# Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb

This review is transcluded from Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


### Good article criteria
#### Well written
Optional: There are a lot of duplicate links which should mostly be removed, particularly for duplicate links within the same paragraph. Duplicate links may be left as is if they are in different sections though. Duplicate links can be easily idenfitied using duplinks-alt.
"During the earliest Muslim conquests..." Can you give a timeframe for this in years?
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"7th-8th century." Should this be changed to "7th or 8th century"?
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"The Umayyad Caliphate was aware of the importance of the spread and settlement of Arabs in the Maghreb." Importance to who?
 Done Skitash (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"anti-Kharijite wars". Is there a Wikipedia page this can link to?
There is no page about this unfortunately but I specified who the war was being fought against. Skitash (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"Ifriqiya (modern-day Tunisia)". This note could be shifted up to the first mention of Ifriqiya.
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"To weaken resistance by Arab tribes in Ifriqiya, the Almohad ruler Abd al-Mu'min transferred them to Morocco in large numbers and settled them in the Atlantic plains." This sentence could mention the century/decade if that is known. I know it already says the century in the section title but I think it should be written in the paragraph as well.
 Done Skitash (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
"Under the Marinids, the Arabs grew in importance in Morocco." Same here. I think the time period should be mentioned.
 Done Skitash (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
"The appearance of the Arabs added to the complexity of the ethnic population of Morocco". I think this can be reworded. It's not exactly clear what it means.
 Done Skitash (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
"The Almohad ruler Abd al-Mu'min". This can be simplified to "Abd al-Mu'min" seeing as he is already introduced earlier in the paragraph.
 Done Skitash (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
"and also dominated the valleys of the Moulouya, Draa, Sous, as well as the Tafilalt oasis region." What is this referring to? Should this sentence be split into two?
 Done Skitash (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't look like that sentence has been changed. Steelkamp (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I confused it with another sentence. It is fixed now. Skitash (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Is Harry Norris a historian? Should this be prefaced by "Historian Harry Norris"?
 Done Skitash (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
"A major effect of the Arab migrations to the Maghreb was the Arabization of its population. In addition to changing the population's demographics, the migration resulted in the Arabization of the native Berber population." Could these sentences be simplified? Aren't these sentences saying the same thing?
 Done Skitash (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
"The Arabization took place around Arab centres". What does this mean? Is this referring to Arab centres in the Maghreb?
 Done Skitash (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
"The migration of Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym in the 11th century had a much greater influence on the process of Arabization of the population." I suggest changing this to "The migration of Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym in the 11th century had a much greater influence on the process of Arabization than the migration beforehand."
 Done Skitash (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


#### Verifiable with no original research
www.globalsecurity.org seems to be an unreliable source as per WP:GLOBALSECURITY and should be replaced.
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
For reference 27, is it possible to use a modern day source instead?
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
There is a citation needed tag which needs to be fixed before this review is passed.
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
"According to al-Ya'qubi, in the mountains near Cyrenaica were the Arab tribes of Azd, Lakhm, Judham, al-Sadaf, and other Yemenite tribes on the eastern mountain, and Ghassan, Judham, Azd, Tujayb and others on the eastern mountain." This sentence should be reworded. It refers to the eastern mountain twice?
 Done It was meant to say western mountain. Skitash (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
"of the conquerors and their descendants with very few outsiders. Land grants were given to these soldiers, creating a landed Arab aristocracy with extensive landholdings, cultivated in many cases by slaves from". This part should be reworded. It is closely paraphrased from this source.
 Done Skitash (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


#### Broad in its coverage
#### Neutral
#### Stable
#### Illustrated, if possible
Optional: I suggest adding alt text to the images to aid with accessibility.
 Done Skitash (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


### General
Looks good enough to me now. Will pass this review. Steelkamp (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Luis del Mármol Carvajal's figures are greatly exaggerated when we know that they considered the Banu Ifran (Berber tribe) to also number a million individuals. Let us add to this that, for example, according to the same author, the Berber language was still predominantly spoken in Morocco, the population of the Maghreb after these invasions was largely Berber according to this author but also according to Leo Africanus and Ibn Khaldoun.

This information has been omitted, however, you insist on the number of Hilalians who came to settle in the Maghreb.

But for that you would have to have read the books talking about these events to know: Histoire des berbères et des dynasties musulmanes de l'Afrique septentrionale, Les prolégomènes d'Ibn Khaldoun or L'Afrique de Marmol.

The Adam Truth (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This is called Wikipedia:Original research, and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. Skitash (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Nope since I am relying on the point of view of historians but also on the books that you yourself use for your article (and which you obviously do not have in full).Your own source proves that the numbers are exaggerated. But once again, you didn't read it in its entirety. We call it "cherry picking". The Adam Truth (talk) 16:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you take another look at the article. Marmol is not the only historian who estimates such figure. Skitash (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Marmol or other, we understand that the figures have been greatly inflated when we know that Ibn Khaldoun affirmed that the Berbers were largely the majority in the Maghreb even after these Arab invasions. You insist on the Arab demographic contribution but you do not talk about the demographic state of the Maghreb after these invasions because you are not neutral. In fact, this means that these millions of Arabs have always been a very small number. minority compared to the Berbers, this does not agree with modern figures. The numbers are inflated. Modern historians have also confirmed this, but you do not cite them, you are not neutral. The Adam Truth (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't recall bringing up any majority or any of the nonsense points you have just mentioned. A widely accepted figure remains widely accepted. Moreover, I'm not inclined to waste any more time discussing with an obvious SPA, particularly given your similar cross-wiki abuse activities in other Wikipedias. Skitash (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Already answered this. Seeking to reestablish the truth on subjects that various propagandists attempt to distort is not shameful or incriminating, far from it. Good night. The Adam Truth (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is shocking. Crackpot research, fabricated figures, and impossible facts to know are being presented as well established facts. This article is pseudoscience. There is simply no feasible means by which 150,000 medieval Arabs could be classified with such a precise and distinct ethnicity, to have participated in a specific event unless it was a documented battle. 150,000 Arabs, migrated to here. Did you dream that number up? What is your source? Did they dream that number up? Not to mention what does 'Arab' actually mean when applied to these hypothetical medieval people? Certainly not the pan-Arabism of today? Just odd race science better fit for racism forums than a Wikipedia article.
There are things that you can prove about history and there are things that can only exist as pure speculation. This article is purely speculative. 50.47.190.141 (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is no argument here. What exactly is your point? "150,000 Arabs, migrated to here. Did you dream that number up? What is your source?" I can't tell if you're being sincere here or not. Perhaps you could consider taking a look at the two sources supporting this fact in the infobox and the first paragraph in #Rashidun and Umayyad era (7th–8th century)? A source that specializes in the Arabic language and its spread clearly states that "North Africa was conquered by the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, but only some 150,000 troops settled there, while the greater number pressed on to Spain. North Africa was thinly settled and the Arabs stayed in cities like Tangier along the coast, although some of these settlements were later pushed to rural areas such as Jbala."[1][2]
This appears to be a matter of personal preference rather than factual disagreement. The article is supported by around 62 references, while no sources or counterarguments have been provided on your end, aside from baseless opinions. Skitash (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Your source is a linguist, who stating in a book, a non academic published book, just a personal book anyone can write, that makes a one sentence mention of a large Arab army settling in North Africa. This author is not stated to have any credentials that would make them an authority on this subject. Then in the very next sentence, the author writes "the greater number pressed on to Spain". Which could mean anything from a few, a hundred, a thousand, or all 150,000 Arabs left. Which would in the same breath debunk any notion that there was a permanent settlement of Arabs in North Africa. Which would be required to establish the notion that there was an "Arab migration". Not an Arab army march through this area. But of course the author makes no attempt to be precise about such a critical claim, because they themselves do not know about the subject and are just spreading a rumor they picked up somewhere else. Predictably this article and it's citations turned out to be exactly what it smelled like. Someone dreamed up a number. Someone else read the number. Then went on to fabricate an entire thesis on it. No one in that chain of citation has any authority or primary source to backup anything.
This is your source for the entire article. I want readers to understand that. To not get blind-sighted by the user Skitash claiming to have "62 references". Which is obviously a desperate attempt to use the weight of spamming references to legitimatize their article. Which is also obviously a complete fabrication. 50.47.190.141 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an academic source. It was published by the Georgetown University Press and it written by Mary Catherine Bateson (keep in mind that this person was an anthropologist that had a PhD in linguistics and Middle Eastern studies). Furthermore, it appears to me that you have failed to interpret the sentence correctly. The source clearly implies that the greater number of troops (another force exceeding 150,000) proceeded to Spain while specifically only some 150,000 settled in North Africa. It does not in any way suggest that the larger group comprises troops from within the 150,000 that settled in North Africa. Either way, there are plenty of sources supporting this widely accepted figure which I will add to the article shortly.
Race and Nation: Ethnic Systems in the Modern World – "It is estimated that Arab invasions brought about 150,000 people to North Africa during the early conquest of the seventh century"
Language Planning and Policy in Africa – "The process of linguistic Arabisation took place during two periods. The first wave of Arabs (perhaps 150,000) spread their religion with a fair degree of Arabisation"
Africa: A Geographical Study – "The native population of the Maghreb includes Berbers, Arabs and Jews. The two main Arab invasions of the Maghreb brought in about 150,000 men in the seventh century A.D..."
The rest of your argument seems like ad hominem to me and therefore bears no merit. Your exclusive emphasis on the 150,000 figure and your claim that "This is your source for the entire article" indicates that you have failed to read anything in the article beyond the infobox where the 150,000 number was mentioned. Skitash (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It’s not migration, it’s colonization, Arabs invaded then moved in, displacing and assimilating the natives, even enslaving people, just like Europeans in the Americas Leonardo Kotek (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Steelkamp (talk · contribs) (reviewer), Skitash (talk · contribs) (writer?) ... 

Ref 50. Jongeling, Karel; Kerr, Robert M. (2005). Late Punic Epigraphy: An Introduction to the Study of Neo-Punic and Latino-Punic Inscriptions. Mohr Siebeck. p. 71. ISBN 978-3-1614-8728-6. : the quoted passage has nothing to do with the supported assertion. here is page 71 as it can be consulted : [3]
S. Chaker, « Arabisation », Encyclopédie berbère [En ligne], 6 | 1989, document A252, consulté le 15 août 2024. URL : [4] is an excellent source on the subject. It gives a different version of Arabization on an alleged Punic substrate and dismantle this theory:
If Arabic had covered Punic in certain areas of Maghreb, it is certain that the difference in substrates (Berber on one side, Punic on the other) would appear clearly in Maghrebi Arabic and linguistic geography of the Maghreb: the influence of Punic – if Punic there had been – should be significant in the regions concerned; which is not the case. Furthermore, it would be very unlikely that the Arabs found on their arrival an important use of Punic, a language entirely different from Berber and close to theirs, without them having mentioned it in their numerous precise and detailed descriptions of the Maghreb. Nothing allows, through the Arabic sources, to perceive in North Africa a linguistic reality other than the Berber (and Latin in the Romanized and Christianized urban world). Arab authors are even extremely clear on this point: the deep Maghreb, the rural Maghreb and tribal is Berber and nothing else..
The article must therefore be corrected on this point. Thanks. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)


### Arab migrations to the Maghreb
To support the passage from Punic that would have facilitated Arabization, recourse to a source not focused on medieval studies was used n° 50: Evans, Martin; Phillips, John (2007-01-01). Algeria: Anger of the Dispossessed. Yale University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-300-10881-1. The surviving Punic language of the Carthaginians was also closely related to Arabic and its continued usage eased the Arabization process. This source replaces a previous diversion that I had pointed out above.
This work deals with the contemporary period and only outlines the ancient history of the country; it cannot therefore serve as a source.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Context_matters Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. For example, a publisher's web site is likely to be reliable for an author's identity, date of publication, etc., but not necessarily for a critical, artistic, or commercial evaluation of the work.
I can cite an example of a centered, academic, peer-reviewed source on the subject of Arabization which is: 
ES. Chaker, “Arabisation”, Encyclopédie berbère [Online], 6 | 1989, document A252, Online since 01 December 2012, connection on 29 September 2024. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/2570; DOI: link. It completely denies the thesis of Arabic superimposed on Punic.
Dans l’état actuel du débat, il paraît cependant raisonnable de retenir plutôt la thèse « berbériste» et de suivre en cela les réserves des arabisants eux-mêmes (W. Marçais, 1929) vis-à-vis de la théorie de la survie (significative) du punique et de son maintien jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Si l’arabe avait recouvert du punique dans certaines zones du Maghreb, il est certain que le différence des substrats (berbère d’un côté, punique de l’autre) transparaîtrait nettement dans l’arabe maghrébin et la géographie linguistique du Maghreb : l’influence du punique — si punique il y avait eu — devrait être sensible dans les régions concernées ; ce qui n’est pas le cas. Il serait de plus très improbable que les Arabes aient trouvé à leur arrivée un usage important du punique, langue tout à fait différente du berbère et proche de la leur, sans qu’ils l’aient mentionné dans leurs nombreuses descriptions précises et fouillées du Maghreb. Rien ne permet, à travers les sources arabes, de percevoir en Afrique du Nord une autre réalité linguistique que le berbère (et le latin dans le monde urbain romanisé et christianisé). Les auteurs arabes sont même extrêmement clairs sur ce point : le Maghreb profond, le Maghreb rural et tribal est berbère et rien d’autre.
The article must therefore not promote minority and marginal theses by means of cherry-picking from a non-centered source. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this source (Algeria: Anger of the Dispossessed. ) was added to address the previous problem of misuse of source that I had raised. This cherry-picking did nothing to make the information reliable. Monsieur Patillo (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Skitash Why were the maps added back again? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I just thought they would enhance the article's quality. For the image in the infobox with Umayyad army routes, I found a source with a map (on page 28) depicting similar routes. As for the Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym migration map, the image cites "Histoire des berbères et des dynasties musulmanes de l'Afrique" by Ibn Khaldun in the bottom left. Additionally, the content in Banu Hilal corroborates the map's claims, identifying the tribe's movements (e.g. its borderland campaigns in southern Iraq and Syria before relocating to Upper Egypt, east of the Nile river). Skitash (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
you should add this to both the images' captions here and source on wikimedia commons 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)