Talk:Sulaymanid dynasty

Maghrebi UPE zombies?

Why has Mr. @MER-C: has accused the Sulaymanids dynasty of UPE in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Suspicious_new_articles_(25_January)? His Highness Sulyaman I of Tlemcen must be guilty of hiring paid spammers from his grave that is over a millenium old. Abubakar1919 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with article's scope, title, and sources

This article appears to rely partially on WP:OR to take a branch of the Idrisid dynasty and make it sound like it's naturally its own independent(?) dynasty. More specifically:

• Even to the extent that this branch might have acted independently from the "main" branch in Fez (which was true of more than one Idrisid prince), nearly anything relevant here would be just as relevant at the Idrisid article, and this split article ends up stating different viewpoints (e.g. on the Sunni vs Shia classification) from the main Idrisid article for no good reason.
• Nearly all the sources I can see are references about the Idrisid dynasty, and it's unclear how many of those sources actually refer to a "Sulaymanid dynasty". Some of them don't, and some sources I can't verify since the article doesn't actually provide the necessary bibliographical information. Even Gilbert Meynier's book, the only one which that I can confirm mentions the name "royaume sylaymanide" ([1]) seems to do so only in passing and doesn't seem to be making an explicit case for treating it as a separate state. I can find mentions in other books, but hardly anything that would satisfy WP:NOTABILITY.
• Of course, much of the article remaining unsourced, or refers to "Ibn Khaldun" (without citations) instead of current scholarly sources.
• The name of the article is all but identical in scope to the name of the unrelated Sulaymanids article (they're both dynasties, so there's no reason why one article should be named "Sulaymanids" and the other "Sulaymanid dynasty"), and there are far more references to the Yemeni dynasty.

If there is a chance to fix these issues and insert proper supporting references, please do so. Even if this is done, I see no reason not to merge this with the Idrisid dynasty article, and possibly turn "Sulaymanid dynasty" into a disambiguation page instead (with a link to the Yemeni dynasty and another to the Idrisid dynasty). R Prazeres (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Even though they are related (the founders of the two being brothers), the Sulaymanid and the Idrisids are two different dynasties, each with its own minted currency. The article could certainly do with some improvement, but it shouldn't be merged with any other. There is nothing wrong with referring to Ibn Khaldun (often cited in modern scholarly sources), especially when the subject is not well known in other languages, but the citation needs to be provided. Hopefully, now that it has been tagged, the issues will be dealt with (slowly I suspect). M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully so. The article appears to have been originally created by translating from the French version, so the missing bibliography can at least be found there I believe, but that page is also tagged for verifiability problems. As for citing Ibn Khaldun, in small measures it's fine, but it's not a good practice for Wikipedia to cite him as the only substantial source, as he's effectively a primary source, even if in this case he lived well after the events. If the article can't cite reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in detail (per WP:NOTABILITY), then its existence will be hard to justify. R Prazeres (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up on my own comments: from what I can see, looking at the French article's references and at citations in more recent sources, the most detailed source should be a 1970 study by Daniel Eustache (details here, though it's not easily accessible). There's also this 1983 Nowick article which should have quite a bit. There's a few others that might be helpful but I can't access them, and the others I've seen so far don't dedicate more than a sentence to the topic. But that should be a start. R Prazeres (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

More follow-up: I did some nearly top-to-bottom copy-editing, and after having a look at more of the accessible sources and getting more clarity on the topic, I think the problems can be narrowed down to lack of citations in the later parts of the article, so I've replaced the maintenance tags I added earlier with section-specific or inline tags. Hopefully that helps and makes the task of further revisions easier after this. The article's name should still be revised at some point for a proper disambiguation with the Yemeni Sulaymanids, but that's less urgent. R Prazeres (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's great! I'll let you know if I can manage to get hold of a copy of Eustache's book. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)