Jump to content

Talk:Umayyad Caliphate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Umayyad)


Area of Caliphate

[edit]

The area was definitely bigger than 11.1 million km2, if the Abbasid Caliphate, which just by looking at it and comparing it to Umayyad's is smaller, then the Umayyad Caliphate has to be considerably bigger, note the following territories not included in the Abbasid Caliphate but included in Umayyad Caliphate: half of Algeria on top of the amount of Algeria controlled by Abbasid's (1.2 million km2 on top of 11.1) almost the entire Iberian peninsula (540,000 km2) all of Morocco (450,000 km2), additional half of Sindh in Pakistan that wasn't controlled by Abbasids (70,000 km2) and about a fifth of the province of Gujarat in India (40,000 km2), half of Rajasthan (175,000km2). And some other territorial advances. Suffice it to say, the Umayyad Caliphate was well over 2 million additional km2 than 11.1 million km2. AbdusSami98 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were all those territories lost when the Abbasids took control of the Caliphate? Córdoba didn't secede until six years later, for example. Anyway, we'd need a WP:RELIABLE source which gives a different estimate for the area if we are to change it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When the Abbasids first took control, they had all of Umayyad lands before they gained independence. Spagheditor (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Much of Morocco and Algeria were already independent BEFORE the abbasid revolution, after the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_Revolt.
Also, Spain and Tunisia were under the control of members the Fihrid family and they governed independently until the Ummayads came to Corboda and the Kharijites overran Tunisia .Abbasid came later to the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fihrids 2800:200:F410:2421:B1E1:BB67:AC34:660E (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rather shallow subject for many reasons
The Umayyad were not Arabs nor spoke arabic as coins and collateral documents inform us . Not even Muslims ~ just a punch of opportunistic risk takers after the collapse of Persian empire 622 !! ( the elephant in the room) not to mention the devastating Pibunic plague
I think the traditional narratives of history fabrication needs revision
2A00:23CC:B594:BC01:8151:D227:F365:A535 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordoba is indeed the exception to the otherwise general rule of the Abbasids not having the extreme Eastern and Western territories of the Umayyad Caliphate. Also can courses.lumenlearning.com › chapter The Umayyad and Abbasid Empires | Boundless World History 

count as a reliable source? AbdusSami98 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, especially when considering that the current source is a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flag?

[edit]

I am not sure if this is universal, but the flag appears as a green banner with a crescent and star, a flag which as far as I know has no historical usage. Spagheditor (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing this? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the info box, over the map is a flag. Normally this is white but for some reason it is showing a green flag with a diagonal crescent and star Spagheditor (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current flag in the infobox is white. Someone did change it on Commons for the flag that you're describing, but that was three weeks ago. Maybe you still have a cached copy of it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the flag back to the White Standard, what you are describing appeared for me as well in the .svg version. The image used has been switched to the .png format and should no longer experience any errors. Praxeria (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the flag is now a Rainbow for some reason. This needs to be changed back Igrokugrok (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The preview you can see when you hover over a link is fine for the image and everything else, but on this page the image only contains a plain white flag. The image doesn't seem to load. Moreover, this flag is not legitimate, it is just a simple guesswork. Therefore, like most pre-modern countries, it is better not to use any flags. It would be more Encyclopedic and better to replace the page image with the Country Map. Frq ltc (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frq ltc, I don't entirely disagree with your argument about the flag; I'm not sure I've seen sources stating that it was a blank white banner. However, once you have been reverted, you must obtain a consensus for your edits here instead of edit-warring in the article, as you have done so far. You also haven't explained why this map you keep adding is an improvement over the other. R Prazeres (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I daresay it's self-evident that the plain white flag is rather useless as a preview image, and that a map would be more helpful. Exactly what solution should be applied can be discussed, but it ought to be uncontroversial that we should not have an entirely white preview image. TompaDompa (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi R Prazeres. In short, there is no real historical evidence that that flag was true. It's misleading as it's just a simple guess, and it's definitely wrong to use it as an official flag in articles. Moreover, it was not on the national flags at that time. Therefore, it would be much better if it did not contain any flags like most pre-modern countries. I added the map, unlike the other, because it includes big cities. What do I need to do now to convince you? Frq ltc (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it adds much value one way or another. The supporting evidence for the white flag seems marginal; it's very unclear if the dimensions were known or if that is a complete guess, but more critically, to the casual reader this will more likely just look like there has been a display error, because that is what a plain white box actually means to most people. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the flag: There are definitely sources stating that the flag was "white" or that the dynastic colour was white. One of the scholarly sources recently added to the file description states it was "plain white" (footnote 8 on p.91 here), though I'd be more reassured if we had an equally explicit source pre-dating this Wikipedia article (which has displayed this flag since 2008). This one at least minimally satisfies Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the concerns are about confusing readers with a blank image, we could potentially mention the flag in a dedicated section in the body of the article instead, if preferred.
Personally, I'm always skeptical that we have enough information to reproduce flags of this period or that they're really necessary in infoboxes for history articles, as it disproportionally emphasizes a marginal aspect of the topic that receives very little comment in reliable sources. But it's a wider issue beyond this article (e.g. compare infobox at Abbasid Caliphate).
For the map: Perhaps M.Bitton can further explain if needed, as they initially reverted it ([1]). I'm assuming it was an objection about visual quality? I would note that the map you added ([2]) was previously used in this article in the past, so it was intentionally changed since then. R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a section in the body on the flag, or Umayyad vexillology and symbology more generally, would definitely be more pertinent. As it stands, this detail is hardly so critical that it needs to be in the infobox; on the contrary, the paucity of sourcing places it more in the category of the undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A man uploaded that flag to the wikimedia in 2008 without citing any sources. But because it was such a simple design, some people believed this flag was "correct". And that book, published in 2017, claimed the flag was white, without stating any real historical evidence, simply citing the example of the Chinese calling the Umayyads "in white clothes". But clothes don't set the flag (!!!) Frq ltc (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres: The visual quality aside, the unsourced map shows an area of the Maghreb that the Umayyads never controlled. I will upload a properly sourced map in the coming weeks. M.Bitton (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant difference from the current map except for the big cities. Frq ltc (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frq ltc: care to explain this change? M.Bitton (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake and I deleted it later. The fonts had changed. Frq ltc (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't delete it, I did. Was the font the only problem with it? M.Bitton (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no, I accidentally changed the font in that edit while trying to delete it completely. and then I deleted it completely myself. Frq ltc (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you related to Tarataraq? M.Bitton (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything??? who's that? I am not related to anyone here. Frq ltc (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frq ltc: That's great. It's not unusual for editors to abandon an account in order to start afresh, but when two accounts behave alike (same interest and modus operandi), one cannot help but wonder if they are related.
One last question: did you ever edit this article using an IP? M.Bitton (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember I used to edit this page, when I didn't join by account. I just don't remember when. Frq ltc (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This confirms that the IP I have in mind (used not long ago) actually belongs to Tarataraq. M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what IP and that person ("Tarataraq")??? Frq ltc (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't used one after joining the project, that shouldn't concern you. M.Bitton (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I didn't get it, but whatever. I don't care who is what anymore. good bye. Frq ltc (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving my reply to the bottom so it won't get lost, but following up on TompaDompa, Iskandar323, and Frq ltc's comments above about the flag: do we have consensus, then, to remove the white image from the infobox? Do we want to mention the flag in a separate section below, as suggested by Iskandar323 and I? Or are there other opinions? R Prazeres (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a section (or at least a mention somewhere) in the body is warranted, not least to clear up such musings for future readers. Really what we need is an article on Islamic vexillology. This work: Alexander, D. (2000). The black flag of the ͑Abbasids. Gladius, 20, 221-238. is rather instructive generally, though it again leaves the specifics of Umayyad flags rather murky. That the Abbasid flag was black, and this was chosen in opposition to the Umayyads, is well known. Muhammad meanwhile flew both white and black flags. The Umayyads are meanwhile well attested as using white as a caliphal color, but to what extent that extended to their choices of standard is unclear. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we pretty clearly have consensus to remove the flag from the infobox, and I have consequently implemented that consensus. TompaDompa (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa THANKS for your stable implementation. Frq ltc (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Empire

[edit]

I want to say ummayed and rashidun caliphate were continuation and were muslim Arabian Empire it would be better as Arabian Empire like Spanish empire was Catholic but Spanish and spread language and religion both Arabian Empire did arabization and islamization too. 2404:3100:1408:ADAE:F72A:8959:AE4F:CEBD (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Empire

[edit]

I want to say ummayed and rashidun caliphate were continuation and were muslim Arabian Empire it would be better as Arabian Empire like Spanish empire was Catholic but Spanish and spread language and religion both Arabian Empire did arabization and islamization too. Aghvcgjmm (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No original research. R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Term "Sufyanid" used, but not explained

[edit]

1st used in headings, w/o explanation!

What's the difference betw. Sufyanid and Umayyad?

Basic questions... Arminden (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone checking edits made by silent anonymous editor?

[edit]

I mean "49.36.110.63", who goes in w/o edit summary or any explanation on this talk-page, and makes substantial edits. Arminden (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Umayyad_Caliphate&oldid=1255863881"