Talk:Fatima al-Fihriya

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Garbear07, Malzubi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy edit (July 2008)

I have improved the language, but the article could use expansion, and the citations should be formatted per the guidelines here. :) -Samuel Tan 02:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

This article is going to need cleanup about the universities status to reflect the consensus at University of al-Karaouine. Therefore adding a POV tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we even need this article. This woman spent her inheritance to found a mosque. End of biography article. The mosque and its madrasa then went on to become a notable institution over the centuries: discuss at University of al-Qarawiyyin. There is no potential content on the biography of Fatima al-Fihri that goes beyond a single short paragraph. (The WP:BOMBARD efforts to portray the madrasa as a 9th-century "university" is another matter. People apparently stooped to citing Rough Guide saying that it "vies with Cairo's Al-Azhar for the title of world's oldest university"; that may be true enough, but that's a topic of contemporary tourist industry more than one of medieval history). --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Doubts about "World's oldest library"

For example, there are many examples of libraries that are much older than this one. See List of libraries in the ancient world. You could argue that those are mostly discontinued, but Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt has a library that has been continuously operating since its inception (or so I suppose). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doveofsymplegades (talk • contribs) 13:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Translations from Arabic version

I translated some of the content from the Arabic version of the page to the best of my ability. This is my first edit ever, so please let me know if I should be doing things differently in future translation edits. It's a learning process! Lucymobe (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Banner January 2020

This seems to be a well-believed hoax. At minimum, there should be a "disputed" banner, so I'm adding it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.104.95 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As the tag you posted suggests, you need to have a basis for disputing what it says if you're going to dispute it. "Seems" to be a "well-believed" hoax provides no such basis and is about as weak a dispute as there can be. The article is amply sourced. Are there other sources that dispute the assertions made in the sources that have been supplied, or are you personally disputing the sources? If no basis for believing a bona fide dispute even exists is provided by you or others, I'll remove the tag. Largoplazo (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I added ref. no2, which is a well-sourced article written by a historian working on early muslim societies at the universities of St Andrew's and Amsterdam. The article might be amply sourced, but the sources are very questionable. Ref:1 and 4 are the same. I'd like to find the references of this book, which is the only reference of all that seems like it could be an academic, but I can't find the book online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.104.95 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This conversation has died. I'm going to remove the tag. Philly jawn (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Claim of oldest library in the world

There is a poorly sourced claim in the article that the University hosts the oldest library in the world. Weather or not indeed this library goes back to 859 (which is not clear cause all current sources are newspapers and blogs and no primary medieval or secondary scholarly sources), there is a library at Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt that seems to precede it and is better sourced. Should the claim be removed from this article, or better should it be changed to 'second oldest'?Eccekevin (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed it to just "one of the oldest" for now, because either way the claim is vague. I've replaced the given source with some of the same sources at the University of al-Qarawiyyin page. Most sources are still news reports about Aziza Chouani's project but one is from a scholar a few decades ago (Gaudio 1981, see p. 147); but even in the latter it's only mentioned in passing with few details. Although the mosque undoubtedly kept books before this somehow, the first official "library" mentioned by scholarly sources that I know of is Abu Inan's in 1349. From what I can see so far the claim regarding the Saint Catherine's Monastery library isn't much better sourced; like the Qarawiyyin library, almost all the mentions of this claim come from news articles or bulletins that are mainly about a recent restoration project, with no details on how exactly the library is dated or what criteria they are using to define "oldest library" (is it the oldest collection of manuscripts kept in one place? is it the oldest physical space designed for keeping and consulting books? etc). The Saint Catherine's claim is more convincing to me because of the earlier foundation of the monastery itself, but I can't find anything definitive online to back that up clearly. (Maybe that'll change if libaries near me reopen and I can check offline books.) Robert Prazeres (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Should this even be included? The University, and the library in particular, seem to have no direct relationship with Fatima. The library was built centuries after her death.Eccekevin (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I thought about suggesting that the last section just isn't necessary because it's covered in detail by the University of al-Qarawiyyin page, and the section before that already covers Fatima's role in the founding. At the same time, the page isn't that long and this section isn't that long either, and there's a header linking to the main topic in the meantime, so I think it would be ideal to get some input from any other interested editors before deleting a section. Robert Prazeres (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert Prazeres, yes that seems very reasonable. Also, I know I mentioned it before, but could you take a look real quick at [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Universit%C3%A9_Al_Quaraouiyine the Al Quaraouiyine page in French (and Fatima and Oldest University page too - although the main discussion is there). I am trying to insert these academic sources like in the enWiki, put I am getting reverted and brigaded into oblivion by 3 users (from names, profiles, and contributions I am guessing they are Moroccan). There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country, but they are stonewalling and not accepting any changes I make that might contradict the Moroccan claim that Fatima built the university as a university in 859 and they will not accept any sources from other historians and call me "eurocentric"and say I have an "agenda'. Other users have agreed with me and seen how ridiculous this is, but they are tenacious and I am alone. Could you look real quick? I am just trying to make Wikipedia a better place, and give it the best academic and nuanced views it can have, instead of a one-side Moroccan claim that those pages are right now. - Regarding this page, I agreee- let's leave it for a while and see if there are further comments on whether to keep the University or library sections. Eccekevin (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Moving page without discussion, other edit-warring

To Yabroq: Do not move the article again without proper discussion, especially when it's not based on the sources cited on this page. Fatima al-Fihri is far more common than Fatima al-Fihriya (as also evidenced by a quick search on Google Books), regardless of whether the latter is also acceptable.

To all editors in general: with regards to the choice of categories currently being disputed, please discuss those on the talk page here rather than edit-warring over them. Any further edit-warring will result in a warning and potentially a block on editing. R Prazeres (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, more edit-warring about proper categorization will result in this article being fully protected for a while until you all can sort it out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

MuhannadDarwish, do not move the article again without going through a proper WP:RM process. See above. R Prazeres (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter what every other source, be it in English or any other language, calls her if they can all be shown to be factually incorrect. Proper names are neither translated nor tampered with, instead they remain within the domain of the language to which they belong. Her name is Arabic in origin and should therefore be in line with Arabic nomenclature. You cannot assign a nisba (onomastic) in a male form to a female and vice versa and then claim such is the convention in whatever other language you’re writing in. The fact of the matter is that even in English, you are resorting to the Arabic epithets albeit in the wrong gender form. Wikipedia should serve as ground zero for correcting such glaring mistakes that have entered into mainstream and not cave in because these mistakes have become all too common. Kafei the Silent (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR, as Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editors' personal judgement. The fact that many authors of many backgrounds use one or the other is clearly indication that it is not so categorical, and your judgement doesn't override that of published scholarly references. Either way, you can make your arguments through a request move. Personally, I suspect the fact that "al-Fihri" is an abbreviated form of a longer full name including her father's might be the issue, but we should stick to the sources and solicit consensus for a non-obvious change. R Prazeres (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: Also, I strongly recommend not altering your signature so that it displays a different username ("Kafei the Silent"), as it serves only to confuse other editors. See WP:SIGPROB. If you'd like to appear under a different name, you can request a name change. R Prazeres (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a subjective matter nor is it an abbreviation. This stems from a misunderstanding of Arabic and quantity does not determine fact. There is no such thing as ‘Al-Quraysh’. The epithet is either ‘Al-Qurashi’ for males or ‘Al-Qurashiyyah’ for females. In fact, ‘Al-Quraysh’ is not even proper morphology. It’s akin to saying ‘John the Paris’. First, ‘Paris’ here is a noun referring to a city when it should be ‘Parisian’, as in John is a native/inhabitant of Paris. Second, Paris is already a proper noun and therefore should not have the definite article which is the ‘al-’ prefix in Arabic. I can understand why such rendition of Fatimah’s name in English is not a big deal to one unfamiliar with Arabic but to those who are, it stands out conspicuously. As for sources, and since we are talking about a person’s name here, it behooves us to turn to original sources and not transliterations and renditions in foreign languages. Having said that, please show me a single reliable source in Arabic that either supports your position or refutes mine. Kafei the Silent (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources are in the article, the Wikipedia policies are linked above, and I've already told you how to proceed to recommend a change. It's up to you to follow that. I may not even end up supporting the current name after a full discussion, but I am going to stop editors from moving articles on a whim. R Prazeres (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Keyword: "Arabic". I requested that you provide a single reliable source in "Arabic". Besides, you clearly have not checked out the sources in the article, because if you had, you would know that even English sources in the article support my argument. Check out these sources from the article:

1. Dictionary of African Biography

2. Historical Dictionary of Women in the Middle East and North Africa

3. Managing Cultural Diversity in the Mediterranean Region Kafei the Silent (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, these are literally sources I just added to show that both forms are attested in reliable English sources, and this is the English Wikipedia. I'm not going to repeat what I said above. R Prazeres (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It does not matter that this is the English Wikipedia because as I have explained numerously, you don't translate nor tamper with people's names. The Arabic form is literally sitting between parentheses next to her English name and yet you want to have people believe otherwise. Kafei the Silent (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that you undid all revisions, let us break down the changes individually in order to reach a consensus. First, her Arabic name is wrongly rendered as الفهري when it is الفهرية in every Arabic source. Do you disagree with that part? If not, let's change that and move on to the next point. Kafei the Silent (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat this one last time in the hope that you get it: post a requested move (RM), the exact process required to resolve such a question on Wikipedia. All of your arguments can be presented there and will surely be taken seriously by editors who weigh in. Like I said, even I might agree with you, if you go open that discussion accordingly. If you're not familiar with the RM process and need assistance, I'm happy to help if you like, or you can request help from other editors if you prefer. R Prazeres (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the RM process. Is that different from when I moved the article the first time? I would like to work with you because I believe you can contribute to the article too. Kafei the Silent (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No it's not the same as just moving it manually. The specific process you should follow in this case (for a single page move) is here: WP:RSPM. There's a template to use that you can fill in. Should be as easy as that. Let me know if you need further help.

For more background: Basically, the Wikipedia guidelines (at WP:RM and related policies) are that you should only move an article yourself if it "seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" (it's ok if not every case is clear, but if there's a disagreement before or after your move, then you know). Otherwise, you post a "Requested move", which means you start a new talk page section where you explicitly say what new name you're proposing and then give your reasons, using a particular template that will also automatically post a notice on the article itself. Other editors can then indicate support or opposition, or discuss further. You can keep participating in the discussion afterwards per usual. Eventually, when discussion stops or enough time has passed, an unrelated editor (so neither you or me, in this case) will come along and "close" the discussion, and perform the move or not according to the consensus in discussion. (Sometimes there's not much discussion and it goes quickly, sometimes there's a lot of discussion and it takes longer.) R Prazeres (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I will follow the suggested process. In the meantime, can you and I at least agree on changing some of the less controversial aspects of this article? The first point is the transliteration of "Umm al-Banīn" and the second is her Arabic name—not the anglicized or transliterated name we look to resolve through said process. This is less controversial because you can go to the Arabic version of her page and verify that it is "الفهرية". In fact, "الفهرية" appears in her info box on the English page. Kafei the Silent (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on those other changes. Where English (and French) sources seem to be inconsistent is on the simpler Fatima al-Fihri(yya) on its own. (Even though the feminine form, as you said, would surely seem to make more grammatical sense in this context; for the full name, I've wondered whether al-Fihri was originally written as the nisba of the father and thus appeared in the masculine, which may have then been transliterated awkwardly by later Western scholars, but there's no point speculating without the historical texts at hand.) R Prazeres (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Orientalists, many of whom have a flimsy command of Arabic, assumed that since her father, Mohamed al-Fihri, holds such a last name, therefore, it only stands to reason that his daughter would also have the same last name, being completely oblivious to the fact that this is 1. not a last name but a nisba 2. nisab (pl.) are gender sensitive. This can be easily demonstrated with historical texts which I will reserve for the RM discussion. In the meantime, I will make the two changes we agreed upon. Kafei the Silent (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you please verify that I completed the RM process properly? Kafei the Silent (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested move request. (non-admin closure) Colonestarrice (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Fatima al-Fihri → Fatima al-Fihriya – Her name is Fatima bint Muhammad al-Fihriya al-Qurashiya which is a transliteration of her Arabic name فاطمة بنت محمد الفِهْرية القُرَشية. Given that even the English rendition of her name uses "bint" instead of "daughter of", the Arabic definite article "al-" instead of "the" and "Fihri/Fihriya" instead of "Fihrid", all reveal that her English name is supposed to be a transliteration, and not an anglicization, of her Arabic name. This is not equivalent to the practice of anglicizing foreign names like the Hebrew Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ‎) to Joshua or the Greek Stéphanos (Στέφανος) to Stephen. Having established that, it follows logically that the English transliteration should, therefore, be in line with Arabic onomastic practices. Fatimah's name includes two nisab (sing. nisba), that is, an "attribution" equivalent to the Roman nomen gentilicium, designating her as a member of a particular family and clan, the Fihrids, and an extended tribe, Quraysh. The nisba is gender sensitive. Therefore, you can either be Al-Fihri/Al-Qurashi as a male or Al-Fihriya/Al-Qurashiya as a female. Some English sources refer to her as Fatima al-Fihri al-Quraysh which seems to stem from an ignorance of Arabic nomenclature. Those who hold to such rendition seem to assume that since Fatimah's father, Mohammed al-Fihri, is referred to as such, then it stands to reason that his daughter would also have the same "last name". However, apart from the fact that, as explained, the nisba is gender sensitive, traditional Arabic names do not include last names or surnames, but patronymics (X son/daughter of Y). In fact, Al-Quraysh is not even proper Arabic morphology. The nisba is always an adjective, and Quraysh is a proper noun which shouldn't even have a definite article ("al-" prefix). This is roughly equivalent to saying "John the Paris" instead of "John the Parisian". Reliable English sources also attest to her name being al-Fihriya. Please see the following:

1. Glacier, Osire (2012). Akyeampong, Emmanuel Kwaku; Gates (Jr.), Henry Louis (eds.). Dictionary of African Biography. Oxord University Press. p. 357. ISBN 978-0-19-538207-5.

2. Talhami, Ghada Hashem (2013). Historical Dictionary of Women in the Middle East and North Africa. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-8108-6858-8.

3. Martin, Keith W.; Martin Erickson, Deborah A. (2020). "The Mosaic Culture: Elements of Family, Education, Religion, and Hospitality, with their Contributions to Peace in Morocco". In Ennaji, Moha (ed.). Managing Cultural Diversity in the Mediterranean Region. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-5275-4997-5. Kafei the Silent (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: I was initially concerned that most of the sources cited in the article (and others) use the form al-Fihri regardless, which is partly why I insisted this should be a WP:RM. But that said, looking multiple times today I've found many recent sources using the more grammatically logical feminine form. The sources provided by the nominator above are some of the ones I found (and a quick Google Books search turns up more). It may or may not be the most WP:COMMONNAME in English sources, but with the grammatical/linguistic reasons above this seems like the better option either way. I couldn't access a copy of the original Arabic historical source that tells her story (the Rawd al-Qirtas), but Benchekroun's 2011 article (also cited in this article, albeit in French) discusses that source in some detail and transliterates the name with the feminine nisba, so this seems like a good example to follow. R Prazeres (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Please see [1]https://archive.org/details/rawdolkirtas/mode/2up for a digital copy of Rawd al-Qirtas in Arabic. Kafei the Silent (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Excellent, thank you for that! My answer remains the same of course. R Prazeres (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  It doesn't change anything for this title discussion, but it's worth noting that this Arabic source seems to give the full name as "أم البتين) فاطمة بنت محمد الفهرى القيروانى)" (p. 440 in the index), so it might be worth noting that in the article itself in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure the "ام البتين" was a typo as I checked the source and it reads ام البنين. As for her name "فاطمة بنت محمد الفهرى القيروانى", the 'Al-Fahri' and 'Al-Qayrawani' both refer to her father in this case and are thus in the masculine form. I.e., she is Fatimah, the daughter of Muhammad al-Fahri al-Qayrawani. In Arabic, one can use the masculine as long the as the father's name is used as well. One can also use the feminine form of the nisba when the father's name is used but it would be understood as referring to her instead of the father because the genders have to be in agreement. However, the masculine cannot be used without the father's name in both English and Arabic as in "فاطمة الفهري القرشي القيرواني" (Fatima al-Fihri al-Qayrawani al-Qurashi), as that would be a violation of both Arabic grammar and onomastic practices. Kafei the Silent (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes that's what I meant, that the full name in Arabic attributes those nisbas to her father (and adds al-Qayrawani rather than al-Qurayshi). Since it's a version of the name that comes straight from the source, it should be mentioned in the article at some point (not as the article's title, which should keep to the more common and WP:CONCISE form). And yes that was a typo: I just copy-pasted from the text but it probably didn't copy correctly, I didn't notice it when writing. R Prazeres (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2023 (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.