Jump to content

Talk:Azougui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

Hi @Apaugasma, The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Archaeology suggests that Aghmat was the first Almoravid capital.[1]. So does this source. While this source suggests that it was Marrakesh [2]. SimoooIX (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, Azougui continued to be regarded as the capital of the Almoravids well after the fall of the dynasty in Spain and even after its fall in the Balearic Islands. My guess is because it was the capital of Abu Bakr who continued to be the supreme head of the Almoravids until his death. M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know abou that. It actually depends on how you define the word "capital". The Almoravids were ended officially in 1147 when the Almohads captured their capital Marrakesh. Anyway, does the encyclopedia of Islam suggest that Azougui was the first capital? SimoooIX (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since SimoooIX's third source which names Marrakesh as first capital of the Almoravids is contradicted by the seemingly more reliable Oxford source which names Aghmat as first capital, I would tend to dismiss the third source here as mistaken.
However, SimoooIX's second source says that Aghmat was "the first Almoravid capital in the High Atlas" (emphasis mine), while according to our article Azougui lies in the Adrar Plateau. Our currently used source names Azougui as first capital, but uses scare quotes for 'capital'. Isn't it possible that Azougui was indeed an important town to the early Almoravids, perhaps a 'capital' (though at this time the Almoravids didn't really have an empire yet), and that Aghmat became their first proper imperial capital once they had conquered the Atlas and founded an empire?
I think we need yet another source here which would explain the role played by all three cities in the early Almoravid period. Perhaps the Encyclopaedia of Islam entry does? M.Bitton, could you provide a quote from it? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the second source emphasizes yours, as far as i know, Marrakesh doesn't belong to the high Atlas (so Aghmat is the only one among the three concerned towns that belong to this mountainous region). Also i don't find the sources contradicting each other. In the end, as i've already stated, it actually depends on how you define the word "capital". SimoooIX (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what exactly is a 'capital' undoubtedly is the source of the confusion here. We need a source that explicitly addresses this. Let's hope the Encyclopaedia of Islam article does. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the same Oxford source suggests about azougui:"Azuggi was the base of the Almoravids following their movement northward from the Sahel in the mid-11th century." [3]. Probably it was a military base? SimoooIX (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, although I remember reading it, I don't have the source at hand to quote from, though I don't recall it delving into the details what a capital meant (similar to other sources that simply state that it was the first). In my view, the word capital is to be used loosely for these nomads. A more appropriate term, though WP:OR, would probably be "seat of power". As I mentioned before, the fact that it was the capital of Abu Bakr, who remained the supreme leader of the Almoravids until his death, is probably the reason why it's considered as the first capital. M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'seat of power' is a sensible interpretation of base (the Oxford source, Nixon 2020 p. 295) and of « capitale » (Arnaud 2013 p. 48, using scare quotes), not WP:OR. I propose changing the first part of the second sentence "In the eleventh century it was the first capital of the Almoravid dynasty, who conquered a territory stretching [...]" to "In the eleventh century it was a seat of power of the early Almoravids, who conquered a territory stretching [...]", keeping the citation to Arnaud 2013 and adding Nixon 2020 (cited first, because they mention both base and 11th century). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: your suggestion sounds fine to me. But i prefer using the word "base" rather than "seat of power". SimoooIX (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this context, only "base" would be unclear. Perhaps "military base"? I do think, however, that "seat of power" would be more accurate. Let's let M.Bitton, if they also agree with my proposal, decide whether to use "base", "military base" or "seat of power". M.Bitton: don't worry about the formatting of the citation, I will do this once the text is added. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This quote from The Almoravids and the meaning of Jihad could be interesting.

    [..].He established his base at a place called Jabal Lamtuna. These mountains were surrounded by some 20,000 date palms. There was abundant water and pasturage. Most importantly, the place was easily defensible. He held up in a fortress called Azuggi, which his brother Yannu had built.[4]

    SimoooIX (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: the "seat of power" that I mentioned applies to all the so-called "capitals" of the time, which in the best case scenario, were nothing but a glorified camp of a nomadic chief (this was certainly the case of Marrakesh for at least a generation). Therefore, I don't feel comfortable singling out one of them, least of all the only fortress. Azougui is described as the capital (without quotes) of the Almoravids in multiple RS and it was certainly the capital of Abu Bakr (the supreme leader of the Almoravids).
Whether it was the first capital, as some sources seem to suggest, is another matter that can easily be solved by stating that some sources describe it as such. M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Whether it was the first capital, as some sources seem to suggest, is another matter that can easily be solved by stating that some sources describe it as such." That was actually my suggestion too when i made my edit, but i found Apaugasma's suggestion to use the terms ""seat of power" (or "military base" or "base") to be more sensible since it does not contradict any of the sources in question. However, it may be appropriate to mention in the body that some sources describe it as the first capital of the Almoravids, rather than in the lead. SimoooIX (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only sensible if it applies to all the so-called capitals (see my edit above). Mentioning the statement in the lead is important (since that's what it's notable for). It also highlights its importance to Mauritania's heritage. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to Aghmat and Marrakesh, Azougui holds less importance in the history of the Almoravids. Most english RS i've read so far either do not even mention it or refer to it as a mere "base". SimoooIX (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aghmat was nothing but a camp and so was Marrakesh for at least a generation. Anyway, I said what I needed to say and see no point in engaging in OR. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton:, saying that "Azougui is described as the capital (without quotes) of the Almoravids in multiple RS" is very unhelpful at this stage. If that is the case, why not simply list (and quote from, where appropriate) these RS here or add them to the article? If it was a capital, it obviously also was the first capital. The text as it stands ("In the eleventh century it was the first capital of the Almoravid dynasty") should then simply be kept: please add these sources. If, on the other hand, no RS explicitly calling it capital without scare quotes can be cited (note that we cite none!), we should change it to "seat of power", "base", "military base", "fortress", or whatever works best.
I am going to do this very soon now; if you disagree the WP:BURDEN is on you to come up with appropriate sources, so please do so. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) Al - Hadramī settled at Azukki , the capital of the Almoravids , where he died in 489/1096 , nine years after Abū Bakr.[1]
2) the Almoravids eventually controlled a vast area, extending from their capital at Azugi, in the Adrar oases of central Mauritania, to the Mediterranean.[2]
3) Only Azuggi , the capital of the southern wing , under Abū Bakr b . ' Umar and his successors , was considered worthy of mention by such geographers as al - Idrīsī and Ibn Sa'id al - Maghribi .[3]
@Apaugasma: Here are some sources that describe it as capital without quotes. There are others of course if one looks hard enough, but I don't think they are needed. M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
your third quote mentions: "Only Azuggi , the capital of the southern wing..."
I think it explains something. SimoooIX (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what you think it explains, but Abu Bark remained the supreme leader of the Almoravids until his death (during his lifetime, all Almoravid coins were struck in his name). M.Bitton (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources, M.Bitton! Yes, these seem to be more than enough, let's add them to the article. In my opinion the existing text should stand: what exactly qualifies as a capital is not always clear in this context, hence other sources calling other towns the first capital, but more than enough sources call Azougui a capital in my view for us to do so too. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are different perspectives. And the main problem here is what is the definition of a 'capital'. If you see the article of the Almoravid dynasty it says that Azuggi was a capital until 1058, after that the capital was Aghmat then Marrakesh, while the sources that M.Bitton brought suggests that it was a 'capital' even after 1058.
The only source i found so far that suggests that Azuggi was "the first capital" is the one cited in this article. SimoooIX (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There 4 sources that suggest that is was the first (copied from the Almoravid article).[4][5][6][7] M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a french source tham emphasizes that Aghmat was the first capital of the Almoravids. [5] (and its main subject is the history of the Almohads and the Almoravids, unlike your sources) SimoooIX (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
L'Encyclopédie Berbère also says that Aghmat was the first almoravid capital. [6] SimoooIX (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SimoooIX: actually your last source here, Gaudio 1978 p. 58, does not mention Aghmat, but it does say that according to al-Bakri Azougui was "la véritable capitale des sultans almoravides avant leur épopée maroco-espagnole".
I'm quite tired of this WP:TIMESINK. It's very clear that a great many sources refer to Azougui as the (first) Almoravid capital, and unless there is a reliable source explicitly denying this, there is no reason for us not to mention it as such. Now would be the time to drop the WP:STICK. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apaugasma, that's not my source. It's M.Bitton's. SimoooIX (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also i think that my sources (both english and french ones) are more reliable when it comes to this specific subject. SimoooIX (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry about that: I got confused between the numbered diffs and the numbered references below. Anyway, the point stands: unless there's a high-quality source denying that Azougui was a capital to the Almoravids or explicitly stating that it is incorrect, the many sources which refer to it as the first Almoravid capital are more than enough for us to state as much. Other sources calling other towns the (first) Almoravid capital do not change anything because we all understand that this due to the non-rigid meaning of 'capital' here. Arguing that we should not call it 'capital' for that reason is a form of special pleading that will not convince other editors, and in any case there are two experienced editors here who remain unconvinced, so please drop it now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Apaugasma, per the sources i provided, do i have the right to mention that Aghmat was the first Almoravid capital in its article? If the answer is Yes, wouldn't that appear as a contradiction to the reader? SimoooIX (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not if Azougui is also mentioned as an earlier Almoravid seat of power. Readers are intelligent enough to understand that the word 'capital' here is a bit shifty in meaning. But obviously, it would be better to simply refer to Azougui as the first Almoravid capital in the Aghmat article too. That would be editors using common sense in interpreting the sources. Insisting that one specific town located in Mauritania rather than in Morocco is not called capital, on the other hand, would be WP:TENDENTIOUS.
I strongly suggest that you do not edit any article to make a WP:POINT. This is on the verge of becoming disruptive, so please stop now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least we should indicate that some reliable sources say otherwise so the reader can get a general idea about the issue. SimoooIX (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just found out that the word "capital" was added on 14 August 2021 by the user Askelaadden without any consensus. [7] The former word was "base".
SimoooIX (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. In that very edit Askelaadden also added the Arnaud 2013 source which supports the content. A reliably sourced and otherwise policy-complying WP:BOLD edit which is not disputed or removed is assumed to have WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. So that's a consensus of three editors now believing this content is okay. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford source actually mentioned them both "Aghmat" and "Azuggi". The source suggested that Aghmat was the first capital while Azuggi was a base. If the author believed that azuggi was a capital they would have mentioned it (because such information would be very important). SimoooIX (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. Magnes Press, The Hebrew University.
  2. ^ Esterhuysen, Pieter (2013). Africa A to Z: Continental and Country Profiles Third Edition. Africa Institute of South Africa. p. 265. ISBN 978-0-7983-0344-6.
  3. ^ The Encyclopaedia of Islam. Brill. p. 613.
  4. ^ Arnaud, Jean (2013-05-21). Introduction à la Mauritanie (in French). Institut de recherches et d'études sur le monde arabe et musulman. ISBN 978-2-271-08123-0.
  5. ^ Nantet, Bernard (2013-05-30). Le Sahara: Histoire, guerres et conquêtes (in French). Tallandier. ISBN 979-10-210-0172-5.
  6. ^ Gaudio, Attilio (1978). Le Dossier de la Mauritanie (in French). Nouvelles Editions Latines. ISBN 978-2-7233-0035-3.
  7. ^ Daddah, Mokhtar Ould (2003-10-01). La Mauritanie contre vents et marées (in French). KARTHALA Editions. ISBN 978-2-8111-3765-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azougui&oldid=1199261550"