A fact from Emirate of Bari appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,216 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
I want to justify labelling Gennarous edit "vandalism": he removed every citation from the article and several sources. That is vandalism, even if the user did not intend to be a vandal. He should have known better than to remove sourcing wholesale! Srnec (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact tags added by Gennarous are redundant: obviously Sawdan re-entered his capital, he ruled for another 12 years, the "high civilisation" at Bari is referred to in the next two sourced sentences, and the relationship between Bari and the Christians is mentioned in the sentence after with a source. Not every sentence needs a footnote: be careful to read sentences in context. Srnec (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Emirate of Bari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
Why is the African reference always removed (the best choice as it still covers North African?)
There was no Berber "slaves" in Sicily, the Berbers were a big part of the Emirate army, they were mainly concentrated in Southern Sicily and had their own autonomous towns, until they were expelled from Sicily by an Arab-Siculo-Saqaliba alliance in the 11th century.
The Arab Chronicles were clear on the Mawali population of the Emirate of Sicily:
Saqaliba Serbian Slave Soldiers (who lived in Harat as-Saqaliba protected the Royal Arab dynasty inside Khalsa, Palermo)
Palace Slaves African Eunuchs & the offspring of African Concubines. (Lived inside Khalsa)
Byzantine Siculos Were enslaved in the later stage of the Emirate, mainly by Siculo Muslims, Berbers & Fatimids. (After the fall of Bari)
The 3 Emirs who ruled Bari, had typical African slaves names (Arabic surnames). They were listed as Mawali, so it means they were the offspring of African Concubines (Berbers were not enslaved in Sicily & Rarely enslaved elsewhere). Droveaxle (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the inaccurate "centered around Bari", the Emirate raided areas further north of Bari, but they didn't have any known possessions to the north (no records of towns taken back).
The Emirate major towns were:
Bari 841-871
Taranto 841-871
Matera 841-867
Oria 841-867
The geography makes the geographic center of the Emirate the inland region between those towns, not Bari which should be closer to the northern region of the Emirate. Droveaxle (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Mawali term in Aghalbid Sicily specifically means Zanj, the Aghlabids were recent Arabian tribe that concentrated in Tunis. In annual records they accounted at near 100,000 Arabs with near 20% average of Zanj slaves (5% retained Slaves), Zanj was of their main sources of income.
If you want to change the term, please explain it here. Reference the Arab Mawali status in Sicily at 841 AD (still recently Arrived Aghlabid), with only two slave groups. Arabized Zanj (along with Arab Zanj offspring) & Slavic Saqaliba who were previously Hellenized & just changed hands from Byzantine ownership to the Emirate. Droveaxle (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article would benefit from an Infobox as it would quickly convey key information about the Emirate to readers (like it's founding, leadership etc.). It has been alleged that this page does not need an infobox, but no reasoning was provided to support this position. Additionally, it has also been protested that the infobox would adversely affect the aesthetics of this page. My response to this would be that it doesn't ruin the aesthetics as well as that a wikipedia page's ability to convey information is of far more importance than idiosyncratic notions of beauty. Seacaibiteach (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the founding and leadership are there in the first two sentences: "The Emirate of Bari was a short-lived Islamic state ruled by Berbers. It was ruled from the south Italian city of Bari from 847 to 871."
No page needs an infobox. See MOS:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."
I would contend that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and conveys information primarily through prose. Since the article is short and the topic rather obscure, there is no need to summarize it in a box. It is not like a modern country with a precise area and population, various codes, time zones, official languages, etc. Srnec (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: Last four informations also do not talk about Emirate of Bari then we have to remove that informations too. My information is in this context. Mikola22 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"A few towns were apparently freed of Muslim control", "Louis attacked Bari" and "In February 871 the citadel fell and Sawdan" clearly tell us something relevant about the end of the emirate. The Byzantine sentence could be dropped. However, "during the siege inhabitants of Ragusa transported Croats and other Archons of Slavs on their ships to Lombardy" has nothing to do with Bari at all. Srnec (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Longobardia. My information from the source has more valuable fact for the article. "Croats", "Slavs", "fleet of Ragusa", "Domagoj". I think that in this case "Croatian fleet" doesn’t say very much if we compare it with information from my source. Mikola22 (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
European nationalists, who can't accept the idea that Africans ruled mainland Italy, need to put their emotions aside and read the original Arab sources, they made it clear that the dynasty was ruled by African Zanj. Berbers were vassals, but not slaves in Southern Sicily (Jirjant) they never had any presence in Southern Italy, except the in the Post-Emirate era when all Muslims were rounded up and given Lucera. NewimageEU (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence in the intro that calls it the "most lasting episode in the history of Islam in peninsular southern Italy. I don't believe that a statement like that can be properly sourced. The Emirate of Bari was certainly the most well-documented episode, but the Emirate of Taranto is, I believe, conventionally dated to 880 and at any rate lasted a few years past the end of the Emirate of Bari. Giosuè Musca dates the Emirate of Taranto from 846-880 in his book on the Emirate of Bari. At any rate, claims of much longer periods of Muslim rule are sometimes made for towns in the interior and the records are so scant that such a definitive statement is in my opinion incorrect. Alistoriv (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not short lived or longest lasting, but Emirate of Bari was the only independent state. The other muslim towns were ruled by Greek or Arab muslims who were always vassals of Palermo or Christian rulers in mainland Italy. The Rulers of Bari were the only Italian sovereign emirate at that era.Mazulu1010 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The map of the Emirate of Bari and other Islamic states in Italy under discussion
The Emirate of Bari was a largely maritime state, the same goes for the other Islamic polities in Italy. This map is inaccurate and should be removed as it is highly unlikely that anything outside of Bari and it's countryside was actually under their control for any considerable period of time. Petarrc13 (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive used books, historical, and other sources making this map. Bari indeed held areas outside the core city AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim Userd89810:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Alex Metcalfe source: how exactly is that source supposed to imply that the Emirate of Bari was ruled by Black Africans? How is that possible when we have reliable sources (we can add more if needs be) saying in the clearest possible terms that it was ruled by Berbers?
Moreover, the Berber encyclopedia says (rightly so) that, from a grammatical point of view, the word "Sawdan" (or Sudan) cannot be applied to a man and therefore, it can only be a Berber surname, which has nothing to do with the Arabic root S A D. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article said "non-Arabs, probably Berbers and perhaps Black Africans". Metcalfe says "there is an implication in it that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa". The article used to say "sub-Sharan African", which I changed to "Black African" since that it was is meant. So he says that one of the three known rulers of Muslim Bari was perhaps Black African. Thus the wording in the article. Golvin argues that it "can only be" a Berber surname on the basis of ... nothing other than that he can't take it literally as an Arabic name. Srnec (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of what the article said. The issue that I raised is with what you restored (after I removed it):
Stating that the Emirate of Bari was "perhaps ruled by Black Africans" is WP:OR since the source says no such thing. Someone cherry picked part of the source and used it to make such a claim (this is why I quoted everything that the source says). The author's speculations may or may not belong in an article about Sawdan, but they don't belong in this one, much less in the lead.
The cherry picked part is also contradicted by most RS that say that the emirate was ruled by Berbers and that Sawdan was Berber. Even the used source gives the author's various speculations about Sawdan's origin, while stating that he was called "Sawdān al-Māwrī" (we know what Mauri means).
The source says that Sawdan was perhaps a Black African. (That is what sub-Saharan African means.) Sawdan ruled Bari. I have no problem removing all ethnic information from the lead to somewhere else in the article. I strongly oppose scrubbing it of speculation cited to a reliable source. It is hardly as if we have copious records of the emirate of Bari. Scholarly speculation is the name of the game, as when Golvin speculates that Sawdan was Berber.
A little article history: I added "Black Africans" in November 2020 (diff, edit summary "there was no African dynasty, although Sawdan may have been a Black African") after someone changed "Berbers" to "Africans". The citation the whole time was Metcalfe. The quotation from Metcalfe was added upon request (diff). The ethnic/racial issue has arisen repeatedly. You can see here where I stated that "the rulers were Berber" after someone changed it to "Arab". This is why I am opposed to removing speculation supported by RS. Srnec (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that Sawdan was perhaps a Black African no, that's not what the source says. All it says is that "there is an implication in [his name] that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa".
Golvin gave a convincing argument regarding the root of the word "Sawdan" (it's not an Arabic name for a "black person").
The Metcalfe source doesn't say that the Emirate of Bari was "perhaps ruled by Black Africans". This part is WP:OR that cannot stay in the article.
I am asserting that "there is an implication ... that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa" = "perhaps was a Black African". If you disagree, we should get a third opinion. You find Golvin's argument convincing. Golvin in fact says nothing about the actual root of Sawdan, nor does Metcalfe talk about roots.
The Aghlabids and Their Neighbors is not a monograph. You have to cite the actual chapter, which is by Lorenzo Bondioli. He does not say that Bari was ruled by Berbers on p. 470, but that Musca claimed that it was. He then cites two scholars who differ from Musca (although whether they agree on the ethnic question is unstated). On pp. 482–483, he discusses the possibility that al-Mufarraj was an Arab. Musca, p. 62, rejects the reading al-Mawri in favour of al-Mazari. He still thinks he was "mostly" Berber, but calls it a theory. Srnec (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Musca claimed the source says that "Musca described..." (not claimed).
He then cites two scholars who differ from Musca about something else (the relationship between the rise of Islamic Bari and the contemporary Aghlabid expansion into the central Mediterranean). This has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
he discusses the possibility that al-Mufarraj we already have a modern scholarly source that summarises Musca's position.
although whether they agree on the ethnic question is unstated let's avoid the baseless WP:OR and stick to what the sources actually say.
None of this explains or justifies the unacceptable WP:OR that you added, and since you avoided it multiple times, I feel compelled to ask you about it and nothing else: are you going to address the WP:OR issue? M.Bitton (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{| style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; padding: 4px;"
| Response to third opinion request:
|-
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | The Metcalfe says that Sawdan's name implied that he originated from sub-Saharan Africa, so this is not OR or SYNTH. It is a minority opinion. Only one ruler may have been Black African, so replace ...by Black Africans with ...by a Black African. Also discuss Sawdan's origins (the Berber majority opinion and the sub-Saharan minority opinion) Closetside (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
|}
[reply]
Per Metcalfe:
The last amir of Bari held sway between 857 and 865 and was the bearer of another unusual name: Sawdan. In Latin sources, he is known as ‘Seodan’ or ‘Saugdan’. His name was rendered in different forms, but there is an implication in it that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa.
1) You're not a third party (you're already involved in a dispute multiple disputes with me). 2) You didn't address the yes or no question. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:::1) Involvement in a dispute elsewhere is not prima facie disqualification for giving a 3O. I took into account both sides and gave my opinion in a neutral fashion. Regardless, it is now 2 on 1, and 3O requires 1 on 1. 2) I answered yes, include "perhaps a Black African." Closetside (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, my decision to give a 3O was dubious so I withdraw from my role as 3O responder and invite the two parties to seek a non-dubious 3O if they so choose. Notwithstanding, I will give my opinion in a RfC should one be called.Closetside (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest argument is that this claim constitutes WP:OR, and nothing in the discussion meaningfully refutes that. Additional sources are needed to justify the claim that Emirate of Bari was ruled by Black Africans. - Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(P1) Sawdan was an Emir of Bari (i.e. Some Emirs of Bari were Sawdan)
(P2) Sawdan may have been a Black African
(C) Some Emirs of Bari may have been Black Africans
Therefore this is not OR (or SYNTH). However, I recommend replacing and perhaps by Black Africans with and perhaps also by a Black African. Closetside (talk) 05:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if @Nemov agrees. If so, M.Bitton should graciously concede. If not, an RfC is in order. If Nemov agrees and M.Bitton doesn't concede, the RfC will almost certainly adopt our position. Closetside (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I would recommend is in the future do not request a third party opinion if you're only going to abide by it if you agree with it. Nemov (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O is not binding; it is merely to get a new pair of eyes to look at the dispute. Sometimes this ends one, sometimes it doesn't. Regardless, @Nemov's position hasn't explicitly changed so an RfC is in order. Closetside (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was brought here originally by 3O and have been recieving notifications. Also, the status quo is protected during disputes per WP:STATUSQUO. This is not hounding (remember AGF and the many dispute you are in that I have no interest in commenting on) Closetside (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, if the RfC closed with no consensus, the page would revert back to the status quo. There was implicit consensus before you came in and the policy references WP:QUO as a best practice. But fighting over a temporary version is just not worth it. Closetside (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, WP:ONUS talks about verified content not being included due to other reasons. By citing WP:ONUS, you have indirectly conceded that "Sawdan may be a Black African" is a verified statement. Closetside (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your false claim (about what is a policy) apart, you probably don't even realise that you're not making any sense. In any case, I see no point in entertaining it longer than I have to, so if you want to start a RfC, be my guest. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
_crowned.svg)
Response to third opinion request:
|-
| style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | The Metcalfe says that Sawdan's name implied that he originated from sub-Saharan Africa, so this is not OR or SYNTH. It is a minority opinion. Only one ruler may have been Black African, so replace ...by Black Africans with ...by a Black African. Also discuss Sawdan's origins (the Berber majority opinion and the sub-Saharan minority opinion) Closetside (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
|}
Note: I will start by advertising this discussion, and if it doesn't attract enough input, I will either take it to WP:OR/N or WP:DRN. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
