Talk:Maghrawa

Merger proposal

The newer article Maghrawid Dynasty covers a lot of the ground already included in thus article - I don’t think we need two separate articles. Mccapra (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

They do look like two tiny articles with greatly overlapping scope. At least part of the Maghrawid Dynasty article appears to have been directly copied from this one. CMD (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty close to an unnecessary content fork for a topic that can be covered on one page at the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have merged the pages. CMD (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

reliable source concern

Looks to me like a Google Books fail, and possibly a confusion between publisher and printer. This is a reprint of a historic book originally published by Ernest Leroux, a venerable and highly respectable publisher. The age of the source may create POV concerns about colonialism, but it is being used here for ancient history, and there is no reason to suppose that the reprint was altered. The French take old books and history *extremely* seriously, and I am fairly certain it would not have made its way onto Google Books if it was a hoax somehow. Elinruby (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

really garbled translation

will take some time to untangle Elinruby (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed the "Maghrawid Dynasty" infobox, as the article is about the entire Maghrawa confederation, not just the one dynasty in Fez. As the EI2 article on the Maghrawa and other sources make clear, there were many Maghrawa groups and rulers across the Maghreb with shifting relations and allegiances across this period. The article rightly mentions more than one of them and there are still more to cover; it's not as simple as a single "dynasty". Compare also with Banu Ifran and other similar articles about tribes/confederations of the time.

There are also complications that the infobox glosses over. For one, the end date of the dynasty proposed there is the date of the capture of Fez, but the exact date of this event is uncertain (as I've clarified again in this edit). The infobox also repeats a passing claim in the article that Ziri made Oujda his "capital", but other sources (including the EI2 article, which is very detailed) explicitly state that Fez was his capital and this is implied by the article itself via the aforementioned end date. I've also removed a dubious WP:OR map in a previous edit ([1]). In short, there is little accurate and representative information that can be conveyed in an infobox here, even if the article were revised more carefully. R Prazeres (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Source validity

@Descartes16 Anyone who has the book can see the text where I put the page number. I personally have the book, and if you cannot access it, this does not mean that the text is not there. Blazing73 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash Lethielleux is considered a reliable historian as Oxford relies on him as one of its sources.[2]
[3] Blazing73 (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I dont think that P.J. Lethielleux is a particularly reliable source on the topic, he wasn't specialized in this field and mainly served as the parish priest of Béni-Saf. Oxford used him in one article related to religion not tribes.

We need a more focused and high-quality source. Also, what is he basing his claims on to support that information? cause I don't have access to his book to check. Riad Salih (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih P.J.Lethielleux He is considered a reliable historian, and what I mentioned about him is part of his personal biography outside the field of history. If he were not reliable, none of these sources, especially Oxford, would have relied on him. As for his book, I have it personally, If you want a quote from the page I can give it to you. Blazing73 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t work like that. He may be notable on certain topics, but certainly not when it comes to Berber tribes. He doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page. Articles like this need real historians who are truly familiar with Berber tribes. Just because he was cited in one Oxford publication unrelated to the subject doesn’t make his work reliable or appropriate for this article. Riad Salih (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih If he is not mentioned in Wikipedia, that does not make him an unreliable historian. There are many well-known historians who are not mentioned in Wikipedia. And since when did Wikipedia become a standard for the reliability of historians? Blazing73 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

please read carefully what I said Riad Salih (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih In fact if you read his book ""Le litoral de l'Oranie occidentale"" You will find that in most of his topics he talks about the Berber tribes, especially those in western Algeria and their extension, as he is a specialist in this field as well.

There are other sources that mention what P.J.Lethielleux mentioned on page 53. If you want them, I will give them to you. Blazing73 (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

If what he's claiming is true and verifiable, then there should be more reliable sources out there—he shouldn’t be the only one mentioning it. And yes, feel free to send me the book via email; I’ll take a look at it when I can. Riad Salih (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't know how to email it but I'll put the sources here for you [4] Pag 805 [5] I almost forgot a source that mentions that the Macurèbes were known in the "l'extrême Occident" in the time of Augustus and this was before their migration to Chlef across the Moulouya River in 140 AD [6] Blazing73 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)