
No, I didn't attack the author (so don't you ever repeat that again), I questioned whether their claims have any validity. One single source calling him a historian doesn't explain the rest (him specializing specializing in Social Sciences and Political Studies).
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
OK perhaps your concerns are justified, have they been answered by now? He is a historian at the
CNRS, has written a book describing the history of the Saadi dynasty with a reputable publisher and has a Ph.D. in history, do you not agree that he is a historian? If so, would he not be an authority in discussing historical flags? If not, what relevant qualifications would be necessary to be an expert in this in your view? There are also other reliable sources calling him
a historian. The fact he has two specialities is irrelevant regarding this imo.
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The
only biography of his that I could find doesn't describe him as such, but regardless, the fancy flags are clearly extraordinary claims. Do you agree with that?
M.Bitton (
talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't argue that they are extraordinary if their description were sourced from contemporary or historical sources (as has been the case in the book). I'd say the illustrations I have made SVGs out of could be at worst extrapolations based on those descriptions. If that is the case, perhaps it wouldn't belong on the infobox (this is something I am willing to concede), but I think they are still at least worth putting into an article section. Given everything I have provided, I'd say Mouline has the right credentials.
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you saying that flags that you uploaded are not in the book that you're referring to?
M.Bitton (
talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
They are in the book, here are scans:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5; The point I have made were that Mouline had based some of these illustrations from descriptions provided in historical sources (which are cited in the book), hence why he labeled them "probable appearances" of banners (I have reflected this nature on the Sa'adi dynasty article).
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I noticed that they are mentioning the "probable appearance" of the flags.
M.Bitton (
talk) 00:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I acknowledged this in my original message by proposing possible appearance of variations of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids as a caption for the infobox. I have backed out of attempting to put this into an infobox until the book is put under more scrutiny over time, I am planning to add them onto the respective dynasties' articles outside of the infobox if there are no objections to that.
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
What would a possible appearance of a flag (basically, someone's idea of what it may have looked like) add to the article?
M.Bitton (
talk) 00:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I think a historian's idea of what the Almoravid's flag could have looked like based on historical texts and a particular dynasty's 'alam al-mansûr banner (a tradition which lasted from Almohads to Marinids) would offer insight. Would a presentation
like this be acceptable?
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I won't repeat what I already said about their credentials, but the addition is UNDUE given how fancy the so-called flag is and the fact that the historians of the Almoravids haven't mentioned anything that looks like it.
M.Bitton (
talk) 01:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have not presented it as an authoritative fact but as a "possible appearance of the black standard variation used by the Almoravids, according to Nabil Mouline". I won't repeat what I already said about their credentials I think it has been proven that he has been described as a historian by a few reliable sources and has the relevant credentials to back it by now, unless you can dispute the contrary. given how fancy the so-called flag is I do not understand this argument, it is the shahada on a black banner.
NAADAAN (
talk) 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It's more than a shahada on a black banner (something we use to have on this article), it's an elaborate flag that isn't mentioned in any RS about the subject.
M.Bitton (
talk) 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, he is a historian (assuming e.g.
this is correct). Maybe not an authority on flags though. Is there another reason to doubt his reliability?
R Prazeres (
talk) 23:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Having a degree or Ph.D. in history and then specializing in something else (Social Sciences and Political Studies) doesn't make someone a historian.
M.Bitton (
talk) 23:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
NAAADAAN. Thanks for the details. To further clarify, what I mean is that existing historical descriptions seem to only mention a colour and maybe another vague detail, but little else. This is also the extent of detail we find in all the reliable secondary sources consulted so far (when they mention flags at all). The quote you provided from Mouline above is another example (unless he provides other details in the rest of his text). What's missing is everything else: what decorative details were on the flag (if any), what inscriptions were on the flags (if any), what style of Arabic script it used, where these elements placed on the flag, etc? Since these details aren't available anywhere, many of the supposedly historical flags that show up on Wiki Commons (not just on this topic) and in modern illustrations are merely conjecture. The Roman aquila emblem is not comparable: I believe it's well-known and frequently depicted on historical sources, including Roman art, and it's easy to find recreations of it in
WP:RS.
But just to re-summarize my point above: I think it is
WP:UNDUE to place any of these in the infobox, for the reasons above, but I don't think it's a problem to include one in the article section dedicated to this topic, if other editors agree.
R Prazeres (
talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I mostly agree with you, I will focus on creating an article for said al-'Alam al-mansoûrs as they think they are very much pertinant and will probably include them on an article section. I will also vectorize other flags in the book that have been based out of murals and, more pertinantly, banners that have survived the test of time. I will leave it up to you if you ever obtain a copy of the book and you find the information presented there pertinant enough to warrant an infobox entry.
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have edited the Sa'adi article to reflect this, FYI.
NAADAAN (
talk) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I reverted you at first only because the image was still in the infobox, so I thought you were duplicating it (perhaps by accident). I'm good with the current alternative.
R Prazeres (
talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, thank you for you work and your reasearch, however, i beleive we still don't have a visual record of what the flag of the Almoravid and Almohads and marinids and saadis looked like exactly officially, we know for sure that the "victorious flag" is a state flag per RS, and we're pretty sure of the colors used for those flags, but without multiple visual sources we cannot just put them in the infobox. Best thing to do in this case is having a section or a subsection about the flag it would be much more informative than just putting a Black flag in the infobox (which could confuse regular readers regarding the Almoravid-Abbasid relationship). Also, the flags shown in your source look more like
war flags and they would fit in the section about the embelm in the article. At least, we did got to remove those red penants and inadequate primary sourced flags from the infobox of those medieval-early modern state of modern day Morocco, as this will reduce NPOV and allow readers to understand better the religious doctrines and the political legitimacy upon which those states rely.
@
R Prazeres per this source
Abderrahmane Djilali here
[1] , Al Djilali explicitly identifies the "Victorious flag" as the official state flag, the marinid one (p 100) is recorded as being white with golden quranic inscriptions, however, the Hafsid flag is also white, and not yellow, per this primary source also (p 44)
[2] (Tunis and Annaba having the same white flag with black crescent).
Nourerrahmane (
talk) 01:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
yes in this case the alam al mansour is the closest thing to a state flag for those dynasties. I have written a draft for an article on those flags from the sources I have on hand here:
Draft:'alam al-mansûr. thank you for your feedback
NAADAAN (
talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The founding of the Almoravids
When a political movement departs from a location then spreads to southern tribes (lamtuna and Gudala) whom its leaders sought guidance from the movement founders to restore order, piety, and eliminate degeneracy, it would be unreasonable to say that the movement and the political order departed from these tribes (Lamtuna and Gudala) as suggested in the header section. The political, religious, and military movement departed from Aglou around Tiznit area in present day Morocco (see in this same page the origin of schools of Waggag ibn Zallu in the <Name section>). In fact the founder Abdallah Ibn Yassine died in a military conquest against Barghawata in the north near Romani area before the Almoravids became an empire. In summary, the political state and rise of Almoravids had begun in Morocco, this is to be stated in the header section. Verify and edit accordingly (The same sources apply) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.250.237.93 (
talk •
contribs)
Lithām and Almohad accusations of effeminacy
At the end of the section "Name" there is an indication of "citation needed". I just had a suggestion for an article that might be useful on that regard, but I cannot edit the page because it seems to be protected:
González Diéguez, Guadalupe. "Veiled Men of the Desert: Perceptions of the Ṣanhāğa Face-Muffler in the Medieval Islamic West," Occhialì: Rivista sul Mediterraneo Islamico 7 (2020): 33-47.
Many thanks for your consideration, in any case.
Alqantara75 (
talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the suggestion, Alqantara75. If I have time at some point, I'll have a look at the reference and update the paragraph accordingly. (Anyone else is also free to do so.) I believe Amira Bennison's book (already cited widely in this article) also discusses this issue to some extent, if that's helpful.
R Prazeres (
talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Almoravids' maximal expansion
Hey @
R Prazeres, I noticed that you reverted my edit regarding the date of the map, stating that it contradicts the article. However, according to sources such as Ibn Khaldun and the historian and archaeologist Dr. Rachid Bourouiba, the map accurately depicts the year 1100, not later. Ibn Khaldun mentions that Algiers, just before the Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen, was under the Sanhadja, and the governor of Tlemcen besieged Algiers unsuccessfully before turning to Achir, which prompted the Hammadid expedition.[1] According to Rachid Bourouiba,
Abd al-Aziz ibn Mansur governed the province of Algiers under the reign of his brother Badis, and under the rule of
Yahya ibn Abd al-Aziz (1121-1152), the province of Algiers was given to his brother Hassan.[2] Additionally, according to Ibn Khaldun in his book Al Ibar, Al Mansur was able to reconquer the western territories of his kingdom after the expedition.[3]
Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that the Almoravids controlled all of those eastern territories in 1120, and it is necessary to adjust the map.
Tayeb188 (
talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Based on what you wrote, I don't see any definitive details that don't require some form of
WP:SYNTH. It's fully plausible that Algiers was captured by the Hammadids at some point, maybe during the war that was settled between the two sides in 1104, but I don't see any sources being explicit about that, or about when Algiers was under whose control, etc. I couldn't find anything precise on my end either during a brief search.
The map is not more compatible with the date 1100, because that contradicts the much better known chronology of conquests in al-Andalus discussed in the article (as I mentioned in my edit summary).
Zaragoza wasn't captured until 1110, the
Balearics in 1115. (Valencia also in 1102.) In fact, the caption should more accurately say circa 1115, rather than 1120, since Zaragoza was then captured by Aragon in 1118 (see article).
The map itself, as is, matches many maps from scholarly and reliable sources depicting Almoravid control, all including Algiers,[4][5][6] so I don't think there are any grounds for adjusting it. All such maps are merely approximations and Wikipedia merely reports what reliable sources say. If we begin to nitpick about certain places based on our own incomplete reading of sources, we'll likely end up in a never-ending loop of
WP:OR. If we find clear and explicit reliable sources saying the Almoravids did not occupy Algiers after a certain date, my suggestion instead would be to add a footnote to the caption noting this for clarification, following the example of the caption at
Aghlabids regarding Sardinia.
R Prazeres (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
R Prazeres (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
To be fair, we already have sources (Roger Le Tourneau, Phillip Naylor and others) stating that the Hammadids expanded westward and by 1102, they took Tlemcen. I think the best option would be to remove "c. 1120" and leave the map simply showing the maximum extent. Also, for what it's worth, the Atlas of Islamic History map states "c. 1100".
M.Bitton (
talk) 17:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's less informative, but if others agree then I'm fine with removing the date, given both my comment above (about Zaragoza, though this is easily fixed) and the fact that most of the map sources I've seen don't give a specific date in the caption.
I've seen Naylor's note, but just to show how easily there can be apparent contradictions: Messier[7] puts the city under Almoravid control under both Ali Ibn Yusuf and Tashfin ibn Ali (including names of governors), we have epigraphic evidence of Ali ibn Yusuf expanding the
Great Mosque of Tlemcen in 1136,[8] and multiple sources state that Tashfin ibn Ali made his last stand here before being chased to Oran(e.g. Messier, Bennison p.59).
R Prazeres (
talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
R Prazeres (
talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, that period is not well documented (probably because the cousins weren't so keen on fighting each other). If I have time, I will try to create a derivative of the Atlas of Islamic History map (Slugett seems to always come to our rescue).
M.Bitton (
talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with removing the date from the caption of the map. This would make it more accurate.
Tayeb188 (
talk) 12:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your input, Tayeb188. I'll go ahead and remove it then. And if we later use a map that's modeled more closely on Sluglett & Currie's map (which is a little more precise in its presentation), I'm sure that'll be fine; thanks, M.Bitton.
R Prazeres (
talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The article says " a coalition of the Lamtuna, Gudala, and Massufa nomadic Berber tribes lived in what is now Mauritania and the Western Sahara " yet, Lamtuna's territory, known as "Bilad Lamtuna" (the country of the Lamtuna), was actually located in the southern region of Sous-Massa, Morocco, stretching as far as Guelmim-Oued Noun and Laayoune-Sakia El-Hamra, according to many historians such as Al-Idrisi and Ibn Khaldun, there's also historians who said uqba ibn Nafi fought them in his conquest to the far west exactly in between present sous massa and guelmim-oued noun
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The statement is written according to what the cited sources say. If you want to argue for changes or additions, please provide
reliable (secondary) sources that clearly support your proposal.
R Prazeres (
talk) 04:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I ask to edit the article including Morocco because I said bilad lamtuma starts from it's south, also there are a lot of sources about masufa and gudala too but let's start with lamtuma, in the book "Nuzhat al-Mushtaq" by Al-Idrisi, a 12th-century muslim historian, geographer and cartographer, he wrote
- ( But as for the land of Nul al-aksa and Tazkaght, they are the country of lamtuna of the desert, and lamtuma is a tribe from Sanhaja )
- ( There is also a stone called 'Hajar al-Bihit' on its shore, which is a well-known stone among the people of al-maghrib al-aqsa, the stone is sold at a good price, especially in the country of lamtuna )
- ( the city Nul lamta and the city of azgi to lamta too, and as for the city of Nul in the west, it is three days journey from the sea and thirteen stages from Sijilmasa, the city of Nul is a large and populous city situated on a river that flows from the eastern direction, and on it there are the tribes of lamtuna and lamta )
- ( And they are nomads who move around but do not settle in a place, like the lamtuna of the Sahara who are in al-maghreb al-aqsa )
You could read the book or I could give the links to the pages in Arabic so you can verify the texts
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 13:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
We're not going to go out of our way to include what is contradicted by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources.
M.Bitton (
talk) 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You're saying that the 12th century historian al-idrisi who lived in Almoravid empire isn't reliable source? There's ibn khaldun, there's abd-alouahid, there's al-hamiri, what's a reliable source to you if it's not from them
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 14:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The lamtuna and their allied/subject tribes of massoufa and Juddala are not from modern day Morocco. The Almoravids actually conquered both the northern Sahara then the south of modern day Morocco as shown in RS. Consider reading these (which also includes contemporary Arab sources that are displayed far better than your assertions).
If you’re just going to keep ignoring
reliable sources then I don’t think there is anything more to say.
Nourerrahmane (
talk) 16:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
the idrisi and ibn khaldun and al-hamiri and abd al-ouahed and abi al-fida and many others mentioned bilad lamtuna in southern Morocco from Gulmem to sakia el-hamra, they are also mentioned in southern Morocco when uqba ibn nafi fought them before reaching the ocean, those without mentioning complicated sources such as al-bakri who states by the liter that their maintain is near taliouen, more than that al idrisi who lived among them states that lamtuna wasn't native to the sahara Desert they were rather from the north and pushed southwards by the other tribes which ibn khaldun aslo confirms and the Mauritian historian al-hassan mentions it
if you'll intentionally ignote all these ssources arelay on modern publications then that's Wikipedia for yound
Wikipedia relies on modern publications as reliable source then that's another story,
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 16:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello everyone, If I were in IP's position, I would have referred to Al-Maghrib Al-Aqsa instead of Morocco. As Al-Idrisi mentioned, the Lamtuna were located in southern Al-Maghrib Al-Aqsa. Whether he meant Morocco or Mauritania, I'm not sure. Also, @
Nourerrahmane, your addition is not accurate at all. The source you cited does not support your claim. I suggest you revert it yourself if you acknowledge your mistake. The location of Lamtuna stretches from Oued Souss (In southern Morocco) to Mauritania. Here are some other sources that provide a more precise description of the Lamtuna's location.
[3][4]TybenWelcome 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm just going to ignore your comment, please don't ping me.
Nourerrahmane (
talk) 17:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
In that case i'm going to revert your addition myself. And remember Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.
TybenWelcome 17:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually I wouldn't mind if they add it as " Maghreb al-aksa " while removing Maurtiana or just leaving it as it is adding " Morocco " although many historians don't count Maurtiana as part of " al-maghrib al-aksa " such as al-idrisi who calls it " bilad qamrunia " but there's al-qalqandishi who said it's a part of " Maghreb al-aksa " so this matter is up to them
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Mauritania is mentioned in reliable sources, so it's impossible to remove. However I already cited (above) sources that give description of Lamtuna's location, it stretches from Oued Souss in southern Morocco to modern Mauritania, I think those sources must be followed here.
TybenWelcome 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't insist on removing Maurtiana instead I'd ask they add Morocco, Lamtuna didn't inhabit all of modern day Maurtiana nor all of Morocco they mainly lived in the sahara, tho I wouldn't mind adding " southern Morocco " if they want to make it specific
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 19:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I say again, the lamtuna have nothing to do with Morocco prior to the almoravid conquest of Morocco, the very fact that al-Idrisi mentions south Morocco goes against an army of primary and secondary sources alike, the lamtuna is the southmost Sanhadja tribe, i wouldn't even agree on other northern tribes such as
Massufa and
Godala or lamta having any kind of sedentary presence in Morocco (prior to the Almoravid conquest), simply because Morocco was not home of these Sanhdaja tribes. It was the
Sahara, which is neither part of the Maghreb al Aksa or modern day Morocco. The source given by the disruptive sock speaks about Awdghaust and southern-central Mauritania region as a birthplace of the Almoravid movement and speaks of the politics of the involved Saharan tribes prior to the Almoravid state in thatspecific area. if anything, the Noun river is the northmost a nomadic tribe can venture into. Overall, this has literally nothing to do with modern day Morocco and nowhere serves the purpose of this article.
Lamtuna are mentioned in Morocco before the establishment of Aoudghast, again it's mentioned that Uqba ibn Nafi fought them before reaching the ocean. Ibn Khaldun mentioned it, Ibn Abu Dinar mentioned it, Al-Hasan Al-Ourtilani in the 12th century mentioned it, the Mauritanian historian Al-Hasan ben Al-Amine mentioned it, and many more did, note that all the area under the modern-day Suss-Massa region is considered "Sahara" by the historians, and again Al-Hassan also said Lamtuna isn't native to the Sahara; it was in Daara, then immigrated south, Gabriel Camps also says that all Sanhaja aren't native to the Sahara; they immigrated south, Ibn Khaldun mentioned it, saying they were on the north and were forced to move to the Sahara, Al-Idrisi says the same, adding that they were pushed by other Berbers to the Sahara, which is close to the ocean, The fact that you argue on a topic which you don't know anything about while acting as if Al-Idrisi who lived among them and traveled throughout the land, is some modern French historian who published his book in 2005, and gave me sources that you yourself haven't read while ignoring all the other sources means you're an Algerian, which doesn't surprise me. It's Wikipedia after all, I would ask you to avoid replaying to me, I'm not into empty arguments with people like you "respectfully".
102.38.8.5 (
talk) 21:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I think this is the appropriate time to call an admin to intervene. @
Ad Orientem, could you please deal with Nourerrahmane's disruptive behavior here? first they refused to communicate : "I'm just going to ignore your comment, please don't ping me." And now they are possibly referring to me as "disruptive sock", not to mention that the source they cited doesn't support their claim which also contradicts many other credible sources.
TybenWelcome 21:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply