Talk:History of Islam in southern Italy

Balcanic Muslims in Sicily

Recently, many Muslims from war-stricken Bosnia and Kosovo have tried to illegally enter the Mediterranean country. This line, in the section "Muslims today", is poor and not relevant in my opinion. Balcan Muslims entered Italy mostly from Apulia and than directed northwards, not affecting Sicily that much. It is also to state which degree of Muslim religiosity can be appointed about Albanian and Kosovo Muslims.--Dans-eng 23:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Over stating

There was never a muslim conquest of simply "Southern Italy". Sicily? yes. Small parts of mainland Italy? yes... but Naples, which is considered the unofficial capital of Southern Italy has never had a muslin conquest (read; Duchy of Naples).. so to say "southern italy" in general is an over statement and untrue. - Soprani 23:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with that. "Southern Italy" is used here as a generic reference to a couple of lands which couldn't be defined more properly... would you prefer an article such as "History of Islam in Sicily, Calabria, southern Lazio, neighbourhood of Bari"?

--Attilios (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Soprani is right. This is a lousy title. If you want to be generic then just say Italy. Arabs invaded many regions of Italy including the North. I think there is a political motive here, that is to maintain this stereotype that Southern Italians are Arabs. 70.188.163.94 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And I oppose the merger recently suggested. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Muslim influence in Venice, which did much trade with the Orient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.221.111 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note on sourcing

The page, like most, could use improved referencing and it does have "citation needed" tags here and there, but unless there is very specific beef, it hardly needs a citations tag at top. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Hi, a new article, Arab-Norman civilization was created today by PHG (talk · contribs). What do the editors here think of this topic? Is it worth its own article, should it be renamed, or should it be merged elsewhere, such as here or to the Norman conquest of southern Italy article? Or somewhere else? Comments requested at Talk:Arab-Norman civilization, thanks. --Elonka 10:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Here is the diff that shows the dispute over the current wording of the intro. I will go over each point one at a time.

1. "Apulia and Calabria"

The problem is not so much "smallparts of" or "tips of", but "Apulia and Calabria", since there was a constant problem of semi-permanent camps and strongholds north of Calabria and west of Apulia, as in the famous one at Garigliano and lesser known ones like the one at Agropoli that supplied mercenaries to Docibilis I of Gaeta.

2. "a brief interlude"

This wording is just not needed, it sounds minimising and it is not our job to minimse the import of these events, just to report them. This is why I replaced it with the statement "Though the Muslim presence was ephemeral on the peninsula and limited mostly to semi-permanent camps or strongholds, their rule in Sicily lasted almost two centuries (902–1091)." This captures the facts about the mainland (ephemeral) and notes that Sicily was ruled compeltely from 902 (Taormina conquered) until the last vestige of Muslim rule disappeared (Noto). It lets the reader decide how important or not 200 years is. We could date the Muslim period from the first conquest to the first loss of territory, or from the final conquest to the final loss of territory (as I did), or from some other option, but I think I chose the fairest one: doesn't give either side credit until they finished the job. By the way, 965 is just the start of Kalbid rule.

3. "An area where the religion is particularly thin"

Not believable unless it can be cited that Islam is particularly thin in southern Italy as opposed to central or northern Italy or the islands. I captured the spirit with "The conquests of the Normans established Roman Catholicism firmly in the region, where Eastern Christianity had been prominent during the era of Islamic influence." Notice that the areas of Muslim dominance were largely Greek Christian and so the Normans brought Catholicism to prominence there.

4. Final sentence cited to Archaeology.Stanford.edu

Redundant considering my version. Also, "historics" is not English, Sicily isn't part of the Italian peninsula, and the dates 965-1072 seem arbitrary, since Muslims ruled all of Sicily from 902 until 1061, began their conquest in 827, and lost their last stronghold in 1091.

5. "Muslim control in terms of historics"

Meaningless in English. "Historics" is not good English and I don't know what it means for Muslim control to be short "in terms of" it.

For the above-cited reasons, I think my version is preferable. Srnec (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Srnec, you seem to be confusing pirates with legitamate forms of Muslim states. Brief pirate camps, where the lifeforms were not even established on a permanent basis, but an outcast force failing to take an area controlled by the Byzantines or Lombards, is not the same thing as something like an emirate, for example the Emirate of Sicily or the Emirate of Bari where the Muslims HAD conquored the area and installed briefly a government.

If ten people from Africa who are Muslims, get on a boat... come ashore on the coast of France and set up a camp for a couple of months before the government who controls the area finds them and kicks them out. That does not mean the south of France has had a period of "Saracen Muslim conquest" because of it. Yes I have accused you of "Islamophilia" before, because you're desperately trying to overreach the reality of history on the subject and that is the issue here.

2. "a brief interlude" is perfectly suitable and perfect wording. Compare the length of time the Romans, or the Bzyantines, or the Spanish controlled. Its a brief interlude in the history of Sicily as much as the Goths were and as much as the County of Sicily was before it became a full kingdom. Again, the only way you could have a problem with the sentence, if you were an Islamophile desperate to strike up a strong relationship between Muslims and Europe.

3. You must be joking. I don't suppose you've heard of "Christianity"? This is and has been historically one of the most strongly Christian places on earth. Perhaps you're confusing North with South. In the North of Italy there are a lot of athiests, but the South is and has been historically VERY strongly Christian and that forms an essential part of the culture. Have a look at the religious figures for the area to this day, its fair to say that Islam is historically and presently very thin, as are other religions. Even when compared with other Western European places.

4. Not redundant, because it shows the date in which the Muslims fully controlled the area. Again, Islamophilia and desire to "expand" the time frame on your part seems to be an issue here. The Muslims had not completed their conquest of Sicily in 902, that didn't happen until 965 when they were able to instate the emirate. Read the source.

5. Fine, if historics is not a good word to have, then I will change it to "in a historical context". Gennarous (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, thank you for participating.  :) For better results though, could I ask everyone to please concentrate strictly on discussing the article, and not the editors? I think the discussion will turn out to be much more productive that way.  :) --Elonka 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I deny having concentrated on anything but the article.

1. No, I dispute the use of "Apulia and Calabria", since there were (semi-)permanent settlements in the Campania and a lot of fighting took place there. Some of the "raids" were piratical, others were more organised, some were accomplished by ground forces not navies. Parts of southern France were indeed conquered, briefly, by the Muslims and Fraxinet in Provence was held for decades. You need to remember that the Muslims were not like the Vikings: they did not just overwinter, they intended to stay. Sometimes they stayed for a period to short to make a difference, other times they stayed for years or decades. It's not just Bari, it's the Garigliano, Agropoli, Cetara, Taranto, Otranto, Reggio Calabria, etc.
2. "Brief interlude" might be acceptable for the emirate of Bari or for a specific conquest, but it is not suitable for Sicily or for the whole of southern Italy, where Islamic occupations lasted (quite possibly) into the early 11th century, when the various chronicles of Bari record the activities of a certain "Ismael" in southern Apulia. I can stand the words "brief interlude", but not the way they are currently being used.
3. I was not joking: you have yet to show that it is particularly thin in southern Italy. I know it's very thin. I have visited southern Italy and never once met a Muslim. But is it thinner than in most of the world? And it really isn't relevant that it is thin there today, since the article is not about today. Also, as I pointed out, southern Italy was not predominantly "Roman Catholic" in the modern sense of the term, since it followed the several Greek rites in many places. It was aligned with Rome, but it was also Eastern (except in the Lombard areas). My version of the lead is more accurate and more balanced in this regard.
4. The Muslims fully controlled Sicily from 902 when they conquered Taormina. They lost all of it by 1091, when the Normans took Noto. 965 is an arbitrary date when the Kalbid emirate begins, but not the date of the conquest. 1072 is equally arbitrary, being the date of the surrender of Palermo. As I said, the first Muslim conquest took place in 827 and the last piece of Muslim territory was lost in 1091, the Muslims held the entire island from 902 until 1061.

Now, as you can see, I think we ought to revert to my version of the lead section, but I will not do so without support from other editors. I have notified the interested/involved User:Ian Spackman in this and am asking Elonka if she would like to weigh in after looking over the diffs and the arguments. Srnec (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm still finding the entire subject a bit complex. I would recommend that instead of going through multi-point arguments, to start with one single element, and to link to a couple sources which support one wording over another. --Elonka 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, can I ask why you involved yourself in this dispute?

First, I have listed several places that were not in Apulia or Calabria that were held by the Muslims. Their fortresses along the Garigliano stood, so far as I know, from 890 until 915. The Garigliano does not flow through Apulia and Calabria. For the sceptic there is this source available online and of the highest scholarship. Gennarous is arguing from hyperbole about "ten men in a boat" but he has not history to back it up.

My version of the intro is just more balanced. Gennarous seeks to minimise the importance of these events with words like "brief interlude", but what does brief mean? Muslim raids began in 652 and they continued to hold parts of Sicily until 1091. What's brief? Their control of Bari. Yes. Of Taranto? I suppose. Of Sicily? Not really. Of "small parts" of southern Italy? Not much less long than they held "parts" of Sicily. As for the dates, the link I gave above should give them just as I have stated them. None of this obscure.

As to the Roman Catholicism thing: the issue is that the regions the Muslis conquered were Eastern Christian regions, not Western. Sure Roman Catholicism was dominant in most of the south, but not in Sicily, Apulia, or Calabria, where Greek rites were typical, see Setton, "The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance" in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 100:1 (Feb. 24, 1956), pp. 1–76. I hope this helps, but you should also see what Gennarous has done at County of Sicily, Battle of Ostia, Emirate of Bari, History of Sicily, and Duchy of Gaeta: suppression of information (he won't allow Muslim pirates to be called Muslim), biased language ("annihilated" as a synonym for defeated), even removal of citations and sources (full-scale reversion at Emirate of Bari), and just plain ignorance (he won't read Barbary pirates). I have my suspicions about Gennarous motivations, but I will keep them to myself. If they are as obvious as I think they are, then you will see them yourself. And if you have any more specific questions about my claims or wish for some useful direction to sources, just ask. The Emirate of Bari article gives some useful primary sources (in Latin) and Kreutz' book can be viewed in snippets at GoogleBooks. Srnec (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This page landed on my watchlist for some reason (probably because of my source and title concerns at Arabo-Norman civilization). I saw an edit war in process, I stepped in. I am mildly familiar with the topic area but not substantially so. If I can help with a Third Opinion, and I am acceptable to both of you for that, I'll do some reading and try to come up to speed. Other than that, my main purpose here is just as an outside opinion on user conduct, not on article content. And I have no wish of saying, "One of you is worse than the other," I'm just giving general advice on how to help things move forward. --Elonka 04:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am more than mildly familiar (but far from expertly familiar) with this topic area, I have reasonable confidence that your third opinion will very closely resemble my initial opinion. :) I invite your third opinion. Besides Kreutz, Setton, and A History of the Crusades, Norwich provides an enjoyable narrative of the Norman conquest from its very beginnings, but beware his conjectures. I think the Cambrdige Medieval History may devote a whole chapter to the Arabs in southern Italy, form their initial raiding through their conquests. Patricia Skinner, The Duchy of Gaeta and its Neighbours, is good for the history of Gaeta, Amalfi, and Naples and their relationship with the Saracens. Norman Daniel has a broad account of The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe. There are older works on Sicily that cover this time period (Crawford), but I don't know about their reliability. Of course, there is also Musca's book, which I don't have access to. I can't think of any other works I know of/have looked at that bear directly on the history of Islam in southern Italy.

As an aside, if you are chiefly here to provide an outside opinion on user conduct, why would you refrain from "one of you is worse than the other"? Not, mind you, that I am asking for such an opinion, but what else can an opinion on user conduct amount to unless you believe we have acted identically? I would strongly object to that. I am a little irritated at being accused of using "crap" disparagingly of another editor when I did not. Outside input ought to be, I think, more careful than that. I have reverted or modified all edits that appear to me to be, in practical if not intentional terms, vandalism. An edit war that may be, but a just edit war. Srnec (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

'cause I'm trying to stay neutral. If I'm acceptable to Gennarous too though, then I'll try to weigh in with more opinionated stuff.  :) --Elonka 05:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot one obvious, important, and still very accurate source: Jules Gay's L'Italie méridionale et l'empire Byzantin. Srnec (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

1. see first reply. Non permanent pirate camps in countries actually controlled by powers such as Byzantines before they found out about them and kicked them out of their country, is not a "conquest" by any stretch of the imagination (and lets face it, you're really trying to stretch as far as possible). You basically did nothing to disprove the first reply and you're basically, ignorantly trying to compare a non permanent pirate camp to a legitamte government and actually Muslim controlled place.. like the 20 year Emirate of Bari.

2. Brief interlude is perfectly suitable for both Sicily and especially the entire southern Italian mainland. Again, I don't know what you have against southern Italy, but you're stretching very, very far. I suggest you read the history books about the southern Italian peninsula, especially controlling powers such as "Byzantines, Normans, Spanish, Aragonese". No "Muslim" apart from one or two isolated towns such as a 20 year spell in Bari. Look how long the Greeks controlles Sicily, look how long the Romans controlled Sicily, look how long the Byzantines controlled Sicily, look how long the Spanish controlled Sicily... the E of Sicily, is without question historically brief.

3. This article is about "the history of Islam in southern Italy", history doesn't end in 1200. See the previous reply to #3, the only thing you basically added in this reply is that you saw "no Muslims in southern Italy" when you visited. Which is hardly a surprise. Yet you continue to Islamise it in the article, despite the fact that it is historically Christian (previously Orthodox Christian) and around 1000 years is Roman Catholic.

4. Wrong. Read the dates in the source, from an actual scholar. They did not control all of Sicily until 965. The source from an actual scholar proves you wrong. Wikipedia works on what is vertified. The source vertifies information, "Srnec wants to Islamise southern Italy with misinformation" does not. With these replies, you actually addressed very little pertaining to the information in my original replies, certainly you could not dimiss them. - Gennarous (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The fortress(es) on the Garigliano held from 890–915, as long as the emirate of Bari. The Garigliano is in Campania. The Muslims were sometimes mere pirates, but always pirates with a purpose and that purpose was conquest: these weren't Vikings.
2. I have nothing against southern Italy and it is absurd to suggest I do. "Brief interlude" is a little too much (and therefore misleading), since we could ask whether or not the current state of Sicily is a "brief interlude", since it has lasted less long than either Saracen control of Sicily or Saracen incursions into the mainland, though I agree that individual conquests on the mainland were always "brief interludes". Again, Muslim raiding lasted from 652 until the 11th century and Lucera was a Muslim town until the 13th. Let's just use dates and avoid relative terms like "brief". The Norman kingdom lasted only 64 years!
3. But the way you phrased it (grammatically incorrect as it is) implies some relation between the Muslim conquest/rule and the thin-ness of the religion there.
4. I have cited a scholar for my dates (see above). I could cite more. Could you cite one? The website you linked doesn't work. Srnec (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The pirates failed in their purpose, if they had one, since 99.9% of the mainland was not made part of an Emirate, so we cannot treat the peninsula as if it was conqured. I've rename the bolded intro "Islamic conquest of Sicily and Bari" since those were the two places which was fully conquered so to be titled an "Emirate", the existence of pirate camps are mentioned in the same sentence though not in bold. So this should solve this.

Rometta was the last fortress of the Byzantines, not Taormina. Rometta did not fall until 965,[1][2][] and so that is when the muslims were able to put up this emirate on Sicily. They did not control all of Sicily before it. - Gennarous (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten about poor Rometta, though it is interesting that several sources I've checked do not mention it after Taormina fell in 902. (Norwish mentions it, though.) But "part of an Emirate" is not need for "conquest and rule" to be accurate. "Pirate camps" these were not, since they lasted for decades. And please stop using websites, instead source books, they're more trustworthy. And I can't get your stanford link to work. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to note on something. When you've insisted on the disputed bolded intro, setting the reader up to believe this article is about conquest and rule of this "thing". Then "Arabs in Campania" is a highly contentious header, since there is no such thing, historically or otherwise. Garigliano is not a city, its a river and it extends into the Papal States and Lazio, the Saracen pirates in the Battle of Garigliano had set their non-permanent pirate camp up at Minturno. This is in Lazio, central Italy (not southern, or Campania). - Gennarous (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern Lazio/Campania is irrelevant here, what we care about are the historical definitions used by historians. I have added quotation to the article that describes the camp on the Garigliano as a permanent settlement. What precisely is disputable about the intro? Srnec (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Srnec you're not listening. The section uses the word "Campania" and then describes a camp in Lazio (Minturno). Since "Campania" wasn't used during that period (rather there were numerous principalities, duchys, non of them called Campania) then it can only be in a modern context. If the book says Minturno (their camp) is in "Campania" then it is incorrect and not what the Italian government calls its region.[3][4] Lazio and Campania are not the same thing and its unreasonable to try and lumber Campania with this muslim soldier camp, when it was in an entirely different region. So I think the best solution for the title of that section heading is "Raids against Lazio and Campania".

Also there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this sentence "Throughout the ninth century the Arabs dominated the Tyrrhenian Sea (though not the land in the area next to it)." The Byzantines and unfortunetly the Lombards dominated the land via their duchys and principalties. no matter what muslims were doing in the water in their little boats, they didn't "dominante" the land in any understanding of the word, so its essential to make this blatantly clear. - Gennarous (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just raids. The Tyrhennian Sea does not refer to the land around it, but I've clarified the sentence. Modern Italian state definitions are irrelevant here: the area is commonly referred to in hisotrical works as "Campania" (a term that has existed since antiquity). Srnec (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

Folks, the edit-warring and related edit summaries on this article are embarrassing. Referring to each other with words like "vandalism" and "crap" and "trolling"?? I thought better of both of you. Can you please stop with the reverting, and just talk about what it is exactly that you want to do with this article? --Elonka 12:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The "crap" I removed was not added by Gennarous. It was a longstanding misconception based on 1000-year-old propaganda. I don't think I have been uncivil at all, though I did counter "Islamophilic" with "Islamophobic". But I have presented adequate reasons to justify everything and he has not responded. Srnec (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

I have absolutely no expertise and very, very little knowledge of the topics under discussion: this is an area of the encyclopedia where I am a reader rather than a writer. So the matter becomes very simple: Gennarous’s edits are designed to prevent me from learning anything about the presence of Muslims in the Southern Italy of the Middle Ages, while Srnec’s are designed to tell me something and to back that up with reasonable sources and decent English. When I look at the debate here, and the edit summaries in this article and those related to it, I see that Srnec shows no obvious signs of ignorance in the handling of sources, while Gennarous shows no obvious signs of intelligence in using them. I have read around the issue a little and see that the subject is of some importance—the Sicilian emirate, for instance, lasted a lot longer than Italian Fascism or Russian Stalinism. On the Five Points above it seems to me that any dispassionate observer—Elonka, for instance—could only pronounce a 5-0 victory for Srnec and an ‘annihilation’ for Gennarous. I move that the Srnec version of the lead be restored and that, in due course, the article be improved in various ways—Ian Spackman (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Latinization and Re-latinization of Sicily

Punic/Carthaginian (from the 11th century BC) and Greek (from the 8th century BC) colonies were established in Sicily. After the end of the First Punic War (242 BC), the victorious Romans drove Carthaginians out, so Greek and Latin remained the common languages of the island. As a Roman province, the use of Latin was more and more predominant. So, by the time of the Islamic conquest of Sicily (c. 980 AD), the island was almost completely latinized. When less than a century later Sicily was reconquered from the Arabs, its re-latinization was an easy, natural process. --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So, by the time of the Islamic conquest of Sicily (c. 980 AD), the island was almost completely latinized.

I do not agree with this. Though Sicily has been the first Roman province, Greek remained the predominant language on the Island through Roman times. And then, you seem to ignore the fact, that - since 535 AD - Sicily was part of the Byzantine Empire. Greek remained, in the eastern part of Sicily, the predominant language throughout the aghlabid and the fatimid period. It was the most used language for Sicilian chancery in Norman times too. --Iaitas (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Iaitas is right and Zack wrong, according epigraphic sources during the roman period latin was the language of the upper classes and greek of the lowers, some punic still survived in the western regions of the island. Amongst the lower middle classes a hybrid greek-latin language developed in the meantime. During the byzantine period apparently punic disappeared and for the arab period the only sources are in arab and greek. there is no proof about the survival of latin at least as a written language, there are simply theories. A recent one states a form of romance survived due to the italic pre-greek substratum in the sicilian tongues who later became sicilian romance starting with the normans. Greek became a negligible minority language only from 1400 and disappeared from the liturgical use of the basilian monks in practical terms in the year 1700 and officially from 1761Cunibertus (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of the inhabitants of the town of Castrogiovani

"All the Christian survivors from that fortress were executed, children and women sold as slaves at Palermo." - requires citation. Faro0485 (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Michele Amari, the main historian about muslim Sicily states for 859, according the chronicles, all the surviving defenders were executed and women and children sold in slavery. Abbas Ibn-Fadhl was notoriously a cruel man "A nessuno dei soldati cristiani fu risparmiata la vita. Figliuoli di principi, aggiunge la cronica, furono fatti prigionieri; così le donzelle patrizie con i loro gioielli; un bottino che era così tanto che non si poteva quasi contare. Abbás immediatamente fece costruire una moschea; fece innalzare una ringhiera; e vi salì il successivo venerdì, il "dì dell'unione", come lo chiamano i Musulmani, perché i loro teologi affermano che si sono uniti insieme gli elementi del mondo. Il feroce condottiero, fra i corpi della strage, il pianto delle vittime, le grida e gli eccessi dei vincitori, arringava i suoi attribuendo ad Alláh la vittoria di Castrogiovanni." http://cronologia.leonardo.it/storia/anno827a.htm http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/2007/09/rome-was-sacked-by-muslims-in-846-ad.html http://xoomer.virgilio.it/vergasms/comenius%202003/comenius%201/GLI_ARABI_IN_SICILIA_LA_STORIA.htm Cunibertus (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

I'm unclear about this sentence: The Byzantine exarch of Ravenna Olympius also came to Sicily but was unable to oust the invaders, who returned to Syria after collecting a large amount of booty. Who returned to Syria with the booty- The Arabs or the Byzantine? This is what I get for trying to copyedit a subject I know next to nothing about. Mxvxnyxvxn (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Title inaccurate

Liguria, Piedmont, Alps etc. are northern Italy. Latium is central Italy. I guess the page must be moved to "History of Islam in MEDIEVAL Italy" as in italian wiki --Jack McCormack (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence and section

The section "Independent emirate of Sicily (965–1091)" ended with the following incomplete and nonsensical sentence fragment (which didn't even end with a period):

• The operation was initially favourable to the Byzantine-Kalbids, but when the Byzantines returned to Calabria al-Akhal

I've removed this sentence; however, now the section ends with this sentence:

• Al-Akhal asked the Byzantines for support while his brother abu-Hafs, leader of the rebels, received troops from the Zirid Emir of Ifriqiya, al-Muizz ibn Badis, which were commanded by his son Abdallah.

So now the section still ends without any kind of closure. Ltwin (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Islam in southern Italy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Islam in southern Italy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kreutz":

• From Battle of Ostia: Barbara Kreutz (1996). Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 25–28.
• From Arab raid against Rome: Barbara Kreutz (1996). Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 25–28.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Islam in southern Italy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714131710/http://images.alwialatas.multiply.com/attachment/0/RcF%401goKCrAAAB-to8o1/Islam%20in%20Sicily.doc?nmid=18936909 to http://images.alwialatas.multiply.com/attachment/0/RcF%401goKCrAAAB-to8o1/Islam%20in%20Sicily.doc?nmid=18936909
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cliohres.net/books/3/Dalli.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.umd.umich.edu/univ/ur/press_releases/nov03/taylorbook_pr.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125004644/http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/albanian/Albchapt.htm to http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/albanian/Albchapt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Useless ref - Tyerman 2006, 55.

The article contains a reference "Tyerman 2006, 55." but no work by a Tyerman is defined. Presumably something by Christopher Tyerman. DuncanHill (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)