Jump to content

Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.47.190.141 (talk) at 10:38, 27 February 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

I'll review this. Steelkamp (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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?
  • "7th-8th century." Should this be changed to "7th or 8th century"?
  • "The Umayyad Caliphate was aware of the importance of the spread and settlement of Arabs in the Maghreb." Importance to who?
  • "anti-Kharijite wars". Is there a Wikipedia page this can link to?
  • "Ifriqiya (modern-day Tunisia)". This note could be shifted up to the first mention of Ifriqiya.
  • "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.
  • "Under the Marinids, the Arabs grew in importance in Morocco." Same here. I think the time period should be mentioned.
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • "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?
  • Is Harry Norris a historian? Should this be prefaced by "Historian Harry Norris"?
  • "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?
  • "The Arabization took place around Arab centres". What does this mean? Is this referring to Arab centres in the Maghreb?
  • "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."

Verifiable with no original research

Broad in its coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated, if possible

General

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

Some important details to add

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)[reply]

This is called Wikipedia:Original research, and therefore does not belong in Wikipedia. Skitash (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 on the Arabic language and its spread clearly states "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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_migrations_to_the_Maghreb&oldid=1210590600"