Talk:Arab migrations to the Maghreb

GA Review

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)

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)

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)

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)

Colonialism

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)

does the author or authors 'enjoy' driving home how the maghreb was arabized, especially 'genetically', since it seems to be between indigenous and migrants, especially without proof 'main' point in paragraph, after paragraph, vs other contexts, such as any divergent cultural developments between indigenous maghrebians and arab migrants. it shouldn't emphasize 'miscegenation', especially on such scale, without fleshing the topic out with other povs, such as of indigenous maghrebians familiar with the history.. 12.146.12.12 (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

who could expand on the topic?

i found it somewhat upsetting to read paragraph after paragraph of how large scale migrants from relatively far away, arrived but not just in high numbers with altered customs, but demographic change 'genetically'. i got the impression the vast majority of the locals not just welcomed mass immigration from arabia, but preferred them almost as much as indigenous 'country' men.. it would seem, if intermarriage was that common, it ought to have occurred in other places where either large-scale migration has happened, especially under colinialism, but does not tend to be the case,ime, perhaps other than in sitations where the newcomers overwhelmed a much smaller population, but even so, it sounds implausible that a majority of people would easily marry others of other ethnic groups, with exceptions, as many people recognize newcomers as such, and don't 'just forget' about it. this goes both ways too, in that migrants tend to form enclaves, rather than becoming 'intimate' with the ethnically indigenous population, imo..

as for expanding on the topic, it could be by highlighting also cases of 'non' intermarriage, and how other locals at the time reacted to the waves of migration, other than embracing it 'genetically' and/or 'demographically', as the article seems to imply due to emphasizing 'demographic' and 'genetic' change, ime.. 'genetically'.. 12.146.12.12 (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)