Talk:Mamluk Sultanate

Untitled

I have begun this page in order to disambiguate the political government of the Mamluk Sultanate (1250-1517) from the wider social phenomenon of mamlukery (9th-19th centuries). See discussion at Talk:Mamluk. This page is still very new. I have entered section headings to organize future writing. Most are empty now and a few have substubs. These will be filled in soon, inshallah. Worlingham (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Extend to March 1, 1811 coup by Muhammad Ali

Perhaps being overbold (& knowing nothing of the subject), based on the March 1, 2011 "On this day..." item on the front page, I have extended the article from the 14th Century to the 1811 coup by Muhammad Ali, as seems needed based on the article title. I have just copied text from three subsections of Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) to here. I hope other editors will correct any necessary disconnects that result. I just want readers from the front page to find what the link there suggests they (as I) will want to learn. I have also made some of the spelling and capitalization consistent. Wwheaton (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Transfer to Mamluk Sultanate

Why the title includes the specifier (Cairo)? There isn't other Mamluk Sultanate, if there is then the Mamluk Sultanate must become a disambiguation page. --Περίεργος (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Barakah

"In 1377 a revolt broke out in Syria which spread to Egypt, and the government was taken over by the Circassians Barakah and Barquq" (section "Change in regime"). Could anybody clarify who's that Barakah? Certainly, he is not sultan (not Al-Said Barakah, of course). I can't find emir of this name in secondary sources such as Cambridge History of Egypt. --Bahatur (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding georgians to Mamluk Dynasty

Stop adding georgians to Mamluk Dynasty. there were two dynasty Bahri and Burji. Bahris were Turks and Burjis were Circassians. if you can show a ref for georgian Mamluk Sultan in Cairo you can add georgians, until then stop changing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, You have been given a warning for edit warring.

• Also, this source[1], "The Georgian Mameluks in Egypt", by Alexander Mikaberidze, checks out. "1382-1517 (in fact till 1811, including period of supremacy of Ottoman Empire) - Dynasty of Burji ("Burgites") Mameluks, mostly of Georgian and Circassian origin. Their name has its origins in the Arabic word "burj" which means tower, castle or fortress where the Mameluk garrisons was deployed".
• However, this source "A History of African Societies to 1870", Elizabeth Isichei, p192, states, "Kurds or Slavs", and mentions, "a majority in the later Mamluk period in Egypt came from the Caucasus". but does not directly mention Georgians.[2]

Therefore, the first source does mention Georgian Mamluks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Georgian mamluks;

• [3], The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, Thomas Philipp, Ulrich Haarmann.
• [4], The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of the Qazdaglis, Jane Hathaway.
• [5], The Knights of Islam: The Wars of the Mamluks, James Waterson.
• [6], Merchants, Mamluks, and Murder, Thabit Abdullah.
• [7], The Gulf States: A Modern History, David Commins.
• [8], An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire:1600 - 1914, Halil İnalcık, Suraiya Faroqhi, Donald Quataert. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Show a ref for georgian Mamluk Sultan. there were dozen of nations in Mamluks but Sultans were Turks and Circassians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 11:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No. I have presented sources and it is quite clear you have not read any of them.

The sources, I have presented, show that Georgians were one of the ethnicities making up the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt. You have shown nothing that states Georgians were not mamluks in the Sultanate of Egypt. Therefore, I will be adding Georgian to the article along with the reliable sources listed above. Continued removal of referenced information, can result in being blocked. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Name a georgian Mamluk sultan then, and we can all accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneki (talk • contribs) 20:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Prove you have read the references listed above. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Art and Architecture Missing Graphic

As of today, the Art and Architecture section contains this text:

"This leaf contains portions of Surat (Chapter) Al’Ala(The most high) and was for use in a local mosque in Cairo. The leaf dates back to 1300 AD during the mamluk sultanate and its age clearly shows based on the tears that appear at the top of the leaf. Surat Al'Ala discusses the wonders that Allah has created and the rewards for those who believe the message of Islam, as well as the punishment for those who reject Islam. It is likely that the illuminator of the leaf was Abu Bakr aka Sandal, who was centered in the artistic hub of Islam at the time; Cairo, Egypt. The Qur'an verses are written in black ink and in the Naskh writing style, which was the easiest for the common man to read, opposed to other scripts that required individuals to be familiar with calligraphic styles."

It's obviously talking about a specific photo or graphic, but there is nothing accompanying the text. Either the editor who inserted it should remove it, or they should supply the graphic. I would do it myself, but I don't know enough about the topic.Darkstar8799 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

is there any sources for Circassian language?

Hey, I removed Circassian language from spoken language. because there isn't any sources + I've read many poems of Circassian Mamluk Sultans, they wrote their poems in Turkish (not Kypchak but Turkish) also, their language more understandable than Ottoman poems to modern Turkish people. (They used a language which very close to modern Turkish) I couldn't find their poems on internet. if I find, I'll add some ref.

Yes, Ibn Taghribirdi in his Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa'l-Qahira. mentions them as speaking Circassian. Irānshahr (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

ok then, could you send a link to his book?

Nujum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa'l-Qahira, xi, 224. The current citation is another reference. Irānshahr (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read Arabic. :( anyway, I won't change it anymore. btw, adding Oghuz to list is good move. because in late era (mostly in Circassian era) they spoke Oghuz Turkish. I still couldn't find poems of Circassian Sultans. but, if I find I'll add some of them.

Removal of "ed-Devletü't-Türkiyye" from the Infobox,

Sorry I was just patrolling and looking into some Wikipedia articles, but this is outrageous, because Circassians are not a huge group to speak for themselves in Wikipedia, but you guys do realize that there were Circassian Sultans and during those periods it was known as dawlat al-jarākisa also the word Dawla doesn't mean Dynasty it means "period of rule". I propose to get rid of that, because it is clear that we are using modern historical name which is Mamluk Sultanate, although that is wrong, but it is what we use. Another reason to drop it in case you think of adding dawlat al-jarākisa and making a full measure rather than half-measure is there are other names, I just chose one of those, for example al-dawla al-turkiyya al-jarkasiyya this for Circassians who speak Turkish.

I forgot to say that Jarakisa comes from Shirkas meaning Circassian. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mamluk vs mamluk

Just a note: I think its best to avert confusion by using the proper word "Mamluk" when describing anything related to the Mamluk state as in "the Mamluk sultan", "the Mamluks invaded ...", "the Mamluks concluded agreements with ...", "Mamluk architecture", while reserving the lowercased and italicized word mamluk to refer to the actual slave soldiers as in "an emir was assigned his own group of mamluks", "the mamluks of the Bahri regiment" or "as a result of a mamluk revolt", etc. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Enough of Linda Northup

She is furthering misconceptions of the Mamluk Society. I would take with a grain of salt. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dablink and redirects

I removed the dablink on the grounds that the title "Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)" is not ambiguous, that is, it makes clear that the article is about

1. a sultanate, not mamluks in general
2. the sultanate based in Cairo, not any other, in particular not the one in Delhi

This removal was reverted ("ambiguous enough for dab"). I've looked at the redirects here and found a couple were actually ambiguous (Mameluke Sultanate and Mamluk State), so I've changed them to point at the dab page Mamluk dynasty. The only potentially ambiguous redirects left are

• Mamluk Empire and The Mamluk Empire: These should probably go to Mamluk dynasty as well, but it's arguable whether the Delhi Sultanate is likely to be described as an empire; if not, there should still be a dablink here using {{redirect}}.
• Turkish State and Türkiye Devleti: I gather the latter means "State of Turkey". My first assumption would be that these names (especially the first) should redirect to Turkey, but they go here because it's apparently a historical name for the Cairo Sultanate, at least during the Turkish-dominated period. I suggest turning that redirect into a disambiguation page.
• State of Turkey: IMO this should definitely go to Turkey, perhaps with a dablink there.
• Dawla al-Turkiyya: I gather this also means "State of Turkey", in Arabic. This possibly should go to Turkey, but I'm not sure whether an Arabic name for a secular Turkish state is appropriate.

IMO at least the dablink to Mamluk should be removed, since there's no way one could confuse this article about the Sultanate with the general topic of mamluks. The other one is debatable, but it possibly could be removed if the incoming redirects are sorted out. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

One can not assume knowledge on the part of the reader. Be grateful that you are both intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject. The dab link was placed there precisely because someone got confused, and I concur that the average reader could reasonably get confused. Experts on the topic won't, but they already know the difference. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just the intelligentsia. Scr★pIron^IV 15:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Countries listed by alphabetical order

Is there a way I can organise the countries under the section "Today part of" in alphabetical order?? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont belittle245 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Article name

Do we really need the disambiguator "(Cairo)" in the article name? It doesn't seem like anyone could confuse the Mamluk Sultanate (in Cairo, not a dynasty) with the Mamluk Dynasty (in Delhi, a dynasty). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Marcocapelle. Please see the discussion above (here). While I might not be particularly fussed, I think a good point is made about the validity of retaining the disambiguators. Are you sure the average reader will know that the sultanate in Cairo was not dynastic, etc? I don't believe that the addition of Cairo in parentheses oversteps WP:PRECISION, but if other editors disagree per WP:CCC, I have no qualms about a new consensus being formed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle and Iryna Harpy: I wanted to bring this up a while ago but put it off as I was working on the article itself, and then I just forgot about it. I support removing the "(Cairo)" qualifier. In google book searches, "Mamluk Sultanate", "Mamluk sultan(s)" and "Mamluk state" all overwhelmingly prioritize hits for the medieval Mamluk sultanate in Egypt, not the Delhi-based dynasty. Similarly, "Mamluk" and "Egypt" return far more results than "Mamluk" and "India" or "Delhi". Moreover, as Marcocapelle alluded to, the other article is called "Mamluk Dynasty" not "Sultanate" so it's not a situation where the same name is being used. The Egypt-based sultanate also lasted far longer (around 200 years more) than the Indian Mamluk dynasty. As far as the average reader, he/she probably doesn't know much of anything about medieval Islamic history, let alone whether the Cairo-based state was a sultanate or a dynasty. But that shouldn't prevent a move to the simpler "Mamluk Sultanate" title. In fact, that name itself is partially for the readers' sake because the actual state wasn't called "Mamluk Sultanate" (See the "Name" section of this article"). --Al Ameer (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marcocapelle and Al Ameer son: Given that it carries template hatnotes to direct readers who might be confused, I don't have any real objections to dropping the 'Cairo', but I'll ping ScrapIronIV who only recently objected to its removal from the title. If there is a change in consensus, I think it best that a few other editors should be consulted. It may seem like a bit of a headache, but perhaps an RM would be the best way to go? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Five years later I stumbled upon this article. Agreeing with the above points and having seen no objections, I WP:BOLDly moved the page using my Page Mover magic powers. Should anyone object, please ping me so we can have a full RM. No such user (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Flag of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia under the Lusignan Dynasty (1341-1375).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of Early / Middle / Late Islamic period

Hi. What do the terms Early / Middle / Late Islamic period mean? How are they defined? When do they start and end? They show up in articles about Jordan for instance, but I cannot find a periodisation offering the basic meaning. Are these terms mainstream, are they outdated, can they be used over larger parts of the Muslim world?

I will post this also on other relevant pages. The discussion should be held at Talk:Timeline of Islamic history (so not here). Thanks. Arminden (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relevant new book + encouraging completion of history section

There's surprisingly not many (if any?) other English-language overviews of this kind, so I just thought I'd highlight the publication this year of a new English-language book, "The Mamluk Sultanate: A History", by Carl Petry, which broadly covers the history, culture, etc of the entire Mamluk period. Along with Petry's earlier book on Qaytbay and al-Ghuri's reigns, "Twilight of Majesty" (probably harder to access though), these references could help to fill the gap on the history of the late Burji period, which is still absent from the article. I keep bringing myself to the verge of writing out the subsections myself, but realistically I don't think I'll have time in the foreseeable future; so consider this an informal encouragement to anyone who does have the time and interest :) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've made some major additions to the history section to fill out the unfinished sections for the rest of the Burji period (from Barsbay to al-Ghawri, [9]), in part with the help of Petry's new book. If anyone is reading through the new content, I'd encourage you to keep an eye out for any typos, errors, awkward phrasings, or other things that may need copy-editing. I hope this helps, R Prazeres (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The name of the so called Mamluk Sultanate

the name of the mamluk Sultanate stated by Sultan Baybers himself when he was talking to the prophets of Crusader states is the Egyptian Kingdom "فأي مرة وفيتم فيها لمملكة مصر بحمد الله نحن لا نحتاج إلى نصرتكم و لا إلى نجدتكم" Source: Al Suluk li Ma‘rifat Duwal Al Muluk part one page 553 Book by the medieval historian al-Maqrizi I hope this issue is fixed الرجل المصري (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONAME and WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, among other obvious reasons why we won't change the name of this topic to "Egyptian Kingdom" or "Egyptian Sultanate" as you tried to do here. R Prazeres (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand,by the way I gave you my primary source of the Al suluk li ma'rifat duwal al Muluk part one page 553 which is written by the witness of the event the medieval historian Al-Maqrizi who lived the period of the sultanate directly. Yes I understand that the mamluk Sultanate name is a newly formed term even if it's not the official name but it's unfortunately the common name. I understand this but I beg you to write alongside the other names that it officially was called the Egyptian kingdom as the primary source states without deleting the other non official names. This really matters to me as a native Egyptian because the extreme nationalist Turks claim this Egyptian Kingdom just because of the race of the rulers. Again I would be thankful if you could just added the official name alongside the non official names just to protect the Sultanate from being stolen as the Turks use wikipedia as their source for this claiming. 196.157.51.218 (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And in that kingdom were kings, who were Mamluks, and called themselves sultans. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Fyi, the mamluks weren't just Turkish; many were Caucasian, Slavic and Sudanese, as well as some Copts. But overall, the mamluks arose out of slave army that was, yes, made up of more or less everything except Egyptians. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah the sultans were turkic caucasian slavic etc but mainly Turks claim them lol, and the army was mainly made from Egyptians according to the primary source of Al suluk li ma'rifat duwal al Muluk by the witness of the event the Egyptian medieval historian Al-Maqrizi and the official name of the army was Al Asaker Al Misria aka the Egyptian troops and another primary source: book of Al-Nujum al-Zahirah fi Muluk Misr wa Al Qahera by medieval Egyptian historian Abu al-Mahasin Yusuf ibn Taghribirdi الرجل المصري (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop editing the lead ([10]) when you know there's opposition to your changes. The terminology in the article is what's used by historians and reliable sources. We don't cherry-pick through primary sources in order to insert vague POV material into articles, that's just what we call WP:OR and it's not permitted on Wikipedia. No "Turks" are trying to claim this page (and if they were, they'd be rebuffed in the same way), and you've essentially admitted that your motivation for these changes is nationalist sentiment. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

And please stay logged in to your account (الرجل المصري) from now on when you edit or post comments here. R Prazeres (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

My motivation is protecting my people's history from being falsified is this now wrong? How can a country article doesn't have an official name? I gave you my two Egyptian medieval historians primary source who witnessed the event is this not strong enough? Did you even check the two books? I dare you to say yes. الرجل المصري (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Native names in infobox

Just to clarify: the recent IP should not have been edit-warring and did not explain themselves properly, but they do have a point. Until recently (March 2023), the other names (Dawlat al-Atrak, Dawlat al-Jarakisa) were in the infobox. They were removed here with the stated reasons that it crowded the infobox and that they were unsourced. The first reason is a good point, but the second reason was wrong in this case, since it's clearly explained in the first section (I assume it just wasn't noticed in the moment).

This parameter of the infobox is for the "native name" (see Template:Infobox country). The term "Mamluk Sultanate", as the sources state, is a modern historiographical term, not the term used by writers of the Mamluk period. The latter used Dawlat al-Atrak, Dawlat al-Jarakisa, and variations thereof. So the Arabic translation of Mamluk Sultanate (سلطنة المماليك, Salṭanat al-Mamālīk) is not the native or historical name of the state either, it's just the Arabic version of what modern historians use to refer to it.

If helpful, I can quote most of the sources cited on the topic, if they're not easily accessible to everyone.

So there is actually good reason to remove Salṭanat al-Mamālīk and keep Dawlat al-Atrāk and Dawlat al-Jarākisa instead. It might be good to compare with Byzantine Empire, a featured article, which deals with a very similar situation ("Byzantine Empire" is a modern convention too) and provides two different native names in the infobox, with a footnote for further details. What do editors think? R Prazeres (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I also don't mind them going below the common name in the infobox as the native names, but I would make them "small font" at the same time for display purposes, otherwise it is going to get pretty crowded there. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to this, but I think that's perfectly good suggestion, yes. Potentially, we could also omit the transliterations from the infobox, since they are in the first section of the article, and/or we could use a footnote to complete the details and save some space inline. R Prazeres (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I should have left a comment here earlier, before this revert, but the infobox has been updated by HapHaxion reflect these names (which, as pointed out above, were previously in the infobox). The new look seems much clearer ([11]). My only point of uncertainty, expressed earlier ([12]), is whether "Mamluk Sultanate" would be removed altogether from the infobox header? That does seem to be what has been done at Ottoman Empire, for example, and it does seem redundant to repeat "Mamluk Sultanate" when it's both in the title and the first sentence of the lead. Courtesy ping to Iskandar323, whom commented on the same question earlier. R Prazeres (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Having solely the common name in the infobox with the historic names in a footnote seems like a better, less confusing approach for readers not throughly familiar with the topic given that they're vastly differing. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

But that's what the article title and lead section are for. The infobox is intended to summarize the article, and this is what it's doing, as the names are explained immediately in the first section. Whether it's still worth including the common name as the header (above the historical names) is still a question, though. R Prazeres (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

The text in the lead barely does any justice explaining nor elaborating on this, instead it's done in the names section. Though as suggested by Iskandar, having the common name above in the infobox is a better approach, at least for now. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Flag

Hi Mint eggy93. You have not provided any reliable source for the flag you uploaded ([13]), whereas the current flags in the infobox clearly state which primary sources they originate from. If your proposed flag is based on historical evidence, please provide the source that demonstrates this. And as a general point, as I noted earlier, it's unlikely that there was a single flag used by the Mamluks, so that's all the more reason for us to be specific when it comes to any flags shown in the article. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey r prazeres, i just put the flag because of this image (i cant upload it but it's in the siege of homs image) so, I suspect that the yellow one is one of the flags of the sultanate, I don't know, sorry for adding that, thanks for reading bro 👍, -Mint eggy Mint eggy93 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding "of Egypt" across the article

Ahmed Mahboub, please stop trying to change the name of the topic and do not engage in edit-warring. You can discuss the issue here on the talk page. Your previous edits were already reverted, so please undo your last edit ([14]) or someone else will. I recommend you also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's core content policies, which require that information be verifiable, neutral, and not based on your personal opinion. These recent edits do not conform to those policies, and add nothing useful. R Prazeres (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Actually the name was Kingdom of Egypt. Commonly named Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt or Mamluk Egypt. This name doesn’t clarify the real identity of the country and is wrong. Thanks 197.46.40.59 (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Article length

There's no hurry, but I'm opening this discussion to address the length issue. (Thanks to Al Ameer for the ongoing copy-edits and to Aintabli for the reminder about length.) I think we will inevitably need to transfer most of the "History" section content elsewhere, as it occupies over half this article. The other sections add up too, but they're not that long individually and I think they're useful for an overview article. The two simplest options I imagine are:

1. Copy History content to a new History of the Mamluk Sultanate article, condense the section here
2. Copy History content to existing Bahri Mamluks and Burji Mamluks articles, condense the section here

I personally sort of prefer #1: it's the easiest fix, and given the importance and continuity of this period, I like the idea of having the full history shared explicitly in one place (like History of the Ottoman Empire, History of the Ming dynasty, etc). On the other hand, Bahri Mamluks and Burji Mamluks already exist and have plenty of room; it might depend on what editors think those two articles should focus on (i.e. whether it makes sense to use them as the "main" history articles). Anyways, all thoughts welcome. R Prazeres (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres:@Aintabli: Thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I agree that 'History' is the main section that needs condensing and that an overall 'History' subarticle is the best way to go about it. It's an easy undertaking, of course—just copy/paste the whole section to the new article and then cut down here. Also would be good at some point in the near future to improve our articles on the prominent sultans, at least partly by using some of the material we already have here.

Not sure what do with the Bahri and Burji articles, but I recommend we take our cues from the Encyclopedia of Islam (2nd ed) (EI2), which dealt with the Bahriyya and Burjiyya as Mamluk regiments. EI2 's articles on these two regiments and their main article on the Mamluks note the Orientalist error of referring to the division of Mamluk history as the "Bahri and Burji periods"; rather, EI2 and more modern scholars prefer the "Turkish and Circassian periods", which is actually in line with the Mamluk-era sources. The terminology we're currenrly using is outdated. Al Ameer (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative on this and for creating History of the Mamluk Sultanate. One minor thing to fix after all this is done: the lead of this article (and copied to the new article) only summarizes events up to the reign of Barsbay, so we should update it to reflect the rest of the articles' content in the future.

For the Bahri and Burji articles: yeah I like the idea of making them about the groups themselves, something often glossed over in other overviews. I don't think there's anything really wrong with the current titles, because they're common designations in secondary sources and I'm not sure if the purely ethnic designations might raise some confusion/ambiguity (more so with "Turkish Mamluks", less so with "Circassian Mamluks"). But in any case, that's up to discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ahmadnagar Sultanate which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox flag

It seems we need to discuss this. As I mentioned in an earlier edit summary ([15]) in agreement with AirshipJungleman29's removal ([16]), there is no support at all in reliable sources, so far, for treating this flag or its counterparts as having any significance or historical reality other than its appearance in the Catalan Atlas. The Atlas is a non-reliable primary source, which raises problems per WP:PRIMARY, and its medieval European authors were also not working for a Mamluk or Middle Eastern audience and were liable, as noted by an editor's intro to the Libro del Conoscimiento, to employ "imaginary heraldry" where it suited them (p.xlvii). This has no significance to an article about the Mamluk Sultanate unless there are reliable sources saying so.

Given this lack of support in sources, given that the infobox is intended to summarize key facts of the article and that disputed or dubious issues are almost always recommended to be left out of it, and given that the lead image is intended to be representative of the topic as a whole, I see no justification for having the flags in the infobox at all. It is WP:UNDUE at best, misleading or WP:OR at worse.

The new caption in the re-addition by WeaponizingArchitecture ([17]) is unfortunately straightforward WP:OR as well: there is no "dispute" in the sources or in the article itself, since they don't discuss this to begin with. But even the old caption, "Flags according to the Catalan Atlas of c. 1375", provides insufficient context and did not prevent the same flag from being thoughtlessly propagated in infoboxes and lists across countless other articles, despite clearly not being an official/recognized flag of the sultanate. Even if we find a more suitable caption, the very fact that a detailed caption and caveat like this is needed merely demonstrates that it does not belong in the infobox, for the reasons above.

What reliable sources do say about Mamluk emblems, which I've summarized as best I can at this section with all due citations, is very different. I even went out of my way to look for references that discuss the Atlas in relation to the Mamluks and found only one or two mentioning it briefly (also summarized in section), with no suggestion by the authors that these represent real Mamluk flags. Per my earlier edit ([18]), this is the only place these flags merit any mention or illustration in this article, if at all. R Prazeres (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Names in infobox

@Prosnu: your edits explicitly contradict multiple highly reliable sources (one of them among the best-known authors on the topic) cited inline which, in turn, are explicitly discussing the historical sources:

• "Mamluk authors almost always refer to the political regime that ruled Egypt, Syria and adjacent areas for two-and-a-half centuries (648/1250-923/1517) as “the state of the Turks” (dawlat alatrak/ dawlat al-turk/al-dawlah al-turkiyah). They seem to be aware of the fact that the reign of the “Turks” is divided into two periods – the rule of the Turks (dawlat al-atrak) and that of the Circassians (dawlat al-jarakisah), and they clearly emphasize the ethnic origin or language of the ruling elite. Only rarely, and only in the Circassian period of the Sultanate (784/1382-923/1517), do they explicitly refer to the Sultanate as being ruled by slaves. Despite this fact, modern scholars almost without exception use the term “the Mamluk Sultanate” (dawlat al-mamalik), that is, an appellation that emphasizes the elite’s and rulers’ slave status or slave origin." Yosef 2013, p.8; see also Yosef 2012
• "The polity that established itself in Cairo, and subsequently over Egypt, Syria, Southeastern Asia Minor, and Western Arabia, did not define itself with the Arabic word for a slave-soldier. The phrase “Mamluk Sultanate” is a creation of modern scholarship, which drew upon the term to depict the system of governance these slave-soldiers devised over time. Indigenous chroniclers referred to this regime most frequently as dawlat al-atrāk, or “state of the Turks.” Mention of the term “mamluk” in fact unduly highlighted the origins of the new ruling elite as slaves of the former Ayyubid ruler whose office they had usurped." Petry 2022, p. 53

Replacing this with vague citations to other sources, which I doubt actually contradict the above, and then editorializing, as you did here, is unacceptable. Your passing claim that this is "some sort of modern Nationalism" is also nonsensical and you've been editing long enough to know not to edit-war after being reverted. If you have suggestions on improvements, please discuss it here first. R Prazeres (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

All the sources i have stated are Arabic, not a single Arabic source refer to them as dawlat al-atrak even as an alternative name, how would a non-Arab writers know better than multiple Arabic authors know about the names’ one states in their region were called? It’s like if he said “Rashidun caliphate was only called Arabic state” while nobody refer to it as such, this is a new nationlistic claim

There is no logical reason on why would the Arabs call their state, the state of Turks, or state of Circissians, we know that the ruling elite were non-Arab former slaves but i tried to search these names and i couldn’t find any except for the (Western) cited in Wikipedia Prosnu (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all you did was look at some modern Arabic-language references and you saw that they use the common modern name, variations of "Mamluk Sultanate", which is no different than what the English-language references, who all use that term too. That has no bearing on what contemporary Mamluk-period sources called the state, which is a different and more specific question for which we need specific references, which we have. All of that is clearly explained in the sources above. R Prazeres (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Name section and name in Infobox

I recommend replacing the name field in the infobox with 'Mamluk Sultanate' and moving the 'Name' section under the History heading. The section lacks reliable scholarly citations and seems to promote ethnic glorification rather than presenting a neutral, verifiable account. This goes against Wikipedia’s core content policies, particularly Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability. Moreover, the lead section already makes clear that the ruling elites were ex-slaves of Turkic and later Circassian origin. Contemporary academic and historical sources consistently refer to this period as the Mamluk Sultanate, which further supports the proposed change in infoblox. --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

this has been already discussed in the section above, about 19-20 days ago. Jackhanma69 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this also, as mentioned prior. There hasn't been definitive nor conclusive WP:CON on the current infobox name placement as of yet, with many editors here clearly continuing to express disagreement. I've restored the long-standing, common name for now as per WP:BOLD until clear consensus, either preferably through a WP:RFC, or other means, is reached. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

An RfC is reasonable and I'm happy to help with crafting it if needed. In the meantime, this has been a long-standing state of the infobox as already explained above. If you want to change it, you need a new consensus.

One solution, which I may not have stated clearly in earlier discussion, would be to have "Mamluk Sultanate" (in English) under the "conventional name" parameter (which should display it at the top) and the other two names (in Arabic) under the "native name" parameters, plus minor adjustments to make the division clear and minimize the clutter (maybe removing the transliterations and keeping the translations instead in parenthesis afer the Arabic script). R Prazeres (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Prazeres, the above, brief discussion you're referring to, which I partook in, did not result in any clear consensus, and was left hanging. You're seemingly the only one here supporting the two-name infobox placement; while the majority supports the sole, common name. This is textbook WP:STONEWALL, "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." Again, please leave the long-standing and common name version until a conclusive consensus is reached. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your prefered version and the current version has been stable for a long time; edit-warring away from the stable version is merely edit-warring and it is disruptive. There is no "majority" in your favour, and you're not in a position to determine that. If you are actually interested in participating in consensus-building, you could start by responding to my suggestion above. R Prazeres (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not "my preferred version", it's the version prior to the (non)consensus you're referring to above, and the one most editors here seem to agree with. As for your suggestion, I think the infobox should solely contain the common name, Mamluk Sultanate, with other names placed and elaborated on in the Names section. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Confusion between the word dawla and state

Proposal: Clarify the "Name" section by noting scholarly debate over medieval naming patterns. Sources (Ayalon; Van Steenbergen; Koby Yosef) indicate that labels like "dawlat al-Aṭrāk" were used to describe the ruling elite's origin and political periods, and should not be taken as evidence of a single, formal state title. Yosf22ww (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The article does not say it is a formal state title, it reports what reliable sources say on how the regime/dynasty was referred to by Arabic sources of the time, nothing more. Unfortunately, your edit here falls into the problems of WP:OR and/or WP:NOTESSAY and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia should not contain explanations/commentary about what modern scholarship should say, only what it does say (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources in general). R Prazeres (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources, even those predating my writing, made it clear that they referred to the ruling dynasty and not the official name. People, even sources like Kobi Yusuf and others, simply explained that the name did not mean "state," confusing the use of the word "dawla." In this context, state was never intended to be the official name. Many Turkish nationalists today exploit this to attribute the entire state to themselves, which is incorrect. It is very important to clarify that the word "dawla" was not used in the same way as it is today. As I mentioned, since the word "dawla" was used in more than one context, most importantly referring to the ruler, why not add all the contexts and limit it to Turkish and Circassian, which nationalists would later exploit? Please explain why (and for your information, not all rulers were Turkish and Circassian), some even having questionable origins. Yosf22ww (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not an article about the meaning of the Arabic word "dawla", nor do "Turkish nationalists" have any relevance here, since the text is not written by them nor for them. "State" is how the cited reliable sources translate the word in this context; like any other translation, it is approximate, and the exact semantics of the word in Arabic are not at issue here. R Prazeres (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

We were partly right. My previous edit had some POV issues, but historically and academically, the terms "State of the Turks" and "State of the Circassians" are not considered official names. Medieval Arabic sources used the word dawla to mean "rule" or "dynasty," and often added descriptive designations (e.g., State of the Turks, State of the Circassians) to indicate the origin of the ruling elite, rather than an official title. This is supported by recent research (e.g., Encyclopedia of Islam, Van Steenbergen, Kobi Youssef). I propose a that i will do a concise and neutral formulation for the "Name" section with inline citations, if editors agree. Yosf22ww (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Incidentally, from my research, I've found that the names used to describe the Mamluk state in general were the Sultanate of Egypt, the Kingdom of Egypt, and the Egyptian Kingdom. The evidence I have, in general, comes from historians, including letters attributed to sultans, most notably Baybars, who has numerous statements referring to the Mamluk state by the name "Kingdom of Egypt." External sources, as well as from other sources, also refer to the Mamluk state as "the Kingdom of Egypt." Did you know that there is an old Ottoman map documenting the countries of the Middle East, and the Mamluk state was referred to as "the Sultanate of Egypt?" But this is generally unimportant now and can be postponed. What's more important here is the distinction between the word "dawla" and how it is used Yosf22ww (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, nowhere in the article does it speak of "official names", so what are you talking about? And what "recent research"? (The Encyclopedia of Islam has multiple editions and countless entries, be specific about the edition and the entry at least.) The article already cites multiple publications, including the recent reference by Carl Petry (2022, p.53), which directly repeats the same point and contradicts your last comment above. R Prazeres (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Yosf22ww (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

As for the printing and sources, I actually did the deed by attaching all this evidence to my previous edit. So you didn't even read what I wrote. Saying my last comment is wrong without even looking at the evidence I provided doesn't mean you're right. I don't know what's your problem if we add a small explain for it , i already told you that i can Yosf22ww (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Yosf22ww (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing that you cited supports your addition, in fact the reliable sources you cite (Vandenberg and Koby) support what the article already says, and the rest are not reliable secondary sources, on which Wikipedia is based. Again, please read the policies I linked in my first comment above and familiarize yourself with them before you go any further. Otherwise, this is in danger of going in circles. R Prazeres (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

For your information, the Mamluks assumed power while being (completely) slaves. Have you heard of Sheikh Izz al-Din al-Salam's regime?For your information, the Mamluks assumed power while being (completely) slaves. Have you heard of Sheikh Izz al-Din al-Salam's regime? Yosf22ww (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Take it easy brother Yosf22ww (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Take it easy brother, Yosf22ww (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

take it easy brother, why are doing like iam stealing something from you , you're genies, we know, and you already know the different, but what about the people who don't, bro iam telling that everyone in the media thinks this is the official name of the state, because you didn't explain it clearly, everyone thinks it is because they think dawla means state but don't know the actual meaning , and as for Egypt's kingdom, it do exist and I have the proofs , but i told you this is not our topic right now Yosf22ww (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

النجوم الزاهرة الجزء ۱۲ صفحة ۹۸

الروض الظاهر في سيرة الملك الظاهر صفحة ١٥٦

تحفه الأحباب للسخاوي صفحة ١٢٦ (طبعة (۱۹۳۷)

الفضل المأثور من سيرة السلطان الملك المنصور صفحة ٦٢ ) Yosf22ww (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, calm down, all I will do is remove the words "This sentence means the state of the Turks and the state of the Circassians" and replace it with "It refers to the Turkish or Circassian dynasty or period and is not the names of the state" and this way the Turkish and Circassian nationalists will stop taking screenshots of this article and then sending them everywhere on social media claiming these things as their own... good night Yosf22ww (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Now since you are hearing the phrase Kingdom of Egypt for the first time, allow me to give you some quotes. You have here a letter from Baybars in which he says that the Levant is an inseparable part of the Kingdom of Egypt from the book Al-Fadl Al-Ma'thur min Sirat Al-Sultan Al-Malik Al-Mansur, page 62. You also have another letter from Al-Zahir Baybars in which he blames the Franks for not fulfilling the Kingdom of Egypt for him in the book Al-Suluq li-Ma'rifat Dawul Al-Muluk, Part 1, page 553. Isn't it strange that in Al-Sakhawi's Tuhfat Al-Ahbab fi Al-Khitat wa Al-Mazarat wa Al-Tarajim wa Al-Biqa' Al-Mubarakat, page 126, the heir to the throne of the Qalawun family is described as the Crown Prince of the Egyptian Kingdom? And yeah we are in the beginning, Yosf22ww (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion as a reader, I think the amendment is very useful, in everyone’s interest, and ensures credibility. Do not broadcast wrong information. We hope that you will accept objections that correct what is wrong, even if it is a weak error, especially the objection We are not against anyone or for anyone or even against countries or races, but with the truth. We do not want to deny history and deceive people and readers. We must only convey history as it is, without the slightest change.@R Prazeres 105.111.86.226 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Listen, I'm not done yet, I'll add another edit soon to prove what I said we had to postpone. Yosf22ww (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (in English or any other language) or a usage guide. There is often reason to briefly explain the most important nuances of terminology associated with a topic, but this amounts to totally unbalanced emphasis on lexical and minutiae stuck at the very top of the article—about terms that aren't directly for the topic! It's a total disservice to readers to make them scroll past this to read anything they would expect in a generalist encyclopedia article. Remsense 🌈 论 15:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a fair point and preserves historical accuracy, provided that it is correct and supported by reliable sources. The term al-Dawla al-Turkiyya should not be translated as "the state of the Turks," as this would be a serious error that leads to a distorted understanding of history. The issue is not minor: many modern readers, including Egyptians today, express confusion about this point, and some groups even interpret historical legitimacy based on a misunderstanding of a single word. This demonstrates the importance of clarifying that dawla did not historically mean "state." Such clarification is only possible through explanation, and explanation is only possible through reliable sources. It is also worth noting that some of the very sources which show that dawla did not mean "state" have paradoxically been cited to justify the translation "state of the Turks," which underlines the need for precision. In general, one of the most important policies of Wikipedia is that the reader understands the information correctly and is able to look at the sources that prove that. I understand that the explanation may be long, but I can make a smaller and simpler version of it, but what is important in the end is the health information for the reader. Yosf22ww (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Since you generally did not object to the principle, I will repeat it. If you want, I can summarize and improve it and not turn it into a long discussion. You are welcome. Yosf22ww (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I will second what Remsense said above. Despite your messages expressing good intentions, you keep ignoring what we just told you: this is not relevant, and the use of the word "state" in the translation is directly from the cited reliable sources, which you cannot dismiss in favour of your own opinion.

@Yosf22ww: Do NOT repeat your edit again without consensus of other editors. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring, which another editor already pointed out to you ([19]). Please revert your last edit ([20]) to show you understand this. (If you don't revert yourself, your edit will be reverted anyways; but by doing it yourself you will show that you're here to collaborate and to work by consensus, which should help you avoid further problems.) (Strike that, the edit was reverted while I was writing this.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Yosf22ww

his is a fair point and preserves historical accuracy, provided that it is correct and supported by reliable sources.

This is inadequate for the editorial standards of a useful encyclopedia, and by itself is quite silly on its face—many statements are quite verifiable! which is why we do not simply require information be verifiable, we also require it be relevant to the subject, or proportionally represented in the article compared to the survey of sources on the subject, so this particular fixations and biased slants can't be justified. This is part of our neutral point of view policy that is equally important to our verifiability policy. I hope you choose to engage here as multiple editors have now told you you are required to do in order to obtain consensus, because continuing as you are will likely result in being blocked to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia. Remsense 🌈 论 22:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You can't say my edit is worthless on the basis that it's "long" and unimportant. I told you a million times that it could simply be improved, but the principle is important. Yosf22ww (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The principle is important to you personally. That is not relevant, nor are the aspects I personally find important, to how we decide what to publish for everyone on earth. We represent what reliable secondary sources about the Mamluks say, proportional to how they say it. This is not a blob that appears at the beginning of many encyclopedia articles about the Mamluks, or even at the beginning of book chapters or entire books. Remsense 🌈 论 22:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Listen to me well, you must differentiate between how you explain something so that it is not exploited. Most Egyptians complain about nationalist movements that try to take the history of countries for themselves, and again I repeat for the thousandth time, I can simply make it no more than two lines so that it summarizes everything, but in the correct way. The sources that were put forward to say the state of the “Turks” are contradictory to themselves. I mean imagine, you say “the Turkish state” then you cite a source that says the opposite, then by the way, imagine that you are an Egyptian and you find a Turk trying to steal your history and he says it was called the Turkish state, should I explain to him about that from the beginning? Why can’t the article be correct from the beginning to deter any nationalist attempt, and the fact that it is in this form is evidence that it is contradictory. I mean imagine that, millions of Turks and Circassians believe that it is theirs because of a “word” Yosf22ww (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres The other editor simply said that we should reach a compromise and not agree on something else. Prove me wrong then. I brought it and explained it. The problem is not that, my brother, literally. The Turkish state wrote with a citation from a source saying that it does not mean that. It is important for the reader to understand so that he does not understand it from a different angle (please check my sources) because my sources are also historians and academics who prove my point of view. But listen, if the article is long, I swear that I can make it short and simple if I want, but the truth must not be ignored. Yosf22ww (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Prove me wrong then. I brought it and explained it.

As you've been told several times now, this isn't, and could not be how it works.

This is an English-language encyclopedia article about a medieval state that lasted a few centuries in West Asia and North Africa. The first screenful of the article body should not be devoted to lexical minutiae about a word that is not even the central concern of the article. Almost all readers will get nothing out of it, and it gives them a warped idea of what the topic even is if they haven't read about it before. Try to put yourself into the shoes of someone who isn't already deeply interested in the subject, and then try to understand how your introductory section looks to them. That is why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, glossary, or usage guide. Think about how much information about the subject is omitted for the sake of cohesion, but could be there. That is something we are required to care about building the encyclopedia.

I swear that I can make it short and simple if I want, but the truth must not be ignored.

If it remains your attitude that you must add something to the article simply because you feel it to be just, and not while engaging with our core content policies, then you're not going to be allowed to edit much longer, per above. It's totally unacceptable, can you imagine if everyone who cared about things you abhor were equally privileged? That's the only way this project can exist. Remsense 🌈 论 22:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about this? I can make it like this in a way that is less than what it looks like now. I mean, I can make it smaller than the original. Yosf22ww (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to say it to you again, the sources contradict the content, my question is clear and understandable, why don't you object to this? Yosf22ww (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Since your objection is that it's long, and you don't dispute that what I'm saying is generally correct, but it's long, we can quickly summarize it like this: The term Mamluk Sultanate is modern. Medieval Arab historians used dawla not to mean "state," but "dynasty," "period of rule," or "turn of power." Thus, terms like Dawlat al-Turk or Dawlat al-Jarakisa referred to Turkish or Circassian dynasties, not states. Each ruler even had his own dawla (e.g., Dawlat al-Malik al-Zahir for the Baybars). The modern meaning of "state" only appeared in the 19th century. Yosf22ww (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

How does that additional lexicographical content help the reader understand the Mamluks, the topic of this article? Again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide, I've said it five times now.

Also, we were exceedingly clear you obtain consensus, and then make the changes. You're really making it difficult to believe you're taking our concerns seriously. Remsense 🌈 论 08:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

So you want to keep wrong information under the pretext that these things cannot be described in the English Wikipedia? If you thought in both cases with or without my modification you are leading to explaining something in the Arabic language then the solution is to delete this section if you want us to follow this approach. All I did was correct the mistakes to prevent the reader's point of view from deviating to a different path, so I ask for the thousandth time to know what the problem is in this Yosf22ww (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you want me to show you the Turks on the internet taking this article and saying it's theirs and no one has any right to it? Do you want to see how much conflict there is because of this? I explained that this word has been used for many things, not just to describe two eras. Yosf22ww (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Your claim that it is not important is not true. I am asking for the thousandth time, do you really want to keep wrong information? For your information, I think that you did not look at the last amendment. All you did was remove the phrase “the State of the Turks” and put the phrase “the period of the Turks” and made it short. Yosf22ww (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Everyone, i've got a better idea for this , since you don't agree about making a whole section about this , I'll make a whole new article which talks about name and dawla and then I'll link it with the original one Yosf22ww (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Why would we need a whole article about this when we've clearly said that it doesn't even merit elaboration in a section here? I'm not even sure what the topic of that hypothetical article would be, but I don't believe it would ever meet the requirements for its own article, like Wikipedia:Notability, or how creating a mini-content fork would resolve the WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns raised above.

Please stop pursuing this issue. Consensus is clearly against it, if you are actually here to contribute to the Wikipedia project constructively, then drop the stick and move on, as another editor also advised you ([21]). And stop messaging editors individually to try to get them on your side ([22], [23]); at best, it's a confusing diversion from the main discussion here, and at worst, it's canvassing.

PS: On a last minor note, please try to avoid replying or editing while logged-out (like you did here); it can be confusing and it can also publicly reveal your IP address. R Prazeres (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Haha I'm not trying to force anyone to my side, but you keep misunderstanding what I want. This section is being misused and others are being correct by many people and should be modified. I can show you examples if you like. What I did was just a consultation and I didn't choose random people or people who edit this content, especially the Mamluks, because I generally look for people who understand Wikipedia to understand what I want. I don't want anyone to side with me, and the article won't only address this, then address other things about the identity of the Mamluks and other neglected things in it. If the topic doesn't really matter, then you should remove the name section at the end because we both agree that this is wrong. Remember, for the last time, no one said you were right, but they asked me for a compromise and here I am presenting it to you. Please work so that the reader's point of view is not distorted. Yosf22ww (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Listen, let's calm down the fire and start over again with simply neutral way . Why are you objecting to my edit or the article I'm planning to write? Yosf22ww (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

you told me in the be " it's regime/dynasty was referred to by Arabic sources of the time" but i want to ask and i really want an answer, if you really think that, then why does the article doesn't say this and says that this is the names, why we would let many people understanding it by the wrong way or maybe calming it as their own? Yosf22ww (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know why you consider me an enemy instead of an ally. This is Wikipedia, a place to discuss, not accuse people of policy violations based on your own dislike of them. The problem is that I wait impatiently for you, but you are busy most of the time. Bored of waiting, I looked for three people. The first: Someone who was a prominent feature in another article about the Mamluk state (I don't know exactly if he created it or improved it, but it was effective). He should be an expert and can be used as a third opinion, and this is allowed in Wikipedia policy. The second: He was the last person to edit my last edit, so I sent him the same message to contact him. The third: You are the one I want to have a calm discussion with, but I don't know why you don't want to discuss it, you just accuse me. As for his request for sources, allow me to provide them again: I simply said that I would cite sources from Kobi Yusuf (there was one originally, in fact), but I added another source that discussed the subject in detail and pointed out that there was a source attached to the original article that actually supported my theory. I also added other sources, such as the book Egypt and the Levant in the Mamluk Era, which used the word "state" as a source and not to explain the Arabic language. I then emphasized that the official name remains controversial, but I pointed out that historians have used some names for the country and also sayings attributed to sultans and princes, most importantly Baybars. I added more and more, and I still have more and can add more if necessary. I then brought a map from the Ottoman archives that supports my theory, but that's not the point. What's important is that, after all that, all of that was removed without even checking the sources. So why? And if the reason is that the reader won't benefit, why not publish a separate article on the subject? Yosf22ww (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry let me make it better, the sources in the original article literally support my words, Yusuf’s Encyclopedia, page 8 says that it was used to describe the ruling political regime and not the name of the country, and the second , The Bahri Mamluk ، page 250, which indicated that it is literally a dynasty and not an official name in the modern sense, the sources that I wanted to add: Of the sources that I wanted to publish, there was another one from Kopy Yusuf page 388_389 which explained the subject more precisely, the word dawla, this was as a source and not a definition of the word in the Arabic language, and even without my sources, the existing sources prove that, and now because of this, when someone searches on the internet or from the questions section for the name of the Mamluk state, whether it is Google or artificial intelligence, it will tell him that it was the state of the Turks and the state of the Circassians, citing this article, and when you ask a nationalist person why he believes that this state is attributed to him, he will say that it is attributed to him for the same reason, citing the same The article, truth be told: This article needs to change. Yosf22ww (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Wow you are doing a bad faith argument. You are saying “dawla” shouldn’t be used as “state” because it might confuse the readers but you are using sources where the term “Egypt” is undoubtedly used as geographical terms instead of national ones. Any kingdom found on Egypt is a “kingdom of egypt” , including ancient ones, it would have been extremely confusing to name all of those articles “Kingdom of Egypt.”

+crusader sources from france and Italy call the place “babylon” , but they also call them “Turks” should we then assume The nation was Babylon and avoid the fact that crusaders obviously used a word that they believe generally represented the area. The same “ Egypt “ is used. Medieval authors are referring to the place Egypt in a geographical sense. ~2026-62910-8 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If we use your logic, the Fatimid state would be called the "State of the Egyptians" (dawla el misriiyn) because historians used this description. Even my main problem is that it wasn't used with the "Turkish State" or the "Circassian State." We also have the "Qalawun State" (aldawlat alqalawunia) and the "Mongol State" (aldawlat almaghuliatu), and countless other names. Furthermore, the sources included in the article clearly state that they refer to a period/dynasty, not a "state." The term "state" was also used with the sultans themselves. So, by this logic, we have more than 55 names for the state? And when someone says that al-Ashraf Khalil ibn Qalawun was the "Crown Prince of the Egyptian Kingdom," does that not count? Or when Baybars says that "Syria is an integral part of the Egyptian Kingdom," does that not count either? But the fundamental problem is that the sources never say this; they say what I say, but it's pointless. Yosf22ww (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Coptic (and other minority languages in infobox)

@~2026-12849-15: I asked you to use the talk page first to discuss your proposed edit due to the problems involved. On Wikipedia, we do not allow editors to keep repeating edits that have already been reverted unless they gain consensus on the talk page; please see Wikipedia:Edit warring (or see the notice I posted on your user talk page).

First note: the infobox is a summary of the article only, so if this is to be included there at all, it would need to be explained and cited in the article first. Secondly, and more importantly: we have reliable sources (already cited at Ayyubid dynasty) that explicitly indicate that the Coptic language was no largely abandoned by Egyptian Copts in the earlier Ayyubid period:

• Parker, Kenneth S. (2013). "Coptic Language and Identity in Ayyūbid Egypt". Al-Masāq. 25 (2): 222. In the late Fatimid (358–567/969–1171) and Ayyubid (567–648/1171–1250) periods of Egyptian history, Coptic Christians finally addressed the reality that most of their community no longer understood the Coptic language but were, in fact, in danger of losing their communal identity and "figures of memory" to Arabisation and even Islamisation.
• Werthmuller, Kurt J. (2010). Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt, 1218-1250. American Univ in Cairo Press. pp. 16, 125. ISBN 978-977-416-345-6. Given that traditional markers of Coptic identity, such as the community's native language and earlier demographic dominance, had been challenged and largely stripped away long before the establishment of the Ayyubid state, [...] [p.16]; [...] while the rise of Coptic-Arabic grammars reflected an attempt to preserve Coptic linguistic tradition within a community that had thoroughly reconciled itself to its universal adoption of the Arabic language. [p.125]

This contradicts your claim that it was spoken by a "significant minority", seeing as reliable sources explain that the Coptic community itself did not commonly speak it anymore. The first source you added is not specialized on the history of this period and only briefly mentions the language's existence for a longer period; without saying anything about its prevalence or status ([24]). The second source you added ([25]) does not say anything different either; if anything, it concludes largely on the same note that Coptic was no longer commonly understood by the 13th century (incidentally, that work is cited by the Parker article cited above).

PS: for the other minority/elite languages listed in the infobox, they are indeed mentioned in the article, but I would probably favour removing some of them, like Oghuz Turkic (which was only a literary language for the later Mamluks), while keeping others, like Mamluk-Kipchak (the main language of the Mamluks), which is clearly significant to the topic of this article (i.e. the Mamluk regime). This might deserve discussion with other editors. R Prazeres (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The references you provided from the Ayyubid article do not state that it ceased to be spoken in the early Mamluk period, but only that it was in rapid decline and spoken as a daily vernacular by a minority in Egypt. You need to read these sources throughly. They do not say anywhere it was not spoken at all as a vernacular at the time, but differed regionally. The article I added by Zabrowski states this quite clearly. If you do not have access to it, due to the paywall, you can use an AI search for more information. Zaborowsky and others quite clearly state that how long Coptic persisted as a vernacular is disputed, but that it is agreed it differed regionally.

Most of the sources mentioned state that by the early Mamluk period it mainly ceased to be a daily vernacular in the large cities and in Lower Egypt (the north) but continued to be spoken to a significant degree in Upper Egypt in the south, and also in some isolated rural areas in the north. ~2026-12849-15 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not have access to edit the Ayyubid article as it is semi-protected, but the citations themselves there do not say it was altogether extinct at that time as a spoken vernacular. The citations do not support what the article says. It was still spoken by significant numbers in Upper Egypt and in rural areas at that time, and even into the early Mamluk period.

It is without question that Coptic had more speakers at the time, and persisted in Egypt longer, especially in Upper Egypt, than either Kipchak Turkic or Circassian. ~2026-12849-15 (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

spoken as a daily vernacular by a minority in Egypt the sources do not say that, they literally say it was not spoken daily by the minority in question. The rest of your summation merely repeats the point I just made.

The dispute is not about whether it existed at all: it is about whether it was commonly spoken or significant enough to be mentioned in the infobox. We are not going to list every single language that existed at any level somewhere the region: that is neither feasible nor appropriate and defeats the purpose of the infobox, which is to summarize key facts from the article. R Prazeres (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The sources do not say anywhere it was not spoken daily at all by by the whole minority. Zaborowski and some of the other sources state quite clearly it WAS still spoken as a daily vernacular by some, especially in Upper Egypt, and also in isolated rural areas. It also states specifically that the decline *varied regionally*. It was still quite commonly spoken in the Zengid and Ayyubid periods, and even the early Mamluk period, in Upper Egypt. ~2026-12849-15 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Werthmuller says Coptic's *dominance* was stripped away by the Ayyubid period, and that the community had monstly also adapted Arabic. He does **not** state anywhere that it was extinct as a spoken vernacular everywhere in Egypt. Other sources also show clearly it was still spoken as a daily language by significant numbers in Upper Egypt, and in isolated rural areas, into the early to middle Mamluk period. ~2026-12849-15 (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I've already addressed everything you just repeated, so I'm not going to keep responding if there is no new evidence. Also, if you are using AI to "read" these sources (your comment about AI above seems to hint that you are), then please stop doing so; because your description of Zaborowski (which I have accessed and reviewed) does not have much relation with what that author is saying. R Prazeres (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Royal flag of the Mamluks

The Mamluk dynasty in Egypt seemed to use a plain yellow banner, similar to:File:Ayyubid Flag.png

https://warfare.6te.net/WRG/Crusades-65-Saracen_Standards.htm describes the Mamluk banner as 'of gold-embroidered yellow silk or damask.'

https://www.fahnenversand.de/fotw/flags/lb_mamlk.html 'According to [Nehmé 1995, "It consisted of a cloth embroidered with golden threads."'

https://dokumen.pub/history-and-society-during-the-mamluk-period-12501517-studies-of-the-annemarie-schimmel-institute-for-advanced-study-iii-1nbsped-9783737011501-9783847111504.html describes a great royal banner of gold-embroidered yellow silk.

https://fiav.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ICV22-40-Martykan-DrMichaelMeieckesContributionstotheResearchonMuslimVexillology.pdf , as accounted by Al-Qalqashandi, the mamluks used a big Yellow flag, as the royal banner. This flag is called al-isaba.

Red banners were also used, but the primary royal flag seems to be yellow or gold. This could replace the File:Flag of the Mameluke Sultanate.png and File:Flag of the Mamluk Sultanate (Alexandria).svg that primarily use the Catalan Atlas. DankMorocco (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is already a dedicated section about Mamluk heraldry in the article, and please also see my extended comment above. In short, there are no reports of a plain yellow flag or generally of anything like a standard Mamluk flag in reliable sources (please note that the first few links you listed are not reliable sources; the others sources don't add anything new to what is already described in the article). R Prazeres (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)