Talk:Taifa

Baeza

Excellent editing, Sugaar! I'm curious whether the taifa Baeza reflects local pronunciation of Latin Baetica. If the etymological connection is right, it might be mentioned in the briefest way. --Wetman 20:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably it's not the case, so let it be. Anyhow, whatever info on Baeza should be in the article on that town. --Sugaar 09:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Unnecesary POV adition.

This adition by Error: In modern Spanish, taifa has a connotation of quarrelling petty territories, often used when criticizing cases of uncollaborative behaviour of autonomous communities of Spain.

It adds nothing to the article and is POV: I have only heard such use from very conservative centralists, brodering fascism, people. It implies that any inter-regional argument has a negative effect an == d it implicitly considers centralism better.

Furthermore it is in the wrong place (under List of all taifas). Therefore I have deleted it.

--Sugaar 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Move it to Taifa kingdoms or Taifas.

I just realized that the title of the article is probably not the most appropiate. Taifa kingdoms, Taifa emirates or simply Taifas (probably the best option) would be better, as there was not any single taifa but many (by definition).

I don't know how to do such move, so I hope somebody can do it for me.

--Sugaar 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The singular form makes easy to write things like: "The Cid attacked the taifa of Valencia." --Error 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a good rationale. Taifas are by definition plural you can always use the [[Taifas|taifa]] structure or better: [[Taifas|Emirate]] of Valencia, or (wouldn't it be perfect?!): [[Taifa of Valencia]].

Anyhow what matters is which is the best title for this article, not for easier linking elsewhere. --Sugaar 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Taifa articles

It has occurred to me that each of these taifas should have its own article. I recommend we change the links in the article to reflect this; we could have a link to the taifa as well as the modern city/municipality for each entry. Your thoughts? Grandmasterka 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. Are you willing to work out all the stubs, maybe even articles in some cases (Zaragoza and Seville specially)? Go ahead and do it! --Sugaar 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now changed the list of Taifas to only "Taifa of ...". I also made stubs for most of them with lists of emirs and fomer country infobox, plus some short articles.Gabagool (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Plural form

After some excellent addition of the arabic form, it seems some user has decided to change all the plural form taifas by tawaif. I'm not sure it is correct. It is not in Spanish, where the term has its own character, even if inherited from Arabic, and I suspect it is not be the case in English either.

After all we are not refering to the original Arabic meaning in the generic sense of party or faction but in a specific historical sense of the taifa kingdoms or merely taifas.

I'd like the opinion of some Arabic speaker to contrast, and also, if available that of some English-language documentation like (a dictonary, encyclopedia or history book reference).All my references are in Spanish and therefore I can't be sure of what's best.

But I strongly suspect it should be taifas rather than tawaif. --Sugaar 09:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to taifas as in Spanish. --Error 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Should Ceuta be included?

An anonymous user has added:

• Ceuta: 1084-1147 (to Almoravids)

Obviously by date it should be to Almohads and no source is given. But my question is: should Ceuta be considered part of Al Andalus? That it's now part of Spain is trivial but maybe historical reasons can be given. I can say from memory that it belonged to Málaga for some time (in the first Taifas period) but it's not mentioned in the main source that I used to write this article.

By the moment I'm removing but if you find good reasons to include Ceuta among the Taifas, maybe because it was once part of the Emirate/Caliphate of Cordoba, I would accept that. --Sugaar 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Map adjustment

Could somebody adjust the map so that only the taifa states are coloured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.87.60 (talk • contribs)

I don't think it would add much. The map is described as "political map of Iberia in 1031", at death of Hisham II (but still living Sancho the Great of Pamplona). While it currently only illustrates articles on history of Al Andalus, it could perfectly ilustrate also those on history of Spain, History of Navarre, etc. as well.

Aditionally most of the map would still be colored anyhow.

Finally maybe you'd prefer to discuss that in the image's talk page and not in the articles' one.

I'm not sure if you have a problem understanding the map or it's just a caprice, really. --Sugaar 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I have created another map for the Al-Andalus article showing the Caliphate before the break up. I don't think it's meaningful here but, just in case, it's here: Image:Al Andalus.gif. --Sugaar 00:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Is the reference to "¿Cual es la actual organización territorial de España?" (a document at the People's Party site comparing the taifas with the current state of the autonomous communities) of any import whatsoever to the article? Seems like a bit of propaganda to me... That, or a joke, in which case there are other more adequate places to put it in.

As to the reference to usage, like Sugaar I find it completely irrelevant and inconsequential to the article.

I really think both should be erased. In fact, I'm taking the liberty of doing so.

Dr Benway 13:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarasin

The link is completely misleading and utterly unhelpful: Could some skil- and powerful administrator please correct that deplorable mistake!--Terminally uncool (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources for maps?

Both of the maps on this page (1, 2) don't cite any sources, and a number of related maps for the pages of individual Taifa kingdoms are likewise unsourced (they're mostly found in this category at Commons). Can anyone clarify if there is a source these maps are based on but which hasn't been included in their page descriptions? Or are they original research? R Prazeres (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: I think most of the maps in question were originally by Tyk, so I'm tagging them here in case they can help. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello R Prazeres. So long has passed since I made those maps I no longer remember where the source came from. At the time I wasn't that experienced and so I did not pay attention to including the source. Sorry. Best regards, Tyk (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Understandable and no worries. If you happen to recall it later by chance please feel free to let me know; both for the sake of making sure material used here is sourced (not that the maps look wrong or anything) and also because I'm on the lookout for useful sources for maps like this. Thanks again, R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Regarding the period of the "first taifas" (1031–1086), if you want a map elaborated by a reliable third-party (IGN), here you have one: [1] It seemingly may be uploaded to Commons as it is handily released under a cc by-4.0 license. Regards and sorry for the intrusion--Asqueladd (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No apologies of course, the question wasn't necessarily for Kyk alone. Thank you very much! R Prazeres (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)