Talk:Marinid dynasty

Merging

The merge of Merinid dynasty and Marinid isn't controversial. No doubt we can agree on this. But which should be the name used for the final article? Donama 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Marinid or Merinid?

Which should be the name used in the English wikipedia, taking into account that there many alternate spellings in the other languages (see Marinid article for the other language links). Please add your support or oppose below.

Merge into Marinid, "Marinids" or "Marinid dynasty"

• Support because this is the name Encyclopaedia Brittanica use and I found it more often in my English-based research (note what happens in a google fight of Marinid vs Merenid) Donama 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Support in Marinid. I don't speak Arabic, but I believe "A" is stronger than "E" in this language. But since I don't speak English either, I may be wrong, when you translate Arabic into English. But A are always better than E... Lapaz 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC) I'll also add that we should'nt merge a "tribe" (see Marinid) in a "dynasty"; the reverse is all right though, since the dynasty supposedly comes from the tribe. Lapaz 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Article title format

Now please choose what format you think the article title should take. Donama 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

M*rinids

• Weak support Donama 05:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter

…As long as all the redirects are provided. - Jmabel | Talk 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

After merge

Merged into Marinid. On advice of myself, User:Jmabel, User:Lapaz and User:Drini.

But I have put some of the info I'm not 100% is merged in HTML comments at the bottom in case I missed something. — Донама 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Can anyone point so some reputable references for this topic? Thanks in advance! — Донама 02:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

removed internal link

I removed the wikipedia link for Marabuts. It leads to an irrelevant entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.153.118 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

modern descendant?

'The actual Head of the dynasty is Mark Tabili that it comes down from the Sultan Abu Tabil' - does this refer to a present-day descendant? If this info is worth including (no reason why it shouldn't be, if genuine), it could do with being more clearly worded and put in a section of its own, and sourced. (In case this helps, English 'actual' does not mean the same as French 'actuel' - I suspect the word you want is 'current' or 'present-day'.)Mikeindex (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Marinid dynasty vs. Morocco

Marinid dynasty, was a country as weel a dynasty, but a former dynasty of Morocco.Bokpasa 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to write an understandable sentence in English.

2nd, thanks to give us, not a source since I don't think that a source for such affirmation can exist, but a logic for your approach and an explanation for your (supposed, but inexistent) argumentation.

3rd, thanks to avoid editing articles without discussion, based only on your opinions.

You have been blocked and warned before for vandalism on articles related to Morocco [1] [2], and you're still acting the same way despite that. Please stop acting this way, you are deteriorating WP.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Replies:

• 1st Marinids were a nomadic tribe (According to Ibn Battuta)
• 2nd 1240/ 1 (643 AH) attacks on the Almohad Empire (Histoire des Berbères of Ibn Khaldoun, Paris 1978, ISBN 2-7053-0047-3, page 62)
  • Why thirty years before his succession supesta they fought?
• 3 rd, Ronda, Algeciras and Gibraltar, was part of This Empire, or you think Gibraltar are part of Morocco as Ceuta?
• 4th find some of Bu-Tata.... was another contry....
• 5th thanks to avoid editing articles without discussion, based only on your opinions.

You have been blocked and warned before for vandalism on articles related to Morocco

• 6th Whay it`s Marinid Capitel? http://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/25092/1/Martinez_Enamorado_Capitel_merini.pdf Capitel meriní, de Virgilio Martínez Enamorado, 2006
• 7th Why you do not write about sufi and jews? http://www.jafi.org.il/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Jewish+History/1300+BCE++1996+CE/
• 8th Al-Binya, La Ciudad Palantina Meriní de Algeciras, de Antonio Torremocha Silva y Otros, 1.999

[3]

• 9th Why in 1274 the Marinid king Abu Yusuf wrote to Aragon king: «Manifiesta cosa sia a tots com Nos aben Yusuf Miarammollin Senyor de Marrochs e Feza e Suyamoza, e de ses pertenencias, Senyor deis Benimarins... ab vos noble en Jaume, per la gracia de Deu Rey D'Arago, é de Malloques, é de Valencia, Comte de Barcelona... E puis que romanga aquella pau entréis votre filis é los nostres, en tal manera que Vos nos facats ayuda á pendre Cepta, é que nos enviets deu naus armades é deu galees,...». Original source... here you see Marrochs (Marrakech, city) is one think and Benimarins are the country...Bokpasa 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Fez, Saadian, acording to Omar-Toons

If i understand you correctly you're contesting that this dynasty was Moroccan, regarding that:

1. 1st: Irrelevant
2. 2nd: Irrelevant
3. 3rd: So 3rd Reich and the German empire were not German since they contained Austria & Alsace?. And France was not France befroe 1962 since it contained Algeria?
4. 4th: Irrelevant
5. 5th: same for you and your Ips
6. 6th: Unintelligible
7. 7th: Add something relevant to the article about Jews & Sufism, if you see fit.
8. 8th: ??? so?
9. 9th: So He wrote that he's lord of Fez and Morocco (I.E Marrakesh). What does that prove? The empire was composed of various Kingdoms, among which those of Fez and Morocco (Marrakesh) were the most prominent

P.S: This is EN:wiki, make some efforts in finding English sources and writing intelligible English. Thank you. Tachfin (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• • No!!!, this are two countries....
  • Not!, Ibn Jaldun wrote about 2 countries, Marinids and Almohads, not only dynasties..
  • Irrelevant!
  • Find it!
  • Irrelevant
  • Read!
  • Read!
  • Read!
  • Unintelligible
• Republic of Salé
• 8 safar 943 (1536), battle of Bu Aqba, Saadían vs Wattasis (http://books.google.es/books?id=uOEHYN5DATIC&pg=PA330&dq=Mosqu%C3%A9e+des+Andalous&hl=es&ei=iAdDTs-IKsmc-waBs_XFCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false Familias de Fez: ss. XV-XVII Escrito por Fernando R. Mediano, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, ISBN 84-00-074534-X, 1995, page 103)

All these things were discussed on Talk:History of Morocco (sections 4 to 16), Bokpasa being the only one to oppose the consensus and the common interpretation of the sources.

Omar-Toons (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bokpassa: I'm sorry but your poor understanding of English will make it very difficult to communicate. Also, you should reply below other people's comments not in the middle because it gets messy and impossible to read.

It seems your points have been thoroughly debunked in the discussion linked by Omar-Toons, There is no reason to revisit it. Regards Tachfin (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Bokpasa, I see that you are using a map that I extracted from a book, out of its context, to justify you PoV. Ok, let's play the same game. Do you think that, on the map above, the country represented in blue is not the same than the one represented in red?

The answer is, definitely, it is the same country.

According to your logic, the kingdoms of Castille-Aragon and Spain are not the same thing... don't you think?

Same thing about Napoleonic France and the Republic of France... isn't it?

Well, I quit playing, it was just to show you how illogical are you PoV edits and how nobody can accept that (but I don't think that you will understand that since we are repeating that since 2006, but you continue you disruptive editing and edit-warring without paying attention to that. Unfortunately, I'm now believing that a UserRfC is the only way to find a solution to this problem.

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you say 3 years=40 years?? or civil war=invasion?

PS: This map of Spain it`s wrong, Spain was too Ifni, Tarfaya, Ecuatorial Guinea, Canary Islands, Ceuta, Melilla, Protectorate of Tetuan, and Western Sahara in this time!Bokpasa 12:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG, that's worst than what I thought... --Omar-Toons (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Banu Marin are Auresian

the Banu marin are from Aurès.41.249.85.86 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no sources supporting your opinion presented here. Compared to the Britannica source that states, "Marīnid dynasty, also called Banū Marīn, Amazigh (Berber) dynasty that replaced Almohad rule in Morocco and, temporarily, in other parts of northern Africa during the 13th–15th century." --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Accoding to the famous historian and sociologist Ibn Khaldoun, the Banu Marin alongside the Zianids, are a sub-branch of the Wassin that originates from the Aurès. So that's the widely accepted theory about the Berbers.

This is the reference I provided following the recent change:

http://books.google.ca/books?ei=8AG9TI64HsH78AbnyNj0Dg&ct=result&hl=fr&id=EQJFAAAAIAAJ&dq=Les+civilisations+de+l%27Afrique+du+nord%3A+Berb%C3%A8res-Arabes+Turcs.&q=ouacine+aur%C3%A8s+

I am talking about Ibn Khaldun because he dedicated a sizeable part of his life in tracing berber genealogies. His book, history of the berbers is considered the most complete book about the Berbers.

Cordially 41.143.227.252 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I am seeing no mention of the Marinids on that page. I would suggest you show the quote indicating the Marinids/Mérinides came from "Algeria", else this is simply original research and will be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That was just a preview, take a look at this link:

https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=Vl5YrF16t-gC&pg=PA48&dq=banu+marin+aur%C3%A8s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nZGUVLzbFITgaMvmgbAP&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=banu%20marin%20aur%C3%A8s&f=false

Moroccan geographer Al Idrissi reports that the Banu Marin lived between Tiaret and Tlemcen.

Cordially 41.143.227.252 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The article's continuous vandalism

What about this issue? would someone please take necessary measures on OmarToons? he seems unsatisfied with reality (that in fact banu marins originated from the highlands between Tlemcen and Tiaret). I hope this comes to an end. Cordially 41.140.40.80 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

There a well sourced section (Marinid dynasty#Origins) dealing with the origins of the Marinids ; it says the following:

• Marinids are originated from Ifriqiya ;
• In the 11th c., they moved to south-eastern Morocco ;
• In the 12th c., they moved to the north-west of present-day Algeria ;
• In the 13th c., they moved to northern Morocco ;

Then, that doesn't make them "of Algerian descent", espacially when we know that all the areas where they settled in the Western Maghreb from the 11th to the 13th c. were part of the -Moroccan- Almoravid then Almohad Empires.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am Moroccan, i know the history of my country, thank you.105.157.8.97 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marinid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518064600/http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=604&lang=fr to http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=604&lang=fr

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It was Already mentioned.

Hi, I've already provided the link sourcing the Algerian origin of the Merinids in a previous talk related section. http://books.google.ca/books?ei=8AG9TI64HsH78AbnyNj0Dg&ct=result&hl=fr&id=EQJFAAAAIAAJ&dq=Les+civilisations+de+l%27Afrique+du+nord%3A+Berb%C3%A8res-Arabes+Turcs.&q=ouacine+aur%C3%A8s+ Regards 196.117.101.240 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, this is a 1909 book, a 110 years old book can legitimately be considered as being outdated. Also, do you have the number of the page that is supporting an Algerian origin please ? Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the information; Ibn Khaldun and al Idrissi , who are regarded as the greatest historians of their respective era, report that the Banu Marin, a subbranch of the banu wassin, originate from Algeria. These two were the only ones who reported minutely on the Berber's history.

https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=Vl5YrF16t-gC&pg=PA48&dq=banu+marin+aur%C3%A8s&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nZGUVLzbFITgaMvmgbAP&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=banu%20marin%20aur%C3%A8s&f=false

Regards 102.101.105.121 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

With regard to this revert:

The IP is claiming that Piquet says that they lived in both Zibans (page 370) and Ifrikiya (page 364). I have checked the source and there's no mention of either the Zibans on page 370 or Ifriqiya on page 364.

@Wikaviani: The page number that you asked for is 136. Here's the part (in French) that supports what's already mentioned in the article.

Abd el-Moumen vit bientôt les Ouemannou l'appeler à leur tète : ils étaient alors débordés par les tribus Ouacine (Zénètes de la deuxième race), qui, repoussées du Zab par les Arabes, remontaient vers Tlemcen..... Ces Ouacines sont les Abd-el-Ouad, les Toudjines et les Beni Merine qui, dans les siècles suivants, joueront un rôle considérable en Berbérie.

M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Minor corrections to the list of rulers

I noticed some minor inconsistencies (in the names and dates) between the list of rulers on this page and the list provided by Bosworth's "New Islamic Dynasties", which is a standard reference, and likewise some inconsistencies between the list and the individual pages for each sultan (which tend to rely on that same book for reference). There's no explicit indication of what other reference the list on this page would be based on, so I'm guessing these are just minor mistakes. I've made corrections and I've added a citation at the beginning of the section just for a little more transparency. If there are other sources providing different dates or names, maybe bring it up here so it can be sorted out. Cheers, Robert Prazeres (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

@TheseusHeLl: I don't understand what the issue is regarding the persistent removal of sourced content that complements the rest of the article (in no way does it contradict any of it since it's simply stating where they came from before frequenting certain areas). The weight issue only comes into play when the sources talk about the same thing, but this isn't the case since the sources I added mention their origin (the part that I added) as well as the areas they first frequented after leaving their homeland, while the others only mention the areas they first frequented. You removed the content about their origin that was there for years,[4] under the pretext that it wasn't properly sourced, and now that it is, you're looking for another excuse to remove it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I agree with the above; I'm not sure what's wrong with the added material. Le Tourneau is a heavily cited author in the literature about Morocco, so I see no problem. If there is newer research challenging this information then that could be provided in counterpoint, or if the information has somehow been discredited more clearly then that could be discussed here with sources. Otherwise it's just part of the historical background of the tribe. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:"I don't understand what the issue is regarding the persistent removal of sourced content that complements the rest of the article (in no way does contradict any of it since it's simply stating where they came from before frequenting certain areas)."

It doesn't complement the rest of the article, it contradicts it.

• Did you read Shatzmiller's Marīnids, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam. Or you're saying this without even reading it? She said in her entry, "The historian Ibn Khaldun, their most famous contemporary, reproduced in his Kitab al-'Ibar the genealogical descent, largely mythical, of the Marinid tribes in the context of the Zanata family, and designates the desert between Figuig and Sidjilmasa as the terrain which they originally frequented. It is to be believed that the arrival of Arab tribes in the region from the south during the 5th and 6th/11th-12th centuries was the cause of various demographic mutations which obliged the Marinid tribes to proceed towards the north and to settle in the plains of the north-west of what is now Algeria." I don't see any Biskra in this text.
• Did you read Powers's Law, Society, and Culture in the Maghrib, "Originally nomadic shepherds and breeders of sheep, the Marinids, Berbers of the Zanata tribe, frequented the area between Figuig and Sijilmasa until the fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries, when the arrival of Arab tribes in the region triggered demographic disturbances that compelled them to migrate to the northern part of the Maghrib." I don't see any Biskra in this text.
• Did you read Allen James Fromherz's Ibn Khaldun "The Marinids, or the banu Marin, the founding Marinid tribal confederation, originated in the region surrounding the improbably remote oasis village of Figuig." I don't see any Biskra in this text.
• Did you read Abu-Nasr's A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period, "The Marinids Like most Zanata Berbers, the Banu Marin, the founders of the Marinid state, led a pastoral life until they bacame involved in political conflicts with the Almohads. Until the end of the twelfth century this tribe roamed the area between Figuig and the basin of the Mulwiyya, moving northwards during the spring and summer seasons in search of pasturage, and returing to south for winter." I don't see any Biskra in this text.

"You removed the content that was there for years, under the pretext that it wasn't properly sourced and now that it is, you're looking for another excuse to remove it."

Yes it was outdated (1909) and the second was a sociologist's non-specialist work.

"the content that was there for years"

Being there for years is not an argument. Are you implying that removing an outdated 1909 work is a bad thing? Or just because it was there for years we should leave as it is?

What you're trying to do is called hijacking. We can't present different views as the same view just because you're thinking "that it complements the rest of the article". Your sources say that they were first in Biskra than went to the west after the 11th century. The sources that I use say that they were first in the (Figuig and Sijilmasa region) than went to the north after the 11th century. You don't see the contradiction? -TheseusHeLl (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: A quick look at Shatzmiller's Bibliography of her entry (in p:574) will tell you why it's more extensive and reliable, than an 1969 work about the "Almohad movement" that uses two sources (Ben Cheneb 1921 and Rawd al-Qirtas) to present the origins of the Marinids. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's what the sources that mention their origin as well as the areas they frequented after leaving their homeland say (some are translated from French):

They are a Berber pastoral tribe which, after the arrival of the Arab Bedouins in North Africa in the middle of the eleventh century had been obliged to leave their former lands in the region of Biskra and to settle in the high plains around Figuig.

• Roger Le Tourneau is a recognized specialist on the Marinids. His book "Fez in the Age of the Marinides" is described by C. R. Pennell (the author of Morocco Since 1830: A History) as the classic English work on the Marinids.

[The Marinids were] Nomadic Zeneta Berbers from the Zab, in Ifriqiya, where they were driven out by the Banû Hilāl Arabs in the 11th century.

• Ahmed Khaneboubi is a scholar who has published two books on the Marinids and is responsible for the Marinid's article in the Encyclopédie berbère.
• To help the readers, I chose to quote the easily accessible Berber encyclopedia, though it's worth knowing he says more or less the same thing in his book about the Marinids.
• For those who are not familiar with the subject: the region around Biskra is known as the Zab.

The Marinids are a Zenata tribe that originally roamed the Zab, between Djelfa and Biskra. At the end of the eleventh century, the advance of the Bedouin Arabs pushed them towards the Western High Plains ... In the Tlemcénois, if the Banû Zayân (Zayânids) immediately submitted to the Almohad conquerors, the Marînids resisted them, but they were defeated and had to fall back around 1145 to the desert margins, between Figuig, Tafilalt and the upper Moulouya where they led a nomadic life.

• The author is fr:Gilbert Meynier

The other sources simply mention the areas they frequented prior to entering present-day Morocco. Nothing strange about that given the fact that the tribe led an uneventful life before that.

1. Shatzmiller and Fromherz are simply mentioning what Ibn Khaldun said about the Marinids:

We know what Ibn Khaldun said (this is already mentioned in the article):

The Banu Marin were Berber nomads belonging to the Zanata tribal group. Ibn Khaldun reports that, before beginning their expansion, they were settled on the edge of the desert, to the east of modern-day Morocco, covering the territories situated between Figuig, Sijilmasa and Muluya, at times reaching as far as el Zab.

Fromherz, who doesn't pretend to be a specialist, refers the reader to check out "L 'Historiographie Mirinide: Ibn Khaldun et ses Contemporains" by Shatzmiller.

Having followed their advice, here's what Shatzmiller says in her book about the Marinids (this time expressing her own views):

Who are the Merinids? As a tribe belonging to the Zanata Berber family, the Marinids used to roam in the Tell and Moulouya regions of present-day Algeria, without anything distinguishing them from many other tribes. It is their participation as a group in the Battle of Alarcos between the Spaniards and the Almohads in 1196 that signals their first appearance as historical actors.

The above does not contradicts the first three sources.

2. Powers says that they "frequented the area between Figuig and Sijilmasa until the fifth/eleventh and sixth/twelfth centuries". This does not contradicts what the first three sources say.

3. Abu-Nasr says that "Until the end of the twelfth century this tribe roamed the area between Figuig and the basin of the Mulwiyya". Same as above, this does not contradicts what the first three sources say. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Upon close examination of all the cited sources, I certainly see no contradiction between the sources that mention their origin as well as the areas they frequented after leaving their homeland and those that simply mention the areas they frequented before entering present-day Morocco. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Removal of map

Separate question here (for M.Bitton): what exactly was misleading about the territory map that was removed? I haven't double-checked all the details on it, but roughly speaking it looks about right and doesn't seem more misleading than similar maps used for other Moroccan dynasty articles (Almoravid dynasty, Almohad, etc). Without any map at all, readers will have no general sense of the territory the Marinids covered, so I'd suggest it would be better to either keep it and make notes about minor issues in the caption if needed, or remove it but start a discussion somewhere (e.g. here or on the image's talk page in Commons, with tags to maybe some users who might help) to flag the problems so that hopefully they can be fixed. The map is used across many wikipedia pages, so it's worth having it resolved. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: It's misleading because it attributes a much larger territory to them than they ever controlled. Their brief (we're talking months) capture of some towns along the coast had no lasting effect and is no different than what their neighbours, who competed with them, did (the Hafsids, for instance, managed to extend their territory eastwards as far as Ceuta and Sijilmassa). The only part that the Marinids controlled intermittently is Tlemcen.

Starting a discussion about it seems like a good idea and with so many sourced maps around, I'm pretty sure we'll quickly find a decent one to replace it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, if we can find a better map then maybe suggest it as a replacement, but I think the previous map should be reinstated until that happens. The map does specify a very brief period of control over the eastern area and the all the dates provided do match fairly well what is reported in the literature (e.g. Abun-Nasr p.110-111), so it's not significantly misleading whereas it does provide significant information in return. The sources might not be listed on the image's description page but its creation was clearly researched. I've seen at least one other scholarly book provide a similar map for the Marinids with even less detail. R Prazeres (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Done. I guess there is no hurry. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Zab or M'Zab?

In the first paragraph of the history section, there's a red link to the "Zab" region of Algeria, and I note that the cited source does indeed say el Zab', but is this a reference to the M'zab region? (Which seems to make some sense in context.) Just checking if we can replace a red link with an existing link. R Prazeres (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The Zab (the Ziban in some English sources, el Zab in Arabic, le Zab or les Zibans in French) and the M'Zab valley are two different regions. Creating the Zab article might not be a bad idea. M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for confirming. R Prazeres (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

False Map

Askelaadden wants to impose a card that he has created himself . But he doesn't respect his source. On the original map, the territory between the merinids and zianids is hatched, to show that this territory passed several times from one to the other . And Askelaadden decided to include this region in the Zianid territory, which is a source diversion and an "unpublished work". --SegoviaKazar (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Instead of starting a publishing war and wanting to impose a totally imaginary unbrowned map, you've should have come to the discussion page to explain how the map is wrong.

FYI: The map has been updated per source.

--Askelaadden (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The map is not unbrowned, Omar-toons explained which map he based on.

Your map is still wrong ! respect your source!

Hatching starts in ghazaouet and ends not far from Oran.

The merinid territory extends a little further west than sijilmassa.

The Zianid and Hafsid territories don't extend as far in south.

Respect your source. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Hatching starts in ghazaouet and ends not far from Oran" : No. According to the source, the hatching starts not far from Melilla and stops before Oran as on my new map.
• "The merinid territory extends a little further west than sijilmassa" : You are right, I will update this.
• "The Zianid and Hafsid territories don't extend as far in south" : The territory of the Zianids and the Hafsids extend to the south at the same point as the lower south-eastern point of the Marinids (see Figuig), as on my new map.

--Askelaadden (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The merinid territory extends a little further EAST than sijilmassa not west !!

Hatching starts in ghazaouet and ends not far from Oran ! It's very clear in the source

Hafsid territory doesn't extend so far east into the source.

the zianid territory does not extend southward to figuig, it goes up.

You take the Hafsid territory down to Sijilmassa and not to Figuig as in the source.

still a lot of errors. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To both of you: please do not engage in edit-warring even if you think the other editor is being unreasonable. Both of you have violated the three-revert rule and in theory you could both be blocked right now. Wait until the talk page discussion is resolved.

That being said: SegoviaKazar, respectfully, I'm not sure what you're talking about. From what I can see, Askelaadden's updated map is pretty much exactly conforming to the source map it's based on. You should also check your writing more carefully because you use words like "hatching" and "unbrowned" which look nonsensical to me in this context and makes it harder to follow what you're saying. (Edit: I assume that "hatching" must mean the striped areas, so that may be a lack of comprehension on my part, but the slightly agitated writing threw me off more than it should have.)

As for Omar-toons's map, as I pointed out in an earlier section above it appears to be well-researched but it does not state its sources clearly in a way that is easy to verify. I've looked at the discussion the French page and it does help, but even those sources aren't clear on all the details and there's only one small map on Qantara-med to compare with there. I actually quite like Omar-toons's map since it would keep consistency with the look of maps on other pages and it shows the full extent of the Marinid empire (with appropriate dates and shading to show temporary occupation), which is more informative than not doing so. The solution could be to re-verify the maps details there and add sources on its description page, and then consider using it again here. R Prazeres (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

R Prazeres thank you for your intervention. I'm sorry if I'm not very clear, I'm not very comfortable with English.

I totally agree with you on the relevance of the Omar-toons map. And I also agree to add the missing sources and use the map again here.

--SegoviaKazar (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message R Prazeres.

--Askelaadden (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The very fact that there is an edit war over how strictly the current map needs to adhere to the properly sourced map it's based on is a clear reminder of the importance of the verifiability and why straying away from it (by using one that is either unsourced or based on WP:OR) is not only against policy but would be just asking for trouble. M.Bitton (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

References

March 2021

@Mhd240: Regarding this edit:

On what page is that particular map printed? M.Bitton (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: It's not printed on the book but it gives an overview of the size of the state, The Marinids did conquer the Ziyanids and Hafsids. Mhd240 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Next time, don't attribute your WP:OR to a source, especially when reverting someone's edit. M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the wattasid, this page and the Saadi should all be merged and the page should be called kingdom of morocco, now don’t you think? - 2601:192:8701:B4C0:0:0:0:D14A (talk)

Stop Edit War

@81.22.42.178 and Serols: stop the edit war and resolve both your differences by discussion here.Ahendra (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@81.22.42.178: please use sources. --Serols (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

New article just for Chronology of Events?

Would putting the chronology of events into a new page be a good idea? Other wikipedia history pages does not include a long list of year-events. It would look cleaner and be consistent to the other pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danial Bass (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. Except for really big topics, splitting content across multiple pages has drawbacks that I don't think are worth it. Plus, that section has currently (almost) no sources, so splitting it would just be creating an unsourced article. If anything, I'd say it's an argument for removing that subsection entirely (with a diff posted here for later reference). Personally, I'd prefer that editors focus on just updating and expanding the rest of the history section and making sure it's fully sourced. If, let's say, the history section were to be expanded to the point that it becomes a very long read, we could then reconsider whether a chronological summary would be useful (and even then, as you pointed out, many major articles of this type don't have one.) R Prazeres (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright that makes sense. Yeah, leave it for now with an eye to remove it if other editors expand the history section Danial Bass (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence

I noticed an IP changing the Lead sentence of the article. They also included a reference for Arabized. Granted a simple reference would not be enough to include a cultural statement within the Lead of an article(per WP:LEAD). Is there enough sourced information within the article to support the addition of Arabized in the Lead sentence?

Anyway, would this change be acceptable to all parties involved?

• "The Marinid Sultanate was a Muslim empire, founded by the Zenata Berber Banu Marin tribe, which existed from the mid-13th to the 15th century and ruled over present-day Morocco and, intermittently, other parts of North Africa (Algeria and Tunisia) and of the southern Iberian Peninsula (Spain) around Gibraltar."

If and when enough source information concerning their Arabized culture is in the article then that could be added just before the word "Muslim".

Thoughts? Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "Arabized" altogether in the lead sentence. It's a loaded term that can mean slightly different things in different contexts and to different readers, and one that would likely apply differently across the dynasty's history. In fact, there is already information about language (the most relevant cultural component) in the "Language" section in the lower article, and per that section there are multiple sources stating that a Berber/Tamazight language was spoken at court, just as Arabic was also more widely institutionalized and increasingly spoken in general. The power base of the state (certainly early on) was also the Zanata (Berber) tribes who supported the dynasty, and for what was essentially a tribal military state, that's pretty significant (see "Military" section and sources there). So it's an qualification that, if needed at all, would need to be clearly contextualized and supported with more detailed sources, and that's the kind of thing that should be reserved for the main text, not the lead.

That said, I personally have no problem if the lead sentence is changed to a formulation like "...was an empire ruled by the Marinids, a (Zenata/Muslim) Berber dynasty" etc, similar to Kansas Bear's suggestion above, with other elements moved around accordingly. "Ruled" is slightly better than "founded" in my opinion. It's probably what I would write if I was writing a lead from scratch and I'm happy to help draft an alternative too if editors want. If there's a consensus here for a change to something like that, then we're good to go and we can point to this discussion in the future.

I'm keeping in mind that information about Berber or Arab identity is something that is often targeted by disruptive edits in North African topics on Wikipedia, which is why essentially removing "Berber" from the lead, as the IP did, is not only dubious but also invites similar disruptions in the future. For what it's worth, describing the Marinids and other dynasties as a "Berber empire" is wording you find easily enough in reliable sources (e.g. see these quick Google Books results); that doesn't mean it's required wording for the lead, but it's also a reasonable one. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "I would avoid the term "Arabized" altogether in the lead sentence. It's a loaded term that can mean slightly different things in different contexts and to different readers.."

And the same could be said about "Berber", even though I have read a Berber cultural cue in the article that would indicate the term "Berber Muslim empire"(although now that I think about it, should it be sultanate instead of "empire"?) would not be WP:UNDUE. I guess it would help to have more editors giving input after reading the article.

My hope was to have the IP engage in discussion and find a middle ground. I see things in the article that the sultanate could be considered Arabized and at the same time I see things that the sultanate was Berber(understand I am talking culturally). If the IP choses to engage in discussion we can go from there. If I miss anything interesting, feel free to ping me. Stay safe, R Prazeres.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I would point out, though, that the label "Berber" (and/or Zanata) for the Marinids is very established and normally used by reliable sources, so it cannot be avoided/denied without going into WP:FRINGE territory. (Not that you were suggesting doing that, I just mean by comparison with other labels.) There's no dispute about their tribal and ethnic background in any reliable source. Applying the term "Arabized" on top of that is not so much wrong as it is unclear on its own and dependent on an understanding of the context. Hence why my opinion is that the best way to address it is to simply explain the details and circumstances (e.g. the role of Arabic at the time) rather than drop the term "Arabized" without elaborating. If an addition to the lead is desired, then a sentence on the growing role of Arabic could be easily added to the last paragraph of the lead where it talks about more of the social context, for example. Still, it's more helpful to expand info in the article itself first.

At any rate, like you said, I invite others to weigh in on the form of the lead sentence. Thanks for starting a discussion.

PS: As an aside to your question about the terms "sultanate" or "empire": in my opinion it doesn't matter too much. Technically speaking, "sultanate" can refer to the office of the sultan as much as it can refer to the state, so "empire" or "state" is perhaps more precise for this purpose, and is one of the commonly-used formulations in similar leads (e.g. Mamluk Sultanate, Almohad Caliphate, Saadi Sultanate, etc). Most equivalent articles in specialized encyclopedias (like those cited in this article) and many other similar Wikipedia articles are titled after the dynasty rather than the state (e.g. Ayyubid dynasty, Idrisid dynasty, and all the Chinese dynasty articles), perhaps (I assume) because the dynasty name is the relevant identifier of the topic. Both this article and the Saadi article were formerly titled in the form of "[...] dynasty" and were moved to their current names without discussion, and there really wasn't a good principled reason to do so per WP:COMMONNAME. R Prazeres (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Flags

The IP who recently posted about the white flag ([5], [6]) hasn't explained themselves, and I'm not inclined to take that suggestion at face value either, but I do think it's worth talking about the current flag in the infobox ([7]). The flag's source appears to be this website, which doesn't inspire confidence: it looks more like a forum message board-style page for flag lovers, where different contributors add information without citing sources of their own, and the website's own disclaimer says that its accuracy is variable. Unless there are independent sources we could cite, this sure doesn't seem reliable.

Note that the same flag is used at Saadi Sultanate, based on the same source, and the flag at the Idrisid dynasty article is also based on the same website. R Prazeres (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of the 8-pointed star in what I found so far (interestingly, the primary source that the IP used is mentioned by Bennison):

• "From the eleventh century until the beginning of the seventeenth, the principal color was white under the Almoravids, Marinids, and Saadians."

• "The Marinid standard was white with red, vertical zigzag lines... Two of the Marinid standards captured in the battle of Salado are yellow in colour and contain lines calling on Allah to protect and grant victory to Abu l-Hassan."

• "Although white is cited as the colour of the Umayyads, of the Almohad caliphal standard, and of the Marīnid sultan’s banner, it is not clear whether such white banners included religious inscriptions and designs or not. The Marīnid sources simply refer to white as the dynasty’s colour." — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Bitton (talk • contribs)

Thanks, this is helpful and is somewhat consistent with the source that the IP tried to cite. (Incidentally, the same page you cited in the Bennison source appears to discuss the primary source that the IP cited, this.) The yellow flag mentioned in the second source above is also included as an image in the Art section of the article. One thing that these readings suggest (and which previously seemed likely), is that there isn't necessarily just one "flag", but multiple attested or possible flags, even if they share some similar themes. If these sources don't provide images though, I'm not sure how any user-made image can avoid WP:OR. At the very least, if we pick one for the article I think we should be more explicit in-line about the source it came from. R Prazeres (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick glance at this book (the only other source I could think of) and found that the 8-pointed star flag is attested for the 18th century and after, but not mentioned earlier. I also saw no other flags described precisely for earlier periods except the checkerboard flag of the Almohads. The only evidence mentioned at all in the FOTW web page seems to be this photo of a Moroccan flag at Army Museum in Paris, which the caption claims was captured in the 19th century. It seems like a flag resembling this exists at a later period, but so far there's no evidence of it before then.

Based on everything so far, I'm going to suggest removing the flag from this infobox and from the Saadi Sultanate infobox (equally unsupported). I'll also remove the flag from the Idrisid dynasty infobox since it is based on the same unreliable source.

Unless other reliable sources come to light, I don't think it would be appropriate to try to replace the flags with something else. Even the white flag from the cited primary source still does not seem unequivocally supported by a secondary academic source (Bennison cited above) which discusses the topic directly. If we do use it, we should make clear in the caption that it comes from that particular primary source and maybe leave a footnote citing Bennison's comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R Prazeres (talk • contribs)

This article, written by historian Nabil Mouline, claims that the Merinids used a white banner, with every Zenata tribe having their own flag. -NAADAAN (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Mouline also just says that it's "of white colour". As Bennison notes in the quote above, that doesn't tell us whether it was blank or had other details. R Prazeres (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Maybe these can be interesting:

• "Ibn Khaldūn points out that the Merinid army, unlike that of the Almohads and the Nasrids, deployed a hundred flags of various colors, while the generals and lieutenants are equipped with small white flags."
• "The sultan presented his officers with a small white flag, see Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddima, II, 531."
• "Formerly, the flags were only white silk banners, raised during great occasions and festivals. In times of war, they received inscriptions of Quran verses and were worn by soldiers on the battlefield."
• "The Almohads, like the Saadis later, kept the same white standard, while the Marinids added a six-pointed star."

With regards to Saadis:

• "al-Ifrani, who also notes the presence of many valuable horses in these parades, as well as standards of several colors including the white banner of the sultan [Ahmed al-Mansour]"

With regards to Almoravids:

• "[ibn Tachfin] adopted the Black Standard, a sign of power of the Abbasids, officially masters of the Muslim world, with the notable exception of Andalusia"
• "Yusuf ibn Tachfin was the first to give the flag a Moroccan character. He emphasized its symbolism in the battles that led his power to Andalusia, after having subjected the rules of the flag to a cleverly concocted protocol: the soldiers raised an immaculate white flag, while their leaders brandished a flag on which was inscribed the phrase 'There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger'."

From the sources, the Almoravids had an entirely white/black flag, with the Shahada written on it for leaders, that the Saadis, Merinids and Almohads continued using a white standard (with the Almohads also using a checkerboard, and maybe the Merinids having a six-pointed star???). This is getting very confusing. -NAADAAN (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Telquel and LeDesk are obviously unreliable and Nabil Mouline's source doesn't add anything to what we already have. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

the Le Desk article is based out of an interview with Nabil Mouline, this can be used NAADAAN (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely opposed to adding a white flag to this article's infobox, as long as it comes with a short caption saying explicitly that it's the representation of the flag found in that first primary source mentioned above. (See how it's done at Mamluk Sultanate for example). But I also don't think it adds anything informative to the article, given how limited and uncertain the issue is, so its value is questionable in my opinion.

As for any of the other articles/dynasties mentioned, there's nothing usable here. Unless we have a reliable source providing a direct visual representation of a known flag, anything else would be WP:OR. A brief written description is not enough, even if turned out to be consistent across reliable sources. R Prazeres (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this is in an article was written by Ruth Grosrichard, professor of Arabic language and civilization at Sciences Po Paris.

• "Originally, the flag of Morocco, used for the first time in the tenth century by the Almoravid Youssef Ben Tachfine, was white, without any ornament. It was the Merinid dynasty that, three centuries later, added the seal of David, a six-pointed star. [...] It is therefore without embarrassment or ambiguity that the Merinids chose the six-pointed star as their emblem, since the Alawites kept it after changing the color of the flag to red, in the XVIIth century. The currency in use in Morocco will also keep, until the beginning of the XXth century, the six-pointed star as a motif."

Can this be considered this enough to add a white flag on the Amoravids' infobox? I don't think it can be enough to draw a conclusion on the Merinid flag. --NAADAAN (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A professor of Arabic language[8][9] cannot be considered as RS for historical claims. In any case, sources mentioning the white banner for the Almoravids can easily be found, but none of them seems to address the issue that was raised by Bennison of whether it included religious inscriptions and designs or not. M.Bitton (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Likewise I'd say no, it's just one source and there are apparently other sources saying something different, like the one above (from the same publication). There's no point in picking one source and ignoring others, unless there's a clear enough consensus with relevant reliable sources, which there isn't so far.

PS: If there is a significant amount of new information in the future about the Almoravid flag specifically, it might merit starting a new discussion about it on the Almoravid dynasty talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Royal house template

Question: is the Royal house template really needed here? Seems to me it isn't contributing much that isn't covered in the first infobox. Some of its parameters (like "estate") are designed with the landed aristocracy in Europe in mind, not really useful here. It's also not used in any similar articles; neither in the other dynasty articles relevant to Morocco, nor for example in a GA article like Ayyubid dynasty. I'd rather just remove it and reduce clutter.

Pinging M.Bitton (who just edited the box), but any opinions welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: I agree that being a just a repetition of what's in the Infobox, it serves no purpose. M.Bitton (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove it then. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss further here. R Prazeres (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Redundancy

Hi @M.Bitton, Regarding your revert [10] Yes, it is redundant. The fact that the Marinid dynasty was founded by Abd al-Haqq is mentioned in the lead, the infobox, and in the Rise subsection.

Also i still think that the statement about his grandfather is undue, but it can be moved to the article of Abd al-Haqq I. SimoooIX (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The Infobox and the lead are meant to summarize what's in the article's body. In the Almohad Caliphate article for instance where Ibn Tumart's name is mentioned everywhere, I didn't see anyone complaining about it or going through it with a fine tooth comb. Worse still, the Hafsid dynasty article has a section dedicated to the grandfather of Abu Zakariya, again with nobody making a fuss about it. This is just to say that I'm not buying it. M.Bitton (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase: If the mention of Algeria is bothering you, say it and we'll try to do something about it. M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not. I made a rephrase to eliminate the redundancy of "Zab". If the mention of Algeria was bothersome to me, I wouldn't keep it in this edit. However, if the fact that I didn't include "Algeria" in my rephrase is bothersome to you, you are welcome to restore my edit and include "Algeria" if you wish. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't need to include anything and I'm not the one who's trying to gut a specific article, you are. Anyway, the matter is now resolved. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep fiddling with the sentence. What exactly is wrong with it and why do you think that the mention of Ifriqiya is an improvement? M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

My only problem right now is with the redundancy of the word "Zab". Since you seem to dislike my suggestions, could you please rephrase it yourself? I'd be glad if you do this favor for me. I really don't believe that we have to discuss such ridiculous stuff. SimoooIX (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I had a go at simplifying it. Normally, that should do it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It's alright now. You've done a great work. And thank you for wasting our time. SimoooIX (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Wasting our time? What kind of a response is that? Is that you could think of after asking me to do you a favour? M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary reverts are nothing but a waste of time. SimoooIX (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Utter nonsense! The revert of your first attempt at removing content was absolutely necessary (explained in depth above). If anything, you wasted our time by targetting an article over a tiny portion that you don't like. Frankly, I've had enough of this crap. Further unnecessary changes would mean going back to the stable version and waiting for a third party. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

@M.Bitton, Regarding your revert [11] I just wanted to tell you that it wasn't hard for me to find sources describing the Marinids as a ruling dynasty of Morocco. (Because that's what they were)[12][13][14]. Also "where they come from" will not change anything. SimoooIX (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

1) There was no such as Morocco back then, so the "of Morocco" is just plain stupid. 2) Of the three above sources, only one makes such a claim in passing. 3) Who they are and where they come is very important (these were not nationals of a country that crossed to the next). Finally, the status is obviously "Sultanate" (what the article is about). M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

1)- so according to you mentions of Morocco in RS (like Britannica) is nothing but stupid?

2)- No the three of of them are supporting the fact that the Marinids were a ruling dynasty of Morocco.

3)- Irrelevant. SimoooIX (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

What some sources mention in passing is indeed irrelevant. There was such thing as Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia back then. That's fact! In any case, that claim wouldn't belong there even if it was true. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There was a "Morocco" back then Probably with some other name but it did exist. Why doesn't it belong there? SimoooIX (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Equally, there was also "Algeria" and "Tunisia" back then probably with some other name. What's your point? It doesn't belong there because the status of a Sultanate is obviously "Sultanate". M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably "Tunisia" (the hafsid capital was literally Tunis) but not "Algeria". SimoooIX (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. M.Bitton (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

What type of a response is that? SimoooIX (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's really funny how you suggest i read 3RR, while you are literally now in violation of that rule. You've made now 4 reverts in 24 hours, theoretically you must be blocked now. SimoooIX (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's less funny when you realize that you are fully aware of the fact that I removed it from the infobox two weeks ago. You didn't say anything back then, instead, you waited for a passing IP to take advantage of the situation and impose your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't notice you removed it back then. SimoooIX (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This diff says otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. When i saw your revert i started searching in the edit history (because i remember that "Ruling dynasty of Morocco" was the former expression used for statue) SimoooIX (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

1) I believe the diff. 2) This doesn't a change a thing to what I said about taking advantage of the situation. 3) I'm done here (now that you are fully aware of WP:ONUS and WP:3RR). M.Bitton (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says that you must have consensus, the thing that you don't have now. I don't see "Sultanate" as constructive especially when the very title of the article is "Marinid Sultanate". Pobably "Ruling dynasty of modern-day Morocco" would make you happy? SimoooIX (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Either keep the status as "Sultanate" or remove it entirely as indeed being redundant, given the title. I'm not even sure what the "status" parameter was originally intended for (the infobox's template doesn't say anything specific), but it's not used consistently in all such articles, so it's not necessary. Either way, stop edit-warring about it (both of you).

If further comment is helpful: I think it's unnecessary to label mentions of Morocco "stupid" in this context, given how many reliable scholarly references about the medieval period use that terminology for convenience, but defaulting to calling it "Morocco" is not consistent with the way we have tried to reduce nationalistic anachronisms across Wikipedia articles. It's better to present readers with more detailed context, without further assumptions, as this lets them figure out what's relevant for themselves; whereas resorting to modern identifications tends to obscure the actual historical dynamics of this region and period. The relevance to Moroccan history is obvious from the lead and from the "History of Morocco" sidebar, as is the case with the relevance of the Hafsid dynasty article to Tunisia, and so on. R Prazeres (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi R Prazeres, thank you for your comment here. My suggestion above was "ruling dynasty of modern-day Morocco" i don't think it implies any "nationalistic anachronism". SimoooIX (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably Western Maghreb or al- Maghrib al-Aqsa would fit. SimoooIX (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The template does mention the status parameter (Status of country, especially useful for micronations), so in essence it's either Sultanate or nothing (since it's already mentioned in the title).

It is stupid in this context because anyone who's familiar with this and other similar subjects would know that "readers' convenience" is the last thing in the heads of those who insist on applying a double standard. M.Bitton (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That's an obvious personal attack! SimoooIX (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to falsify facts and lineages of people that are not yours, as you do in the Arabic version, to make a fake history and make people believe that you are indeed an ancient empire that included the area of ​​Algeria, Western Sahara and Mauritania, even in your response to the official you said that there is no Algeria, although there was the Zayani state whose capital was Tlemcen, so let you know that Marrakech was ruled by Algerians like the tribe of Europe, the Almohads, the Marinids, and the Wattasids, so go and learn history before you talk about it 154.121.80.74 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Format issue at the bottom of the article

Hey all, it seems that since the family tree was added (in this edit), the last sections of the article below this are appearing as part of the chart. I've looked at the source code but at the moment I can't actually figure out what's causing this. There must be a missing a bracket or something, but maybe someone else could have a look and spot the issue? Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Marinid conquest of North Africa (Maghreb region)

The map that was before 2021 was correct, it shows the Marinid sultanate at its peak. But it was edited and replaced by another one which shows 3 states. i think that the ancient one is more suitable. If you argue that it was a too short dominance, then we have some exemples of states that were short lived but we still consider their political presence in the territories they conquered, like the napoleon's conquests or the empire of China. Moorishino (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the map is unsourced, as was already explained above long before you started edit-warring. So as long as there's no equally well-sourced map to replace it with, nothing will change. R Prazeres (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Now it is sourced https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=a8tHDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38&dq=Morocco-based+Islamic+dynastic+states&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBsLL9sPGCAxXYRaQEHSgiDjoQ6AF6BAgPEAM#v=onepage&q=Morocco-based%20Islamic%20dynastic%20states&f=false

Problem resolved!! 808 AD (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no problem as the map in the article is more than adequate and of a better quality that some mumbo jumbo that potrays the French and Spanish protectorates in a very strange way (to say the least). M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't deny the fact that the source is of high quality, however its map doesn't concern only the Marinids but also the Wattasids. The Marinid state in its peak controlled all of North Africa... that's a fact. 808 AD (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I meant all of the Maghreb* 808 AD (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

+a small territory in the very south of Andalusia. 808 AD (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

They controlled it tenuously for a few years only, and not at the same time as they held territory on the Iberian Peninsula. So the current map accurately gives an impression of Marinid control over most of the period. A map of its apogee might be fine, if appropriately sourced, but it would also be just as appropriate to include it in the body of the article, where that particular period is discussed, instead of the infobox, which is a summary of the entire topic. So either way, nothing's wrong with the current map. R Prazeres (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how, how much and when they controlled those territories. An approriate map with an appropriate legend and notes would be much better. I mean a map that contains their main territory + the largest extent. I hope you got the idea (I'm not a native English speaker). 808 AD (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres here is an example of what i was talking about https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carte_des_Hammadides_et_leurs_voisins_v.1050_(English_cropped).png#mw-jump-to-license 808 AD (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not a fact. They never established dominance over the the other territories and never managed to unite the Maghreb as the Almohad had done before them (that was their dream). M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What you say may be correct about Hafsid territories in Tunisia and Tripolitania, but certainly they managed to establish dominance over the Zayyanid territories for a relatively long period. 808 AD (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

No, they didn't (besieging a town is hardy controlling anything). Anyway, these endless discussions about maps are getting tiresome. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the second siege actually was a victory for the Marinids, as a result Tlemcen was Marinid for more than a decade. 808 AD (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Tlemcen is not the "the Zayyanid territories". This is exactly the utter waste of time that I was referring to. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Zayyanid sultanate was a small kingdom so it didn't have that much territories. Also it was the weakest kingdom in the Maghrib region (compared to Marinids and Hafsids). 808 AD (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The marinid banner

Why isn't the red marinid flag shown in the article for it's well known they had a red flag adorned with an 8-pointed star formed from 2 superimposed squares 102.38.8.5 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue is already discussed in in the "Flags" discussion above. That flag is fictitious and only ever originated on Wikipedia or other non-reliable internet sources. R Prazeres (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't Wikipedia using the one shown in Petros Roselli's map, he's the greatest source, aside from all the 15th century charts and maps that displayed the red marinid flag, Roselli's the most accurate, he belonged to a family of Jewish origin that converted to Christianity with the beginning of the Christianization campaigns in Andalusia, which explains the information available to him about the North African region and Andalusia, where the Jews were known for their role of mediation between Muslims and Christians - commercial transactions and other things, and he worked for a long period of his life in mapping The map I'm asking to be used as a source was made in 1466 AD in the city of Mallorca on the Andalusian coast, it shows various marinid red banners alongside with others the like zyyanids 102.38.8.5 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Any information on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable secondary sources (see the policies on reliable sources and secondary sources). The map you mentioned ([15]) doesn't show the red flag with octagonal star pattern anyways, and the fact that it shows multiple flags, which could mean multiple different things and which the mapmaker could have based on various old or new sources at the time, makes it all the more important to follow those policies. It's not up to us to do original research here. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The article lacks the flag and the coat of arms which I'll be getting back to later, but for now I demand adding the marinid flag, which is described according to the "Faisal Magazine" from the "King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies" as a red flag. It says

"If we return to the Far Maghreb (al-Maghreb al-Aqsa), which did not fall into the hands of the Ottoman invasion as mentioned before, We will find that this Arab country in the far northwest of Africa has known the flag in its correct sense six centuries and a few years ago, exactly around the year 1367 AD, during the rule of the Marinid state, or Bani Marin, who ruled Morocco between 610 and 869 AH, and the banner of the Marinids is the oldest Arab flag that historians keep in its details, which is a rectangle of red dresses with an oval-shaped circle in the middle divided into white and green squares. A flag with the same discretion is shown in various charts and maps, but the most important one is Roselli's map, which dates to 1466 AD in the city of Mallorca on the Andalusian coast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.38.8.5 (talk)

I suggest you read this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Origin of the Marinids

Hello everyone. It is true that the sources do mention that their origin is the Zab region however they don't mention the city of Biskra so why is it mentioned there? We can't identify it like that especially knowing that a lot of Berber regions can share the same name. Also we should take into consideration what the reliable historians of that time say. E.g Ibn Khaldun states that the origin of those people (i.e the Marinids) is the region between Sijilmassa, Figuig and the Moloûya river, but sometimes their territory can be extended to as far as the Zab region. Ibn Abi Zar states that their origin is the region between the Zab region and Sijilmassa, He also states that those people were Nomads and their territory was stateless, they were not subject to anyone. 808 AD (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

They do and it's not the city that is mentioned, it's the region. This has been discussed and what's in article is properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ahmadnagar Sultanate which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No prejudice against a split discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Marinid Sultanate → Marinid dynasty – By far the most common name, per books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Summary of usage stats, order of commonness of names previously proposed on this talk page:

1. Marinid dynasty
2. Merinid dynasty
3. Marinid Dynasty
4. Marinid sultanate

(current name Marinid Sultanate, capped thus, is not common enough to show up in the stats). Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Marinids" is more common still. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you're proposing that Marinids would be a good alternative title, it's OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support "Marinid dynasty". This was the original title of the article until it was moved in 2019 ([16]) on the argument that the "dynasty" should be distinguished from the "sultanate", but this does not really matter since there is only one article on the topic and thus no confusion on its scope. While "Marinid Sultanate" is still easily found in scholarly sources, I haven't seen evidence that it's a conventionalized name. Historians most commonly refer to the dynasty to denote the period/polity/topic, as they do for many/most other pre-modern Muslim polities, so this works better for WP:COMMONNAME (as the ngram suggests).

PS: "Marinids" is more common in an ngram, but for the trivial reason that the plural noun is always more common in total occurrences, because one does not usually continue to repeat "[...] dynasty" all the time in writing; e.g., the plural "Tudors" occurs more times than "House of Tudor" or "Tudor dynasty" ([17]) and the same would be true for similar topics. R Prazeres (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is not a common name issue, these are two different topics, and the names apply to different subjects. The argument that needs to be made is WP:PAGEDECIDE, determining which framework will provide the better context for the article, the ruling family lens or the polity lens. CMD (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds logical, but in practice those are generally covered together, as in this article, so we just need to choose a title. The "sultanate" view seems rather rare compared to the "dynasty" view. Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Possibly, which would be a naturalness/recognizability call I suppose. Alawi Sultanate was recently split from Alawi dynasty, but that differs from this case in the very different temporal scopes. The pre-split title being dynasty is an anecdote in this move's favour. Saadi Sultanate is at the Sultanate title, although that was also from an undiscussed move, and Wattasid dynasty is at dynasty. Whichever is the odd one out should probably be considered after this RM finishes. CMD (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  Belated reply here just to agree with CMD on the latter point: Saadi Sultanate should likewise be moved back to Saadi dynasty, assuming editors agree with the move here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment ideally we would have two separate articles, like with Fatimid dynasty and Fatimid Caliphate, and Zayyanid dynasty and Kingdom of Tlemcen, although there is precedent with Makhzumi dynasty, Almoravid dynasty, Hafsid dynasty, and Ayyubid dynasty. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why that would be ideal. There's not too much info on the people, the dynasty, and the sultinate such as would requiring splitting the content across articles. Maybe merging some of those others would be ideal. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, I've long suggested that Kingdom of Tlemcen and Zayyanid dynasty should be merged (see here), as the latter is mostly just a repetition of the former plus a list of rulers that could easily be moved. I just haven't had the time and energy yet to sort it out. Fatimid Caliphate and Fatimid dynasty, however, are split due to WP:SIZE considerations (the former is very large) and due to the abundance of scholarship focusing on the Fatimids themselves, which makes a split more constructive. R Prazeres (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support. "Marinid dynasty" appears to be a fairly clear WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm not seeing that there's much need to have separate articles on the dynasty and the sultanate. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.