Talk:Mujahid's invasion of Sardinia

The original title was modified arbitrarily
the original title of this article was " Pisan-genoese expeditions to Sardinia" not "Mujahid's invasion of Sardinia". The title contradicts the text completely and it's different from the other languages articles. It's seems a clear attempt of historic revisionism.

Daygum (talk)


 * The Pisan–Genoese expeditions were a response to Mujahid's invasion. Did you read the article? Both titles are accurate but partial descriptions. In a discussion (see below) it was decided to give primacy to the first expedition (Mujahid's). Srnec (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Fantastoria!
Ci sono un mucchio enorme di supposizioni in questa voce che non hanno nessun fondamento storico. La storia non è fatta di supposizioni ma di fatti comprovati da fonti storiche. Non basta che un autore ipotizzi un fatto, tale fatto deve essere dimostrato. La Sardegna non è mai stata conquistata dai mussulmani e non c'è nessuna fonte storica che provi il contrario. Tutto il resto sono illazioni belle e buone. Sarrabus deriva dal fenicio Sarcapos non dall'arabo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.234.87.172 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have clarified the caption. There is ample evidence—and don't lie, the primary sources, which are mostly Italian, are presented—that the judicate of Cagliari was conquered and that the Saracens attempted to secure by fortifying it. They failed within a year or so. The whole island was never conquered, but a part of it certainly was. This was not mere raiding. (In the future, please use English to the best of your ability on the English Wikipedia. Thanks.) Srnec (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.provinciadelsole.it/giudicale.html http://www.provinciadelsole.it/eng/giudicale.html --79.46.84.56 (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are nice web pages, but they are not primary or secondary sources. The article cites its sources quite clearly. In 1015–16 some Saracens from Spain attempted to conquer Sardinia. They were at least partially (albeit ephemerally) successful. That is all. Do you have a specific beef with one of the sources used in the article or do you have sources that argue that the Saracen adventures were mere raiding? Srnec (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical mystification
This article is an historical mystification, i read absurdities like Pisa in Tuscany and Sardinia that was captured by Saracens, but there aren't confirmed historical sources that claim it or some references here are based on impartial writings by arabs and pisans (that both contended the conquest of Sardinia). By the way in Sardinia and Tuscany were never found traces of arab settlements, none neither a helm, a coin, a sword, a hut, or a ship wreck. So anyone can explain how is it possible, if this article speaks about "conquest"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.241.10 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All the sources are in the article. The Liber maiolichinus says that the Saracens held the coastal plain. This is a conquest, however ephemeral. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes really where? can you explain which plain? and what means "coastal plain"? large part of sardinian coasts are constituted by high cliffs, the rest of coastal plains were deserted wetlands infested by the malaria. So can you tell me where to find traces of an arab conquest in sardinia, obviously if you are right, there will be some settlements or archeological remains, like happen in Spain, Balearics and Sicily, but may be you are only person in the world who suppose it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codex1985 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Title
I can see the logic of your page move, but I do not think "Moorish" is very helpful. When I saw "Moorish invasion of Sardinia" on my watchlist, I was scratching my head. I think Muslim invasion of Sardinia, Mujahid's invasion of Sardinia, 1015–1016 invasion of Sardinia or Andalusian invasion of Sardinia would all be better. Alternatively, a title like Sardinian war of 1015–1016 might better reflect the presence of foreign powers on both sides. My personal preference is probably for Mujahid's invasion (or expeditions). Srnec (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Srnec: Hey, thanks for your input. Both Andalusian invasion of Sardinia and Mujahid's invasion of Sardinia came to my mind too. I briefly thought about Umayyad too. I just wasn't sure if 'Mujahid' was too unrecognizable, but if you want to second that, I'm happy to go along with it. "Mujahid's" does have some usage and sourcing justification, e.g.: Iskandar323 (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't totally comfortable with Moorish either, so I've made the move. What Mujahid lacks in recognizability, it perhaps compensates for in precision. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Srnec: Our prior consensus appears to have been overridden, but interestingly, in the process of double-checking the facts I found this piece, which seems to suggest that Mujahid took and held the island from 1015 to 1017. Another piece, this, says: "Subsequent to Mujahid’s conquest of Sardinia in 1015..." Not sure which narrative is true! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)