Talk:Hammadid dynasty

dates

The dates do not correspond with the (a little more extensive, and listing sources) German article at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammadiden

Should we assume that they are wrong, or does anybody have sources? -- Ravn 23:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

i naad more info

i need more info on the hammadids im doing a project any1 know where i can find some??

File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Extent of the Hammadis Kingdom ?

Reading Ibn Khalduns's "History of the Berbers" among other books , we notice that the Hammadis controlled cities as far as Ouergla and Fez , and some Tunisian costal cities as some point. Can someone make a more appropriate map for the Hammadis at their hight ? Alg01 (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hammadid Dynasty 11th Century.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Debate for candid editing

{{notif|Vif12vf}Hello... I edited the article's image because it was wrong, but it was not accepted So let's get to know each other, brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed isa5 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

New map

Hello @Kabz15 I deleted the new map since it doesn’t correspond to the sources. All the maps about the Hammadids look like the one I published (ex : [1]), it is also the map that is used on almost every version of wikipedia (in foreign languages). Please stop your POV-pushing. YusAtlas (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the old map that was properly sourced and contradicts your "All the maps" BS. M.Bitton (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

We should restore this map (the one by Kabyle20) instead, which Sizito introduced to the article before this dispute, rather than the current one (this). The current one is unreliable and probably WP:OR; the details are not verifiable in the cited source ([2], p.36) and the eastern and western borders are clearly the modern international borders, which have no relevance here. I can't personally verify all the sources used in Kabyle20's map (I only have access to the Sluglett & Currie source), but I see no reason not to trust them for now, and it is more informative as an overall map for the topic, as Sizito said.

Likewise, the other two maps in the article (this and this) are substantially WP:OR; they're not based on any published maps and rely on a Wikipedia editor's own interpretations of selected written sources; incidentally, the borders are again based (sometimes loosely, sometimes exactly) on modern international borders and even internal administrative borders within present-day Tunisia and Algeria. Since Kabyle20's map would already show the core Hammadid territories along with their more temporary extended territories, it would probably negate the necessity to have other WP:OR maps in the article. R Prazeres (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind, but to be fair, while the current map may be off here and there and could do with some adjustments, it's not hugely different from the cited source (which for instance, shows the territory extending over the northern part of Tunisia all the way to Hammamet). I have no issue with the removal of the other two maps that you mentioned. M.Bitton (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

That's true, I've oversimplified the issue a little. I should say, rather, that given the alternatives I don't see a reason to prefer that map over the newer one, or even others. If there's no further problem, I'm going to restore the newer map that was in place just before the edit-war, and remove the lower maps per the reasons mentioned above.

PS: I also had a look at the main text to check that things were internally consistent, more or less, and ended finding a lot of things to clean up. There may be other things I've missed. R Prazeres (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I also took a moment to make an English version of the map (here). Overall it's still not perfect as a map, and I've asked the original author to provide more details on some of the sources (here), but hopefully it will do for a while. Now that I have a working version of the file on hand, I can make further basic edits to the map if desired, just let me know. R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Abbasid vassals

@R Prazeres Hi, the Hammadids, just like their Sanhadja brethren east and west, recognised Abbasid suzerainty, this alliegence always ment rebellion against the Fatimids, this case is no different, in the hammadid case, the rebellion was followed by a Shia massacre, the same way it happened with the badicid neighbour. Which means that this allegence had both religious and political significance, as it’s ment to make a change in the political status as well as the official religion of the state (or the ruling elite at least). So I beleive it’s better if Nominal vassal of the Abbasid Caliphate is added in the infobox, also I wouldn’t mind having the black flag of the Abbasids on all three Sanhadja dynasties since it is attested per sources, and since they base their rule on Caliphal legitimacy of the Abbasids, which is the focal point of any Islamic dynasty or emirate (same with Hudids and Banu Ghania who rebelled against the Almohads) (The regency of Algiers relies on ottoman legitimacy for instance), this will also free these articles from potential NPOV pushing of disruptive editors. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems a little more complicated than that, because the Hammadids declared their allegiance to the Abbasids during the initial rebellion but then apparently agreed to recognize the Fatimids again at other points, as this article and the Zirid dynasty mention, according to some sources. (I believe the Zirids also switched back to the Fatimids at times after 1048, primarily for diplomatic/tactical reasons, though I'd have to dig up the sources again to confirm.) So if we add it the infobox, it should probably mention both the Abbasids and Fatimids as nominal suzerains (and leave the full details to the article). E.g. something like "Nominal vassals of Abbasids and Fatimids" followed by a footnote that says "See article for details.", or whatever works.

I know I sound like a broken record on flags, but I would oppose putting the black flag in the infobox for these dynasties, because of the nuances above and because I don't think these represent any kind of official flag for the dynasties themselves. But of course it can be mentioned inline. R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: Since the article only partially covered this, I've added more details to clarify ([3], [4]). There may be other allegiance changes at other times not mentioned here, but these were the ones mentioned by the sources (mainly H.R. Idris's article in EI2) that I have at hand right now.

I've also made the change to the infobox I proposed above to reflect this ([5]), but I'm happy to further discuss if this isn't satisfactory. R Prazeres (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is more complicated and from what I can see, the "vassalage" is only mentioned in the infobox. Are we or are the RS treating the declaration of allegiance as synonymous with vassalage? M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The sources only mention "allegiance", "recognize", etc (the usual wording for what was mainly a symbolic affiliation). So indeed, "vassal" may imply more than intended. I'm ok with "nominal vassal" for lack of a better phrasing I can think of, but I'm also ok with keeping it out of the infobox (i.e. the former status quo) if the issue is too complicated to convey in that template. R Prazeres (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I think it's best if it's kept out of the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this, @Nourerrahmane, @Skitash? (See last comments above by me and M.Bitton.)

PS: We could also consider the recent addition to the Zirid dynasty infobox as well ([6], [7]), as a similar situation holds there: after the main split from the Fatimids in 1040s, there was a return to Fatimid allegiance again under Yahya ibn Tamim (r. 1108-1116), mentioned in the article, and maybe at other times(?). R Prazeres (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, Allegiance means they recognize the Caliph as a religious and secular suzrain, in return they get legitimacy to rule, while this doesn't mean vassalge in the strict term, but it's not without political significance, since these states are not territorial or nation sates, but rather tribal states that promote a religious doctrine through declaring affiliation to the (commander of the faithful). As if they declare being part of the "Ummah" reprensented by the Caliph in Damascus or Cairo or Baghdad or Cordoba, and they rule in his name over part of that portion of "Dar al Islam". Nominal vassal looks good to me because that's how the Barbary states acted towards the Ottoman Empire later on and that's how European authors described the Status of those regencies. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Surely, you don't mean that every Muslim ruler who declares allegiance to the Caliph (without asking for anything in return) is his vassal, do you? M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton No, I agree that the term "Vassal" is not very adequate here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

While that is true, recognizing a caliph and pledging allegiance (bay'ah) to them often came with political connotations in the medieval Islamic world. By acknowledging the Abbasids or the Fatimids as their spiritual leaders, the Hammadids were also recognizing their political authority and suzerainty, thereby making them nominal vassals (a subordinate that has pledged loyalty/allegiance to a superior power, albeit only by name). In this case, the vassal status was nominal at best, and this is reflected in the infobox. I believe this provides context, similar to how the nominal vassal status is recognized in the Zirid dynasty and Almoravid dynasty articles. Skitash (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up the Almoravids because while I was thinking of them, I somehow missed the recent addition. Given that the editors are happy with that, then for the sake of constituency, I have no objection in mentioning it in this one too. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you for your feedback. Skitash (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point that I forgot earlier. It is also mentioned in the infoboxes (although sometimes in the "government" parameter instead) of Seljuk Empire, Ayyubid dynasty, and Mamluk Sultanate, among others. If anyone thinks of further improvements to wording/presentation, feel free to suggest. Thanks all, R Prazeres (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

References

New "Territories" section

There's a lot of helpful material in this edit, but there are a few issues with the new section as a whole:

• The section is mostly a description of historical events. These are, or should be, covered in the history section. As is, there's effectively two parallel historical accounts in the same article, which isn't appropriate.
• It also has a skewed POV: as far as I see, it's exclusively a compilation of Hammadid victories and conquests, with no mention of defeats, withdrawals, or whether some conquests were temporary. This is obviously not balanced; the Hammadids were not perpetually expanding and had setbacks just like anyone else.
• More abstractly: a "territories" section is also not needed and generally not found in similar articles. This seems like a well-intentioned attempt to set the "borders" of a Hammadid state, but emphasizing this idea for pre-modern states in North Africa is problematic, as territoriality was not expressed in the modern sense until much later periods (e.g. see [8]).

My recommendation is to move and integrate this new material into the existing history section instead, which I think would resolve most of the issues. If there are any contradictions between old and new (sourced) content, please note and discuss them on the talk page, to avoid arbitrarily picking a preferred version. Maybe some minor POV issues would remain after this, but it's much easier to improve one history section than two.

The last paragraph, though, can usefully be turned into the beginnings of an "administration" section (or something similar). So I'll split it under a new heading, and I'll try to find an appropriate tag to encourage merging the rest. Feel free to further discuss here. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)