Talk:Emirate of Tlemcen

Persistent original research in maps
Hi Kabz 15, your recent attempt to revamp your map with sources merely shows more clearly how you go about creating WP:OR over and over again, despite earlier warnings on other pages: Your map is essentially claiming that at some point the Emirate of Tlemcen was an enormous empire comparable in extent to the Almohads or early Fatimids. This is not a claim I've seen in reliable sources; if it is, you need to properly cite such sources, not stitch together vague tidbits from other sources in order to reach a conclusion that fits your existing POV or that creates a WP:FRINGE view. This is a direct quote from the WP:OR policy (WP:SYNTHESIS specifically), which describes in short what you are doing wrong: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." There are reasonable cases of synthesis you can perform when and if the sources are clear, reliable, and well-cited, to supplement another source for example, but this is not what you're doing. Rather than trying to create one problematic map after another based on these, you can use some of these sources (if they're reliable), to add more information to the main body of the text, where these facts can be properly contextualized and revised by other editors if necessary. This is a much better service to the topic.
 * You go out looking for any mention of the Banu Ifran (in this case) anywhere in any source, then you draw your own map that covers every location mentioned, based on your own interpretation of those sources, without any reference to any existing map or historical atlas from a reliable source which would be appropriate for this kind of work.
 * There's absolutely no contextual information in the sources you've provided that allows you to conjecture what Banu Ifran control looked as a whole, or in one particular period, and no indication that these sources are actually describing territory belonging to the Emirate of Tlemcen, which is what this page is about.
 * Moreover the sources you cite are simply titles with no bibliographic information, making it practically impossible to verify if these sources really support your overall conclusion or if they are even reliable.
 * Some of the sources you cited with this map are clearly very dubious in terms of both relevance and reliability, for example: "ISRAEL AGAINST ALL ODDS: Anti-Semitism From Its Beginnings to the Holocaust Years By Christopher H. K. Persaud" (a polemic work about Israel written by a non-scholar).
 * And, non-coincidentally, almost every map you've made this way shows a wildly exaggerated territory for the dynasty in question, which suggests this is very much a POV push and not in keeping with WP:NPOV.

Needless to say, I will be removing your map once again. And I will be doing the same at the Hammadid dynasty page, where you just did the same thing again. In the future, if you persist in doing this kind of thing, I will refer back to this discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi R Prazeres,
 * 1. The map shows exactly what it states, in the lighter shade of red the territorial extent during the reign of Abu Qurra and in the darker shade or red the territorial extent in the 11th century.


 * 2. I’m not sure how you’ve attributed WP:OR to a map that displays exactly what it is based on and exactly what the sources state in the files description.


 * 3. You’ve pointed out one source being “irrelvant” although I’ve included an entirely different source about the same event in the description, you then claimed that this “irrelevant” source somehow invalidates all of the other sources and claimed that all of the sources are unreliable. You’ve most likely made these baseless claims in order to remove a well sourced map in your favour. A lot of these sources are already cited in the page and they are far from “impossible to verify”.


 * 4. “Your map is essentially claiming that at some point the Emirate of Tlemcen was an enormous empire comparable in extent to the Almohads or early Fatimids.” Really? Please point out where in the map these claims are made, furthermore I’ve given an explanation at 1.


 * 5. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here." Really? Can you point out where exactly this has happened? Making false claims of WP:OR to publish edits in your favour is a serious accusation, as I mentioned earlier the map shows exactly what it states.


 * 6. For what exact reason have you removed the Hammadid map? I’ve combined numerous reliable sources that all state that during the reign of Buluggin ibn Muhammad and al-Nasir the Hammadid domain extended over to Fez, Tripoli, Ouargla, deep in the Sahara and that Hammadid authority was recognised in Kairouan and Tunis. A map that depicts exactly what is described in the file description is in no way WP:OR.


 * 7. I will soon restore the map as your claims of WP:OR are baseless accusations.


 * Thanks,


 * (Kabz15 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC))
 * Hi Kabz15, I apologize for the long reply, but I'm taking the time to respond as best I can, given how frustrating this must be for you and how often this has already happened:
 * Let me start with a simpler request: can you point us to a single historical map (or at least multiple related maps that uncontroversially compliment each other) from reliable sources, which shows what this map shows about the Banu Ifran state in Tlemcen? If the territory shown in this map cannot be reasonably directly found in reliable sources, then it remains original research. It sucks, but we are all limited by what is available in reliable sources.
 * On this point here: "Really? Please point out where in the map these claims are made, furthermore I’ve given an explanation at 1." Your map is an illustration of what the territory of the Banu Ifran/Emirate of Tlemcen is supposed to be; therefore it is a claim in and of itself about that territory and the political power of that state. You've created and added a map that depicts a state that controls a clearly-defined and very large territory; that is therefore a claim that needs to be supported. The brief textual sources you've cited do not confirm all the details of this map; you've evidently interpreted them to decide where the borders of the shaded area should go. As for your explanation in 1: you say the different shades show the territory in different periods (the 8th and 11th centuries); but if so then why are they represented together in the same map? Are you saying that one point all of these territories were controlled together at the same time, with one part of the territory simply coming later than the other? Because that's what the map looks like and that's how many general readers will interpret it at a glance (which is important). The different periods indicated simply raise more questions.
 * On your point here: "A lot of these sources are already cited in the page and they are far from “impossible to verify”." If they are cited on the page already, why didn't you provide full bibliographical details on the description page of the image? Your map exists as its own independent work on Commons and could be used anywhere: it is not my job or the job of other editors to assume your sources are fully cited somewhere else and to go looking for them. Moreover, the unreliable source I pointed out was one stand-out example of how you've not made enough effort to carefully pick proper sources. Some of the others don't look very promising either. The fact that an editor has cited some of these sources on a Wikipedia page (including this one) is not what makes them reliable. (If anything it just shows that Wikipedia pages need constant improvement.) You have to check that they fit the criteria of WP:RELIABLE when you use them.
 * To repeat the point on synthesis: you've stitched together information from different sources without showing that they support your overall conclusion (i.e. that this entire territory represents the Emirate of Tlemcen as scholars would represent it). They merely support different claims, and you have not shown that the sources themselves would support your decision to fit them all together in one single representation. For example, the most dubious detail that stood out to me for this map is in southern Spain: can you provide reliable sources that indicate that the Taifa of Ronda (which was based in Ronda) was controlled by the Emirate of Tlemcen? (And how did you decide what the size and shape of the Taifa of Ronda looks like, is there a source for that?) The existence of a Taifa kingdom ruled by members of the Banu Ifran isn't the issue. The issue is that just because the local rulers in Ronda were from the Banu Ifran clan in no way indicates that it was part of a larger state stretching across the Maghreb, even if the Taifa is mentioned on this page.
 * As for your Hammadid map, it is at odds with illustrations of Hammadid territory in published historical atlases such as, for example, the Atlas of Islamic History by Peter Sluglett and Andrew Currie, 2014, (see page 31 or map 14) or the Historical atlas of Islam by G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville and Stuart C. Munro-Hay, 2002 (see p. 72). There are other atlases I unfortunately can't access, but your map stands out as diverting significantly from some comparable maps that scholars have published, and that in itself is a red flag. Just as before, you've given a list of sources there without full bibliographical details. Just as before, you've mixed together the mentions of multiple military captures or occupations of multiple areas without any indication of whether these were stable occupations, of how long they lasted, or of whether at any period all of these territories were indeed controlled together by the Hammadids under the same state, as your map shows. If you can provide another reliable source that supports how you've painted such a large territory to represent Hammadid control, you need to reference it, but even then some of the problems mentioned above would remain unless that source is a similar but reliable map.
 * As I've pointed out before at Talk:Ottoman Algeria a while ago, there are other ways to show the information that you've cited here without resorting to a large degree of personal interpretation about borders and territory. These are just some examples I can think of:
 * if applicable, don't represent multiple periods in the same map if the full map, with all shaded areas, doesn't fit one particular period, as it's difficult for such a map to avoid being confusing or misleading;
 * or, if there are no reliable sources that show you the relevant territories on a map, then don't make a map with shaded areas, just point out places on an unshaded map with dates for when relevant events, raids, conquests, and occupations happened;
 * or use an existing reliably-sourced map, and add arrows and short, clear notes, to indicate other events beyond what the map shows, with clear sources in the description that support the notes you've added.
 * To conclude: there's a reason why we trust scholars to make this kind of work and why we defer to published and peer-reviewed scholarly work on Wikipedia for ALL information; only peer-reviewed published research is likely to have weighed the relevant factors involved in presenting an accurate and reliable description or representation of a topic. (There are obvious exceptions like news sources for current events, not applicable here.) The same applies to maps as it does to text, since both are methods of adding information to the page. If we can't easily find the same information (including territorial representations on maps) in scholarly sources, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia as a rule; we cannot take your word for it (or the word of any editor) that your synthesis of the sources matches what peer-reviewed scholarship would also say.
 * PS: On a more personal point: you keep repeating that my deletion of your maps is in my favour ("in your favour"). Why would that be? These are the very topics I'm interesting in seeing expanded and improved, so why would removing your edits be something I take pleasure in? As you know, I've revised some of your other edits in the past on pages that I'm familiar with, when I thought that those edits needed revisiting. In most of those cases I've tried to either revise them so that they fit with the existing material or don't displace existing sourced material, which improves the page overall, or I've even used them to further expand on the information you added. You are clearly capable of making useful contributions when they're done right. I'm sincerely sorry that conflicts like this are unpleasant and personally frustrating, but I do not remove someone's work lightly. That's why I follow up with these long explanations; because I hope that it's better to do it like this than to remove work with little feedback. If this comes across as trying to intimidate you out of further contributions, I apologize, but I'm doing my best to improve articles too. So please take these objections seriously, and I urge you not to repeat edits or additions that are problematic when there is so much else you can do to contribute. Sincerely, R Prazeres (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi R Prazeres


 * Thanks for the response, there is genuinely no reason to apologise.


 * Addressing the first point regarding historical maps, it is quite hard to find any based on the time periods my map is based on especially during the rule of Abu Qurra, this is why I’ve used sources in the file description. Although I have found a map on euratlas showing the territory of the Caliphate of Cordoba and the Zenatas whom were clients of Cordoba at the time, at best it gives quite a limited insight regarding the territories held by the Zenatas and is based on the beginning of the 11th century. As for the 8th century it is quite difficult to find a map on not just the Emirate of Tlemcen during the reign of Abu Qurra but the Emirate of Tlemcen itself. Overall basing my map on historical maps alone wouldn’t be ideal due to the limited amount of historical maps or accurate historical maps for the time periods my map is based on.


 * “You've created and added a map that depicts a state that controls a clearly-defined and very large territory; that is therefore a claim that needs to be supported. The brief textual sources you've cited do not confirm all the details of this map.” The map specifically states that the different shaded areas are based on different time periods, the map legend clearly differentiates these time periods, however if you are suggesting that this should be presented more clearly then I can try and edit the map to present this more appropriately.


 * As for your third point regarding the sources I will try my best to provide an accessible link to each cited source below which confirm that the Ifranids had occupied or established some sort of control over the highlighted territories, as for the Taifa of Ronda the founder was an Ifranid prince and one of the sources I will include below named “Ronda” states that “Ronda becomes, under the Berber dynasty of the Banu - Ifran the capital of one of them , ruled by Abu - Nur” and another translated from Economie politique du moyen age By Louis Cibrario “by the Ifrenids in Sale then attracts his attention as well as that which Abou - Nour, Ifrenid prince, established in Ronda, Spain”.


 * “The Banu Ifran ruled over an area just North and East of the Barghawata”


 * “The Ifranids governed in Tlemcen, in Sale and in Tadla.”


 * “Tamim ibn Ziri established his authority in Fez.”


 * “Leader of the Zenâta Beni Ifren named Abu Qorra had made a veritable metropolis of doctrine and around which formed a broad coalition which advanced with Abu Qorra to the gates of Kairouan.”


 * “Kingdom is created near Tlemcen by the leader of the powerful tribe of the Ifren: Abu Qorra, who is a remarkable war chief. A Kharijite Berber coalition forces the governor of Kairouan, Omar ibn Hafç Hazarmar, to fall back to his city. Once again the Berber chiefs are masters of all of Ifriqiya”


 * “Ronda becomes, under the Berber dynasty of the Banu - Ifran the capital of one of them , ruled by Abu - Nur”


 * “by the Ifrenids in Sale then attracts his attention as well as that which Abou - Nour, Ifrenid prince, established in Ronda, Spain”.


 * As for your stance on the Hammadid maps I am familiar with the Hammadid territory displayed in the atlases you’ve mentioned, however these depict the Hammadid territories at their lowest extent rather than at its greatest during the golden age between Buluggin ibn Muhammad and al-Nasir ibn Alanas, using a map for the Hammadids at their weakest and lowest extent also just before they recaptured Tlemcen would be like using the main map for the Abbasid Caliphate around the year 1258 close to their weakest or lowest extent. The sources I provided specifically state that the empires domain was extended to these regions. I will also provide various accessible sources below for this.


 * “al-Nasir pushed eastward and established influence on the coast from Sfax over Susa to Tripoli and advanced southward far into the Sahara.”


 * “Though they had lost Sigilmasa to the latter, they continued to control Wargla and a number of southern Tunisian oases”


 * “the Hammadid realm included important cities such as Constantine, Biskra, and Niqāwus in the eastwhile in the west the Hammadid state included Ashīr and Milyāna and at times it embraced Tāhart and Tilimsān which were contested with its western neighbors. In the south the Saharan oasis of Wargla also fell under Hammadid rule.”


 * “al- Nasir succeeded in expanding the Hammadids' domain over the Tunisian coast (including the the cities Sfax and Susa) as far as Tripoli, then penetrated southward into the Sahara where the Al-moravid army halted at a Hammadid advance.”


 * “Under Buluggin ( 1055-1062 ) the Hammadids extended their empire to Morocco”


 * “Buluggin ibn Muhammad, led a large army into Morocco and even managed to briefly capture Fès”


 * I have uploaded another map of the Ifranid Dynasty this time giving a more clear presentation of the occupied territories in the specific time periods although I think the map I uploaded earlier was fine and well sourced. As for the map of the Hammadids I realistically think the sources I used strongly support the highlighted areas in the map and are in no way WP:OR.


 * Thanks, (Kabz15 (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC))


 * Hi again Kabz15. Part of the problem here, like I said originally, is that you are interpreting every branch of the Banu Ifran as if it's one state or one continuous domain with, I guess, changing territories. None of the sources you've cited so far actually explains this, hence the danger. A useful indication of how this topic should be presented is by reading the encyclopedic entry about for "Banu Ifran" at Encyclopedia of Islam (Second Edition, or "EI2"), which covers all of the Banu Ifran in their various migrations and political roles and makes it clear that there are multiple kingdoms and states, not one state based in Tlemcen; in fact there were at least three, maybe more, in different regions and at different times. My recommendation is that you do more research and divide your map into multiple maps that only show territorial extents for one ruler (or one state) at one time, not all of them simultaneously. You can add those different maps to the various pages or sections where they are relevant (e.g. on the Banu Ifran page).
 * The other problem, which I'm glad to see you explicitly acknowledge, is that you couldn't find maps that illustrate the states and periods that you're looking for. That's what I've been trying to get at: if there are no such maps, we cannot simply make them up, even if we have a good idea of what they might look like from our readings. I agree with you that I prefer a map showing a state at its peak, but we're limited by what's available to use from sources. I've already suggested some ways of adding this information to maps without resorting to significant WP:OR. Ultimately, there are probably maps you could still create that might be acceptable to other editors even if you don't have all the sources you need, but you have to be very careful either way, limit your own personal interpretation beyond what the individual sources say, and you have to be transparent about which aspects of the map are your own conclusions (e.g. the borders themselves). Resist the urge to be ambitious with one map and do not combine different periods and states together into one. Be clear about what were ephemeral incursions into a territory versus what were long-term occupations.
 * Finally, to come back to a general comment about this page (not your map): at the moment this page does not seem to properly define what the "Emirate of Tlemcen" actually is and it seems to overlap indiscriminately with the Banu Ifran page. Assuming that this page is supposed to be about the state founded by Abu Qurra from Tlemcen, then that kingdom did not actually survive in any significant form (at least not anywhere near the extent shown here) into the 9th century. Even the "Legacy" section on this page explains some of that. And so everything after the 8th century is generally not relevant to this topic. Here are some passages from two major reliable sources that support this (my emphasis in bold), starting with EI2 here:
 * "Not a great deal is known of the Īfranid state of Tlemcen after the siege of Ṭubna. It is however very probable that friendly relations were maintained with the Ibāḍī kingdom of Banū Rustam [q.v.] in Tāhert, which bordered on Tlemcen. The first ruler of Tāhert, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Rustam, who governed the town from 160/776-7 or 162/778-9, even allied himself with the Banū Īfran by marriage, since he probably married a daughter of the ruling family of Tlemcen. From this union was born ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, the second Ibāḍī imām of Tāhert. This marriage must have taken place in about 148/765-6 at the latest, since in 167/784-5, at the time of the death of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Rustam, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb was already an adult and a member of the council of six empowered to choose the future imām from its own members. Curiously enough, another member of the same council was Abū Ḳudāma Yazīd b. Fandīn al-Īfranī, a cousin and supporter of ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, who later became his implacable enemy and one of the founders of the Nukkārī heresy. He conducted a long war with ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, probably relying mainly on the Banū Īfran; in the end he died in battle, killed by Aflaḥ, son of ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, in about 188/803-4 or shortly afterwards. At that time, the Īfranid state of Abū Ḳurra had already ceased to exist for some years. It seems moreover that control of Tlemcen, which was then inhabited by the Banū Īfran and the Mag̲h̲rāwa, had passed after the death of Abū Ḳurra into the hands of Mag̲h̲rāwa leaders belonging to the dynasty of the Banū K̲h̲azar, this dynasty being destined to play a considerable part in the history of the Mag̲h̲rib. In 173/789-90 (or according to certain historians, in 174/790-1), at the time of the conquest of that country by Idrīs I [q.v.], the founder of the dynasty of the Idrīsids, Muḥammad Ibn K̲h̲azar b. Ṣūlāt, the ruler of the town of Tlemcen, came before the conqueror and, thanks to his prompt submission, obtained security for himself and for all the Zanāta tribes of the central Mag̲h̲rib. It was Sulaymān, brother of Idrīs I and later hereditary ruler of that town, who became the Idrīsid governor of Tlemcen; it seems however that, save for this fact, conditions in the central Mag̲h̲rib were little changed. The Zanāta tribes in the country continued to recognize the supremacy of the Mag̲h̲rāwa, which had long replaced the supremacy of the Banū Īfran."
 * According to Jamil Abun-Nasr:
 * "In the years immediately after the Abbasid invasion of 761 the Banu Ifran tribal confederacy, whose leaders at this time adhered to the Sufrite Kharijite doctrine, gained ascendancy in north-western Algeria. Lewicki (cf. 'Ifran' in El) traces the origins of this confederacy to a small tribe also called Banu Ifran which lived at the time of the Arab conquest in the district now called Yafran in central Tripolitania. The main body of this confederacy moved westwards, probably as a The Rustamids result of the Arab conquest. Having settled in the Awras region, it joined the Berber tribes which resisted the Arab invaders in the 690s under al-Kahina's leadership. A fraction of this confederacy remained, however, in Tripolitania and adopted the Ibadite doctrine. The Abbasid invasion of 761 which forced a number of Ibadite Berber tribes from Tripolitania and southern Tunisia to move into Algeria, also caused the Sufrite Banu Ifran to move from the Awras into north-western Algeria. Supported by the Maghila, another Sufrite tribe, the Banu Ifran emerged in the 760s as the most important opponents of Abbasid domination in Algeria. In 765 these two tribal groups proclaimed the chief of the Banu Ifran, Abu Qurra, as imam. Tilimsan, which was built by the Sufrite Berbers on the foundations of an ancient Roman town, became the capital of the Sufrite imam. The Banu Ifran were able to repulse the attacks launched against them by the Abbasid army and on one occasion even raided Tunisia. From the early 770s, however, they lost their leading position amongst the Kharijite tribes in Algeria. Although they retained control of Tilimsan until its conquest in 790 by the Idrisid rulers of Morocco, their authority was eclipsed by that of 'AbdulRahman b. Rustam, the leader whom the Ibadite tribes in Algeria proclaimed as their imam in 776 or 777 (A.H. 160). Thereafter the Banu Ifran, to whom 'AbdulRahman b. Rustam was related through marriage, figured more as allies of the Rustamid rulers than as a politically dominant group."
 * Thanks for responding and discussing. R Prazeres (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi R Prazeres


 * Thanks for the reply. As for the “Emirate of Tlemcen” it may be more appropriate to rename the page to something like the “Ifranid Dynasty” also none of the sources you’ve quoted seem to clearly state that the Ifranid Dynasty or Emirate of Tlemcen completely ended in the 8th century neither do any of them seem to say that they were separate states, thus this can easily pass off as WP:OR. Another thing concerning your point that the territorial extent should be limited to the reign of a single ruler, I don’t see why this has to be the case and there isn’t any rule on Wikipedia that says that we have to abide by this “rule”, also there are various maps on Wikipedia for example the British Empire that display the territorial extent throughout the period of more than a single ruler. Also regarding your removal of the “Spain” section I’m not sure why you’ve done this as the sources I cited before clearly state that this was part of the Dynasty of the Banu Ifran and the ruler was even an Ifranid prince, this would bring me to a conclusion that you are not reading or just simply ignoring my replies. Another thing, the false accusations of WP:OR are absolutely baseless and contradictory especially considering how I’ve repeatedly provided various reliable sources that I’m guessing you aren’t even reading considering your removal of the “Spain” section which itself is completely WP:OR as it is entirely unsupported and completely baseless and already contradicted by the earlier source clearly stating that it was part of the Dynasty of the Banu Ifran. In conclusion you’ve presented baseless and contradictory claims of WP:OR and unsupported WP:OR claims of “separate states” when I’ve clearly provided sources stating otherwise which lead me to view your edits as Disruptive Editing especially when you are making edits before the issue on this talk page has been resolved. Thanks. (Kabz15 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC))
 * Hi Kabz15, as you very well know there is already a Banu Ifran page to which the "Ifranid dynasty" redirects, and that is where this kind of information belongs. It would be unwise to create another page called "Ifranid dynasty" which could refer to any one of several states and would overlap significantly with these existing ages. You frankly don't seem to understand the history and sources here: the Banu Ifran are a clan/tribe, not a dynasty, and like many other tribes they engendered multiple dynasties over time. You clearly haven't read the full source (EI2 in particular) which makes clear that there are multiple branches of the Banu Ifran, as I already said above. There are also many sources on the history of al-Andalus which discuss the Taifas, and there is no hint that the Taifa of Ronda was run by a transcontinental Ifranid empire based in Tlemcen, so trying to convince us otherwise is a WP:FRINGE view based on your own unsupported assumptions. None of your sources contradict me, and your counter-accusation of WP:OR here are counter-productive. Plus, I've just discovered that a source you originally added in the infobox for the end date of the dynasty didn't even make sense in context (it's been fixed in my last edit) and that at the same time you were the one who expanded the scope of this page (here) without properly checking it against the scope of the Banu Ifran article first, and by copying content from the Banu Ifran page in the first place.
 * I've given you a lot of time today and I don't have more to give. At this point, I invite you to solicit consensus from other editors for the point of view that you are advocating for this article. (You may want to start a new talk page section, since this one is getting long.) R Prazeres (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Numerous sources classify the Ifranids as a dynasty, nevertheless wether or not they are classified as such is irrelevant to the initial point being the territorial extent of the Ifranids, I can simply make a map suitable for whichever relevant time period. The sources you cited that are meant to support your claim of the dynasty ending in 790 are completely unsupported and almost certainly WP:OR, nowhere in any of the sources you’ve cited clearly mention that the Emirate of Tlemcen ended in 790. “There are also many sources on the history of al-Andalus which discuss the Taifas, and there is no hint that the Taifa of Ronda was run by a transcontinental Ifranid empire“ The source I presented states “Ronda becomes, under the Berber dynasty of the Banu - Ifran” and another source stating that the ruler was an Ifranid prince. It literally couldn’t get any clearer than that. The dating of the Emirate of Tlemcen/Ifranid Dynasty differs with sources, however in the sources you’ve presented there is no clear mention of the date of which the Dynasty/Emirate ended and the photo showing the genealogy of the Ifranids clearly presents a line of rulers lasting until 1066, there was certainly some form of state or dynasty led the Ifranids in the 11th century. Given that you have a history of reverting my edits and completely removed a significant amount of content from my previous edit while calling my edit a “mess” as well as removing my edits and uploaded photos on the Hammadid dynasty page is almost certainly WikiHounding. From the beginning of this talk you’ve presented a false accusation of WP:OR suggesting the sources were “irrelevant” and “unreliable”, upon providing links to these sources you completely failed to acknowledge them and immediately changed the topic of discussion which was initially about presenting reliable sources to support the map I uploaded. It also doesn’t help when you keep editing the page while the discussion is still ongoing please read the “Asserting ownership” on WikiBullying and while you are there I would also suggest reading WikiHounding, “False accusations” and POV railroad. Thanks. (Kabz15 (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC))

Note: removal of Spain section
Just a minor note because I intended to make it a separate edit with a separate edit summary, but I accidentally removed during an unrelated edit: I've removed the "Spain" section on this page because, as per my explanation in my last comments in the talk section above, this kingdom isn't related to the emirate of Tlemcen, and it belongs on the Banu Ifran page (where a section about it already existed and has been moved into the main history section there). There's already too much overlap and confusion between this page (which is about the state founded by Abu Qurra) and the general Banu Ifran page (which is broader in scope). The inclusion of a section on the Taifa kingdom contributed to this unnecessary overlap. R Prazeres (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)