Talk:Char Bouba war

R.S. Sources + Nasir ad Din

Please see this Char Bouba and Unesco Unesco and how it relates to this topic. Those two tiny sources are not very reliable looking. I do not see the name Nasir ad Din anywhere in this text, despite it being associated with him. --41.177.4.26 (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think there's a general confusion in the article between the Char Bouba war and the Mauritanian 30 Years War. The latter was a general expansion and consolidation of Arab power in Mauritanian, which culminated in the Char Bouba war (1673-1674). Those sources you provided are really good, particularly the Ogot text. There's a good description of the war in the Cambridge History of Africa too. I'm currently working on a rework of the article, hopefully should be able to get some maps in too. MrPenguin20 (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

June 2023

Blocked sock (Gofté Moorish) M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Gofté Moorish: where in that source that you keep adding does it say that "Morocco was involved in this war"? Also, what part of what I said in my edit summary isn't clear? M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Hi, in the book the intervention of Morocco alongside the Banu Hassan in the war of Char Bouba is mentioned on page 399. You delete the source when it clearly says that Morocco was part of the war with their ally the Banu Hassan. Gofté Moorish (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC) What does it say on page 399 and what what part of what I said in my edit summary (about the infobox) isn't clear? M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) in your modification you remove Morocco while the source clearly says that Morocco was part of the war maybe it was political or military support the source does not mention it but it still mentions Morocco's membership in the conflict alongside the Banu Hassan Gofté Moorish (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC) You keep cherry picking what to answer while ignoring the rest. Please cite exactly what he said and comment on what I said about the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Also, who is "Oumar Kane" and what are his credentials? M.Bitton (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC) his wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumar_Kane Gofté Moorish (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC) In other words, the author of the source is not a historian and therefore unreliable even if he made the claim that you are attributing to him while refusing to cite it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Why are you lying in the wikipedia page it clearly says he is a historian Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC) "En outre, la guerre de Shur-Bubba a donné au roi du Maroc l'occasion d'intervenir aux côtés des Hassan contre les Zawaya." Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC) To intervene against the Zawiyas does not mean being involved in the war. This is a confirmation that you are misrepresenting the unreliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC) But I died laughing your bad faith kills me laughing it clearly says that during the war of Shur Bouba Morocco intervened alongside the Banu Hassan against the zawaya who are a nomadic sanhaja confederation of the Senegal river Zawaya and your argument to say that the source is not valid is to say that the author is not a historian when if just the source is against you so you deny it pathetic your hypocrisy Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Nope, that's not what it says. One more personal attack and you'll be reported to the admins. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC) "the author of the source is not a historian" Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Either you provide a reliable source that describes as such or I will assume that you have nothing to provide and are just wasting my time. M.Bitton (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC) But it is you who must argue that the source is not reliable your first argument was to say that it was not a historian when it is completely false Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC) That confirms what I said, the author is not a historian and therefore unreliable (until proven otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC) But are you doing it on purpose or what exactly the author is a historian specializing in the region https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oumar_Kane " "Activité Historien" "Il était l'un des plus grands spécialistes de l'histoire du royaume sénégalais du Fouta-Toro, région historique de la vallée du fleuve Sénégal, et de l'histoire de l'islamisation de l'Afrique de l'ouest." Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC) by the way btw the author says that the war of Shur Bubba opposes the Hassan and the zawaya so your argument from before saying that he is not talking about the war of shur buba is rejected "La deuxième moitié du XVII e siècle y est marquée par la guerre de Shur-Bubba qui a opposé les Zawaya Tashomsha et les Hassan." https://www.cairn.info/la-premiere-hegemonie-peule--9782845865211-page-456.htm Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I'm not interest in your WP:OR. Please provide RS that back your claims and comment on what I said about the infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC) You asked me for the page I gave it to you You asked me for the citation of the passage I gave it to you You asked me the profession of the author of the source I gave it to you You m you said he was not talking about the char bouba sanhaja I refuted you by giving the opposition of the conflict according to the author Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I asked for a reliable source that describes him as a historian (which you are yet to provide). I also asked you multiples times to comment on what I said about the infobox, which meant to summarize what's in the article's body (still waiting for a comment). M.Bitton (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Please provide a reliable source that describes him as a historian. M.Bitton (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC) it is a reliable source a historian specializing in the region you told me that he was not a historian when wiki clearly says that he is a historian you are so in bad faith Gofté Moorish (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Oumar Kane was a historian and worked at the University of Dakar (as of 1984), you can find this here https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb119093821 As for the above mess of a convo, the text provided doesn't establish Morocco being an active belligerent, as you said. Some mention of Morocco is still needed as that is what the source says, I'll add something in the coming days under a sub header "support". HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC) @Gofté Moorish: I see that you're busy editing your own talk page, so pinging you here again just to make sure that you have read the questions. M.Bitton (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

October 2024

@HetmanTheResearcher: I noticed that you added "Supported by Morocco" in the infobox. First, that parameter is no longer used. Second, the Infobox is meant to summarize the simple fact that are covered in the article's body. Third, the note that you added doesn't support the addition: all it says is "the Char Bouba war gave the king of Morocco the opportunity to intervene alongside Hassan against the Zawaya." M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For the text itself, it goes into greater detail, also saying how the Trarza Emirate used Moroccan soldiers in their conquest. The involvement of foreign troops is a sign of support for one side over the other, which is what the sentence above said. As for the Zawaya, form what I understand they were the forces led my Nasr ad-Din and thus belligerents in the war.

Regardless, you have a good point about the infobox not reflecting the body. Could removing Morocco from the infobox while adding some sentences on their involvement in the body work as a compromise? HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

My judgement was based on what looked like a passing mention in a source whose author's credentials seem to be unknown (bnf is using Wikipedia as a source), but since you have access to the source and can hopefully put the claim into context, then by all means, add it to the body (assuming you are convinced that it adds value to the article). Please don't forget to attribute his claims to him (according to Oumar Kane, ...). M.Bitton (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your assistance.

As for verifying authors, which website do you use? I used BnF since it's catalogue seems to be the largest. Do you have any sites which could be more reliable? HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Search engines (such a Google) tend to scrape the various databases.

With regard to the recent addition, I noticed that you forgot to attribute the content to Oumar Kane. Also, the French didn't get involved in this war: the part that you added should be (assuming it belong in this article) in the "consequences" section. M.Bitton (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For attribution, should I say "According to Omar Kane, X happened"?

As for the French, I believe they did, or at least the trading post at Saint-Louis. The Wikipedia article describes the war occurring in Senegal (those references being attributed) while Boubacar Barry's work describes the events of the war in Senegal, starting on page 69 of the source I added in. I agree that the King of France, Louis XIV, did not personally involve himself in the war, rather it was the French traders and governor of Saint-Louis post. How should I reword this then to not imply mainland France was involved? HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's how we attribute claims to their authors. The article mentions what happened in Senegal as part of the consequences of this war. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll attribute to Oumar Kane then.

But for the involvement in Senegal this was not a consequence of the war but rather part of the war itself. The article from Douglas Thomas about the war (cited in the wiki article) opens with "This article is a retelling of the Sharr Bubba Jihad as it unfolded in Kajoor (present-day Senegal)" while the article then describes the work by Boubacar Barry in showing why the events in Senegal were part of the wider war rather than a consequence of it. I don't see how this can be interpreted as the war not going on in Senegal. The war began in Mauritania but expanded to include modern-day Senegal as well. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusion between the primary topic (the Char Bouba war) and the "marabout wars" in general. M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems it's reversed, that the jihad in Senegal was part of the Char Bouba war, albeit a late stage of this war. Going to Thomas' work again, he states on page 310: "The telling and retell ing of this episode in history has excluded the name of one of the major actors, Yacine Bubu, lingeer of Kajoor, during the Shar Bubba Jihad of 1673-74. In this article I argue that the misunderstanding of the position of the lingeer and the reliance on the writings of outsiders (French and Arab observers) produced a male-normative interpretation of the Sharr Bubba Jihad as it unfolded in Kajoor." Here the war in Senegal is not being treated as separate from Char Bouba but rather as much a part of it as the fighting in Mauritania. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about that (Thomas' opinion is in the minority, if not fringe). This war started in 1644 and ended in 1674 (this much we know and can source to multiple RS), while the other started in 1674 (maybe 1673) and ended in 1677, which makes it a by-product of the first. This also explains why most RS treat the two as separate events with different consequences in each region. Right now, we are contradicting most RS by stating (in Wikipedia's voice) that this war lasted from 1644 to 1677. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a source list would be appreciated. I have three authors who refer to the Char Bouba war occurring in Senegal rather than as an offshoot of a Mauritanian conflict. Boucabar Barry, Douglas Thomas, Oumar Kane (page 385 of La Premiere Hegemonie Peule) all describe the war taking place in Senegal. The latter states that the terms "Char Bouca War" and "marabout war" refer to the same event rather than different ones. I see a source which differentiates the two, The Cambridge history of Africa : volume 4 : from c. 1600 to c. 1700. Page 200, however this is a very generalized source. I need to see additional sources which treat the two as separate wars, ideally chapters or articles which focus specifically on the conflict HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

RS stating that this war lasted exactly 30 years (ending in 1674) can easily be found (after all, it's also known as the "Mauritanian Thirty Years' War"). How many RS say that it lasted from 1644 to 1677? M.Bitton (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I'm not disputing the length of the war, rather it's involvement in Senegal. No authors claim a length from 1644-1677 as you say. Rather, the war extended into Senegal during 1673 and early 1674 until the death of Nasir Al-Din. With this date, the war still occurs in Senegal, although RS perhaps considers the end of war in Senegal as a different war from that in 1673-74.

What does change is French involvement. French merchants were still affected by the Jihad, but troops were not sent in until May 1674, after the death of Nasir. Would moving French military involvement into Consequences while stating the opinions of French merchants in Foreign Involvement work? HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The war ended in 1674, what happened after is part of a different war (that ended years later). M.Bitton (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've modified the text. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but that doesn't address the main issue (conflating the movement with the wars): While the Char Bouba and the Senegal wars are related (through a movement that spread from the north), they are different wars with different outcomes. The easiest way to address this would be to create an article about the Senegal war. M.Bitton (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a split to the article is needed. I don't have the patience for it but wouldn't object to moving much of the consequences section into a new article dealing with the War of the Marabouts HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)