User talk:R Prazeres

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Hadhrami architecture

Moved to Talk:Hadhramaut § Hadhrami architecture

Historical Arab States and Dynasties

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

Hi there

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

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

I did also advise you to look at the article ([1]) in order to see this; your explanation suggests that you did not, so please review things more carefully before you repeat a reverted edit. The lead section is a summary of the article and obviously cannot start saying one thing while the rest of the article says another.

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

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

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

Rashidun

The reason for my contributions to some topics is that the current narrative style does not allow for different views and the events are presented as if they are illuminated in all their details, and no discussions, different ideas, findings or research have occurred on them. I try to give alternative views without exceeding the limits. Thank you also for your guiding explanations.NGC 628 (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist

Hi, seeing your contributions to related topics, please keep these pages under your watch; Amir al-Mu'minin and List of caliphs. Thanks for the heed. Kind regards. MŠLQr (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. R Prazeres (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, +Assassination of Uthman & Thanks again. MŠLQr (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of Abu Zakariya Yahya

Hi, I don't understand the message you put on my page, but when I click on the source I am on the right page? @R Prazeres Based tunisian (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Based tunisian, what I meant here is that you should add the page number directly in the Wikipedia citation. So for example, one of your references looks like this: ^[1] But it should look like this: ^[2] or ^[3] (assuming those are the correct pages). Or you can add the page numbers separately in a short template right after the citation (Template:Reference page), like this: ^[4]^: 46 or ^[5]^: 45–47. Either option is fine. You can also use short citation templates, but this takes a little more work to learn.

Do this whenever possible, as it makes your intention clearer and it makes it easier for other editors to verify the information in the source by themselves. It's worth remembering that links can also stop working over time, or sometimes don't work for other users, so that's another reason to specify the page numbers directly.

If the source link you included brings you to the relevant page already, then that should make your job easier; just check the page number and add it to the citation on the Wikipedia article. If you can't determine the page number (for example, if you consulted the source on Google Books, sometimes the Google preview doesn't include page numbers), then it's not a big deal, as long as you do it for every citation where it's possible; someone else might be able to find the exact page number later in a printed edition. In this situation, you can also specify the title of the chapter or section, which still helps to narrow it down (for example, the citation could look like this: ^[6])

I hope that helps, let me know if you need further assistance. R Prazeres (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC) R Prazeres (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I took care to listen to this advice and I will modify it as soon as I can. @R Prazeres Based tunisian (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bosworth, C. E. (2019-06-01). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.
^ Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.
^ Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 45–47. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.
^ Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.
^ Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.
^ Bosworth, C. E. (2019). "The Hafsids". New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

Old Ottoman coat of Arms

Hi @Prazeres; Found this in an old book (1675). The Algerian regency's coa looks similiar to this one (with the exception of the golden seal of solomon, most likely associate with the banner of the Barbarossa brothers). The other European coat of arms in this book look realistic. What do you think ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nourerrahmane: the link you provided sends me to the page with a symbol for "Turkey", so maybe you need to clarify what you mean. Is this still for Regency of Algiers? If so, this source doesn't seem to be specific to that, unlike the others cited here. But let me know if I misunderstood. Best, R Prazeres (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i should have explained better. This old coat arms refers to the sublime Porte in this book. The regency’s coa is similar to it so maybe this has some basis. Do we still need secondary sources describing it ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki page

Good evening, I wanted to ask you if it is normal that my wiki page not displayed on the browseer I've already done it on 3 wiki pages @R Prazeres Based tunisian (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Based tunisian, I assume you mean the new articles you just created (like Campaigns of Abu Zakariya Yahya etc)? What do you mean exactly by "not displayed on the browser"? Do you mean you can't view the page yourself? Or do you mean it doesn't show up among the first results when you do a Google search? I'll do my best to answer after a bit more clarification. R Prazeres (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it, sorry, when I search on Google my article doesn't even appear. @R Prazeres Based tunisian (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, that is normal, yes. Google is entirely independent of Wikipedia of course, and I'm not an expert on how it functions, but it takes time before new webpages are indexed by the search engine and thus can potentially appear towards the top of search results (which, for Wikipedia, is often the case). There is some explanation of this at the Wikipedia article for Google Search. I'm not sure if it takes longer to index for subjects that are not searched for often, but typically it takes days or weeks for new articles to appear regularly at the top of Google searches (based on my own experience with new articles). R Prazeres (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I need to pick your brain, R Prazeres. I noticed you created the article, Mausoleum of Amir Qawsun. Do you know of any mosque(s) built under Qawsun's patronage during 1329-1330? I have a source that states certain craftsmen were used in the construction of two minarets at the "Mosque of Qawsun in Cairo", but I've been unable to find this mosque. I would appreciate any help. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, he may have sponsored more than one, but judging by date and notability it almost certaintly refers to a large mosque that technically still exists here (Google Maps link), though only fragments of the original building remain as it was demolished and rebuilt in different form during the 19th century. You can find a brief summary from a reliable source in Caroline Williams' Islamic Monuments in Cairo: The Practical Guide; the relevant text in the 6th edition should be visible here; I have the 7th edition at home and it's on p.132, if helpful for citing. (It's also mentioned in passing here.) There is a fuller description in Doris Behrens-Abouseif's "Cairo of the Mamluks" on pp.171-172; it's not available online to my knowledge, but if you need it, I can email you photos of the relevant pages. R Prazeres (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Yes, please feel to send me photos of those pages. Thank you very much! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent, though I forgot you can't attach files through the Wikipedia email feature, so you'll have to reply to me directly from your email so I can send you the image files directly. (If you don't mind revealing your email address to me in the process.) R Prazeres (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bosworth, C. E. (2019-06-01). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

[2] Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. p. 46. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

[3] Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 45–47. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

[4] Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

[5] Bosworth, C. E. (2019). New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

[6] Bosworth, C. E. (2019). "The Hafsids". New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-4744-6462-8.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]