Jump to content

Talk:Almohad Caliphate/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 April 2021 and 26 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Figapartmenttoast. Peer reviewers: Yesvery875, Gusagyemang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Template

The template {{History of Morocco}} has no place on this article, because of some reasons which are:

  • Abd al-Mu'min is the founder of the almohad empire and first Calif, and he came from modern Algeria
  • The almohads are composed of diffrents tribes from all around Maghreb

So the almohads belong to history of Maghreb and are not a moroccan dynastie.--Morisco (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    • All that is OR but I'll make some comparisons to show how is this reasoning unfounded :
    • We don't care about the fact that he was born in nowadays Algeria, since Tlemcen and Oran were part of the Maghreb al-Aksa under Almoravid rule, and he lived most of his life between Tinmel and Marrakesh (Btw Obama is of Kenyan descent and DeKlerk of French descent, but they are American and South African, hazardous parallel!)
    • The Almohad movement was composed of tribes from the Southern Atlas region (Marrakesh, Taroudannt, Tinmel...)
    • Anyways, this subject was already discussed many times, endpoint.
    • --Omar-toons (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction ;

•It is said that he [Abd Al 

Mu'min] was born under the rule 
of the Hammadi Kingdom, that 
used to control all of 
Northern Morocco and where 
pushed back by the Mauritanians 
(Almoravids).

•Supposing he was born under Almoravid rule , what would that have changed ? The Alrmovids where not Moroccan , and the tribe he was born in [Kumiya] was not Moroccan either. •The Almohad mouvement contained tribes from the masmuda confederacy but also the Kumiya that are said to have numbered 40,000 (according to Ibn khaludn's "History of the Berber) he also says that this number is most likely an exaggeration but we can get an idea of the strength of this tribe. Not to mention that other tribes from the Zenata confederacy joined Abd Al Mu'min ; those bing the Marinids and Ziyanids both originating from Al Maghreb Al Awsat. In his same book , Ibn Khaldun only mentions one or two of the Masmuda tribes of being strong and numerous but almost always uses those adjectives when talking about the Kumiya and Banu Marine / Ziyanids. When Abd al Mu'min went to liberate Tunis , it is said that his army was 100.000 strong ( Source in History of the Berbers) , Supposing that the Kumiya where 40.000 strong , we can see the implication of the central Maghreb ( Algerian ) tribes. The only person advocating for "Moroccan Almohads" is Bernard Lugan , a traitor to what historians stand for. Born in Morocco ,obviously we can see where his bias comes from.

"En effet, qu'il s'agisse de l'Afrique du Sud, du Maroc ou de l'Afrique des Grands Lacs, les travaux de Bernard Lugan ne sont pas considérés comme scientifiques par la plus grande partie de la communauté universitaire" (Source : Rapport Russou) Alg01 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Western Sahara

wikiproject?¿ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

King/Prince

A reference is made to the 4 Princes of Christian Spain: it is my belief they were Kings, as referenced to in the account of the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa so should this be changed?Norgy (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Theatre

i did say it is a theatre. the almohad and the almoravid were in the current Morocco not algerie. but Mustafaa is again an alegrian . and the is just the reason.Aziri 14:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What fantasies are you talking about now, Aziri? I didn't write this article, and it doesn't claim they were Algerian anyway. - Mustafaa 17:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

see the history of algeria , and see the history of Morocco.Aziri 12:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

error in timeline

It seems to me that suggesting that "all the moorish lands" in Spain were lost in a few years after the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 is telescoping things a bit. It was certainly an inflection point in Iberian history, but the reconquista took another two and a half centuries to end the Moorish domains.

tone of the article, and answers to alg./morocco question

I think the tone of the article is a bit...subjective? judgemental? certainly not very NPOV; three repetitions of "fanatical" with reference to the almohads, (not even credited to some observor who considers them fanatical). My understanding of the Almohad movement is that one might call Ibn Tumart a fanatic, but the Almohads themselves were pretty standard medieval Muslim dynasts.

And RE: the Morocco/Algeria question above; the distinction obviously didn't exist back then; for what it's worth, the movement's founder, Ibn Tumart, was a Masmuda berber from the mountains in the south of present day Morocco, but the dynasty's founder, Abd Al-mu'min, was a Berber from Tlemcen, in present day Algeria; he conquered the territories of what is now both of those countries.jackbrown 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes: re: error in timeline, the the late 1200s, most of the Muslim territories in Andalusia were lost, but Granada held on for another couple of hundred years (till 1492, when columbus sailed the ocean blue, as a point of fact)

this article is outdated

This article mostly uses secondary sources of more than a cntury old (see references). It is completely outdated. Wikipedia runs the risk of recycling the colonial views which the Encyclopedia Britannica held before the first or second world war. Brittanica did away with them but the ideas reappear in this form on the internet.S710 10:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This map its wrong!

The map is allegedly wrong, according to the info on Image:Almohad dynasty 1147 - 1269 (AD).PNG and I have removed it for now. Could someone look into it? What sources is it based on? There is no mention of them. / Fred-J 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Books

The extensive burning of books by the Almohads should be mentioned. Badagnani 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag?

What source is there for this flag, which is also used at Almoravid dynasty? Srnec (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Wrong

It's not the flag of almoravids. I have ordered the flags flollowing the dates of independance: Hafsid (1230), Zayanid (1235), Nasrids (1237), Marinids (1258). I have Retired history of Morocco because it's history of Maghreb, the maker and the first calif of Almohad dinasty is Abd Al-mumin and he's from Algeria in present day, all the the tribes of maghreb have contributed in wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezy31 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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 objections. — kwami (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ~~~~

Almohad dynasty → Almohad Caliphate — The Almohads were recognized as caliphs within their realms. All other articles about caliphal dynasties (even those not universally recognized) are titled X Caliphate, not X dynasty (e.g. Abbasid Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate...). This article should be renamed for the sake of consistency. BomBom (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (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.

Template

The template {{History of Morocco}} has no place on this article, because of some reasons which are:

  • Abd al-Mu'min is the founder of the almohad empire and first Calif, and he came from modern Algeria
  • The almohads are composed of diffrents tribes from all around Maghreb

So the almohads belong to history of Maghreb and are not a moroccan dynastie.--Morisco (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

From the Talk Page of Omar-Toons

The following section comes from the Talk Page of Omar-Toons [1] and has been splitted to suit each article (Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate):

Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almohad Caliphate [2], why have you done this without any respect for the time I spent to organise the article. I waited for an answer to my posts on the Talk Page but you did not discuss. Whould you finally decide to discuss or cotinue your edit-wars ?--Morisco (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
As you can easily understand, en.WP doesn't work the same way than fr.WP, then what was decided there isn't applicable here.
A "real work"? Seriously, do you consider that a "real work"? You just removed a template and added an extensive succession list, which may be not precise, since it consider that the territory of each dynasty was divided at the time of its falling, but the reality is that each dynasty lost, at the end of its power, its territories the one after the other, and kept control over a little territory (which is located in Morocco), before getting power overtaken by its successor starting form the same territory (Morocco). The paragraphs "History" of each dynasty's page as well as the page "History of Morocco" explains everything.
Which kind of "answer" are you expecting on the discussions? Seriously, did you wrote any question? Did you ask for a discussion? You just shared your point of view with us [3]. You just said that you think that this template has no place on the article. No questions, no arguments. And how do you think people can read/find a question that you wrote somewhere in the middle of the discussion page [4]?
The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's (including English and French ones), all include the Almohads and the Almoravids, but you don't agree with that, in my opinion, since it doesn't match your POV!
Just to answer to a few questions:
- Where were located the "centers of power" (capital) of these dynastie? In Morocco.
- From where did they start the conquest of other territories? From Morocco.
- Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Morocco.
- How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? By taking their places in Morocco (That also explains the succession tab on the infobox).
- They were originated from somewhere else? Then the US are no longer the same than before since the president is partially originated from somewhere else? Come on! Most European monarchies are ruled by dynasties that aren't of "local descent". Is that a reason to consider that the Bourbon dynasty isn't Spanish? Bonaparte conquered the Dutch, is that a reason to consider it as a European leader, and not a French one? The answer is NO. By the same way, the Almohad is Moroccan, and I don't see any reason to consider them otherwise.
I just gave you some examples. If you don't agree, try to convince the user who made these templates to remove the two dynasties, as well as the wikipedians who wrote these two articles, since including this template (along with the "History of Al-Andalus" one, but I don't understand why this one was removed) was accepted (then became a consensus between the users, since no one removed it or discussed its removing, and since the users who (tried to) discuss it weren't contributors) for more than 2 years.
I don't really care about the nationalistic feelings. WP is a collaborative Encyclopedia, not a forum to explain nationalistic feelings and to modify articles because of them.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of the discussion

Omar-Toons, we are not going to do like if we do not know each other, we have already discussed about this template in the french Wikipedia (See the discussion), and the descision was the template has no place on the article. Since en.fr and fr.WP are independent of one anotherand, I start again the discussion we have had on the fr.WP and answer to your arguments:

  • I consider a real work, adding the previous and following dynasties properly because it is not easy, I have already done it on the french WP. If your problem was the "Template", you could set back only the template, without removing what I have done.
  • The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's, only means that someone has created the templates, on the french WP the template is not allowed to be used on the Almohad Caliphate (verify), and I will propose it to suppression.
  • The Almohads came from diffrents parts of the Maghreb, including the Masmudas, the Zenata and the Banu Hilal, they took the capital of the Almoravids during their conquest southward, they did not conquer Morocco, then western Algeria and after al-Andalus ; they conquered some parts of Algeria before other parts of Morocco. And talking about Morocco and Algeria is an anachronism.
  • From where did they start the conquest of other territories? From the Atlas in Morocco, but like the Almoravids, they conquered some parts of Algeria before other parts of Morocco.
  • Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Their capital (Marrakech)
  • How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? Not by taking their places in Morocco as you said, that was true only for the Almohads after the Almoravids (and that not explains the succession tab on the infobox).
  • They were originated from somewhere else? The answer is "Anachronism", your examples are not suitable in our case.
  • Last point, I do not understand why you talk about nationalistic feelings, this has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.

See if other Wikipedians join our discussion--Morisco (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: What was decided on Fr.WP isn't applicable here.
Omar-Toons (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is why I launched the discussion again here.--Morisco (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This map gives the area from which the Almohads started their conquest. The source is given on it.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Again

Why I see only History of Morocco?, because Almohads Empire conquered Gibraltar, Lybia, Spain, Algeria, Tunisie as well as Morocco.

Options:

  • 1 option, delete all "History of "
  • 2 option, put it in alfabethic order, "History of Algeria", "HIstory of Gibraltar", "History of Lybia" "History of Morocco" "History of Spain" "History of Tunisia"
  • 3 option, Morocco is the center of the Universe, and all this countries are provinces of Morocco.Luciusmaximus (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Per WP:DUCK, I suppose that you are the same guy than User:Bokpasa, then, as it was told to you since 2006 on Talk:History of Morocco (sections 4 to 16), the answer is that your edits are PoV and that you are the only one to disagree these facts, while you don't justify your edits by any source.
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Transferred from User_talk:Tachfin I see you are moroccan ultra-nacionalist (because you erase all template countries and dynastys and for you all are Morocco).

I wrote you to vote in options! (almohad talk) Luciusmaximus (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First what I am or am not, is not of any relevancy here. I find what your wrote to be borderline personal attack, thanks to avoid this in the future.
First point: You seem to want to bombard this page with templates from 7 different countries "to make it fair", which will completely screw the page's layout. The practice on WP is to put the most relevant template on such articles (see Austria-Hungary, Austrian Empire and German Empire) not the templates of every single modern state which parts of their territories have been affiliated with the empire. This is an encyclopedia not a communist farm where everything is divided equally regardless of relevancy.
2n point: You removed the Moroccan dynasties category and the template:Morocco topics. I suppose you have some justification for that
3rd point: I removed the other footer templates since they don't have any Almohad Caliphate section. (per first point). The people who made these templates didn't include the Almohads in for a reason: The Almohads weren't of much importance to these countries' histories and were dropped in favor of more important events/subjects
4th point: You added refimprove and copy edit why? they will be removed if you don't provide a reasonable justification. You just don't add tags to articles for no reason.
--Tachfin (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Almohad vs. Morocco

The are two differents countries, not one is the sucessor of the other.Bokpasa 21:34, 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 [5] [6], and you're still acting the same way despite that. Please stop acting this way, you are deteriorating WP.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As I see, you still don't respect the Wikipedia:Assume good faith, using the past to discredit the present. Let's talk about your vandalism, what's you goal ?
Bokpasa, puedo traducir, sólo tienes que escribir en español.--Morisco (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion

Jews were massacred in Marrakesh in 1232 (http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/morocco/morocco.htm Institute for Jewish Policy Research and American Jewish Committee)Bokpasa 23:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

It doesn't particularly seem like a high-priority target for vandalism. I'd just gathered together everything to update and fix the broken citations in this article, but it looks like that's not happening.207.207.126.218 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is semi-protected due to persistent sock puppetry. You can post your improvements here with the Edit semi-protected template so the improvements can be added by an autoconfirmed user (if you prefer not to create an account). VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Almohads empire was north african

Hello, according to the famous and the respected britannica encyclopidia[7] the Almohads caliphate was an islamic empire in north africa and spain not a moroccan empire this is a history falsification, so please give us a reliable sources and avoid the nationalists edits, thanks.--Djazairii (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First the article does not contradict what you quoted. And according to your own source, Encyclopedia Britannica itself, calls it a Moroccan dynasty and I quote:
"Although the new Moroccan dynasty of the Almohads struck back (1179–84), the Portuguese frontier was firmly established on the..."[8]
and
"Meanwhile, internal dissension and the rise of the Almohads, a new Islamic Amazigh confederation based in Morocco, led to the disintegration of the Almoravid..." [9]
Countless other reliable sources who call it a Moroccan Dynasty can be found, this is only natural since the Almohads were a tribal confederation of the Masmuda who all inhabit Morocco. And that the dynasty was born and died in Morocco, always had its capital or center of power in Marrakesh, Morocco.
But this isn't the subject of disagreement, you introduced Template:History of Algeria, which I don't oppose in principle but the decision not to include the templates of all the countries they ruled is appropriate so the article doesn't get cumbered by too much templates. Which don't add much to the article after all.
Finally, please assume good faith and don't be quick on nationalism accusations. The article is historical and shouldn't be seen within modern-day political rivalries spectrum. Tachfin (talk) 15:53, 28 September 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) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy & Almohad family tree

I overhauled the prior section on the reconquista into two larger ones, "Holding Years" & "Reconquista onslaught". I also redid the names of the Almohad caliphs and created a collapsible family tree under them. This is taken primarily from Hugh Kennedy's Hugh Kennedy (1996) Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. London: Addison-Wesley-Longman, but I only have a foreign-language edition of the book. I would immensely appreciate if anyone with an English-language copy could insert the right references at the right places.

And anyone with wider knowledge of the Almohad family confirm the names and relationships in the family tree are correct. (I am a little wary of Abu Abd Allah Muhammad, the son of Abu Hafs Umar, who governed Ifriqiya. He frequently appears in other sources as "Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Hafs", not "Abu Abdallah". Wary also of two identically named Abu al-Rabi Sulaymans. I want to make sure these are not typos from my cheap edition.)Walrasiad (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Caliphate, dynasty

Hello,

Since the Almohads were a dynasty that claimed Caliphal titles, and since this article (since the beginning) is mainly about the dynasty itself than its Caliphate (ie: Caliphal Makhzen, religious charges), should the Caliphate part be separated from this article?

Thanks in advance,
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've posted notices on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. Hopefully we can get feedback from more than just the three of us. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would much prefer it to be "Almohad Caliphate". "Almohad" is a name of the religious movement and a political community/state. It is not a family name, and the Almohad state was not really even a monarchy (its constitutional basis was closer to a republic). Never understood why the article was called "dynasty". Always found that off-putting. "Caliphate" is much, much better.
The article as it is, is still very rudimentary and sparse. I started writing a longer, deeper article on the Almohads a while back, but got distracted by other things. Might get back to it. Walrasiad (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It needs to be "Caliphate" and not "dynasty." As I mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard, I recently bought about $300 worth of books on them from Amazon in addition to what can already be found on GoogleBooks for free. I've also written a number of articles about Almohad-era figures and updated existing ones. Based on this experience, I can say without a doubt that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to this state as the "Almohad Caliphate"; I've found one source which referred to it as a dynasty three years ago and I don't even remember the source as it didn't contain enough valuable info to even be used as a Wikipedia citation. The entirety of scholarship on the region and era, from Adang to Fierro to Schmidtke, all seem to have a tacit agreement that the state was a Caliphate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And to add to what User:Walrasiad said...it isn't a dynasty. The question here is even framed incorrectly in that sense, as this article isn't about a dynasty to begin with. I've even seen a few sources which refer to the Almohad state as one of the era's few non-monarchies, as we even see with the succession of Al-Makhlu' there was a scandal when their constitutional process wasn't followed. They certainly weren't "democratic" or benevolent, but "authoritarian state" is probably more accurate than constitutional monarchy, thus ruling out the term "dynasty" from the beginning. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Caliphate, per those above, and what WP:RS use. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The question was not if the Almohads were a dynasty or a Caliphate, they were "both": the Almohad state was a Caliphate (yes, no doubt) ruled by the homonymous dynasty. There's no doubt about that and RS talk about both (dynasty and Caliphate), and I doubt any source says that the Almohads weren't a dynasty (unless anyone can give us a RS stating that they should be the one without the other?)
Btw, here are a few sources about that question: [10][11][12][13][14] (note that Google Scholar/Books give more entries for "dynasty", but that doesn't mean that it is the only valuable definition... at least, for me).
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was a tradition of old Western historians to conveniently classify and label everything outside Europe in "dynasty" terms, without giving it much thought. So I'm not surprised it has been stubborn in remaining. But it is not really used in more serious histories anymore, e.g. Kennedy (1996) abjures it. "Almohad dynasty" is, of course, strictly incorrect, because "Almohad" is not a family name nor even a tribe. It is the name of religious movement. Like calling Stuart England the "Protestant dynasty" or the Delhi Sultanate the "Muslim dynasty". It is rather lazy and quite awkward. It's OK to use Umayyad or Hammdanid or Hafsid, because those are families. But Almohads is the name of the movement and state, not the name of the family. Of course, the is a caliphal dynasty inside the Almohad state, which would be the House of Abd al-Mu'min, the "Kumids" or "Kumiyids", or "Mu'minids" (as Kennedy prefers). Unfortunately, there is no established term for the dynasty. It is usually just referred to as the "caliphal dynasty" or something like that. These are distinct from another dynasty (the House of Ibn Tumart, which continues as an institution) inside the Almohad state, as well as from the "Almohad leaders" (which usually refers to the chieftans on the councils, so you'll often find phrases like "the caliph was opposed by the Almohads", i.e. the councils disagreed with him). In serious histories, it is always "Almohad Caliphate", and if a dynasty term is expected but they don't feel like using the unfamiliar Mu'minid term, then it is phrased very carefully, e.g. "ruling dynasty of the Almohad state" (Abun-Nasr [15]), "the Almohads led by a Berber dynasty" ([16], etc. I don't think Wiki is doing anybody a service by insisting on a rather outdated phrase that is being avoided in modern scholarly works - particularly when "Almohad Caliphate" is available and widely used already. Or simply "Almohads", and let the article parse the difference. Walrasiad (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Omar-toons, you're bordering on a slow edit war against a community consensus which has emerged here.
1. It doesn't matter what you personally want to phrase the question as; you are not the exclusive owner of the article to dictate the terms of any and all discussion regarding the article.
2. Every other editor that has commented here has opposed your claim of the Almohads being a dynasty, so it would be better to stop repeating that they are. You can repeat your personal opinion that they are, but your language insinuating that they are as a given and that anyone with a view opposing yours is opposing some historical fact isn't balanced.
3. Just as you've thrown out links to search results of sources referring to the state as a dynasty, I can use the same exact search engine to yield results of reliable sources referring to the state as a caliphate: [17], [18] (only two results as the four links you posted above were just two sets of search results posted twice each)
4. In addition to the community consensus and the fact that there are sources using both terms, there is the reasoning posted by User:Walrasiad above which deserves reiteration. The simple fact is that they weren't a dynasty and they did not rule as kings.
You're allowed to disagree and to voice such disagreement, but the bottom line is that you're still editing against what seems to be consensus. If you would like to take things to a higher level of dispute resolution then you're free to do so, but barring that there is no justification for you to continue inserting your point of view into the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Walrasiad: I agree with the use of "Almohads" instead of any misleading wording. Btw, thanks for your explaination.
      • @MezzoMezzo: First, thanks to discuss information and to avoid personal attacks. Second, saying that "the Almohads were a state" (or a nation) is clearly WO:OR ; they were a political and religious movement that governed a state, but certainly not a state properly (see Walrasiad's comment). Unless there's some sources that I (we?) didn't read ; in this case, can you please provide them to us? Thanks in advance.
      • Regards,
        Omar-toons (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Omar-toons:, Almohad Caliphate is what the majority of reliable sources use as well as those specialized in the topic. They claimed to be a Caliphate, they were widely regarded as such and that's the most accurate term to describe them (there may not be a totally 100% accurate term). There's no need to change the name of the article at all.
Now, if you would like to creat a separate article solely for the main ruling regime (Ibn Tumart's family kind of faded away) - sort of like how Russian Empire is separate from House of Romanov - then I can not only see that as working but would even help you and anyone else interested in building it. But this specific article here isn't about a ruling family; this is about the state which was ruled. They're two different things, and the state or whatever we want to call it wasn't ruled as a monarchy.
As for whether they were a nation or state, then I don't understand why it's OR but I can't disqualify your statement entirely. I have to ask - not rhetorically as I am not sure - isn't a sovereign territory a "state" by default? If we check State (polity), then the opening line seems to describe just about anything.
The source in the sentence in question refers to the subject as a confederation and later empire. Would you find the term "empire" more appropriate for the sentence in question? To be honest I would have to return to the sources for the exact term in the lead as I took it for a given that "state" could be used for just about anything. If you feel more sources should be checked before we change the word in that sentence to "empire," I can help with that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Imho "state" isn't the appropriate word ; they formed the Almohad state in the 13th C. as the Alaouites formed the Alaouite state in the 17th C., that doesn't make it a distinct entity than the "Maghreb al-Aksa" (that subject was debated many times on the talk pages of many articles related to the History of Morocco and the Bokpasa case was all about that subject : pretending that each dynasty of the history of Morocco was a distinct entity, with the conclusion that "Morocco" came to existence with the Alaouites... and of course he didn't succeed to force WP accepting his POV). The fact is that Almohads overthrew the Almoravids in controlling the latter's state ("Maghreb al-Aksa") because they were opposed to their ideology, they didn't formed a new state from nowhere since anyone can understand that "the Almohads became a state" in the current intro.
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Omar-toons:, the conflict with that guy seems a bit long. I'm not sure what went down but I'm glad the discussion is moving.
So State (polity), an organized territory with one government, doesn't apply to this case as the Almohads didn't make something new (as Morocco already existed). That's the point here, correct? I just want to be sure that I understood properly.
If we don't go with that, then we need to brainstorm about which term is acceptable. There was no dynastic/monarchic rule, though I think we could all agree it had aspects of oligarchy and aristrocracy. Feudalism doesn't seem to apply as there was rule of law and free people could own land. As you pointed out, the Nation state didn't exist yet at that time.
Brittanica describes it as an Empire, which is sort of general though it might work - Maghreb and Andalus certainly contained a diverse group of people. Republic might be controversial. I honestly think the Almohads were similar in nature to early Greek republics or even the Omani Ibadi proto-democracy, in that the Almohads had a constitution, rule of law, non-inherited leadership and from what I have read of their administrative system people living under them were considered sort of like citizens.
Which terms do we use? Or should we combine them, with something like "oligarchic unitary state"? It does seem like they had a Mixed government. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @Walrasiad: to be sure he sees this. I thought for a moment to replace state with "Caliphate," though to be honest that really isn't a form of government or state organization is it? It's like calling a country a "democracy" without specifying if it's constitutional, parliamentary, federal, republic, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tinmel vs. Tinmal

One more thing I want to throw out there. Virtually all English-language sources spell the Almohad capital as "Tinmal" rather than "Tinmel". The current page on the location is spelled Tinmel, which is I believe the French term, or the term used for the location in Morocco today (can anyone confirm that?). I am reluctant to change that page since it might be the spelling of the current location. But since this is a historical article, and the English-language histories all write it "Tinmal", I am wondering if we ought to adopt that same spelling at least here? Objections? Thoughts? Walrasiad (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Walrasiad:, we could just spell it Tinmal here while linking to the Tinmel article since they lead to the same place. That would allow us to avoid dealing with the naming issue, in a way. It might not be ideal but it is easy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Flag ?

I had an edit removed by Omar-toons about the image not being a flag. Also I wanted to point out that there is no rule about requiring a flag or not, we just have to put a representative picture. Most of the pre-middle ages states did not have one, also we usually represent them them by something symbolical. I recommend checking Roman Empire or Phoenicia pages for instance. Tounsimentounes (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Dhimmis under the Almohads

@Bless sins: regarding your recent edit, do you have purchased access to the Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World? I'm asking because every source about Almohad rule which I can remember states that the Almohads' views on dhimmis were harsher than Almoravid views, but I've not yet found a source stating that the Almohads outright rejected dhimmi rules. All sources must be used, but I'm unable to verify the information myself and wanted to double check. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The source says,

The sectarian Almohads did not recognize the traditional Pact of ʿUmar and the status of dhimmī ( dhimma ) that normative Islam accorded to members of the tolerated monotheistic faiths.

Bless sins (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bless sins: Thanks so much. Welcome back to Wiki, by the way. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Ash'arite vs Mu'tazilite

Making a topic here in case it needs further discussion. There's been a bit of editing conflict about adding "Mu'tazilite" to the religious designation of the Almohads. I've expanded the relevant section with some basic relevant information, though more scholarly sources would help in the future. Based on the sources, it seems like this should be treated as a more complicated question. I'm removing the "Mu'tazilite" designation from the infobox again, as either way Mu'tazilism isn't an official creed of the Almohads. (It's also arguable whether Ash'arism should also be listed here, but there's at least more sources to back up this categorization.) Plus, it seems contradictory to list them as simultaneously Ash'arite and Mu'tazilite. R Prazeres (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: It is indeed a complicated question. I suggest we replace what's in the religion parameter with "Islam (Almohadism)".
As for the IP's edits[19][20]:
Al Muhaddith is another Arabic word referencing Al-Muwahiddun/the Almohads. That's news to me, especially given the fact that the two words have different meanings; but I'm willing to keep an open mind and wait for the IP to substantiate their claim.
The book also talks about how they were heavily influenced by the Mu’tazila. Maybe, but that does not explain this addition. M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that suggestion about inserting "Islam (Almohadism)" in the parameter is a good one; more direct and avoids inserting some less clear details. I'll add it in, assuming there are no major objections. R Prazeres (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pages moves to "of Morocco"

Hi @D4rkeRR9:, why was this page moved to include "of Morocco"? Is there a discussion elsewhere you can refer to in order to explain this move? I also noticed you've moved every single page about historic states in Morocco in the same way (Saadi Sultanate of Morocco, Marinid Sultanate, Almoravid Emirate of Morocco, etc), but I still don't see any discussion on them. To me this seems either unnecessary (as there are no other similarly-named pages to disambiguate) or potentially misleading (e.g. the Almohad Caliphate covered territories well outside of modern Morocco, so readers might assume from the title that this page is only talking about Morocco). Thanks in advance for some info. R Prazeres (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @R Prazeres:, This page and also the other pages of Morocco were moved to include "of Morocco" because the pages were supposed to talk about the Country rather than the Ruling Family. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
But did you give editors a chance to discuss this somewhere before you went ahead and moved this many pages? The articles are not about Morocco per se, they're about historic states that are part of Morocco's history as well as the wider region's history. The term "sultanate" or "emirate" already conveys the sense of a state instead of a ruling family. Some of the page titles had that (e.g. Marinid Sultanate), some of them didn't (a.g. Almoravid dynasty). So some moves might be less controversial than others, but either way I think this would have benefitted from consultation beforehand. At least from my end, I disagree with adding "of Morocco" to all those names, for the reasons mentioned above. It would be good to hear from other editors on this. I see that M.Bitton has moved this page back in the meantime. I would support doing that to the other moves as well and starting discussions on those talk pages if a move seems warranted. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@R Prazeres: I agree. I honestly have no idea what they were thinking. M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed moves as unnecessarily adding complexity to the titles. The scope of the article can be established in the first sentence. A better improvement might be standardizing the use of "sultanate", "emirate", and "dynasty" (assuming we can do so without impacting accuracy). VQuakr (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Dispute over "Moroccan" label again

Hi IbnTashfin97, from what I can see it seems the majority of your edits so far on Wikipedia have been about making the same change to this page over and over again. These edits have been reverted by multiple editors now. I'd suggest that if want to avoid edit-warring, which could get you blocked, you instead try to explain your objections on the talk page here, where all editors can give their input and achieve consensus. I strongly recommend you provide some reliable sources to support your point, if possible, since that is what determines the content of the encyclopedia. For my part, I think your edits are unjustified and trying to impose a national label on a historical empire which wasn't called or recognized as "Morocco" at the time, whereas the use of the term "North Africa" is descriptively neutral in this context and reflects the fact that the empire transcended modern borders. Personally, I would not object to wording such as "centered in present-day Morocco" (as in the Almoravid page's lead), since its capital was there, but I also don't think this is necessary. R Prazeres (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually will agree with IbnTashfin97 for this case, not only because it is doubtlessly of Moroccan origin, and based in Morocco, it also where the term "Morocco" originates. The original use of "Kingdom of Morocco" (meaning "Kingdom of Marrakesh"), was the common contemporary reference by foreign powers to the Almohad state. It's when the term started.
Moreover, it has been described as "Moroccan" for most of the article's history. It is only in this last year when the lede changed to 'North Africa' without discussion (by a sockpuppet no less, (Jan 20, 2020, diff), and references later inexplicably removed and none added). I'd propose restoring the lede to "Moroccan" (and the references to it) as it was before 2020. Walrasiad (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all My Friend The Almohads Berber Group of MOROCCO, they are Different groups amongs Berbers, Berbers of Morocco are not same as Algerian Or Mouretania Berbers for example the Kabyles in Algeria are not The same as Masmuda Of Morocco...is like Saying all Europe is the same, like Prussia is Western European Empire and Not German...its Make no sense. Do you understand now? About Almoravids... the founder of this Empire Was ABDALLAH IBN YASSINE a MOROCCAN Berber from SOUSS (Central Morocco) he was the First Emir and The First Capital Was Aghmat (city Near Marrakech), Mouritania Was conquered Later by Them. I hope you understand my Point, because i Studied North African History and myself i am North African. IbnTashfin97 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, since a discussion is under way, there is no reason for you to force your POV through an edit war.
No, I don't understand, because you're contradicting yourself. If we are to take the tribal affiliation into consideration, where does that leave us with regard to the Kumya tribe to which belonged the founder of the Almohad empire? What about the Arabs that he incorporated into his army and the Andalusians?
As for the Almoravids, following your logic (with your factually incorrect claim aside), we would have to describe them as Mauritanians since their three most important tribes (the Gudala, the Lamtana, and the Massufa) were from present-day Mauritania.
myself i am North African. I find it rather strange that you describe yourself as "North African" in 2021, while insisting on describing the Almohads as Moroccans. M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

So you dont Give any Proof of your edits... I smeal Algerian Money Here... This is why nobody believes in Wikipedia these days IbnTashfin97 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

M.Bitton i just told you that the Berbers are Different Groups, With Different Cultures AND even Lenguage Dialects... Btw "berbers" is Harch Word we call them "Amazighs" (the Free people) The Moroccan Amazighs are Different to other Amazighs. You said That the founder is From "Kumiya" with is FAKE... The Founder is MUHAMAD IBN TUMART from Atlas in Morocco, he is From Masmuda Tribe not Kumiya... This Proof that you know litle about Almohads and Almoravids... Or you just cant accept that These were "Moroccan Dinasties" i dont understand why... Almoravids were SANHAJA and Lamtuna these Moslty from Morocco southern Provinces... And The founder is Abdallah ibn Yassine from Souss... I have cuestión why The First Capital of Almoravids was Aghmat?? Near Marrakech?

Btw The Iberian Called these Empires "Marroquenas" (moroccans) you watch The song of Reconquista of Gavaudan singing about "Rey de Marroc" King of Morocco... So please stop Ruining and changing Facts, because you cant Change History to easy IbnTashfin97 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The founder of the Caliphate, the empire and the Muminid dynasty was Abd al-Mu'min. The fact that you ignore something as basic as this is telling. If you think that casting aspersions adds value to your comments, you're trully mistaken. M.Bitton (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Abdul Mumin was the Firs Caliph Nothing else who was from Tlemecen (Ruled by Morocco in that Time) he was the Student of Muhamad Ibn Tumart who had the litle of "Al Mahdi"... Why you dont search about Muhamad Ibn Tumart?? Are you scary to see The Truth?? You Seems Repeting Algerian Propaganda, with no Proof... Btw you really didnt Respond to my entire Arguments you Seems ignoring the Facts, And criticing it With no Proof or valid Arguments... you are Against your own logic, and Rewriting The Zirids Dynasty with Was from Tunisia (ifriqiya) it Proof me that you are Algerian or Paid by Algerian Gov...pf so sad. IbnTashfin97 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A few points:
  1. First of all, please follow Wikipedia's practice of remaining civil and assuming good faith (see WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH). Stop making exclamations of "fake!" and "you know nothing" or "I smeal Algerian money", as this will not help convince anyone. This is a discussion over a minor aspect of wording, which ultimately doesn't seriously affect anyone's understanding of the subject very much, so there's no reason to get so heated with each other.
  2. Secondly, there's some interesting points raised, but to move things forward can editors provide some reliable references that show that the term "Morocco/Moroccan" was used to describe the Almohads at the time? I doubt the Almohads identified themselves as "Moroccans" (or equivalent), for example. I've seen at least one history book about Morocco (Rivet 2012, "Histoire du Maroc", p. 183) which says the name was first used commonly by Europeans during the Saadian period.
  3. Thirdly, it's worth also having a look at how other comparable articles describe historic states that existed on territory of modern nation-states. For example, the contemporary Kingdom of León, Kingdom of Aragon, and Kingdom of Castile are all described in the leads as "kingdoms in the Iberian Peninsula", not as Spanish or Spain, despite the fact that name "Hispania" existed long before them and all of them were contained entirely within the territory of modern-day Spain. Even if the term "Morocco" might be arguably fine, avoiding modern-day national labels may be more neutral for a summary. If the past on this and other pages is any indication, equating Maghrebi empires with "Morocco" will attract complaints from other editors (albeit often random anonymous ones) who will claim that the article is biased towards Morocco.
Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
on #1 - I agree that Ibn Tachfin97 should curb his language and learn to be civil. That said, his points are not incorrect. But he is doing the case no favors with his tone.
on #2, referral to the Almohads as "Kingdom of Morocco" was common. e.g. here's a letter from Pope Innocent IV to the Almohad caliph in 1246, referring to his dominions as the "regni Marrochitarium" [21]. Usage becomes more inconsistent later because the Marinids were based in Fez, but even so it is not hard to find examples.
Here are the two references that were originally in the lede, identifing at "Moroccan" that were inexplicably removed a few months ago.: B. Lugan, Histoire du Maroc, ISBN 2-262-01644-5, Concise Encyclopaedia of World History, by Carlos Ramirez-Faria, pp.23&676 [22]. I can provide more.
IbnTachfin97 is correct in that historically the situation of Tlemcen was very fluid. The idea that it was part of Morocco was traditionally held by Moroccan sovereigns, even after the French invasion of Algeria in 1830s.
He is incorrect on Almoravids, however, given that it was Lamtuna at the top. But the Almoravids split their empire into two separate states, one of which was in Morocco, the other in Mauritania. So for the duration of most of it, it can be said to be Moroccan (with qualifications). There are no such qualifications on the Almohads.
While it is true the Almohads united the Maghreb, the regions were not equal. In their institutional apparatus, legal and fiscal structure, the Central Maghreb and Ifriqiya were always treated as conquered territories (like al-Andalus), unlike Morocco, which was treated as homeland in the Almohad system.
Almohad movement was definitely founded by Ibn Tumart. Although the "caliphate" (successor) part can be dated from after Ibn Tumart's death, its ideology and political structure was definitely established by Ibn Tumart.
The status of Abd al-Mu'min is complicated. It is true he was a Zenata Kumiya origin, but the Almohad Council was Masmuda, and he was chosen as caliph was precisely because he was an "outsider" and thus believed to be impartial and above the rivalries of the Almohad sheikhs. However, in order to serve, he was enlisted as an honorary member of the Masmuda Hargha tribe (Ibn Tumart's structure was very hierarchical; Abd al-Mu'min would later secure the insertion of the Banu Kumiya inside the hierarchy, but still below the Hargha). The accord of 1155 changed the political structure from its original "republican" basis, to allow Abd al-Mu'min to centralize dynastically. The Mu'minid family would maintain dynastic control of the title, and the right to appoint his sons as governors (sayyids), but would always be overseen by viziers (counts palatine) which would have to come exclusively from the Masmuda sheikhs. Even the caliphal title and appointments was not automatic - succession was decided by the Almohad council, not the caliph, but it was agreed the candidate must come from the Mu'minid family.
On #3, the point of comparison would be not to sub-units (Almohads exceeded current boundaries of Morocco - which is the point of contention here), but rather to imperial units, articles like the Spanish Empire, which not only precedes the legal existence of Spain, but more to the point includes dominions which are not on the Iberian peninsula, like the Low Countries, Milan, Naples, etc. which are not within the boundaries of the current state of Spain. Should we call it west European rather than Spanish? Should it matter that the ruling dynasty was Flemish-Swiss and later French descent?
Anyway, there's no doubt in my mind that the Almohads can and should be characterized as "Moroccan", as they were in this article up until 2020. When I proposed to change the title from "Almohad dynasty" to "Almohad Caliphate", one of the reservations was that someone might try to erase the term "Moroccan" as a result (Bokpasa was a problem). I assured that it wouldn't happen, and it didn't happen until a sockpuppet this year. The article's lede should return to where it has been for decades until 2020. Walrasiad (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that characterization in general of course, but I could still see objections about the adjective "Moroccan" being anachronistic just as "Spanish" could be anachronistic before the formation of modern Spain, as many would see them as national rather than strictly geographic characterizations. I don't have a clear answer to that or strong feelings. But I am more convinced now that simply inserting "centred in modern-day Morocco" is a good neutral way of communicating the important geographic foundation of the empire without getting into semantic-historical questions.
I'd be curious to see whether the previous reference to Lugan's book (which unfortunately I've been unable to get) actually substantiates this specific point or merely backs up the obvious general point that the Almohads were based in Morocco and were a central stage in its history; as there's no page number provided, I suspect it's the latter. When looking at other encyclopedias, such as the entry about the Almohads in the Encyclopedia of Africa (p. 94), Encyclopedia Britannica, Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam ("al-Muwaḥḥidūn" in 2nd edition, "Almohads" in 3rd edition), and even the main entry in the previously-cited Concise Encyclopedia of World History (p. 23), they're not introduced as a "Moroccan" dynasty or empire but simply with more general wording. So in sum, it's unfortunate that an earlier stable version was erased without consensus, but we can still legitimately ask ourselves what the best wording is going forward; though as I said earlier, I don't think any of the options is really misleading to readers in the end. R Prazeres (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The serious encyclopedias don't use the adjective "Moroccan" because it is obviously anachronistic. There isn't a shred of evidence that the Almohads ever considered themselves as such, nor would one expect them to given their their tribal state and most important of all, their religion. Abd al-Mu-min, first instance, is always referred to simply as "amir al muminin" in the various letters that survived. As for Lugan, just have a look at the raft of controversies listed on his fr.wp article. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
-- caught in edit conflict; this is reply to RPrazeres --
Well, Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam has some peculiarities of hyper-scholarship, e.g. there's no article called "Morocco" in the encyclopedia! Not even as a cross-reference nor in the index! The country article for Morocco is called "al-Maghrib" (v.5, p.1184), which they consider the country's proper name (although they go on to use "Morocco" in the text, they first deride it as a foreign exonym). In the history section, they treat Morocco as a geographical entity, from pre-Islamic times, and go through the succession of dynasties (Idrisids, Almoravids, Almohads, Marinids, etc.)
It is true their "al-Muwahhidun" article doesn't start by characterizing them as "Moroccan", but doesn't characterize it as "North African" either but rather as a "Berber empire in North Africa and Spain", and they kinda stick to that. So if you want to omit "Moroccan", then the alternative is "North African and Spanish" and not merely "North African". You cannot omit some conquests but not others. Either all conquests are included, or we characterize it by its homeland which is geographically Morocco. It is also politically Morocco, in the strict exonym sense of a polity ruled from Marrakesh.
I think the point annoying our latter-day nationalists, and making this article subject to edit wars, is the possessive "North African", as it seems to dilute the origins.
A compromise I would consider would be to simply remove the possessive "North African" from the lede, and characterize it as a "Berber Muslim reform movement that began in southern Morocco and went on to establish an empire across much of North Africa and al-Andalus".
(I notice someone recently inserted "Banu Abd Mu'min" in the lede, and gives a reference to a fiction novel. I've never seen it referred to as that. While the Mu'minids were indeed the caliphal family, the Almohad state was not an autocratic monarchy - it was a constitutional entity, closer to an aristocratic republic, ruled by a complex power-sharing formula between the Mu'minid Caliph, the House of Ibn Tumart and the Almohad Council. So that really shouldn't be in the first line, but further down.) Walrasiad (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that sentence you suggested works well. It might have to be tweaked to fit the "Almohad Caliphate" page title but essentially it's an improvement. And I was also surprised at seeing "Banu Abd Mu'min" in the lead but never looked into it; if there's no other reliable source using that name I would suggest just removing it from the lead as a separate edit. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To be consistent, we should also apply the same rationale to the Almoravid article. M.Bitton (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Some ngram fun out of curiosity:
Although "North African" has risen quite a bit in recent years, "Moroccan" has dominated for longer (overwhelmingly until the 1990s) and is still dominant today. Walrasiad (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

So how would folks feel about the following rephrasing of the first paragraph? I've combined the phrasing suggested by Walrasiad above with the current phrasing on the page (links and formatting not included):

The Almohad Caliphate (...parenthetical info...) was an empire founded in the 12th century by a Berber Muslim reform movement that began in southern Morocco. At its height, it controlled much of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) and North Africa (the Maghreb).

On a related point, are we ok with removing "Banu Abd al-Mumin" from the lead? R Prazeres (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me, though I would add "present-day" (in line with the other articles from that period). As for "Banu Abd al-Mumin", that can go. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Let me think over it. Leaving that lonely "empire" there is almost begging for some editor to insert an adjective (Berber empire, Moroccan empire, North African empire etc.) which will land us back exactly where we started. Walrasiad (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
True on both counts. A modified example then could be: "The Almohad Caliphate (...) was founded in the 12th century by a Berber Muslim reform movement that began in present-day southern Morocco. At its height, it controlled much of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) and North Africa (the Maghreb)." R Prazeres (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, not "present-day Morocco". It's "Morocco", simply. Otherwise you're suggesting Morocco didn't exist yet. Walrasiad (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind either wording personally. My intuition may be wrong, but I don't think "present-day" Morocco necessarily implies Morocco didn't exist in any significant sense, it merely clarifies that we're referring to modern-day borders, which did not exist at the time. At the same time, it's really not uncommon for scholarly sources to refer to simply "Morocco" in pre-modern periods, since there's no other convenient way to refer to this distinctive region (North-west Africa is vague and cumbersome, and al-Maghreb al-Aqsa is unfamiliar to English readers). So I'd say just pick one for now. R Prazeres (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
"Present-day Morocco" is factual, neutral and better than al-Maghrib as-Aqsa (which, as R Prazeres right said, is unfamiliar to English readers). As for whether a country called Morocco existed at the time, let me put is this way: while the three modern-day countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) have a very long shared history, which explains their shared heritage, language, etc., their history as identifiable countries only started in the 16th century. M.Bitton (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Only started in 16th C.? Sounds like some fringe OR. There used to be a troll User:Bokpasa who spouted that before he got banned (and his 60 sockpuppet incarnations). Are you Bokpasa? Walrasiad (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In fairness, that may be debatable but I don't think it counts as fringe. It varies from author to author and depends on your definition of "country". Many histories of Morocco begin with the early Islamic period for unsurprising reasons, but some authors also seem to date the beginning of modern Morocco to the Saadian period, for example, because from this point on its borders increasingly stabilized, the state took on more of the political attributes it had up to the 20th century, it engaged in regular diplomacy with other states, and the inhabitants began to identify more clearly as belonging to a country distinct from its neighbours (e.g. see Garcia-Arenal's "Ahmad al-Mansur: The Beginnings of Modern Morocco" and Daniel Rivet's "Histoire du Maroc" around p. 203). Again, I think using the term "Morocco" on its own can also be easily understood as meaning a historic region, not necessarily a political entity, which is how an author like Abun-Nasr can also talk about "Morocco" throughout his book covering the Islamic period, regardless of period.
That said, I think this becoming more of an academic debate and Wikipedia isn't really the place for it; we're just deciding on a transparent and informative lead, one that most general readers would understand correctly for this topic. If I really had to pick at this point, I'd say that on balance "present-day" (southern) Morocco is a little more neutral and clear because that's what I would use by default for most pre-modern periods, just to be safe. R Prazeres (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, and vehemently so. I use the term "Morocco" plenty in many articles I write before this period. Practically all RS's (including Rivet) date the history of "Morocco" from the Idrisids. I haven't seen anybody (except Bokpasa) date it from the 16th. I offered the compromise above to prevent the article lede turning into the nationalist pissing competition which M.Bitton & IbnTachfin97 were turning it into. If M.Bitton is still trying to impose his peculiar OR on the dating of Morocco, then I will withdraw the offer of compromise and insist on reinserting "Moroccan empire" label at the beginning. Walrasiad (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: you know where I stand on this issue. The only thing I would add to what you said: unlike books, wp has wiki links which are open to abuse, i.e., a word that refers to a historical region, such as al-Maghrib al-Aqsa, will in time be linked to an article about a nation that didn't exist before the 20th century. For inspiration, the equivalent fr.wiki article is also worth having a look at.

As for the assumption of bad faith and the unwarranted personal attacks by Walrasiad (which so far have been ignored, but will be reported if repeated), my guess is that it's a hell of a lot easier to throw accusations around than it is to prove that a country called Morocco existed at that time and then figure out which wp article to link the word to. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. So at this point I'd invite other editors to give their input and wait for a clearer consensus on new wording. I'd leave the lead as is until then. It's not that urgent anyways.
One change I will make, however, because I think there's agreement on this, is removing "Banu Abd al-Mu'min". Incidentally, I'll also fix some of the bracketing right before it, and fix the IPA transcription which is slightly off according to major dictionaries (Merriam-Webster, Collins, or even dictionary.com). R Prazeres (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"To prove the country existed"? Well, I've already given evidence from papal documents of the time. And I have primary references to it going back earlier to 1138, if you're interested. But no, I don't have to prove it, I just have to show that RS's use it. And our own article History of Morocco has plenty of RS sources which do, and you can refer to those. If those are insufficient, I could bring thousands more (not least Rivet cited above) who use it too. The onus is for those who deny it to prove that it didn't, and show that to be the overwhelmingly the case in English-language works.
Since the existence or non-existence of Morocco before the 16th Century (or in M.Bitton's even more radical thesis above "didn't exist before the 20th Century") is a more general point that goes beyond the scope of this article, and would imply wholesale edits across hundreds, if not thousands of articles, we should open an RfC in History of Morocco to discuss the merits of M.Bitton's thesis. If the the Wiki community agrees with his POV, then we have a lot of work to do. Walrasiad (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
These edits are gonna keep happening if we don't resolve this, so do I have consent to just put the proposed opening (copied again below), with or without "present-day" inserted? Walrasiad is at least right that "Morocco" on its own is used already in many articles, so at this point I'd just endorse changing it to that for now and letting the discussion continue here or elsewhere about whether to add "present-day" afterwards. Otherwise it seems like the debate on this one thing is getting in the way of the original issue a bit.
The Almohad Caliphate (...) was an empire founded in the 12th century by a Berber Muslim reform movement that began in southern Morocco. At its height, it controlled much of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) and North Africa (the Maghreb). R Prazeres (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

IbnTashfin97 is clearly edit-warring on this page, and their current edits are even introducing misleading redirected links to force their point. Unfortunately I haven't done this process myself before and I have to leave my computer shortly for most of the day, but I would support either a temporary block on editing on this page or a temporary block on IbnTashfin97's account, whichever is appropriate. R Prazeres (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: I see that's already been done. Thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Tifinagh

[moved from User talk:M.Bitton]

Dear

I see you remove the tifinagh letters because you claim those dynasties did not use tifinagh. if so do you have a source for that? they are also Moroccan dynasties and according to Moroccan law Tifinagh is used to write Berber names. would like to stop reversing such things without consulting. Hambra1 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hambra1: Actually, since you're the one who's adding the content, the WP:ONUS to provide the sources is strictly on you. M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple of points for the future:
1) It seems perfectly reasonable to add Amazigh names to Amazigh-related topics (although there are still some considerations, see below), but there is no justification for also deleting Arabic names or removing citations from the page, which is what Hambra1 was doing.
2) As for using Amazigh/Tifinagh names accountably for historical topics, that might merit a bigger discussion somewhere to clarify the best practice for all editors. If the purpose is to simply provide the modern official Moroccan Neo-Tifinagh spelling alongside the Arabic name, then that might be simple enough, but if the idea is to provide the native names the Almohads (or others) used for themselves or in historical records, then that may present problems and some sources are really needed. The post-Islamic Berber dynasties used Arabic in writing and documentation, so we don't have written records of them or their words in Tamazight. The term Tifinagh itself covers a variety of related scripts used by different Berber groups and, as far as I've read, these scripts were not in use after Antiquity except among some Tuareg groups. Neo-Tifinagh was developed in the late 20th century by modern students and scholars, and a version of it was recognized as an official script in Morocco in 2003. So it's not entirely clear what Tifinagh spelling would be used other than a modern one and whether modern Tamazight names for the Almohads reflect historical Tamazight names for them, etc.
Sources:

R Prazeres (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: In case this debate continues, it would be great if someone could point to a clearer policy on the issue (MOS:LEADALT and WP:OTHERNAMES don't offer more), but I had a quick look for other examples off the top of my head for comparison. Some initial examples: the pages for Seljuk Empire and the Sultanate of Rum do not include the modern Turkish names in the lead despite both of them being Turkish empires; the Sassanid Empire includes the Middle Persian name but not its Modern Persian name; and further afield, the Yuan Dynasty, a Mongol/Mongol-origin dynasty that ruled China, includes the Chinese name followed by the Middle Mongolian name, but not the Modern Mongolian name. There are maybe some partial counter-examples with some historical figures, but overall I haven't noticed a tendency to include modern names for historical countries, states, dynastic periods. Consensus is still the goal here, but I haven't seen much precedent elsewhere yet which would suggest that adding Neo-Tifinagh names for pre-modern historical topics is a natural choice for Wikipedia as it stands. (Which, in other words, is what M.Bitton has pointed out previously.) R Prazeres (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support allowing Tifinagh spelling as an addition (not as a substitute). So English/Arabic/Tifinagh. Even if its not strictly policy, it would be a courtesy, helping Amizagh/Berber people explore their own history. It will also improve the article as a reference, as you won't likely find Tifinagh spellings elsewhere online. It seems relatively costless. Walrasiad (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is best that we just keep the Tifinagh writing regardless of old topics. In Morocco and Algeria the Tifinagh script is now used, so also for names of people, cities etc. As for the old dynasties, they are also written in Tifinagh in Morocco and Algeria, so why shouldn't we do that? I am also in favor of having to write it in Roman / English letters in addition to Tifinagh, so that it is also legible for everyone. The Arabic script next to it is also possible. Hambra1 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Almohad_Caliphate/Archive_1&oldid=1151797197"