Talk:Tariq ibn Ziyad

message: the pure history does not have concerning the arabic speesh of Tariq ibn-Ziyad, as tarik ibn ziyad have burned no ships. because its army could not understand arabic, because they were berber, the Arabs have crossed with moussa ibn nusayr in 712  to Spain, therefore why do you  thinks that a berber will speak a arabic with  army of berber-speaking in the time of the war.i will improve it later.Aziri 13:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do NOT add any reference to burning of ships that does not cite either a credible translation or original Arabic edition of al-Maqqari. The English translation accepted by all modern historians is that of Pascual de Gayangos, readily available on Google Books, which does not have any mention of burning any ships; I have cited the exact page where this speech of Tariq's occurs so anyone can verify this for themselves. The "Medieval Sourcebook" version is not an authoritative translation. And no other Arabic or Spanish history mentions any such thing either. MisterCDE (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: It appears there is a mention of burning the ships by al-Idrisi, for which I have pointed out where exactly that is to be found in his Arabic text. As al-Idrisi was born in Ceuta, one might think he based his account on some local tradition ... but he does not even give the same name for Tariq's father as other historians. As Ceuta was completely abandoned for a time in the centuries between Tariq and al-Idrisi, it is unlikely that reliable local traditions survived. MisterCDE (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Aziri

message: The entry needs a lot of clean-up; it reads as if someone wrote it using a translation engine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.183.60 (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Adriana

message: The right arabic pronunciation of the name is Tarik bin Ziyad, rather than Tarik ibn Ziyad.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zozo2kx (talk • contribs)  18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is English Wikipedia, so we should not take in consideration the pronunciation in other languages when deciding the names of the articles. That being said, we must consider that the spelling "Tarik ibn Ziyad" is the standard one in English, so to speak; it has been adopted broadly in English usage, so it should not be changed. And if you compare with other Wikipedias in Western languages, they all use the form "ibn". Rsazevedo  msg 18:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I wrote some modifications on this text because I have noticed false things. Today, any historian can give the birth date and birth place of Tariq.
You will find very interesting things on French wikipedia and on  Britannica Encyclopedy  online.
Friendly yours.FF  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.244.139.5 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: message

message: Some user just deleted a complete section from the article with no valid reasons (it's sourced) also deleted complete guy name (sourced) i'm reverting, unless good reasons, stop vandalizing. -Dzlinker (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That user was me. The reasons for deleting it are:
# The "source" is just a website which contains on it selected extracts from other works. It is not in itself authoritative.
# In particular, the "source" website has extracted the supposed "Tariq's speech" from a book where, some pages earlier, the warning is given that the speech is fictitious. But the website does not contain this warning, and so must be regarded as unreliable.
# That being the case, although the "speech" is part of historical discourse and so deserves at least a mention, I had already mentioned that website and the problem with it in the "External Links" section, with a link not only to the website but also to an online eBook of the original work with a page reference to the warning. That is all that it deserves ... not quoting an enormous chunk of it within the article.
In addition, someone, whether yourself or another, has altered the name which appears at the introductory sentence of the article to quote some ancestors "Abdellah" and "Walghu", and for authority has cited a book "The Golden Age of the Moor" which is very poorly referenced. There are many differing accounts of the parentage and origins of Tariq, of whom the only thing that is generally (but not universally) agreed is that his nasab begins "ibn Ziyad". If you wish to add to the list of 3 possibilities that I set up, please do ... but do not cite "The Golden Age of the Moor" because the author does not say where he got that information from, for all we know he could be making it up. MisterCDE (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the speech ok, for the uncommon name Walghu, google gives 6 books citing him as Tariq ancestor , should be out there. -Dzlinker (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but not a single one of those 6 articles cites anything as authority for Tariq's complete nasab ... in fact it looks like each has exactly the same English words surrounding the name, suggesting they are all getting their information from a single source but not saying what that is. Possibly Ibn Khaldun ... but I don't have a copy handy to check ... I will leave it as it is for the moment, but if I get the time I will see if I can track this nasab down in a university library. MisterCDE (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  An arabic research on google gives: : "البيان المغرب في أخبار ملوك الأندلس والمغرب" (Al-Bayan al-Mughrib) by "ابن عذاري المراكشي" (Ibn Idhari) who is a well known historian. It gives this nasab: هو طارق بن زياد بن عبدالله بن رفهو بن ورفجوم بن يرتغاسن بن وهلاص بن يطوفت بن نفزاو (Tariq ibn Zyad ibn Abdellah ibn Walghu (or Rafghu) ibn Warfajom ibn Yartoghassen ibn Walhass ibn Yetefut ibn Nefzaou..). If you can find an english version of this book.. the arabic version could be downloaded from here (p.203) - Regards. - Dzlinker (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

text:  Thanks, yes that is most likely where these other authors have been getting it from ... I don't believe there is any English translation of Ibn Idhari, at least not the relevant section, but I will take a look at an Arabic edition when I get some time. I have seen conflicting stories about what Ibn Idhari and his modern editors have to say. However, I should add that while Ibn Idhari is a very respected source, he wrote 600 years after Tariq's era, and what he has to say about such a remote period is not considered necessarily reliable. For example, the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed.) refrains from giving any part of Tariq's ancestry apart from Ziyad. So, too, does Ibn Khaldun, who was an immediate successor to Ibn Idhari ... in fact he refers to Tariq as bin Zayd al-Laythi which is again something else unique. So I think we should follow the example of other encyclopedias (not just the one cited but also Britannica) and keep the headline as simply Tariq ibn Ziyad, and place the Walghu nasab in the list of the many other suggestions which have been put forward by other writers, some of whom were far closer to Tariq's time than Ibn Idhari. But I will still leave it as is for the moment, until I have a thorough read of Ibn Idhari. MisterCDE (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

text:  A quick scan of the downloadable Arabic text (thanks for the link) shows that the nasab you quote is indeed on p. 203, but on p. 22 is another long nasab which is different again. I need to check both in one of the critical printed editions, but it shows how unreliable medieval texts can be. MisterCDE (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Speak arabic? We could do with your help at Gibraltarpedia writing articles about North Morocco or translating stuff about Moorish antiquities. Victuallers (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, no ... I have a basic understanding of the Arabic found in historical texts, but I'm acutely aware that translation requires a sense of subtle meanings (and also religious and cultural meanings) which would escape me. MisterCDE (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and Speech deletion 

message: This may arouse very strong feelings and infighting but is posted here only for scholarliness. The article is very informative and gives multiple accounts of his ethnic origin yet the opening sentence of the article sets him as, without other possibilites, Berber. A more correct form would be: Tariq ibn Ziyad (Arabic: طارق بن زياد‎, died 720) was a Muslim Berber, Arab or Persian general who led the Islamic conquest of Visigothic Hispania in 711-718 A.D.
Mazighe (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am actually in the process of reading a book about African history and it says that Tariq was an African chief from North Africa that converted to Islam during the Arab invasion of Morocco. It also says that he was a general in the Arab-Moorish armies of Musa. His defeat of King Roderic apparently is what eventually led to the Moorish rule of Spain. I interpret that as suggesting that Tariq was actually Moorish. I'm not sure if I should leave a citation here or if I should go ahead and add the info to the wiki page. Romar731 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

text: You didn't give a single reliable secondary source. The AR wiki version is based on primary sources, it does not represent any modern consensus. See WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." and WP:PRIMARY, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.", "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.". -TheseusHeLl (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Berber/Arab

message: I have (again) removed the alleged "portrait" painting :File:Tariq01.png . This image is problematic on two levels. First, the claim that it is meant as a representation of Tariq is unsourced and unsubstantiated. This would need a reliable source. Second, even if such a source were provided, it would still have no encyclopedic use at the top of the article. There are (obviously) no real, authentic portraits of Tariq. He lived in a culture that simply didn't do portraits. If a 16th-century Italian painter created an imaginary portrait of him, that may be of some marginal interest in the context of a "legacy" section or something of the sort, but it still has no place in the infobox. It might tell us something about the way later centuries thought about Tariq (if that in turn could be sourced), but it tells us absolutely nothing about Tariq himself. We should never use later imaginary depictions of persons in infoboxes as if to imply they were what the person actually looked like.
Needless to say, the other picture that has repeatedly been inserted instead :File:Tarik ibn Ziyad - .jpg is even worse and even more useless. It's a cheap, artistically worthless scribble by an utterly untalented 19th-century book illustrator. It looks more like a Gaulish warrior from an Asterix comic than anything else. The idea that this piece of artistic crap could be of any information value for our readers is just breathtakingly silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, A good step forward, Sunrise. Faizan 12:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

text: NO, besides your "cheap" PoV (you should keep it for yourself) we have no solid reason for cutting it out. We should use it. -Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 22:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? Unlike you, I have given a reason for my editorial judgment. As long as you can't even be bothered to do as much, your opinion will of course be ignored. So, would you bother to to provide some "solid reason" for using this image? What, in your opinion, is the encyclopedic information value it offers to the reader? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: In response to the edit war over Tariq's ethnicity:
* The Encyclopaedia of Islam, calls him a Berber.
* Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia, ed. Alexander Mikaberidze, page 879, calls him a Berber
* The Berber Identity Movement and the Challenge to North African States, by Bruce Maddy-Weitzman, page 24, calls him a Berber.
* The Spread of Islam: The Contributing Factors, by Abū al-Faz̤l ʻIzzatī, page 384, calls him a Berber.
Source(s) calling him an Arab:
* The Arab Conquests of the Middle East, by Brendan January(this person has a MS in Journalism), not a historian and does not have any specialization in this time period.
* Arabic - Complete Idiot's Guide, by K. F. Habel(graduated from Modern Standard Arabic at the Defense Language Institute), not a historian.
Source mentioning him as Persian:
* God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, by David Levering Lewis, page 103, states that "some" historians claim Tariq was Persian, but was most likely from a Berber tribe.
Does anyone else have sources? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like he is Berber per RS. although Berber is a broad term --like Moor.--Inayity (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tariq ibn Ziyad's ethnicity 

message: . Taric (Tarik) has never been part of the Amazigh (Berber) anthroponymes and this name means absolutely nothing. In fact, he was Wisgothe prince heir, grandson of King Alaric, whose throne was usurped by an imposter. Taric was a refugee in Tamazgha (North Africa) where he trained units of agar-Berber mercenaries to reclaim his throne in Spain. There are so agar, Jews and Berbers also came to Spain in the year 711 it does not emphasize that no one had heard about neither Islam (the there was not at that time) or the Koran.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adbouz (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is necessary to wash the history from  Bedouin fake 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tariq ibn Ziyad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080103220336/http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi:80/gov_depts/port/port_index.htm to http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_depts/port/port_index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has claimed a death date of 720 ever since its inceptions in 2004, but this was never sourced. From the biography section, it emerges that little or nothing is securely known about his later years after the Iberian campaign, so one wonders how such a precise death year could possibly be known. I've added a "citation needed" tag, for the moment. When looking for sources, please watch out for the danger of circular sourcing. On Google books, I've so far found no source making this claim and published before 2004, the time it was first introduced here – but there are now multiple books from after that year that echo the claim, suggesting they all got it from here. What we do find in sources from before 2004 is an estimate of "c. 720", which may well be plausible. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date? 

message: This must be sourced, otherwise it's original reseaerch. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources needed for statements about lack of mention 

message: There's been some dispute about the strength of the sources in the Origin section. The references there look incomplete. But, in case anyone made the same mistake I did, the full references are actually given in the Literature section. I'm wondering if it might be a good idea to refactor the references on this page to make a clear link between the shortened references and the full ones, such as using anchors. It's a little complicated since the existing footnotes have explanatory notes alongside page numbers. I'm not going to change anything without input from other editors since there's already some consistency in the existing reference style and I don't want to force the use of specific templates if other editors object. clpo13(talk) 16:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in origin section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tariq ibn Ziyad. 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/20070222101917/http://www.nadorama.com/content/view/106/51/ to http://www.nadorama.com/content/view/106/51/
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) 11:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This medieval miniature has repeatedly been inserted on this page as a depiction of Tariq. I have repeatedly removed it because it had no proper source and there was no evidence where it's from and whether it really does mean to depict him. I now researched its provenance a bit further and I now can confirm that it does indeed represent Tariq.
This picture is from Ms. 7415 in the Spanish National Library in Madrid, fol. 27. This  article (Rosa María Rodríguez Porto (2006): María de Molina y la educación de Alfonso XI: Las semblanzas de reyes des Ms. 7415 de la Biblioteca Nacional. Quintana: Revista de Estudos do Departamento de Historia de Arte 5: 219~231), on p. 227, provides this source and identifies the contents as "Rodrigo y Tariq". This is from a medieval compendium of biographies of historical rulers. One of the features of this book is that it regularly presents pairs of pictures of two rulers on the same page, whose reigns are then described underneath. The manuscript is dated to c. 1312. 
This website features a much higher resolution copy of our miniature, with the context of the surrounding page, including the opposite image depicting Roderic. 
An online text of the work, though from a different manuscript and in a slightly different textual version, is available at e-spania. Scroll for the text saying "Rodrigo, el postrímero rey de los godos, fue perdido en la batalla de Sangonera"; this corresponds to the text just underneath our picture. The text speaks of the fight between Tariq and Roderic, so it is indeed obviously plausible that this picture is meant to represent Tariq. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor. Any image of Tariq is going to be imaginary. — LlywelynII 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval miniature 

message: has an article on Tangiers (q.v.) that gives Tariq's name as Ṭāriḳ b. Zīyād al-Laithī. Any idea where the nisbah comes from and if it's worth mentioning in the article? — LlywelynII 12:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopaedia of Islam

message: I'm going to revert, once more, the low-quality edits edit-warred in by User:Ozan33Ankara . Several issues:
* The term lieutenant, in the sense of a formal military rank, as used in that linked article and in the "rank" field of military infoboxes, refers to a junior position in modern armies. It has nothing at all to do – beyond the mere name – with the generic sense of "lieutenant" referring to a second-in-command of some senior commander. Listing it as a "rank" or as a defining attribute in the lead sentence makes no sense here.
* "Was sent to lead...": according to the text further down, he actually acted on his own initiative when starting the expedition into Spain. This would require a citation.
* "which he named after himself": I see no basis anywhere for the claim that Tariq himself imposed the name on that mountain. Again, this would need a citation.
* And again, the image :File:Tariq-ibn-Ziyad---w.jpg is utterly useless. It's ugly and artistically of quite low quality – even by the standards of medieval book painting – , comes from a cultural context completely alien to Tariq (half a millennium apart), and can serve no legitimate purpose to our readers without accompanying sourced explanation and comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone with a basic understanding of Islamic history knows he was commanded by Musa ibn Nusayr to conquer Hispania. As he was a slave or mawla of Musa, eventually freed and ordered to conquer Spain. Even Tim Mackintosh-Smith, A Historian who is well versed in Middle-Eastern history states so. "Inevitably Musa's gaze turned north, across the strait to Spain, and it was his Berber lieutenant and mawla, Tariq ibn Ziyad, whom he sent over the water in 711 to wrest the Iberian penunsila from the Visigoths". The The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military states the same "The success of this raid prompted Musa to order his lieutenant Tariq ibn Ziyad to launch an attack against the Visigoths". Berber lieutenant of Musa ibn Nusair, the Umayyad viceroy of Africa.. Those are all high quality. And many more sources state the same, but I did not quote those since they are not of the highest quality. Btw Tim Macintosh states he named the mountain after himself too. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Greetings, can someone confirm this part After Roderic came to power in Spain, Julian had, as was the custom, sent his daughter, Florinda la Cava, to the court of the Visigothic king for education. It is said that Roderic raped her, and that Julian was so incensed he resolved to have the Muslims bring down the Visigothic kingdom. Accordingly, he entered into a treaty with Ṭāriq (Mūsā having returned to Qayrawan) to secretly convoy the Muslim army across the Straits of Gibraltar, as he owned a number of merchant ships and had his own forts on the Spanish mainland 
It seems dubious.--Ozan33Ankara (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: Hello , can you please explain what you think the issue is with this contribution? The fact is not that the khutba was/wasn't the first example of Moroccan literature in Arabic. As written, the fact is that Abdellah Guennoun characterized it as such in a very influential and historically significant book. That's totally relevant. If you can rephrase it to indicate that Guennoun had a nationalist bent, that's great too. إيان (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fringe opinion (an asinine one at that). Guennoun can characterize whatever he wants as whatever he wishes, but it doesn't mean that we have to give his ideas space on the world's largest encyclopedia. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abdellah Guennoun on Tariq ibn Ziyad's khutba 

message: He is commonly known by his nasheed يا عابد الحرمين (ya abedal haramain)-oh slave of the holy places  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn al alm (talk • contribs) 19:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  song   

message: 1) Here's the section about his origin that, for some reason, you keep ignoring. 2) who is the author of you source (Brahim El Harram) and what are his credentials? 3) more important though, the source doesn't mention where Tariq was born, so why are you misrepresenting it? 4) You've also been asked to refrain from edit warring, so rather than keep adding what clearly doesn't belong in the infobox, I suggest you take your time to answer the questions that have been asked. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2023 

message: 2601:40:C780:2CC0:7804:5143:D10:3952 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2023 

message: Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad, a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh clan in Morocco's High Atlas Mountains that later converted to Islam. He joined Musa Ibn Nusair's army and became one of his best leaders. 2601:40:C780:2CC0:7804:5143:D10:3952 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources for that. SimoooIX (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tariq Ibn Ziyad 

message: Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad (Moroccan), a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh 2601:40:C780:2CC0:FCB3:4098:71A2:6587 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Not seeing what needs to be changed, other than adding "Moroccan", which is not appropriate to the time. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023 

message: @Hamamat32
1) don't throw expressions like "POV pushing" around. 2) when you remove content, you're supposed to explain why. 3) the same goes for content that you change. For instance: you changed  to  even though the source doesn't support your change. 4) If the overwhelming majority of modern RS, including the tertiary one (used to establish DUE), describe Tarik as a Berber, then so shall we. 5) the Dictionary of African Biography that you referred to in your edit summary describes him as a Berber (quote: One convert was Tariq ibn Ziyad, a Berber slave belonging to Musa, who rose to become his deputy governor. With an army of twelve thousand soldiers, most of them Berbers, Tariq launched the Muslim conquest of Spain in 711.). M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2023 

message: please refrain from edit warring and seek the very consensus that you mentioned in your edit summary. Also, don't make false claims (especially when reverting someone). M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2024 

message: Dear Wikipedians,I added an image to this page in the past, and it was reverted with the edit reason "This image is fictitious."  While I understand the concern about including only verifiable images, I noticed that other historical pages with images often include images that are believed to represent the subject, even if they are not verifiable photographs. i.e. Adam, Solomon, or Baldwin V.
I would like to discuss the appropriateness of using such images on this page.  Should this page be held to a different standard than other historical articles?  Is there a way to clarify the image policy for historical figures? ―  ☪  Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 22:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a formal policy about this, but there is an essay that can help you understand some criteria for when it may be appropriate to use a non-factual image and when it isn't: WP:PORTRAIT. So to answer your question: no, this page should of course not be "held to a different standard" – it should be held to the exact same standard, of using an image if and when a suitable image exists. Which may be the case for many other pages, but just happens not to be the case here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Image 

message: Hello I don't know I didn't find my previous request, maybe there is a technical problem. I said that Ibn Khaldoun never said Tariq Ibn Ziyad was from Algeria. That's a lie, there are people who can actually trust this since they never read Ibn kahldoun. Be careful. 160.164.129.34 (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024