÷

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Tunisia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tunisia (assessed as Low-importance). Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Berbers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Berbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerbersWikipedia:WikiProject BerbersTemplate:WikiProject BerbersBerbers ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zirid dynasty. 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/20160303182235/http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=596 to http://www.qantara-med.org/qantara4/public/show_document.php?do_id=596

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zirides v.980.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IbnTashfin97: Regarding this sourced content removal:

You have already been asked to explain your rationale on the talk page. Ignoring that advice and edit warring while leaving snippets in the edit summary won't do. Here's your chance to explain why you want to remove the sourced content from the article. Also, since you have been doing this for quite sometime, I will ask an admin (Doug Weller) and another editor who's familiar with the subject (Kansas Bear) to keep an eye on this article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zirid Dynasty.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mazing107 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need the permission to edit this page because of some historical inacurracies such as the origin of the Zirids and the map showing their extent

 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. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This section was recently added. After looking it over, I'm removing the section almost entirely, with apologies to Kabz15. Normally, I would try to do some initial clean-up (as I just did for the same section at Hammadid dynasty), but honestly the section is such a mess that it would need to be restarted from scratch.
First, it is almost entirely unsourced, which is enough grounds on its own to remove it. The only paragraph with citations relies on a claim that some of the cited sources actually contradict, and which has been discredited or rejected by other scholars. (Specifically: the fountain of lions in the Alhambra does not date to the Zirid period. This was the claim of one author only and has been rejected by other scholars in this field including Fairchild Ruggles, who's cited here. More recently, Felix Arnold, sums it up in his book (p. 283): "The theory of Frederick Bargebuhr that the lion sculptures date to the eleventh century has since been disproven.") Additionally, the section begins with a list composed of mostly external links, which should not be in the main body of the article as per WP:EXT, and some links to non-English wikipedia pages, instead of properly citing sources. Finally, the number of pictures is totally disproportionate and disruptive to the page layout; please see MOS:IMAGES for guidelines on how images should be used.
There is room on this page for a section like this, but please make an effort to follow Wikipedia guidelines for content, including citing reliable sources (and citing them for claims that they actually support). Rather than doing something like rapidly dumping as many mentions as possible of monuments linked to one of the Zirid states in some way or another, I'd suggest starting small and adding information about specific sub-topics one at a time, and with more careful attention to what the sources have to say. And in a similar vein: there should be separate (sub)sections for architecture under the Zirid Taifa of al-Andalus versus that under the Zirids in Ifriqiya, as these two are not automatically the same thing. Sincerely, R Prazeres (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: after removing it, I've taken some time to add some similar information back into the section using available sources, so that the section has at least a foundation from which to build on in the future, if helpful. R Prazeres (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R Prazeres, I don’t see any problems or violations of any Wikipedia policies for the map you reverted. You said that the territories were not controlled at the same time but I clearly marked out the time periods in which certain territories were controlled, furthermore I’m not familiar with any Wikipedia rule against this even so other pages such as the Omani Empire or the British Empire have maps like that. You also said that it was a personal interpretation which I think is definitely incorrect, please read the file description and you will find that this is not the case. Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Kabz15, you're right that the 11th century additions are marked, and that helps, but the territories around Fez were only controlled from 980 to 985, and the Hammadids were independent from 1015 onward, and you have no other indications about these factors, so what it looks like is that in the 11th century the Zirids controlled practically all of North Africa west of Egypt, which is incorrect. I have already warned you and discussed with you on another talk page your predilection for gathering textual mentions of victories and conquests at any date and then mashing them all together in one map, and trying to argue that this is accurate because it's "sourced". This is misleading, does not improve readers' understanding of the historical context, and is at least partly WP:OR.

If you want to make another map, I suggest you follow one of the maps published in a dedicated historical atlas which are far more comprehensive and precise, and stick to what those sources show. Your own personally-created maps are not a substitute for the work of actual scholarly atlases, when the latter are available. For example, one atlas that is partly available on Google Books and is used as the basis for several other maps on similar articles is the Atlas of Islamic History by Sluglett and Currie (see Map 10, p. 26, if possible). But that said, the current map, which has been present for some time already, shows the Zirids at the approximate apex of their territory in 980, so why do we need a new one? R Prazeres (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note for everyone that another map on this page for the later Zirid period (this one), does not name any sources. It's substantially similar to the representation of Zirid territory in Map 26 of the Sluglett and Currie atlas I mentioned above, so I've left it for now, but unless the map's own sources can be clarified this would be an argument for either editing it or removing it too. R Prazeres (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R Prazeres, thanks for the reply. Firstly I’d like to say that we don’t need to necessarily follow a single atlas that is only partly accessible. I would like to clarify that my map (as mentioned in the file description) is only partially based on the sourced maps one of which was from the book “‪A Short History of the Middle Ages: Fourth Edition, Volume 1‬‪Barbara H. Rosenwein‬University of Toronto Press,”(map4.4). It is an academic source and the author is a historian therefore it is definitely admissible. As for your point about the Hammadids, I would like to clarify that in the map legend I stated that those were the territories controlled by the Zirids in the 10th century precisely so that the reader understands that control over that territory did not extend into the 11th century, if there is anything I could do to make this more clear I am open to any suggestions. The fact is that all of the territory in north Africa including Ajdabiya but excluding Cyrenaica was controlled at the same time by the same ruler (see second source in the file description), whereas the current map doesn’t include Ajdabiya and shades the area before it and other areas as to indicate some sort of uncertainty regarding Zirid control over those areas, at least that’s what it seems like. The shaded black regions over Sicily and Cyrenaica give the reader and idea of the full extent of the extension of the Zirid realm while clarifying that those territories were not held at the same time as the others (through the black lines which is clarified in the map legend). Personally I think the map gives the reader a better understanding of the extend of the Zirids and is most certainly better and more informative than the current map which as I mentioned is poorly presented and doesn’t show the actual full extent of the Zirid realm and so on. If possible I would also like to get other editors opinions on the map as I think it represents the sources in the file description including the maps much better and clearer than the current one.

Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Adding on to my last comment it seems that it was until Barca not Ajdabiya that was controlled by the Zirids at the same time (see third source in file description), the only areas that were not controlled at the same time was the rest of Cyrenaica and Sicily which is a very small amount of extra territory. Considering what I’ve just said I don’t think it would be misleading to include those extra territories on the map given the fact that it is a very small amount of extra territory and as long as it is clearly shown that they were not controlled at the same time. I’d also like to say that I’ve uploaded a new version of the map to make it much more clear which areas were not controlled at the same time, hope this helps.

Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Kabz15, the current version of the file is little different from the old one, and no clearer, since there's no indication of what territories were no longer controlled in the 11th century, among other issues. Your guesswork interpretation of the sources is also not reassuring. E.g. per the sources in the file description, what counts as the "Cyrenaica" that was conceded to them in 1012, especially if now you're saying that another source claims Ajdabiya (which some authors would likely consider part of Cyrenaica) was already controlled before then? Has it occurred to you that different sources may have different and inconsistent claims about territorial control in these periods? Which claims are more widely accepted? How are you reconciling them or picking which ones to ignore on certain points? This merely adds to the confusion and highlights how your map is potentially impossible to make without your own WP:OR. If you're not able to fix the problems I'm pointing out to you, then I suggest trying to contribute in another way instead of this. I still see no compelling reason to replace the current map for something that is likely to be heavily dependent on an editor's personal research and estimations.

An alternative to trying to make a multi-period map for the infobox might be to make a map for the Zirid territories after Hammadid independence and after the formal attachment of Sicily to Zirid rule. By this point the Zirid territories are sufficiently different from the late 10th century that it makes sense to make a new map for this anyways. This could replace the current unsourced map at the end of the history section that I mentioned separately above (this one). Suggestions from other editors are welcome as well. R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“he highly appreciated Bulukkin's endeavours and invested him with the governorship of Barqa and Tripoli” - ‫مجلة كلية الآداب, Volume 10‬ Jāmiʻat al-Qāhirah. Kullīyat al-Ādāb‬, ‬“Animé de bonnes intentions à l'égard de Bologhine , il incorpora à ses Etats les territoires de Barca” ‪- Les Berbers dans l'histoire: De la Kahina á l'occupation Turque‬ ‪Mouloud Gaïd‬ Editions Mimouni. Those two sources state that Buluggin controlled Barca whereas this source states that he did not control Barca but did control Ajdabiya. There are another two separate sources in the file description that state that he controlled Ajdabiya. Control over Ajdabiya is certainly correct and consistent but control over Barca is debatable. I am open to make a new map for a single time period (980) as it would include Ajdabiya and would be an improvement as the current map excludes it, however I still don’t think shading Sicily to show that the Zirids gained control over it later on is a bad idea as long as it is clarified in the map legend, I also don’t see how the reader might think that Sicily was controlled at the same time when the shading and the map legend clarifies this issue. Another issue is that there isn’t any sourced map or indication as to what territories the Zirids held at the time they gained Sicily which was in 1036, it would be nice to include Sicily in the map or at least another map because as I mentioned before it would give the reader a good idea of the extent of the Zirids. I did manage to find a map in the year 1022 but that was before the attachment of Sicily.

Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Kabz15. Your legend does not clarify that shaded and non-shaded areas were not controlled at the same time. Some of the non-shaded areas (like Ifriqiya) were under Zirid control across both periods; so obviously the shading is not meant to show the full extent of 11th-century Zirid control, as only Sicily and Barka are shaded, and it's therefore just showing 11th-century gains. And if you're going to implicate multiple periods in the same map then you can't just show the gains while not showing what was lost (especially when large territories were lost), as this implies that the Zirids were in a continuous state of expansion and in stable control of earlier acquisitions, which is incorrect. That is the main problem.

If helpful: a typical method of showing two different periods on the same map is to use two different colours for the two periods and have a striped/shaded area with both colours on the territories that were held across both periods (like Ifriqiya). If you can fix your map along those lines, it will be tenable. But if you are saying that there are no published maps showing you the territories for the Zirids circa 1036, then how are you going to determine the full extent of Zirid territory at this time to begin with? The answer seems to be that you will rely on your own estimations (WP:OR) to fill in the blanks, and we will stray further and further away from something that is directly verifiable. That said, I don't know that there are no reliable maps to consult for the mid-11th century Zirids: it may be a matter of access to the right source, and I will keep an eye out for any that can help.

Please note that I'm not going to endlessly re-explain this; if you have difficulty understanding the issue above then just don't make multi-period territorial maps and focus on one period. (If you're making an updated map for the circa 980 period only, then the addition of Ajdabiya is fine in my opinion, I'm not overly concerned about that.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ve changed to a single time period including Ajdabiya. (Kabz15 (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, that looks more reasonable to me. I would still prefer a map that is more directly verifiable from published maps, but if other editors don't have a problem with this one then I have nothing else to add. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres: The map of the article is delusional, it is not based on any serious cartographic reference. Worse still, no source says that the Zirids occupied the south of present-day Morocco, for example
Cheers, YusAtlas (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton This map is exaggerated , it does not correspond to the sources. I replace it by the map used on French Wikipedia. I brought a source which justifies my modification. The issue of the map of the Zirids has already been discussed on the French version of Wikipedia... Please stop accusing me of vandalism. Thank you, YusAtlas (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less about some kiddies have discussed on the French Wikipedia. The map corresponds to what is published in the first source. M.Bitton (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t correspond at all. On the first source we can see that Tripoli for instance isn’t under Zirid sovereignty. I will repeat myself once again by saying that the map I introduced is better. YusAtlas (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep repeating that yourself, once you're finished, read the discussion just above this one. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no contradiction with what I said. What a POV-Pushing…WP:ADVOCACY YusAtlas (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't expect you to, especially after reading this. M.Bitton (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong and you are unable to argue so you make ad hominems. Just check this : https://books.google.com/books/about/Atlas_historique_de_l_Alg%C3%A9rie.html?hl=fr&id=tLMEoAEACAAJ. You are wrong, just admit it and stop this POVP. YusAtlas (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only I know for sure is that you keep adding WP:OR to articles despite being asked not to. As far as the map is concerned, I'll leave it to those who discussed it previously to decide, while noting that your objection is baseless given that both the map that you want to add to this article and the one that you removed from the Hammadid dynasty were made by the same editor (either you trust their ability and the sources that they used or you don't. You can't have it both ways). M.Bitton (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the maps both here and in the Hammadid dynasty article are indeed based on one editor's WP:OR (as evident in the discussion above and another elsewhere), but it's mostly in the details. I've had to talk that editor down to a more reasonable version on both occasions, in the interest of compromise, but the result is still problematic and there's no reason not to go back to the previous map, which is more directly verifiable from published maps, if it will enjoy more conensus. However, that should be done by adding to the discussion above, not by going around and edit-warring on multiple pages. A lot of other available maps (for this topic and others) also have shortcomings in one way or another, which is why it's not necessarily a clear-cut decision. R Prazeres (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both the map that they want to introduce in this article and the one that they removed from the Hammadid dynasty were made by "Kabyle20" (the current map on the Hammadid dynasty was uploaded by "Kabz15" and is just a copy of what's in the cited source). The fact that they are cherry picking from Kabyle20's maps without a valid reason is what puzzles me. M.Bitton (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, it looks to me like they're reintroducing the maps that were present for a while before Kabz15's maps. I did miss the recent edit where Kabyle20's map was introduced to the Hammadid article, but both you and Kabz15 have subsequently reintroduced Kabz15's map so I assumed the original objection was to that one. I can guess why they removed Kabyle20's map. (That one actually looks better to me than the alternatives.) In any case, this should be sorted out through a discussion obviously, not an edit-war.

In the future, if I have time (or if someone else does), we can make a Zirid map that is simply based once again on Sluglett & Currie's atlas (2014, Maps 10 & 11), since that source is reliable, detailed, and partially accessible to everyone. In this case, it would show essentially the same things but the borders would be more specific and not based on a Wikipedia editor's own original interpretations. Kabylel20's map is already mostly based on it, but there are things that could still be improved. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively (just thinking out loud), since the Fatimids's and the Zirid's territories overlapped, we could use a copy of the first source and leave it at that (though, from where I'm standing, it wouldn't look that different from the current one, expect perhaps for the legends). M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well we do have a good idea of which territories Buluggin was given to govern under Fatimid suzerainty, so if we present everything as Fatimid control, as that map does, we lose that useful information. The Zirids obviously didn't govern Egypt, so a distinction is necessary at some level. I suggest the Sluglett and Currie atlas because it does have clear borders that match what we can read in other sources cited in the previous discussion above as well as elsewhere regarding maximal reach under Buluggin. I'd have to check for clearer info on Zirid control in Cyrenaica (discussed above and shown in Sluglett and Currie's map 11), but that's the only potential point of uncertainty I can see. Alternatively, one could make a map of Zirid territory after their split with the Fatimids, but that would look very different (though it would be good to replace the unsourced map lower in the article). In any case, I don't personally have time to do this now and it's not urgent in my mind; the current map still gives roughly a good idea, as does the previous one. It's just something to do for the future. And as always, it wouldn't hurt to add this kind of information in the main text too. R Prazeres (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest restoring Kabyle20's map untill we come up with a better one, as the current is a complete WP:OR , and clear mashup of conquests and battles as Prazeres mentionned in the above discussion, or we're going to have similar edit war as happened in the Marinid page. Cheers. Toktok17 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but given that all the maps in question contain some non-verifiable aspects, I finally decided to put the time in and make three (!) new maps based on three different published sources relevant to three different (approximate) time periods. The borders are re-drawn manually, but any differences from the sources should be trivial. As always, there are some inconsistencies between the published maps, which is why I didn't try to combine them all into one map with different areas of shading or striping, etc. Instead, I've used the "switcher" template to include all three in the infobox, allowing readers to look at each individually or together. See this edit.

Notes on the first map: The only map that posed significant difficulty is the one for c. 980. I ended up making three versions of that one map, with what I hope are clear and detailed notes in the file descriptions (see links below). In summary: there are no published maps that unambiguously represent this one moment in Zirid history (probably because Buluggin's conquests lasted only a few years). The only detailed source I've seen for the 10th-century Zirids is the Atlas of Islamic History by Sluglett & Currie (2002), already mentioned above, which is also the source used for multiple other maps with consensus in similar articles (e.g. Marinid Sultanate and Saadi Sultanate). There are, however, two maps in this Atlas which appear relevant for this time period: Maps 10 and 11, on pages 26 & 28, [10]). The two maps show somewhat different things for the eastern border: the second includes Cyrenaica, the first doesn't. There's nothing in the book that really contextualizes this difference; the second one might represent a later stage, but that's not explicit and, as mentioned in previous discussion, there are text sources which clearly indicate control of Ajdabiya (at least) under Buluggin's reign (but possibly not Barqa, which is a question for another day). I've also found another published map (also used for the new circa 1000 map) which appears to show the same extent of Zirid control over Cyrenaica; the map isn't as explicit as I'd like, but to me it seems clear enough in context. Given these circumstances, it seemed reasonable to combine the territories shown in both Sluglett & Currie maps. At the other end, the western frontier is clear enough on Map 10 (it's not shown on Map 11), but I've still made minor changes to reflect multiple sources stating the three main cities Buluggin captured in the west: Fez, Sijilmasa, and Basra (a lesser-known town in the north). Apart from these two details, which are not clearly shown by the Sluglett & Currie map, the rest of the western frontier is per the source map, which is not the case for the previous maps considered above, each of which feature a great deal of personal editorial input that isn't verifiable under scrutiny.

For full sources and details, see the three versions of this map:

• version 1 (including Cyrenaica but not Basra in northern Morocco)
• version 2 (including Cyrenaica and Basra)
• version 3 (not including Cyrenaica or Basra; basically just Map 10 of the S&C atlas)

As long as we do want a map for 980, then in my opinion all three versions are acceptable; they're just different ways of resolving the inconsistencies between reliable sources. I've added version 2 in the infobox for now, as I'm inclined to consider it the most informative and complete. Feel free to discuss or recommend other preferences here. (I can also make changes to or new versions of the maps if there's a clear need for it.) R Prazeres (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the contribution. I do believe there are some improvements that could be made for the 980 map as the Umayyad territory in the west seems to be over exaggerated while the Zirid territory in the west is the opposite.

1. Buluggin conquered the city of Tlemcen in 973 from the Zenata (clients of the Umayyads) and in his 979/980 expedition he pushed them back as far as Ceuta.

• “Il enlève Tiaret investie par un chef rebelle ; en ramadan 362 = juin-juillet 973, il assiège Tlemcen qui avait accueilli des réfugiés zénètes, lesquels avaient cependant réussi à s'enfuir avant le siège. La ville prise, il accorde le pardon aux habitants, mais il les déporte à Achîr auprès de laquelle ils édifièrent une nouvelle cité qu'ils nommèrent Tlemcen “^[1]

• “He expelled the Zanata from the central Maghrib and took Tlemcen.”^[2]

2. During his expedition in Morocco his northward advance reached as far as Ceuta which he besieged. Ceuta is a small city, however the Umayyad territory in the north around this area seems over exaggerated and shows control beyond it. Furthermore the Zenata (Umayyad clients) were pushed back to Ceuta.

• “He advanced as far as Ceuta, but refrained from attacking it.”^[3]

• “En el año 980 el hachib envió una escuadra a Algeciras mandada por Chafar ben Hamdun con el fin de reforzar desde el puerto algecireño la ciudad de Ceuta que había sido asediada por Buluggin ben Zirí , soberano de Ifriquiya”^[4]

• “Le successeur al-Azîz confirme Buluggîn dans ses fonctions et il va même agrandir considérablement son domaine, en lui accordant les villes de Tripoli, Surt et A|dabiya, autrement dit toute la Libye actuelle (26). Nous ne savons pas ce que fit Buluggîn entre 975 et 979 ni où il séjourna, mais le 24 s'a 'bân 368 = 27 mars 979, nous le revoyons au Magrib qu'il traverse dans toute sa largeur jusqu'à Fès. Il va ensuite s'emparer de Sigilmâsa, et il poursuit les Zanâta jusqu'à Ceuta.”^[5]

• “Les Maghraoua et les Beni Ifren , refoulés par Bologguin , s'enfuient à Ceuta .“^[6]

3. The extent of the Zirids in Morocco reached to the Atlantic and included all or most of Morocco and not just Fez and Sijilmasa.

• “En 979 , Bologguin reprit la lutte contre les Zenata et leurs protecteurs omeyyades et s'empara non seulement de Fès , mais de tout le Maroc ( 980 )”^[7]

• “He took Tlemcen, repopulating Ashlr with its inhabitants, and then occupied Fes, Sijilmasa, and the whole of Morocco to the Atlantic coast from 979 to 980. He advanced as far as Ceuta, but refrained from attacking it.”^[8]

• “the Zirids campaigned westward, seized Fez, and briefly held most of Morocco by 980”^[9]

• “En 979 , Bologhine reprend la lutte contre la tribu berbère des Zenata ( Idjenaten en berbère ) ; il s'empare de Fès puis de tout le Maroc en 980”^[10]

Regards, Kabz15 (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres: I appreciate the work you put into this, but given the fact that we're having a problem with a single WP:ORish map, I don't think having 3 of them will help; nor is there a reason to treat this article differently from all the others from the same period. I hope you don't mind, but I went ahead and removed the other two. I also agree with "Kabz15" with regard to the western borders, since by 980, most of today's Morocco's (at the exception of Ceuta) was under the Zirid's control (plenty of sources to support this). If you want to adjust the map to reflect this fact, then I'll happily support the change, or alternatively, we can adopt Kabyle's map as per the recent persistent requests (which I assume is what prompted this initiative). M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting it to one map in the infobox is fine by me; I included all three to begin with partly so they would all be visible to judge. Though I don't see why the other two would be the problem; I would expect it to be the other way around. Previously I was going to agree with returning to Kabyle20's map, and it is better in terms of plausibility, but I looked again and the map also employs nearly the exact same WP:OR we've been dealing with: it's yet another collage of very general text quotes and a smattering of cited maps of which only one (Sluglett & Currie) actually provides relevant and reliable information. Many changes are made from the Sluglett & Currie map cited there but are not backed-up by precise sources; hence, more of the same, though with at least a clearer starting point.

Next recommendation:

I've added some comments and responses below to the points above about the new map, but if these are not satisfactory then my next recommendation is this: don't use a map attempting to show "980". There's simply no further usable sources for a map of Buluggin's reign. Any other user-uploaded map trying to illustrate Buluggin's conquests will be equally or more WP:OR than the new ones. (Noting again though, that two other versions of this map are available per the original source; [11], [12].)

Given that the conquests in the west were held for less than 5 years, it makes little sense to keep obsessing over showing them at the expense of verifiability, while a map showing the Zirid territories for most of their history is still absent. This just recalls the editor(s) who insisted that the map of the Marinid article show the entire Maghreb as Marinid because of Abu al-Hasan's temporary successes; you can certainly find plenty of text sources that tell you that (I've even seen one vague but published map for it), but it's not really verifiable if you can't find a reliable published map that allows you to forego original research, and it's not more helpful to readers if it's not representative of what the state in question normally looked like.

There are plenty of published Zirid maps for the 11th century if we want to stick to what most reliable sources have published instead. The map I made for circa 1000 ([13]) is directly based on one of those, with no further modifications. That would be the logical one to add instead of a complicated and controversial one for 980.

Comments about the new map: (current version)

What Kabz15 is trying to argue above is again the same WP:OR. None of the cited texts there actually contradict the new map in reality. Tlemcen and Fez are already included in Zirid control in the new map (at most I could adjust the border upwards to make inclusion of Tlemcen clearer, but the city isn't marked anyways). I myself would have expected a smaller Umayyad footprint, but to satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY I deviated no further from the original source map (Sluglett & Currie), except where I found multiple sources stating unequivocally that Buluggin "captured/held/conquered/etc" another town, as explained. Again, other versions without this modification are available. I found no sources, including the sources above which I already looked at, which state clearly any other cities or centers that were captured and held by Buluggin. If there are, then I'll happily make the same modifications and add the sources accordingly.

Furthermore, text statements with wording like "most of Morocco" or even "all of Morocco" are imprecise and of little use in the context of making a map of the 10th century, when modern Morocco doesn't exist and many of the areas that are part of it now were quite peripheral back then. You can't draw precise and verifiable map content based on the words "most of Morocco". Fez, Sijilmasa, and Basra easily is most of "Morocco" at this time: it's the important cities of the time, minus Ceuta. Any argument that "most of Morocco" means more (or less) than this is entirely up to personal interpretation of what that means, which defeats the purpose of the "no original research" policy.

Likewise, statements saying they "chased/pushed" the Zanata "back to Ceuta" merely describe events during the campaign, when he besieged the city, but it fails to indicate any lasting gains or occupation, so there's no reason to literally include all of the northern lands except for a tiny speck around Ceuta; if Buluggin failed to capture that city, why would he hold on to the countryside after he left? Again, I've stuck with what the cited map shows. It's not supposed to be an illustration of Buluggin's day-by-day position, it's supposed to be a general representation of Zirid control in the wake of his campaign. If you want to add something like arrows showing his further movements, that seems fine, or it could be done for a map in the main text where this campaign is discussed. For what it's worth, Abun-Nasr (1987, p. 75; see also to lesser extent Kennedy, Hugh, 1996, "Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Politicaly History of al-Andalus", p.96-103) states that Ceuta and Malila were permanently occupied by the Umayyads during this period, so some coastal area of control along here seems perfectly plausible even when reading everything else.

So in short, I have yet to see any objective evidence that would justify further deviations from the Sluglett & Currie map – the only reliable and relevant atlas here. Again, if this leaves the situation till too close to WP:OR, then I don't see why we wouldn't just switch to a map of the later period, which solves this problem. R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trouble with OR, there will always be someone who's not quite happy with the result. Having a properly sourced map (Sluglett & Currie map is a good choice) should put a stop to the endless discussions. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Are you inclined then to favour this map (or something similar), then? Otherwise, as said, you won't get anything closer to Sluglett & Currie without reducing even more of the Zirid territory shown. R Prazeres (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I mentioned Sluglett's map is because it's also easily accessible. It will probably reduce the territory, but the way I see it, that's the price to pay for peace and quiet. Let's see what the others think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Just for everyone's easy reference (because I'm sure it's hard to keep track): this map is the Sluglett & Currie (Map 10), without any changes. (PS: That linked edit is gross. Ugh.) R Prazeres (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R Prazeres, thanks for the reply. That would be great if you could make the possession of Tlemcen more clear as you said and also adjust the border in western Algeria so that it includes the Algerian coast as far as Tlemcen (and mark the city please) as that was the territory under the control of Buluggin.

“Buluggin twice defeated Zanatah tribes, and then occupied the territory they had once controlled along the Algerian coast as far west as Tlemcen.”^[11] Kabz15 (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kabz15, thanks for the response, but could you give your opinion on what M.Bitton and I have just said above this?

For your request about the map: that source talks about 971, a well-documented event but nearly a decade before 979/980, during which much could have happened and, by the looks of it, much did happen. The Cambridge History of Africa (vol. 2, 1979), for example, says that the coast all the way to Tlemcen rallied to the Umayyads again before Buluggin's expedition: "After favouring the Idrisids, Hakam II now drove them from Fez, sending Ja'far and his brother Yahya to recruit a following in the Maghrib al-Aqsa. This policy was continued after his death in 976 by Ibn Abi 'Amir, called Almanzor (al-Mansur) [...]. Although Ja'far returned to Spain, Yahya established himself at Basra on the Atlantic coast, the Zanata between Fez and Tlemcen rallied to the Umayyads, and in 978 the Maghrawa chief Khazrun b. Fulful evicted the last of the Banu Midrar from Sijilmasa. In 979 Buluggin replied with an expedition which captured Fez, and in 980 pursued the Zanata from Sijilmasa as far as the Umayyad base of Ceuta."(pp.624-625). Therefore, I still need to see precise/unambiguous supporting sources on the 979/980 expedition. That doesn't mean Buluggin didn't reclaim Tlemcen in 979 or that this is the whole story, it just means that it's not enough to satisfy WP:VERIFY for the purpose of further deviating from a map published by professional scholars. Hence the problem of selectively picking quotes that support a point, when you don't know what other sources have to say which might undermine the same point, and an example of why we must avoid WP:OR when making maps. R Prazeres (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, I did not notice the long and chaotic discussion above previously, but there's obviously some confusion there as there are plenty of reliable sources explicitly stating that the capital was al-Mansuriya from the start of Buluggin's appointment, for reasons that should be obvious. There are none I've seen that state otherwise, including any I could see above or in the article itself. The only source I see above that lends itself to ambiguity, Hady's article (p.359), is very poor support to the contrary, since he's evidently referring to the fact that the early Zirids were all originally from Ashir, hence their constant interest in the west; not that it remained the capital after they were given the viceroyship of Ifriqiya, and nowhere does it speak of a transfer from Achir to Kairouan circa 1014. Given the abundant information elsewhere (see below), there should really be no ambiguity. It's well known that Ashir was their original capital before the Fatimids moved east and it remained of central importance accordingly, but to claim it was the official capital between 972 and 1014 is WP:OR that contradicts plenty of reliable sources, including:

• Abun-Nasr 1987, p. 67:
  "The Zirids effectively ruled only Tunisia and eastern Algeria. They started by being the leaders of a Sanhaja tribal caste, holding power in the name of the Fatimids; but with the passage of time they became Arabized, and viewed themselves, much as the Aghlabids had done, as the local ruling dynasty of Ifriqiya. This transformation was influenced by the fact that, unlike the Fatimid caliphs, they did not reside in Mahdiyya, but in Sabra al-Mansuriyya, immediately outside the walls of Qayrawan and were constantly in contact with this main centre of Ifriqiya's Sunnite religio-political culture."[14]
• Talbi 1993 (EI2, Ṣabra or al-Manṣūriyya entry), p.288:
  "After al-Mu'izz's departure for Cairo, his lieutenant in the Mag̲h̲rib, Buluggīn, installed himself on Thursday, 11 Rabī' I 362/20 December 972 at al-Manṣūriyya, in the very palace which his sovereign had just left. This marked the beginning of the city's Zīrid period. Some decades later, in 405/1014-15, on the orders of Bādīs, merchants and artisans were officially transplanted from Ḳayrawān to al-Manṣūriyya (...). The resultant dissatisfaction in Ḳayrawān, now deprived of its economic role, was not perhaps unconnected with the revolt which broke out there in 407/1016 at the coming of al-Mu'izz b. Bādīs [q.v.] and which spread to al-Manṣūriyya, which was badly damaged. Finally, in 449/1057, under pressure from the Banū Hilāl, al-Mu'izz fled to al-Mahdiyya."[15](full pdf here)
• Jenkins (MET publication), 1993, p.84:
  "Buluggin took over the later of the two capital cities established in Ifriqiya by the Fatimids, Sabra al-Mansuriya, which remained the Zirid capital until 1057, when they abandoned the city for Mahdia, which in turn remained the Zirid capital until 1148 when it was captured by the Normans."[16]
• Bloom, p.234:
  "Mansuriyya was the Fatimid capital from May 949, when the government was transferred there, to 972, when al-Mu'izz departed for Egypt, and the Fatimids' Zirid successors continued to use it as their capital for another eighty-five years."[17]
• Huebner 2014, p.36:
  "In 973, Buluggin transferred the government from Ashir to al-Qayrawan (now Kairouan) in effect becoming the founder of the Zirid dynasty and its first emir."[18]
• Arnold 2017, p.42-43: "The caliph al-Mu'izz embellished the city further between 953 and 969, until he moved to his new residence in Cairo (al-Qāhira). Afterward Ṣabra al-Manṣūriya became the capital of the Zirid governors of North Africa. In 986 the Zirid governor al- Manṣūr ibn Buluqqīn added another palace, before the city was finally destroyed by the Banū Hilāl, a raiding Arab tribe, in 1057."[19]
• Ettinghausen et al 2001, p.274:
  "In its attempt to imitate their overlords - a practice that Buluggin's father, Ziri, had initiated long before his son became governor - this ruling house took over the North African capital of the Fatimids, Sabra al-Mansuriyya, less than a mile south of Qayrawan."[20]
• Brett 2000, p.353: "But the tale of the Zirids, who ruled at al-Sabra al-Mansuriyya and al-Mahdiyya for almost two hundred years, is not one of vigorous newcomers supplanting a decadent and demoralised regime."[21]
• Buluggin's entry at the Dictionary of African Biography also states it (p.9), though it confusingly provides the Hijri date (362):
  "Buluggin took up residence in the royal residence in al-Mansuriyya in 362," [22]

At most, there could be an argument for Ashir continuing to act as the western capital of some sort under Buluggin, if there are clear sources saying so (see maybe Brett 2017 p.85), but there's absolutely no argument for omitting al-Mansuriyya/Kairouan as the official capital from 972 onward. If there actually are genuine contradictions in the literature on this matter, then this needs to be indicated to readers. R Prazeres (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe the previous discussion as chaotic, but in any case, I don't have time to address this right now. All I can confirm at this stage is that Ashir was definitely the first capital of the dynasty (please see the previous sources that have been mentioned as well as the ones that are cited in the infobox). M.Bitton (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at those sources, like I said, and there is no such support in those sources for what is currently in the infobox. (The only one I can't verify properly is Julien's book.) So please specify what passages in any of those sources verify that and/or contradict the very explicit sources I've provided above. I'm not talking about whether Ashir was the first capital of the dynasty, I'm talking about post-972. R Prazeres (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is (no need to look further than the first source in the infobox). M.Bitton (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All it says is: "The Zirids' capital 'Ashir, featured an impressive palace complex.", which is true, and the rest before that is about Kairouan. So how does that refute the nine sources above explicitly stating where the capital/residence of the dynasty was moved in 972? Please take the issue seriously, even if you don't have time to respond right now.R Prazeres (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R Prazeres, thank you for starting this discussion. Just a little note: i think you've inserted the wrong link for the Encyclopedia of Islam. But anyway, honestly, i'm not super familiar with the subject of the Zirids but here what i could find in some of the books i got:

"In the mid tenth century a chief of the Talkāta named Zīrī b. Manād established the Zirid dynasty with its capital at a city called Ashīr in al-Maghrib al-Awsaṭ. The Zirids proved to be capable and loyal fighters for the Fatimid cause. When the Fatimid caliph al-Muʿizz decided to move his court to Egypt in 361/972 he left the Zirids behind as vassal rulers over Ifrīqiya and the Maghrib. The Zirid sultans henceforth took up residence in Qayrawān." Amar S.Baadj, Saladin, the Almohads and the Banū Ghāniya. p:22-23

Which indeed confirm what you said. However i find The cambridge history of Africa suggesting something different:

"In 972 he accompanied his sovereign on the first stages of his journey to the east, then remained behind apparently as viceroy over all except Sicily and Tripoli. As a mark of this exceptional favour he was renamed and restyled Sayf al-Dawla ('Swor d of State') Ab u'l-Futuh ('Man of Victories') Yusuf. It was characteristic of Buluggin that despite this elevation, he at once returned to fight in the west. Although he held the Maghrib for the caliph, confirmed in this position by Mu'izz's son and successor 'Aziz in 975, and was further endowed with Tripoli in 979, he remained essentially the lord of the west with his capital at Ashir. His visits to Kairouan were few, and from 974 the capital and the whole of the Tunisian region were entrusted to 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad al-Katib, 'the Secretary', an aristocratic product of the Fatimid chancery, one of the great departments of state." J. D. FAGE and ROLAND OLIVER, THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF AFRICA, p:623-624

i'm not sure if i accurately understood it, also i'm not sure if i correctly quoted the passage (probably some further context is needed).

Anyway, for the moment, i support removing Ashir from the infobox as per the amount of reliable sources that are supporting that (10 so far). SimoooIX (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, rather than simply removing Ashir, which is probably a slightly more complicated question given that Buluggin was still largely preoccupied with the west (as the second source you quoted demonstrates, and I have others in mind), let's focus first on whether to include al-Mansuriya/Kairouan from 972 to 1057, which is supported by everything above. I'll await M.Bitton's reply. R Prazeres (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a certain degree of similarity between the topic addressed in the Almoravids article concerning Azougui and the present issue. SimoooIX (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres, in this case, I believe that we are not entitled to make a choice, but instead we should present the issue as it is. SimoooIX (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres: Your last comment clarifies something that wasn't obvious at the start. I don't see an issue with adding al-Mansuriya. I already mentioned in the old discussion that the three Zirids (Buluggin, al-Mansur and Badis) after Menad had 2 capitals (something that the editor ignored while insisting on removing Ashir) and I don't think that the Infobox is an adequate place to explain their dual role prior to the split of the dynasty: Ashir the capital of the dynasty, where the Zirids where sovereigns of their realm. Al-Mansuriya the capital of Ifriquiya, where the Zirids were Fatmid governors (surrounded by those who are loyal to the Fatimids). M.Bitton (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My current suggestion is to simply add al-Mansuriyya with the dates (972-1157) for now, as is easily verifiable (and already stated in the article per my first edit [23]), and remove nothing. The dates will overlap with what is currently indicated with Ashir, but so be it, multiple capitals are not an issue unique to this article. We can think of a way to clarify it as needed.

The status of Ashir, though, does need to be clarified, and once again the dates there appear to be unsupported. Certainly I have some sources (some above, and another I found since) which indicate its (co-)capital status under Buluggin at least, but there's no clear timeline about how long it was used as such. From what I could gather (correct me if I missed something), 1014 was chosen simply because that's the date of the Hammadid split, but that seems like original WP:SYNTHESIS. My suggestion there, again, is to start by adding more information about it in the body of the article, and hopefully a clearer solution will emerge in the future.

What do you think (of the first suggestion in particular)? R Prazeres (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me, when something is not pretty obvious, it is way better not to mention it in the infobox as it can potentially be misleading. that's why i had the same position (and i still have) regarding Azougui earlier and now for Ashir.

Actually i have provided a reliable source myself that could confirm Ashir being somehow a 'capital' even after 972, but for me it's still vague and the passge i read doesn't explain the issue enough. Now, I guess it is clear that the dates must be removed from Ashir (as we did with Azougui) since, i think, they are unsourced. Anyway why adding Mansuriyya and not Kairouan? I believe Something like: * Manssuriyya (dates) [sources supporting Mansuriyya] or (or without 'or') * Kairouan (dates) [sources supporting Kairouan], can easily resolve the problem, and it is clear and not misleading. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question of Mansuriyya versus Kairouan: as far as I'm concerned either one is fine. To clarify, the sources are referring to the same situation, it's just that al-Mansuriyya is more specifically the royal residence, located outside the city, while Kairouan itself is of course the main population center. During my last edit ([24]), I tried including one name and then the other in parentheses next to it, but it looked visually messy and confusing, so I recommend picking just one. Mansuriyya is more precise (per sources above) and arguably more informative, and I was following the analogous example at the Fatimid Caliphate article, where Raqqada (another royal suburb) and al-Mansuriyya are named rather than just Kairouan. Both this article and the al-Mansuriyya article provide more context for readers, so this seemed fine. R Prazeres (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just had no idea about the situation of Mansuriyya vis-à-vis Kairouan, i thought that they were entirely two separate cities (now after i searched for it, it appears that both are pretty close to each other and today the archeological site of Mansuriyya is being administratively belonging to Kairouan). Now it's all pretty clear after you've explained the issue well. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres, It seems that a consensus has been reached regarding Mansuriyya. However, my position remains unchanged regarding Ashir. But for now i think the OR dates must be removed. SimoooIX (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first suggestion (we probably should also change the date of the foundation of Ashir to 936).^[1] The overlap is not an issue since they had different roles. The 1014 date was chosen because of the first source^[2] which doesn't mention any other capital until the split. The two capitals and their roles (until the split) are also mentioned here^[3] (see quote), making this, in my view, more a case of WP:CALC than OR. M.Bitton (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those sources, they'll be useful. I think those are fine for now, but they're still not precise, as the point of both quoted statements is simply about the well-known split of the dynasty, not specifically about the ongoing roles of each city. I'm also keeping in mind all the sources emphasizing al-Mansuriyya/Kairouan above. Something to consider as the article is improved.

I was likewise thinking the first date for Ashir should be 936, which is more representative of when it took on this role, but not sure if it would cause confusion with the "start date" of the dynasty as 972 (the latter being in line with how sources typically date that, e.g. Bosworth). If it does seem to be confusing later, a short footnote in the infobox might help. The article itself already explains Ashir's foundation, and I'll try to add more about it in the near future. R Prazeres (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now added al-Mansuriyya in the infobox, per consensus above, here; I also went ahead and changed 972 to 936 for Ashir here (but open to further discuss if needed); and I've added some more detail, both about the period generally and about Ashir specifically, here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose adding 936. Besides the fact that the Zirid state was officially established in 972 when the Fatimids left the Maghreb. I don't find this reasoning accurate. For example, Tunis was already the capital of the Almohad province before the Hafsids gained independence. Also, Ashir itself became the capital of Hammad (who was the uncle of the Zirid ruler Badis and the founder of the Hammadids) in 997 [25]. Therefore, according to the same reasoning, Ashir should also be mentioned in the infobox of the article of the Hammadids.

• My suggestion is to mention Ashir as being a capital of the central Maghreb (just like the way Seville is mentioned as a capital of al-Andalus in the Almohad article infobox) with the following dates (997-1014). For me this makes more sense, moreover, it's well-sourced.SimoooIX (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@R Prazeres: thanks for doing that. It's been a while since I read anything about them, but I'll try to add more once I revised the sources (needed for attribution). M.Bitton (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both your feedbacks. SimoooIX, that's a reasonable objection, and the 936 change was intended as WP:BOLD suggestion, so we can revert it if there's no consensus. Some further thoughts, if helpful:

• In fairness, I think the Hammadid situation is different because Hammad had already built the Qal'at as his capital well before he declared independence, whereas the complication here is that Ashir continued its role as the dynasty's home base or (de facto) capital both before and after 972. So its status didn't abruptly change either way that year.
• For this question, I wonder if we might benefit from inviting the opinion of another editor or other editors? All three of us have been looking at this intensely for a few days, maybe we just need a less involved editor to offer a common-sense perspective with fresh eyes?
• If there is an alternate "end" date for Ashir (or an additional one to mention in a footnote), it now seems to me to be 991, when according to Michael Brett, al-Mansur ibn Buluggin moved indefinitely to al-Mansuriyya (Kairouan) and Ashir was thenceforth entrusted to other members of the family (like Hammad in 997). See:^[4][5]

Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The date that Hammad was named governor of Ashir doesn't change anything. Both the central Maghreb and Ifriqiya had different governors, the only difference is that the governors of the central Maghreb were always Zirids (unlike Ifriquiya, where they were Arabs, such as Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Katib who was the first governor there).

Hammad did build a city (it wasn't a capital of anything at that stage), but that wasn't that different from the first Ifriqiyan governor who grew too powerful and ended up being killed. Again, the difference here is that Hammad was lucky because Badis died before getting rid of him (he died while besieging him in the Qala). M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R Prazeres, i think inviting the opinion of other editors is a good idea. SimoooIX (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who can make a correction to the family tree chart near the bottom of the article? I have little experience with this particular template and I'm not sure how to fix it myself without messing it up further.

The specific correction that's needed is: "Yahya ibn Abd al-Aziz 1121-1152" should be placed under "Abd al-Aziz ibn Mansur 1105-1121", not under "Badis ibn Mansur 1105". Per his name and per the detailed genealogical chart in Idris (1962) La berbérie oriental sous les Zirides (p. 833; pdf available here), Yahya is the son of Abd al-Aziz, not Badis.

(Pinging Agricolae, who added the chart, but I see that they haven't been active recently.) Thanks for any help, R Prazeres (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed WP:OR green flag from wikidata. Please read the "Emblem" subsection in this article or this for more informations on the Fatimid flag. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]