Talk:Kingdom of Tlemcen

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Tlemcen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714162736/http://cocomaan.net/CaverlyMAThesis.pdf to http://cocomaan.net/CaverlyMAThesis.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge Zayyanid dynasty and this article?
The Zayyanid dynasty article should probably be merged with this article, or vice-versa. The dynasty is functionally synonymous with this state (you wouldn't find separate entries for them in a scholarly encyclopedia), and aside from the list of rulers (which can easily be moved here), there is nothing in the other article that doesn't directly overlap with this topic, so it looks like an unnecessary content fork. It's also not common by default for dynasty/states to have separate pages on Wikipedia, unless there's practical reason for it; compare with other historic dynasties/states in the region (e.g. Almohads, Ayyubids, Hafsids, etc) or the many more developed Chinese dynasty articles (Ming, Yuan, etc). I have no strong feelings about which one should be merged into the other, which is why I'd rather let other editors comment first before adding a proposal. I would note, though, that specifying "Zayyanid"/"Abd al-Wadid" in the title would be more WP:PRECISE, as there were multiple states based in Tlemcen (e.g. there's an Emirate of Tlemcen article which exhibits the same problems), not to mention that some scholars probably wouldn't use the term "Kingdom" in this context. The Zayyanid dynasty article is older, if that makes any difference. R Prazeres (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree this article should be merged with the older article of Zayyanid dynasty. There is no need of two articles treating almost the same subject. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

the map
I think the source number [1] should be replaced or modified. Also it seems that the map is too exaggerated and needs to be sourced. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @M.Bitton, the link is broken, can you fix it? SimoooIX (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The link is provided for convenience only, the source is valid with or without it. If you feel the need to verify the it, then you look for it yourself (everything that you need to find it has been supplied). M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, i found it. Actually i have no idea about the reliability of the source. Anyway, I am unsure about the meaning of "the beginning of the 14th century" as mentioned in the source. Based on my knowledge, Tlemcen was already under Marinid siege during the initial seven years of the 14th century. Additionally, When exactly did the Zayyanids reach Melilla region (which is located to the west of the Moulouya river)?. Furthermore, the map does not seem to indicate the presence of Marinid authority in Sijilmassa. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
@Skitash please stop edit-warring. Instead, i have initiated a discussion for you where you can express and discuss your disagreements. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Simoooix.haddi I have already explained this in my edit summaries. You're intentionally keeping information you know is not supported by the sources and refusing to correct it. Skitash (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits in this article are nothing but POV-pushing, starting with removing sourced content then removing mention of Berber without a valid reason. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true. Check my changes carefully and you will realize I moved the sources to a new sentence which said the ruling dynasty was Berber. Those sources don't mention a "Berber kingdom" and only mention that the dynasty was Berber. And I did give a valid reason in the edit summary. Skitash (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Berber kingdom" is fine, it's the same wording used in similar articles (like Almohad Caliphate and Marinid Sultanate), and it refers to the character of the state, which was ruled by a Berber dynasty. A rewording might be acceptable in the future, but not if it's simply intended to marginalize mention of the Berber aspect of the state. Also, please don't edit-war. R Prazeres (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say this makes it confusing as the kingdom was not exclusively Berber just because its dynasty was Berber. Describing it as that would oversimplify its history and ignore the contributions of other groups who played a role in the kingdom's history. I suggest a rewording of that sentence to make it clearer. Skitash (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with rewording it as: "(...) was a kingdom ruled by the Berber Zayyanid dynasty in what is now the northwest of Algeria." R Prazeres (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What R Prazeres suggested seems fine to me. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Skitash (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, this looks like consensus so I'll edit the lead accordingly. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Skitash i have recovered your second edit, the first one doesn't make anysense. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Flag
Of the two flags that were in the infobox, only one of them has a source:, based on , which is based on this website. The other has no source so I've removed it. Note that the web source for the first one may not be a proper reliable source, but it does at least state what its primary sources are, so I have no further objection to keeping it. That same source also describes some other flags supposedly used in this period, including (citing same source). The primary sources all appear to be European portolans, which I think should be noted in any caption for context. I've suggested putting this and other details in a footnote to preserve brevity inline. R Prazeres (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @R Prazeres, but the same source has this blue flag in it . Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As Hubert (the author of the cited website) noted, the Book's text on p.25 does explicitly say: "The King of TREMECEN has for his device a flag, white with a blue moon." I was confused too with the image you just pointed out, but after reading further it seems that this other flag is associated (according to the author) with another Tlemcen ("Tremcen") that borders the river Nile ("Nilus"), and which has a "a purple flag with a white moon." See pages 31-32. (I've compared with other flags in the book that are described inline as "purple" and they are indeed the same shade as #65, e.g. the crescent in #50.) So this is apparently an unrelated kingdom with a similar name. That may explain the confusion, as the book doesn't provide an image (as far as I can tell) for the other Tlemcen that we're interested in. So the white flag is correct according to the primary source (in its wording at any rate) and the secondary source (the website, though a published scholarly source would always be preferable). R Prazeres (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

New article
, why did you create a separate article about the Flag of Kingdom of Tlemcen? It does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY and this information clearly belongs as a section in this article. R Prazeres (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I haven't actually thought about it, I'll make a section of it. BTW, I hadn't noticed this discussion about the flag before. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * After looking further, the new article is effectively all WP:OR, with none of the sources actually discussing the flag(s) in question. It could go through a WP:AFD, but I've converted it to a redirect for now, so that the history of the page can be preserved (see pre-redirect version here). R Prazeres (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to revert you again, Swiãtopôłk, but until there is something to say based on reliable secondary sources, even a copy of the article's content in a section like this, as I initially suggested, is inappropriate. We could still make a section about it here, technically, but the most it could say about it is to essentially repeat what's already said in the footnote already included in the infobox. R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * PS: Sorry for the overlap of comments, I should have waited a bit longer and I missed your first reply here. Feel free of course to request any further clarification. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You just wrote all this while I was out for a walk, so I read it all at once. The problem is that I haven't found any reliable secondary sources (although in this case the maps mentioned are, in a sense, secondary sources), and leaving this flag without this type of extensive explanation gives a false impression to someone not familiar with the study of the era. The only other way to comprehensively explain what this flag is and what it is not, is to create a gallery directly with the maps I mentioned, which would be easier to read. The footnote itself is not understandable to everyone, and the page that is quoted there are actually a collection of primary sources interwoven with an explanation of the background of its creation. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. There are indeed no good sources (so far). The maps are still primary sources, along with the Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms, which is one part of the problem (WP:PRIMARY). The only secondary source we have is the website mentioned above, but as I mentioned it's basically an amateur site that flag enthusiasts contribute to, so it's not really reliable per WP:RS. So this stuff is on thin ice, in terms of Wikipedia policy, and there could be an argument for removing it entirely.
 * The footnote can be improved and it was intended as a reasonable compromise, so in the same spirit, I think it's fine to have a section that states the same message there a bit more clearly and with slightly little more detail. But we must be careful this time to avoid any original synthesis of sources (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). Also, a full explanation of Portolan charts and the Book of Knowledge really belongs at those respective articles, which should be linked.
 * In the same vein, I'm hesitant to give too much weight to the Hubert de Vries source in the article, since it's not a true WP:RS. My recommendation would be to include a clear and explicit identification of the primary source(s) for each flag added, in addition to citing the website, so that the article does not blindly rely on an amateur source and so that it's maximally transparent to readers what the original sources are. We should avoid repeating any further analysis offered by the web source (like what the flags represent or when they were adopted), since it may be unreliable speculation.
 * To recap on the flags and sources, for everyone's benefit:
 * The web source (Hubert de Vries) provides two of the flags in Wiki Commons, attributing them to Portolan charts, but not always with many details. The two flags are:
 * Blue crescent on white ground (this or this). It cites the "portolans of Angelino Dulcerta and his successors until the middle of the 15th century", with a footnote stating: "For example Gabriel Vallseca (abou 1440) and Gabriel Bertran (1456)". No images of the charts are provided there for reference.
 * Red crescent on white ground this). It cites charts "by Marino Sanudo in 1321 and by Pietro Vesconte in about 1325", but this time it provides a relevant image of one chart (Pietro Vesconte, c. 1325) for reference. The full version of that chart can be seen here in Commons.
 * The same website also mentions a third flag for the later period, a supposedly blank red flag, citing an "anonymous portolan from about 1492". No further details provided.
 * Additionally, the website also cites Book of Knowledge of all Kingdoms for the blue crescent flag. This primary source is available for everyone to see here (p.25 is the relevant description, though without an accompanying image).
 * (The blue crescent on white ground flag, previously included in this article, is unrelated to the Zayyanids, as explained in the original discussion above.)
 * Further thoughts welcome. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)