User talk:R Prazeres/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Happy First Edit Anniversary R Prazeres 🎉

Hey @R Prazeres. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 12 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 19:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Fatimids

you didn't reply to my response and I felt that your argument wasn't really convincing Dabi24 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Dabi24, less than 40 minutes elapsed between this message and your last comment at Talk:Fatimid Caliphate, in a discussion that started earlier today. I have multiple other tasks on and off Wikipedia to also take care of, as do most editors. Please do not individually message editors who are already participating in a discussion unless it's been a long time; think a day or two, not an hour or two. Even then, please see WP:SATISFY (or the rest of that essay). R Prazeres (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Umayyad Lede

Hello. I’d like to explain my reasoning about the Umayyad Caliphate article more clearly, because I believe the core historical thread is being unintentionally diluted in the current phrasing.

My edits were not about minor wording preferences. They were aimed at restoring the central historical reality that Umayyad rule cannot be understood apart from the Uthmaniyya–Alid antagonism. The Umayyad Caliphate was not merely the successor to the Rashidun state, it was the political response to Ali.

This period is THE point of origin for Islamic sectarian identity formation.

Right now, the lead says: “It succeeded the Rashidun Caliphate, of which the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, was also a member of the Umayyad clan.”

I think this wording understates what occurred. The Umayyads did not “succeed” the Rashidun Caliphate in the sense of a normal political transition. A civil war LED by Muawiya himself driven directly by opposition to Ali created the conditions out of which the Umayyad dynasty emerged. The familial link between Uthman and Muʿawiya is not incidental background trivia, it is the axis around which the First Fitna revolved.

Similarly, the current phrasing: “The Umayyad family established hereditary rule under Muʿawiya … who became caliph after the end of the First Fitna and the assassination of Ali…”

This sequence makes the rise of Muʿawiya sound like a post-Fitna administrative development. In reality, Muʿawiya was the DRIVING FORCE of the Uthmaniyya faction and the principal military opponent of Ali from the earliest days of his reign. The continuity is direct:

• Uthman is killed.
• Ali becomes caliph.
• Muʿawiya categorically rejects Ali’s rashidun (rightly guided) status and wages war against him.
• After Ali’s assassination, Muʿawiya immediately advances against Ali's son Hasan, pressures him into a treaty, and then violates that treaty once power is secured.
• The Umayyad dynasty emerges not from a chaotic vacuum but as a clear victory of Uthmaniyya over Alid.

That is what the Umayyad Caliphate is - the victory of Uthmaniyya over Alid.

Framed this way, the logic behind Karbala, Zayd ibn Ali’s revolt, and even the Abbasid Revolution becomes obvious. These are not disconnected eruptions, they are the later phases of a single, long-running conflict rooted in the Uthman–Ali divide. And we have the ability to make that really clear to the English reader by wording things right.

In short: the First Fitna was not a separate prelude to Umayyad history. Muʿawiya WAS the First Fitna, and the Umayyad state was the response to Ali. English readers need to understand that, and given their unfamiliarity with a lot of this, they need to understand it as clearly and front and center as possible. Because this is the antagonism that explains how Islam became what it is today. Without placing that causal chain front and center, we obscure the very engine that drove early Islamic political and sectarian development. And I don't mean just Sunni - Shia, I mean that Islamic identity itself, both sects, are descended from scholarly opponents of the Umayyad Caliphate. For example, Abu Hanifa, the founder of the largest school of Sunni fiqh, supported Zayd ibn Ali's revolt.

I’m fully open to discussion on phrasing or being concise, but the central issue here is that I believe the current phrasing doesnt represent the essence of what happened properly. Idris Shirazi (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You should bring this to Talk:Umayyad Caliphate rather than here, as this matter is equally relevant to other editors there. But to be honest, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the lede a little bit, which like I said previously is to summarize the topic very plainly and concisely. Any deeper level of detail belongs to the body of the article, so I don't think there is a good case for digging into this issue in the lead.

Also, I'm sure you've been told some of this, but a since you're still a new editor: remember that anything you add must be based purely on what reliable sources have already said. This sounds obvious, but a lot of newcomers have a hard time adjusting their attitude to this. For example (and as a heads-up), you'll usually want to avoid personal essay-style explanations like this. Wikipedia is not about telling readers what to think about the topic or what "framing" of the topic is best, it's just about summarizing what existing reliable sources say about it in a neutral way (i.e., without emphasizing one aspect of the topic over another unless reliable sources generally do so, etc). So if you need to explain yourself, do it by talking about the sources.

That said, there are certainly academic sources discussing these questions and the article has room for it. If I understood your interest correctly, the most appropriate place for this would be the "Legacy" section, which is where long-term historical significance should be addressed. I recommend you direct your edits there. Given the academic nature of history topics, plus the controversy sectarian-related topics often attract, just be extra careful in sticking to core content policies: verifiability, neutrality, and no original research/interpretation. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

PS: while I was writing that, I didn't see you posted on the talk page already, so that's good. The rest of my comment is general advice. R Prazeres (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that was my bad I realized the talk page was a better place, I was going to ping you there, but I appreciate that you responded.

It seems super long winded, but really the jist of what I am saying is this: Muawiya, the first caliph, was the main opponent of Ali in the third Fitna. The Umayyad Caliphate represents his victory over the Alid faction, not a "succession" but rather the consequence of an intense fight.

For the lede itself, I just would like that the Umayyad caliphate is presented as the victory of Muawiyas faction of the first fitna, instead of a succession. Muawiya would have seen himself as the successor of Uthman, not Ali - he saw Ali as illegitimate. So we arent representing that properly right now.

And I appreciate the advice, i'll save this comment because i have a habit of making really long winded yaps like that XD Idris Shirazi (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Abbasid Dynasty

Hello, just saw that you reworded alot of my contributions to the Abbasid Dynasty and some of its claimed descendants, I fully agree that the removal of genealogical sources was justified, but can we keep the information from the more contemporary book by Mahfouz Abbasi: 'The Abbasid Emirate of Bahdinan'? Considering it is not a genealogical book and a modern historical text. Thanks. Ramy515 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "more contemporary", but in any case, since this is the English Wikipedia and the English sources I added are reliable enough, (mostly) publicly accessible, and cover the same information, I don't think there's any advantage to citing Arabic sources that will be less accessible or harder to read for most other readers and editors here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No issues, thanks again for your time. Ramy515 (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for sorting out the date issue with [[Ibn Danan Synagogue]] so quickly and effectively. I didn't see a 'thank' button for some reason, but it was worth a thank you. Gould363 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

User:GloriousFigure back?

Just an fyi, This looks like a WP:BLOCKEVADE by User:GloriousFigure. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that looks likely, judging by the edits at Alexandria expedition of 1807. Not sure if it's enough to bring to SPI yet, but it might become more obvious after more edits. Thanks for bringing it up. R Prazeres (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

User:‪Edit kingdom2‬ back?

[1] Why is my edit being removed, all sources agree the men were killed and women and children were enslaved?

Edit revertion

you reverted by edit in abbasid caliphate because its "unnecessary", if so then why does abbasid revolution have it and not abbasid caliphate?

the edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbasid_Caliphate&oldid=prev&diff=1333080357 Ziggzevenzigma

(talk) 09:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know who added it at Abbasid revolution or why, but I've just removed it there too. As far as I know, it serves zero purpose to embed another language template inside an already dedicated language template. There are countless articles on Wikipedia that use the langx template and I haven't seen any others using the script template inside them, including in some of the highest-quality articles on Wikipedia (featured articles). R Prazeres (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Repetitive subject

The new section in the Talk:Almohad Caliphate is the third one about the same topic, always coming from new editors who often add nothing new to subject aside from pushing the same POV. At least they can edit in an already existing topic. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh I didn't notice it was a comment. Sorry. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I just want to make it make it clear that deleting others' comments without the appropriate reasons can probably land you in serious trouble instead of the other editor. It should be reserved for situations that fall clearly under the ones outlined at WP:TPO (if uncertain, err on the side of caution and leave it). It may not hurt to leave a message in the talk page history via a dummy edit or leave a short message on the other user's talk page to express that you misunderstood the circumstances, just to show good faith, in case this comes up at WP:ANI later. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems the user went to WP:ANI, l left a reply there. Thanks. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Doukkala page

I removed the previous changes made to the page because, they lack of accuracy, there is no universally accepted consensus on the clear origins of the Doukkali.

Cornell's estimates, drawn from 1990 studies, are based on 16th-century descriptions by Leo Africanus regarding the size of warrior groups, which were then projected onto overall population figures. These calculations are approximate and contested, as censuses from pre-modern eras were often unreliable, and the category of "Arab pastoralists" likely encompassed numerous locally integrated or hybrid communities rather than solely unmixed migrants. The assertion that three-quarters of the population was Arab by 1500 primarily indicates the prevalence of nomadic groups in controlling land, grazing areas, and armed forces, rather than a complete ethnic displacement. Across generations, processes like settling down and intermingling have further blurred these boundaries.

Additionally, the evidence from David M. Hart stems entirely from modern-day fieldwork, without sufficient historical context, leading to an overly simplistic view of the organizational structures among Arabized tribal groups. Within the Doukkala tribal alliance, Hilalian subgroups were established by Hilalians following conquests, but there is no substantial proof of Hilalian dominance shaping the tribe's genetic makeup. Moreover, many Doukkala subgroups, such as the Chiadma, Chtouka, and Ouled Frej, have preserved customs indicative of Arabo-Berber fusion, including the profoundly Berber rain ceremony known as "Taghenja," which directly contradicts any notion of purely Arab cultural or religious adherence. It's also important to highlight that the Chiadma and Chtouka differ from the Chaouia, as they represent Arabo-Berber communities that experienced a trajectory akin to the Râgraga, and they maintain a ritual honoring the Berber rain deity Anzar, referred to as "La’arossa Chta" (Bride of the Rain). These elements reveal significant flaws that undermine the idea of the Doukkala being exclusively Hilalian in origin.

Lastly, Riley James's research represents subpar anthropological work, riddled with conflations, reliance on outdated racial theories, and unreliable assessments of physical traits. He demonstrates a limited grasp of Islamic societies in western North Africa and includes various errors about Islamic jurisprudence (for instance, claiming seven wives). He also struggles to distinguish between ethnic Arabs and those who have adopted Arab culture. Tanitsbride (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Map

Hi Prazeres, can we get this to Wikimedia commons ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Not directly, no, as it's copyrighted. But someone can still create a new map that replicates the same information (just not the exact same graphical style/details; similar to what we've done for other maps). R Prazeres (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you help me to formulate a RFC for the addition of tifinagh for rabat?

Its the first RFC i am doing. Unfortunately the user is not neither willing to move his position nor to stop edit warring. Since you commented on the discussion i cannot use the 3O anymore. So the next step would be a RFC. Bananakingler (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to advise on writing an RfC. I'm busy at the moment, but what I'll do is post a comment later today at Talk:Rabat (so that everyone can see it) suggesting what an RfC could look like. Usually it's a something very simple, but I'll explain more later. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

MolookLegacy

Hi! Sorry to bother you, I'm trying to support MolookLegacy with their appeal but I suspect we're going to hit an impasse with a language barrier sooner rather than later. Since you're a little familiar with their edit history, is there any merit to their claim that the article is incorrect & needs fixing?

They've given some sources on their Talk page but I've got no idea whether they're even usable.

Whenever you have a moment, would it be possible for you to please take a quick look/let me know?

If it's genuinely wrong then I can at least leave a quick tag or note the article Talk page for someone with more experience to look into it (I'm not going to proxy for them), but at the same time I don't want to create a false impression if everything is fine and sourced appropriately. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm having a look now and will leave a response on their talk page. (In short: I don't think anything they've said is helpful/usable.) R Prazeres (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Ottoman architecture is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Ottoman architecture is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Per exemplum -- Per exemplum (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Ottoman architecture in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Per Exemplum 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
· · ·

Per Exemplum 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)