User talk:R Prazeres

Granada

You are editing from complete ignorance. Please stop. I will not continue reverting so as not to generate more conflict, but what you are doing makes no sense. The photo where the city of Granada appears is much more appropriate than typical and topical photos of tourists such as the Alhambra, already appears below.

The telephone prefix is not from the city of Granada but from the province of Granada.

The local pronunciation is not "Grana", that is totally FALSE. A hoax that someone has recently included and that you are justifying with a link to A SAUNA!! It is ridiculous.

And in Spain we have two surnames. Why do you eliminate the second surname of the mayor of Granada? Lopezsuarez (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Please use Talk:Granada for this discussion. Also, promising to "continue reverting" is a great way to convince administrators you are not editing constructively on Wikipedia. R Prazeres (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you speak English? I said "I will NOT CONTINUE REVERTING". I did not say that I will continue reverting. I really do not understand your attitude... I am very surprised. Lopezsuarez (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, I misread your comment as "I will continue...", my apologies. Nonetheless, the uncivil tone that preceded that sentence (and in your latest reply) does not help. R Prazeres (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The Timurids Considered Their Ancestors to Be the Mongols

https://www.irannamag.com/en/article/timurid-view-mongols-examination-mongol-identity-timurids/ Why Should We Believe a False Story Called Malfuzat Timury When There Are Enough Sources in This Link? Tamerlanon (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please use the talk page at Talk:Timurid Empire, not mine, otherwise the other editors will not see what you wrote. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Tamerlanon (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's getting out of control

Medieval Maghreb history articles are getting bombarded with Nationalist POV edits from multiple IPs, targeting mostly the infobox (Maps, Flags, Coa and status). It's been going on for a couple of days now. I suggest we ask for a 6 months long extended protection to be placed. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the disruptions are not frequent enough at the moment for page protection, which in any case has to be decided on an article-by-article basis, which would be tedious to request. I believe one editor made a good suggestion recently that we should consider requesting that the Maghreb be designated as a "contentious topic". (I can't remember which editor at which talk page.) I don't have experience with that procedure, but it's something we could consider as a long-term measure; my understanding is that it makes it easier for administrators to block disruptors and protect articles during disruption. I don't have much time to spare right now, but I'd be happy to help if anyone wants to start a discussion on that. R Prazeres (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Hello @R Prazeres. GA reviewer here approved adding this coat of arms to the infobox. For the sake of WP:Consensus I would like to have your opinion too. I would also suggest removing the five pointed star and make the crescent silver colored instead of yellow per source. Some pictures are also located here and here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA approval! For the coat of arms, based on the sources presented, it sounds like there may be different variations. I agree that the silver crescent seems to make sense, without the smaller star in the middle. Do you think the additional elements outside the shield (flags, lions, canons, etc here) were also present in the late Regency period or were they added in the French period? (At first glance, the evidence makes me think the latter, but I don't have the full context for each source to know if I'm understanding correctly.) Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ! Speaking of the coa I think those external elements were already present during the Regency period as the sources do not mention any foreign origin of them (Assari even mentions the regeny tricolor flags added on them), and besides, the early 20th century source mentions that the coa on Algiers gate was "the work of some slave". However these coas differ depending on the places and items on which they are found. Based on the pictures we have, the green shield seems to be the only identitical part remaining on everything listed. No wonder one of the sources (Flag bulletin, 1986) mentions that a 19th century French writer (I suspect De Grammont) mistook it for the flag of the regnecy.[1] Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Border of the shield is red per source (Flag bulletin) and not yellow, which means the shield contains all the colors of the regency (Red border, green field, yellow six pointed star and a silver crescent) which makes sense for an early modern coat of arms. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, that all makes sense to me. Given these minor variations, I think it's worth including the sources and quotes from the file description (or at least the most relevant ones) in a citation in the caption, to make the references clearer to everyone. (And you can bundle the citations to avoid inline clutter.) R Prazeres (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It's done. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Concerning your last message

Hi @R Prazeres I hope you are doing well.

I would like to express that I do not agree with the way you are tracking my recent edit. It appears that you are not really involved in the writing of that article. It is normal practice to add information linked with the context and correct false information, such as confusing the citadel with the palace Mechouar. Generally, if my edits are reverted, I prefer to have a discussion about it.

You randomly pop out to revert my edit , I'm sure you didnt even check what was edited. Even though I assume good faith, Im conveined this is related to Zenata's recent edit. You reverted a few minutes ago the last edit and then opened a discussion, knowing well that I cannot revert back the edit, so what is the point of discussing if you are already imposing your edit?

And then, you come to my talk page to post a misleading remark, explaining basic things. This is not acceptable at all. Therefore, I kindly request that you change your approach. Riad Salih (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Riad Salih, I'm sorry if it came across negatively; however, there is nothing unusual or unreasonable about what I did. I am not tracking your edits in any special way: both those articles are on my watchlist and thus both your reverts were clearly visible to me. Reverting two edits from two different editors in one day, without going through a talk page discussion first (and it should indeed be you doing that first), is certainly sufficient reason to give a polite clarification or reminder about how you should react to reverts. Nothing I said was "misleading", so please do not characterize my comment like that. The message was for your benefit: if you don't need the explanation, then you can demonstrate that by simply not repeating this behaviour. If you do that, then my message will be moot. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Grand Husseini Mosque

I wondered if you had any sources about the above mosque? any help would be appreciated, thanks, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

For the Umayyad mosque that preceded the modern one, it seems like the main reference to consult is a 1989 study by Northedge (available here). He also has a 1992 book on Amman (Studies on Roman and Islamic ‘Ammān 1. History, site and architecture) which may or may not contain more, but I can't access it. The ancient mosque is mentioned in a few places elsewhere (e.g. p.37 here, p. 18 here), but they just cite Northedge and don't go into detail. On the 20th-century controversy over the construction of the modern mosque, I think there's some more here, from p.68 onward, and I saw it mentioned in passing in a few other books (e.g. [2]. I hope this is helpful! R Prazeres (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated, will pass it on! Huldra (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Assistance for connecting articles

hi, if I ask can you connect this English article of ibn Durbas with the Arab article? And Zerzari tribe with the it's Arabic counterpart as well? I'm not familiar with wiki data. I really appreciate it if you do so. Jackhanma69 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Done! R Prazeres (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Hadhrami architecture

Moved to Talk:Hadhramaut § Hadhrami architecture

Historical Arab States and Dynasties

Hi, how are you? I made this edit to the table called: Historical Arab states and dynasties. I noticed that there are errors that need to be corrected. I respectfully ask that you revert your reversion, because the way I put it is correct after several searches on Google. Thank you in advance; 2804:D41:A243:3B00:6590:D0E7:B12C:F021 (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi there

So you reverted me at Islamic architecture. I thought the comparison to a barn is realistic but I'm not that worried. About the University in Fez. To my knowledge, there isn't actually one in the world that is still functional which predates 857. As a UK resident, neither our Oxford or Cambridge goes back quite that far. I couldn't find a discussion on talk. So is there an actual older university? I am interested to know which. Rule of Rules 1.8 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize the talk page had been set up with an archive feature, so it would be easy to miss without knowing this. Have a look at the archived discussions here (and some older but less relevant ones here). In short, this was a long recurring issue of disagreement and disruption, and the solution that achieved consensus was to have a more specific discussion in the article about this and to summarize the conflicting views briefly in the lead (intro) section, in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view. It's up to readers to make up their own minds after that.

I did also advise you to look at the article ([3]) in order to see this; your explanation suggests that you did not, so please review things more carefully before you repeat a reverted edit. The lead section is a summary of the article and obviously cannot start saying one thing while the rest of the article says another.

If you're unhappy with the current consensus, you can discuss it on the article's talk page, but past experience would suggest that it won't go anywhere unless you have new high-quality academic sources that explicitly discuss this question and that support some new information or perspective. Other than superficial improvements to wording/formatting, I doubt that there is a better solution at the moment. R Prazeres (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot to read there. The talks go back over a decade, and I can't seem to edge for what the conclusion was. Might as well leave it in its current format even though there is no actual uni older than Fez. --Rule of Rules 1.8 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There is too much indeed to read (and much of it not relevant anymore), but the point is that the current state of the article has settled the disputes and more recent discussions since then have ended with keeping this state, with only minor adjustments. For the actual important stuff to retain, the article itself reviews it: "university" in the modern sense describes a type of institution that historic Islamic equivalents may not match, the foundation date of al-Qarawiyyin refers merely to the foundation of the mosque (which was only called a "university" in the modern period), and it's not clear when and how teaching took place there until centuries later. There are possible counter-arguments (some of which I've made), but Wikipedia is ultimately limited to what reliable sources say, and must remain neutral when there isn't agreement in the sources. The claim that it is the "oldest university" is not generally accepted or repeated by historians who focus on the history of such institutions; it is effectively a claim published by UNESCO and the Guinness Book of Records, which are notable but not strictly academic references. Hence, the article is limited to stating what relevant references say, and must not state a position of its own. All in all, scholarly sources do not devote further attention to whether the Qarawiyyin is the "oldest university" or not, which is why I said that little else is possible unless there are new relevant sources. R Prazeres (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)