Talk:Almohad doctrine

Major work needed

Let me start by saying that this is a good article. It has a good net of sources which could probably even be expanded. The writing style, however, is not encyclopedic; rather, it's written from an almost editorial perspective of a writer trying to convince the reader of certain views. Major editing is needed to change the tone from persuasive to merely informative. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that by breaking all these huge sections of text and inserting subsections, we can make the job of editing for clarity a lot easier. As it is, even looking at the article is hard on the eyes. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming much later but I figure this comment is appropriate here. I assume the "neutrality" tag on this page refers to the fact that the article is almost entirely about Almohad treatment of Jews and Christians (and mainly cites sources that refer to this issue) rather than about actual Almohad doctrine and their religious reforms, which is what the title of the article implies. Their treatment of non-Muslims would be an obvious sub-topic on this page, but for the article to be informative it needs to actually discuss what Almohad doctrine was. As I mentioned in my recent edit summary, I've tried to add some very basic information to that end to hopefully bring the page one step in that direction, but ultimately theology and doctrine this isn't my main interest so I leave it to others to expand on this. Cheers, Robert Prazeres (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: Also, for those who are interested in improving the discussion of Almohad treatment of non-Muslims, there's a whole issue of the Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies in 2010 entitled "Religious minorities under the Almohads" (you may need academic access, but here's the link), which is aimed at discussing multiple viewpoints and sub-issues of this topic. Robert Prazeres (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Final PS: On the latter topic, I've added some relevant information from Bennison's 2016 book (see sources on main page), in order to give a more realistic and detailed description of Almohad actions/policies, but further expansion with other sources is still a good idea. Robert Prazeres (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

Alright, the sources which are already present here are good. The problem is that huge blocks of text is unsourced. Being a hobbyist on this dynasty (though by no means an expert), I can attest to the fact that the unsourced material is generall true. Due to the sheer volume of it, however, I propose deletion followed by rebuilding.

A lot of that unsourced text reads like an essay, and this has been noted since late 2011. Going through and both neutralizing while sourcing at the same time would be a task. Given that we know the information is generally true, and that sources can eventually be found, I don't think it would be a tragedy to just remove that info. This is because, upon looking through more reliable sources, more or less the same factual information will eventually be put back up again, given time. I hope other concerned editors find this proposal to be acceptable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the personal essay template for now...I think I've done a halfway decent job at changing the article's tone from essay-istic to encyclopedic, though if other editors feel the template still belongs there I won't object. The article still needs some major work as it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing/moving name of article?

What do other editors think about changing the name of this article to something like "Almohad ideology", "Almohad doctrine", or "Almohadism"? I think this is a more neutral and more descriptive title. Describing the Almohad measures as "reforms" tends to imply by definition that they were "improving" religion or society, whereas it was more of an attempt to mold religion to their view. The "reforms" also appear to have been mainly at the top of the state rather than widely adopted in society (though that might be arguable, I'd need to read more), and did not last beyond the expiration of their caliphate (from what I can read in the sources, notably Bennison's book). In any case, "ideology" or "doctrine" is a more direct way to describe this topic I think, and clearer for new readers who don't have the context to know what "reforms" is alluding to. Robert Prazeres (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any further discussion on this so far and I think a move to "Almohad doctrine" is reasonable and would be a more neutral/accurate title for the page, without compromising any part of the topic, so I think this is uncontroversial enough. I will make the move shortly. R Prazeres (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Arabic name in lead

I realize now that I misread the IP's earlier edit when I did this revert, where I noted it as an "unexplained deletion" when in fact it was an unexplained addition. After seeing it again though, I'm reverting it once more because this information is unsourced. Other than promoting the concept of tawhid, I don't recall reading about any name given to Almohad doctrine by the Almohads themselves, in Arabic, Amazigh, or otherwise. There may be a relevant name to include of course (even الموحدية), but in that case please cite a reliable source to support this, just as with any other historical info (see the verifiability policy). Otherwise, I assume الموحدية is simply a present-day translation of the topic name into Arabic, and judging by WP:OTHERNAMES and by many back-and-forth edits on other articles over the years, the point of alternate names in the lead isn't to simply translate the current English article's title into other languages. In the case of something historical, it's usually about native or former names of the place/person/concept in its historical context. At the very least, the context of the Arabic name can be made clearer if the IP editor explains what they intended here. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Page Tone

This page is very toned down to how brutal almohads doctrine was used. So much so that 2 days ago, while having a discussion with an Indonesia Muslim friend, he found himself questioning whether we were talking about the correct empire/doctrine. This was even after Google translated the English page, he had to actually go to an Indonesia reference book on the Islamic caliphates to verify.

Is that toned down nature purposeful? RCSCott91 (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to broadly accuse Wikipedia editors of something, maybe you should be specific in your criticisms and what it is you want changed. With cites. Ogress 15:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ogress I apologize if I've offended you. My question was sincere, the exchange with my friend was real. My question doesn't come as an accusation. I have not done enough editing to know if we tone darker or more brutal things so they are more approachable on an academic level or something to that effect. RCSCott91 (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not personally offended, but it is generally frowned upon to suggest people are excusing vileness for some unexplained reason. I was just being honest: If you have valid concerns, you should by all means note them. It is customary to give examples: when you say, "This page is very toned down to how brutal almohads doctrine was used", I was expecting you to add examples. The Almohad doctrine was extremely puritan, which is not even vaguely complimentary if you live in New England and are aware of what the Puritans were like (miserable, vile, and hypocritical butchers). However, others cannot be expected to know what you are talking about. What should be changed? Ogress 13:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you made the perfect point. To most American Puritan just means stuffy and strict and to someone who doesn't have a good frame of reference for the Puritan metaphor. As I'm reading thru it I realize. I get it now. Thank you. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)