Talk:Almoravid dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article title - "Almoravides"?

So why is this article titled "Almoravides" instead of "Almoravid", or even "Almoravids"? Why not follow the examples of Umayyad and Almohad? What's the reasoning here? --Skoosh 02:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, why isn't it "al-Murabitun"? --Jfruh (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Source?

"Three years afterwards, under Yusef's son and successor, Ali ibn Yusuf, Madrid, Lisbon and Porto were added, and Spain was again invaded in 1119 and 1121, but the tide had turned; the French having assisted the Aragonese to recover Zaragoza."

I know that Almoravids took Lisbon, but I don't sure in the cases of Porto and Madrid, this is the first notice to me about a suppose almiravid conquest of both cities. Porto is a very northern city in Portugal, if it was taken all the country may be fall under muslim rule. Madrid (only a town in the Middle Ages) is north of Toledo, the de facto capital of the Crown of Castile; Toledo never fell to Muslim hands since the Castilian conquest of 1085. Why the almoravids could conquest Madrid with the strongest fortress of Toledo in their way?--Menah the Great 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Al moravid or Al morabitoon in arabic language means the faithful muslims who committed theirselves for Jihad against the eneimes of Islam . unsigned comment by 62.139.206.139

Do you have any source for that? -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of the map

The map displayed is totally innacurate. It shows Navarra and Aragon as a single political entity, which is wrong. And what is even more erroneous, it is shown as spreading over areas that have never been part of Navarra and Aragon. THis is, for instance, the case of Asturias, which is indeed the founding site of the kingdom of Leon and Castille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetustense (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Map is wrong

Valencia did not belong to Castille and Leon in 1054.S711 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, see this map: [1]--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur

Why is this sentence just dropped out of nowhere?

"The exact meaning of "Murabit" is a matter of controversy."--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a clarification. --Gribeco (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Flag?

What source is there for this flag, which is title "Flag of the Almohad Dynasty"? Srnec (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

name in arabic

I was expecting to find the arabic equivelent of the name 'Almoravid' but never did. I suggest someone adds it to keep up with Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.37.137 (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Arab or Berber

An anon changed the lead to say that the dynasty was not Berber, but Arab. I reverted it and added a {{fact}} tag, but the explination could probably go into the origins section, if anyone has something for it. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Its changed back again, looking at google books and google scholar makes me think that it should be Berber, I'm going to add a citation and revert back. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You should just put black as that is a clearer representation of what they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.89.86 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Origens Almoravides

There has been a lot of research into the origens of the Mourabiteen in the last 25 years. The main points of this article are not up to date. Encyclopedia Britannica from the fifies/or sixties is not a good soure.S710 14:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, Ch.-André Julien, Publié par Payot, 1966. P 77, the Almoravids come from the Adrar of Mauritania.--موريسكو (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Almoravid dynasty vs. Morocco

Acording to a lot of sources, legal sucessor of them was Banu Ghaniya.Bokpasa 21:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks to write an understandable sentence in English.

2nd, thanks to give us, not a source since I don't think that a source for such affirmation can exist, but a logic for your approach and an explanation for your (supposed, but inexistent) argumentation.

3rd, thanks to avoid editing articles without discussion, based only on your opinions.

You have been blocked and warned before for vandalism on articles related to Morocco [2] [3], and you're still acting the same way despite that. Please stop acting this way, you are deteriorating WP.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Name "murabit"

Further information: Murabit

This is quite a bad case of article deterioration. Back in 2007[4] we still had a meaningful explanation of the term. It was unreferenced, but added by a knowledgeable anon. This is where anonymous editing can be valuable, a reader with good background knowledge can insert a pointer to the proper explanation which can then be verified and referenced by more experienced editors.

"The exact meaning of "Murabit" is a matter of controversy. The name may be derived from the Arabic ribat (meaning tie or fortress (a term with which it shares the root r-b-t). This was the common opinion some time ago, however most historians now believe that it refers to ribat, meaning "tied to Horses" (ie ready for battle--Ribat also mentioned in Quran as refering to Jihad)"

The claim here is that the term ribat means either "tie" or "fortress", and that murabit means either "one who is tied" or "one who is garrisoned in a fortress". Verifying this is a matter of perusing a dictionary (Lane). Further, a specific etymology is suggested, a translation "tied" in a special sense of "tied to horses", i.e. "ready for battle". This is at least a meaningful proposal, even if it needs a reference. The observation in brackets suggests that this meaning of the term is already found in the Quran.

This would have been a good start, and all that would have been left is checking the standard reference works to come up with a verification. Instead, this explanation was mangled beyond recognition. This has happened May 2008. An editor gave the enlightening edit summary "c.f. jihad" and added two completely unconnected "references" in a footnote. The mere presence of these footnotes appear to have prevented anyone from considering this at all, even though had it stopped making any sort of coherent sense. It just remained untouched for more that two years.

It does not seem to have occurred to anyone to just consult Lane in all this time. Lane has (p. 1013) al-murabata as "two hostile parties' tying of their horses, each at their frontier, and each in preparation for the other". Lane cites also the relevant Quran verse, as "ch. iii., last verse", "persevere ye in fighting your enemy and in tying the horses [at the frontier]". The word murabit itself is discussed on p. 1014, "a thing with which a beast is tied".

The actual etymology of murabit is more likely "one who is tied, a vassal, bondman", but I would be very surprised if this more glorious jihad-related etymology had not been suggested by anyone as the origin of the dynasty's name.

--dab (𒁳) 11:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Template

I consider that the template {{History of Morocco}} has no place on this article.

The following section comes from the Talk Page of Omar-Toons [5] and has been splitted to suit each article (Almoravid dynasty and Almohad Caliphate:

---

Omar-Toons, I started a real work on the dynasties before and after the Almoravids [6], why have you done this: [7], without any respect for the time I spent to organise the articles. I waited for an answer to my post on the Talk Pages [8], but you did not discuss. Whould you finally decide to discuss or cotinue your edit-wars ?--Morisco (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

As you can easily understand, en.WP doesn't work the same way than fr.WP, then what was decided there isn't applicable here.

A "real work"? Seriously, do you consider that a "real work"? You just removed a template and added an extensive succession list, which may be not precise, since it consider that the territory of each dynasty was divided at the time of its falling, but the reality is that each dynasty lost, at the end of its power, its territories the one after the other, and kept control over a little territory (which is located in Morocco), before getting power overtaken by its successor starting form the same territory (Morocco). The paragraphs "History" of each dynasty's page as well as the page "History of Morocco" explains everything.

Which kind of "answer" are you expecting on the discussions? Seriously, did you wrote any question? Did you ask for a discussion? You just shared your point of view with us. You just said that you think that this template has no place on the article. No questions, no arguments. And how do you think people can read/find a question that you wrote somewhere in the middle of the discussion page [9]?

The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's (including English and French ones), all include the Almohads and the Almoravids, but you don't agree with that, in my opinion, since it doesn't match your POV!

Just to answer to a few questions:

- Where were located the "centers of power" (capital) of this dynasty? In Morocco.

- From where did they start the conquest of other territories? From Morocco.

- Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Morocco.

- How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? By taking their places in Morocco (That also explains the succession tab on the infobox).

- They were originated from somewhere else? Then the US are no longer the same than before since the president is partially originated from somewhere else? Come on! Most European monarchies are ruled by dynasties that aren't of "local descent". Is that a reason to consider that the Bourbon dynasty isn't Spanish? Bonaparte conquered the Dutch, is that a reason to consider it as a European leader, and not a French one? The answer is NO. By the same way, the Almoravid dynastiy is Moroccan, and I don't see any reason to consider them otherwise.

I just gave you some examples. If you don't agree, try to convince the user who made these templates to remove the two dynasties, as well as the wikipedians who wrote these two articles, since including this template (along with the "History of Al-Andalus" one, but I don't understand why this one was removed) was accepted (then became a consensus between the users, since no one removed it or discussed its removing, and since the users who (tried to) discuss it weren't contributors) for more than 2 years.

I don't really care about the nationalistic feelings. WP is a collaborative Encyclopedia, not a forum to explain nationalistic feelings and to modify articles because of them.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Continuation of the discussion

Omar-Toons, we are not going to do like if we do not know each other, we have already discussed about this template in the french Wikipedia (See the discussion), and the descision was the template has no place on the article.

Since en.WP and fr.WP are independent of one anotherand, I start again the discussion we have had on the fr.WP and answer to your arguments:

• I consider a real work, adding the previous and following dynasties properly because it is not easy, I have already done it on the french WP. If your problem was the "Template", you could set back only the template, without removing what I have done.
• The "History of Morocco" template is available on many WP's, only means that someone has created the templates, on the french WP the template is not allowed to be used on the Almoravid dynasty (verify), and I will propose it to suppression.
• The Almoravids came from the Adrar of Mauritania and conquered what we call now Morocco (Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, Ch.-André Julien, Publié par Payot, 1966. P 77), they founded their capital (Marrakesh in Morocco) during their conquest northward, they did not conquer Morocco, then western Algeria and after al-Andalus ; they conquered some parts of Algeria before other parts of Morocco. And talking about Morocco and Algeria is an anachronism.
• From where did they start the conquest of other territories? Not from Morocco, from Mauritania, and as I said, some parts of Morocco have been conquered after Algeria and from Algeria.
• Which was the last territory that they controlled while they were collapsing? Their capital (Marrakech)
• How came to power the dynasties who reigned after? Not by taking their places in Morocco as you said, that was true only for the Almohads after the Almoravids (and that not explains the succession tab on the infobox).
• They were originated from somewhere else? The answer is "Anachronism", your examples are not suitable in our case.
• Last point, I do not understand why you talk about nationalistic feelings, this has nothing to do with an encyclopedia.

See if other Wikipedians join our discussion--Morisco (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For the last time: What was decided on Fr.WP isn't applicable here.

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is why I launched the discussion again here.--Morisco (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This map gives the area from which the Almooravids started their conquests. The source is given on it.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Acording to this map Almoravids are not from Morocco, the are from the south of Algeria and the north of Mauritania. And according to Banu Ghaniya legal sucessor of Almoravids was they, not AlmohadsBokpasa 00:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sijilmassa (the are from where they started their conquests) is located in Morocco.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They did not start their conquest from Sijilmassa. And a map is not source.--Morisco (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

But the book (which is cited on the map) is.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be serious, saying that the conquest started from Sijilmassa is simply not true. Bring books mentioning that if you want the information to be credible.--Morisco (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

p.35 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Also, please avoid editing consensual articles without discussion and before getting a new consensus.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I said please be serious, you are not serious:

p.35<---« En peu de temps cette confédération connue sous le nom d'Almoravide (un nom dont l'origine est incertaine), s'empare des villes d'Awlil, d'Awdagust, et surtout Sijilimassa » Traduction: « In a short time the confederation known as the Almoravids (a name whose origin is uncertain), seized the towns of Awlil, of Awdagust, and especially Sijilimassa »

[15]<---Touristim website, not credible. Anyway, when you click on Sijilmassa, you have this map, and it show that the Almoravids started their conquest from Mauritania.

[16]<---I'm not blind, the arrow starts from Mauritania.

[17]<---Same as above

[18]<---Nothing that says that the conquest started from Sijilimassa.

You are loosing my time, and you have to know that consensually does not mean unanimously.--Morisco (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean "wasting" your time, perhaps? Did you mean that you consider discussions as a waste of time? That is understandable regarding the changes you are making without discussing and without seeking for consensus.

Please understand that the fact that you are the only one who doesn't agree on a version that remained stable and consensual for more than 2 years doesn't allow you to make major changes/editions without discussion and seeking for a new consensus.

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's it, thank you, I feel like watsting my time. What you call major changes, represents an improvement of the article.--Morisco (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

While I suppose this goes to history of a nation as history of the people who would become the nation vs. history of the area that would become the nation, both of which I think are fair and indeed valuable as sources of interesting narrative weaves and analysis, if you take the latter perspective, the fact that this dynasty ruled Morocco for a long period of time makes it part of Morocco's history. In fact if you look at the template you have the Roman Empire there, and thus the claim made by the template is that this topic was important to the shaping of the land and/or people, not any organic belonging to an ancestral continuum. That said, it's also part of Mauritania's history, sure. There's no reason for history to be exclusive. Moreover, the borders of this political entity are pretty fluid (you could say well, look where it ended or look where it started, well there are plenty cases of political entities whose main impact was not where they started (look at the Fatamids) or where they ended up (look at the Knights Hospitaller). Jztinfinity (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV : Arab-Berber self glorification

Not only is this article poorly sourced, but it is predominantly written from Arabized-Berbers chronicles whose accounts are shrouded in legend, contradictory and all about self glorification. See Ronald A. Messier. The Almoravids and the meaningsd of jihad. And what is this thing about subjugated tribes? Who was subjugated (be more specific) in order to help the general reader? Why doesn't this article also specify how, why and where exactly Abu Bakr died with reliable sources? Who killed him? Where was he killed exactly and and why was he killed? Not sources based on Arabized-Berber legend the intent of which is to matyr Abu Bakr and make him a hero but from reliable sources and sources from the people who actually killed him and why they killed him? I suggest you start in Senegal where he died fighting against the Serer people whom Arabized-Berber sources refer to as the "Black Pagans". And who is this "old Black bowman"? See Messier p86. Tamsier (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Article needs more citations, I agree with that. But we cannot base the article on anything but the various Moorish chronicles (mainly Merinid-era historians like Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Abi Zar, Ibn Idhari and similar others). Outside of these type of writers -whom you seem to refer to as Arabized-Berbers- there is no written account of the dynasty whatsoever; if you reject those sources even the existence of the Dynasty cannot be established. Tachfin (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Here you will find a comprehensive list of the primary sources used by Historians to write about the Almoravids. Outside of this, I doubt that there are any others. Tachfin (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added the killing of Abu Bakr, it is clear that it should be properly placed in this article. Regarding bias. I hope we now all realize that any type of bias (by anyone for any reason) is offensive to someone else. You can realize this when it happens to you. Arab glorification or Serer glorification is the same thing. Unfortunately for the Serer (due to numbers) in a propaganda war on wiki they will lose. So Then lets make sure no bias is anywhere on wikipedia.

Thanks for the link Tachfin for primary sources. I also support what you are saying , it is something i think Tamsier is not realizing. The references he is using are modern "opinions" (and this is critical). Klein et al, were not alive to see this history. THUS the people he takes issue with (Arabs and Muslim Africans) are the very people that wrote the history of the Serer people. The entire history of the region is from Muslims. And a few Serer oral sources which are half-myth and ethnic boasting. All these guys are doing is given opinion to primary Arab And Islamic African as well as early European writings and doing a whole heap of "recreation" where blanks are missing. They can do this because it cannot be proven or disproved.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks to both of you, I've now been able to find out abut some amazing stuff in al-Bakri's writings.

However, if Tamsier thinks that some material is missing he should not assume that editors are hiding/censoring it, we just don't know about it and this is understandable since the story of the Almoravids happened mainly in Morocco and Iberia, relations to sub-Saharan populations are merely a small parenthesis and notable historians -like Ibn Khaldun source of much material- make only trivial mentions of it. The lack of what you would like to read in the article does not constitute a POV, be bold and add it while avoiding to fall in WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. And frankly I fail to see how the articles is biased towards Arab-Berbers, it's quite the other way around; any potential bias is likely to be in the section about al-Andalus since some Spanish historians/editors like to down-play Muslim victories and over-state Christian successes, I take as an example this sentence: Ali ibn Yusuf was a pious non-entity, who fasted and prayed while his empire fell to pieces (as if it were that easy to beat them)

Tamsier, is there a specific tone issue, challengeable POV-material that I can't see? Tachfin (talk) 09:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

re: Al Bakri. Share the amazing stuff, because I heard most of his writing are missing/lost destroyed. Sometimes we look into history to create a new reality. But no volume of wanting can do that. All we know is based on these sources. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do but on the Almoravid dynasty, although he was a contemporary (book written in 1068 C.E.), he doesn't say much other than what is widely known. I'm still doubtful of Abu Bakr's killing circumstances; how do they know it was with the Serer and not others? Even if that was the case I don't think that the Serer king (or Kings) personally killed him as the current version of the article implies.

That being said I don't think there are legitimate grounds for that POV tag, we've explained that the only sources that wrote this history are Moorish, Western historians base their work on those sources and not anything else. Tachfin (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• @ Halaqah - Keep your opinions about the Serers to yourself and edit the article. If you are talking about ethnic boasting, I suggest you look at the writings of the Arabs. Since you appear not to have read them, keep your opinions about a group of people to yourself.

@ Tachfin - What you have expressed here are nothing but mere opinions. We go by sources here. If you have sources that substantiate your claim, please do bring them here. Just in case you didn't know, the Almoravids had a southern wing. The movement did not just occur in North Africa and southern Europe e.g Spain. (see John Ralph Willis. Studies in West African Islamic history: The Cultivators of Islam, p101. Routledge, 1979). In fact, most of the accounts of "the European" writers came from Arab sources so I suggest you take it out with them if you have an issue with that. I also suggest you look at the writings of early Europeans like Alvise Cadamosto ( see Robert Kerr. A general history of voyages and travels to the end of the 18th century. Published by: J. Ballantyne & Co. 1811). The Almoravids were not invincible. It would be rather arrogant to assume that a black African tribe like the Serer people would be unable to hault their advance and killed one of their leaders (i.e Abu-Bakr Ibn-Umar). The arabs may not give you the whole list of African tribes, for them, the are just Black tribes period. But that movement affected the history of the Serer people especially the Serers of Takrur. Since it directly affect them, they are not your typical Black tribe.

My advise is to fix the POV issues which is practically everywhere in this article and not merely references to Abu Bakr. This article is also written like an essay and does not provide sufficient sources. Tamsier (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

'In fact, most of the accounts of "the European" writers came from Arab sources so I ' Not most, all of them. First you complain about the Arab sources and now you're realizing that history has been written by them? You're engaging in rabid ethnocentrism and not making sens. Tachfin (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted to Tachfin version per WP:POINT the editor is known for this vindictive editing they redirected Arab slave trade to Islamic slave trade to make a point.[19] and [20] and [21] And all kinds of edits. If it continues I will be forced to file another complaint against them. He has been warned against ethnocentrism before, not by one editor, but by many.The principle issue is we are all here (regardless of our differences) to make wikipedia better. taking this tone and approach is a disservice to that mission. Difference should make wiki richer and stronger, but it requires a certain level of civilized contribution and adherence to the rules. The case for the tags has failed. It is also ridiculously unlikely that the Serer king personally killed him, I mean that is just fantasy. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to engage in tit-for-tat but I would like to ask Halaqah some questions. Whatever answers you give I will abide by. Forgetting your opinions about me for a minute, having read this article from start to finish, do you honestly believe there is no POV, no essay style and no unsourced content (serious ones) in this article whatsoever? If your answer to all three is no, then I will stand by your removal of the templates I placed on the article.

Tamsier (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored some tags as I have to admit it is definitely A Story like and I hate to read stories on wikipedia. I am not going to say something is a story on Serer and then come here and be dishonest and say it is okay. the tone is not appropriate. I think editors will find greater audience for their issues when they calm down and assume good faith and make good points without the insults. I disagree with the NPOV but as long as something is essay like I believe it will also be NPOV.

Can you please give some examples? --Tachfin (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kerr? What? Cadamosto does not mention the Almoravids. I should know - I wrote the Wiki article on Alvise Cadamosto, basing myself on a meticulous line-by-line reading of the original Italian text and three translations (Portuguese, French and English), with supplementary material from other writers. (The statements you're so fond of citing about him elsewhere are in fact my wording, not Kerr's.) Don't wave empty references. Fact is, there are no reliable sources for the identification of the circumstances of Abu Bakr's death. To march in here and start accusing others of bias and conspiracy because they don't conform to your baseless speculations is a hoot. Walrasiad (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

i suggest the tone be fixed and if the tag is not valid (i vote to remove the NPOV tag) then lets do that. clearly accusing people doesn't not help win points. And yes we will need examples if NPOV is a ligit issue.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Right, since Halaqah has put back all the 3 templates, we can all agree there are some issues. I think these issues can be fixed and sorry to Tachfin if you felt that I came on too strong.

Tamsier (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't "all agree". You were asked for examples. Please provide them, or those templates are coming off. Walrasiad (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly please note I only put them back b/c some editor (dont know why) reverted me and I noticed "essay style" so as the above user said unless it is proven they have to go. And if the NPOV vio is only in one section then identify that section.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• @ Walrasiad - There is one thing you have to know about me. I do not respond to threats favourably.

It would appear that Walrasiad is now the only one who cannot see the problems in this article eventhough they are "major contributors to the Almoravid dynasty article" to use Tachfin words when he invited you to come here and help solve some issues.[22]

Not only is this article essay styled, it also lacks inline citations and has POV issues. Since you cannot see the problems, I have taken the liberty to go through the entire article, find below the full article and some of my comments in bold. For the purposes of transperency, the following problems are based on the original issues before Halaqah's rework on the article [23]:

The Almoravids (Berber: Imṛabḍen, Arabic: Al-Murābiṭūn) were a Berber dynasty of Morocco, who lived between the current Senegal and southern Morocco.

It is affiliated to the Berber tribes of Sanhaja and Lamtuna. From the eleventh century to the twelfth century, their empire was extended over present-day Morocco, Mauritania, southern Spain and Portugal, western present-day Algeria and a part of what is now Mali (No source). At its greatest extent, the empire stretched 3,000 kilometres north to south (No source). Almoravids built the city of Marrakesh and made it their capital city which became then one of the most influential centers of power in Africa and the Mediterranean region (No source).

References

removed this

I removed this, I think it belongs in his bio not in origins. Ibn Yasin imposed a penitential scourging on all converts as a purification, and enforced a regular system of discipline for every breach of the law, including the chiefs themselves. Under such directions. Their first military leader, Yahya ibn Ibrahim, gave them a good military organization. Their main force was infantry, armed with javelins in the front ranks and pikes behind, which formed into a phalanx; it was supported by camelmen and horsemen on the flanks. If you disagree make the appropriate changes.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ for your work. I will be slowly working on improving the article. Also thanks to Walrasiad, who I know is one of the most knowledgeable editors in this field and is welcome to correct if any mistakes are made. Tachfin (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert by any means, but i like the change made. It makes more sence in the bio section.Millertime246 (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Serer King Ama Gôdô Maat Dubious

This issue is still unresolved many editors have made comments and indicated it is at best dubious. Someone who knows the topic has said it is false. See above remarks. It is time to discuss its inclusion in a serious matter. I have just revert (in good faith) a book load of reference text which is not in keeping with wikipedia reference style, not to mention due weight. My personal opinion without evidence is that No Serer king killed anyone. esp personally. I have never seen it in any book on Islam and Africa. And i just find that in itself very strange. Just because a book says something is not automatic grounds for inclusion. I also have issue with when i see a pattern of editing supporting one narrow perspective. Just having a so-called R.S doesnt grant auto inclusion. Other editors have expressed issues with it. - for good reason. As mentioned before we can google things and what worries me is the majority of google returns come back to the edits done here. Also limit the discussion to this topic and not tangent issues (per above comment), nobody will read all of that.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• You could have still left the more proper tone with sources and the dubious tag. In fact, I did not remove the dubious tag you placed there originally. The dubious tag you placed there was still there after my edits so I am somewhat baffled by your recent edit. My recent edit here [24] with sources is perhaps more encylopedic. Original and translation text was entered per Wiki. The Almoravids did have a southern wing per previously stated (even the article made reference to that with Ghana Empire, Senegal River, Mauritania, etc) with source and it was not all about North Africa and Southern Europe e.g. Spain etc, which most of this article seem to focus on. Haven't you heard of the Kingom of Tekrur? Where is Tekrur? What about War Jabi? I think it may be useful to research on these in order to get some information. I am suprised that there is no mention of the Kingdom of Tekrur in this article considering the fact that, it provided forces to the Almoravid movement and was among the first per sources to adopt Islam in West Africa as well as hosting Almoravid leaders like Yayah Ibrahim etc. See Willie F. Page, Encyclopedia of African history and culture: African kingdoms (500 to 1500), p209, p676. Volume 2. Published by: Facts on File. 2001. ISBN 0816044724. Not every body knows everything. I'm suprised that you do not consider the death of Abu Bakr, how, where and why he died important enough to warrant mention. Or Gravrand and other authors credible enough who are expert in their field with their books peer reviewed. Indeed the death of Abu Bakr was merely few lines in the body of the article itself. It was only in the note section which details the sources. I think you should read on the subject yourself including the sources provided (also including the original Arab sources).

As stated, I will not be edit warring over this. I'm out. Tamsier (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline

Three years afterwards (Very story like. This is a new section), under Yusuf's son and successor, Ali ibn Yusuf, Sintra and Santarém were added, and Iberia was again invaded in 1119 and 1121 (No source), but the tide had turned, the French having assisted the Aragonese to recover Zaragoza (No source). In 1138, Ali ibn Yusuf was defeated by Alfonso VII of León (No source), and in the Battle of Ourique (1139), by Afonso I of Portugal, who thereby won his crown (No source). Lisbon was recovered by the Portuguese in 1147 (No source).

According to some scholars Ali ibn Yusuf was a new generation of leadership that had forgot the desert life for the comforts of the city. Under the combined action of his Christian foes in Iberia and the agitation of Almohads (the Muwahhids) in Morocco (Incomplete sentence. Does not make sense). After Ali ibn Yusuf's death in 1143, his son Tashfin ibn Ali lost ground rapidly before the Almohads (No source), and in 1146 he was killed by a fall from a precipice while attempting to escape after a defeat near Oran (No source).

His two successors were Ibrahim ibn Tashfin and Is'haq ibn Ali, but their reigns were short (No source). The conquest of the city of Marrakech by the Almohads in 1147 marked the fall of the dynasty, though fragments of the Almoravids (the Banu Ghaniya), continued to struggle in the Balearic Islands, and finally in Tunisia (No source).

Interestingly (Very editorial), family names such as Morabito, Murabito and Mirabito are common in western Sicily, the Aeolian Islands and southern Calabria in Italy. These names may have appeared in this region as early as the eleventh century, when Robert Guiscard and the Normans conquered the Muslim emirate of Sicily (No source). In addition to southern Italy, there are also sizable populations of Mourabit (also spelled Morabit, Murabit or Morabet) in modern-day Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Mauritania (No source).

Hope that helps.

References

@ Halaqah - Without being picky, I think the editor you are referring to is Denisarona who undid your edit and reverted it to my edit [25].

When I added the essay template to the two templates I already placed on this article here [26], you removed them all from the article (see last link) and said:

"Do not disrupt wiki per WP:POINT." Again, Denisarona reverted you here [27] and you removed the templates again and told them to:

"use talk page as we have discussed this issue already."

I asked you on this talk page (see above):

"Forgetting your opinions about me for a minute, having read this article from start to finish, do you honestly believe there is no POV, no essay style and no unsourced content (serious ones) in this article whatsoever? If your answer to all three is no, then I will stand by your removal of the templates I placed on the article."

Being a thorough editor from experience, it is reasonable for me to assume that even if you have not read the whole article, you would have read most of it which cause you to remove the templates I placed on the article in the first place and deemed them unjustifiable. So when I asked you the above questions, and you suddenly put back all of them and not merely the essay style template here [28], justifiable, anyone will reasonably assume you have gone through the whole article (even if you did not previously) and saw the problems I highlighted hence the reason you put them back. If you only took issue with the essay style template, why did you not just put back the essay template and not the other two, and then state your reasons here? All of a sudden you seem to be taking Walrasiad's lead and your actions and words are contradictory. Now either you read the article or you did not and followed what others are saying without evaluating the facts for yourself. That is for you to decide. Tamsier (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your case in not proven. I don't see where it is "essay styled". Essay styled means articulating a thesis. Maybe I'm missing something, but what is this "thesis"? The article seems pretty much like a boring list of factual statements, i.e. pretty conventional encyclopedia fare.

Lack of inline citations is a problem - although most of the stuff you painstakingly note are linked to more detailed wiki articles where plenty of citations can be found. e.g. there doesn't need to be a "source" stating the Battle of Sagrajas happened in 1086. Click on the link, and you'll go to the "Battle of Sagrajas" page where there are plenty of details & references.

"POV" label is not automatic for any adjective. It is an issue for contentious points, i.e. where there are alternative POVs that dispute the point. e.g. that the Almoravids "inflicted a severe defeat" on the Christians at Sagrajas is not POV - there is no "alternative" view of Sagrajas in the literature that I know of, no sane person has ever characterized Sagrajas as anything but a "severe defeat". You have littered POV tags willy-nilly on points of fact where there is no disagreement.

There are a few points which are could be legitimately POV-challenged and the tone rectified (e.g. the "mass of support" in al-Andalus), but these are relatively few and far-between and easy to find support or correct. Nonetheless, you have supplied no example of your own in contention to any of the allegations, other than loose editorial comments without substance. I was kind of hoping you would actually point out alternative theories for POV assertions, not simply say "it sounds like boasting".

In short, you have identified no egregious problems. It is on the whole factually correct - it does not deviate much from pretty much with every known scholarly account of the Almoravids I have come across, it tempers the contentious assertions when needed (e.g. the sack of Ghana) and contains no claims out of the ordinary. Can the article be improved? Certainly. All articles can. It does not deserve the tags you placed on it.

Only one fact stands out as pure outlandish fabrication: the assertion that Abu Bakr was killed by a named Serer king. I have never come across this assertion in any reliable source. That I can contest and can propose alternative theories. Walrasiad (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Walrasiad explained it better than anybody can, POV is when there is an alternative view. A mere objection to the use of certain words, which BTW you find in various historical accounts from reliable sources, cannot be POV. The article is generally decent with no outlandish claims a part from the part about the Serer King killing Abu Bakr. As to the "Essay style", see the above, the article is not trying to prove something, it just lists various facts as reported by sources in a chronological order. We can add some additional inline citation, but if one assumes bad faith it will still be challenged. Tachfin (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, now you guys should just remove the Serer king killing cuz I also am suspicious of it. Because I am not sure how he died, i think somoene with that info should deal with this dubious claim. I have also removed the POV tags, and relocated the essay tone to the problem areas. Some sections do need references and we should deal with that ASAP. As soon as the tone is fixed the tag will go also.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• @ Walrasiad – I was going to respond to you in length but since Haqah has made some changes to the article (see diffs below), I would not waste my time with a lengthy response but will make it as short as I can.

As a contributor to this article, you are partly responsible for the poor quality in it. It would have been far more fruitful had you gone and rectify your poor input or that of others on this article than trying to argue with me especially when I have highlighted some of the flaws in this article. Some of the “stuff” that you speak of have three or four different links in the same sentence. Even if there are plenty of citations to the relevant links, it would imply that you are relying on the reliability of those sources without examining them for yourself. Since you have co-edited this article, it is your responsible to double check sources and use inline citations to substantiate such "claims". By your logic, anyone can write any old rubbish without sources and as long as there are some “links”, great, who needs sources. Are you for real? Is this a new Wiki policy? May be I’ve missed it. You call the account provided relating to the death of Abu Bakr a fabrication when in fact, it is the only part of this entire garbage you call an article that actually provided three different reliable sources to which I shall add to. As for the poor quality work in this article, I suggest you open your eyes to the problems rather than trying to treat it as you little pet.

• @ Haqah - I must admit I am somewhat baffled by your edits. Too many contradictions. I am also surprised by your recent edit regarding the killing of Abu Bakr to which you tagged dubious here: [29] even though it's sourced. Yet, in other parts of the article, (un-sourced ones for that matter) you tagged “fact” i.e. citation needed as in here [30] and here [31]. Whilst one merely needs to cite sources for the latter, you doubt the factual accuracy of the former even though it is sourced and you were the one who originally put it in [32]. To be fair, I knew you did that in good faith when you copied my edit and pasted them in this article not just to bring balance, but you recognized it was central to this article going by your edit summary. The tone I admit is not appropriate and I shall change it later with additional reliable sources. I take full responsibility for the tone in that section because you merely copied what I have written in the Serer article. I will not remove the dubious tag you placed in that section but will leave it as it is after my edit and allow the reader to make up their own mind. I am however surprised and somewhat confused by your edit summary when you said:

“Per talk page, I suspect (as other have also) that this is not historical maybe the sources are reporting Serer mythology or folklore, per talk page I have marked it dubious claim - it does add up)” [33]

This is Serer history in both the Serer tradition and reported by scholars some of whom are cited in the article as well as Gravrand one of whose quotes I’ve previously interpreted for you (Henry Gravrand, Page 13, La civilisation Sereer Pangool. 1990). By your edit summary, you seem to be indicating that, just because the scholars have written the oral history of the Serers, it must be factually dubious and nothing more than mythology and folklore. Therefore, oral history should not be considered but merely treated as folklore or mythology. Yes, written history is pivotal, Africans also have a very rich oral tradition and their accounts merits to be given weight especially when it relates to their history to which you even supported here: [34]. By your edit summary, it would appear that you have dismissed the oral tradition as nothing more than mythology, folklore and not history even when authored by scholars. Considering the fact that the Arab sources cited do contradict each on some key issues and shrouded in legend (See: John Ralph Willis. Studies in West African Islamic history: The Cultivators of Islam p-p 103-104. Routledge, 1979. ISBN 0714617377; Richard Brent Turner. Islam in the African-American experience p-p 16-17; see also Messier and Gravrand), oral history has also been proven to fill in the gaps of the written ones and provide the meat on the bone especially when backed up by archaeological evidence (see: Charles BECKER. Vestiges historiques, trémoins matériels du passé clans les pays Sereer). Just because something is written does not make it accurate. Just because something is written does not make it complete ( Andrew Reid and Paul J. Lane. African historical archaeologies, p168. Springer (2004)). You dismissed the oral sources cited from historians on the grounds that their means of transmission was oral and are therefore factually dubious. Yet the Arab sources are accepted merely on the ground that they were written. History teaches us that not everything written is factual. Have you not thought of the fact that, the people writing it may also slant it towards their favour or exaggerate claims? (See: J. F. P. Hopkins, Nehemia Levtzion. Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history, p-p247-8). What one source can tell us the other may not be able to. According to the Arab chronicles cited by scholars like Messier etc, he is reported to have died from a poisoned arrow waging jihad against the Black pagans/ unbelivers? (Ronald A. Messier. p86. “The Almoravids and the meanings of jihad” also J. F. P. Hopkins, Nehemia Levtzion. Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African history, p-p247-8. Markus Wiener Publishers (2000)) which Serer sources cited also state but gave more information because the wars directed affected them and their history.

So Animist sources not important (per statement above), oral tradition also not important even if they come from verifiable sources etc.

Since you have made the changes you believe to be right, lets just hope everyone is now happy. I’m content and will re-edit the Serer reference but will not be making edit warring over it. I'm done. Tamsier (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Tamsier, Just a couple of points:

(1) To be clear: I haven't contributed to this article. (well, yesterday I put in the bee-yoo-tiful picture of Abu Bakr, but I haven't contributed to it otherwise).

(2) References are good. But the magic of the internet is the hyperlink, i.e. references are one click away.  ;) Could it be improved? Certainly. I am not proposing to give this "Featured Article" status. I just don't think it warrants the tags you gave it. Walrasiad (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

References needed for two sections

Lets get someone who knows the topic to add references to the tagged sections so we can lose the tags. Thanks--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Why remove the red links? Sure it isn't pretty, but once those other pages are created, the links will be automatically made, without having to comb through the text again. Walrasiad (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

4 1 is not policy to create redlinks, hence why they are red. Another issue is after the article is created put them, these things can be red for how long? years before an article is created?. another issue is some of these red links are empty because not ever person, topic or place meets wiki standard for having its own article. Quality control means we do not want useless non-notable articles all over the place. I think we have enough poorly written one-editor stubs on wiki already. Yes and it looks like the article is D-class. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I like redlinks better than no links. At least when I come across a red link, I am aware of what's missing, and might be inspired to complete it myself. If there's nothing, I'll likely just overlook it. As for how long before it is created, meh. Wiki ain't going anywhere soon, is it? Walrasiad (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we both might be correct after reading. the key issue is "how long they stay red", personally i hate the things. WP:RED--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

So you won't blow a gasket if I re-insert the redlinks for the Sanhaja tribes? I mean, I can't promise you when someone will get around to writing the history of the Gazzula, Lamta, Massufa, Banu Warith and Gudala. But they do have a history. And come up in other articles besides this one. It will be done at some point. And Tinbarutan ibn Usfayshar is also likely be done at some point. Walrasiad (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to complain but WP:RED supports you doing this so i cant say nothing.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Conquests - Date Problem

I am a little disatisfied by the body of text about the conquests. So I began compiling my notes today to sketch out an outline of the conquest process in a little more detail.

The sequence of the Sahara campaign (Awdaghost & Sijilmassa) and the southern Morocco campaign (Sous, Aghmat) are straightforward enough and easy to follow. But I hit a huge dating problem after the conquest of the Berghwata in 1060, for the sources begin to differ wildly.

Seems like there are two schools of thought on how it goes from here.

• one school claims that Marrakesh was built c.1060, that Abu Bakr-Yusuf split occured around 1061, and that Yusuf's campaign against Fez was conducted in the mid-late 1060s, that Abu Bakr came back in c.1070 or thereabouts.
• Another school has the sixties decade unaccounted for. It claims that Marrakesh was only built in 1070, and the split occured in 1071, and the conquest of Fez was in the mid-1070s and Abu Bakr's return is 1073 or so.

I presume they are drawing from two different sources. From the Corpus, it seems the 1060 split corresponds with Ibn Abi Zaar whereas the 1070 split corresponds with Ibn Idhari. How do other sources decide on this issue? Is there a consensus on this?

I've seen recent scholars tending towards the 1070 split, but I find that hard to square with the Fez campaign, which (from my reading of secondary sources on the Maghrawa), timing seems firmly in the 1060s. Is it possible there were two splits, a minor one in 1060, with Abu Bakr remaining roughly in Marrakesh, holding court and politicking, while Yusuf goes on the Fez campaign, and only after the conquest of Fez (c.1069) do they actually do the big north-south split?

I'm not looking for original research. Just if anybody has come across something a little more reliable that sorts through this timing issue. Walrasiad (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar

Abu Bakr ibn Umar was a leader of the Almoravid movement. He died in battle waging jihad against the "unbelievers" of the Sudan. In one of these wars and resistance, he was defeated by a Serer King called Ama Gôdô Maat and killed with a poisoned arrow in November 1087.

My edits with reliable sourcs regarding the Serer people's account who were siginificantly affected by the Southern Wing (e.g West Africa) of the Almoravid Movement had been re-edited by others and tagged dubious. Because for some they could not phantom how a Black African Animist tribe could defeat and killed Abu Bakr. Some are now calling for the Serer account to be removed and termed it nothing more than mythology and folk fantasy. Should the Serer account be included in this article considering the fact that Abu bakr was a prominent leader in the Almoravid movement? Throughout these discussion, I have been citing sources after sources whilst others merely expressed opinions. I would like to know what other editors think. To get a greater understanding of the discussions, please read the following links:

• 1. NPOV : Arab-Berber self glorification
• 2. Serer King Ama Gôdô Maat Dubious
• 3. Death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar dubious discuss tag placed on the relevant section

Thanks Tamsier (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Tamsier, there is a certain amount of bad faith on your part I am really not comfortable with. You say "Because for some they could not phantom how a Black African Animist tribe could defeat and killed Abu Bakr" What? There is no disagreement on this whatsoever, the various historical accounts provide us with: 1) The exact date of his death 2) The cause of his death (poisoned arrow) 3) Circumstances of death (Died while fighting some non-Muslim sub-Saharan Black African people). Nobody here disputes these 3 points. The thing that have been marked as dubious and that we've been discussing is the naming of a tribe (Serer) and their king as the one who personally killed him. We've explained above, in length, why this is dubious. So what is the point of this RFC? Simply to remove a dubious tag? Tachfin (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is a malformed RFC as only one party to the dispute has been involved in crafting the RFC. Close this now, and form a proper RFC with input from all parties before requesting outside assistance. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Have to agree wtih Fifelfoo, this is a very non-neutral RfC formulation and needs rewriting. I'd recommend starting by eliminating the battleground phrasing. siafu (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• It has already been resolved and it was a resolution some editors were not happy with but they went along with it anyway. Why draw more attention to it? This is why it should be deleted per Tachfin objections, cuz someone is trying to strike balance, balance has been achieved, i have fought for oral traditions to be included and still the user Tamsier goes on. Put energy into making wiki better not this pointless ethnocentric promotion. Waste of time! just because of a tag. WOW. How do you expect people to believe he was "personally" killed by some Serer hero. Sounds good for a movie script, not for wikipedia.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tamsier asked me to comment on the question of whether this is a valid RFC.
  1. There is no requirement that the RFC be raised by more than one party to a dispute.
  2. There is a requirement (or exhortation if you prefer) that the RFC be neutrally phrased, however this should not stop an RFC, since if that was allowed, there would then need to be a consensus reached about neutral wording, which might not be achievable.
  3. In my opinion therefore this RFC is valid.

Having said that it might have been advisable (and indeed might still be advisable) to at least try and address exactly what the problem is collaboratively, and certainly the wording could have been better cast.

Reviewing the apparent context for the dispute, as a naive user reading the article, there seems to be editorial doubt on whether it is the oral tradition of the Serer that <event happened>. Skimming the talk page, the dispute seems to be whether <event happened>. If it is documented (and not in dispute) that the Serer oral tradition is that <event happened> then the tag should be removed. A counterposing argument can be made from other sources, if appropriate, about <event happening>. Conversely if there is actual scholarly dispute over the nature of Serer oral tradition, then it should be in the article that the dispute exists, with appropriate weight and citations. My apologies if this is oversimplifying the matter.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

I think rich makes a valid point, I will wait for Tacfin and others regarding the dispute tag. I am cool either way. But I am leaning to removing because the term "According to Oral ..." already warns the reader of the dubiouness of the claim.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I take dispute on one point: that the wording be changed from "Serer" oral tradition to "Wolof" oral tradition. From the snippets I have found, the claim comes from the Chronique du Walo Sénégalais (Waalo). Although the chronicle does identify the killer (Ama Godomat) as indeed a Serer (sereer), I see no indication of him being a "King" (could be, but I can't find that stated there). (For the record, the Waalo chronicle reports him being killed at a place called "Kelow", in the environs of "Lake Cayor" (modern Lake Rkiz, 16°51′54″N 15°18′54″W)) - that is, that Abu Bakr's cavalcade had descended on the area and put the local people to flight; that Abu Bakr entered the abandoned village of Kelow, that Ama Godomat (one of those who had earlier fled) returned, found him there and wounded him fatally with his bow.)

P.S. - Now that we're on oral traditions: Soninke tradition claims he was killed in 1077 by the Soninke tribe known as the Gangara/Gangarinko (Wangara?), who lived in the Assab hills of the Tagant region of Mauritania. In the course of a clash in the pass of Khma (en route to Ghana, between the Tagant and the Assab mountains), Abu Bakr was struck down by an arrow from a old blind Gangara chieftan. Walrasiad (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just a small comment regarding the Wolof that Walrasiad raised. The passage you are referring to is about Ndiadiane Ndiaye. The Wolof wrongly identified Ndidiane Ndiaye as the son of Abu Bakr eventhouth there is more than 250 years separating them. Ndiadiane Ndiaye came to throne after Maysa Wali who escaped the Battle of Turubang in the 14th century, that was after Sundiata Keita and after Mansa Musa's pilgrimage to Mecca (See Alioune Sarr, Histoire du Sine Saloum. Also: Roland Oliver. The Cambridge history of Africa: From c. 1600 to c. 1790, p486). Most of the Wolof sources in this issue came from Serer sources, with the exception of Ndiadiane being the son of Abu Bakr. Without bringing religion into this I think it is material to the issue. The Serer have been resistant to Islamisation for centuries. The Wolof are however more open to Islam especially in the 19th century. According to scholars, by the Wolof claiming Ndiadiane was the son of Abu Bakr eventhough he wasn't, it is merely to claim greater Islamic legitimacy (Source: G. Wesley Johnson. The emergence of Black politics in Senegal: the struggle for power in the four communes, 1900-1920, p10). As noted by Cheikh Anta Diop and Egbuna P. Modum:

"History teaches us that King N'Diadian N'Diaye of Djoloff (Jolof), the first King of the Valaf (Wolof), had a Toucoulor mother and an Arab father. But there is evidence of contradiction here. The son of an Arab can hardly bear the totemic name N'Diaye. And it is common knowledge that both the name and surname of this king come from the exclamation "This is N'Diadian N'Diaye" (an expression meaning "calamity" or extraordinary) made by a Serer marabout..." (source: Cheikh Anta Diop and Egbuna P. Modum. "Towards the African renaissance: essays in African culture & development", 1946-1960, p28).

In Ndiadiane Ndiaye's epic, scholars observed that:

"there are resonances and implications behind the very multilinguality of the original performances (griot performances). Not only did the performers use words from (Sereer), French, Arabic, and Tukulor (Tocouleur) embedded in the Wolof base text, but they also rendered in Wolof sections of texts that they indicated were derived from Sereer sources. Each usage had implications of social attitudes, Islamic legitimacy, and personal style." (Source: Research in African literatures, Volume 37. University of Texas at Austin. African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, p8. Published by African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, University of Texas (at Austin) (2006))

Tamsier (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no confusion. This is not about Ndidiane Ndiaye. It is about the death of Abu Bakr, as killed by Ama Godomat. The passage I am referring to is in the Chronique du Walo. If you want the full reference, the passage is on p.454 of the following:

• Wade, Amadou ([1941], 1964) "Chronique du Walo sénégalais (1186-1855)", B. Cissé trans., V. Monteil, editor, Bulletin de l'IFAN, Series B, Vol. 26, no. 3/4, 440-98.

Now, unless you got other sources that relate this event, I will assume this is the passage you're referring to. It does refer to a Serer killer. But the account itelf is Wolof oral tradition. Walrasiad (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not only did the sources cited states that the Wolof account came from Serer sources etc (see above), but even the people know this. I take it you do know that Amadou Wade got his sources and account from somewhere? Where did he got it from? Wait! Did you say that you read this from a snippit? Are you reading it from the internet which only provides you a snippit of the text?

Tamsier (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. And given that you have not provided evidence otherwise, I shall continue assuming so. I'd be happy to rectify my opinion, should you provide evidence that explictly declares that this is not Wolof tradition. Because so far, I have nothing but your assertion otherwise. Walrasiad (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ah! That explains a lot. That also explain why you couldn't see the Ndiandiane connection. By the way, I've already provided direct source that states that the original performances came from Serer sources. See above.

Tamsier (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The passage wasn't talking about Ndiandane. I must have missed your direct source or you deleted it. Please provide evidence that the Chronique de Walo, and specifically that passage if you can, is not Wolof oral tradition, but rather taken from Serer sources. Walrasiad (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I already did. I haven't deleted anything. I've pasted it below for you again. That's why I asked you "I take it you do know that Amadou Wade got his sources and account from somewhere? Where did he got it from?" And yes the passage you are referring to was talking about Ndiadiane as well as Abu Bakr etc. What you saw was a snippit. Are you sure you are reading chronique du Walo? Do provide a direct link.

"there are resonances and implications behind the very multilinguality of the original performances (griot performances). Not only did the performers use words from (Sereer), French, Arabic, and Tukulor (Tocouleur) embedded in the Wolof base text, but they also rendered in Wolof sections of texts that they indicated were derived from Sereer sources. Each usage had implications of social attitudes, Islamic legitimacy, and personal style." (Source: Research in African literatures, Volume 37. University of Texas at Austin. African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, p8. Published by African and Afro-American Studies and Research Center, University of Texas (at Austin) (2006))

Tamsier (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that article I have. But I have scoured it and find absolutely no mention of the Chronique du Walo or Amadou Wade, or any claim about anything of relevance here. If you have evidence that the Chronique du Walo is not Wolof, or that this claim is contained in any other record that can be reliably assigned to Serer, then I am all ears. But all I have to go on right now, is that the claim is contained in the Chronique du Walo, and the chronique du Walo is Wolof. Walrasiad (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I asked you to post the direct link to chronique du Walo and I am still waiting. I have provided sources and you have provided opinions. If you have chronique du Walo or have read it, you would have realised that it was based on the original performances to which the source I have quoted above refer. That's why I gave you the opportunity to answer the questions posed to you to which you have not yet answered. I realised the moment you failed to see the connection to Ndiadiane. Oh, I forgot to mention, the "Joos" (many variations: "Dyoos"" or "Djeuss" etc) maternal dynasty of Walo were of Serer heritage. They trace their descend to Ndoye Demba, a Serer princess from the Kingdom of Sine who was given in marriage to the king of Walo (Brak) (sources: Bulletin de l'Institut fondamental d'Afrique noire: Sciences humaines, Volume 41, p234; Bulletin de l'Institut fondamental d'Afrique noire: Sciences humaines, Volume 31. p379. IFAN, 1969. University of Michigan; Boubacar Barry. Le Royaume Du Waalo: Le Senegal Avant La Conquête, p-p72-75).

I'm still waiting for the Chronique du Walo link. I have my opinions about quite a number of things, but I shall reserve judgement. I await your chronique du Walo link since you've read snippit of it from the internet. Until then, I have nothing else to add to this "discussion". I respect African history far too much.

Tamsier (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You have provided no sources, just empty allegations and irrelevant citations. You don't have the text of the Chronique du Walo? I thought you were saying you did. I can't give you a link, since I reconstructed the passage from various snippets. In full, the paragraph on p.454-5, reads as follows:

"Après la destruction de Ghana par le chef des Almoravides, Abu Bakr ben 'Omar, les peuples noirs qui l'habitaient se dispersèrent vers l'ouest. A leur arrivée à Kêlôw, près du lac Cayor (Khôômak), le Sérère (sêêrêr) Amar Gôdômat (un des fuyards) se retourna soudain, et, faisant face à Abù-Bakr, de son arc le blessa grièvement. Ce dernier abandonna la poursuite, rentra à Chinguitti (Siingôti), où il mourut plus tard, des suites de cette blessure. Ainsi débarrassés d'Abû- Bakr, les anciens habitants de Ghana songèrent à leur rétablissement. Les Peuls (pôl), entre autres, fondèrent l'Empire du Fouta. Ils s 'organisèrent et désignèrent des chefs pour les gouverner. Ces chefs portèrent, successivement, les titres de « Dyawogo », « Manawogo », « Matmuso », « Tundyogo », « Lamtarmis » et « Lamtakho ». Après le dernier « Lamtakho », l'illustre Koli, fils de Sun-Dyata Keita, prit le commandement du Fouta, avec le titre de Saatagi (Roi). A la mort de Koli, le pouvoir passa entre les mains de ses frères maternels (doom u-ndey): etc., etc."

And that is all that is there. It goes on to give the tale of Abu Bakr's dying words to his pregnant wife at Chinguitti, and the rest of the story - the eavesdropping Mbarik, the birth of Amadou Boubakar Ibn 'Omar, his emo-suicidal tendencies, his despairing leap in the river after hearing of his mother's re-marriage, his three years on the run, his hideout near Mengeny (St. Louis), his miracle of the fishes, the suspicions of the local Mengeny villgers that he was a genie, his capture, his refusal to speak, the wiles of the village woman Baat Booy and her unbalanced cauldron, the journey of the Mengeny emissaries down to Sine to consult the Serer king (and soothsayer) Masa Wali Dyon, the exclamation "Ndyadyan Ndyay" (and its various meanings), the Mengeny people's mistaken assumption that that was his name, Masa Wali Dyon's prediction of his empire, and his bowing and laying his kingdom (Sine) and his people (Serer) at Amadou Boubakar's feet, etc.

I can reproduce all of that text verbatim from the Wade's Chronique du Walo, if you'd like. But since its a gigantic wall of text, it would be rather unfair to others to clutter this talk page with it.

So, returning to the case in point: it is in the Chronique du Walo, a Wolof document, a Wolof tradition, and that's all that can be ascertained in terms of WP:RS. Your allegations of it being "ultimately Serer" are not based on anything except your own wishful thinking. If you provide Serer sources, I am willing to rectify my position. Until then, no. The Chronique is Wolof and remains Wolof. Walrasiad (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Caught! What you have done was copied text from various sources some of which include Bulletin de l'Institut français d'Afrique noire; Esquisses Sénégalaises (mostly) and then cleverly patched text together. This is why you could not provide me a direct link to Chronique du Walo. Even the link to a snippit of the text would have done. But had you done that, that would have revealed you did not see the text from Chronique du Walo itself on the internet. "Give 'em enough rope"!

I though you were better than that. Oh! I'm willing to take that back if you provide the link to Chronique du Walo. No hope! I'm truly done here. As I said before, I respect African history far too much. Oh! Was this a good read [35]? I also like Monteil. Great writer isn't he? Bye the way, you missed a bit.

Tamsier (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Caught? My dear, I've been telling you from the start I was working from snippets. I am not sure why you find that so exciting all of a sudden? I reconstructed the relevant passage, for all to see what is actually says. Which is putting more earnest effort into resolving this than you have done so far. You have provided nothing, just thrown sand in the air in an attempt to confuse and obfuscate. Walrasiad (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Heaven knows why I am responding to this because all honest editors who see this "discussion" to and fro would realise what you have done. Nevertheless I will respond to you on this issue for the last time. Now you are caught and you are trying to change your tone.

You came here disputing on the grounds that it should be changed from Serer to Wolof oral traditions based on the snippits you have found which you said the claim comes from the Chronique du Walo. You did that out of spite, failing to realise that, had the original performances truly came from Wolof source, I would have still accepted them as sources, but they didn’t. Indeed, this should not even have been an issue but you made in an issue out of spite. In any case, I tried to educate you in good faith by providing sources to show that much of that came from Serer sources and the passage you are referring to was about Ndiadiane Ndiaye. You came back and said it is not about Ndiadiane when in actual fact, it is. To prove your claim, you cited Chronique du Walo by Amadou Wade in full. Demonstrating that you have read it from the internet albeit snippits. Hence the questions I posed to you. Had you read Chronique du Walo, you would have realised where the original performances came from to which I provided you a direct quote above. I practically gave you the answer with the sources. Again, you reiterate that the passage is not about Ndiadiane which anyone familiar with the history would have realised your claim does not make sense and therefore you could not have read Chronique du Walo. I asked you to provide the direct link to Chronique du Walo since you have read snippit of it from the internet and quoted in full previously. You came here again trying to discredit the very sources I repeated for you which demonstrated that much of the Wolof account came from Serer sources. You also failed to provide the direct link of Chronique du Walo. I asked you again for the direct link to Chronique du Walo which you have supposedly read from the internet and quoted in full. Instead of providing me a direct link, you copied and patched text together from various sources (most of it from Esquisses Sénégalaises ) and then presented them as the actual text from Chronique du Walo by Amadou Wade. Not only have you failed to give credit to the authors whose work you’ve copied, you also presented their work as somebody elses work. When caught, you tried to dig yourself out it. I have no problem with you reconstructing text from snippits of another source as long as you give them credit. What I take issue with is you passing them off as Chronique du Walo by Amadou Wade. Indeed, after all this, the text you have copied from Esquisses Sénégalaises was talking about Ndiadiane Ndiaye as demonstrated in the link I provided above. If you were a body of text I would have placed the dubious tag on you. Tamsier (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but now I am beginning to get a little irritated. I don't deal well with dishonesty or misrepresentations. You asserted a Serer source said X. I looked for the source of that statement and found it in the Chronique du Walo. The Chronique du Walo is a Wolof document, ergo, the claim comes from a Wolof source. You insist that claim is originally from a Serer source. Very well, I thought, I must have the wrong document then. So I then asked you to please provide me with a document of Serer origin which makes that allegation. You didn't provide anything. Instead, you started playing a very dishonest game. You changed the subject, threw sand in the air, then you took the low road of deliberately misrepresenting my statements, and when I correct you, you add even more personal aspersions and falsehoods? I am sorry, but I am not going to tolerate that. You do not deserve a moment's more of my time. Walrasiad (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - Since you have been so insistent, I have decided, as parting gift on this discussion, to reproduce the chapter from the Chronique du Walo about the rise of Ndiadiane Ndiaye on your talk page, so you can read it at leisure. I think you might find the final passage - when the Serer king bows down in submission to the wandering son of Abu Bakr - to be very rewarding. Don't forget to insert that fragment of oral tradition in the Serer people's page.

EDIT: Aw shucks. He deleted it. I guess he doesn't like the Chronique du Walo, after all. I must preserve M. Tamsier's comments for posterity: "Deleting copy and pasted from another source and passing it as chronique du Walo. Fraudster. How can Ndiadian be son of Abu Bakr when there is 250 yrs + separating them? Stupid woman". Walrasiad (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This editor just creates a page for their worldview Serer medieval history to present a little Serer propaganda hide out.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1147 1269.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

See above: "In Ndiadiane Ndiaye's epic, scholars observed that:"

Note that the 'original performances' mentioned are modern performances, see [36] and [37]. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Death of Abu Bakr ibn Umar dubious discuss tag placed on the relevant section

Original discussion can be found here: Arab-Berber self glorification. My changes with sources to relevant section can be found on this diff [38].

Will not be edit warring over this. Tamsier (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason you have trouble with my edits is because of "assumptions" But i hate myth history, According to Serer oral tradition is what i am happy with. Because I agree that oral tradition has its place and should not be thrown out. So if we are going the oral tradition route that is my verdict. I do not believe that is what happened but if Serer oral tradition claims it did then that claim or folklore might merit inclusion. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that this Serer thing is only speculation, the historical sources do not name any Black African group in relation to this incident, they even confused the Senegal and Niger river and thought that both were the Nile. There are many theories that try to fill in the geographical gaps but they are only theories and speculations. We are only sure of what's in historical accounts, this needs to be separated from speculations in the article. Tachfin (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

To whom it might interest, I found a mention of a Black African group in Ibn Abi Zar's 14th-century book; the Baggara killed an ancestor of Abu Bakr some years before. It is interesting to note that these people inhabit Chad, that gives you an idea of the geographical stretch of the Lamtuna, they were likely a western branch of the Tuaregs that inhabited very large areas of the Sahara. Tachfin (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This term is also problematic while fighting Pagans pagans is not a NPOV term. I am sure the people fighting back would not see themselves as pagans. But I think everyone can be comfortable with the compromise which respects both sources and warns the reader.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is we cannot deviate from the sources which say that they were black and unbelievers, I dropped the unbeliever part since that is POV. Pagan is a good alternative since it refers to people who have a non-Abrahamic religion and isn't pejorative as far as I know. The Britannica bit on this is less neutral than the current wording in the article. (EB: The Almoravids began to impose their orthodox religion on the Berber tribes of the desert, and on the pagan negroes ) Tachfin (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is not "Arab perspectives" "Berber perspectives", "Islamic perspectives" it is NPOV hence no people are pagan regardless of what sources say. Thats why we are here to edit per sources but retain NPOV so no one can come and say "this is Islamic biases". They are also not kafirs (Arabic for non-believer), black, Negros, savages, niggers, colored, slaves, heathens, regardless of what sources might say (all of these words occur in historical sources). Hence NPOV - you would struggle to find any contemporary historian on Africa referring to a non-Abrahamic people as pagan or black African (i have no idea what that is). Maybe Sub-Saharan Africa. This has come up before and just like we dont call non-Jews gentile just because Jewish sources say "gentile" not only is it a worldview violation it is utter nonsense.(The term pagan is a Christian adaptation of the "gentile" of Judaism, and as such has an inherent Abrahamic bias, and pejorative connotations) core point it serves no purpose in the history of almoravids.see pagan: In the 19th century however, ethnologists began to reject the term "paganism" for these faiths, instead referring to them as "folk religions", "ethnic religions" or "indigenous religions" No where in Muslim conquest of Persia is the word pagan, despite the Islamic sources using the term to refer to "the other"--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've used pagan since Britannica uses it. My intent was to give as much confirmed information that we know of this period as possible. But now I realize there are better alternatives (e.g. African traditional religion). Note that Arabs knew of the ancient religion of Persia and so had a name for it. There is even Arabic poetry about it.

P.S: The bit about the Serer is ought to go after further investigation. History is not mythology. Oral tradition is nothing but folk Fantasy literature, so anything based on it does not belong here. Tachfin (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Tachfin we all know the oral v written thing I think we must respect diverse ways of history documentation. Obviously written is better by a million miles. But oral tradition is used on wiki. I mean Hadiths are oral tradition - you know that, it is just someone like Bukhari and Muslim (person) decided to write them down.If today someone writes down oral tradition why would it be different? I am also not aware of policy on wiki baring oral tradition from a r.s.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• @ Tachfin- Well I wouldn't know Tachfin, considering the fact that the Serer account is backed up reliable as well as verifiable written sources which is a fundamental principle of Wiki. Considering the fact that, the generations of Serer account placed Abu Bakr exactly in that period (not the exact date, but the period because it affected the Serers of Tekrur in particular); kept in the tradition how he died which is backed up even by the arab sources, I say the Serers have done pretty well. Indeed I say orality cannot be dismissed willy nilly. Don't you think? Although written is better, written also has it flaws and it depends on who is writing it and their motives. In fact, many of the Arab sources are myths and legends as well as exaggeration as substantiated by dozens of scholars including: Ronald A. Messier. "The Almoravids and the meaning of jihad"; Professor H. T. Norris "New Evidence on the Life of Abdullāh B. Yāsīn and the Origins of the Almoravid Movement"; John Lamphear "African military history"; etc. Sifting the myths from the facts have proved quite troublesome for academics over the years.

The Qādli ‘Iyād biography of ‘Abdullāh ibn Yāsīn differ with Al-Bakri’s account regarding the rise of the Almoravids. According to Professor Norris:

"Since no insular ribā is mentioned, its historicity is increasingly suspect, and in the light of Maghribī cosmological ideas it is better regarded as a myth, and not as a historical fact. The Qādli ‘Iyād states that Jawhar, a character who appears to have been confused with Yayā b. Ibrāhīm al-Gudālī, the Sānhaja chief who reputedly brought ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn to the Sahara, is none other than al-Jawhar b. Sakkum, the Gudāla jurist who was later executed by ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn. The cause of the execution appears to have been a combination of religious differences and a struggle for power, probably after the death of Yayā b. Ibrāhīm al-Gudālī. This event may prove to have been a turning point in the Almoravid movement, the main reason for the dominance of the Lamtūna and the eventual withdrawal of the Gudāla from the Almoravid cause, possibly for their militant opposition to it. The confusion in the accounts over the early phase of the stay of ‘Abdullāh b. Yāsīn among the Sanhāja casts grave doubts as to how much reliance can be placed on them as historical evidence. The myth may be a good deal more than the 'island story'."(Source: H. T. Norris (1971). New Evidence on the Life of ‘Abdullāh B. Yāsīn and the Origins of the Almoravid Movement. The Journal of African History, 12 , pp 255-268 doi:10.1017/S0021853700010665) (Cambridge Journals, Cambridge University Press).

As a great lover of history, I prefer to look at all the available evidence rather than selective history. Don't you think that's the way to go? You seem to grasp the basics of the Northern wing of the Almoravid Movement (i.e. North Africa and Southern Europe e.g. Spain) but your knowledge of the Southern Wing (i.e. West Africa) is somewhat lacking. As stated before, this article did not even mention the Kingdom of Tekrur, War Jabi or his son Leb. Considering the fact that a huge contingent force was sent from this Kingdom to advance the Almoravid cause, not forgetting these people have hosted and planned with Almoravid leaders, and is one of the first Kingdoms of West Africa to introduce Sharia law in the region, nothing in this article mention this (see: Willie F. Page, Encyclopedia of African history and culture: African kingdoms (500 to 1500), p-p 209, 676. Volume 2. Published by: Facts on File. 2001. ISBN 0816044724).

Although some of the Arab sources may offer great insight, they are not fallible and it would be rather foolish to take their account and only their account as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which you seem to be doing and advocating. What also surprises me throughtout this discussion is that, it's only I who kept citing sources for my statement whilst others mainly express opinions and want us to take it as fact. In fact, lack of sources were evident throught this article until I raised the issue (see above). I am also glad to have helped you with the month and year Abu Bakr died (November 1087), how he was killed (by poison arrow), what he was doing (waging jihad) etc. I'm sure you could have researched this yourself before I answered these issues when I gave the Serer account. I find it astounding you seemed to have overlooked such important details until I answered them. Never mind, I am glad to have helped. That's what Wiki is for. Apart from the "dubious discuss" tag in the Serer account, what I even find more shocking is that, the Serer account I provided from the reliable sources has been so cleverly re-edit and separated from the body of the text the purpose of which is to discredit the Serer account. And with the "dubious discuss" tag placed right next to it, hey, that's the nail on the coffin. Actually, I am going to put this on RFC. It would be great to know what other editors think.

Below are my last edits before my edits were re-edited. The previous sources also came from me (see discussion above) NPOV : Arab-Berber self glorification:

Abu Bakr died in battle "waging Holy War" against the "unbelievers" of the Sudan. In one of these wars and resistance, he was defeated by a Serer King called Ama Gôdô Maat and killed with a poisoned arrow in November 1087.

Here is the diff: [39].

Tamsier (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Coming in late but having looked into this, sources for Ama Gôdô Maat that I can find call him a Serer bowman and do not suggest he was a king, nor do they use that name as they call him Amar Godomat (these include sources Tamsier used). So where does Tamsier's name (which is convenient as it allows him to call Godomat a king) come from? I think I found the source: "Ce régicide dont l'exploit donna peut-être le signal de l'exode a ainsi pris le surnom de "Amar god o maat, "Amar (qui) sabre (le) roi" which seems to have been shortened.

As for Gravrand, I wouldn't trust him and anything sourced from him needs to be attributed and if it is from Serer oral history that must be stated. He wasn't a linguist or an archaeologist, but Father Gravrand evidently believed that Serer religion was given to Africa by God over 10,000 years ago. But worse, Gravrand writes about an alleged 1335 'Battle of Troubang'. When I found this in an article I searched for it and found the oral history was describing the [[Battle of Kansala) which took place in the late 19th century. Only then did I discover that one of Tamsier's main sources, Charles Becker, had noted that Gravrand had missed this and that his battle of Troubang was just a report of the real battle of Kansala. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a Caliphate

Someone recently posted an "uncontroversial technical move request" to move this page from "Almoravid dynasty" to "Almoravid Caliphate". The move was undertaken without discussion, I have reversed it. The Almoravid state was emphatically not a Caliphate. A "Caliphate" is a state ruled by a "Caliph". Almoravid rulers never took up the title of "Caliph" and made a point of emphasizing that. Walrasiad (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the infobox of the article, the title of Almoravid leaders is "caliph", so it was uncontroversial that it's a caliphate. Why don't you change the parameter title_leader in the infobox if you think it's wrong? The Almoravids were a Caliphate independent of the Abbasid Caliphate, just like the earlier Caliphate of Córdoba and the later Almohad Caliphate were. Secondly, the title "Almoravid dynasty" is incorrect because the article is not only about the ruling dynasty, but also the dominion. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox will have to be changed. The title of the Almoravid ruler, as bestowed by their founder Abdallah ibn Yasin, was amir al-Muslimin ("Prince/Commander of the Muslims"). They explicitly eschewed the official caliph title of amir al-Mu'minin ("Commander of the Faithful") and never mimicked caliphal stylings in their names (no "al-Mansur", "al-Mutawwakils", or such things). The Almoravids were strictly Sunni and recognized the Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad as the only Caliph, whose name they emblazoned on their coinage, and usage of the title or stylings by anyone else to be nothing short of heresy. The Almohads had "caliphs". And the Saadians and later Alaouwites used caliphal titles and stylings (even though normally called sultans). But Almoravids and Marinids were strictly and strenuously not caliphs. Admittedly, "Almoravid dynasty" is not a happy article title - the Almoravids were not a family name, but a movement name; "Almoravid caliphate" definitely wrong, and "Almoravid principality" is a bit weird. "Almoravid emirate", perhaps comes closest to their "Prince of the Muslims" title, although I have some reservations and is not always commonly used. The most common usage is simply "Almoravids", the name of the movement, and normally left simply as that. That would be my first choice, but I am not sure how satisfactory that would be to others. Walrasiad (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article on Arabic Wikipedia is simply titled "The Almoravids" as a noun. The Arabic lead just says they were an "Islamic state," again being very general. A section of the Arabic article is called "the title of emirate" and it talks about how eventually the state was just referred to as an Emirate. Under the list for the rulers of the state, the word used is the plural of "emir." Hope that helps. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

perhaps the section regarding Almoravid correspondencies with Abbasid Caliphate in Yusuf ibn Tashfin could help to describe the nature of AlmoravidAhendra (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ghana Empire and the southern wing

Introduced in this revision, a section mentions a scholar called "S. Burkhalater". I think the editor meant Sheryl L. Burkhalter. The word "curcylating" is perhaps a misspelling of circulating. In Listening for Silences in Almoravid History: Another Reading of "The Conquest That Never Was", I can't find support for the claim that is made in this section that "the influence and success of the almoravids in securing West Africa Gold and curcylating it widely necessitated a high degree of political control". Is anyone up for a rewrite? Here's the proper citation:

• Burkhalter, Sheryl L. (1992). "Listening for Silences in Almoravid History: Another Reading of "The Conquest That Never Was"". History in Africa. 19: 103–131. doi:10.2307/3171996. ISSN 0361-5413. Retrieved 2015-12-09.

Mduvekot (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Almoravid" comes from the Arabic "al-Murabitun" -- or "Dar al-Murabitin"?

An editor has complained that this isn't sourced. Of course it is sourced in the relevant section, and normally we don't need sources in the WP:LEAD so long as they are in the text. But the text also mentions the idea that it comes from "Dar al-Murabitin". That doesn't show up nearly as much in Google books in a very, very rough search, but there's an argument that it should be in the lead. Up to others about that. Doug Weller (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean: "Orthodox?"

This page seems to equate "orthodoxy" with "Sunni". Isn't this insulting to all the Muslims who are not Sunnis?--The Lesser Merlin 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the word here functions well because the tribes in those areas were Heterodox. It is not insulting at all. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Alert! Family tree section is broken

Looks like an edit gone bad - can someone address? Also, there is something wrong with the lead - I have installed a very very large collection of foreign fonts, but getting a series of 'squares' for whatever the name is showing in the first line? 50.111.3.227 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed I've restored the Timeline. Also, apparently some fonts were missing in the packs you installed. The fonts in the lede look fine on my computer. Carlstak (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Mauritania.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Seal of Mauritania (December 2018).svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Seal of Mauritania (December 2018).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Almoravids were Sahrawi

@TheseusHeLl: I reinstated the edits of Reinstating edits 11:27, 15 October 2019 and 11:31, 15 October 2019 your reversion of them removed contributions to which you did not express any objection.

As for your objection to the citation used: the documentary is presented by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an esteemed Harvard University professor in the Department of African and African American Studies. Also, if you’re interested in removing perceived “anachronisms,” why didn’t you also remove Neo-Tifinagh script from the article introduction? (Not that I think you should.)

To say the Almoravid empire was just Berber would be to lack specificity; the Almohads, the Marinids, and others were also Berber. As you probably know, Sahrawi simply means “of the Sahara,” and the connection with the Sahara was a defining aspect of the Almoravid movement. The Almoravids came from the desert between Souss and Adrar in Mauritania, and moved the seat of power from Aghmat to what is now Marrakesh because they preferred a flat tent city because it was more similar to the desert environment they were used to. In fact, the Almoravids were pejoratively called the الملثمون because they were traditional Sahrawi headgear. إيان (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey @إيان:,

Firstly, per WP:BRD you shouldn't revert the text you added after starting the discussion.

"As for your objection to the citation used: the documentary is presented by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., an esteemed Harvard University professor in the Department of African and African American Studies."

I know that Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a renowned historian of African and African american history, but in what minute in the documentary—that I can't access—he said that Almoravids were a "sahrawi Berber dynasty"? I know where you're coming from, but saying that someone or some dynasty is Sahrawi is anachronistic, because sahrawi denotes something that was created years after the fall of Almoravids. In the other hand, calling the Emirate of Trarza (Brakna and other sahrawi emirates) sahrawi is chronologically valid, because the sahrawi identity was existing. Besides, the term is politically charged (Western Sahara, the conflict, SADR, Moroccan claims, etc).

To keep all of our discussions civil in wikipedia the whataboutist, "Also, if you’re interested in removing perceived “anachronisms,” why didn’t you also remove Neo-Tifinagh script from the article introduction? (Not that I think you should.)" is not needed. You can remove all the things you found anachronistic in this article, it's not my problem.

Saying that the dynasty was a "sahrawi berber dynasty" basing it on one source (a documentary) is cherry picking. I'm not talking about the Sahara part, but about the Sahrawi part. I know that you mean a resident of sahara (صحراوي), but the majority of en:wiki readers will read it as related to the modern Sahrawi people. There is no islamic secondary source describing it as such:

• EI2: "European usage as the Almoravids , a dynasty of Berber origin which ruled in North Africa and then Spain during the second half of the 5th/11th century and the first half of the 6th/12th century before being replaced by another Berber dynasty, that of the Almohads or al-Muwaḥḥidūn [q.v.].".
• The Almoravids and the Meanings of Jihad: "...the arrival of the Almoravids, a Berber dynasty from North Africa, on the Peninsula in 1086.."
• CHA: "Then between 1085 and 1090 a Berber dynasty from North Africa, the Almoravids (al-Murābitiin) brought..."
• etc

In my opinion the only chronologically valid and source-based thing is calling them an "imperial Sanhaja Berber Muslim dynasty".

-TheseusHeLl (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey @TheseusHeLl:,

"Firstly, per WP:BRD you shouldn't revert the text you added after starting the discussion."

You're right; I did it more for the contributions I felt were wrongfully deleted, but I still shouldn't have.

"I know where you're coming from, but saying that someone or some dynasty is Sahrawi is anachronistic, because sahrawi denotes something that was created years after the fall of Almoravids." ... "Besides, the term is politically charged (Western Sahara, the conflict, SADR, Moroccan claims, etc)."

I'm glad you understood that it wasn't my intention to tie in any of those connotations; that's not what I meant at all. In fact, this interchange has shown me that I didn't mean Sahrawi (the documentary doesn't mention Sahrawi once—oops) but Saharan. I feel that it is imperative that the Almoravids be presented as a Berber Muslim empire from the Sahara. How do you feel about Saharan?

"In my opinion the only chronologically valid and source-based thing is calling them an 'imperial Sanhaja Berber Muslim dynasty.'"

I agree about Sanhaja, but I think it's important that readers understand that this movement and empire was born out of the Sahara. I don't think Sanhaja immediately communicates that for the cursory reader, particularly as they have settled all over the place since. I hope we can agree on Saharan. إيان (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Both their Sanhaja and Saharan origins are discussed at length in the article. I am not sure it ought to be in the lede. It can be confusing unless you attach clarifying explanations, in which case the lede will become needlessly overborne. That said, the lede could probably be improved overall and should be revised anyway. What is an "imperial Berber"? Walrasiad (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@إيان:, I'm agreeing with Walrasiad here. Their saharan origins are stressed in the body. Walrasiad, I don't know either what they meant by it. I was just quoting the lede. I think they wanted to say a "Berber imperial dynasty". -TheseusHeLl (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

My friends @Walrasiad:@TheseusHeLl:, let's make a better lede together. I think the fact that the Almoravids were from the Sahara dessert, and that they had roots deep in the African continent, gaining power after capturing Awdaghust, is very important information to have in the beginning of the article. It's all well and proper that the origins are discussed at length in the body, but this should also be included in the first paragraph, as not everyone reads the entire article. What do you think?

Here is the introduction, in case you want to work together on a draft here:

The Almoravid dynasty (Arabic: المرابطون‎, Al-Murābiṭūn, Berber languages: ⵉⵎⵔⴰⴱⴹⵏ, Imrabḍen;^{[citation needed]}) was an imperial Berber Muslim dynasty centered in Morocco. It established an empire in the 11th century that stretched over the western Maghreb and Al-Andalus. Founded by Abdallah ibn Yasin, the Almoravid capital was Marrakesh, a city the ruling house founded in 1062. The dynasty originated among the Lamtuna and the Gudala, nomadic Berber tribes of the Sahara, traversing the territory between the Draa, the Niger, and the Senegal rivers.

The Almoravids were crucial in preventing the fall of Al-Andalus to the Iberian Christian kingdoms, when they decisively defeated a coalition of the Castilian and Aragonese armies at the Battle of Sagrajas in 1086. This enabled them to control an empire that stretched 3,000 kilometers (1,900 mi) north to south. However, the rule of the dynasty was relatively short-lived. The Almoravids fell—at the height of their power—when they failed to stop the Masmuda-led rebellion initiated by Ibn Tumart. As a result, their last king Ishaq ibn Ali was killed in Marrakesh in April 1147 by the Almohad Caliphate, who replaced them as a ruling dynasty both in Morocco and Al-Andalus.

إيان (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Proper title?

This thing has been moved around with no discussion, which is rude. So, what should it be called? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

D4rkeRR9 has done this before and has been told before not to move pages like this without discussion, and has twice now made redirects after already being reverted, so this is rather frustrating. The time it takes to move the page unilaterally can be better spent making the proposal on the talk page, where editors will surely approve a move if it's well-reasoned and justified.

That said, going forward, I agree that the page title ideally should be about the state rather than the ruling family, to reflect the scope of the topic presented, but there needs to be discussion about what the proper terms should be. I'm not aware of any sources that call the Almoravids a sultanate, or that they referred to themselves as "sultans". I believe I've seen the term "emir" used for the rulers (in which case "emirate" could be justified), but I'll have to look again. I can cite two standard books that use the term "empire" ("The Almoravid and Almohad Empires" by Amira Bennison, and "Muslim Spain and Portugal" by Hugh Kennedy). R Prazeres (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@D4rkeRR9: You know full well that editors were not happy with your first undiscussed move, so why did you do it again? M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This has also created a problem: when you go to Almoravid dynasty, the original page name, it leads you in the middle of redirect page instead of the actual main page (new name or otherwise), and I'm not entirely sure how to sort it out. R Prazeres (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: that's called a double redirect. Instructions on how to fix it are linked if a bot doesn't take care of it first. It may be better to sort out the page names first to avoid making a bigger mess, which is why I haven't fixed it myself.

@D4rkeRR9: how can we convince you to stop making these en masse, undiscussed page moves? VQuakr (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We need to change the page names to the Country name not Dynasty. Today's Morocco is called Morocco not Alaouite Dynasty. That is what I mean. I can not start a discussion on all these different pages D4rkeRR9 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@D4rkeRR9: well yes, you can discuss moves on the individual pages. Whether it makes sense to, or whether they can be more easily discussed centrally per WP:RM#Requesting multiple page moves, I'm not sure. The key thing though is that you need to discuss these moves and get consensus first rather than moving them unilaterally. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Ok, I will remember to do this next time. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ditto what VQuakr said. Plus, even in single-pages discussions, a consensus reached on one page can be referenced to help discussions on other pages if relevant. In any case, though, I also think you're getting hung up too much on the "country" vs "dynasty" distinction. This page is about a historical period as much as about a historical state. Yes we might be able to agree on a better name, but keep in mind that it's very common to refer to historical stages of a country by their historical dynasties, e.g. as with China or even with England (see timeline in right-side navbox). Many sources on the history of Morocco speak of the "Almoravid dynasty" or simply "Almoravids" when talking about this particular period (likewise with "Idrisids", etc). So this is not a major urgent issue and it's not misdirecting readers in the meantime, so all the more reason to take your time and let other equally qualified editors discuss it with you. R Prazeres (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Idrisid dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)