User talk:R Prazeres

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

A fox for you!

Dear R Prazeres, we were in touch a few years ago, my name is Stephennie Mulder, I’m a professor of Islamic art who oversees the annual #StudentsOfIslamicArt edit-a-thon (meetup page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup_StudentsofIslamicArt). Your work on Wikipedia and particularly on Islamic topics is so excellent, I am a huge fan.

I will be running the assignment again this fall with my class at UT Austin in a collaboration with classes at the University of California Merced and the University of Delaware. I am now gathering a list of articles on medieval Islamic art and architecture for the students in my class to edit, and I thought I’d reach out and see if you have any suggestions for articles on medieval topics you’d like to see expanded or created. I know you have a few on your page marked as stubs, would be glad to start there. But I thought I’d ask if there are any you’d like to see them work on in particular.

I oversee this assignment closely, but because this is student work, it is not always quite as polished as it might be were a subject area expert to work on an article, so I offer that caveat! But I typically find that the experience of editing Wikipedia is deeply illuminating for students on many fronts.

Anyway, would be happy for your thoughts, and truly grateful for the excellent work you do here!

Stephennie

ArtsOfIslam (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephennie, thank you for your very kind message. I'm happy to hear my contributions are seen as positive!

As a quick general thought: I think students (and new editors) do seem to make the most positive contributions when picking a topic with narrow scope — like a single monument or single significant object, or a particular type of art in a particular period/region, etc. — that hasn't received much work yet. On broad topics or topics that have significant coverage already, they seem to struggle to find a good direction to go and to find good-quality sources that allow them to improve on the existing material. At least, that's been my impression.

From what I can think of, I know there are many lesser-known but significant historical monuments that have not received much attention yet. I've made a very incomplete list of suggestions below, but it's biased by the topics I've personally worked on, so there's certainly more than these.

In Turkey:

Gazanfer Agha Medrese in Istanbul
Cerrahpasha Mosque in Istanbul
Çifte Minareli Medrese, Erzurum
Yakutiye Madrasa in Erzurum (also a museum now, which the article could also describe)
Şifaiye Medrese in Sivas
Çifte Minareli Medrese, Sivas
Hunat Hatun Complex in Kayseri
Döner Kümbet in Kayseri
Gevher Nesibe Medrese (or Çifte Medrese) in Kayseri
Aslanhane Mosque in Ankara
Grand Mosque of Afyonkarahisar
İsa Bey Mosque in modern Selçuk
Great Mosque of Manisa (Sarukhanid congregational mosque)
Tomb of Melike Mama Hatun in Tercan
Great Mosque of Dunaysir in modern Koçhisar or Kızıltepe (see e.g. [1], [2], [3])

In Syria and Palestine (most of these are Mamluk; I've barely surveyed later periods yet):

There's also a large number of stubs for madrasas and mosques in Tunis: see Category:Mosques in Tunis and Category:Madrasas in the medina of Tunis. Although some of them may not have much information available in WP:RS and students are likely to need some French abilities to research these effectively.

I've barely scratched the surface of sites in Iran and Central Asia, so I have fewer suggestions to offer, but a couple that have come to my mind previously:

Shrine of Abd al-Samad in Natanz (mentioned at Abdussamad Esfahani but deserves its own article)
Ghiyathiyya Madrasa in Khargird/Khar Gerd
Qarakhanid Mausoleums or Karakhanid Mausoleums in Uzgen (images here for reference)

Beyond architecture, one area of Islamic art that I think has received relatively less attention on Wikipedia is metalwork. So far, there's a paragraph on it at Islamic art#Metalwork, articles on a few individual pieces, and some period-specific summaries in larger articles (e.g. Almohad Caliphate#Metalwork, Mamluk Sultanate#Art, and Abbasid art#Metalwork). I'm not sure which specific topics to suggest, but we generally lack dedicated articles on the topic, if that inspires anything!

I hope some of the above is helpful. I'll be busy in the coming weeks but feel free to contact me again if helpfu; and I'll be happy to look again. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you wanted a very short list of suggestions, then the ones I'd be most happy to see improved/created from above might be:

R Prazeres (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this extensive list of suggestions and for your detailed and thoughtful reply. I concur that narrowly focused topics on underdeveloped articles are the best strategy, and several of the topics you suggested are on our list (as well as––in the realm of metalware––a new article on the Freer Canteen!)

I’ll refer to this list for future projects and may reach out again. I’m grateful for your generosity. ArtsOfIslam (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qibla

As far as I know, Wikipedia reverts are made within established rules. I'm worried that someone didn't feel the need for my contribution on the Qibla issue, and that my contributions have hit a conservative wall. NGC 628 (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that statement is even trying to convey, but the tone of self-righteousness isn't convincing. You have been asked many, many times to stop pushing the same POV and you've been warned recently more than once to stop resorting to WP:OR. It's not even the first time I've told you that it's not the first time ([4]). There really isn't an excuse for this anymore and you are setting yourself up for possible accusations of being a tendentious or single-purpose editor. Take this as yet another warning. R Prazeres (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never challenged the perpetrators for any reversals that were accompanied by the necessary explanations. It's true that I work in certain areas, and anyone can do this. All I ask is that you to demonstrate that this reversal is based on a properly implemented Wikipedia policy. It's vital for all of us and for our policies of impartiality that this action not be taken to fulfill someone's taboos.

Additionally, I watched a few videos about changing the qibla in Islam and saw that you also have a strong interest in Islamic architecture. The qibla is also a subject related to architecture. I would be very grateful if you could share your knowledge on this subject. Regards. NGC 628 (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades wikiproject

There's a new editor trying to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Crusades off the ground, if you've any interest in lending a hand. -- asilvering (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll keep it in mind. R Prazeres (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Rahman al-Nasir banner and the origin of the green banner of the Andalusi Umayyads

I appreciate your help on the Al-Marwani page. Now regarding the flag or banners used by the Umayyads in Al-Andalus they used multiple ones but the personal standard for the emir/caliph was the green one. This goes back to the Battle of Al-Musara where the young price Abd al-Rahman I Al-Dakhil defeated the pro Abbasid forces of Yusuf al-Fihri outside the gates of Cordoba. The young prince did not have a banner, so he used his green turban and a spear as his banner before the battle. This is recorded by Arabic sources. That afterwards became the symbol of the Andalusi Umayyads, although line other Islamic dynasties they used multiple banners like the Ottomans or the Abbasids. Then we have the documented case of Caliph Abd al-Rahman III personal banner displayed proudly in military parades which is only a personal variation of the original green banner of Abd al-Rahman I where he just added a white eagle in the middle of the green banner. This was an innovation to the time since displaying animals in flags was not very common in Islamic symbols this early in history and made scholars to comment on it. I can provide the sources for this, Arabic and Spanish. Because of this I am putting both flags back, as variations of the symbols used by the Marwanid Umayyads in Al-Andalus. Btw the green turban banner of Abd al-Rahman I is mentioned on his Wikipedia article. Andalusi97 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andalusi97. Please do not re-add the flags unless you've discussed this and gotten consensus at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate, where this issue has been discussed previously. In order for any such flag to be accepted, it has to be clearly and fully verifiable in reliable (secondary) sources (which would mean modern academic references). As far as I've seen, there is no scholarly support for identifying a particular image as the banner (or one of the banners) of the Umayyads, but if there is, please present it at the talk page I mentioned. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References for Umayyad colors:

• 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica: “he had no banner, and one was improvised by unwinding a green turban and binding it round the head of a spear. The turban and the spear became the banner of the Spanish Omayyads.”

• R. Marín-Guzmán: “the symbol of opposition to the Umayyads, whose banner was white.” (peer-reviewed)

• D. Alexander (Gladius, 2000) notes al-Ṭabarī’s attribution of a white flag to an Umayyad prince (i.e., white as Umayyad color in early Islamic warfare).

• Arabic discussions of banners likewise present white for the Umayyads and black for the ʿAbbāsids (and often green for the Fāṭimids/Āl al-Bayt), e.g.:

• Jordan’s Royal Hashemite Court explainer on historic banners.

References in APA style

• 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. (1911). Abd-ar-Rahman (Vol. 1). In Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Abd-ar-Rahman

• Marín-Guzmán, R. (2004). Arab Tribes, the Umayyad Dynasty, and the ‘Abbasid Revolution [PDF]. Arab Journal of Islamic and Social Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.ajis.org/index.php/ajiss/article/download/513/2258/4987

• Britannica. (n.d.). ʿAbd al-Raḥmān I. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/Abd-al-Rahman-I

• The Royal Hashemite Court. (n.d.). The Hashemite Flags. Retrieved from https://rhc.jo/en/the-hashemite-flags

• IslamicHistory.org. (n.d.). The Umayyads. Retrieved from https://islamichistory.org/the-umayyads/

Andalusi97 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these are not reliable sources (not academic publications) and the others are merely passing mentions of a colour or a vague symbol. This is not sufficient reference for recreating a full flag, and WP:OR means we don't allow editors to propose their own personal reconstructions based on incomplete information. If professional historians themselves have not reconstructed it and agreed on it, then it's not for Wikipedia. Reports of the white banner are mentioned inline at Umayyad Caliphate (see also this archived discussion if needed), but we can't verify more than that. R Prazeres (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Ḥayyān’s claim (as mediated by modern scholarship)

• Some modern Spanish/Andalusian historical treatments assert that Ibn Ḥayyān (a major Andalusi chronicle author) explicitly describes that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān III used an eagle emblem (ʿuqāb / áquila / “águila”) on his banner in a campaign “in infidel territory (fi ‘ard ghayr mu’min)” during the 934 expedition (Osma campaign). One article says:

“El cronista Ibn Hayyan describe el emblema del águila que el primer califa Abd al-Rahman III usó ‘en territorio infiel’ con motivo de la campaña contra Osma en 934, siendo este símbolo ‘inventado, pues ningún sultán la tuvo antes’.”

Another Spanish-language article claims that the eagle (ʿuqāb) “la divisa más celebrada por las fuentes árabes peninsulares … utilizada en los estandartes guerreros durante el califato.”

• In the article Ceremonial y guerra santa en al-Andalus (s. X), the author (E. Cardoso) argues that by using that banner, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān III was sending ritual and symbolic messages in the context of jihad/ghāzī imagery.

So the claim is that the eagle was first used in a campaign in 934, as a novel emblem, and then became celebrated as one of the main divisas (standards) of the Caliphate.

• There is no solid textual evidence from Arabic chronicles to reliably locate that can state the color scheme (i.e. “green field,” “white eagle”) or the exact blazon of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s eagle standard. But the eagle standard is well attested, whether it was green or white. Similar to the flags of the Ottoman Empire where they used multiple Crescent flags in red and green. Andalusi97 (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://cosasdecordoba.com/el-aguila-de-abderraman-iii/ Andalusi97 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you still want to pursue this, then like I said, propose it at Talk:Umayyad state of Córdoba (for discussion of the Cordoban Umayyads, or at Talk:Umayyad Caliphate if you're talking about the earlier caliphs of course) rather than here, so that other editors can read it. You'll need to provide the exact citations to the relevant statements by scholars (e.g. author, title, page number), and preferably you should quote the relevant excerpts again if the original text is not publicly accessible (if it's accessible online, then you can just link to it, but clarify the author and page anyways to be safe). If the excerpts you cite above are accurate, then to me they just look like information that can be summarized by text inside the article, not represented indirectly via an image; that's what is already done in multiple articles with similar situations. R Prazeres (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date of separation of golden horde from mongol empire

Can you help me to find the date related separation of golden horde from mongol empire Vexnoid (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe de facto independence would also be dated to around 1260, based on the sources I linked in our other discussion at Talk:Ilkhanate, though you may still want to read a bit further in those sources (and in other relevant references). That is also what is explained at the Golden Horde article. If you have further questions about that topic, I suggest you open a discussion at Talk:Golden Horde. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you check this

https://www.britannica.com/place/Mongol-empire/The-Golden-Horde Vexnoid (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Berke Vexnoid (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=4663 Vexnoid (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://altynorda.kazakhstan.travel/en/about/figures-item/4 Vexnoid (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added Nabatean architecture to the History of Architecture

Even if you disagree with my edits regarding Islamic architecture why did you delete the Nabatean Architecture? Prosnu (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The revert of the Nabataean addition was unintentional, my apologies. I didn't realize it was a consecutive edit, so the "rollback" function reverted it automatically. However, that section is also poorly-sourced – once again! – as the source you cited does not verify many of the numbers and statements you added there. So frankly, it may deserve to be reverted anyways, but I will tag it instead for now in the hope that another editor can revise it. R Prazeres (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also copied "is as famous now as it was in antiquity for its remarkable rock-cut tombs and temples." word-for-word from the source. You have been warned multiple times about copyright, you are risking being blocked from editing on this alone. R Prazeres (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I continue to think your reports are among the clearest and easiest to action. If you've any interest in applying to be an SPI clerk, you know where to find us. :) -- asilvering (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've thought about it previously so that's good to hear, I haven't had the time so far but will consider it seriously. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do let me know too, please! Anyone who @Asilvering says produces SPI reports that are clearest and easiest to action is doing great work. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminded by your most recent listing, I thought I'd point you to WP:AN#Seeking new SPI clerks. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalla Baytou

Hello, I added the sources you requested regarding the mosque of Akka in the article of Almoravids. Carlos Hernández Cabrera (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlos Hernández Cabrera That got reverted by someone if you didn’t know Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hello, so I saw that you reverted my edit on the Baghdad article and you said "Unsourced and some WP:OR (some flags and maybe some dates). This would need to be clearly outlined and properly sourced in the main text first before a bare summary like this would be reasonable." Well you said properly sourced but that’s a lot of effort to do can’t I just link it to articles that talk about the capture? plus could you show me a example on what I should do if you dont mind? Shadow. 547 (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say that’s a lot of effort, but yeah, it is relatively a lot of work, that's why Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress, but verifiability is still a core policy. The table you added might be nice in a developped article where all of the details can be found below (thus acting as a summary of already-sourced content), but it's not essential and we can't skip the work of citing reliable sources. The proposed table also contains obvious WP:OR (the city was founded in 762, so the Umayyads, Sasanians, etc. don't belong in that list) and is inconsistent with some of the dates currently mentioned in the article (though some of those are uncited in turn, which is another reason why this needs to be improved first), so that just demonstrates why adding unsourced material commonly makes things worse, not better.

You could add citations in the table itself if you're able, but I assume that kind of clutter is undesirable and if you go through that trouble then you might as well add the cited information inline. Both in principle and certainly in practice, you almost always need to explain and cite things in the main text first before this type of summary can be useful.

For comparison, I guess the best example is Hyderabad, which is a featured article (meaning it should be of high quality). If you haven't already seen it, there's a table in the history section outlining the dates as you did, but note how all the dates in the table are already mentioned and explained in the sourced content below. Thus, it simply acts as an aid or a complement to the main text, without verifiability being a problem. I hope that helps. R Prazeres (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

umayyad caliphate article

hello, i saw that you reversed my change in the Umayyad Caliphate and i wanted to clarify and further explain my point, i understand and appreciate your efforts in making the article more factual, but my claim was directly based from the historians cited.

1)the Umayyad caliphates capital was Damascus and virtually every major decision came from syria.

2)the syrian army was the most professional and most funded army in the caliphate, all major campaigns were launched from syrian troops including al andalus and Transoxiana, additionally when the abbasids rose they only won after they destroyed the syrian army, proving it was the real power.

3)most governors were appointed from syrian tribes and elite families, as well as syria was the heart if the economy.

historians such as hugh Kennedy and G.R Hawting described the umayyad caliphate and i quote " a syrian monarchy ruling an empire., noting that the dynasty's political capital, military base and administrative core was concentrated in syria.

therefore i ask you to return the edit i made earlier and thank You! Thelorondo (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article, including that same first paragraph you edited, already says this. Inserting a similar but less precise statement into the first sentence is not helpful. R Prazeres (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Syria remained the Umayyads' core power base thereafter, with Damascus as their capital" emphasises that it was only based in syria while in reality it was a syrian state. Thelorondo (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference between that statement and what you're saying, other than emphasizing the adjective "Syrian". I see no reason to do that. In any case, if you want to convince editors, please open a discussion on the talk page there, not here. I'm not the only one you would need to convince. R Prazeres (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if my statement was not factually wrong then there was no reason for you to un-do it then Thelorondo (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, it was the first thing I said. Now stop messaging here and use the article's talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caliphate

Hi I saw you reverted the infobox of caliphate article. Can I know why it can't be helpful? I mean it was gone through various empires yet remained as one institution for people right The Caliphate? A$ianeditorz (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, or at least that's debatable and probably too simplistic. In any case, the existing infobox templates we have are designed for certain types of topics where there are some clear parameters to summarize (and even then, the parameters aren't always clear enough). We don't have one (to my knowledge) that is designed for summarizing a type of historical title or concept like this. So it's better to let the article do the talking than to try to make the topic fit into an existing infobox that could lead readers down the wrong way of thinking. You can make a suggestion on the talk page there, but I think other experienced editors would agree. R Prazeres (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay got it but isn't it similar the Holy see ? A$ianeditorz (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because the Vatican is a single specific and identifiable organization, so it's easy enough to specify some of its parameters without too much complication. The caliphate (as scholarly sources devoted to the subject can attest) is not one single consistent institution; its identity, function, and general conception varied over time and is open to interpretation (hence why there were rival "caliphates" in some periods). Infoboxes are usually meant to handle straightforward facts (because they don't leave room for clarification or nuance), so they don't handle topics like this well. In general, an infobox is an optional tool to help readers; if it's not a clear and easy aid, it's best to avoid them. R Prazeres (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks though A$ianeditorz (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I noticed there's one at List of caliphs, and even that one I think is not helpful and should probably be reconsidered. R Prazeres (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Senussi Family tree

Senussi Family tree was based on sources alreay in wikipedia articles, e.g. al-Sanussi's grandson was indeed Idris I. So, there is nothing new here or unreliable. The tree is already posted in articles on Senussi family members.

JMvanDijk (talk)

Small request

@R Prazeres:: Hello, could you please create the page Seljuk Sultanate of Iraq with just a redirect to Seljuk Empire, basically please write this code into the page - #REDIRECT Seljuk Empire

From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.

.

It just would look nicer for pages which cite this article, because right now it does not exists but after this it would redirect them to the relevant information instead of blank page. This would also be justified, since Seljuk Sultanate of Iraq was more or less identical to the Seljuk Empire (or one of its empires during the division). I can not create the page with temporary account and also I don't want to create an ordinary account and wait for three days for such a small thing. Please, your help would be very appreciated. ~2025-36115-51 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we can do that if needed, but I don't think it's necessary because Seljuk Sultanate already redirects to Seljuk Empire and I don't see any other article titles that includes "Seljuk Sultanate". So that means that anyone who starts typing "Seljuk Sultanate" in the search box (or when adding a link while editing an article) will be directed towards Seljuk Empire anyways. Are you sure this doesn't serve the same purpose? R Prazeres (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary R Prazeres 🎉

Hey @R Prazeres. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 12 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 19:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]