User talk:R Prazeres

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.

Going through the Ummayad rulers of Iberia, I noticed that Abd al-Rahman III and Abdullah of Córdoba have the same month and day of death, which makes me suspicious that at least one is inaccurate. I haven't found any answers for the dates of thier deaths yet, so I wanted to clue you in to see if you had an answer. Solitaire Wanderer (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've checked both articles and made some fixes. The dates at Abdullah of Córdoba (apart from the years) weren't supported by the cited source as far as I could see, so I simply removed them. The source cited for the death date of Abd al-Rahman III is unfortunately not accessible (the link in the citation is no longer valid and this is as close as I got on Google Books), so I can't confirm either way at the moment. Like so many details on Wikipedia, I have my doubts and wouldn't be surprised if someone added these arbitrarily at some point. Thanks for looking into this kind of thing. If you find details like this that are not supported by a citation somewhere in the article (or whose citation doesn't appear to verify the information), feel free to remove them and to say so in the edit summary. R Prazeres (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell mate really? Zaid is Prophet’s FORMER adopted son. His name before the adoption verse was Zayd ibn Muhammad. After it his name got restored to Zayd ibn Harithah. His marriage to Zaynab was really to change a tradition. Here, a few links to prove my comment in the edit. A detailed article from Yaqeen Institute.

Another one, saying the same thing.

Mine wasn’t a thought but a sourced thing.

Read them all, all say the same thing. Now, i would like you to restore me word, or i will. Wakelogger (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since this is potentially relevant to other editors working on that article, I've left a response at Talk:Zayd ibn Haritha al-Kalbi instead. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note: please be sure to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Online forums and blogs, like some of the links above, are not an appropriate source of information; find professional historians and academics instead to cite. Note also that edits like this, where you stated what you believe is correct without citing a source, are very likely to be reverted by other editors. Make sure you form a habit of citing reliable sources any time you change or add content on Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Prazeres, I know it has been a while since our last conversation, and I wanted to show you something interesting. Recently, while editing most parts of the Hammadid/Zirid era, I discovered a lack of maps covering the 11th century, even though the Maghreb experienced a major event during that time, the Hilalian invasion. So I decided, with the help of a mapper, to create a map depicting the region right after the "Hilalian invasion."

I, of course, used most of the sources I could find on the internet and heavily based my research on the work by H.R. Idriss in his book The Sanhadja State, which, luckily enough, was fully available online. Initially, I want to include this map in the Hammadid dynasty article, as the existing map isn't specific or detailed enough as this one. This new map also depicts the Hammadids at their largest extent, similar to other articles about neighboring dynasties like the Almoravids or Zirids, which show them at their greatest extent as well.

I would appreciate your feedback on this, and the mapper I worked with is ready to create a variant of the map based on a different year. If you have any suggestions for what we could represent, I’d love to hear them. One last thing: I’m not sure how to send the image to you, so I’ll wait for your instructions on how best to do that. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Prazeres,

Since I haven't received a response, I'm hesitant about whether I should upload it or not. It would be disappointing to upload it without getting your point of view. I know you have enough knowledge about the subject to take a look at the map, and if there are any errors, I can correct them before having to re-upload it on Wikimedia Commons. Your assistance would be really helpful, and I hope to get a response soon so we can discuss this further.

Cheers! Tayeb188 (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tayeb188! Sorry for not responding earlier, I've been absorbed in other matters and forgot to reply to this. I'd be happy to look at the map whenever I have time. In terms of using it on Wikipedia, I'm hesitant to say whether any map created from scratch by editors is necessarily conforming to WP:OR, but since the current map at Hammadid dynasty (and some other articles) is also another editor's creation anyways, I think there's certainly no harm in giving us a new option. Wiki Commons itself also has no restrictions on uploading maps like that, so there's no harm in uploading it and then further discussing changes on the file's talk page. (And we can also discuss on the article's talk page which map editors prefer to use in the article, if needed.) By the way, I wasn't able to find The Sanhadja State by H.R. Idriss; is that its original title?

It is possible to send me the map image through email (see Wikipedia:Emailing users; just note that this reveals your email address to me, in case you prefer to keep that private). But, as mentioned, you could upload it on Commons and we can still discuss and make changes to it there. It's up to you. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, mate! Thank you for agreeing to take a look at the map. I've put considerable time and effort into it, and it's something that I was really keen on. I’ll email you soon so we can discuss it further. I believe it’s the best way to proceed before I publish and properly source the map.

Regarding the book I mentioned earlier, the full title is "The Book of the Sanhaja Dynasty: The History of Ifriqiya during the Reign of the Zirids" by Dr. Hady Roger Idris. The only issue is that from my research, I’ve only found Arabic and French versions online. I haven’t come across an English version, and I doubt one exists, but I’ll send you an email with more details soon.

Thanks again for your help!

Best regards! Tayeb188 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And no hurry, but if you have the French version of the book, that would be great. (My Arabic skills are not up to the task of a long read, but French is as good as English to me.) R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salam! I thought you might be interested in joining WP:Wikiproject Yemen Abo Yemen✉ 17:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation! R Prazeres (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could reinstall the edits on Numidian Cavalry so that I could continue working on the article, It will temporarily be under work so I hope to massively improve it as soon as possible. Thank you. Clausewitez (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may edit or add material (including material that was previously reverted) if you provide clear and precise citations to reliable sources which directly support that material (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Make sure you also take the warning on copyright violation (which another editor left on your talk page) very seriously. I will not reinstate your previous edits as they were, since they were uncited, but if you include reliable sources next time and follow the relevant guidelines, then you can re-add the material yourself and of course continue with further editing. So in short: you should add the citations at the same time as you add content, to avoid being reverted in the future. Promising to add citations later is not a good approach. If you have any more specific questions about Wikipedia policies, feel free to ask.

A small tip: if you're planning on making large or complex additions and you're new to Wikipedia, then consider using your sandbox as a draft space where you can write up some of your material beforehand, figure out the citations and any other problems there, then copy that into the article itself when you're comfortable. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh thank you very much these are some really good tips, I am happy if you could provide me with more tips like these in the future. as a new member to wikipedia this is a new approach how to do things and I will certainly do as you advised. I am taking baby steps into adding information and sometimes I am worried to over-source information.

sincerely, Clausewitez (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that was helpful. Indeed, if there is one thing I emphasize to new editors, it's to make sure you follow Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (these are the overall guidelines about sources and how they relate to Wikipedia content). Other editors can help you with improving details like grammar, formatting, etc, but they can rarely do anything for you if the sources are missing or unclear; so get those right first, and then the rest can be fixed later if needed. R Prazeres (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Yemen Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for your contributions on Architecture of Yemen! Abo Yemen✉ 05:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! R Prazeres (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please : Chawia is arab name not berber and thats what the sources in same paragraph say. You can chek this source or translate it .

Chawiya is of Arabic origin from the word shah, which means sheep. Ibn Khaldun says:The chawiya are also the people who take care of sheep and cows, as their livelihood is. (Source here) ال سباع (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've checked again and made an edit to fix the problem for now. I've provided an explanation at Talk:Chaouia (Morocco). Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so, however i see more lamps and street than wall. Even quality is ... --Petar Milošević (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows you the wall and its bastions at intervals, plus some of its environment, which immediately gives you a sense of its form, scale, and urban setting, which is what we'd want for a lead image in this case. The quality is fine. Your beautiful new photos are much appreciated, but the primary purpose of images on Wikipedia itself is informativeness, so this takes precedence inside an article. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good words, but check again, different pic. --Petar Milošević (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer the old pic to be honest because it shows more of the wall and its historic towers, rather than the more modern gateways near the west end today, but it's not a big problem either way. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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..." [1]). Thank you for your help. Regards. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia (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)[reply]

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 [2], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apparently the sources indicates(exemple : Aurélien Montel, [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.: [4], [5]. 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)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, 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) [reply]

Hello R.Prazeres, shouldn't the Fatimid map in the article include Zirid territories ? Suglette's atlas of Islamic history [6] (p.26), Karim chaibi's atlas historique de l'Algérie [7] (p.76 and p.78), Philip Naylor's history of North Africa [8](p.81). Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. 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) [reply]