Talk:Almoravid dynasty

Adding new flag

Hello, cc @R Prazeres,

per Mouline, Drapeaux du Maroc (2024), I have uploaded a variation of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids onto Commons. I would not be opposed to using this in the Flag parameter and using this file in the Second Flag parameter with the caption of "possible appearance of variations of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids".

An interview with Mouline regarding the book states that "the founders of Marrakech, the first capital of a unified Morocco, adopted a black flag, as a badge of power and sovereignty". The book coroberrates this statement adding that "After having created an immense territory whose capital is Marrakech, the representatives of the first imperial dynasty of Morocco sought to strengthen their legitimacy by obtaining an official investiture from the caliphs, honorary heads of the Ummah. This gives these sovereigns, among other things, the right to wear a black suit and display a flag of the same color during all their public appearances. To highlight this badge of sovereignty, the Almoravids surrounded it with flags, standards, banners and pennants mainly white, red and variegated. While some are richly decorated with images and floral designs, others are embellished with profession of faith and Quranic verses." (p. 27) and appends this with these pictures, the illustration on the left seems to show a version of the Abbasid caliphate flag which has Kufic script rather than a poorly-vectorized Naskh as seen in the Commons picture (which says it is fictional, but I have no clue about this) while the illustration on the right shows a new variation of the Black Standard which seems to be unique to the Almoravids.

Thank you very much, NAADAAN (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I may still need to read the book, but the thing is, I don't know where Mouline is getting these details. The existence of a "black banner" in general, whatever its full details may have looked like, is historically attested. There are occasional representations of flags in Christian illustrations (which may or may not be accurate). But there are definitely no surviving flags/banners of this period and, to my knowledge, no detailed accounts of what they looked like.

Maybe Mouline is merely compiling various depictions found in present-day sources. That seems to be supported by the fact that this flag, as you pointed out, is also in the book, even though it's just a conjecture from a modern book illustrator (Angus McBride) with no direct historical evidence (as pointed out by Cplakidas here). Mouline's book (which just came out) probably has good discussions that could be cited, but I think the images should not be taken too literally. Even the book itself captions them as "probable appearance".

So I recommend keeping the flags out of the infobox. (Also per previous discussions.) These medieval banners are not equivalent to standardized modern flags, there's just too much uncertainty about them, and the infobox doesn't allow room for much nuance.

However, this article currently has a section dedicated to the "emblem" of the Almoravids, including the black banner. Maybe one of Mouline's flags would be OK there. As always, an image complimenting an explanatory text is much more informative. I welcome other opinions. R Prazeres (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres, Here are the citations used in the article regarding Almoravids:

1. Ibn al-Qattân, Nouzoum al-joumân li-tartib mâ salafa min akhbar al-zamân, Dâr al-Gharb al-islâmî, Tunis, 1990 (2011), p. 168;
2. Ibn Abi Zar', al-Anis al-moutrib bi-rawd al-qirtās fi akhbâr mouloûk al-maghrib, al-Matba'a al-malikiyya, Rabat, 1999, p. 176;
3. Ibn 'Idhârî, al-Bayân al-moughrib fi akhbar al-Andalous wa al-Maghrib, Dâr al-thaqafa, Beyrouth, 1998, t. IV, p. 89;
4. Ibn Simâk, al-Houlal al-mouwashshiyya fi al-akhbar al-mourrâkoushiyya, Dâr al-Rashad al-haditha, Casablanca, 1979, p. 122.

I am not awfully familiar with those primary sources though, but they seem like they were from their respective era so I doubt that Mouline would just be compiling modern-day accounts. I don't see why a flag based on a description wouldn't warrant to be in the infobox, the Roman Empire article uses a flag which was based on a description and that there are no surviving physical copies of.

FYI the book focuses on a tradition that started with the Almohads stopped with the Alaouites, the use of a white flag with golden writing named al-'Alam al-mansoûr which would have been the flag used in major battles and would signify the dynasty's central authority. There's actually a fair bit of detail regarding these so they could probably warrant their own article on Wikipedia. I have vectorized and uploaded them per dynasty: Almohad (a description on the flag is also on this Wikipedia article), Almohad (alternate), Marinids, Saadians. Now excuse me while I watch fireworks NAADAAN (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Mouline is neither an authority on flags nor a historian. Their fancy looking flags are just claims by a non-specialist that don't even belong in an encyclopedia, let alone be presented as facts. M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do your due research before starting to act like this. NAADAAN (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

starting to act like this what do you mean by that? M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Mouline is neither an authority on flags He has written three articles regarding this, he is though not a vexillologist yes. nor a historian He is a senior researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research and Rabat's Centre Jacques Berque with a Ph.D. in history from the Paris-Sorbonne University and a Ph.D. in political science from the Institute of Political Studies of Paris and has been presented as a historian and politologist, Their fancy looking flags are just claims by a non-specialist He wrote the authoritative non-Arabic source on the Saadian dynasty. Et tu? Remember to AGF, you are starting to act antagonistic imo. I don't see why you'd need to question everyone's authority and credibility especially when it can be disproven by one Google search. This is not the first time you have done this fyi. NAADAAN (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Remember to AGF is this some kind of joke? Need I remind that you that you wrote starting to act like this (which is nothing short of an unprovoked and totally unjustified personal attack?

I don't see why you'd need to question everyone's authority and credibilityi I am free to question anyone's authority on any subject, especially when they make extraordinary claims. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you about this, you initially attacked the author with no justification whatsoever with questions that could have been easily answered by a Google search, I would like to focus on the main topic of discussion now. His work has been cited in other reliable sources, his credentials in the CNRS and the CJB are as a historian, and he has authored three books with reputable publishers. Do you now accept that he is indeed a historian and his works are reliable sources? NAADAAN (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I didn't attack the author (so don't you ever repeat that again), I questioned whether their claims have any validity. One single source calling him a historian doesn't explain the rest (him specializing specializing in Social Sciences and Political Studies). M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

OK perhaps your concerns are justified, have they been answered by now? He is a historian at the CNRS, has written a book describing the history of the Saadi dynasty with a reputable publisher and has a Ph.D. in history, do you not agree that he is a historian? If so, would he not be an authority in discussing historical flags? If not, what relevant qualifications would be necessary to be an expert in this in your view? There are also other reliable sources calling him a historian. The fact he has two specialities is irrelevant regarding this imo. NAADAAN (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The only biography of his that I could find doesn't describe him as such, but regardless, the fancy flags are clearly extraordinary claims. Do you agree with that? M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that they are extraordinary if their description were sourced from contemporary or historical sources (as has been the case in the book). I'd say the illustrations I have made SVGs out of could be at worst extrapolations based on those descriptions. If that is the case, perhaps it wouldn't belong on the infobox (this is something I am willing to concede), but I think they are still at least worth putting into an article section. Given everything I have provided, I'd say Mouline has the right credentials. NAADAAN (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that flags that you uploaded are not in the book that you're referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

They are in the book, here are scans: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; The point I have made were that Mouline had based some of these illustrations from descriptions provided in historical sources (which are cited in the book), hence why he labeled them "probable appearances" of banners (I have reflected this nature on the Sa'adi dynasty article). NAADAAN (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that they are mentioning the "probable appearance" of the flags. M.Bitton (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I acknowledged this in my original message by proposing possible appearance of variations of the Black Standard used by the Almoravids as a caption for the infobox. I have backed out of attempting to put this into an infobox until the book is put under more scrutiny over time, I am planning to add them onto the respective dynasties' articles outside of the infobox if there are no objections to that. NAADAAN (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

What would a possible appearance of a flag (basically, someone's idea of what it may have looked like) add to the article? M.Bitton (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I think a historian's idea of what the Almoravid's flag could have looked like based on historical texts and a particular dynasty's 'alam al-mansûr banner (a tradition which lasted from Almohads to Marinids) would offer insight. Would a presentation like this be acceptable? NAADAAN (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I won't repeat what I already said about their credentials, but the addition is UNDUE given how fancy the so-called flag is and the fact that the historians of the Almoravids haven't mentioned anything that looks like it. M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have not presented it as an authoritative fact but as a "possible appearance of the black standard variation used by the Almoravids, according to Nabil Mouline". I won't repeat what I already said about their credentials I think it has been proven that he has been described as a historian by a few reliable sources and has the relevant credentials to back it by now, unless you can dispute the contrary. given how fancy the so-called flag is I do not understand this argument, it is the shahada on a black banner. NAADAAN (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It's more than a shahada on a black banner (something we use to have on this article), it's an elaborate flag that isn't mentioned in any RS about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is a historian (assuming e.g. this is correct). Maybe not an authority on flags though. Is there another reason to doubt his reliability? R Prazeres (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Having a degree or Ph.D. in history and then specializing in something else (Social Sciences and Political Studies) doesn't make someone a historian. M.Bitton (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

NAAADAAN. Thanks for the details. To further clarify, what I mean is that existing historical descriptions seem to only mention a colour and maybe another vague detail, but little else. This is also the extent of detail we find in all the reliable secondary sources consulted so far (when they mention flags at all). The quote you provided from Mouline above is another example (unless he provides other details in the rest of his text). What's missing is everything else: what decorative details were on the flag (if any), what inscriptions were on the flags (if any), what style of Arabic script it used, where these elements placed on the flag, etc? Since these details aren't available anywhere, many of the supposedly historical flags that show up on Wiki Commons (not just on this topic) and in modern illustrations are merely conjecture. The Roman aquila emblem is not comparable: I believe it's well-known and frequently depicted on historical sources, including Roman art, and it's easy to find recreations of it in WP:RS.

But just to re-summarize my point above: I think it is WP:UNDUE to place any of these in the infobox, for the reasons above, but I don't think it's a problem to include one in the article section dedicated to this topic, if other editors agree. R Prazeres (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, I will focus on creating an article for said al-'Alam al-mansoûrs as they think they are very much pertinant and will probably include them on an article section. I will also vectorize other flags in the book that have been based out of murals and, more pertinantly, banners that have survived the test of time. I will leave it up to you if you ever obtain a copy of the book and you find the information presented there pertinant enough to warrant an infobox entry. NAADAAN (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the Sa'adi article to reflect this, FYI. NAADAAN (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted you at first only because the image was still in the infobox, so I thought you were duplicating it (perhaps by accident). I'm good with the current alternative. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for you work and your reasearch, however, i beleive we still don't have a visual record of what the flag of the Almoravid and Almohads and marinids and saadis looked like exactly officially, we know for sure that the "victorious flag" is a state flag per RS, and we're pretty sure of the colors used for those flags, but without multiple visual sources we cannot just put them in the infobox. Best thing to do in this case is having a section or a subsection about the flag it would be much more informative than just putting a Black flag in the infobox (which could confuse regular readers regarding the Almoravid-Abbasid relationship). Also, the flags shown in your source look more like war flags and they would fit in the section about the embelm in the article. At least, we did got to remove those red penants and inadequate primary sourced flags from the infobox of those medieval-early modern state of modern day Morocco, as this will reduce NPOV and allow readers to understand better the religious doctrines and the political legitimacy upon which those states rely.

@R Prazeres per this source Abderrahmane Djilali here [1] , Al Djilali explicitly identifies the "Victorious flag" as the official state flag, the marinid one (p 100) is recorded as being white with golden quranic inscriptions, however, the Hafsid flag is also white, and not yellow, per this primary source also (p 44) [2] (Tunis and Annaba having the same white flag with black crescent). Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

yes in this case the alam al mansour is the closest thing to a state flag for those dynasties. I have written a draft for an article on those flags from the sources I have on hand here: Draft:'alam al-mansûr. thank you for your feedback NAADAAN (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The founding of the Almoravids

When a political movement departs from a location then spreads to southern tribes (lamtuna and Gudala) whom its leaders sought guidance from the movement founders to restore order, piety, and eliminate degeneracy, it would be unreasonable to say that the movement and the political order departed from these tribes (Lamtuna and Gudala) as suggested in the header section. The political, religious, and military movement departed from Aglou around Tiznit area in present day Morocco (see in this same page the origin of schools of Waggag ibn Zallu in the <Name section>). In fact the founder Abdallah Ibn Yassine died in a military conquest against Barghawata in the north near Romani area before the Almoravids became an empire. In summary, the political state and rise of Almoravids had begun in Morocco, this is to be stated in the header section. Verify and edit accordingly (The same sources apply) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.250.237.93 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Lithām and Almohad accusations of effeminacy

At the end of the section "Name" there is an indication of "citation needed". I just had a suggestion for an article that might be useful on that regard, but I cannot edit the page because it seems to be protected: González Diéguez, Guadalupe. "Veiled Men of the Desert: Perceptions of the Ṣanhāğa Face-Muffler in the Medieval Islamic West," Occhialì: Rivista sul Mediterraneo Islamico 7 (2020): 33-47. Many thanks for your consideration, in any case. Alqantara75 (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Alqantara75. If I have time at some point, I'll have a look at the reference and update the paragraph accordingly. (Anyone else is also free to do so.) I believe Amira Bennison's book (already cited widely in this article) also discusses this issue to some extent, if that's helpful. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Almoravids' maximal expansion

Hey @R Prazeres, I noticed that you reverted my edit regarding the date of the map, stating that it contradicts the article. However, according to sources such as Ibn Khaldun and the historian and archaeologist Dr. Rachid Bourouiba, the map accurately depicts the year 1100, not later. Ibn Khaldun mentions that Algiers, just before the Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen, was under the Sanhadja, and the governor of Tlemcen besieged Algiers unsuccessfully before turning to Achir, which prompted the Hammadid expedition. According to Rachid Bourouiba, Abd al-Aziz ibn Mansur governed the province of Algiers under the reign of his brother Badis, and under the rule of Yahya ibn Abd al-Aziz (1121-1152), the province of Algiers was given to his brother Hassan. Additionally, according to Ibn Khaldun in his book Al Ibar, Al Mansur was able to reconquer the western territories of his kingdom after the expedition. Therefore, it would be incorrect to assume that the Almoravids controlled all of those eastern territories in 1120, and it is necessary to adjust the map. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote, I don't see any definitive details that don't require some form of WP:SYNTH. It's fully plausible that Algiers was captured by the Hammadids at some point, maybe during the war that was settled between the two sides in 1104, but I don't see any sources being explicit about that, or about when Algiers was under whose control, etc. I couldn't find anything precise on my end either during a brief search.

The map is not more compatible with the date 1100, because that contradicts the much better known chronology of conquests in al-Andalus discussed in the article (as I mentioned in my edit summary). Zaragoza wasn't captured until 1110, the Balearics in 1115. (Valencia also in 1102.) In fact, the caption should more accurately say circa 1115, rather than 1120, since Zaragoza was then captured by Aragon in 1118 (see article).

The map itself, as is, matches many maps from scholarly and reliable sources depicting Almoravid control, all including Algiers, so I don't think there are any grounds for adjusting it. All such maps are merely approximations and Wikipedia merely reports what reliable sources say. If we begin to nitpick about certain places based on our own incomplete reading of sources, we'll likely end up in a never-ending loop of WP:OR. If we find clear and explicit reliable sources saying the Almoravids did not occupy Algiers after a certain date, my suggestion instead would be to add a footnote to the caption noting this for clarification, following the example of the caption at Aghlabids regarding Sardinia. R Prazeres (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, we already have sources (Roger Le Tourneau, Phillip Naylor and others) stating that the Hammadids expanded westward and by 1102, they took Tlemcen. I think the best option would be to remove "c. 1120" and leave the map simply showing the maximum extent. Also, for what it's worth, the Atlas of Islamic History map states "c. 1100". M.Bitton (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's less informative, but if others agree then I'm fine with removing the date, given both my comment above (about Zaragoza, though this is easily fixed) and the fact that most of the map sources I've seen don't give a specific date in the caption.

I've seen Naylor's note, but just to show how easily there can be apparent contradictions: Messier puts the city under Almoravid control under both Ali Ibn Yusuf and Tashfin ibn Ali (including names of governors), we have epigraphic evidence of Ali ibn Yusuf expanding the Great Mosque of Tlemcen in 1136, and multiple sources state that Tashfin ibn Ali made his last stand here before being chased to Oran(e.g. Messier, Bennison p.59). R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that period is not well documented (probably because the cousins weren't so keen on fighting each other). If I have time, I will try to create a derivative of the Atlas of Islamic History map (Slugett seems to always come to our rescue). M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removing the date from the caption of the map. This would make it more accurate. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Tayeb188. I'll go ahead and remove it then. And if we later use a map that's modeled more closely on Sluglett & Currie's map (which is a little more precise in its presentation), I'm sure that'll be fine; thanks, M.Bitton. R Prazeres (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Missing information

The article says " a coalition of the Lamtuna, Gudala, and Massufa nomadic Berber tribes lived in what is now Mauritania and the Western Sahara " yet, Lamtuna's territory, known as "Bilad Lamtuna" (the country of the Lamtuna), was actually located in the southern region of Sous-Massa, Morocco, stretching as far as Guelmim-Oued Noun and Laayoune-Sakia El-Hamra, according to many historians such as Al-Idrisi and Ibn Khaldun, there's also historians who said uqba ibn Nafi fought them in his conquest to the far west exactly in between present sous massa and guelmim-oued noun 102.38.8.5 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement is written according to what the cited sources say. If you want to argue for changes or additions, please provide reliable (secondary) sources that clearly support your proposal. R Prazeres (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I ask to edit the article including Morocco because I said bilad lamtuma starts from it's south, also there are a lot of sources about masufa and gudala too but let's start with lamtuma, in the book "Nuzhat al-Mushtaq" by Al-Idrisi, a 12th-century muslim historian, geographer and cartographer, he wrote

- ( But as for the land of Nul al-aksa and Tazkaght, they are the country of lamtuna of the desert, and lamtuma is a tribe from Sanhaja )

- ( There is also a stone called 'Hajar al-Bihit' on its shore, which is a well-known stone among the people of al-maghrib al-aqsa, the stone is sold at a good price, especially in the country of lamtuna )

- ( the city Nul lamta and the city of azgi to lamta too, and as for the city of Nul in the west, it is three days journey from the sea and thirteen stages from Sijilmasa, the city of Nul is a large and populous city situated on a river that flows from the eastern direction, and on it there are the tribes of lamtuna and lamta )

- ( And they are nomads who move around but do not settle in a place, like the lamtuna of the Sahara who are in al-maghreb al-aqsa )

You could read the book or I could give the links to the pages in Arabic so you can verify the texts 102.38.8.5 (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not going to go out of our way to include what is contradicted by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You're saying that the 12th century historian al-idrisi who lived in Almoravid empire isn't reliable source? There's ibn khaldun, there's abd-alouahid, there's al-hamiri, what's a reliable source to you if it's not from them 102.38.8.5 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The lamtuna and their allied/subject tribes of massoufa and Juddala are not from modern day Morocco. The Almoravids actually conquered both the northern Sahara then the south of modern day Morocco as shown in RS. Consider reading these (which also includes contemporary Arab sources that are displayed far better than your assertions).

If you’re just going to keep ignoring reliable sources then I don’t think there is anything more to say. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

the idrisi and ibn khaldun and al-hamiri and abd al-ouahed and abi al-fida and many others mentioned bilad lamtuna in southern Morocco from Gulmem to sakia el-hamra, they are also mentioned in southern Morocco when uqba ibn nafi fought them before reaching the ocean, those without mentioning complicated sources such as al-bakri who states by the liter that their maintain is near taliouen, more than that al idrisi who lived among them states that lamtuna wasn't native to the sahara Desert they were rather from the north and pushed southwards by the other tribes which ibn khaldun aslo confirms and the Mauritian historian al-hassan mentions it

if you'll intentionally ignote all these ssources arelay on modern publications then that's Wikipedia for yound

Wikipedia relies on modern publications as reliable source then that's another story, 102.38.8.5 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, If I were in IP's position, I would have referred to Al-Maghrib Al-Aqsa instead of Morocco. As Al-Idrisi mentioned, the Lamtuna were located in southern Al-Maghrib Al-Aqsa. Whether he meant Morocco or Mauritania, I'm not sure. Also, @Nourerrahmane, your addition is not accurate at all. The source you cited does not support your claim. I suggest you revert it yourself if you acknowledge your mistake. The location of Lamtuna stretches from Oued Souss (In southern Morocco) to Mauritania. Here are some other sources that provide a more precise description of the Lamtuna's location. [3] [4] Tyben^Welcome 17:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to ignore your comment, please don't ping me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In that case i'm going to revert your addition myself. And remember Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Tyben^Welcome 17:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't mind if they add it as " Maghreb al-aksa " while removing Maurtiana or just leaving it as it is adding " Morocco " although many historians don't count Maurtiana as part of " al-maghrib al-aksa " such as al-idrisi who calls it " bilad qamrunia " but there's al-qalqandishi who said it's a part of " Maghreb al-aksa " so this matter is up to them 102.38.8.5 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Mauritania is mentioned in reliable sources, so it's impossible to remove. However I already cited (above) sources that give description of Lamtuna's location, it stretches from Oued Souss in southern Morocco to modern Mauritania, I think those sources must be followed here. Tyben^Welcome 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't insist on removing Maurtiana instead I'd ask they add Morocco, Lamtuna didn't inhabit all of modern day Maurtiana nor all of Morocco they mainly lived in the sahara, tho I wouldn't mind adding " southern Morocco " if they want to make it specific 102.38.8.5 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I say again, the lamtuna have nothing to do with Morocco prior to the almoravid conquest of Morocco, the very fact that al-Idrisi mentions south Morocco goes against an army of primary and secondary sources alike, the lamtuna is the southmost Sanhadja tribe, i wouldn't even agree on other northern tribes such as Massufa and Godala or lamta having any kind of sedentary presence in Morocco (prior to the Almoravid conquest), simply because Morocco was not home of these Sanhdaja tribes. It was the Sahara, which is neither part of the Maghreb al Aksa or modern day Morocco. The source given by the disruptive sock speaks about Awdghaust and southern-central Mauritania region as a birthplace of the Almoravid movement and speaks of the politics of the involved Saharan tribes prior to the Almoravid state in that specific area. if anything, the Noun river is the northmost a nomadic tribe can venture into. Overall, this has literally nothing to do with modern day Morocco and nowhere serves the purpose of this article.

This is all i will say. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Lamtuna are mentioned in Morocco before the establishment of Aoudghast, again it's mentioned that Uqba ibn Nafi fought them before reaching the ocean. Ibn Khaldun mentioned it, Ibn Abu Dinar mentioned it, Al-Hasan Al-Ourtilani in the 12th century mentioned it, the Mauritanian historian Al-Hasan ben Al-Amine mentioned it, and many more did, note that all the area under the modern-day Suss-Massa region is considered "Sahara" by the historians, and again Al-Hassan also said Lamtuna isn't native to the Sahara; it was in Daara, then immigrated south, Gabriel Camps also says that all Sanhaja aren't native to the Sahara; they immigrated south, Ibn Khaldun mentioned it, saying they were on the north and were forced to move to the Sahara, Al-Idrisi says the same, adding that they were pushed by other Berbers to the Sahara, which is close to the ocean, The fact that you argue on a topic which you don't know anything about while acting as if Al-Idrisi who lived among them and traveled throughout the land, is some modern French historian who published his book in 2005, and gave me sources that you yourself haven't read while ignoring all the other sources means you're an Algerian, which doesn't surprise me. It's Wikipedia after all, I would ask you to avoid replaying to me, I'm not into empty arguments with people like you "respectfully". 102.38.8.5 (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the appropriate time to call an admin to intervene. @Ad Orientem, could you please deal with Nourerrahmane's disruptive behavior here? first they refused to communicate : "I'm just going to ignore your comment, please don't ping me." And now they are possibly referring to me as "disruptive sock", not to mention that the source they cited doesn't support their claim which also contradicts many other credible sources. Tyben^Welcome 21:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane Please be polite and assume good faith when interacting with other editors. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any idea about "Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle"? Also, when you make an edit, you should expect opposition. It's like you never edited here. Tyben^Welcome 17:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)