Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hello, just saw that you reworded alot of my contributions to the Abbasid Dynasty and some of its claimed descendants, I fully agree that the removal of genealogical sources was justified, but can we keep the information from the more contemporary book by Mahfouz Abbasi: 'The Abbasid Emirate of Bahdinan'? Considering it is not a genealogical book and a modern historical text. Thanks. Ramy515 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "more contemporary", but in any case, since this is the English Wikipedia and the English sources I added are reliable enough, (mostly) publicly accessible, and cover the same information, I don't think there's any advantage to citing Arabic sources that will be less accessible or harder to read for most other readers and editors here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, thanks again for your time. Ramy515 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting out the date issue with [[Ibn Danan Synagogue]] so quickly and effectively. I didn't see a 'thank' button for some reason, but it was worth a thank you. Gould363 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just an fyi, This looks like a WP:BLOCKEVADE by User:GloriousFigure. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that looks likely, judging by the edits at Alexandria expedition of 1807. Not sure if it's enough to bring to SPI yet, but it might become more obvious after more edits. Thanks for bringing it up. R Prazeres (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Why is my edit being removed, all sources agree the men were killed and women and children were enslaved?

you reverted by edit in abbasid caliphate because its "unnecessary", if so then why does abbasid revolution have it and not abbasid caliphate?

the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbasid_Caliphate&oldid=prev&diff=1333080357 Ziggzevenzigma

(talk) 09:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who added it at Abbasid revolution or why, but I've just removed it there too. As far as I know, it serves zero purpose to embed another language template inside an already dedicated language template. There are countless articles on Wikipedia that use the langx template and I haven't seen any others using the script template inside them, including in some of the highest-quality articles on Wikipedia (featured articles). R Prazeres (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The new section in the Talk:Almohad Caliphate is the third one about the same topic, always coming from new editors who often add nothing new to subject aside from pushing the same POV. At least they can edit in an already existing topic. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't notice it was a comment. Sorry. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I just want to make it make it clear that deleting others' comments without the appropriate reasons can probably land you in serious trouble instead of the other editor. It should be reserved for situations that fall clearly under the ones outlined at WP:TPO (if uncertain, err on the side of caution and leave it). It may not hurt to leave a message in the talk page history via a dummy edit or leave a short message on the other user's talk page to express that you misunderstood the circumstances, just to show good faith, in case this comes up at WP:ANI later. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the user went to WP:ANI, l left a reply there. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the previous changes made to the page because, they lack of accuracy, there is no universally accepted consensus on the clear origins of the Doukkali.

Cornell's estimates, drawn from 1990 studies, are based on 16th-century descriptions by Leo Africanus regarding the size of warrior groups, which were then projected onto overall population figures. These calculations are approximate and contested, as censuses from pre-modern eras were often unreliable, and the category of "Arab pastoralists" likely encompassed numerous locally integrated or hybrid communities rather than solely unmixed migrants. The assertion that three-quarters of the population was Arab by 1500 primarily indicates the prevalence of nomadic groups in controlling land, grazing areas, and armed forces, rather than a complete ethnic displacement. Across generations, processes like settling down and intermingling have further blurred these boundaries.

Additionally, the evidence from David M. Hart stems entirely from modern-day fieldwork, without sufficient historical context, leading to an overly simplistic view of the organizational structures among Arabized tribal groups. Within the Doukkala tribal alliance, Hilalian subgroups were established by Hilalians following conquests, but there is no substantial proof of Hilalian dominance shaping the tribe's genetic makeup. Moreover, many Doukkala subgroups, such as the Chiadma, Chtouka, and Ouled Frej, have preserved customs indicative of Arabo-Berber fusion, including the profoundly Berber rain ceremony known as "Taghenja," which directly contradicts any notion of purely Arab cultural or religious adherence. It's also important to highlight that the Chiadma and Chtouka differ from the Chaouia, as they represent Arabo-Berber communities that experienced a trajectory akin to the Râgraga, and they maintain a ritual honoring the Berber rain deity Anzar, referred to as "La’arossa Chta" (Bride of the Rain). These elements reveal significant flaws that undermine the idea of the Doukkala being exclusively Hilalian in origin.

Lastly, Riley James's research represents subpar anthropological work, riddled with conflations, reliance on outdated racial theories, and unreliable assessments of physical traits. He demonstrates a limited grasp of Islamic societies in western North Africa and includes various errors about Islamic jurisprudence (for instance, claiming seven wives). He also struggles to distinguish between ethnic Arabs and those who have adopted Arab culture. Tanitsbride (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prazeres, can we get this to Wikimedia commons ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly, no, as it's copyrighted. But someone can still create a new map that replicates the same information (just not the exact same graphical style/details; similar to what we've done for other maps). R Prazeres (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its the first RFC i am doing. Unfortunately the user is not neither willing to move his position nor to stop edit warring. Since you commented on the discussion i cannot use the 3O anymore. So the next step would be a RFC. Bananakingler (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm happy to advise on writing an RfC. I'm busy at the moment, but what I'll do is post a comment later today at Talk:Rabat (so that everyone can see it) suggesting what an RfC could look like. Usually it's a something very simple, but I'll explain more later. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry to bother you, I'm trying to support MolookLegacy with their appeal but I suspect we're going to hit an impasse with a language barrier sooner rather than later. Since you're a little familiar with their edit history, is there any merit to their claim that the article is incorrect & needs fixing?

They've given some sources on their Talk page but I've got no idea whether they're even usable.

Whenever you have a moment, would it be possible for you to please take a quick look/let me know?

If it's genuinely wrong then I can at least leave a quick tag or note the article Talk page for someone with more experience to look into it (I'm not going to proxy for them), but at the same time I don't want to create a false impression if everything is fine and sourced appropriately. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm having a look now and will leave a response on their talk page. (In short: I don't think anything they've said is helpful/usable.) R Prazeres (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Ottoman architecture is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Per exemplum -- Per exemplum (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ottoman architecture in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Per Exemplum 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
· · ·

Per Exemplum 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]