View source for Talk:Almohad Caliphate

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|listas=Almohad|blp=no|1=
{{WikiProject Berbers|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Biography }}
{{WikiProject Morocco |importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Africa |importance=mid |Algeria=yes |Algeria-importance=mid |Libya=yes |Libya-importance=mid |Tunisia=yes |Tunisia-importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Spain |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Portugal |importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Former countries }}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages |importance=high|Crusades-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Arab world |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=high|Muslim-history=yes|Muslim-history-importance=high}}
{{WikiProject British Overseas Territories|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
}}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Almohad Caliphate|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:Almohad Caliphate/Archive|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=75000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=5|minarchthreads=2|format= %%i}}
<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->

== Caliphate of whom? Where was the center of the state?==

It's really weird that this article doesn't cite the fact that the Caliphate was to Ibn Tumart, not to the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) directly.
Furthermore, it doesn't mention the fact that the state was centered in Morocco and al Andalus a little bit. Algeria and Tunisia were considered as colonies of the empire. [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 20:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

:The relevant points of your comment are already covered in the article. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
::Which points and where are they covered? [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 14:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaOEn1XgAA1Of6.jpg] [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaN44QXwAAHVsq.png] [https://ibb.co/jWy1Gkv] [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::You probably don't realize this, but in essence, what you're saying is that the Almohad empire wasn't an empire at all. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::It was an empire, but not all the regions were treated equally. Morocco (and al-Andalus) was the imperial core, the rest were lands of conquest, but they were paying taxes. [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaOIgSXgAcyPVy.png] [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::You do realise that there was no such thing as Morocco back then, don't you? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Morocco existed back then.[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaOOxlXoAAH-lX.png][https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaONf0WAAIHUvh.png] that's the letter of Pope innocent III in latin. [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 16:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::You're confusing the city of Marrakesh with Morocco (which didn't exist back then). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::There is no confusion between Morocco and Marrakesh here. In the document it was called Marruecos, it is the same name that is used now in Spanish. They're originally the same word. The same with Algeria the country and Alger the city, Tunisia the country and Tunis the city. Do you understand? [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope, Marrakesh is a city and Morocco (which didn't exist back then) is country. Your examples make no sense since the existence of a city called Tunis doesn't mean that there was a country called Tunisia back then. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::You keep refuting despite the evidence that i showed to you. The origin of the word Morocco is Marrakesh. If you mean that Morocco didn't have the same borders, YES I agree with you but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. He was called "king of Morruecos" by the pope while he was ruling Cordoba and Seville from which the Almohads were threatening the Christians of the north. He wasn't king of Marrakesh only. [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::It’s like saying the Seljuks belonged to the republic of Iran and that Central Asia and Anatolia are colonies of Iran… Your NPOV isn’t relevant as per the reply above. Also, the founding dynasty doesn’t originate from modern day Morocco either. But from the central Maghreb or what is now Algeria per sources. So this is far from being a « Moroccan state » as it didn’t even give a territorial identity for the western Maghreb.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 16:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::Many sources call it directly Moroccan state/empire.[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaMqJtWYAoPTMr.png][https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaM_z7WAAEhVGV.png][https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaNFaqWYAI6Nid.png] And Abdelmoumen was seen as Moroccan [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaRw7mWQAI1JJA.png]  he was born in Tagra, near Oran (Marruecos)[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgaUnZ_WAAIQ3qr.png] he's not Algerian. The birthplace of the Almohad empire is Tinmel, Morocco. I don't care about your Seljuks, I'm just restating the content of the sources.  [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 17:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Abd al-Mu'min Moroccan? This is a perfect example of why cherry picking the sources that mention something senseless in passing is really bad. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I suggest we end it here, Not only his sources are not RS as they tend to push a political Agenda (Emphesising about a moroccan national state and moroccan empire is pretty dubious because such states had neither a national identity nor a territorial limitation, they were rather tribal states basing their legitmacy on a religious doctrine per all RS, fact it is one of his sources say that the city of Oran is in Morocco... You can't really have a constructive debate with such push POVs, Cherry pick and removing sourced content that don't suit them is the way to go for this annoying lot of disruptive editors.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, Oxford and Real Academia de Historia are Moroccan sources or they are paid by Morocco to say so 👏👏👏👏🤯 [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 17:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::They literally go against more reliable sources, and per what was said above, there was no Morocco back then. The fact that these sources called it moroccan state was based on a European understanding of Medieval Europe (Kingdom of England, Kingdom of France...etc). There was nothing called as Moroccan state or Moroccan Empire in Arabic nor per RS  (We know that in Arabic, Al Maghrib means Maghreb, and not Marrakesh), not saying this has nothing to do with the history of Morocco, or any other Maghrebi state, but there were neither a Moroccan identity back then nor a Moroccan people, nor Moroccan state nor a Moroccan country. Which is why your sources are rejected. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::You rejected the sources because you don't like the truth that they're showing. Oh I just dicovered you're Algerian, that explains it. Just try to be neutral quite a bit and you'll see that the sources are valid. [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 23:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] maybe i was right to delet this thread since NPOVs don't really offer anything educationally useful, we're just wasting time with someone who just cherry picks what suits his agenda, enough time was wasted with such disruptive contributors (assuming they are not socks). [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::PS: Since we're having the same issue with a sock that stopped editing for a couple of days, we should be aware of this IP too, as both seem to have the same behavior, disruptive editiors do have similiar behavior sometimes, but seeing how the other sock is so determined to push his pov and EW makes me suspecious. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 17:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::@[[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]], the solution is not to delete the thread, it's just to stop engaging with it once it's clear it's going nowhere. The [[WP:ONUS]] is on the user who wants to change the article to solicit a consensus, it's [[Wikipedia:SATISFY|not our job to satisfy them]]. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 18:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::Didn't knew that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, i thought it was quite the contrary, that an RS is an absolute priority unless it's obviously at fault like this one above. So does that mean we need to reach a consensus first before editing or this is only for big claims ? [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 18:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::(I'm not sure if I totally understood your question, so I'll just answer on your talk page to avoid taking up space here.) [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 18:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
: The IP editor is right though. [[User:Walrasiad|Walrasiad]] ([[User talk:Walrasiad|talk]]) 10:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::@[[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] I will answer the comment that you deleted. Your problem is that you don't consider that today's borders didn't exist back then. The fact that Canstantine XI was born in what is now Istanbul doesn't mean he was Turkish. All western Algeria at that time was under Marrakesh rule. If those credible sources attribute Abd al-Mu'min to Morocco then there are valid reasons behind that, for example Almohad genealogists trace his lineage directly to the Idrisid dynasty, which is an other Moroccan dynasty, an Arab one that originated with the coming of Idris 1. Yes Abd al-Mu'min was strange to Masmuda (not to Morocco) since he belonged to a different tribal confederation and of course he was always under the pressure of Almohad Shaykhs. But that doesn't mean he didn't try to integrate. He spoke the Masmuda Berber language. In fact the Masmuda Berber was the imperial language of the Almohads, many sources support that.
::I think that Walrasiad agrees with my original points that Morocco (and al-Andalus to a lesser extent) was the imperial core of the Almohads, and that the Caliphate here is very different from classical Caliphates such as that of the Abasids and the Umayads. [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 15:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::{{tq|today's borders didn't exist back then|q=yes}} that's right. Furthermore, there was no such a thing as Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::The muminid dynasty is not from what is now Morocco, it’s from the central Maghreb, an area very well known back then. Per what @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] said, there is no point pushing your NPOV with your silly arguments, Marrakesh and the far Maghreb (what is now known as Morocco) was a conquered territory for the foreign mumind elite per reliable sources. All in all please stop pinging me for this back and forth, I will oppose linking this state to any modern nation state just like the zirids, hammadids…etc, and sure I’m opposed to your 12 century long state claim that you’re trying to push into this encyclopaedia. As a way to make political claims and thus exiting totally the point this encyclopaedia was made for.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::Btw, since you spoke about the '''Masmuda - Mu'minid''' relations, i suggest you read this [https://www.google.dz/books/edition/Messianism_and_Sociopolitical_Revolution/rNGAEAAAQBAJ?hl=fr&gbpv=1&dq=mu%27minid+dynasty+central+maghreb&pg=PA283&printsec=frontcover] p 282-283, that would benefit your knowledge. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::You both don't seem to accept the fact that the central Maghreb and Ifrikiya were lands of conquest, they were peripheral to the Almohad imperial core in the west, just their beautiful architecture and where were their constructions very frequent (Marrakesh, Salé/Rabat, Seville, Fes, Tinmel...) proves this fact very easily. Once you accept this fact we can discuss whether Morocco existed or not and the other points. @[[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] the author of your source isn't even a historian, he's a sociologist and the source isn't even specialized in the subject. The more specialized sources describe the Masmuda as the backbone of the Almohad army ([https://imgbb.com/jWy1Gkv] name of the source:Saladin, the Almohads and the Banu Ghaniya S well as The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart). I also suggest you take a look at the Almohad social pyramid. But don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that the Kumiya had an important role in the Almohad history. [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::I repeat: there was no such a thing as Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian back then and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::It seems like you just copy-pasted this comment. Did you even read what i said in my comment? [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|196.200.133.150]] ([[User talk:196.200.133.150|talk]]) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::I can from a Christian poem dating to a period between 1195-1212 it mentioned the rey de maroc king of morocco and called his army Maroquins moroccans [[Special:Contributions/102.38.8.5|102.38.8.5]] ([[User talk:102.38.8.5|talk]]) 23:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

== Flag of Marrakesh ==

@[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] I understand from the former discussion that you refused to add the flag in the head of the article. But why can't we add it to the emblem section given that the paragraph gives the exact same description? I don't undertsand why you said that it's actually not right. [[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 22:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

:That's not the flag of the Almohad caliphate, having a 14th century flag of a city in a section i wrote specifically for the white banner of the almohads using multiple RS is misleading and confusing and aims to create at least an alternative flag for the Mu'minid Almohad empire, which is not right. i wil however ask to remove the short paragraph about this flag (since i wasn't the one who wrote it), as we do not really know who were the authors who "assumed" this flag being an Almohad dynastic one as it sure contradicts the content in the section and may confuse readers.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::Why are you so sure it wasn't the flag of Marrakesh before 14th century? I'm confused! Who wrote the paragraph if it wasn't you.
::I object removing it even if you ask so. [[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:You said "some historians believe it was a former Almohad flag", but that's not quite right. The cited author, Bennison, doesn't endorse this claim and merely mentions that "it has been assumed that this flag is Almohad", she doesn't say who (academics? popular writers?).
:In any case, as Bennison points out, there's nothing directly linking this supposed flag to the Almohads, and the paragraph here is not saying otherwise. If the image is placed in the article, it arguably implies that this is a valid flag. It might be fine if we include a caption that clearly contextualizes the evidence, but I'm inclined to think that's overly complicated for what is essentially a footnote on the topic. But I'll let other editors weigh in on the matter.
:I wrote the paragraph and I would prefer to leave it in, because Bennison does mention it in this context, so I see no harm in it. (I don't mind further revising it, of course.) One practical reason to keep it: this flag was on Wikipedia for years and is still widely found in amateur sources elsewhere and in other Wikipedia articles (I'm constantly finding and removing it from infoboxes); thus, having this issue explained here with [[WP:RS|RS]] makes it possible for readers to find out where that flag comes from and why it's problematic. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 22:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::I was devided between leaving it and removing it because of how it is still widely used, but i think this is not what Wikipedia is about in the end. Such flags have political and religious relevence per RS, it helps understand how the medieval (islamic) elites identified themselves and what basis led to the establishment of such states ? did they line themselves as reformists or going back to roots movements ? it also helps to understand why the black and white flags were widely used as state flags in mediaval islamic history ? This staunch resistance against removing this red flag stems in great part from nationalist whims, much like maps for example. which geopardises the entire point of having these articles written in a free encyclopedia in the first place. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::As text, it doesn't take up much room, and I think the relevance is still clear and based on an RS. So I don't see a good reason to remove it, personally. It's just the addition of its image which I think is difficult to accommodate without trouble. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::maybe add the text as a note near the first mention of the white flag ? [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think that would end up more confusing/distracting, because it's not a clarification about the white flag, just a mention of an entirely different flag found in some sources. (I also forgot earlier that the flag is featured in [https://books.google.com/books?id=-MOdAAAACAAJ this book], if I remember correctly, so that's an example of another publication using it, though I don't know more about the authors.) A minor paragraph at the end respects [[WP:WEIGHT]], in my view. I don't think it's any more out of place than the note about the modern [[Andalusia]]n flag, for example; these are minor notes radiating from the central discussion. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::Looks like Fatimid flag situation to me.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I've seen you talking a lot about the Fatimid flag. Which article is concerned [[Fatimid Caliphate]], [[Fatimid Dynasty]] or both? And what is its situation? [[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 23:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Some sources speak about the Fatimids having white flags, other sources speak of green flags, it's confusing. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It doesn't seem like the situations are the same to me. Have any colors besides white been proposed for the Almohads? [[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 23:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almohad%20Caliphate&diff=prev&oldid=1205153706 last addition] kinda undoes your claim, because we have now two sources (Benninson) that say they were aware that some authors assumed that red was the Almohad flag but it's not relevent, and that white is in fact the real deal here, so why insist on putting a not relevent flag for the Almohad period in the article ? in the end, I now get better the point made by Prazeres. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 01:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes, it's best to not use authors against each other if they don't actually address each other's claims directly, per [[WP:SYNTH]]. I think the situation is clear enough without doing this; it's up to readers to judge which claims are right, especially as there are many good sources cited in the section. We can still safely repeat Stockstill's observation that most historical accounts cite the colour white (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almohad_Caliphate&diff=prev&oldid=1205153706 this] edit), so I've moved this to the beginning of the section to be clear ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almohad_Caliphate&diff=prev&oldid=1205173481]). Since Stockstill doesn't talk about the Fatimid flags and that's a whole other issue (as Nour noted above), I've removed this part in the process. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 01:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I'm fine with that. This might be off-topic, but do the sources actually use the word "dynastic"? Your answer could save me a lot of time searching through them one by one. The flags don't necessarily represent the dynasty alone, so if the sources don't mention it, there is a problem.[[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Here you have it:
:::::::::::::[https://www.academia.edu/12023406/Drums_Banners_and_Baraka_Symbols_of_authority_during_the_first_century_of_Mar%C4%ABnid_rule_1250_1350]:''"Although white is cited as the colour of the Umayyads, of the '''Almohad caliphal standard''', and of the '''Marinid sultan's banner''', it is not clear whether such white banners included religious inscriptions and designs or not. The Marinid sources simply refer to '''white as the dynasty's colour.'''"''/''"The naming of the Marinid palatine city, Madīnat al-Bayḍā', the White City, reflects their use of '''white as a dynastic colour''' which, of course, contrasted with the naming of the Nasrid capital, Madinat al-Ḥamra', the Red City, and '''their flag, described as vermilion''' with Arabic inscriptions in gold."''
:::::::::::::So wether the sources use the word "dynastic" or "state", it's the same thing, the dynasty '''is''' the state, a medieval concept of ''[[L'État, c'est moi|L'Etat c'est moi]]'' basically. So it is pretty clear we're talking about the '''Almohad dynastic state flag''', that means dynastic flag is state flag per sources, just like the Alawi plain red; sourced here: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Morocco_(1666%E2%80%931915).svg]. 
:::::::::::::This can't be clearer than this, and, for what it's worth, a good rule to follow in Wikipedia discussions is this: the more you reply, the less people will listen, so again, please stop pinging editors over obvious matters. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] @[[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] I'm pinging you in case you didn't notice my question. [[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I already answered to that question. Read my latest reply to R Prazeres. [[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 03:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
::Apologies, I initially thought Nour added the paragraph. I agree with keeping it and understand your edit summary now, thanks for clarifying. However, I still believe adding the image is important, sorry for my insistence. It would visually represent the description in the paragraph. Providing a clear image description below it would prevent any confusion for readers. If you'd like, you can suggest one, or alternatively, adding an additional paragraph explaining why the flag is problematic, as you mentioned. Personally, I think "flag of Marrakesh as described in the book of Knowledge" is acceptable, but I understand if you disagree. I also used to believe that it represents the flag of Almohads until I watched a video by the Franco-Moroccan historian Nabil Moulin.[[User:TybenFree|TybenFree]] ([[User talk:TybenFree|talk]]) 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
:::If there's a consensus from other editors to do so, I don't mind, but I think we need more input to make sure it's reasonable. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

== Central Maghreb and Ifriqiya: Lands of conquest ==

@[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] is there anything wrong with what I added? In the other discussion you didn't explain why you disagree with that. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 22:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

:Sure, it's called "cherry picking" and serves no purpose other than to push the POV of a [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|fly-by IP]]. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::Tbh I expected that answer. Do you really know what "Cherry picking" is? it seems to me you don't. The only case in which you can call this "cherry picking" would be if the information wasn't verifiable enough (or the source isn't reliable) or/and other reliable sources conradict the information. Please elaborate. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 22:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I obviously don't. I usually wait for editors like yourself to teach me the basics. I'm done here. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::What you're trying to do here is a classic example of cherry picking. For further information, I suggest you read [[WP:CHERRY]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Skitash|Skitash]] ([[User talk:Skitash|talk]]) 22:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Why the hell are you both so sure that i was cherry picking? Is there any source that contracdicts the iformation or is there anything wrong with the source? I quoted the source in the exact context which is the end of Almohad-Norman war. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 22:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:Regardless of potential POV, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Almohad_Caliphate&diff=prev&oldid=1219123389 this edit] is also copying the source verbatim, which would be a [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism|copyvio]] if left as is. Even if this is fixed by placing it in quotations marks, the quote serves no clear purpose: the author is merely saying that this was a new conquest, as is already clear from reading the existing text. So let's keep new content to more informative things. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 22:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] I believe you read Amar S Baadj 2015 so you might know that all the regions east of Tilimsan were peripheral to the Almohad imperial core. I still don't understand what's the problem here. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::Encyclopedia Universalis also says the same thing. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 22:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:Regarding your claim, The Mu'minids occupied Tlemcen, Algiers and Bejaia rather peacefully. if we take a closer look at a RS like Julien, the Mu'minids were especially kind to their defeated foes in central Maghreb, including Hilalian Arabs who were used by Abd Al-Mu'min to cast away the Moroccan Masumads to whom Abd Al-Mu'min was a stranger, and the Hammadid last emir. So while this could be called a conquest, just like Morocco was conquered, even more so since its cities like Marrakesh and Fez were sacked and its tribes like the Doukkala and Burghwata were subsequently massacred. So keep aside this antagonism between Mu'minds and the central Maghreb that's you're trying to push through your (obvious) cherry picking. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::I stoped at the first sentence of your comment. "Peacefully"? Are you sure about that? Tlemcen was massacred just like Marrakesh and Fez [https://books.google.fr/books?id=n7gBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false][https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=Uwn7C7xwc1cC&pg=PA15&dq=Abd+al+Mumin+avait+ainsi+conquis+Tlemcen&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZyZmsq8WFAxX21gIHHVoBB9MQ6AF6BAgGEAM#v=onepage&q=Abd%20al%20Mumin%20avait%20ainsi%20conquis%20Tlemcen&f=false][https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=iut1BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&dq=Almohad+conquest+Tlemcen&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiY_o_Oq8WFAxU60AIHHdwEDjEQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Almohad%20conquest%20Tlemcen&f=false] and the Almohad conquest of the Hammadid wasn't paceful neither [https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=F3QzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151&dq=Almohad+enslaved+Hammadids&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwja5a-rrMWFAxUyiv0HHZyXCSUQ6AF6BAgFEAM#v=onepage&q=Almohad%20enslaved%20Hammadids&f=false] there are many other sources... Abd al-Mu'min didn't harm Bejaia for the simple reason that it surrendered, Unlike the major Almoravid cities (Marrakesh, Fez, Tlemcen ...)[[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 23:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::And what's more intresting according to Julien, is that the Atlas plains in Morocco were literally depopulated by the massacres of the berber tribes there in order to settle the Hilalian tribes from central Maghreb and Ifriqya, saying: "He brought the whole western Maghrib into the domain of the Arab nomads". leading to the Arabization of Morocco. This is in fact part of his anti masmouda policies to consolidate the power of his dynasty. I Think this is way more intresting to put into the article if it isn't already there.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::If there is any cherry picking here it would be your input ... Clearly. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 23:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Your sources are not reliable, since they don't treat the subject matter. I however gave you a very well known and reliable RS about the history of North Africa. I think i said everything. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::That was funny to be honest. Yo rejected all the sources very quickly for the simple reason that you didn't like their content. The sources are reliable of course. And I can give more. [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Did I already mention the fact that the more you reply and the lesser people will listen ? i suggest you stop wasting the time of the four editors who are against your edit.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::On a side note, here's what RS [[Amira Bennison|Amira Benninson]] in her book "The Almoravid and Almohad Empires" (p79) has to say regarding the Almohads and Tlemcen and the Hammadids:  "On the more pragmatic side, as a native of the Tlemcen area, ‘Abd al-Mu’min had a sense of affinity with the Zanata there and he had strengthened his position by recruiting many of them into the Almohad army. He had also cultivated some links with the Sanhaja Banu Hammad of the central Maghrib, who had initially offered their support to their Almoravid fellows during the siege of Tlemcen but then transferred their allegiance to the Almohads. This had given ‘Abd al-Mu’min nominal authority over the coastal town of Bijaya in the central Maghrib and drew the Almohad gaze eastwards to Ifriqiya where the power vacuum caused by the waning of the Zirid regime had been gravely exacerbated by the Norman occupation of the coast." 
::::::This is what Wikipedia is for, summerizing what '''RELIABLE''' sources say about a subject matter they treat directly.
::::::Cheers. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We all know that so what's your point? That he didn't massacre Central Maghreb towns? No he did and reliable sources confirm that. We also know that the Almohads choose Marrakesh as a capital and it remained the capital until their fall what, about that? (They attempted to Switch the capital to Rabat but they failed) [[User:TybenFree|<b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:TybenFree|Welcome]]</sup> 00:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

*This is clearly a continuation of what was started by [[Special:Contributions/196.200.133.150|this IP]] (using similar words). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
*:I agree, seems [[Wikipedia:I just don't like it|he just doesn't like]] the fact that Mu'minids were not from present day Morocco and didn't not in fact feel sharing power with its tribes. The kind of Pov that wastes your time and gives nothing valuable to the article... [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

== Start date ==

The "start date" provided in the infobox until now is 1121, but this is not entirely sound, since the first caliph (Abd al-Mu'min) was only came to power in 1130(–1133) (see [https://books.google.ca/books?id=19JVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA340], [https://books.google.ca/books?id=CpRKEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA64], etc). The beginnings of the Almohad movement and some of its governing bodies were established before that of course, but in 1121 they were still little more than a band of followers with no significant political control in the region, and not even established at Tinmal yet. More simply: many reliable sources summarizing the period count 1130 as the start date, e.g.: [https://books.google.com/books?id=maQxEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39], [https://books.google.com/books?id=dFTJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT157], [https://books.google.com/books?id=MureDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT163], [https://books.google.com/books?id=un4WcfEASZwC&pg=PA126], [https://books.google.com/books?id=XjxyBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA48] and others. Ultimately, start dates for a progressively expanding state are often a little arbitrary, so an alternative might also be something like "1120s", "1130s". But to me, the sources above make "c. 1130" good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

:Unless I'm mistaken, the Caliphate wasn't established until the conquest of Marrakesh (1147). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think I've seen any references say that exactly. The conquest of Marrakesh consolidated Almohad control in the Maghreb and ended the Almoravid dynasty, but Abd al-Mu'min was recognized as caliph since 1133 at least and by the mid-1140s he was in control of most of the surrounding region. (Apologies for any repetition with my reply at [[Talk:Fatimid Caliphate]].) Again though, what convinces me is mainly what reliable references have chosen as the start date for summarizing purposes; I didn't make a systematic survey of everything, but looked at many of the usual sources. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::There are RS<ref name="Gerhard Bowering">{{cite book|author=Gerhard Bowering, Patricia Crone, Mahan Mirza|title=The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=q1I0pcrFFSUC&pg=PA523|year=2013|publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-13484-0|pages=523}}</ref><ref name="By Carlos Ramirez-Faria">{{cite book|author=By Carlos Ramirez-Faria|title=Concise Encyclopaedia of World History |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gGKsS-9h4BYC&pg=PA23|year=2007|publisher=Atlantic Publishers & Dist |isbn=978-81-269-0775-5|pages=23}}</ref><ref>Rodgers, Helen, and Stephen Cavendish, 'The Almoravids and the Almohads', City of Illusions: A History of Granada (2021; online edn, Oxford Academic, 20 Jan. 2022), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197619414.003.0003, accessed 30 Apr. 2024.</ref>  mentioning that Abd al-Mu'min proclaimed himself Caliph in 1147. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Hmm. There are others stating it as 1132/1133, like Bennison ([https://books.google.ca/books?id=19JVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA340], see also p.70), Buresi (Fierro ed., [https://books.google.com/books?id=MureDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT155]), & Laraoui ([https://books.google.com/books?id=dvl9BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA180]). Others don't state the year explicitly but appear to describe it as something following the death of Ibn Tumart rather than the conquest of Marrakesh: [https://books.google.com/books?id=c1ZsBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA38], [https://books.google.com/books?id=vvZKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT14], [https://books.google.com/books?id=PWZ9DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT226]. I'll try to look at more but I'm limited at the moment by time and access to some sources. Still, this is arguably a detail that doesn't need to necessarily determine the "start date" in the infobox. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 20:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Also in [[Encyclopaedia of Islam|EI3]], Viguera Molins, "Almohads", behind a paywall but quoting here: "[...] ʿAbd al-Muʾmin, the favourite disciple of the Mahdī Ibn Tūmart, who succeeded him in 524/1130 and was officially proclaimed caliph three years later." [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::With more reading, I think the divergence here may be due to "caliph" being used in two different senses. One is in terms of ''khalifa'', the successor to Ibn Tumart, and another is in terms of ''amir al-Mu'minin'', Commander of the Faithful. E.g. Abun-Nasr (1987, [https://books.google.com/books?id=jdlKbZ46YYkC&pg=PA94 p. 94]) notes in general discussion of the state:
:::::{{quote|Abdul-Mu'min himself was called the ''khalifa ''(caliph). Although in the context of the Almohad state this meant that he was Ibn Tumart's successor, to whom the Almohads referred as the imam, Abdul Mu'min also assumed the proper caliphial title of ''amir al-mu'minin''. He was the first non-Arab to be so called.}}
:::::And so regarding 1147, [https://books.google.com/books?id=7bMbEAAAQBAJ Maribel Fierro 2021] says (these are two quotes that should be on pages 42 and 74, respectively):
:::::{{quote|Marrakesh was taken in 1147. (...) At this time, or perhaps earlier, ‘Abd al-Mu’min began to use the title of caliph.}}
:::::{{quote|(...) Abd al-Mu’min seems to have started using the caliphal title of ''amir al-mu’minin'' after the conquest of Marrakesh. In an 1147 letter addressed to the ''talaba'', the Almohads and the people of Meknes, ‘Abd al-Mu’min refers to himself as ''amir al-mu’minin ayyadahu Allah bi-nasrihi wa-amaddahu bi-ma‘unatihi'' (Prince of the Believers, may God help him with His victory and provide him with His help), a formula that became standard in subsequent letters.}}
:::::But for the overall start date in the infobox, personally I think the most helpful one is again 1130, per the examples in my first comment above ([https://books.google.com/books?id=maQxEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA39], [https://books.google.com/books?id=dFTJAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT157], [https://books.google.com/books?id=MureDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT163], [https://books.google.com/books?id=un4WcfEASZwC&pg=PA126], [https://books.google.com/books?id=XjxyBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA48]). There are examples of the other dates being used in summaries too (e.g. [https://books.google.com/books?id=VC1UCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA40], [https://books.google.com/books?id=Sf8UIynR0koC&pg=PA84]). But marking it as 1147, based on an estimate of when he started using one caliphal title in addition to another, is more likely to cause confusion to readers than any of the other suggested dates, as the years of Abd al-Mu'min's reign are always counted as 1130/1133 to 1163 and a lot of Almohad history happens before 1147, including the start of their intervention in al-Andalus, the conquest of other major cities, etc. 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::[https://archive.org/details/historyofnorthaf0000juli/page/104/mode/2up?view=theater] What about Julien ? [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Haha, yet another slightly different claim, thanks for finding that. I guess what this means is that there is reasonable uncertainty about when that title was used. Fierro (quoted above) also implies it's not a sure thing in her wording. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 16:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::It certainly looks that way (I can't think of any other reason that would explain the divergence). Maribel Fierro also seems to be the only one to offer some evidence of when "amir al-Mu'minin" was first used, something worth looking into. At this stage, I don't know which is more helpful in the infobox, though I think we can all agree that 1121 (currently in the infobox) is incorrect. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 17:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Agreed, this date corresponds to the date of his proclamation as the Mahdi, even before establishing his base in [[Tinmel]], per the [[Fatimid Caliphate|Fatimid caliphate]], i suggest we remove Tinmel as first capital of the Almohad Caliphate and put Marrakesh instead. Just like the start date of the Fatimid caliphate corresponds to their conquest of the Aghlabid capital (as it neither corresponds to the establishment of [[Ikjan]] as a base for the Fatimid ismaili movement nor the Mahdi [[Abd Allah al-Mahdi Billah|Abd Allah]]’s reveal and coronation) 
:::::::according to RS Abd Al-Mu'min was proclaimed caliph of Ibn tumart as leader of the Almohad movement, which was succesful under his leadership in overthrowing the Almoravids. 
:::::::The Almohad movement ended when the Almohad caliphate started. That is to say when Marrakesh was conquered and made capital for the new state. So i agree with Bitton that the start date should be 1147. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. The Mu'minid dynasty, the Almohad caliphs, came to power in 1130-33. That should be plenty enough for a general start date. Debating what exact titles were used at what time is just getting into the weeds. There isn't a more "official" foundation date to determine here without getting into [[WP:SYNTH]] territory. We should merely be following the most common date range used in reliable sources, and 1130-1269 seems to be it, from what I've seen so far.
::::::::Likewise, there's no reason to remove Tinmel from the infobox when it was the capital of Abd al-Mu'min, the first caliph, for many years. We should not remove information that isn't inaccurate or confusing. (Unlike Ikjan, where the confusion comes from the fact that no Fatimid caliph ever reigned there; and even that could be mitigated with some kind of note.) [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks Prazeres, in that case then I think I’ll just go with changing the current start date in the infobox. 1130-1133 seems reasonable for me if he was indeed proclaimed as "prince of the faithful" as both Julien and Kaddache mention. [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 22:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::According to Kaddache p 258, Abd Al Mu'min took the title of Caliph in 1133, 3 years after the death of the Mahdi ( which was kept in secret) [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 23:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks. So how would everyone feel if I changed the start date to "c. 1130" or "c. 1133"? (Suggesting the "circa" because the occultation period after Ibn Tumart's death makes the exact date a little complicated in context, while the details are explained in the article; but I'm fine if people want to leave out the "c.") [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 06:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::PS: We can still mention what Fierro says in the body of the article. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 06:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::c 1133 for me because RS agree that the Mahdi’s death was kept secret until the council of 10 then the council of 50 agreed that Abd Al-Mu’min would be proclaimed caliph of ibn Tumart and prince of the faithful.  [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)



{{Reflist-talk}}

== Wrong information ==

describes the flag of Marrakesh? The claim that the red flag was the flag of the city of Marrakesh is a weak claim, and I would go as far as calling it wrong.
The claim is based on two factors, one being the flag of maruecos and the other of Fez, which might lead one to think it's the flags of the two cities, however, this assumption is incorrect.
According to my personal research, I have found three reasons why it's not the city's flag:
The first reason is that the title of the book itself, "Libro del Conosçimiento de todos los regnos" (Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms or Book of All Kingdoms), is self-explanatory.
The second reason is that Don Rodrigo, the last Visigothic King, in the 11th-century book "Portraits of Kings", refers to Tariq as "rio de miramomilin rey de maruecos", meaning "prince of the faithful king of Morocco". Although Tariq had never held those titles, they referred to Morocco as "Maruecos", not the city of Marrakesh, since it's well known that Tariq was in Tangier.
The third reason is Fernan Gonzales' poems, Yes right, thee fernan gonzales who was a military leader and died in 970, He mentioned the name "Maruecos" in some of his poems, referring to Morocco specifically, this was even before the city's foundation in 1061.
Ps: I'm not arguing about whether the flag was used or not; I'm simply clarifying that the name "Maruecos" wasn't a reference to the city but rather to the kingdom, specifically during the civil war period when Almohad Sultan Abu Dabbous reigned in Marrakesh and its surroundings, staying as the legitimate Sultan of Morocco, while Ya'aqoub al-Marini ruled in Fez and had all of northern Morocco under his kingdom. He would soon conquer Marrakech to unseat him... <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/102.38.8.5|102.38.8.5]] ([[User talk:102.38.8.5#top|talk]]) 21:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)</small>

:Please see [[WP:OR]]. None of the above is useful. [[User:R Prazeres|R Prazeres]] ([[User talk:R Prazeres|talk]]) 21:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
::My mistake yet it doesn't delete the fact that the name ( maruecos) existed before Marrakesh was founded, that is a fact proven and not a research built on linked sources so I hope you consider it because it clearly conflicts with what's written [[Special:Contributions/102.38.8.5|102.38.8.5]] ([[User talk:102.38.8.5|talk]]) 21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

== Masmuda aristocracy ==

The article mentions "Abd al-Mu'min thus transformed the Almohad movement from a Masmuda aristocracy to a Mu'minid dynastic state." which is untrue.

According to "Almoravid and Almohad Empires, Amira K. Bennison · 2016": ""The support of the Masmuda tribes was crucial to the success of the Almohad movement... The almohad shaykhs, remained the most important political chiefs and military commanders in the empire for a century or more, despite the incorporation of other military elemnts into the Almohad army" "the Almohad movement had a distinct and revolutionary berber agenda that identified the Masmuda as the new chosen people.


From "The Cambridge History of Africa Tomo 3 1975": "This empire had been the creaton of the Masmuda tribes, who remained the conquering aristocracy, and sought to retain exclusive priviledges." "Leaders of the Masmuda Almohads held important positions in the army and as provincial governors".

So we can see that even if zenata koumiya and arabs tribes were added to the army of the empire, the goverment of it remained Masmuda. Examples of this would be Ifriqiya, which was authonomous from the central power in Marrakech, and governed by the Masmuda Hafsids. The viziers and the council of the caliph were mostly Masmuda aswell, Masmuda had priviledges in taxation, education, governance, held important positions, and their language was encorauged in political and religious matters. When the caliph Al Ma'mun insulted Ibn tumart, the Masmuda sheiks killed him and replaced him with their brothers.

Almohads are the empire of the Masmuda, with almohadism as their doctrine, which was also centred around Masmuda. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 23:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:What you're doing is called [[WP:CHERRYPICKING]]. The sources that you cited say a lot more than that and neither of them contradicts the sourced content that you removed. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 00:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:It does clash directly with my source form the University of Cambridge. The article says "Abd al-Mu'min thus transformed the Almohad movement from a Masmuda aristocracy to a Mu'minid dynastic state." Which is just untrue, the Masmuda were kept as the aristocracy of the empire.
:Instead of just deleting my article try to explain why a source from a prestigious university like Cambridge should not be taken in account. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 00:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::Don't delete sourced content that you don't agree with or simply don't understand. Describing it as {{tq|untrue|q=yes}} doesn't mean that it is. Now. if you're suggesting that the Caliph and founder of the empire, as well as his children (the sayyinds), were less important than some cheikhs, then, there isn't a lot I can say to convince you otherwise. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 00:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Caliph Al Ma'moun was assasinated by the cheiks and replaced with his brother, so yes, they did have the power to decide over the caliph, they are not "some cheiks" like you and this article are trying to make it look. You are clearly biased since you are denying sources from a high prestige university which is way more reliable that just some random books. Yes it is "untrue" if you do not like it you can complain to Cambridge, I come here with reliable sources then the changes must be done. You are not giving any argumentation against the changes im trying to make, just deleting the changes because you feel like it. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 00:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|they did have the power to decide over the caliph|q=yes}} this is too ridiculous to entertain.
::::If you took the time to read the article, you would have come across this simple fact: "To appease the traditional Masmuda elites, he appointed some of them, along with theirs sons and descendants, to act as important advisers, deputies, and commanders <u>under the sayyids</u>".
::::{{tq|You are clearly biased|q=yes}} I think we're done here. I will wait for others to weigh in. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 01:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::How it is ridicolous? I just gave you an example of how a caliph was assasinating by the Masmuda just for disrespecting Almohadism. Masmuda had the religious and administrative monopoly, the whole empire revolved around Almohadism which only Masmuda were allowed to discuss about. I am giving four reliable sources that claim Masmuda as aristocrats even after the inclusion of different ethnicities into the Almohad army. This article tries to make it like if there was a conflict between Abd al Mumin and the Masmuda, when there wasn't. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 10:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::By the way I was told that you M.Bitton has been here deleting edits since 2014, seems like you are monopolizing this article. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 11:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::::You should stop edit warring. The content you're deleting is backed by two reliable sources. Masmuda support and tribal influence doesn't change the fact that Abd al-Mu'min established a dynasty. The personal attacks are also unhelpful. [[User:Skitash|Skitash]] ([[User talk:Skitash|talk]]) 01:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::You are [[Cherry picking]], I am adding high prestige sourced information and you are deleting it. By the way the phrase "Abd Al Mumin transformed the Almohad movement from a masmuda aristocracy a muminid dynasty" is not present in any of the sources given. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 10:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
::The Masmuda remained an important sort of aristocracy, but unlike the movement which they effectively led under Ibn Tumart, they no longer had power, which was the prerogative of Abd Al Mu'min and his dynasty, strongly supported by his own Kumiya tribe and the Hillalians, as the article clearly showcases. So per RS, Abd Al-Mu'min did in fact took power from the Musmuda aristocracy for his own and his successors after him.
::@[[User:Skitash|Skitash]] @[[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] This new account's [[Wikipedia:Hostile|hostile attitude]], use of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personnal attacks]] and especially his emphasis on "Cambridge" reminds me of a recently banned sock on the Almoravid TP. This looks like sockpuppetry. Can you please check this out ? [[User:Nourerrahmane|Nourerrahmane]] ([[User talk:Nourerrahmane|talk]]) 13:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::You are now accusing me of things I have never done, this is my first and only account. I have never made any changes in any Almoravid article. I did not made any personal account, I just pointed out that it seems like you have monopolized this article, since you have been reverting changes for a long time. And you do not want to accept my changes even tho I gave 4 different sources that backs my edits. I put enphasis on Cambridge because it is a prestigious university, nothing more.
:::You also claim that the Masmuda no longer had power, which again, I have sources that says the opposite, the changes I made are literally direct quotes from the books that I used as a source, im using objective information and being honest. The last edit I made I did not even delete anything from what was already written except a slight change in the previous parragraph which I was not been able to find in the given sources. The rest of changes that I made are sourced information that I added.
:::So im not deleting any information, I am just adding new information, with four different sources, but you still reverting my changes just because you feel like it. [[User:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|Carlos Hernández Cabrera]] ([[User talk:Carlos Hernández Cabrera|talk]]) 19:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{re|Nourerrahmane}} I don't know whose sock they are, but their "[[#c-Carlos_Hernández_Cabrera-20250615111200-M.Bitton-20250615012000|I was told that...]]" statement speaks for itself. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)