Talk:Almohad Caliphate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template[edit]

The template {{History of Morocco}} has no place on this article, because of some reasons which are:

  • Abd al-Mu'min is the founder of the almohad empire and first Calif, and he came from modern Algeria
  • The almohads are composed of diffrents tribes from all around Maghreb

So the almohads belong to history of Maghreb and are not a moroccan dynastie.--Morisco (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

    • All that is OR but I'll make some comparisons to show how is this reasoning unfounded :
    • We don't care about the fact that he was born in nowadays Algeria, since Tlemcen and Oran were part of the Maghreb al-Aksa under Almoravid rule, and he lived most of his life between Tinmel and Marrakesh (Btw Obama is of Kenyan descent and DeKlerk of French descent, but they are American and South African, hazardous parallel!)
    • The Almohad movement was composed of tribes from the Southern Atlas region (Marrakesh, Taroudant, Tinmel...)
    • Anyways, this subject was already discussed many times, endpoint.
    • --Omar-toons (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Western Sahara[edit]

wikiproject?¿ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

King/Prince[edit]

A reference is made to the 4 Princes of Christian Spain: it is my belief they were Kings, as referenced to in the account of the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa so should this be changed?Norgy (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Theatre[edit]

i did say it is a theatre. the almohad and the almoravid were in the current Morocco not algerie. but Mustafaa is again an alegrian . and the is just the reason.Aziri 14:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What fantasies are you talking about now, Aziri? I didn't write this article, and it doesn't claim they were Algerian anyway. - Mustafaa 17:09, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

see the history of algeria , and see the history of Morocco.Aziri 12:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

error in timeline[edit]

It seems to me that suggesting that "all the moorish lands" in Spain were lost in a few years after the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 is telescoping things a bit. It was certainly an inflection point in Iberian history, but the reconquista took another two and a half centuries to end the Moorish domains.

tone of the article, and answers to alg./morocco question[edit]

I think the tone of the article is a bit...subjective? judgemental? certainly not very NPOV; three repetitions of "fanatical" with reference to the almohads, (not even credited to some observor who considers them fanatical). My understanding of the Almohad movement is that one might call Ibn Tumart a fanatic, but the Almohads themselves were pretty standard medieval Muslim dynasts.

And RE: the Morocco/Algeria question above; the distinction obviously didn't exist back then; for what it's worth, the movement's founder, Ibn Tumart, was a Masmuda berber from the mountains in the south of present day Morocco, but the dynasty's founder, Abd Al-mu'min, was a Berber from Tlemcen, in present day Algeria; he conquered the territories of what is now both of those countries.jackbrown 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And yes: re: error in timeline, the the late 1200s, most of the Muslim territories in Andalusia were lost, but Granada held on for another couple of hundred years (till 1492, when columbus sailed the ocean blue, as a point of fact)

this article is outdated[edit]

This article mostly uses secondary sources of more than a cntury old (see references). It is completely outdated. Wikipedia runs the risk of recycling the colonial views which the Encyclopedia Britannica held before the first or second world war. Brittanica did away with them but the ideas reappear in this form on the internet.S710 10:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This map its wrong![edit]

The map is allegedly wrong, according to the info on Image:Almohad dynasty 1147 - 1269 (AD).PNG and I have removed it for now. Could someone look into it? What sources is it based on? There is no mention of them. / Fred-J 09:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Books[edit]

The extensive burning of books by the Almohads should be mentioned. Badagnani 03:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag?[edit]

What source is there for this flag, which is also used at Almoravid dynasty? Srnec (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Wrong[edit]

It's not the flag of almoravids. I have ordered the flags flollowing the dates of independance: Hafsid (1230), Zayanid (1235), Nasrids (1237), Marinids (1258). I have Retired history of Morocco because it's history of Maghreb, the maker and the first calif of Almohad dinasty is Abd Al-mumin and he's from Algeria in present day, all the the tribes of maghreb have contributed in wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezy31 (talkcontribs) 23:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections. — kwami (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ~~~~



Almohad dynastyAlmohad Caliphate — The Almohads were recognized as caliphs within their realms. All other articles about caliphal dynasties (even those not universally recognized) are titled X Caliphate, not X dynasty (e.g. Abbasid Caliphate, Fatimid Caliphate...). This article should be renamed for the sake of consistency. BomBom (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template[edit]

The template {{History of Morocco}} has no place on this article, because of some reasons which are:

  • Abd al-Mu'min is the founder of the almohad empire and first Calif, and he came from modern Algeria
  • The almohads are composed of diffrents tribes from all around Maghreb

So the almohads belong to history of Maghreb and are not a moroccan dynastie.--Morisco (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

From the Talk Page of Omar-Toons[edit]

The following section comes from the Talk Page of Omar-Toons [1] and has been splitted to suit each article (Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate):


Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almohad Caliphate [2], why have you done this without any respect for the time I spent to organise the article. I waited for an answer to my posts on the Talk Page but you did not discuss. Whould you finally decide to discuss or cotinue your edit-wars ?--Morisco (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
As you can easily understand, en.WP doesn't work the same way than fr.WP, then what was decided there isn't applicable here.
A "real work"? Seriously, do you consider that a "real work"? You just removed a template and added an extensive succession list, which may be not precise, since it consider that the territory of each dynasty was divided at the time of its falling, but the reality is that each dynasty lost, at the end of its power, its territories the one after the other, and kept control over a little territory (which is located in Morocco), before getting power overtaken by its successor starting form the same territory (Morocco). The paragraphs "History" of each dynasty's page as well as the page "History of Morocco" explains everything.
Which kind of "answer" are you expecting on the discussions? Seriously, did you wrote any question? Did you ask for a discussion? You just shared your point of view with us [3]. You just said that you think that this template has no place on the article. No questions, no arguments. And how do you think people can read/find a question that you wrote somewhere in the middle of the discussion page [4]?
The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's (including English and French ones), all include the Almohads and the Almoravids, but you don't agree with that, in my opinion, since it doesn't match your POV!
Just to answer to a few questions:
- Where were located the "centers of power" (capital) of these dynastie? In Morocco.
- From where did they start the conquest of other territories? From Morocco.
- Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Morocco.
- How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? By taking their places in Morocco (That also explains the succession tab on the infobox).
- They were originated from somewhere else? Then the US are no longer the same than before since the president is partially originated from somewhere else? Come on! Most European monarchies are ruled by dynasties that aren't of "local descent". Is that a reason to consider that the Bourbon dynasty isn't Spanish? Bonaparte conquered the Dutch, is that a reason to consider it as a European leader, and not a French one? The answer is NO. By the same way, the Almohad is Moroccan, and I don't see any reason to consider them otherwise.
I just gave you some examples. If you don't agree, try to convince the user who made these templates to remove the two dynasties, as well as the wikipedians who wrote these two articles, since including this template (along with the "History of Al-Andalus" one, but I don't understand why this one was removed) was accepted (then became a consensus between the users, since no one removed it or discussed its removing, and since the users who (tried to) discuss it weren't contributors) for more than 2 years.
I don't really care about the nationalistic feelings. WP is a collaborative Encyclopedia, not a forum to explain nationalistic feelings and to modify articles because of them.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Continuation of the discussion[edit]

Omar-Toons, we are not going to do like if we do not know each other, we have already discussed about this template in the french Wikipedia (See the discussion), and the descision was the template has no place on the article. Since en.fr and fr.WP are independent of one anotherand, I start again the discussion we have had on the fr.WP and answer to your arguments:

  • I consider a real work, adding the previous and following dynasties properly because it is not easy, I have already done it on the french WP. If your problem was the "Template", you could set back only the template, without removing what I have done.
  • The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's, only means that someone has created the templates, on the french WP the template is not allowed to be used on the Almohad Caliphate (verify), and I will propose it to suppression.
  • The Almohads came from diffrents parts of the Maghreb, including the Masmudas, the Zenata and the Banu Hilal, they took the capital of the Almoravids during their conquest southward, they did not conquer Morocco, then western Algeria and after al-Andalus ; they conquered some parts of Algeria before other parts of Morocco. And talking about Morocco and Algeria is an anachronism.
  • From where did they start the conquest of other territories? From the Atlas in Morocco, but like the Almoravids, they conquered some parts of Algeria before other parts of Morocco.
  • Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Their capital (Marrakech)
  • How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? Not by taking their places in Morocco as you said, that was true only for the Almohads after the Almoravids (and that not explains the succession tab on the infobox).
  • They were originated from somewhere else? The answer is "Anachronism", your examples are not suitable in our case.
  • Last point, I do not understand why you talk about nationalistic feelings, this has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.

See if other Wikipedians join our discussion--Morisco (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: What was decided on Fr.WP isn't applicable here.
Omar-Toons (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It is why I launched the discussion again here.--Morisco (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This map gives the area from which the Almohads started their conquest. The source is given on it.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Again[edit]

Why I see only History of Morocco?, because Almohads Empire conquered Gibraltar, Lybia, Spain, Algeria, Tunisie as well as Morocco.

Options:

  • 1 option, delete all "History of "
  • 2 option, put it in alfabethic order, "History of Algeria", "HIstory of Gibraltar", "History of Lybia" "History of Morocco" "History of Spain" "History of Tunisia"
  • 3 option, Morocco is the center of the Universe, and all this countries are provinces of Morocco.Luciusmaximus (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
Per WP:DUCK, I suppose that you are the same guy than User:Bokpasa, then, as it was told to you since 2006 on Talk:History of Morocco (sections 4 to 16), the answer is that your edits are PoV and that you are the only one to disagree these facts, while you don't justify your edits by any source.
Omar-Toons (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Transferred from User_talk:Tachfin I see you are moroccan ultra-nacionalist (because you erase all template countries and dynastys and for you all are Morocco).

I wrote you to vote in options! (almohad talk) Luciusmaximus (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First what I am or am not, is not of any relevancy here. I find what your wrote to be borderline personal attack, thanks to avoid this in the future.
First point: You seem to want to bombard this page with templates from 7 different countries "to make it fair", which will completely screw the page's layout. The practice on WP is to put the most relevant template on such articles (see Austria-Hungary, Austrian Empire and German Empire) not the templates of every single modern state which parts of their territories have been affiliated with the empire. This is an encyclopedia not a communist farm where everything is divided equally regardless of relevancy.
2n point: You removed the Moroccan dynasties category and the template:Morocco topics. I suppose you have some justification for that
3rd point: I removed the other footer templates since they don't have any Almohad Caliphate section. (per first point). The people who made these templates didn't include the Almohads in for a reason: The Almohads weren't of much importance to these countries' histories and were dropped in favor of more important events/subjects
4th point: You added refimprove and copy edit why? they will be removed if you don't provide a reasonable justification. You just don't add tags to articles for no reason.
--Tachfin (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Almohad vs. Morocco[edit]

The are two differents countries, not one is the sucessor of the other.Bokpasa 21:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to write an understandable sentence in English.
2nd, thanks to give us, not a source since I don't think that a source for such affirmation can exist, but a logic for your approach and an explanation for your (supposed, but inexistent) argumentation.
3rd, thanks to avoid editing articles without discussion, based only on your opinions.
You have been blocked and warned before for vandalism on articles related to Morocco [5] [6], and you're still acting the same way despite that. Please stop acting this way, you are deteriorating WP.
Omar-Toons (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As I see, you still don't respect the Wikipedia:Assume good faith, using the past to discredit the present. Let's talk about your vandalism, what's you goal ?
Bokpasa, puedo traducir, sólo tienes que escribir en español.--Morisco (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

Jews were massacred in Marrakesh in 1232 (http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/morocco/morocco.htm Institute for Jewish Policy Research and American Jewish Committee)Bokpasa 23:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?[edit]

It doesn't particularly seem like a high-priority target for vandalism. I'd just gathered together everything to update and fix the broken citations in this article, but it looks like that's not happening.207.207.126.218 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is semi-protected due to persistent sock puppetry. You can post your improvements here with the Edit semi-protected template so the improvements can be added by an autoconfirmed user (if you prefer not to create an account). VQuakr (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Almohads empire was north african[edit]

Hello, according to the famous and the respected britannica encyclopidia[7] the Almohads caliphate was an islamic empire in north africa and spain not a moroccan empire this is a history falsification, so please give us a reliable sources and avoid the nationalists edits, thanks.--Djazairii (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

First the article does not contradict what you quoted. And according to your own source, Encyclopedia Britannica itself, calls it a Moroccan dynasty and I quote:
"Although the new Moroccan dynasty of the Almohads struck back (1179–84), the Portuguese frontier was firmly established on the..."[8]
and
"Meanwhile, internal dissension and the rise of the Almohads, a new Islamic Amazigh confederation based in Morocco, led to the disintegration of the Almoravid..." [9]
Countless other reliable sources who call it a Moroccan Dynasty can be found, this is only natural since the Almohads were a tribal confederation of the Masmuda who all inhabit Morocco. And that the dynasty was born and died in Morocco, always had its capital or center of power in Marrakesh, Morocco.
But this isn't the subject of disagreement, you introduced Template:History of Algeria, which I don't oppose in principle but the decision not to include the templates of all the countries they ruled is appropriate so the article doesn't get cumbered by too much templates. Which don't add much to the article after all.
Finally, please assume good faith and don't be quick on nationalism accusations. The article is historical and shouldn't be seen within modern-day political rivalries spectrum. Tachfin (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable and Biased section[edit]

Wow, this is being used as a source on an Islamic Caliphate. How did this slip by. Jewish Virtual History. : The AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit 501(c)(3), nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance Does that not set of alarm bells ringing? There are 1000 of books which we can source from and I will bring those sources and not this propaganda. What is sickening is during this time Jewish philosophy was at its peak. So clearly no thanks for that either.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

While violent and intolerant attitudes towards dhimmis seem to be confirmed for specific periods of Almohad rule, the assumption that

Almohad persecution of non-Muslim religious minorities was a systematic or official policy throughout their rule is more problematic. New readings of the existing primary sources and incorporation of new material can shed fresh light on this episode of Jewish-Islamic history. The letter under review here is the first step in a project to reconsider not only the source material related to this era from both the Jewish and the Islamic sides but also the way particular historiographical trends have evolved over time and their impact upon our current perceptions of this important but, in fact, poorly understood ra.JEWISH TRADING IN FES ON THE EVE OF THE ALMOHAD CONQUEST--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh you brought this up...Unfortunately yes some cleaning is needed, this is the dynasty that gave Ibn Rushd, Ibn Tofail and others, not particularly fundamentalist. The teachings of Ibn Tumart were heavily criticized by "fundamentalists" (cf. Ibn Taymiya). Although one could argue that Yaqub al-Mansur changed the ideology of the dynasty and did "persecute" the Jews. Not sure about the Christians (if there were any living under the Almohads) as this was a period of all out war between the two. Tachfin (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.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) 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Kennedy & Almohad family tree[edit]

I overhauled the prior section on the reconquista into two larger ones, "Holding Years" & "Reconquista onslaught". I also redid the names of the Almohad caliphs and created a collapsible family tree under them. This is taken primarily from Hugh Kennedy's Hugh Kennedy (1996) Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. London: Addison-Wesley-Longman, but I only have a foreign-language edition of the book. I would immensely appreciate if anyone with an English-language copy could insert the right references at the right places.

And anyone with wider knowledge of the Almohad family confirm the names and relationships in the family tree are correct. (I am a little wary of Abu Abd Allah Muhammad, the son of Abu Hafs Umar, who governed Ifriqiya. He frequently appears in other sources as "Abu Muhammad ibn Abi Hafs", not "Abu Abdallah". Wary also of two identically named Abu al-Rabi Sulaymans. I want to make sure these are not typos from my cheap edition.)Walrasiad (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Caliphate, dynasty[edit]

Hello,

Since the Almohads were a dynasty that claimed Caliphal titles, and since this article (since the beginning) is mainly about the dynasty itself than its Caliphate (ie: Caliphal Makhzen, religious charges), should the Caliphate part be separated from this article?

Thanks in advance,
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've posted notices on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. Hopefully we can get feedback from more than just the three of us. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I would much prefer it to be "Almohad Caliphate". "Almohad" is a name of the religious movement and a political community/state. It is not a family name, and the Almohad state was not really even a monarchy (its constitutional basis was closer to a republic). Never understood why the article was called "dynasty". Always found that off-putting. "Caliphate" is much, much better.
The article as it is, is still very rudimentary and sparse. I started writing a longer, deeper article on the Almohads a while back, but got distracted by other things. Might get back to it. Walrasiad (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It needs to be "Caliphate" and not "dynasty." As I mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard, I recently bought about $300 worth of books on them from Amazon in addition to what can already be found on GoogleBooks for free. I've also written a number of articles about Almohad-era figures and updated existing ones. Based on this experience, I can say without a doubt that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to this state as the "Almohad Caliphate"; I've found one source which referred to it as a dynasty three years ago and I don't even remember the source as it didn't contain enough valuable info to even be used as a Wikipedia citation. The entirety of scholarship on the region and era, from Adang to Fierro to Schmidtke, all seem to have a tacit agreement that the state was a Caliphate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And to add to what User:Walrasiad said...it isn't a dynasty. The question here is even framed incorrectly in that sense, as this article isn't about a dynasty to begin with. I've even seen a few sources which refer to the Almohad state as one of the era's few non-monarchies, as we even see with the succession of Al-Makhlu' there was a scandal when their constitutional process wasn't followed. They certainly weren't "democratic" or benevolent, but "authoritarian state" is probably more accurate than constitutional monarchy, thus ruling out the term "dynasty" from the beginning. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Caliphate, per those above, and what WP:RS use. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I won't pretend to have a monopoly on reliable sources, but the first couple of books in my library both prefer "Caliphate". bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The question was not if the Almohads were a dynasty or a Caliphate, they were "both": the Almohad state was a Caliphate (yes, no doubt) ruled by the homonymous dynasty. There's no doubt about that and RS talk about both (dynasty and Caliphate), and I doubt any source says that the Almohads weren't a dynasty (unless anyone can give us a RS stating that they should be the one without the other?)
Btw, here are a few sources about that question: [10][11][12][13][14] (note that Google Scholar/Books give more entries for "dynasty", but that doesn't mean that it is the only valuable definition... at least, for me).
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was a tradition of old Western historians to conveniently classify and label everything outside Europe in "dynasty" terms, without giving it much thought. So I'm not surprised it has been stubborn in remaining. But it is not really used in more serious histories anymore, e.g. Kennedy (1996) abjures it. "Almohad dynasty" is, of course, strictly incorrect, because "Almohad" is not a family name nor even a tribe. It is the name of religious movement. Like calling Stuart England the "Protestant dynasty" or the Delhi Sultanate the "Muslim dynasty". It is rather lazy and quite awkward. It's OK to use Umayyad or Hammdanid or Hafsid, because those are families. But Almohads is the name of the movement and state, not the name of the family. Of course, the is a caliphal dynasty inside the Almohad state, which would be the House of Abd al-Mu'min, the "Kumids" or "Kumiyids", or "Mu'minids" (as Kennedy prefers). Unfortunately, there is no established term for the dynasty. It is usually just referred to as the "caliphal dynasty" or something like that. These are distinct from another dynasty (the House of Ibn Tumart, which continues as an institution) inside the Almohad state, as well as from the "Almohad leaders" (which usually refers to the chieftans on the councils, so you'll often find phrases like "the caliph was opposed by the Almohads", i.e. the councils disagreed with him). In serious histories, it is always "Almohad Caliphate", and if a dynasty term is expected but they don't feel like using the unfamiliar Mu'minid term, then it is phrased very carefully, e.g. "ruling dynasty of the Almohad state" (Abun-Nasr [15]), "the Almohads led by a Berber dynasty" ([16], etc. I don't think Wiki is doing anybody a service by insisting on a rather outdated phrase that is being avoided in modern scholarly works - particularly when "Almohad Caliphate" is available and widely used already. Or simply "Almohads", and let the article parse the difference. Walrasiad (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Omar-toons, you're bordering on a slow edit war against a community consensus which has emerged here.
1. It doesn't matter what you personally want to phrase the question as; you are not the exclusive owner of the article to dictate the terms of any and all discussion regarding the article.
2. Every other editor that has commented here has opposed your claim of the Almohads being a dynasty, so it would be better to stop repeating that they are. You can repeat your personal opinion that they are, but your language insinuating that they are as a given and that anyone with a view opposing yours is opposing some historical fact isn't balanced.
3. Just as you've thrown out links to search results of sources referring to the state as a dynasty, I can use the same exact search engine to yield results of reliable sources referring to the state as a caliphate: [17], [18] (only two results as the four links you posted above were just two sets of search results posted twice each)
4. In addition to the community consensus and the fact that there are sources using both terms, there is the reasoning posted by User:Walrasiad above which deserves reiteration. The simple fact is that they weren't a dynasty and they did not rule as kings.
You're allowed to disagree and to voice such disagreement, but the bottom line is that you're still editing against what seems to be consensus. If you would like to take things to a higher level of dispute resolution then you're free to do so, but barring that there is no justification for you to continue inserting your point of view into the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
      • @Walrasiad: I agree with the use of "Almohads" instead of any misleading wording. Btw, thanks for your explaination.
      • @MezzoMezzo: First, thanks to discuss information and to avoid personal attacks. Second, saying that "the Almohads were a state" (or a nation) is clearly WO:OR ; they were a political and religious movement that governed a state, but certainly not a state properly (see Walrasiad's comment). Unless there's some sources that I (we?) didn't read ; in this case, can you please provide them to us? Thanks in advance.
      • Regards,
        Omar-toons (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
@Omar-toons:, Almohad Caliphate is what the majority of reliable sources use as well as those specialized in the topic. They claimed to be a Caliphate, they were widely regarded as such and that's the most accurate term to describe them (there may not be a totally 100% accurate term). There's no need to change the name of the article at all.
Now, if you would like to creat a separate article solely for the main ruling regime (Ibn Tumart's family kind of faded away) - sort of like how Russian Empire is separate from House of Romanov - then I can not only see that as working but would even help you and anyone else interested in building it. But this specific article here isn't about a ruling family; this is about the state which was ruled. They're two different things, and the state or whatever we want to call it wasn't ruled as a monarchy.
As for whether they were a nation or state, then I don't understand why it's OR but I can't disqualify your statement entirely. I have to ask - not rhetorically as I am not sure - isn't a sovereign territory a "state" by default? If we check State (polity), then the opening line seems to describe just about anything.
The source in the sentence in question refers to the subject as a confederation and later empire. Would you find the term "empire" more appropriate for the sentence in question? To be honest I would have to return to the sources for the exact term in the lead as I took it for a given that "state" could be used for just about anything. If you feel more sources should be checked before we change the word in that sentence to "empire," I can help with that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Imho "state" isn't the appropriate word ; they formed the Almohad state in the 13th C. as the Alaouites formed the Alaouite state in the 17th C., that doesn't make it a distinct entity than the "Maghreb al-Aksa" (that subject was debated many times on the talk pages of many articles related to the History of Morocco and the Bokpasa case was all about that subject : pretending that each dynasty of the history of Morocco was a distinct entity, with the conclusion that "Morocco" came to existence with the Alaouites... and of course he didn't succeed to force WP accepting his POV). The fact is that Almohads overthrew the Almoravids in controlling the latter's state ("Maghreb al-Aksa") because they were opposed to their ideology, they didn't formed a new state from nowhere since anyone can understand that "the Almohads became a state" in the current intro.
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Omar-toons:, the conflict with that guy seems a bit long. I'm not sure what went down but I'm glad the discussion is moving.
So State (polity), an organized territory with one government, doesn't apply to this case as the Almohads didn't make something new (as Morocco already existed). That's the point here, correct? I just want to be sure that I understood properly.
If we don't go with that, then we need to brainstorm about which term is acceptable. There was no dynastic/monarchic rule, though I think we could all agree it had aspects of oligarchy and aristrocracy. Feudalism doesn't seem to apply as there was rule of law and free people could own land. As you pointed out, the Nation state didn't exist yet at that time.
Brittanica describes it as an Empire, which is sort of general though it might work - Maghreb and Andalus certainly contained a diverse group of people. Republic might be controversial. I honestly think the Almohads were similar in nature to early Greek republics or even the Omani Ibadi proto-democracy, in that the Almohads had a constitution, rule of law, non-inherited leadership and from what I have read of their administrative system people living under them were considered sort of like citizens.
Which terms do we use? Or should we combine them, with something like "oligarchic unitary state"? It does seem like they had a Mixed government. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @Walrasiad: to be sure he sees this. I thought for a moment to replace state with "Caliphate," though to be honest that really isn't a form of government or state organization is it? It's like calling a country a "democracy" without specifying if it's constitutional, parliamentary, federal, republic, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tinmel vs. Tinmal[edit]

One more thing I want to throw out there. Virtually all English-language sources spell the Almohad capital as "Tinmal" rather than "Tinmel". The current page on the location is spelled Tinmel, which is I believe the French term, or the term used for the location in Morocco today (can anyone confirm that?). I am reluctant to change that page since it might be the spelling of the current location. But since this is a historical article, and the English-language histories all write it "Tinmal", I am wondering if we ought to adopt that same spelling at least here? Objections? Thoughts? Walrasiad (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Walrasiad:, we could just spell it Tinmal here while linking to the Tinmel article since they lead to the same place. That would allow us to avoid dealing with the naming issue, in a way. It might not be ideal but it is easy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)