Talk:Aghlabid dynasty

message: Why do you continue to add again a not reliable map marked as disputed? What do you want to demonstrate? Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a propaganda source for arab nationalists with complexes of superiority. Sardinia ha never been under aglabyd rule for example.
[]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daygum (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake map marked as disputed

message: " ...al-Nuwayri's book Kitab nihayat l'adab (the book of the ultimate goal in the art of humanities), his work is highly gobbitable." Well, if it's even somewhat gobbitable, I must procure a copy! --Wetman 06:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aghlabids. 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/20110629173030/http://archnet.org/library/dictionary/entry.jsp?entry_id=DIA0005&mode=full to http://archnet.org/library/dictionary/entry.jsp?entry_id=DIA0005&mode=full
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) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone please look into correcting/completing the following sentence under the Decline & Fall heading? "Abu Abdallah's forces were unable to forced to flee their base at Tazrut and reestablish themselves at Ikjan." Thanks 216.81.235.67 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks for spotting that. There may be other typos that occurred while I was making these recent large edits, I appreciate anyone having a second look. R Prazeres (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Decline & Fall 

message: that map is definitely made up 2A02:C7C:507D:0:D0E9:DA5D:90B5:62F7 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It's original research that completely misrepresents the source, that explicitly only talks about "raids". L2212 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox map is taken directly from a scholarly historical atlas and confirmed by two other reliable sources with near-identical maps, as was already discussed above, so your assertion here that it's WP:OR is patently false, and your bizarre assertion that the other, unrelated map added in good faith here by another editor is not WP:OR is also plainly false, as the information is not contained in the source cited by the file description. You seem to be too distracted by your single purpose in this article to assess verifiability properly. R Prazeres (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The atlas does not show those informations at all. It says completely different things, as I've wrote before. Again, I have the book and I could link the pages if necessary. And about the confirmed by two other reliable sources with near-identical maps part, I suggest you read Wikipedia:SYNTH. If such a map it's found somewhere else then use that as a source by making a new file. You can't combine the atlas and whatever you want just to make a point. L2212 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It does and you not agreeing with it won't change a thing, so I suggest you drop the stick. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and I don't think I will. Since you are still repeating verifiably valse things, I'm starting a discussion at the POV noticeboard, I'm writing it here to let you know just in case the tags there are not enough as a notification. L2212 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  pinging you here (just in case you missed my reply on the noticeboard). M.Bitton (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Since @R Prazeres likes to tell anyone that disagrees with him that they "don't understand", I will post the relevant paragraph (from WP:OI) here too:
"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article.
Writing "the source it cites doesn't contain any similar map, so seems to be WP:OR" is what shows that one does not understand the policy. Also, we have a clear bias and double standard here, considering the fact that the new map was removed while the one in the infobox, that's not just OR but an intentional misrepresentation of the source (and I can upload the relevant pages and link them here, if necessary), is still there. L2212 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you missed this important part: the source doesn't even mention the Aghlabids. The other map has been discussed and the consensus is against your claim, period. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

text: You indeed don't understand(!) the purpose of the policy, since obviously historical maps and flags contain ideas, arguments, or facts, much like the text itself, unlike the bulk of images on Commons. Photos are obviously not WP:OR, but independently asserted information in images (like maps with information superimposed on them) are obviously still subject to the verifiability policy, otherwise everyone would use images to insert unverifiable claims and disingenuously use the argument you just made. If you actually believe that maps don't need to be verifiable, then why object to any maps at all? I could add a map in Commons that shows the entire world under Aghlabid control, with its capital in New York City, and by that logic it wouldn't be WP:OR. See my earlier comment above (since you decided to needlessly start a new section), as M.Bitton also repeats. R Prazeres (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and images 

message: Just a heads-up: As noted already, Chiorbone da Frittole nominated several map images for deletion at Wiki Commons. Due to an apparent bug, the deletion requests were not properly listed and no automated notification was posted to this page, but you can find and comment on the deletion request at the current nomination page here.
To be clear, content/POV disputes are outside the scope of Wiki Commons and as far as I'm concerned the deletion requests are a transparent and inappropriate attempt to bypass consensus here (along with the other disruptive behaviour we've witnessed), but I'm providing the link as a courtesy to other editors here. R Prazeres (talk) 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons deletion request

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, it shouldn't be a place where spreading idiocies.
This article is based on fake infos, Sardinia never been conquered by arabs and islamic people, the island was part of the Byzantine empire, not even an object of arab facture has been found on the island. 62.10.218.150 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sardinia? What? 

message: I'm starting this discussion to highlight this cherry picking. Compare what was added to what the source says:
Also note that the used source is not about the primary topic and that  is already mentioned in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2024 

message: For the sake of consistency with similar articles, I think we should amend the article title to "Aghlabid dynasty". (See "consistency" at WP:CRITERIA, and compare with things like Hafsid dynasty, Ayyubid dynasty, etc.) It's also slightly clearer for readers who are not immediately familiar with the term "Aghlabid". "Aghlabid Emirate" could also work, though it's more common for sources to simply refer to the "dynasty" (judging by personal experience and possible ngram evidence). 
It's a small and I think non-contentious change and thus may not be worth a full WP:RM, so I'm asking first to see if there are any objections/preferences? Courtesy ping to  and , who edit here regularly and/or have made substantial recent additions. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with your suggestion. The title should be changed to "Aghlabid dynasty" for clarity and consistency with related articles. Skitash (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Out of interest, have you considered this ngram? M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's merely incidental given that one wouldn't repeat the word "dynasty" during any extended discussion, so the plural noun nearly always get much more hits in general, as is true for others (e.g. , , ). So the current title is by no means wrong, but should we be consistent with other Wikipedia article titles, which currently follow another pattern? R Prazeres (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Although not a formal WP:RM, I agree with and support this move. My only quibble, as with all the other similar cases, is that we don't distinguish the dynasty from the state. Something like 'Aghlabid emirate' would IMO be better, but common usage in scholarly as well as popular literature is AFAIK skewed in all similar cases of minor regional dynasties towards 'X dynasty'. Constantine   ✍  18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing some hesitation, I'm inclined to maybe put this to an RM instead to confirm consensus. I noticed that there's a similar case at Kalbids. As for the "dynasty" vs "state", I agree it's an annoying little confusion on Wikipedia. Part of how we can think about this is that WP:COMMONNAME is really just about identifying a natural topic, rather than necessarily defining (in this case) the historical entity concerned by that topic. I don't personally prefer "[...] dynasty" per se, it's more that I don't see any reason this article would be different from others. Frankly, if the Wikipedia community wanted, it could choose to instead title all these topics by the plural noun (i.e. "Aghlabids", "Almohads", "Ayyubids", etc; as Encyclopaedia of Islam does). R Prazeres (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that nobody has objected to it, try a bold move and see how it goes. I also just noticed that the first sentence of this article is about the dynasty. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Ok I'll move it, and if issues come up we can revert and RM. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Aghlabid dynasty"?