Talk:Almohad Caliphate

red flag with checkerboard pattern
Good evening.

This is the first time I'm trying to change something in Wikipedia I hope I'm doing everything right. Well, I would like to add the well-known red flag with the checkerboard pattern. That seems to be the flag for the empire.

my source In the book one can clearly see that the almohad use the red flag with the checkerboard pattern:

https://archive.org/details/LibroDelConocimientoDeTodosLosReinos/page/n25/mode/2up

What do you all mean? Should the flag be added? Thomas162354 (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * please read the above discussion. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Almohad_banner.jpg
 * Hi, I took this photo from the museum, next to it is written the exact same thing in the PDF pages i showed in the above discussion, what do you think ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not for the infobox, but if there are reliable sources describing it then it could be added in the Textiles section as another example. (The pdf document didn't load for me, so I couldn't check your source.) R Prazeres (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * sometimes you need to refresh so it can fully load, there are two flags, this one (in lower quality) and a fully white flag used as an army standard according to the PDF which is the official army magazine. however i do beleive that M.Bitton gave some reliable sources about the Flag having a white background at least. this Banner belong to the museum collection, but there is no description of its origin and how it got there in the first place. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well it's worth looking into further (and I'll try loading the document again later), but if there's no source discussing its origin then I think it's not reliable enough to discuss here for now. As we've seen with the Las Navas de Tolosa banner, provenance is a very tricky issue that we can't take for granted. Thanks for bringing it up though. R Prazeres (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you, you're welcome ! Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also explained in the article itself now, see Almohad Caliphate. R Prazeres (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice the change. In any case, it seems like a improvement that will hopefully put a stop to the usual arguments about the flags. M.Bitton (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes okay. Then we leave it as it is. Personally I would have at least put a flag in the info box but ok if the majority is for distance then I don't want to get involved. Thomas162354 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Caliphate of whom? Where was the center of the state?
It's really weird that this article doesn't cite the fact that the Caliphate was to Ibn Tumart, not to the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) directly. Furthermore, it doesn't mention the fact that the state was centered in Morocco and al Andalus a little bit. Algeria and Tunisia were considered as colonies of the empire. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The relevant points of your comment are already covered in the article. R Prazeres (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which points and where are they covered? 196.200.133.150 (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 196.200.133.150 (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You probably don't realize this, but in essence, what you're saying is that the Almohad empire wasn't an empire at all. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It was an empire, but not all the regions were treated equally. Morocco (and al-Andalus) was the imperial core, the rest were lands of conquest, but they were paying taxes. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You do realise that there was no such thing as Morocco back then, don't you? M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Morocco existed back then. that's the letter of Pope innocent III in latin. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're confusing the city of Marrakesh with Morocco (which didn't exist back then). M.Bitton (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no confusion between Morocco and Marrakesh here. In the document it was called Marruecos, it is the same name that is used now in Spanish. They're originally the same word. The same with Algeria the country and Alger the city, Tunisia the country and Tunis the city. Do you understand? 196.200.133.150 (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, Marrakesh is a city and Morocco (which didn't exist back then) is country. Your examples make no sense since the existence of a city called Tunis doesn't mean that there was a country called Tunisia back then. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep refuting despite the evidence that i showed to you. The origin of the word Morocco is Marrakesh. If you mean that Morocco didn't have the same borders, YES I agree with you but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. He was called "king of Morruecos" by the pope while he was ruling Cordoba and Seville from which the Almohads were threatening the Christians of the north. He wasn't king of Marrakesh only. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s like saying the Seljuks belonged to the republic of Iran and that Central Asia and Anatolia are colonies of Iran… Your NPOV isn’t relevant as per the reply above. Also, the founding dynasty doesn’t originate from modern day Morocco either. But from the central Maghreb or what is now Algeria per sources. So this is far from being a « Moroccan state » as it didn’t even give a territorial identity for the western Maghreb. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Many sources call it directly Moroccan state/empire. And Abdelmoumen was seen as Moroccan  he was born in Tagra, near Oran (Marruecos) he's not Algerian. The birthplace of the Almohad empire is Tinmel, Morocco. I don't care about your Seljuks, I'm just restating the content of the sources.  196.200.133.150 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Abd al-Mu'min Moroccan? This is a perfect example of why cherry picking the sources that mention something senseless in passing is really bad. M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest we end it here, Not only his sources are not RS as they tend to push a political Agenda (Emphesising about a moroccan national state and moroccan empire is pretty dubious because such states had neither a national identity nor a territorial limitation, they were rather tribal states basing their legitmacy on a religious doctrine per all RS, fact it is one of his sources say that the city of Oran is in Morocco... You can't really have a constructive debate with such push POVs, Cherry pick and removing sourced content that don't suit them is the way to go for this annoying lot of disruptive editors. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Oxford and Real Academia de Historia are Moroccan sources or they are paid by Morocco to say so 👏👏👏👏🤯 196.200.133.150 (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They literally go against more reliable sources, and per what was said above, there was no Morocco back then. The fact that these sources called it moroccan state was based on a European understanding of Medieval Europe (Kingdom of England, Kingdom of France...etc). There was nothing called as Moroccan state or Moroccan Empire in Arabic nor per RS (We know that in Arabic, Al Maghrib means Maghreb, and not Marrakesh), not saying this has nothing to do with the history of Morocco, or any other Maghrebi state, but there were neither a Moroccan identity back then nor a Moroccan people, nor Moroccan state nor a Moroccan country. Which is why your sources are rejected. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You rejected the sources because you don't like the truth that they're showing. Oh I just dicovered you're Algerian, that explains it. Just try to be neutral quite a bit and you'll see that the sources are valid. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres maybe i was right to delet this thread since NPOVs don't really offer anything educationally useful, we're just wasting time with someone who just cherry picks what suits his agenda, enough time was wasted with such disruptive contributors (assuming they are not socks). Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: Since we're having the same issue with a sock that stopped editing for a couple of days, we should be aware of this IP too, as both seem to have the same behavior, disruptive editiors do have similiar behavior sometimes, but seeing how the other sock is so determined to push his pov and EW makes me suspecious. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nourerrahmane, the solution is not to delete the thread, it's just to stop engaging with it once it's clear it's going nowhere. The WP:ONUS is on the user who wants to change the article to solicit a consensus, it's not our job to satisfy them. R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn't knew that Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, i thought it was quite the contrary, that an RS is an absolute priority unless it's obviously at fault like this one above. So does that mean we need to reach a consensus first before editing or this is only for big claims ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * (I'm not sure if I totally understood your question, so I'll just answer on your talk page to avoid taking up space here.) R Prazeres (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The IP editor is right though. Walrasiad (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nourerrahmane I will answer the comment that you deleted. Your problem is that you don't consider that today's borders didn't exist back then. The fact that Canstantine XI was born in what is now Istanbul doesn't mean he was Turkish. All western Algeria at that time was under Marrakesh rule. If those credible sources attribute Abd al-Mu'min to Morocco then there are valid reasons behind that, for example Almohad genealogists trace his lineage directly to the Idrisid dynasty, which is an other Moroccan dynasty, an Arab one that originated with the coming of Idris 1. Yes Abd al-Mu'min was strange to Masmuda (not to Morocco) since he belonged to a different tribal confederation and of course he was always under the pressure of Almohad Shaykhs. But that doesn't mean he didn't try to integrate. He spoke the Masmuda Berber language. In fact the Masmuda Berber was the imperial language of the Almohads, many sources support that.
 * I think that Walrasiad agrees with my original points that Morocco (and al-Andalus to a lesser extent) was the imperial core of the Almohads, and that the Caliphate here is very different from classical Caliphates such as that of the Abasids and the Umayads. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * today's borders didn't exist back then that's right. Furthermore, there was no such a thing as Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The muminid dynasty is not from what is now Morocco, it’s from the central Maghreb, an area very well known back then. Per what @M.Bitton said, there is no point pushing your NPOV with your silly arguments, Marrakesh and the far Maghreb (what is now known as Morocco) was a conquered territory for the foreign mumind elite per reliable sources. All in all please stop pinging me for this back and forth, I will oppose linking this state to any modern nation state just like the zirids, hammadids…etc, and sure I’m opposed to your 12 century long state claim that you’re trying to push into this encyclopaedia. As a way to make political claims and thus exiting totally the point this encyclopaedia was made for. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, since you spoke about the Masmuda - Mu'minid relations, i suggest you read this p 282-283, that would benefit your knowledge. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You both don't seem to accept the fact that the central Maghreb and Ifrikiya were lands of conquest, they were peripheral to the Almohad imperial core in the west, just their beautiful architecture and where were their constructions very frequent (Marrakesh, Salé/Rabat, Seville, Fes, Tinmel...) proves this fact very easily. Once you accept this fact we can discuss whether Morocco existed or not and the other points. @Nourerrahmane the author of your source isn't even a historian, he's a sociologist and the source isn't even specialized in the subject. The more specialized sources describe the Masmuda as the backbone of the Almohad army ( name of the source:Saladin, the Almohads and the Banu Ghaniya S well as The Dearest Quest: A Biography of Ibn Tumart). I also suggest you take a look at the Almohad social pyramid. But don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that the Kumiya had an important role in the Almohad history. 196.200.133.150 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat: there was no such a thing as Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian back then and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. M.Bitton (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like you just copy-pasted this comment. Did you even read what i said in my comment? 196.200.133.150 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I can from a Christian poem dating to a period between 1195-1212 it mentioned the rey de maroc king of morocco and called his army Maroquins moroccans 102.38.8.5 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior
Disruptive editor broke 3RR regarding a well sourced material in addition to other sources relating to it directly in the lead. any suggestions ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nourerrahmane your first source says that Abd al-Mu'min is a native of southern Morocco (and it's not the only one). Be careful next time while selecting sources TybenFree (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was referring to Ibn tumart per all sources, and It also quoted Julien. Which has also been added among other RS regarding the Almohads empire being named and effectively acted as a Mu’minid dynasty ruled state. You broke 3RR and I believe you deserve to be sanctioned per WP rules. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No the source was clearly referring to Abd al-Mu'min unless you can't understand English, an other relibale source call him al-Susi (from Sus). The more popular amd familiar name of the dynasty is Almohad dynasty. Don't forget to check your second source to see how Ibn Tumart found out the population of Hammadid Bougie. And remember to be more careful next time. TybenFree (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what TybenFree's objection even is here. The statements about the Mu'minid dynasty consolidating to power? It's an obvious point and literally what every source describes. It's hardly new information to the article; the new material merely provides details on how this was done during the mid-12th century. We've discussed the terminology before as well; "Mu'minid" is a modern term used by historians to describe the dynasty in a narrower sense. It's perfectly understandable in this context. R Prazeres (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres I object this addition by Nour: "thus transfomring the Masmuda's aristocratic almohad movement into a Mu'minid dynastic state." The Almohad state wasn't only about the ruling dynasty. TybenFree (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the part that starts with "Abd al-Mu'min would also make alterations to the almohad structure set up by Ibn Tumart ..."? M.Bitton (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I revrted the whole edit to avoid people thinking I deleted something from the original text. I didn't see the addition, and if it's in the source, I'm fine with it. TybenFree (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, this point is plainly and explicitly supported by reliable sources. Much of the other information wouldn't even make sense if we were to contradict this. Even we were to argue over wording rather than substance, I don't see what better wording there is and it would be a trivial matter not warranting a revert. R Prazeres (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you didn't understand my point. "Mu'minid dynastic state" isn't right because "Mu'minid" only refers to the dynasty, not the state. It came from "Banu Abd al-Mu'min" (sons of Abd al-Mu'min). The state was Almohad, and it wasn't just about the ruling dynasty. TybenFree (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you might be misunderstanding the impact of the statement: it's merely describing the character of the Almohad state, it's not saying that it stopped being "Almohad". Incidentally, I've also added more details just now which might further contextualize the issue, have a look at the text now. R Prazeres (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres @Nourerrahmane You didn't fix the issue. The state was neither dynastic nor Mu'minid. It's not about how it's called; it's about the statement's meaning. The Almohad state included not just the dynasty but also other components like the Shaykhs and the Almohad tribes. TybenFree (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "The Almohad state included not just the dynasty but also other components like the Shaykhs and the Almohad tribes." And the article doesn't say otherwise. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say, and all of the recent edits are based directly on scholarly sources, which you can read for yourself. You haven't provided any evidence that there's anything wrong so far or any constructive suggestions for further improvements, so I see nothing further to discuss at this time. R Prazeres (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are at least 4 editors agreeing that the Almohad empire was a dynastic mu’minid state in both name and practice per reliable sources. We now have a consensus and Verifiability, so I suggest you stop pinging me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as a technical note: it's not necessary to keep pinging editors when they're already in the discussion. Pinging is only useful to get someone's attention (e.g. inviting them to a new discussion, or a discussion that stopped a while ago but that has become active again). R Prazeres (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres Seems like this editor doesn't like the fact that the Almohad state was called "Mu'minid state" which is supported by All realiable secondary sources, however this term isn't exactly modern, as ancient historians used this term regarding the Almohad "state" explicitly (الدولة المومنية) or (Mu'minid state), per this source: (Yahia ibn Khaldoun, the historian of the Zayyanid court and brother of the famous Abdulrahman ibn Khaldoun). of course the term is all over more recent arab sources where it is used interchangeably with the word "Almohads". Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 14th century Ibn Abi Zar literally calling it (Almohad mu'minid state)
 * 17th century tunisian historian Ibn abi Dinar calling it (Almohad state and mu'minid caliphate) hope this helps Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Islamic Arts of the Book
— Assignment last updated by TroublingMoo (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Marrakesh
@R Prazeres I understand from the former discussion that you refused to add the flag in the head of the article. But why can't we add it to the emblem section given that the paragraph gives the exact same description? I don't undertsand why you said that it's actually not right. TybenFree (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * That's not the flag of the Almohad caliphate, having a 14th century flag of a city in a section i wrote specifically for the white banner of the almohads using multiple RS is misleading and confusing and aims to create at least an alternative flag for the Mu'minid Almohad empire, which is not right. i wil however ask to remove the short paragraph about this flag (since i wasn't the one who wrote it), as we do not really know who were the authors who "assumed" this flag being an Almohad dynastic one as it sure contradicts the content in the section and may confuse readers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you so sure it wasn't the flag of Marrakesh before 14th century? I'm confused! Who wrote the paragraph if it wasn't you.
 * I object removing it even if you ask so. TybenFree (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You said "some historians believe it was a former Almohad flag", but that's not quite right. The cited author, Bennison, doesn't endorse this claim and merely mentions that "it has been assumed that this flag is Almohad", she doesn't say who (academics? popular writers?).
 * In any case, as Bennison points out, there's nothing directly linking this supposed flag to the Almohads, and the paragraph here is not saying otherwise. If the image is placed in the article, it arguably implies that this is a valid flag. It might be fine if we include a caption that clearly contextualizes the evidence, but I'm inclined to think that's overly complicated for what is essentially a footnote on the topic. But I'll let other editors weigh in on the matter.
 * I wrote the paragraph and I would prefer to leave it in, because Bennison does mention it in this context, so I see no harm in it. (I don't mind further revising it, of course.) One practical reason to keep it: this flag was on Wikipedia for years and is still widely found in amateur sources elsewhere and in other Wikipedia articles (I'm constantly finding and removing it from infoboxes); thus, having this issue explained here with RS makes it possible for readers to find out where that flag comes from and why it's problematic. R Prazeres (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was devided between leaving it and removing it because of how it is still widely used, but i think this is not what Wikipedia is about in the end. Such flags have political and religious relevence per RS, it helps understand how the medieval (islamic) elites identified themselves and what basis led to the establishment of such states ? did they line themselves as reformists or going back to roots movements ? it also helps to understand why the black and white flags were widely used as state flags in mediaval islamic history ? This staunch resistance against removing this red flag stems in great part from nationalist whims, much like maps for example. which geopardises the entire point of having these articles written in a free encyclopedia in the first place. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As text, it doesn't take up much room, and I think the relevance is still clear and based on an RS. So I don't see a good reason to remove it, personally. It's just the addition of its image which I think is difficult to accommodate without trouble. R Prazeres (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * maybe add the text as a note near the first mention of the white flag ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that would end up more confusing/distracting, because it's not a clarification about the white flag, just a mention of an entirely different flag found in some sources. (I also forgot earlier that the flag is featured in this book, if I remember correctly, so that's an example of another publication using it, though I don't know more about the authors.) A minor paragraph at the end respects WP:WEIGHT, in my view. I don't think it's any more out of place than the note about the modern Andalusian flag, for example; these are minor notes radiating from the central discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like Fatimid flag situation to me. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've seen you talking a lot about the Fatimid flag. Which article is concerned Fatimid Caliphate, Fatimid Dynasty or both? And what is its situation? TybenFree (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some sources speak about the Fatimids having white flags, other sources speak of green flags, it's confusing. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like the situations are the same to me. Have any colors besides white been proposed for the Almohads? TybenFree (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your last addition kinda undoes your claim, because we have now two sources (Benninson) that say they were aware that some authors assumed that red was the Almohad flag but it's not relevent, and that white is in fact the real deal here, so why insist on putting a not relevent flag for the Almohad period in the article ? in the end, I now get better the point made by Prazeres. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's best to not use authors against each other if they don't actually address each other's claims directly, per WP:SYNTH. I think the situation is clear enough without doing this; it's up to readers to judge which claims are right, especially as there are many good sources cited in the section. We can still safely repeat Stockstill's observation that most historical accounts cite the colour white (from this edit), so I've moved this to the beginning of the section to be clear . Since Stockstill doesn't talk about the Fatimid flags and that's a whole other issue (as Nour noted above), I've removed this part in the process. R Prazeres (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. This might be off-topic, but do the sources actually use the word "dynastic"? Your answer could save me a lot of time searching through them one by one. The flags don't necessarily represent the dynasty alone, so if the sources don't mention it, there is a problem.TybenFree (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here you have it:
 * :"Although white is cited as the colour of the Umayyads, of the Almohad caliphal standard, and of the Marinid sultan's banner, it is not clear whether such white banners included religious inscriptions and designs or not. The Marinid sources simply refer to white as the dynasty's colour."/"The naming of the Marinid palatine city, Madīnat al-Bayḍā', the White City, reflects their use of white as a dynastic colour which, of course, contrasted with the naming of the Nasrid capital, Madinat al-Ḥamra', the Red City, and their flag, described as vermilion with Arabic inscriptions in gold."
 * So wether the sources use the word "dynastic" or "state", it's the same thing, the dynasty is the state, a medieval concept of L'Etat c'est moi basically. So it is pretty clear we're talking about the Almohad dynastic state flag, that means dynastic flag is state flag per sources, just like the Alawi plain red; sourced here:.
 * This can't be clearer than this, and, for what it's worth, a good rule to follow in Wikipedia discussions is this: the more you reply, the less people will listen, so again, please stop pinging editors over obvious matters. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres @Nourerrahmane I'm pinging you in case you didn't notice my question. TybenFree (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I already answered to that question. Read my latest reply to R Prazeres. TybenFree (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I initially thought Nour added the paragraph. I agree with keeping it and understand your edit summary now, thanks for clarifying. However, I still believe adding the image is important, sorry for my insistence. It would visually represent the description in the paragraph. Providing a clear image description below it would prevent any confusion for readers. If you'd like, you can suggest one, or alternatively, adding an additional paragraph explaining why the flag is problematic, as you mentioned. Personally, I think "flag of Marrakesh as described in the book of Knowledge" is acceptable, but I understand if you disagree. I also used to believe that it represents the flag of Almohads until I watched a video by the Franco-Moroccan historian Nabil Moulin.TybenFree (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus from other editors to do so, I don't mind, but I think we need more input to make sure it's reasonable. R Prazeres (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Central Maghreb and Ifriqiya: Lands of conquest
@M.Bitton is there anything wrong with what I added? In the other discussion you didn't explain why you disagree with that. TybenWelcome 22:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's called "cherry picking" and serves no purpose other than to push the POV of a fly-by IP. M.Bitton (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Tbh I expected that answer. Do you really know what "Cherry picking" is? it seems to me you don't. The only case in which you can call this "cherry picking" would be if the information wasn't verifiable enough (or the source isn't reliable) or/and other reliable sources conradict the information. Please elaborate. TybenWelcome 22:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I obviously don't. I usually wait for editors like yourself to teach me the basics. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What you're trying to do here is a classic example of cherry picking. For further information, I suggest you read WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE. Skitash (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why the hell are you both so sure that i was cherry picking? Is there any source that contracdicts the iformation or is there anything wrong with the source? I quoted the source in the exact context which is the end of Almohad-Norman war. TybenWelcome 22:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of potential POV, this edit is also copying the source verbatim, which would be a copyvio if left as is. Even if this is fixed by placing it in quotations marks, the quote serves no clear purpose: the author is merely saying that this was a new conquest, as is already clear from reading the existing text. So let's keep new content to more informative things. R Prazeres (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @R Prazeres I believe you read Amar S Baadj 2015 so you might know that all the regions east of Tilimsan were peripheral to the Almohad imperial core. I still don't understand what's the problem here. TybenWelcome 22:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Universalis also says the same thing. TybenWelcome 22:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding your claim, The Mu'minids occupied Tlemcen, Algiers and Bejaia rather peacefully. if we take a closer look at a RS like Julien, the Mu'minids were especially kind to their defeated foes in central Maghreb, including Hilalian Arabs who were used by Abd Al-Mu'min to cast away the Moroccan Masumads to whom Abd Al-Mu'min was a stranger, and the Hammadid last emir. So while this could be called a conquest, just like Morocco was conquered, even more so since its cities like Marrakesh and Fez were sacked and its tribes like the Doukkala and Burghwata were subsequently massacred. So keep aside this antagonism between Mu'minds and the central Maghreb that's you're trying to push through your (obvious) cherry picking. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I stoped at the first sentence of your comment. "Peacefully"? Are you sure about that? Tlemcen was massacred just like Marrakesh and Fez and the Almohad conquest of the Hammadid wasn't paceful neither  there are many other sources... Abd al-Mu'min didn't harm Bejaia for the simple reason that it surrendered, Unlike the major Almoravid cities (Marrakesh, Fez, Tlemcen ...)TybenWelcome 23:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And what's more intresting according to Julien, is that the Atlas plains in Morocco were literally depopulated by the massacres of the berber tribes there in order to settle the Hilalian tribes from central Maghreb and Ifriqya, saying: "He brought the whole western Maghrib into the domain of the Arab nomads". leading to the Arabization of Morocco. This is in fact part of his anti masmouda policies to consolidate the power of his dynasty. I Think this is way more intresting to put into the article if it isn't already there. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is any cherry picking here it would be your input ... Clearly. TybenWelcome 23:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sources are not reliable, since they don't treat the subject matter. I however gave you a very well known and reliable RS about the history of North Africa. I think i said everything. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That was funny to be honest. Yo rejected all the sources very quickly for the simple reason that you didn't like their content. The sources are reliable of course. And I can give more. TybenWelcome 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did I already mention the fact that the more you reply and the lesser people will listen ? i suggest you stop wasting the time of the four editors who are against your edit. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On a side note, here's what RS Amira Benninson in her book "The Almoravid and Almohad Empires" (p79) has to say regarding the Almohads and Tlemcen and the Hammadids: "On the more pragmatic side, as a native of the Tlemcen area, ‘Abd al-Mu’min had a sense of affinity with the Zanata there and he had strengthened his position by recruiting many of them into the Almohad army. He had also cultivated some links with the Sanhaja Banu Hammad of the central Maghrib, who had initially offered their support to their Almoravid fellows during the siege of Tlemcen but then transferred their allegiance to the Almohads. This had given ‘Abd al-Mu’min nominal authority over the coastal town of Bijaya in the central Maghrib and drew the Almohad gaze eastwards to Ifriqiya where the power vacuum caused by the waning of the Zirid regime had been gravely exacerbated by the Norman occupation of the coast."
 * This is what Wikipedia is for, summerizing what RELIABLE sources say about a subject matter they treat directly.
 * Cheers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We all know that so what's your point? That he didn't massacre Central Maghreb towns? No he did and reliable sources confirm that. We also know that the Almohads choose Marrakesh as a capital and it remained the capital until their fall what, about that? (They attempted to Switch the capital to Rabat but they failed) <b style="color: orange;">Tyben</b>Welcome 00:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a continuation of what was started by this IP (using similar words). M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, seems he just doesn't like the fact that Mu'minids were not from present day Morocco and didn't not in fact feel sharing power with its tribes. The kind of Pov that wastes your time and gives nothing valuable to the article... Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Start date
The "start date" provided in the infobox until now is 1121, but this is not entirely sound, since the first caliph (Abd al-Mu'min) was only came to power in 1130(–1133) (see, , etc). The beginnings of the Almohad movement and some of its governing bodies were established before that of course, but in 1121 they were still little more than a band of followers with no significant political control in the region, and not even established at Tinmal yet. More simply: many reliable sources summarizing the period count 1130 as the start date, e.g.:, , , , and others. Ultimately, start dates for a progressively expanding state are often a little arbitrary, so an alternative might also be something like "1120s", "1130s". But to me, the sources above make "c. 1130" good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. R Prazeres (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm mistaken, the Caliphate wasn't established until the conquest of Marrakesh (1147). M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've seen any references say that exactly. The conquest of Marrakesh consolidated Almohad control in the Maghreb and ended the Almoravid dynasty, but Abd al-Mu'min was recognized as caliph since 1133 at least and by the mid-1140s he was in control of most of the surrounding region. (Apologies for any repetition with my reply at Talk:Fatimid Caliphate.) Again though, what convinces me is mainly what reliable references have chosen as the start date for summarizing purposes; I didn't make a systematic survey of everything, but looked at many of the usual sources. R Prazeres (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are RS  mentioning that Abd al-Mu'min proclaimed himself Caliph in 1147. M.Bitton (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. There are others stating it as 1132/1133, like Bennison (, see also p.70), Buresi (Fierro ed., ), & Laraoui . Others don't state the year explicitly but appear to describe it as something following the death of Ibn Tumart rather than the conquest of Marrakesh:, , . I'll try to look at more but I'm limited at the moment by time and access to some sources. Still, this is arguably a detail that doesn't need to necessarily determine the "start date" in the infobox. R Prazeres (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also in EI3, Viguera Molins, "Almohads", behind a paywall but quoting here: "[...] ʿAbd al-Muʾmin, the favourite disciple of the Mahdī Ibn Tūmart, who succeeded him in 524/1130 and was officially proclaimed caliph three years later." R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With more reading, I think the divergence here may be due to "caliph" being used in two different senses. One is in terms of khalifa, the successor to Ibn Tumart, and another is in terms of amir al-Mu'minin, Commander of the Faithful. E.g. Abun-Nasr (1987, p. 94) notes in general discussion of the state:
 * "Abdul-Mu'min himself was called the khalifa (caliph). Although in the context of the Almohad state this meant that he was Ibn Tumart's successor, to whom the Almohads referred as the imam, Abdul Mu'min also assumed the proper caliphial title of amir al-mu'minin. He was the first non-Arab to be so called."


 * And so regarding 1147, Maribel Fierro 2021 says (these are two quotes that should be on pages 42 and 74, respectively):
 * "Marrakesh was taken in 1147. (...) At this time, or perhaps earlier, ‘Abd al-Mu’min began to use the title of caliph."


 * "(...) Abd al-Mu’min seems to have started using the caliphal title of amir al-mu’minin after the conquest of Marrakesh. In an 1147 letter addressed to the talaba, the Almohads and the people of Meknes, ‘Abd al-Mu’min refers to himself as amir al-mu’minin ayyadahu Allah bi-nasrihi wa-amaddahu bi-ma‘unatihi (Prince of the Believers, may God help him with His victory and provide him with His help), a formula that became standard in subsequent letters."


 * But for the overall start date in the infobox, personally I think the most helpful one is again 1130, per the examples in my first comment above . There are examples of the other dates being used in summaries too (e.g., ). But marking it as 1147, based on an estimate of when he started using one caliphal title in addition to another, is more likely to cause confusion to readers than any of the other suggested dates, as the years of Abd al-Mu'min's reign are always counted as 1130/1133 to 1163 and a lot of Almohad history happens before 1147, including the start of their intervention in al-Andalus, the conquest of other major cities, etc. 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What about Julien ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha, yet another slightly different claim, thanks for finding that. I guess what this means is that there is reasonable uncertainty about when that title was used. Fierro (quoted above) also implies it's not a sure thing in her wording. R Prazeres (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks that way (I can't think of any other reason that would explain the divergence). Maribel Fierro also seems to be the only one to offer some evidence of when "amir al-Mu'minin" was first used, something worth looking into. At this stage, I don't know which is more helpful in the infobox, though I think we can all agree that 1121 (currently in the infobox) is incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this date corresponds to the date of his proclamation as the Mahdi, even before establishing his base in Tinmel, per the Fatimid caliphate, i suggest we remove Tinmel as first capital of the Almohad Caliphate and put Marrakesh instead. Just like the start date of the Fatimid caliphate corresponds to their conquest of the Aghlabid capital (as it neither corresponds to the establishment of Ikjan as a base for the Fatimid ismaili movement nor the Mahdi Abd Allah’s reveal and coronation)
 * according to RS Abd Al-Mu'min was proclaimed caliph of Ibn tumart as leader of the Almohad movement, which was succesful under his leadership in overthrowing the Almoravids.
 * The Almohad movement ended when the Almohad caliphate started. That is to say when Marrakesh was conquered and made capital for the new state. So i agree with Bitton that the start date should be 1147. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. The Mu'minid dynasty, the Almohad caliphs, came to power in 1130-33. That should be plenty enough for a general start date. Debating what exact titles were used at what time is just getting into the weeds. There isn't a more "official" foundation date to determine here without getting into WP:SYNTH territory. We should merely be following the most common date range used in reliable sources, and 1130-1269 seems to be it, from what I've seen so far.
 * Likewise, there's no reason to remove Tinmel from the infobox when it was the capital of Abd al-Mu'min, the first caliph, for many years. We should not remove information that isn't inaccurate or confusing. (Unlike Ikjan, where the confusion comes from the fact that no Fatimid caliph ever reigned there; and even that could be mitigated with some kind of note.) R Prazeres (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Prazeres, in that case then I think I’ll just go with changing the current start date in the infobox. 1130-1133 seems reasonable for me if he was indeed proclaimed as "prince of the faithful" as both Julien and Kaddache mention. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Kaddache p 258, Abd Al Mu'min took the title of Caliph in 1133, 3 years after the death of the Mahdi ( which was kept in secret) Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So how would everyone feel if I changed the start date to "c. 1130" or "c. 1133"? (Suggesting the "circa" because the occultation period after Ibn Tumart's death makes the exact date a little complicated in context, while the details are explained in the article; but I'm fine if people want to leave out the "c.") R Prazeres (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: We can still mention what Fierro says in the body of the article. R Prazeres (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * c 1133 for me because RS agree that the Mahdi’s death was kept secret until the council of 10 then the council of 50 agreed that Abd Al-Mu’min would be proclaimed caliph of ibn Tumart and prince of the faithful. Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong information
describes the flag of Marrakesh? The claim that the red flag was the flag of the city of Marrakesh is a weak claim, and I would go as far as calling it wrong. The claim is based on two factors, one being the flag of maruecos and the other of Fez, which might lead one to think it's the flags of the two cities, however, this assumption is incorrect. According to my personal research, I have found three reasons why it's not the city's flag: The first reason is that the title of the book itself, "Libro del Conosçimiento de todos los regnos" (Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms or Book of All Kingdoms), is self-explanatory. The second reason is that Don Rodrigo, the last Visigothic King, in the 11th-century book "Portraits of Kings", refers to Tariq as "rio de miramomilin rey de maruecos", meaning "prince of the faithful king of Morocco". Although Tariq had never held those titles, they referred to Morocco as "Maruecos", not the city of Marrakesh, since it's well known that Tariq was in Tangier. The third reason is Fernan Gonzales' poems, Yes right, thee fernan gonzales who was a military leader and died in 970, He mentioned the name "Maruecos" in some of his poems, referring to Morocco specifically, this was even before the city's foundation in 1061. Ps: I'm not arguing about whether the flag was used or not; I'm simply clarifying that the name "Maruecos" wasn't a reference to the city but rather to the kingdom, specifically during the civil war period when Almohad Sultan Abu Dabbous reigned in Marrakesh and its surroundings, staying as the legitimate Sultan of Morocco, while Ya'aqoub al-Marini ruled in Fez and had all of northern Morocco under his kingdom. He would soon conquer Marrakech to unseat him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.38.8.5 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:OR. None of the above is useful. R Prazeres (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake yet it doesn't delete the fact that the name ( maruecos) existed before Marrakesh was founded, that is a fact proven and not a research built on linked sources so I hope you consider it because it clearly conflicts with what's written 102.38.8.5 (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)