Talk:Aghlabid dynasty

Fake map marked as disputed

Why do you continue to add again a not reliable map marked as disputed? What do you want to demonstrate? Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a propaganda source for arab nationalists with complexes of superiority. Sardinia ha never been under aglabyd rule for example. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

" ...al-Nuwayri's book Kitab nihayat l'adab (the book of the ultimate goal in the art of humanities), his work is highly gobbitable." Well, if it's even somewhat gobbitable, I must procure a copy! --Wetman 06:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncorrected for almost four months - early Muslim dynastic history really is one unpopular area of Wikipedia... Reluctantly moving to the BJADN page. Kisch 23:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture appear incorrect: Aghlabids Dynasty in its Greatest Extent certainly included the whole Sicily. User:Gmelfi --130.125.73.128 (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

After some months, I changed the above statement (Aghlabids Dynasty in its Greatest Extent) with a more defendable one. --Gmelfi (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to Interrupt, its said the arabic was الأغالبة‎ . but the arabic read was 'Aglabits' not 'Aghlabids'Ahendra (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aghlabids. 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/20110629173030/http://archnet.org/library/dictionary/entry.jsp?entry_id=DIA0005&mode=full to http://archnet.org/library/dictionary/entry.jsp?entry_id=DIA0005&mode=full

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) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

FAKE MAP

Sardinia island never been part of an emirate, the island was part of Bizantine empire and not even Apulia and Calabria were part of Aghlabid Emirate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.218.227 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so please base your comments on those, and skip the caps lock. In this case, the map's sources are not clear but in this regard it is very much in line with the map in this published atlas (Sluglett and Currie 2015, Atlas of Islamic History, Map 8 on p. 24 in this edition). The Aghlabids did occupy territories on and around the Italian Peninsula, including Sardinia, as can be read in other reliable sources like this (The Aghlabids and their Neighbors, p. 2: "(...) the reach of the Aghlabids extended far beyond to Sicily, the Italian mainland, Malta, Sardinia, and Corsica.") and this (A Companion to Sardinian History, p. 119, e.g.: "It is difficult to deny with any credibility Islam's presence in ninth-century Sardinia in the period when the Aghlabid dynasty exerted the greatest pressure on peninsular Italy.").

That said, it would help to clarify the map's original source(s), or update it using the atlas mentioned above or others like it. In fact the only differences between this map and the "Atlas of Islamic History" map are on the African side, as the Atlas shows a smaller territory there. R Prazeres (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the original map (added the above source and reduced the size of the African territory accordingly). M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sardinia has never been under any arab domination. This is a historic revisionism, there isn't any phisical trace of arab domination in Sardinia and you are contraddicting other wikipedia articles too. After the end of the byzantine domination Sardinia became ruled by the 4 giudicatis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardinian_medieval_kingdoms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.216.239 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

As already said above, Wikipedia is written according to reliable sources, not according to what other Wikipedia articles say or don't say or according to what individual editors believe. Example sources are already provided above and it wasn't hard to find them. R Prazeres (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@62.10.216.239: you can ignore what was said above (if that's what you want), but your will be reported for edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Users with an agenda who try to change history posting false maps, threatening other users. This is very scary. There are other 40 articles in other languages about Aghlabids in wikipedia, but only a small minority (which has copied the english one) has published that fake map. Sardinia was never under Aghlabid control in its history and there isn't any traces on the island of that presence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.216.239 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Sardinia to the map

I share my perplexities with the user who complained about that map. Apart from quite a few glaring errors which seem to be sadly present in the Companion of Sardinian History (the major offender would be a loose interpretation of the infamous Barbaricini being mistaken for... "Berbers", p. 22), it is accepted that apart from a (still quite impressive) number of expeditions launched against the island by the now-Arab portion of North Africa, with which Sardinia had previously interacted owing to their being under the common political infrastructure of the Exarchate of Africa, the Arabs never managed to turn such expeditions into an actual and fully protracted military conquest. The now dearly departed Giuseppe Contu, a scholar who thoroughly studied said interactions between Sardinia and Africa, stated (Contu, Giuseppe. Sardinia in Arabic sources (PDF), eprints.uniss.it, Annali della Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature Straniere dell'Università di Sassari, Vol. 3 (2003 pubbl. 2005), p. 287-297. ISSN 1828-5384, p. 290) that the only brief mention we have of such episode is the famous attack by Mujāhid al-ʿĀmirī in 1015, by which point not only were there already chronologically no Aghlabids to speak of, but even if there were, they would have not been in charge of said expedition (Museto commanded it in fact from the Balearic Islands).

Moreover, we also know (Francesco Cesare Casula, La scrittura in Sardegna dal nuragico ad oggi, Delfino, 2017, pp. 45-46) that the first recorded attack launched from Rades ranged from about January 24, 703 to January 13, 704, but again never materialized into a successful conquest; the Sardinians would request assistance to the Franks, whoose fleet, commanded by Bonifacius II stopped at Caralis in what they regared insula amicorum ("friendly island"). The Frankish presence, albeit short-lived, would reflect itself in some Frankish influences (i.e. the organization of the Sardinian towns, the villas, by the Judicates, the adoption of some architectural styles, as well as, perhaps most notably as far as medieval sources are concerned, the Carolingian minuscule).

I am also wondering why the map does not accurately, in accordance with its own sources, portray the Aghlabids' presumed "territorial reach" into, say, Corsica, to leave but a brief and (as to what pertains to Sardinia) quite anachronistical mention of "Southern Italy"? It would not be the first time that Sardinia was sadly mistaken for Sicily, or Southern Italy (as in, the peninsular part) altogether in both its culture and historical trajectory.--Dk1919 (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to hang around here much to debate this question, which is not in my narrower fields of interest, but from what I'm reading you seem to personally disagree with the sources rather than offering a clear refutation based on scholarly consensus. Since Wikipedia is not a forum for WP:OR, that's not a good enough reason to go against other reliable sources. I see no obvious "glaring" errors in the Companion of Sardinian History (cited above), which is a scholarly publication nearly 15 years after the Contu source you mentioned and which explicitly discusses ongoing revisions to this history. Moreover, the passages on p. 22 and 119 are by different authors, so even if you personally think the author on p.22 is wrong, I fail to see how that undermines what the author on p.119 is saying. As for your second point, it doesn't appear relevant to the Aghlabid period at all.

More importantly, the current map is directly based on a historical atlas published by scholars, and thus conforms to Wikipedia's content policies. The other map which you and the other IPs have tried to impose is not based on a scholarly source, and moreover it omits any indication of Aghlabid presence in parts of southern Italy despite the latter being better-documented. As for why that map doesn't include Corsica, I suppose you should take it up with the authors, Sluglett & Currie, who made that call. Evidently they decided it was appropriate to indicate Aghlabid presence in Sardinia but not in Corsica further north. I don't see how the source being nuanced somehow counts against it.

If you want to discuss issues of limited evidence and disagreement between sources on Sardinia in particular, you're free to do so in the main text, so long as you respect WP:NPOV. The infobox map is not the be-all and end-all of information on this article. Likewise, if there is another map based on equally reliable sources which doesn't show Sardinia, I personally have no particular objection to it (currently there isn't one available). But if the only thing motivating this discussion is personal disbelief rather than a full reading of available sources - which is what the objections have looked like so far - then it's not going to be very convincing. R Prazeres (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@R Prazeres there is no book about Sardinian history adfirming that Sardinia was under a Caliphate, contrary for example to Sicily, so the Atlas is wrong. Floydpig (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Atlas is wrong about Sardinia is not strange, many history books non centered about Sardinia are imprecise when they talk about Sardinia. A similar problem is about the Holy Roman Empire: there is a certain amount of maps of the HRE showing Sardinia as part of it (expecially under Frederick II), but it's wrong. Floydpig (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

For example, this books tells that Arabs only made raids in Sardinia, not conquering it https://www.google.it/books/edition/Archaeology_and_History_in_Sardinia_from/fw4XuEbKnQwC?hl=it&gbpv=0 Floydpig (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I proceeded to check out what The Companion says on pages 119-120, and they actually state that the Aghlabids did indeed launch a series of expeditions to the island, resulting in what might have looked like the limited formation of settlements, on the nature of which I would like to highlight this passage in particular: «This was, therefore, not a true and proper occupation, but forced co-habitation with the local power, which was not always capable of ousting Muslims from their positions. Furthermore, the conquest of Sicily and expansion in southern Italy suggest that the Aghlabids decided against a permanent occupation of Sardinia; the emirate did not possess sufficient power —especially demographically speaking— to conquer both regions». And here is one of the passages with which the section closes on page 127: «it is pertinent to remind ourselves that the possibility of an Islamic presence in Sardinia does not necessarily indicate a conquest of the island, the impossibility of contact or trade with natives, or rational building activity or settlement on the part of the Islamic community. What is more plausible is that a network of complex ties—including cultural ones—existed between the two worlds, which were not always marked by conflict, and which, during the Middle Ages, had demonstrable points of contact and, even to some extent, collaboration». In other words, some degree of dialectical contact with the so-called "Other" indeed existed and is not therefore put into question, as also proved by a few linguistic leftovers in Sardinian language, such as the tzaccada: but these contacts, these interactions between Sardinia and North Africa, however significant since time immemorial and the Sardo-Libyans, never materialized themselves in the form of an outright Arab overseas possession, let alone one that extended to the whole island, in stark contrast with Sicily and some parts of Southern Italy, which constitutes the point of contention concerning the map.--Dk1919 (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the difference between an occupation and a "forced co-habitation" and how would you show the latter on the map? M.Bitton (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In Sardinia has never existed an arab rule and nobody knows the existence of an aglabite governor and the existence of arab settlements. There aren't cultural relation with the arab world (some arab influeced words in sardinian language come from spanish language, because Sardinia was under Spain for 3 centuries for example). Some coastal raids don't means the island was under the control of a foreigner country and it's idiotic thinking all the island was invaded as that wrong map shows. Manuscripts existed also in Sardinia in the Middle Ages and there aren't writtren local sources which state Sardinia was under and Emirate, futhermore in the 10th century in Sardinia were built the romanesque basilicas which dot every region of the island not mosques. 82.84.251.188 (talk) 82.84.251.188 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the IP user who keeps ranting and making personal attacks against other editors, and instead continue on the main point. In terms of maps, here are two other published maps (among those I can access) which show the same thing as the current one based on Sluglett & Currie:

• Mazot, Sibylle (2011) "The History of the Aghlabids" in Hattstein, Markus and Delius, Peter (eds.) Islam: Art and Architecture. p.130
• Roolvnik, R. (2008) Historical atlas of the Muslim peoples. p.6

As for what text references say, a more helpful counterpoint than what's been offered above is a very recent chapter-article by Alex Metcalfe which reviews in some detail the evidence for possible "Arab" (Muslim) occupation over the 700s and 800s. See:

• Metcalfe, Alex (2021), "Early Muslim Raids on Byzantine Sardinia". In Metcalfe, Alex; Fernández- Aceves, Hervin; Muresu, Marco (eds.) The Making of Medieval Sardinia, pp. 126–159.

Metcalfe's overall point is that the evidence for Muslim occupation is limited and inconclusive. Personally I agree with that conclusion, based on what he presents, but our job on Wikipedia is to present all major scholarly perspectives, not to arbitrate which scholars are right or wrong, per WP:NPOV. What is again evident from Metcalfe's review is that, many scholars have in fact argued for a Muslim occupation in this period and there is potential evidence whose interpretation is contested. (You can also find many general references bluntly stating that the Aghlabids conquered Sardinia, but they're generally more peripheral to the topic; e.g. A History of the Crusades p.43, A Political Chronology of Africa p.437, North Africa, Revised Edition: A History from Antiquity to the Present p.71, Malta, Mediterranean Bridge p.16, Islam: Art and Architecture p.131, Siculo Arabic p.27, etc.)

Given that the available sourced map in Commons includes Sardinia and is supported by scholarly sources, these are my personal recommendations for now:

1. Add more information about the central Mediterranean campaigns to the article, beyond Sicily, as the text currently doesn't cover the full scope of the topic and thus doesn't fully explain the map either way. I've already prepared some material and will add it once I'm more confidant that the edit-warring has stopped. The topic of Sardinia is ultimately peripheral to the Aghlabids, despite the fuss being raised, and the question can be easily covered in a couple of sentences. A fuller discussion would belong at an article like History of Sardinia.
2. Add a footnote to the caption of the map which concisely states that the status of Sardinia during this period is uncertain/disputed. Leave the details to the main text rather than the infobox (per MOS:INFOBOX).

R Prazeres (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's rare to find two reliable maps that show the same things. The fact that we have three of them should hopefully put an end to the opinion based speculations and disruption. I also note that Carolingian minuscule's source doesn't contradict what we have (there is no difference between "occupation" and "forced co-habitation" and even if there was some subtle difference, it would be impossible to draw on the map). M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the article has now been semi-protected, and since I realized I may not have time to do the work later this week, I'm going to revise and expand some of the material in the history section today, more or less as I suggested in my last comment above. I won't be changing the map, so it doesn't directly affect what is discussed here, but I will add and (very briefly) summarize some of the sources cited so far in the main text. Any changes directly concerning Sardinia I will do last and as separate edits. Feel free to post further feedback here. R Prazeres (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: Aside from future copy-editing, I've finished expanding the history section. These last two edits, implementing my suggestions above, are relevant here: [2], [3]. The first is intended as a summary of what is found in available sources so far; I've highlighted Corredo Zedda and Alex Metcalfe in particular since their articles actually treat the question in some detail (the others don't). The second is a footnote to the infobox map mentioning that there is debate among scholars and inviting readers to refer to the article. Feel free to discuss and/or to improve the wording – though I shouldn't have to repeat that WP:NPOV must be respected. If these are unacceptable for some reason, we can revert those edits and continue discussing here. R Prazeres (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@R Prazeres I think that the way you edited the page could be a good compromise. Floydpig (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologise for not being able to follow the conversation and find the time to provide a reply to your suggestions, with which I too find myself to agree in light of there being (still) not conclusive evidence so far to imply the existence of an all-out and permanent occupation established by the Aghlabids, while also managing to remain faithful to Wikipedia's tenets.--Dk1919 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I changed this note to reflect the fact that it's the occupation of Sardinia by the Aghlabids that is disputed and not their presence. M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we were able to stick to the sources and come to some agreement. Thank you also for the follow-up edits. R Prazeres (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Decline & Fall

Can someone please look into correcting/completing the following sentence under the Decline & Fall heading? "Abu Abdallah's forces were unable to forced to flee their base at Tazrut and reestablish themselves at Ikjan." Thanks 216.81.235.67 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. There may be other typos that occurred while I was making these recent large edits, I appreciate anyone having a second look. R Prazeres (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

@L2212: with regard to your edit summary: adding "possible" to a sourced map is both original research (that's not what its author says) and misleading (since it would question the whole map, while only a small portion of it is disputed by some WP editors). The previous discussions (see above) would give you a good idea why an explanatory note was added. M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not original research at all. It doesn't matter that it's not in that specific source, it's inside many other ones, and choosing that source as the only valid one would be an infringement of the NPOV principle. You are trying to apply different standards to different parts of the text, and that's not neutral at all. As you can see I didn't change or revert @R Prazeres's last edit because it makes sense and keeps neutrality in the pararaph, but if Fabio Pinna's source is not enough to write "most scholars" while hiding the "according to Fabio Pinna" in a note then the Atlas is definitely not enough to remove the "possible" from the description of the image. The note should give more context to a sentence, while right now it says something completely different. You are the one who started an edit war because you disagree with the sources that I've added. L2212 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If you think that the two situations should be treated the same, then I have no issue with attributing the map to the "Atlas of Islamic History" (by Peter Sluglett and Andrew Currie), but the note will have to go. Your choice! M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Why? Adding an "according to Peter Sluglett and Andrew Currie" to the text would be fix the main issue, but there is also no reason to remove the note. Both things are required to clarify the issue to the readers. L2212 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If you want the two to be treated equally, the note will have to go. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What I wrote is precisely treating them equally, since in the part of the article about Sardinia is clear that there are multiple interpretations, exactly like in the incipit. While in the image description, instead, a clear preference is given to one of those hypotheses. You are the one applying a double standard here. Not specifying that is someone's theory (by not adding an "according to Peter Sluglett and Andrew Currie" or a "possible" to the text) would be misleading (without it a lot of readers would just ignore the note) while not putting the note takes away important informations about why that map is only valid according to those scholars. L2212 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're the one who's trying to apply a double standard. Once something is attributed, you leave it alone, you don't add notes (your OR) to it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The caption of the map is fine as is. The word "possible" is already in the one sentence of the lead for this reason, there's a dedicated footnote specifically for this in the map caption which directs readers to the article, and the article has a section nearly entirely devoted to this issue. As noted above, there are actually three maps from reliable sources which show the same thing (the current map simply goes with the easiest reference) and there are in fact multiple references also supporting the other scenario in text, so it's not a one-sided issue. The Sardinia question is a minor part of this topic; it's inappropriate to compromise information concerning the entire scope of the article just to argue over POVs. There could be further tweaking done to the article section itself as needed, and that's really where attention on this issue belongs. Territorial maps for pre-modern periods are a blunt instrument by nature and the infobox is only a summary, so it's common for there to be historical and academic complexities that cannot be well summarized there; hence the footnote and the greater details in the article itself. This should be plenty to satisfy WP:NPOV in the article's current state.

Please note, L2212, that is definitely you who started edit-warring. This may seem a petty point, but it's important that you understand what edit-warring means so that you don't repeat it again. Please review the edit-warring policy (and relevant policies like Wikipedia:Consensus). When you make a change and there is disagreement on that change, you go to the talk page, you don't argue through editing. R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The MOS:INFOBOXES explains that infoboxes should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" and that they should allow the readers to "identify key facts at a glance". In this case, that infobox doesn't do it and, at first glance, it actually gives them misleading informations. An issue that could be easily fixed by adding a single word to the text (or a few more, if you prefer the "according to" possible edit). The Sardinia question may be considered a minor part of this topic by you, but that's relative (I obviously don't agree, and who can decide which countries and peoples are "important" or not? I think nobody) and we are also talking about a very minor edit to do anyway. I'm not changing the other sections of the article. When it comes to the consensus, there are a few things to consider:

1. - I've added new sources, and among them one that says that most Sardinian scholars (the ones that actually studied the history of that specific part of the world in detail) don't consider an Arab occupation of Sardinia something that actually ever happened, therefore this should be taken into consideration in regards to a map that appears at the start of the article. Consensus is not eternal, otherwise it becomes WP:STONEWALLING. We are still discussing, so I'm not saying that we are in such a situation already, but surely M.Bitton's ultimatums (why would I ever need to choose between two choices arbitrarily imposed by him?) are not a step in a good direction.
2. - I've looked at the Atlas right now, and we are discussing about a map made with informations that are so much oversimplified to the point of becoming something very different compared to the source. Yes, the Commons map itself is OR. The authors, at page 24, actually wrote: "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy." They clearly only talk about "raiding" Sardinia, while the occupation is only limited to Sicily. Their map there (which is the one that was supposedly used as a source for the one in the infobox) represents Sardinia not with the same colours as northern Africa and Sicily, but with the combination that (in the map legend in page 12) is reserved to non-Muslim "contested/shared over time" lands. In this case, like the text in that same page clarifies, the "contested" means just raids and failed conquering attempts. So the support of the caption's hypothesis by the authors never actually existed, and any consensus based on that map (that should be corrected or deleted) is automatically invalid.

And no, the one starting the edit war was @M.Bitton, not me. He was the one that reverted my edit with a summary that was both irrelevant (having a source does not make it the only valid theory, again it's the same situation of Fabio Pinna's article) and, now that I've checked on the book, has been revealed to be based on false informations too, because of different colours in the original map and context to explain it (given in the text) that was lost in the passage from the book to Commons. L2212 (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Please, don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

L2212, from everything you've written so far, it's plain to see that you're here only to argue the same point by any means. To return your argument to you: just because you feel this one thing is important doesn't mean anyone else must agree. If there is no consensus for an edit, you need to respect existing consensus in the meantime. I agree that there are not simply two options in existence, and the sourced information you added to the relevant section is appreciated, but you haven't made any convincing arguments for the other changes you want. Your attempt to "invalidate" the sourced map by misinterpreting the map itself and by saying other parts of the source don't talk enough about it doesn't make much sense, and you've ignored other sources anyways.

And again, you initiated the edit-warring in this edit. You made a change to content that was sourced and agreed upon a while ago, your edit was reverted by another editor who disagreed, and instead of going to the talk page per WP:BRD you decided to just revert the revert and repeat your argument through your edits instead. This is the very definition of edit-warring. Again, there are many clear policies on this, such as WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO. If you ever do this again and are reported to administrators, you will not win that argument by blaming the editor who initially reverted your change, regardless of whether you like their specific responses. R Prazeres (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Misinterpreting the map itself"? No, the only ones doing it here is you. I've pasted a sentence from the page that contains the original map that shows clearly that the authors never had the position on the issue that you wrote they had, and I also explained how the map itself told a different thing too, explaining it in detail. I assumed that it wasn't made in bad faith and that the both of you just didn't have access to the book or didn't check, but after this last post and your allegations in it I guess I need to reconsider my opinion. Do you have any argument to say that I'm the one who misinterpreted it? Also this edit was made after the consensus with @Dk1919 Franking and @Floydpig was already reached for the previous version, how come that's not been an issue? L2212 (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You have indeed misinterpreted the map. In it, the raids are shown as arrows and "contested/shared over time" means just that (and nothing else). I don't expect you to agree with that (given that you are yet to acknowledge the fact that you started an edit war), but there really is no excuse for your assumption of bad faith. The edit you're referring to was made on the same day that the agreement was reached and a note was left to explain the rationale behind it (any attempt to make it look like something else is futile). Since you pinged other editors, I will ping HistoryofIran (whose edit you reverted). M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think M.Bitton and R Prazeres pretty much covered it all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that the text only talks about raids, while the occupation is limited to Sicily, and using the same colour for Sardinia and Sicily in the Commons map while they are different in the original one is using the image out of context, going beyond the intention of the authors. That's an issue to solve, as per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Again, an infobox should allow readers to identify key facts as a glance, and in this case those facts are incorrect. If an area is contested (according to the authors and the colours they added, not only between the Aghlabids and what they call the local Western Christian States but even by Byzantium) that makes it clearly not under one of the contenders' authority, and should therefore not be made look in the same situation as Sicily or Northern Africa. The issue can be solved by either changing the description text or editing the image by using a different colour for Sardinia and adding a little legend with "Non Muslim contested/shared over time area", but leaving it like that is original research and POV editing.

Leaving a note doesn't mean that it wasn't made by changing what was already chosen by consensus. Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated, while the old version had a clear one behind it. Being a part of a section that was edited breaching consensus, I restored my edit because the reverts fell under WP:BADREVERT (Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing), a thing that has also already happened multiple times in this article's edit history and in the image's too. I've avoided further edits in that section because we are discussing it, so the situation is quite different compared to how you are describing it. L2212 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Map

that map is definitely made up 2A02:C7C:507D:0:D0E9:DA5D:90B5:62F7 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It's original research that completely misrepresents the source, that explicitly only talks about "raids". L2212 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The infobox map is taken directly from a scholarly historical atlas and confirmed by two other reliable sources with near-identical maps, as was already discussed above, so your assertion here that it's WP:OR is patently false, and your bizarre assertion that the other, unrelated map added in good faith here by another editor is not WP:OR is also plainly false, as the information is not contained in the source cited by the file description. You seem to be too distracted by your single purpose in this article to assess verifiability properly. R Prazeres (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The atlas does not show those informations at all. It says completely different things, as I've wrote before. Again, I have the book and I could link the pages if necessary. And about the confirmed by two other reliable sources with near-identical maps part, I suggest you read Wikipedia:SYNTH. If such a map it's found somewhere else then use that as a source by making a new file. You can't combine the atlas and whatever you want just to make a point. L2212 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It does and you not agreeing with it won't change a thing, so I suggest you drop the stick. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No, and I don't think I will. Since you are still repeating verifiably valse things, I'm starting a discussion at the POV noticeboard, I'm writing it here to let you know just in case the tags there are not enough as a notification. L2212 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@L2212: pinging you here (just in case you missed my reply on the noticeboard). M.Bitton (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The recent map

With regard to the recently added map: just like R Prazeres, I too have checked the source and can confirm that that there is no such map in it, or even a mention of the Aghlabids for that matter. This is clearly WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank god cause this map is pure fantasy and contradicts everything I’ve read on the topic.

At no point in Aghlabid history could they have had those borders. Especially not in 900 where the Emirate of Bari has been destroyed and the Byzantines have reconquered all the forts captured by the Muslims in their territories. There are no firsthand sources that back that map up in a region that is one of the most well sourced for the time.

if we look at the actual source the map claims to be based on, we see that map does not represent any actual year and that it only shows North Africa and Sicily as the base Aghlabid holdings.

Thus Wikipedia has been supporting misinformation by defending the posted map. Byzantium is Rome (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Original research and images

Since @R Prazeres likes to tell anyone that disagrees with him that they "don't understand", I will post the relevant paragraph (from WP:OI) here too:

"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.

Writing "the source it cites doesn't contain any similar map, so seems to be WP:OR" is what shows that one does not understand the policy. Also, we have a clear bias and double standard here, considering the fact that the new map was removed while the one in the infobox, that's not just OR but an intentional misrepresentation of the source (and I can upload the relevant pages and link them here, if necessary), is still there. L2212 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In case you missed this important part: the source doesn't even mention the Aghlabids. The other map has been discussed and the consensus is against your claim, period. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You indeed don't understand(!) the purpose of the policy, since obviously historical maps and flags contain ideas, arguments, or facts, much like the text itself, unlike the bulk of images on Commons. Photos are obviously not WP:OR, but independently asserted information in images (like maps with information superimposed on them) are obviously still subject to the verifiability policy, otherwise everyone would use images to insert unverifiable claims and disingenuously use the argument you just made. If you actually believe that maps don't need to be verifiable, then why object to any maps at all? I could add a map in Commons that shows the entire world under Aghlabid control, with its capital in New York City, and by that logic it wouldn't be WP:OR. See my earlier comment above (since you decided to needlessly start a new section), as M.Bitton also repeats. R Prazeres (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable map of the maximum territorial extent of the Aghlabid dynasty 800-909 CE

Beyond the fact that on such issues one source is never enough, the map of the maximum territorial extent of the Aghlabid dynasty 800-909 CE (File:Aghlabids Dynasty 800 - 909 (AD).svg), which some users insist on publishing, is not a faithful reproduction of the map used as a source, which is why it should be deleted. In the map in the source (Atlas of Islamic History, page 24) only Sicily is shown as fully under the control of the Aghlabid dynasty. While in this map neither Sardinia, Calabria nor Apulia are fully under control. That the image is not a faithful reproduction is a fact, not even an opinion of mine. You can check for yourself, the map can be seen here [4] and here [5] Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not bringing anything new to what has been discussed to death. The map is properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The map does not match the one in the book. it is a very serious episode of manipulation of a source. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does and I don't appreciate the baseless accusation of "manipulation". There are other similar maps that have been cited before, so I suggest you read the previous discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is a fact that the two maps are different. There is a huge problem here with the interpretation of sources, which cannot go unnoticed for the very credibility of Wikipedia. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a fact. That's a fact! M.Bitton (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I notice now that that image was uploaded by you, so you seem to be personally involved. Perhaps it's time to call for some administrator intervention.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't upload it, I corrected it. This is how it looked before the correction. M.Bitton (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You uploaded this one [6], giving as explanation "Updated to reflect the sourced map it appears to be based on." And that's where the problem starts, because it is absolutely not true that this version uploaded by you is faithful to the sourced map it appears to be based on.--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you prefer the older map? A yes or no would do. M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I prefer a map not made up and that is really based on this one sourced [7]. Is it too much to ask that images uploaded to Wikipedia are really accurate and sourced?--Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you read the previous discussions. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Already read and it does not change in the slightest that the image is a misinterpretation of the map in the book. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's review these points again, but this is the last time I'll bother spending any energy on something, as M.Bitton points out, already resolved:

• As with the previous complaints above, you've conveniently ignored my earlier comment where I pointed out two other scholarly sources with maps that show these same areas under Aghlabid occupation (temporary or otherwise), and I've since seen yet another, added here:

• Roolvnik, R. (2008) Historical atlas of the Muslim peoples. p.6
• Mazot, Sibylle (2011) "The History of the Aghlabids" in Hattstein, Markus and Delius, Peter (eds.) Islam: Art and Architecture. p.130
• Naylor, Phillip (2015) North Africa, Revised Edition: A History from Antiquity to the Present, p. 69

The reason the current source is used for the map is because it is both one of the most specialized and detailed atlases available (thus a high-quality source) and it's actually accessible to readers online, making it easy to verify.

• The source has been correctly interpreted, because if you bothered to look more carefully you would realize that the striping merely indicates that more than one state/polity controlled the territory during the long period covered by each map in the atlas, which is why even the Aghlabid territories in North Africa and the Byzantine and Fatimid territories, for example, are striped, even as regions under their long-term control; not just the territories that you personally want to remove. So by your logic, the map would actually indicate that all Aghlabid territories were never under their full control, even their capital, which is obviously silly.
• The caption states it is the maximal, not permanent, extent of Aghlabid reach, and the footnote directs readers to the rest of the article for differing views that cannot possibly be summarized in an infobox. They were deliberately written that way to account for these problems, per the consensus reached after a detailed discussion of the sources. Plenty of articles in Wikipedia are content with showing maps with "maximal" extent, and none of the maps can ever cover every problem, so there's nothing exceptional here.

I wouldn't object to shading the peninsular and Sardinian areas differently to show areas of shorter occupation, as that can also be supported by the sources, but that requires making a more complicated map and a different caption for context, none of which encourages readers to read the full story in the actual damn article. And I strongly doubt that it would satisfy everyone's POV anyways, since it's clearly the idea of Aghlabid presence that offends, not the interpretation of the sources, which means we would come back to square one. R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

PS: I actually saw this discussion and responded before seeing the edit-warring on the main page and the frivolous mass deletion request on Commons. This is pure disruptive behavior. R Prazeres (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It is a fact that the map in the book used as a source is different from the one posted here. In the map of the book the territories of Sardinia, Calabria and Apulia are not exclusively under the Aghlabid dynasty, in the map you persist in defending it implies something very different. Really incomprehensible why you cannot make the necessary corrections to the map. And since you don't want to make the right corrections, it is only fair that then a map that manipulates a source in such a blatant way should be deleted.The rest is just personal interpretations. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Read my comment in full above, especially the second point which already addresses what you just said. If you still don't understand it after that, then I'm sorry but frankly you lack the competence to understand the sources here. R Prazeres (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not find your explanation convincing in any way, and avoid personal attacks because I am reporting you to the administrators. It is certainly not you who can decide who has an understanding of the sources. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You're free to do whatever you want, except continuing the edit-warring and sockpuppetry that you have already engaged in on this article. R Prazeres (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You are very wrong if you think I am using sockpuppet. And don't try to intimidate me as you are doing, you won't get any results. The simple fact remains that the map is not correctly based on the source it uses. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, saying that this issue is "already resolved" is simply wrong, because as long as there is such an obvious manipulation of sources there will always be a problem, unless Wikipedia suddenly decides to abandon its NPOV principle. The page from where the map was supposedly taken, says "The Aghlabids ruled more or less independently until the Fatimid conquest in 909, initiating an Arab occupation of Sicily that was to last more than 250 years and raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy.". Again, "occupation of Sicily" but only "raiding Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy.". That is what the map represents, because no, the areas are not necessarily shared over time, not even for short terms, the stripes can also mean "contested", as shown in the legend in page 12. And the only arrows directed to Corsica, Sardinia and southern Italy are the ones that represent "Aghlabid raids (c.800–909)". Anything else is just POV and OR.--L2212 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the legend says on the actual source map, and if you read and understood the rest of the book you would of course not bother with this attempt at re-interpreting the map in the way that works for your POV. So nothing new, including the edit-warring and disruption. R Prazeres (talk) 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice projection, but everyone can see the image of the page, now, and it says exactly what I wrote. So unless you are the one unable to understand a text, that means you are intentionally misrepresenting it and WP:STONEWALLING an obviously necessary change. L2212 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Time for you to drop the stick and move on. M.Bitton (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No, time to bring it to ANI. L2212 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Commons deletion request

Just a heads-up: As noted already, Chiorbone da Frittole nominated several map images for deletion at Wiki Commons. Due to an apparent bug, the deletion requests were not properly listed and no automated notification was posted to this page, but you can find and comment on the deletion request at the current nomination page here.

To be clear, content/POV disputes are outside the scope of Wiki Commons and as far as I'm concerned the deletion requests are a transparent and inappropriate attempt to bypass consensus here (along with the other disruptive behaviour we've witnessed), but I'm providing the link as a courtesy to other editors here. R Prazeres (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sardinia? What?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, it shouldn't be a place where spreading idiocies. This article is based on fake infos, Sardinia never been conquered by arabs and islamic people, the island was part of the Byzantine empire, not even an object of arab facture has been found on the island. 62.10.218.150 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

April 2024

I'm starting this discussion to highlight this cherry picking. Compare what was added to what the source says:

in the ninth century the slave trade and a notorious slave market were a structural feature of the Roman urban economy. Even in southern Italy the slave trade, that at the beginning of the ninth century was fuelled by the wars between the Roman-Byzantine coastal cities and the Lombards of the interior, by the middle of the century seems to have become the business of Saracen marauders, who kidnapped the inhabitants of the country to sell them in the markets of North Africa.

Also note that the used source is not about the primary topic and that Slaves were obtained through the trans-Saharan trade, through Mediterranean commerce, and from raids on other lands like Sicily and Italy is already mentioned in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Move to "Aghlabid dynasty"?

For the sake of consistency with similar articles, I think we should amend the article title to "Aghlabid dynasty". (See "consistency" at WP:CRITERIA, and compare with things like Hafsid dynasty, Ayyubid dynasty, etc.) It's also slightly clearer for readers who are not immediately familiar with the term "Aghlabid". "Aghlabid Emirate" could also work, though it's more common for sources to simply refer to the "dynasty" (judging by personal experience and possible ngram evidence).

It's a small and I think non-contentious change and thus may not be worth a full WP:RM, so I'm asking first to see if there are any objections/preferences? Courtesy ping to M.Bitton and Skitash, who edit here regularly and/or have made substantial recent additions. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your suggestion. The title should be changed to "Aghlabid dynasty" for clarity and consistency with related articles. Skitash (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of interest, have you considered this ngram? M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that's merely incidental given that one wouldn't repeat the word "dynasty" during any extended discussion, so the plural noun nearly always get much more hits in general, as is true for others (e.g. [8], [9], [10]). So the current title is by no means wrong, but should we be consistent with other Wikipedia article titles, which currently follow another pattern? R Prazeres (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Although not a formal WP:RM, I agree with and support this move. My only quibble, as with all the other similar cases, is that we don't distinguish the dynasty from the state. Something like 'Aghlabid emirate' would IMO be better, but common usage in scholarly as well as popular literature is AFAIK skewed in all similar cases of minor regional dynasties towards 'X dynasty'. Constantine ✍ 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Seeing some hesitation, I'm inclined to maybe put this to an RM instead to confirm consensus. I noticed that there's a similar case at Kalbids. As for the "dynasty" vs "state", I agree it's an annoying little confusion on Wikipedia. Part of how we can think about this is that WP:COMMONNAME is really just about identifying a natural topic, rather than necessarily defining (in this case) the historical entity concerned by that topic. I don't personally prefer "[...] dynasty" per se, it's more that I don't see any reason this article would be different from others. Frankly, if the Wikipedia community wanted, it could choose to instead title all these topics by the plural noun (i.e. "Aghlabids", "Almohads", "Ayyubids", etc; as Encyclopaedia of Islam does). R Prazeres (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that nobody has objected to it, try a bold move and see how it goes. I also just noticed that the first sentence of this article is about the dynasty. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Ok I'll move it, and if issues come up we can revert and RM. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)