Talk:Ibn Battuta

Tennasserim as another possible candidate for "Tawalisi"?

While the two place names may not look similar in English spelling, in Thai, Tenasserim is pronounced more like "Da-now-si", so perhaps it's that? Also in "A History of Ayutthaya: Siam in the Early Modern World", the city-state of Ayutthaya, prior to it's formal date of foundation in 1351 CE, was more similar to its Maritime Southeast Asian neighbors, who were raiding down the Malay Peninsula at this time, whose customs were described by Fei Shin, a scribe on Zheng He's voyages in the early 15th century,"The customs are violent and fierce: they particularly respect bravery. They invade and despoil neighboring regions … and are practiced and skillful at fighting on water." (Baker, Phongpaichit, 49) I don't believe, however, that Ayutthaya did subjugate the region until the 16th century.

Women also played an integral part in Ayutthaya society, often becoming the leaders of commoner households and heads of society while the men were off being conscripted to fight in wars or perform corvee labor for the king/state, so that kind of negates the idea that women can't be in charge on the mainland, even less so on the Malay peninsula.

Tennasserim was also named on the De Fauro map in c. 1459, one of the earliest maps that payed attention to detail to Mainland Southeast Asia Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

korean medival period

please make one on it too 182.68.26.13 (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

The following two comments were copied from HamHammm's talk page?

As I previously mentioned, describing him as "Moroccan" is obviously anachronistic. If sources is all you're after, you could have asked for them (I added a couple of reliable sources to prevent further disruption). M.Bitton (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What part of what I said or the reliable sources that were added do you disagree with? M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources that you added do not add anything in substance, they just say that he was Maghrebi which he obviously was just like Francisco Pizarro was southern european but also Spanish, Maghrebi just like Southern European refers to a group of people from a region made up of various countries and nationalities, you are not explaining here why it is "anachronistic" , throwing a random word out out of nowhere without explanation and reverting edits is very problematic.. HamHammm (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with Maghrebi, this is far back in history and accurate borders to difficult. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Various academic papers from various Universities and institutions that I just posted seem do disagree with you assertion. HamHammm (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Your edit warring and unwillingness to communicate (despite the comments left on your talk page and the ping from here) is what's problematic. There was no such thing as "Moroccan", "Algerian", Tunisian" or a concept of nationality back then (other than belonging to the Maghreb, as opposed to the Mashreq, and being Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I already answered you, re-read my first comment here. HamHammm (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You are now edit warring against myself and StellarNerd and replacing scholarly sources about the subject with anything that you can find in order to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The key point here is striking a balance, you can't just search for sources saying what you want them to say, you need to search for sources on ethnicity and then stick to what the majority of them say. --StellarNerd (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Maghrebi?

I think that this is a incorrect classification to the background of Ibn Battuta. I see that this topic was visited a few years ago here as a dispute. However it is correct that Maghrebi is just a general grouping which can stretch from Morocco all the way to Libya. Which can be considerd similair to calling someone a "Southern European" or "East Asian" for example. In regards to Ibn Battuta. We do know directly of his birth city and background as he himself mentioned it in his works.

A argument was given that there is no "concept of nationality back then". While this is the case with almost any historic figure born in the pre modern age. Wikipedia uses the WP:Naming Conventions. In which we have to see how this was used in that time period and how people referred to themself. While later scholars or historians might refer to a general region as the maghreb. Or a group of people as maghrebi there is no basis that people in the past of the region did so on that basis. Luckily for us in this case within the Rihla itself Ibn Battuta describes himself by his ethnic and tribal background primarely. This was also sourced in the article itself in [9] and [17]. As was common in the MENA region to do so despite which empire one lived in. And as such doesnt fall in my opinion in MOS:ETHNICITY. As it is actual relevant to the subject's notability

To that effect have i currently made that small change. If you disagree or wish for a dispute of it. We can discuss it here further Imteghren (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Here, Berber refers to an ethnic group. That Ibn Battuta is considered a member of this ethnic group isn't relevant to why he is notable. Hence, it is a straightforward case where MOS:ETHNICITY applies. As a side note, never mark edits like that as minor: in addition to it changing the meaning of the prose, it comes off like you're trying to get away with something controversial, as minor edits don't show up in watchlists unless users specifically enable their visibility. Remsense ‥ 论 23:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

there is no basis that people in the past of the region did so on that basis Maghrebis (regardless of their ethnicity) were referred to as such in the Arab speaking world. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We also don't strictly care what categories contemporaries would have understood him as; we care about how reliable sources, which for our purposes have almost exclusively been written in the 20th and 21st centuries, refer to him. Wikipedia uses the WP:Naming Conventions. In which we have to see how this was used in that time period and how people referred to themself is quite baffling: here, the OP has namedropped policy that does absolutely nothing to substantiate the claim they try to make. Wikipedia uses the WP:Naming Conventions, in which we have to figure out what to have for dinner, because I'm getting pretty hungry. Remsense ‥ 论 23:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well thanks for the off hand dinner comment. But lets keep the focus on the discussion at hand. I used WP:Naming Conventions because of the following.

"If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name (in articles dealing with the present) or the local historical name (in articles dealing with a specific period) should be used."

How does this not pretain to the current situation and referring to the geographical location as the maghreb? Where we can see that the mention of the time period is used to refer to the local historical name (dealing with a specific period) Imteghren (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No, my point is you're totally wrong about what WP:NC is even about: it is a policy describing what names we use for topics, not what aspects we should focus on when describing or defining them. This conversation is not about what Ibn Battuta's name is, nor the names of the Maghreb or the Berber ethnic group. Remsense ‥ 论 00:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how the general current Arab world's reference to a entire region spanning 4 modern countries is relevant in regards to a article of a individual who is from a specific location/background/empire. A Northern European can call another person a Southern European. In the same extend a middle easterner can call someone a maghrebi or a maghrebi can do so himself. But this does not bring clarity to where the individual is from specifically and is generally a catch-all term. I can understand this in regards to no mention of ethnicity and thank you for the clarity on that here. But even calling him a Marinid in this context as a comprimise is more logical then the overarching term of Maghrebi Imteghren (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges and no, he was not a Marinid (i.e., a member of the Marinid tribe). M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just calling it an apples and oranges comparison doesnt really bring us any further in the discussion. In such a case it would be preferrable to removing Maghrebi as a term and just calling him a traveller, explorer and scholar and let the rest of the article elaborate on the rest. Instead of implicating the modern regions of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya to a man born in the region of whats considerd modern day Morocco. If not specificy which part of the maghreb. A.i. Maghrib al-Aqsa or Western Maghreb would suffice Imteghren (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's seemingly a purely spiteful suggestion inspired by a misunderstanding of how the term "Maghreb" is used. Its use as a term applied to historical figures is well-established. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how. One is a general geographical term. The other specifies. Just as calling someone a "Mashriqi" when describing a figure from the middle east is nonsensical. You imply that it is well-established in regards to historical figures. No substancial evidence has been given for that to keep this concensus. The opposite is established in which they refer to their tribal/ethnic background. However as was mentioned this would not be a proper describtion. How any of this is considered spitefull i do not understand. Imteghren (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Check the sources at your leisure. "Western Maghrebi" seems much more viable than your other tries, but you'll need to establish consensus for it. It doesn't really seem necessary to me, and it is not commonly used. Remsense ‥ 论 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a common use among atleast older historians. Medieval Muslim historians and geographers divided the Maghreb region into three areas. Among directly translated. "Western Maghreb" fell into. We can focus on this possibly viable option if others do not suit and bring this through potentially sourced. Imteghren (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Western Maghrebi" (meaning western westerner) was never used by Medieval Muslim historians. M.Bitton (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Maghreb al-Aqsa was to refer specifically to the western maghreb. Medieval muslim historians did not speak English. So logically they did not use that exact term. But translated to any notable sense of the average english speaker would come as the Western Maghreb. As is also directly mentioned in such a context in the Maghreb wiki itself and is definitely more understandable and clear to the average person who does not know anything of the region. Then the general term Imteghren (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

They used the term "Maghrebi". M.Bitton (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Besides just saying it you dont bring an explanation to validate your point. If i explain where i come from. And the reply is just disagreement with no elaboration. We dont really go anywhere Imteghren (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like to be corrected, don't make baseless claims (it's as simple as that). M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

But this does not bring clarity to where the individual is from specifically

It is a rather large area, but this is a silly exaggeration: the label "Maghrebi" brings a reasonable amount of clarity. It's broad, but if we're trying to specify location of origin, so is "Berber". You'd only prefer the latter if you're actually trying to do more than bring clarity to where the individual is from specifically.

Marinid

This doesn't make sense in the slightest: it's a label for a state corresponding to the ruling dynasty. The only case I can think of where a dynastic label has come to be used in such a way is "Saudi". I don't see how an unrecognizable political label no one has ever used to describe historical figures is a "compromise" between a geographic label and a policy-violating ethnic label. In fact, it would be actively misleading by implying Battuta is a member of said dynasty. Remsense ‥ 论 00:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I used the later as it was a personal reference of the invidiual stated. Not because i'd "actually trying to do more than bring clarity to where the individual is from specifically". A baseless claim to be frank

In so far as Marinid. I did not mean this in the case of him being part of the Marinid Dynasty. But born in the Marinid Sultanate. As in. "was a Maghrebi traveller, explorer and scholar born in the Marinid Sultanate". To clarify Imteghren (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you made the suggestion. I'm telling you why it is clearly not viable. Remsense ‥ 论 00:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

You imply that i infer that he is born as part of the marinid dynasty. Which yes would be misleading. So it is a misunderstanding. Him being born in the Marinid sultunate is neither a non sensical claim or a unrecognizable one. Imteghren (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

No one reading that a figure is a "Marinid" would infer they were born in a given place controlled by the Marinids, they would assume they are a member of said dynasty. That means it is incorrect to call them that. Remsense ‥ 论 00:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hence why i clarified and even put in a example sentence to avoid that exact misunderstanding with an alternative. However my previous talk send was not quite clear so let me reclarify it here.

"was a traveller, explorer and scholar born in the Marinid Sultanate". As a potential alternative Imteghren (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems much less informative for the average reader, who is much more likely to know the geographical term "Maghreb" than the political term "Marinid Sultanate", as our only goal here is to specify the region they are from. Remsense ‥ 论 00:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the article for the average reader i would normally see where you are coming from. However by just one scroll they see the map of his initial journey's which immediately show where he started. Not to mention that directly next to the beginning of the article. Under his name is mentioned that he is born under the Marinid Sultanate. I'd even say that Maghrebi in this case might for some uninformed users seem odd. Simply because the maghrebi article which you hoover over shows a mapping of the entire comprimised region of the Maghreb. Imteghren (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How did we go from you wanting to inject the term "Berber" to this? M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

My issue is with the term Maghrebi as provided in the article. I made the initial edit not knowing it violated MOS:ETHNICITY. And by that left the term Berber alone in this regard when it was clear to me. So the discussion is on the topic Maghrebi. Not berber which is already solved a couple messages ago. Imteghren (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That's great, because there is no issue with the term Maghrebi (we use it all the time). M.Bitton (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, coloqually there might not be for you on a personal level. But wiki provides it's context and explanations for the average user. That is what i believe we should focus on within our replies. Imteghren (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We have wikilinks for that. The same principle applies when we refer to Andalusian historical figures. M.Bitton (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Dates

Clarification is needed in Hajri/Julian/Gregorian dates. Tapatio (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Julian dates are used as the Gregorian calendar was introduced two centuries after Battuta's life, and it is very clear which are Julian and which are Hijri. Remsense ‥ 论 01:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

In one instance where the Hijri date was given with its "Christian" equivalent, I looked this up and it was the Julian date. This might be appropriate in the Medieval context, but should be specified. I added the Gregorian (modern) date for clarification (There is a difference of 8 days). Elsewhere Christian calendar dates are given, but it is not clear in which calendar. In most cases the dates are too general (year or season) for a few days to matter, but which calendar is used for exact dates should be at least specified. Most general readers will assume Gregorian dates. I think it is best practice to use Gregorian for a general readership, but either way it should be specified. Tapatio (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, it is not necessary to provide backdated Gregorian dates. Remsense ‥ 论 02:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)