Jump to content

Talk:Zirid dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sss2sss (talk | contribs) at 21:22, 20 November 2020 (→zirid capital). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zirid dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

zirid capital

In the last edit I've changed the date of the start of use of kairouan as a capital since 1014 seems unreasnable since 1014 mark the year of secessionof the hammadid dynasty also all the sites I've seen tend to mention that kairouan was the capital since the departure of the caliph to egypt https://www.qantara-med.org/public/show_document.php?do_id=596&lang=en https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zirid-Dynasty So please make sure you read this before trying to delete my last edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss2sss (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) You changed two dates, not just one. 2) None of those two sources says that kairouan was the capital of the Zirid dynasty. 3) It's only unreasonable if you don't take into account the fact that the Zirid dominion was divided into two territories, the central Maghreb and Ifriqiya, each with its own capital and governor appointed by the Zirid emir who moved back and forth between the two. 4) What those two sources (thin on details) don't tell you is that: a) the governor for Ifriqiya that was appointed by Buluggin before his departure wasn't a Zirid, he was an Arab who grew too powerful and ended up being killed by al-Mansur b) al-Mansur never visited Ifriqiya before 981. c) his son Badis was born in Ashir, the capital of the central Maghreb and of the Zirid dynasty (where the Zirid family was based). M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) how could I change a date without changing the other ? The should be a continuity between them 2)"The new master of the Maghreb left his tribal territory behind and settled into the Fatimid caliphal complex at Sabra Al-Mansouria, near Kairouan." this is the phrase I was interested in Again there is nothing that prove the opposite (maintaining achir as capital) either 3) the division of the zirid dynasty was only in 1014 (I thought the date I was talking about was before this year) 4)a) I know about that I'll discuss that later b) didn't al mansur rule start in 984 ? C) almost all of the first zirid rulers were born in or near achir not just badis but there's a difference between the zirids homerown (where they born or lived) and the capital from where they govern. This is the book of ibn khaldoun https://books.google.tn/books?id=pn5iDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%B1+%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86+%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A1+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%84&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiZm8Dyq97rAhUHuRoKHUbvD3gQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A&f=false (sadly I can't find a version in english for free if you know one it would be generous from you to share it in the bibliography segment) there is one sentence in the book I was interested in "ورجع عنه بلكين من نواحي صفاقس فنزل قصر معد بالقيروان واضطلع بالولاية" Now why this phrase seem very meaningful ? I can explain why ; let's make some sort of analogy when a us president can be from anywhere in the country but when he is elected he leave his home and install himself in Washington DC and more precisely in the white house that's what would make Washington the capital (I know it is also the seat of government but what can we say for a medieval oligarchy ? The rule is only at the hands of one emir). See the similiarity ? But you may ask that he went to kairouan only to passify the region or to get the bay'a but that can'be true since first he didn't return to achir and for this "فنزل قصر المعد" as an analogy for the white house. What happened next is what makes weird and debatable. Bologhin soon left kairouan not for achir but to fight the rebel groups in the west which led us to a problem ; He did not change his residence or the capital he was just out for jihad and now we were left with two people to govern one in achir his son and crown prince And another arab that has nothing to do with zirid family governing in kairouan (not some kind of split since they were both loyal to bologhin) And that was your as saying why he would leave a foreigner in the capital and his son in a secondary town (as so achir would be the capital not kairouan) But you are forgetting that in ancient islamic states they nev. Don't let their sons (or relatives) governing the kingdom when they are out why ? Because they are afraid that he rebels on them and don't return it for them (they have have a motive and legetimicy ;the royal blood) as an example you can see the story about the death of abu al hassan from marinid dynasty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_al-Hasan_Ali_ibn_Othman. Now for al mansur he killed the governor of kairouan and designed another governor (not from the zirid) gave achir to another zirid family member and get out for jihad very similiar to his father. But in the last two lines you can see how he lived after that in kairouan not achir "ووفد على المنصور سنة اثنين وثمانين و ثلاثمائة بالقيروان فأكرمه...". Finaly the year 1014 as a change for the capital feels absolutly unreasonable. If it was even 1013 it won't be a problem but really 1014 ? That's the year when hammadid split and according to all the historians the badicid branch was the heir of the zirids. But how could that be real if hammadid are the one who got achor won't that make them the real heirs ? Also historians don't mention anything about badis changing the capital or his expulsion from achir. If there was no clear and direct thing that proves kairouan as a capital equally there was not for achir so. I hope you've got my point. Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it. Cordially from a friend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sss2sss (talk • contribs) 21:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed what I said about the two capitals and the capital of the "dynasty". Anyway, here's what Hady Roger Idris (the authority on the subject) has to say (taken from the source[1] already cited in the article):

Les trois premiers Zirides, avant tout souverains d'Asïr, guerroient sans cesse à l'ouest et confient l'Ifrïqiya à un vice-roi arabe, mais la vocation ifrïqiyenne de la dynastie se dessine de bonne heure. Elle a pour conséquence une recrudescence de la pression des Zanâta qui, sous Bâdis (996-1016), déferlent victorieusement de Tiaret à Tripoli. Il les mate, non sans peine et grâce surtout à son oncle Hammâd, qui pacifie le Magrib Central et y fonde la Qal'a (1007-8). La fin du règne est marquée par la rébellion de Hammâd (1015), qui reconnaît les 'Abbàsides, et par les premiers massacres de si'ites, notamment à Béja et à Tunis.

As for the date, 1014 is the year when the conflict between Hammad and Badis started. Personally, I would change it to 1016, the year of the death of Badis, the separation of the two territories and the beginning of the two new dynasties: the Hammadid dynasty and the Ifriqiyan zirid dynasty. M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Les trois premiers zirides

I think he means by those ziri, bologhin and al mansur. So we can exclud ziri from this list (he did not live in the period we are talking about and we agree that he had achir as his capital). Now what about bologhin and his son al mansur we know that they were governors of achir when they were the heirs of the throne . But none after becoming a "king".for example bologhin

Quand, en 972, le calife fatimide Al-Mu’izz quitte le Maghreb pour l’Egypte, il confie l’administration de l’Ifriqya à Buluggin, le fils de Ziri. Celui-ci quitte Achir pour s’installer à Kairouan, mais il va garder des liens étroits avec Achir où sa famille va demeurer

http://www.mammeri100.dz/index.php/fr/voir-plus/32-achir-la-capitale-de-ziri-ben-menad
he sure left kairouan to fight the rebels in which he died. That's why heleft an arab governor in ifriqiya. And we can say the same thing for al mansur he did change the governor of kairouan and gave achir and tahert to his brothers. Again he after that lived in kairouan. As for badis he was not even the governor of achir. He even had a at times of his father's death he only got kairouan and eastern ifriqiya and left his uncles in the west. And I'm sure you should make a look at this

when the fatimids left them in control for north africa the zirid dynasty took kairouan as their capital

https://books.google.tn/books?id=bXjXDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123&dq=zirid+capital+kairouan&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjo_cbCwujrAhUWSxUIHVpfCzIQ6AEwAnoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
And how could 1016 make sens if 1014 didn't ? Did it went like this for badis ? "I do not even have achir but anyways it's my capital" Sss2sss (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. By the "first three Zirids", he means Buluggin, al-Mansur and Badis. This is clearly stated in his book about the Zirids.
What Hady Roger Idris said about the first three sovereigns and their capital is crystal clear and I certainly see no reason to ignore what the acknowledged authority on the Zirids has to say and listen to what non specialists say in passing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

his son al mansur first moved into the old aghlabid palace in raqqada, then established himself "definitly" in Mansuriya, where he soon became known for his magnificence...

source[2] Sss2sss (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in my previous comment, what Hady Roger Idris said about the first three sovereigns and their capital is crystal clear. I certainly see no reason to ignore what the authority on the Zirids has to say and analyze what non specialists say in passing. M.Bitton (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
how could we consider something that doesn't clearly use the word capital as cristal clear ? And how could we consider one author more authentic than the others ? Sss2sss (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This work was published by the university of tiaret. And you can read the page 41

لكن على الرغم من الطابع العسكري لفترة حكم يوسف فإن ذلك لم يمنعه من الاهتمام

بالتنظيم الإداري لدولته، وسعى إلى ذلك عبر تعيين عماله على الولايات، وإدخال تعديلات على

حدودها، خاصة منها الولايات الغربية، حيث ألغى ولاية المسيلة وضم الجهة الجنوبية منها إلى

تاهرت، والجهة الشمالية إلى أشير، واتخذ من مدينة المنصورية قرب القيروان قاعدة حكمه.

now that's what I would consider as "cristal clear". I mean come on it's obviousSss2sss (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for me to repeat what I said. If you want to change the date, you need to seek consensus for that. M.Bitton (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Apparently Alinaili30 agrees with me. And when you changed his edit you've said that the topic is already solved in "talk" page while apparently it is not. And saying that kairouan was the capital was kairouan in 972 was even there in older versions of this page before being edited without a reference.
Side question ; why did you reverted my first edit ? I just changed the reference to the english page of qantara instead of the french since this page is in english. If you agree that the reference should be in english please fix it. Sss2sss (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: As for the viceroy argument you gave here is what ababdallah laroui says

Balkin was feeling lonely in his new kingdom and longed for Asher, so he installed one of the Aghlabid princes as a ruler and he did not come to Mansuriyya except occasionally

— histoire du maghreb
(Translated via google since the only version I have is in arabic). And he further go to say

When his son Al-Mansour succeeded him, he first settled one of the palaces of Bani Al-Aghlab in Raqqada, before he moved to Al-Mansuriyah and settled there

so you can see how the capital change was permanent.Sss2sss (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't have to be in English, but if you insist on changing it, do it properly and change the access date and the archive url as well.

when you changed his edit you've said that the topic is already solved in "talk". I really hate being misquoted. Here's what I said[3] and here's their response[4].

I suggest you read my last three comments, and please, don't ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why limit yourself with a french site when the creators of the site were already generous and gave us an english translation ? Do you think everyone in english wikipedia are supposed to be 'francophone' ? If it misses some kind of archivage, it is supposed for the 'extended confirmed user' to fix it not just discard the edit (since I am new to this and I don't even know why a ref should be archived).
when I've changed his edit you clearly stated that I need to seek consensus for my edit,wich is the same for you (since the discussion page is still not solved).and when he changed the date you just reverted it as if it was solved (that's what I'm talking about and not what you've said) I prefer to stick with the original wich clearly states that kairouan 972 or to just put a question mark to point that it is disputed. But what you are doing is just trying to impose your opinion. Sss2sss (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The version, which has been there since 2016, states 1014. Therefore, the onus to change it is entirely on you.
You are free to talk about what you want, but when you precede it with "what you said", you attribute your thoughts to someone else. That's not acceptable.
Rather than go around in circles, I will invite "Alinaili30" (mentioned above) as well as "Kabyle20" (the editor who introduced the date and the sources) and see what they have to say. @Alinaili30 and Kabyle20: your thoughts would be appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 11:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate your demand for them to contribute this discussion since it clearly needs more opinionsSss2sss (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone summarize what the main issue(s) for discussion are? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kansas Bear: the issue is about identifying the specific date for kairouan as capital of the Zirids. According to this page it is 1014 while I am convinced that it should be 972Sss2sss (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, states the Zirid dynasty was established at Kairouan, not necessarily the capital. Bosworth's The New Islamic Dynasties, page 36 states, "After discord broke out in 1015 between Hammad and Badis, in which the former temporarily transferred his allegiance to the Abbasids, there was a "divisio imperii": the Zirid main branch of North Africa remained in Ifriqiya, with its capital at Kairouan...". Which gives the impression that Kairouan was only the capital after 1015.
International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, Sharon La Boda, page 390;"...but after several revolts, al-Mansur[r.984–995], a Zirid, gained control, moving his capital to Kairouan."
The Great Mosque of Kairouan, Paul Sebag, page 52;"Zirid period ( 11th century ) From that time on , the Zirid princes — Buluggin ibn Ziri and his successors.[..]. Though their seat was at al-Mansuriyya, they had no capital other than Kairouan , which reflected their splendor.."
Grove Encyclopedia of Islamic Art & Architecture, ed.Jonathan Bloom, ‎Sheila Blair, page 452;"By 1015 the Zirid domain had become too large to be governed from Kairouan alone: the Zirids retained control of the eastern half..."
Arts of the City Victorious: Islamic Art and Architecture in Fatimid North Africa and Egypt, Jonathan M. Bloom, page 184;"The Bedouin captured Kairouan on 1 November 1057 and forced the Zirids to evacuate for al-Mahdiyya..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Dictionary of the Berbers (Imazighen), Hsain Ilahiane, page xliv;"Foundation of the city of 'Achir, capital of the Zirid dynasty."
Historical Dictionary of Algeria, Phillip C. Naylor, page 465;"Yusuf ibn Zirid ibn Manad and his Sanhaja Berbers had helped the Fatimids against the Ibadi forces of Abu Yazid and the Zanata west of Tiaret. He constructed his capital at Ashir (Achir) in the Titteri Mountain region." --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's weird so what do you think 972, 1014 or another date ? I felt that the ones you pointed feels contradictory.

the Zirid main branch of North Africa remained in Ifriqiya, with its capital at Kairouan...". Which gives the impression that Kairouan was only the capital after 1015

doesn't " remained" mean that they were and still are in kairouan ? Thank you for your reply Sss2sss (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Let me summarize my opinion to make it clear 1)we have written records that all of the first governors lived in al mansuriya near Kairouan. 2)ashir was under the rule of governors appointed by the zirid emirs first al mansur son of bologhin and when he became emir and departed to kairouan he put his brother hammad as governor. 3)hammad established his new capital kalaa in 1007 (he was still not declared independant yet) and ashir was partially abandoned according to abdallah laroui. How could the capital city would be abandoned for another city ? 4)kairouan was the capital city of zirid predecessor in ifriqiya the fatimid caliph al mu'izz.

5)when al mu'izz appointed bologhin as emir after his departure to egypt he made him

governor of al-Qayrawān and any other territory the Zīrids might reclaim

— encyclopedia britannica

6)1014 as a date for the change of the capital is absurd since ; it was not under direct control of zirid emirs but under hammad who was ruling it autonomously from his relatives and when he declared independance historians never talked about it as 'the Zirid take refugee in kairouan' or 'he fleed to kairouan' or 'changed his capital' as similiar to what happened in 1057. But they described the secession of the hammadid branch as like of a secession of a kingdom located far away from the capital. And won't that make hammadid the legitimate successors not the badisid branch ? 7)And about what you've said about the viceroys. It is clearly that bologhin chose his viceroy when he went for war in Maghreb al Aqsa (he loved to lead wars himself because that's what he was before becoming emir ; a military general) or when visiting his family in ashir. What do you want from him to let kairouan without a governor ? Also we never heard about a viceroy after the reign of mansur ibn bologhin. Finaly since you like to cite hady roger idris I recommand for you to read all of his book "la berberie orientale sous les Zirides" and not judge about the book from it's cover. You will find everything I wrote clearly in his book.Also you can easily find it in google in pdf. I am not sure about the availability in google books. Sss2sss (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Encyclopaedia Britannica is not considered a reliable source. And if secondary sources conflict with Encyclopaedia Britannica, then the secondary sources should be used.
Second, I have presented sources stating Achir was a capital and Kairouan was a capital. Everything else you have posted is simply you trying to rationalize what you want it to state. You should understand, Wikipedia is written using reliable sources. Not some editor breaking down the situation, using whatever information, to write what they want.
We can add a note showing that the differences in what the sources state. Anything else, is WP:OR. I am not here to argue if/then or else/then contingencies. I will use sources to write this encyclopedia, not my opinion(or anyone else's) of what I think something says. Done here! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this opinion is meant to be a reply for M.Bitton and not to be a source for the changes. And why is encecyclopeadia britannica not considered as a reliable source (I thought that unlike wikipedia it was meant to be made by experts). I am just curious to know since I think I've heard someone saying that before. And for the sources I've tried to mention some in the comments above.
The sources you've mentioned before that talks about the fondation of achir as the capital of the zirids you should note that achir was founded some time between 935/936 so if it was founded as the capital that does not mean it can be changed in 972, especially that an important event happened at that year "the appointment of bologhin as governor of ifriqiya"
whatever would be the decision you would make I think I can't, as a new user, oppose you. Feel free to choose what are the reforms you would make Sss2sss (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear:?

Another link between the millions that proves kairouan/al mansuriya as a capital

Main capitals : al - Mansuriya in 971 , Kairouan in 1048 , Mahdiya from 1057. Banu Ziri . Clients of the Fatimids , from 935 they were resident in the stronghold of Ashir near Algiers under Ziri ibn Manad , who fell in the service of the Fatimids in 971

— Islam: Art and Architecture, page 619

Honestly I would think that copying this model would be the best Sss2sss (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC) One other book that according to you has got it wrong [reply]

Buluggin transferred the government seat from ashir to al-Qayrawan (now kairouan) in effect becoming the founder of the zirid dynasty and its first emir

— International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, page 36

source [5]. I don't know how are we supposed to get into a solution if you keep ignoring my replies ? Sss2sss (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only author you wanted to mention is hady roger idris I gave the effort to read all of his book the 460 pages of "LA BERBERIE ORIENTALE SOUS LES ZIRIDES X-Xlle SIÈCLES". And interestingly enough he did never clearly mention any capital of the zirids. He was interested in every event that happened during that time but did not give any "cristal clear" information.

But one of the paragraph that interested me is this one

Si,, comme on le verra, Buluggïn ne quitta la capitale pour le Magrib qu'en

Sa'bân, on ne peut suivre l'auteur du Mu'nis, 74, qui affirme qu'il demeura deux mois

à Kairouan-al-Mansûriyya, car il s'agirait d'au moins quatre mois.

— page46

this is not written by roger idris himself. It is a comment made by the Library who published the version of the book I've read "LIBRAIRIE D'AMÉRIQUE ET D'ORIENT" Normaly comments like this would be made by a real historian who is well educated about the subject. And I wonder why he didn't get the impression that ashir was the capital of zirids after reading the whole book (during the date we are talking about) as like you did.I hope I would get a response. But he did agree with me about kairouan. I hope I would get a response since you still until now didn't give me any proper response Cordialy Sss2sss (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough recent talk page discussion before seeking assistance. There's been no actual discussion here since October 11, just one editor writing. My suggestion would be for the one remaining editor to go ahead and make the edits in the article that they think appropriate and see if they're reverted; if they are then perhaps discussion can resume. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Let me note that Kansas Bear is both wrong and right about one thing: Encyclopedia Britannica is a reliable source, see RSPRIMARY, but as he says encyclopedias are tertiary sources and secondary sources are preferred, so if there is a secondary source it should be used in preference to Encyclopedia Britannica. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.[reply]

For the record: Britannica is not a reliable source.[6] - LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand partially corrected. I assumed without checking, so my fault, that the reference was to one of the editions of the paper encyclopedia, which I still contend is a reliable but less desirable source. If the website britannica.com is now crowd-sourced, as seems very possible from a quick glance, then it's a SPS and unreliable except for the laundry list of things SPSs are reliable for. I'm not sure that discussion on Doug's talk page establishes that conclusively, but it certainly seems indicative. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Despite their claim that nobody answered their request for a third opinion, you'll find that Kansas Bear was actually kind enough to do just that when they invited them to join the discussion, but since their third opinion wasn't what they hoped for, they alienated them with a wall of text before turning their attention to me, first with a snide comment[7] (within hours of thanking me for pinging other involved editors and while supposedly engaged in a discussion with Kansas Bear) and then with totally uncalled for personal remarks [8][9] (when the pinged editors did not respond fast enough).
That being said, I believe that the time has come to hand this over to the community, though before doing that and since there seem to be a discrepancy between their 3O comment and their edit, it would be best if they mention the specific changes they want to be made in a "change X to Y" format so that they can be added to the multiple choice RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Sss2sss should clarify what change(s) they want:
@TransporterMan:, have you read the entirety of this "discussion"? Sss2sss has went from 972 to 1048(for Kairouan), while brow-beating anything/anyone that states what they do not like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
for M.Bitton . I know that what I've written in your talk page was inappropriate. I was mad at the time. And that's why I deleted it. I really apologies for that. For Kansas Bear yes he responded for my request and gave his own opinion (thank you kansas bear) but for some reason he dropped from this page and didn't answer for my question about encyclopedia britannica (and that's what I am talking about). the problem is you are active in this page and you are keeping an eye on my contributions keep you didn't try to give any answer but just keep reverting under the pretext that I was just wasting your time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/984415134.
But again this shouldn't make us forget the main topic of this talk page. And since you are still active here I can ask you. Your argument was about hady roger idris felt only a personal interpretation of his description (they gave kairouan for viceroys so kairouan can't be capital) while unlike what I've shared for kairouan there is no author that direcly stated that achir kept or was a capital for the kingdom after 972 ? And I don't that we can tolerate personal interpretation in wikipedia or it would lead into many misinformation.
@Kansas Bear: I am not sure about your last edit on this page. Achir was founded between 935-936 while bologhin became viceroy in 972. So what you've written feels not very fidel to the timeline. Maybe it should be like that

Ziri's son Buluggin ibn Ziri who founded his capital at Achir was appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya (971-984)

. If not it would oppose what I am trying to defend here. Though I don't have access to the book you've cited. So I don't really know what you are referring to. If the case is that you disagree with my demand of changing the date (kairouan 1014 to 972) maybe you should mention it here. Sss2sss (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I am not sure about your last edit on this page. Achir was founded between 935-936 while bologhin became viceroy in 972. So what you've written feels not very fidel to the timeline."
According to the source, "The first is the palace of Ashir, in central Algeria, where, under Fatimid patronage, the Zirid dynasty found a capital around 947".
Fixed timeline. My apologies.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the case is that you disagree with my demand of changing the date (kairouan 1014 to 972) maybe you should mention it here."
As opposed to the other opinion you suggested?
  • " al - Mansuriya in 971 , Kairouan in 1048 , Mahdiya from 1057"
Where did this information originate? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about The History of the Maghrib: An Interpretive Essay, by Abdallah Laroui, page 138;"When al-Mu'izz left for the east in 973, Buluggin b. Ziri established himself in Mansuriya (the capital which the Fatimids had preferred to the excessively hostile Kairouan)..." ???--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the book I have about abdallah laroui is written in arabic but I have tried to translate it with google to make it more authentic (by not giving my own translation wich may be baised). As for the other book "Islam: Art and Architecture" I am not sure about its availability for free. The only think I've found for you is this terrible google books view https://books.google.tn/books?hl=fr&id=huOBwihhwyQC&dq=islam+%3A+art+and+architecture+mansuriya+971&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Mansuriya+971 Sss2sss (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for the desired specific changes to be mentioned in a simple "change X to Y" format. This should be fairly straightforward and would alleviate any confusion. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
previous version

Achir (before 1014) Kairouan (from 1014 to 1057) Mahdia (after 1057)

My personal suggestion

Achir (before 972) Kairouan/Mansuriya (972-1057) Mahdia (after 1057)

thank you for asking Sss2sss (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, a change that flies in the face of the first RS cited in the infobox and ignores everything that I have said about the two capitals.
Let's see what Kansas Bear has to say. M.Bitton (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why 972?
  • "In 973, Buluggin transferred the government seat from ashir to al-Qayrawan (now kairouan) in effect becoming the founder of the zirid dynasty and its first emir."-— International Dictionary of Historic Places: Middle East and Africa, page 36.
  • "Following the sack of al-Qayrawan by Bedouin tribesmen in 1057..[..]..followed al-Mu'izz ibn Badis to the coastal city of Mahdia, the new seat of Zirid rule.." --Dictionary of African Biography", page 115, by Emmanuel Kwaku Akyeampong, Henry Louis Gates
Mahdia should be "1057" not "after 1057". Also, why not write and source the information into the article and not the infobox? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True. I was only concerned about fixing the information I've seen as "false" without thinking about making some useful additions. Maybe adding a phrase like the one on Buluggin ibn Ziri

The Fatimids transfer their court from Mahdia to Cairo. Buluggin was then appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya with Kairouan as its capital

Sss2sss (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) The information that you're trying to fix is not "false". 2) How is adding a sentence that is cherry picked from a Wiki article that contains contradictory information useful? Did you check the 90 years source to make sure that what is attributed to it is correct? How difficult do you think it is to find reliable sources saying that he was nominated as governor of the provinces of the Maghreb (his province in the central Maghreb, Ifriqiya and later Tripolitania)? M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've said I think it is false (my personal opinion and that's why I've put the term false under marks ""). That is the reason of this talk is to discuss about that. So why do you think that it is not false. 2) This was just a proposal as to highlight the capital in the main article. And not to say that the zirids only ruled ifriqiya. What I wanted to use with (city) as its capital . PS: the sentence in buluggin article is not wrong as buluggin was appointed viceroy of Ifriqiya (since first central maghreb mainly achir was already under his control when egypt was conquered. Also tripoli was only added later after al mu'izz died. And second if we take in perspective of the contemporary geoghraher Al-Maqdisi you'll find that he includes the cities of ashir and alger to what he called as ifriqiya and this is what Abdallah Laroui was based on when he attributed the zirid dynasty to only ifriqiya https://books.google.tn/books?id=dvl9BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA138&dq=zirid+ifriqiya&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiG3ZCd-47tAhXTZxUIHR7HBqcQ6AEwAnoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) But still this is not the main goal of this talk. We should stay on topic Sss2sss (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Al-Maqdisi (without checking what he said), I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RS. Abdallah Laroui (a non-specialist to start with), while talking specifically about Zirid Ifriqiya, also said that "al-Mu'izz left for the east in 973" and "theoretically, Buluggin remained a mere governor", none of which seem to disconcert you.
The problem with your edit, suggestions and even the way you address the other editors' concerns and questions (when not ignoring them altogether) is always the same: Cherry picking, making the discussion needlessly repetitive, long and tiresome. I honestly don't know what else to say to you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton, clearly Sss2sss has chosen not to answer your or my questions. I move that this discussion be closed. We have entertained this long enough. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I've tried to answer every question ? Could you repeat them for me ? Sss2sss (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zirid_dynasty&oldid=989758038"