Talk:Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

Judas2589 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

i would like to add some his family relatives to his infobox Woodensurfer (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@GeorgeChairson The article is open to edit now. محرر البوق (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Religion

The subject appears to be linked with the Ba 'Alawiyya order, I remember reading an article about this published by a university which appeared on google searches. I am unable to locate it now however if editors do find it please include it in the article. Thanks. Magherbin (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Source? Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Title

@Socialwave597 Imam Ahmed is explicity referred to as both Amir Al Mu’mineen and Al Mujahid in the Futuh stop deleting my edits for no reason

Image highlighting Amir Al Mu’mineen in the Futuh: https://imgflip.com/i/8f61km

The book تاريخ شحر في القرن العاشر also explicitly mentions him as Al Mujahid Link: https://ketabonline.com/ar/books/106368/read?part=1&page=252&index=4682640&q=%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%87%D8%AF Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. His name was Imam Ahmad al-Ghazi. That was the sole title he was referred to by authors such as Richard Pankhurst, J.Spencer Trimmingham, Paul B. Henze and virtually every single secondary source. These are known experts in this field, not some random Arabic primary sources you've found. Per WP:PRIMARY "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Socialwave597 (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

1. Firstly تاريخ شحر في القرن العاشر is a secondary source,

2. Secondly The first source is the Futuh Al Habesha anotated by Pankhurst himself and I’m not making an interpretation of the primary source I am literally saying exactly what it says

3. Thirdly, I'm not sure how well your reading comprehension is but I never said his name was Al Mujahid or that Al Mujahid was a part of his name I said that Al Mujahid was one of his titles as historical figures can have multiple titles. Unless any of those authors you list state that “Imam” was his only title then my source doesn’t contradict those authors. Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

His proper honorific was the "Imam", this is what the primary sources and secondary sources universally refer to him as, there is no need to add on to this. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, as infoboxes are just a brief summary of the article; they are not for every little fact. A single passing mention in the Futuh is insufficient to justify inclusion. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok I added it to the article Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that's not sufficient enough, you added a WP:PRIMARY source again. I suggest you stop edit warring (as you appear to do on multiple pages). His sole honorific was just the "Imam", and until you find a reliable secondary source stating otherwise then stop bringing back those edits. Socialwave597 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I literally sent you تاريخ شحر as a secondary source Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Try using some proper scholarship on the topic. Socialwave597 (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? Matan ibn Uthman (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I was initially referring to the WP:SCHOLARSHIP (you didn't provide specific quotes, page numbers, and authors so I doubted its reliability.) But I just spent the past half an hour or so reading this book and I'm pretty confident your assertions have absolutely no grounds in the sources. On page 187 the author refers to him as "Imam Mujahid", on page 298 the author refers to him as "Imam Ahmad" and on page 306 the authors calls him "Imam al-Mujahid". So even your own sources gives him the honorific of the Imam. Yet on this edit[1] you claimed that Arab Faqih gave him the title of Amir al-Mu'minin and al-Mujahid which is absolutely preposterous. Your assertion that these were his titles is based on nothing. Absolutely nothing except for your own original research. The sources disagree with you. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Very Biased Article

This article has a huge amount of bias. It's very clearly written with an anti-Ethiopian POV. Quote "Imam Ahmad’s invasion was arguably the single most important chapter in Ethiopia's long history." Really? Also, in the heading it mentions his various conquests, but neglects to mention that Ahmad ibn Ibrahim was in fact killed in action while fighting the Ethiopians in the Ethiopian–Adal War. This article needs a HEAVY cleanup to meet Wikipedias Neutral Point of View standards. Sayyid Debastani (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Then make bold changes! Nobody is stopping page improvement here, based on page history. BusterD (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)