Talk:Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni

message: Sufferin suckatash
His last name is Raisuni, Not Raisuli. In the wind and the lion film they did a mistake with his name.
I bet every Moroccan knows Raisuni. & The Raisuni family name is well known too... I used to live in a building called "Nihad Raisuni". I've also got a friend who's last name is Raisuni. History books etc...
Furthermore, check this link http://www.warflag.com/shadow/windlion/windlion1.htm
Scroll down the page and you'll see his picture & corrected name. Sabertooth 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Britannica article  . Obviously, the reason they put (Raisuli) is because that's what foreigners thought his name was.Also read this . Search in the text for Raisuli and Raisuni. That may be a reliable source... or may not... define me a reliable source in the internet or other than that, then I'll try to find it. Sabertooth 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, what you have so far are hints that "Raisuli" is not strictly correct, from the fact that "Raisuni' is preferred in the online Britannica, and is used exclusively in the naval academy thesis, etc.  What's really needed is some reliable source directly addressing which is the right form.  Then the question would become which form should be given priority in Wikipedia (WP), "Raisuli" as the far better known form, or "Raisuni" as the technically correct, native-tongue form (assuming that it is, which I am inclined to believe, by the way).  I'm not sure, off hand, how WP normally handles such cases.  I do know that many proper names have, by historical accident, gotten English forms that are not strictly correct, and are in WP and most encyclopedias under the familiar but "wrong" form: for example, "Ottoman" as against the technically correct "Osmanli".  "Raisuli" perhaps should win out in the article-title, on that basis, with the correct from being noted somewhere in the body of the article.As far as I can make out, "er" (in "er Raisu_i) is just a mistake, perhaps originating here].  I feel sure that "er" is just a mistake for "el".  Can we at least agree to use, for the title, "el-Raisu_i", or "al-Raisu_i"? -- Lonewolf BC 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that is original research and not verifiable by other editors, so editing on that basis is disallowed.  (It also does not necessarily follow that "Raisuli" is wrong.)-- Lonewolf BC 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting about "er".  The article ought use the proper written form, though. -- Lonewolf BC 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NAME

message: (Copied to here from Sabertooth's talk-page, for wider partaking -- LW)
What you, yourself know, or believe you know, is not an acceptable source on which to edit Wikipedia.  You might be right, but you need to find a reliable source that says "Raisuni" (as against "Raisuli") is the correct form, so that the information can be verified by anyone else.  That "Raisuni" is given preference in the online Britannica  is suggestive, but the point is not actually addressed in the article there, and "Raisuli" is given as an alternate.  At the same time, Google-hits show better than a 10-to-1 preference for "Raisuli", showing that that form is overwhelmingly the better known one, even if it is not strictly correct.As an aside, I also note that Britannica uses "al-Raisu_i".  I don't know where this "er Raisu_i" comes from, but it's the first I've ever seen of it, and I must wonder whether it is a mistake -- perhaps even a simple typo by the originator of the article, who might have meant "el".Anyhow, you must find a source saying that "Raisuli" is wrong and "Raisuni" is right.  And again, take care not to break the 3RR -- and avoid edit-warring in general (of which I confess my own guilt in this case, too). -- Lonewolf BC 01:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Britannica article  . Obviously, the reason they put (Raisuli) is because that's what foreigners thought his name was.Also read this . Search in the text for Raisuli and Raisuni. That may be a reliable source... or may not... define me a reliable source in the internet or other than that, then I'll try to find it. Sabertooth 01:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, what you have so far are hints that "Raisuli" is not strictly correct, from the fact that "Raisuni' is preferred in the online Britannica, and is used exclusively in the naval academy thesis, etc.  What's really needed is some reliable source directly addressing which is the right form.  Then the question would become which form should be given priority in Wikipedia (WP), "Raisuli" as the far better known form, or "Raisuni" as the technically correct, native-tongue form (assuming that it is, which I am inclined to believe, by the way).  I'm not sure, off hand, how WP normally handles such cases.  I do know that many proper names have, by historical accident, gotten English forms that are not strictly correct, and are in WP and most encyclopedias under the familiar but "wrong" form: for example, "Ottoman" as against the technically correct "Osmanli".  "Raisuli" perhaps should win out in the article-title, on that basis, with the correct from being noted somewhere in the body of the article.As far as I can make out, "er" (in "er Raisu_i) is just a mistake, perhaps originating here].  I feel sure that "er" is just a mistake for "el".  Can we at least agree to use, for the title, "el-Raisu_i", or "al-Raisu_i"? -- Lonewolf BC 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that is original research and not verifiable by other editors, so editing on that basis is disallowed.  (It also does not necessarily follow that "Raisuli" is wrong.)-- Lonewolf BC 02:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting about "er".  The article ought use the proper written form, though. -- Lonewolf BC 16:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raisuli/Raisuni 

message: How can he be a sherif and a berber at the same time? Sherifs should be Arabs. Berbers are like a whole different people. Sabertooth 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can a pig be the son of a hawk? 70.183.80.165 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherif and Berber? 

message: Who paid the ransom to him...US or Morocco? AThousandYoung (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, it was the US though I don't have a ref handy. -- Fayssal-F - Wiki me up®  15:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Morocco paid the ransom under British and French "persuasion."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.162.122 (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ransom

message: jebala is a region not a tribe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.214.193.81 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  jebala is a region not a tribe  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060522074256/http://www.bartleby.com/67/2418.html to http://www.bartleby.com/67/2418.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091116215206/http://home.att.net/~VTangier/Pages/Harris.htm to http://home.att.net/~VTangier/Pages/Harris.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)