Talk:Emirate of Bari

Vandalism

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)

Fact tags

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070422122723/http://www.oeaw.ac.at:80/gema/salerni.htm to http://www.oeaw.ac.at/gema/salerni.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206190912/http://www.oeaw.ac.at:80/gema/erchempert.htm to http://www.oeaw.ac.at/gema/erchempert.htm

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

African Dynasty of Bari

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)

Emirate of Bari geography

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)

Zanj, Mawali & African

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)

Infobox

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)

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)

Emirate of Bari

@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)

"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)

@Srnec: see my edit now. Mikola22 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

But we basically already say this: "Louis attacked Bari ... aided by a Croatian fleet". And I think by "Lombardy" you really mean Longobardia. Srnec (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

African Dynasty

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)

Please cite the Arabic source that refers to any of the ruler of Bari as Zanj. Srnec (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Longest-lasting

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)

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)

Emirate of Bari was not the only independent Islamic state in Italy, the race issue made it stand out.

File:Princeton Viking, Magyar and Saracen Invasions in 9th and 10th Century Europe.jpg

Emirate of Bari location within the Islamic states in Italy (Grey)

Cozmopolio (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

African diaspora

African diaspora category should be added Shakurism (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Princeton Viking, Magyar and Saracen Invasions in 9th and 10th Century Europe.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Territory.

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)

Ive used books, historical, and other sources making this map. Bari indeed held areas outside the core city AbdurRahman AbdulMoneim Userd898 10:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Userd898, please add the sources you used (including page numbers etc.) to the metadata of File:Islamic states in Italy.png. Once the map is verifiable in those reliable sources, it becomes possible to discuss its merit. Unsourced maps should never be used on Wikipedia. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The amount of people that have tried to remove the black West African ruler is hilarious

lol 2601:5CF:4200:55F0:1873:3A28:C163:880D (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah because its not true :) 168.150.68.253 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Black Africans

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)

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)

I'm aware of what the article said. The issue that I raised is with what you restored (after I removed it):

1. 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.
2. 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).

In other words, that statement should be removed. That the Emirate was ruled by non-Arabs is a given. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

We also have plenty of sources saying that the Emirate of Bari was ruled by Berbers and three sources (including the Encyclopedia of Islam) specifically stating that Sawdan was a Berber. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

My replies to what doesn't address the raised issue. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

There is no OR. I have addressed that. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There is WP:OR, and no, you haven't addressed it. Let me simplify it for you:

Which part of the Metcalfe source says that the Emirate of Bari was perhaps ruled by Black Africans? M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Given your inability to propertly cite the Bondioli source, please refrain from trying to simplify anything for me.

I have requested a third opinion. Srnec (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the violation of the WP:OR policy and the refusal to address the issue, I don't think a third opinion would be enough. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{| 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) |}

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.

Closetside (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

 :::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)

1) You didn't answer the simple yes or no question (that was asked at the 3O). That's a fact. 2) You're not a third party. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 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)

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)

Response to third opinion request:

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)

@M.Bitton: I agree with you. A third opinion is not enough. Have you sought input at WP:OR/N or WP:DRN like you said you would? Srnec (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don't play games with me and don't ping me again (regarding this discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this OR, rather an EAE syllogism, which is a routine calculation.

The EAE syllogism is:

(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)

You are correct. Srnec (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

+1 M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

Let's just say that your second intervention (after an uninvolved 3O) is more dubious than the first one. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

I believe what I see. For the rest, and contrary to what you claimed, WP:STATUSQUO is just an essay. However, WP:ONUS is a policy (that you will respect). M.Bitton (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@M.Bitton WP:ONUS talks about achieving a consensus when there previously wasn't one. However, before you found this page, Black Africans were included, so the consensus was already achieved. If you revert, I will add the incident to the AE report. Closetside (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Therefore, there is no contradiction between ONUS and STATUSQUO and both apply, including the latter. I will open an RFC. Closetside (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Lastly, 3O is not binding. A new consensus against including perhaps by a Black Africans was not formed. The RfC may form it, but no consensus would maintain the status quo. Closetside (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Black African Rule

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus that the proposed statement is original research and should be excluded. Any other discussion of Sawdan's ethnicity must give each perspective its appropriate weight. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Should the statement that the Emirate of Bari was perhaps ruled by a Black African be included? Closetside (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Alec Metcalfe, a respected historian at Lancaster University, published in his book, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (see his profile) this quote:

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. A problematic reference to him in an unedited text, which can be read as 'Sawdān al-Māwrī' ( 'the Moor' , ultimately from the Greek , mavros , 'black' ), again suggests that, like the previous commanders of the Muslim forces in Bari, they were not Arab Aghlabid commanders, but their ‘clients’. If the term ‘moor’ was applied to him, then it was most likely a Latin or Greek loan word, and was thus probably acquired while in Italy. An alternative reading would give 'al-Māzarī', indicating a Sicilian provenance.

According to Metcalfe, Sawdan's name implies that he was from sub-Saharan Africa, and does not reject this possibility anywhere else. This justifies the statement that perhaps Sawdan was perhaps a Black African, and by extension, perhaps the Emirate of Bari was ruled by a Black African. More formally, using an IAI syllogism, a routine calculation:

(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 Closetside (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• No per my response to a 3PO request in the discussion that led to this RFC. - Nemov (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @M.Bitton and @Srnec. Closetside (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, include it somewhere. The ethnicity of the three (!) emirs of Bari is the main reason people post on this talk page. The lead has been edited to make them Arabs, Berbers or Africans. The article should acknowledge the state of actual evidence. Srnec (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes per WP:NPOV, it’s what the source says, paraphrasing is not OR. It should say "sub-Saharan African" since "Black" was often used to refer to Berbers and is ambiguous. The source doesn’t say Black for good reason. Kowal2701 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Whitten 2019 says

Sawdān's origins are unknown but his unusual name has been the source of much speculation by historians. Alex Metcalfe has suggested that he came from sub-Saharan Africa, because in an unedited document he is called Sawdān al-Māwrī, meaning Sawdān the Moor or Sawdān the Black. Alternatively, his name could also be taken to suggest that he was of Sicilian origin.

Kowal2701 (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

For the lead, ethnicity should not be in the first sentence, instead in a second paragraph that can be NPOV. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Weak yes per Kowal2701. Their compromise paragraph seems to work best. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

+1 Closetside (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• No 1) it's WP:OR (as explained above). 2) we have plenty of reliable sources saying that the Emirate of Bari was "ruled by Berbers" and none whatsoever describing it as being ruler by "Black Africans". 3) The mention of the Berbers in the lead is important because it was only in Bari that they managed to create an independent emirate.

Even if we decide to discuss the ethnicity of each of the emirs, then per WP:NPOV, Sawdan would still be described as Berber, given that the majority of RS (including the Encyclopedia of Islam) describe him as such. The fringe source stating that "there is an implication in [his name] that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa" can be attributed to its author (as is), together with the RS that rejects this theory.

References

M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Only one of those sources supports the claim Sawdan was Berber, most of them don't even mention him.

• Bondioli 2018 doesn't come close to saying all rulers were Berbers, let alone that Sawdan was one. They attribute a claim that Sallam was possibly Arab
• Golvin 1985 I can't verify as can't read French
• Cotterell 2017 says Berber converts to Islam had penetrated the imperial defences and set up an emirate in Bari, the only Muslim state to ever exist on the Italian mainland, which does not directly support "all rulers were Berbers" let alone Sawdan was one
• Fromherz 2016 supports the claim it was a Berber dynasty, and says

  Kalfun, a Muslim Berber slave of the Aghlabid emir of Sicily, captured the Italian port of Bari in 847, only a year after the disastrous raids on Rome. Yet the capture of Bari by this Berber dynasty did not end Christian use of the port for journeys south or east. In fact, the Christian pilgrim Bernard petitioned the Muslim King of Bari, named Sawdan, for safe conduct all the way to Jerusalem. This safe passage was granted due to Sawdan’s relationship with other Muslim rulers on the route to the Holy Land. Thus, a North African, Muslim Berber ruler on Bari may have helped facilitate early Christian passage to one of the holiest sites in Islam and the navel of the world for medieval Christians: Jerusalem.

  , but does not directly support that Sawdan was Berber
• Di Branco & Wolf 2013 says Only in Bari were Berber commanders successful in creating a quite independent Muslim dominion from 847 to 871 (after c.863, as an emirate)., again doesn't support the claim all rulers were Berber and doesn't even mention Sawdan
• Rizzitano 2012 is the only source that supports the claim Sawdan was a Berber, saying

  On the question of the earliest Saracen moves against Bari ( in the texts, which must be read as Bāru, representing the Latin forms Barum and Varum), and especially regarding the emirate which was set up there in about 232/847, we possess only a number of details, colléeted by al-Balād̲h̲urī (in BAS, appendix i, 2) and reproduced by Ibn al-At̲h̲īr (ibid., 239, 260). From the various particulars furnished by these two historians it emerges that, in this minute state based on the Adriatic town, there were three successive amīrs—Ḵh̲alfūn, a Berber of the Rabīʿa tribe, who ruled the principality for about five years; al-Mufarrad̲j̲ b. Sallām, who built a mosque there and tried, though without success, to legitimize his situation in relation to the caliph of Bag̲h̲dād; and ¶ lastly Sawdān, also a Berber, who came to power in 243/857 and, more fortunate than his predecessor, after various mishaps (described by al-Balād̲h̲urī who was himself a contemporary), succeeded in securing from Bag̲h̲dād an official investiture with his fief, the end of which came about in Rabīʿ I 257/February 871.

Kowal2701 (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources that I cited support what I attributed to them. M.Bitton (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You said Sawdan would still be described as Berber, given that the majority of RS (including the Encyclopedia of Islam) describe him as such when only one out of three supported what you said. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm only responsible for what I say:

1. The Encyclopedia of Islam descibes him as Berber.
2. The Berber encyclopedia describes him as Berber.
3. Fromherz describes him a "North African, Muslim Berber ruler."

M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The two encyclopedias describe Sawdan as a Berber and Fromherz probably does. However, Metcalfe and Whitten disagree, which is a 3-2 margin. However, the encyclopedias are WP:TERTIARY and are inferior.

The only secondary source says a Berber Muslim king may have helped facilitate safe passage for Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem despite the source clearly saying Sawdan agreed to grant safe passage to Christian pilgrims due to his relationship with surrounding Muslim kings, which helped facilitate safe passage. While the author probably agrees with the statement the Sawdan was Berber, this does not rise to the level of direct support. On the other hand, both of the disagreeing sources are secondary and explicitly disagree.

If my above analysis of the Berber sources is accepted, there is a deadlock in the scholarly community, if not then their is a slight leaning towards the Berber position. In either case, the Black African view should be stated (both of the disagreeing sources are open to it) per WP:NPOV, which clearly states that prominent minority views must be included in proportion to weight in the RS. And with the deadlock or near-deadlock among scholars, we shouldn't favor either side (Berber or non-Berber). Closetside (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Closetside You've written quite a bit on this. can you let others comment? This is dead horse territory. Nemov (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to what is claimed above, WP:TERTIARY says that tertiary sources help evaluate due weight, which in this instance means that should Sawdan's ethnicity be elaborated on in the article's body, the fringe source should be presented as such.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the pure WP:OR "ruled by Black Africans" claim (as explained in my comment and in the previous discussion). In fact, the unsourced claim (and whatever is based on it) doesn't even belong in the article's body, let alone the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we'd be best having a paragraph in the lead saying Several scholars consider the emirs to have constituted a Berber dynasty, however there has been speculation regarding the ethnicity of some of the rulers. Marco di Branco posited that Sallam may have been related to a prominent member of the Arab Rabi'a tribe in Ifriqiya, while Alex Metcalfe considers Sawdan to have originated from sub-Saharan Africa. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree (per my initial comment). M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

• No This seems to be a WP:UNDUE and in accordance with the source Berber Encyclopedia, it is inconsistent because the emirs are designated as Berber. Furthermore, the phrasing is problematic and anachronistic: the term "African" in the Middle Ages did not encompass the entire continent, as "Africa" originally referred only to North Africa. And not all sub-Saharan people are black (Tuaregs, Moors, etc...) Monsieur Patillo (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• No: (Summoned by bot) Why does it appear there is an ongoing POV push. The entire questioning of using a redirect, Black people#Africa, is based on suppositions. The Alec Metcalfe quote uses wording like "implication in it that he was originally from sub-Saharan Africa". Further stating there is a "problematic reference" and using "again suggests". A reply states, "perhaps Sawdan was perhaps a Black African", "(P2) Sawdan may have been a Black African", and "Some Emirs of Bari may have been Black Africans". These are guesses. Whitten 2019 states "Sawdān's origins are unknown but his unusual name has been the source of much speculation by historians." Suppositions, speculations, and guesses. Fromherz 2016 states "...Bernard petitioned the Muslim King of Bari, named Sawdan..." and "Thus, a North African, Muslim Berber ruler on Bari may have helped facilitate early Christian passage..." This is not referring to Kalfun, a Muslim Berber slave of the Aghlabid emir of Sicily, so who does that leave? There is not a lot of wikilawyering room here. Rizzitano 2012, "....lastly Sawdān, also a Berber...". After the capture of Bari, there would likely have been no DNA, so any statues or other works depicting the person's race would have been destroyed. This leaves recorded history, however, . Editors should not rely on fringe theories (please read) to try to inject a position that is not supported by reliable sources. Failing that, editors should not posit that NPOV somehow demands allowing novel analysis orignial research, synthesis", or validating sources for non-significant subjects. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note to closer: The status quo ante bellum was to include the Black African hypothesis in the lede. Closetside (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have to admit, this is a rather bizarre note to the closer in light of the discussion that took place before this RFC. Closetside previously disregarded the third-party opinion and confidently asserted that the RFC will almost certainly adopt our position." Now that this does not appear to be the case, there's an odd attempt to introduce the information via some strained wikilawyering rationale. Can we simply respect the outcome of the close, whatever it may be? After previously ignoring the 3PO, it would be appreciated if you could accept the conclusion reached here, regardless of whether you personally agree with it. Nemov (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:NOCON, no consensus typically leads to status quo ante bellum being maintained. And before this dispute, the hypothesis was included. Lastly, WP:3O is not binding. Closetside (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Your BLUDGEONING has been duly noted. M.Bitton (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• No: The proposed statement is both WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Skitash (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• No. Doesn't seem to be WP:DUE. If there is an article about the emir himself, it should be mentioned there. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.