Jump to content

Talk:Mauretania

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

Survey

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Move. Yanksox 17:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC) I add this request from WP:RM, which suggests that Mauretania redirect to Mauritania, and this article be moved to Historical Mauretania or Mauretania (historical) or some such. Septentrionalis 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]

The only justification for such a move would be if vast numbers of readers were looking for the country and no-one much were looking for the province. I see no reason to believe this. (If we do move, the target should be Mauretania (province).) Septentrionalis 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location

[edit]

Where exactly would Mauretania be, when compared to a modern map of North Africa?

Northern Morocco through to Tunisia.

Concerning the first paragraphe, I am trying to change it for a much more accurate one: " It was located in present-day Morocco and extended its area to the east in present day Algeria at the early 1st century BC " instead of: "It extended from central present-day Algeria to the Atlantic, encompassing northern present-day Morocco". This second formulation is misleading. Mauretania is first and foremost in north Morocco. After alliance with Romans, it has extended to north Algeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HfedBo (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Topic Question

[edit]

However, would anyone happen to recall what the most typical Roman term for the North African Sahara was?

Africa. UnDeadGoat 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetulia. Still used in Linnaen system of classification: getulensis for anything coming from the Sahara. Africa was only the part containing Tunisia. MisterCDE 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute over the first paragraph

[edit]

This part is a lie, and totally wrong: It extended from central present-day Algeria to the Atlantic, encompassing northern present-day Morocco, and from the Mediterranean in the north to the Atlas Mountains.

This is the formulation I suggest: "It was located in present-day Morocco and extended its area to the east in present day Algeria at the early 1st century BC " This is much more accurate and here is my reliable source:https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2129/exploring-roman-morocco/ comment added by HfedBo — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital

[edit]

Where were Mauretanian capital before the country has been splited? What was its name?

Romano-Byzantine rule survived in Algeria during Vandal occupations?

[edit]

One of my most respected sources, Bruce Gordan's Regnal Chrononlogies, makes a mention in his entry for the city of Constantine in north Africa. And Euratlas' maps of Europe in 500 AD and 600 AD both show a "Kingdom of the Romans and Moors in Algeria, not under Vandal control.

They also show a distinct "Mauri" kingdom in Morrocco.

Would it be plausible to then say that part of the Western Empire survived the fall of Nepos and Syagrius? I unfortunately don't yet have more information, and wanted to bring it to your mutual attentions. It would make a very interesting note in this and a few other articles... Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mauretania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 June 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mauretania → Kingdom of Mauretania – I would like to make this entry focus on the pre-Roman kingdom, not the Roman province (there are already entries which cover that, i.e. Mauretania Tingitana, Mauretania Caesariensis and Mauretania Sitifensis). Therefore I request to change the name to "Kingdom of Mauretania" and drastically cut the content related to the Roman period. LeGabrie (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

dispute

[edit]

M.Bitton has been removing everything I add under one pretext or another. First claim was, that it was not about Mauretania. After that, he claimed it was irrelevant even when I showed him sources mentioning Christian churches and people in Mauretania and its towns. There are many sources you can find on this subject.

For some odd reason, EVERYTHING is being reverted by him. I have a compromise: We can present both views of Christianity existing/being extinguished. One view says suchanother such. In that manner. It is difficult to find any source on this subject, please don't make it more difficult Bitton. IRGCfan (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the "Muslim rule" section that you added is supported by reliable sources that mention Mauretania? M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Towns like Tahart, Tlemcen, Hippo Regius and Bugia contained Christian population under Muslim rule." This was in the lede. These cities were known to be in Mauretania so that is common sense. Do you need to be told in the source these towns were in Mauretania? IRGCfan (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Christian churches are known to have existed in Mauretania in 8th-9th century" taken directly from source https://books.google.com/books?id=IgYqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA332&dq=christianity+mauretania+10th+century&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirx4DlsIziAhWRfisKHaa1Dl4Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=christianity+mauretania+10th+century&f=false IRGCfan (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only sentence in the whole paragraph?
These cities were known to be in Mauretania so that is common sense. No, that's original research. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:COMMONSENSE and even mentioned in this article or that of others. Do you need them to be individually listed under Mauretania in the sources? Please stop giving one excuse after another. If I gave you proof which of them were in Mauretania will your opinion change? IRGCfan (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, your "common sense" is pure original research. Either the source mentions Mauretania (we can discuss its reliability/suitability) or it doesn't (there is nothing to talk about). M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide further sources to show that these cities were in Mauretania. It does mention Mauretania in one para as I have shown above. It's very difficult to even get a source on this subject. Please don't waste our time over "Christianity being extinguished" which you had added. IRGCfan (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to even get a source on this subjec. There is a reason for that. Mauretania, which was destroyed after the vandal's invasion, ceased to exist after the Arab invasion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Cease to exist as a name, not as a territory. Of course many won't use this name in the Muslims period. Rather regions of Morocco or Algeria (whose territories formed a part of Mauretania) will be mentioned more. Please let's not stamp one view as undeniable fact and fight over it. IRGCfan (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Cease to exist as a name, not as a territory. It ceased to exist as a country and the territory it once occupied was engulfed by the much larger Maghreb (with its own history, dynasties, languages, culture, religion, etc). M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it as the land didn't cease. Maghreb itself was divided into parts which were further divided into parts: like Sus al-Adna and al-Aqsa [1]. Maghreb is still a common name. Morocco and Algeria now occupy Mauretania's place. It is obvious that these names will occur more. IRGCfan (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco and Algeria now occupy Mauretania's place.What is your point? M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the dispute of each city not being individually listed under "Mauretania" is pointless. Both Judaism and Christianity existed in these regions. Let's just represent different views here. IRGCfan (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Them existing is what I believe. But in the article it can be presented as one view, the "extinguished" statement as another. IRGCfan (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you're going with this. Here's what I suggest: you bring whatever sources you think are appropriate and we can look at them individually and check whether they support the content you're trying to add. It would really help save us a lot of time if you could quote the relevant sentences from them.M.Bitton (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave you the source [2]. Read the middle para and pages 332-334. It talks about Christian communities being present outside Carthage. Then goes on to talk about churches in cities of Tripolitania to Mauretania,Christian people of various cities. IRGCfan (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also this, [3] where it mentions Pope Innocent IV wrote letters to emirs of Ceuta, Tunis and Bugia to allow Fraciscan friars to attend to the Christians there in 2nd para. Also Honorius III thanks the Almohad caliphs on treatment of Christians in Morocco on page 118. While Mauretania is not directly mentioned, I believe you already know Ceuta was in the region. IRGCfan (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first source says in passing that a territory called Mauretania existed in the 9th century. This is obviously factually incorrect.
As for the second source, I can only reiterate what Jayron32 said to you in the Mauretania Caesariensis article: It is outside of the time-period of this article. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first source doesn't mention it anywhere Mauretania existed as an official province in 9th century or was used as a name. Mauretania retained churches, that was it. You should know that older names are sometimes used for a territory. IRGCfan (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second, it still logicalIy contradicts Christianity being extinguished after Arab conquest. I can group all towns of Mauretania with known Christian population in a short single sentence to resolve your issue. Is that answer enough; can I add what is already properly sourced? IRGCfan (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that older names are sometimes used for a territory.Does that mean you can use Mauretania to describe Algeria and Morocco?
When we say that Christianity was extinguished (which is a fact), we don't mean that Christians disappeared overnight. Please quote the part you want to add and the source that supports it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an official name, yes I can. The term Maghreb applies to regions even outside the Arab Caliphate control. But I don't think you wrote the Encyclopaedia Britannica article, it says it was extinguished when Arabs conquered the region. That is original research what you just said. IRGCfan (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can, go ahead and create a new section about the 2019 protests in Mauretania. As for Christianity, it was extinguished in the Maghreb, that's a fact that keeps puzzling scholars. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not misunderstand though. I was actually talking about using Mauretania in conversation or writing a book. In real life, people do use older names to refer to some places. IRGCfan (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you have written in the article is Christianity was extinguished when Arabs conquered, not after. It is wrong. IRGCfan (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's your interpretation of the sourced statement that is wrong. Stating that Christianity was extinguished when the Arabs conquered the area is an accurate and good description of what happened. Later on (the after that you're referring to), Christianity disappeared. M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"When" means at the same time or as soon as. Not centuries after. How did it get extinguished if it disappeared much later? IRGCfan (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the definitions of "extinguished" (put an end to) and "disappeared" (become extinct) is fairly obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically the same thing (ended/extinct). If there are still Christans, obviously Christianity hasn't ended as a faith. It is original research to suggest "when" refers to an event that at the least took many centuries. Or extinguished doesn't mean extinct. IRGCfan (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced and more sources could easily be added if needed. M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have given sources to the contrary of what is said here. You have already acknowledged Christianity didn't end during the Arab conquest which the source clearly suggests. The factually incorrect statement should be removed. Please do not keep creating more obstacles. IRGCfan (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't acknowledge anything. I tried my best to make you understand (in vain). There's nothing more that I could possibly say. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "When we say that Christianity was extinguished (which is a fact), we don't mean that Christians disappeared overnight."
- "Later on (the after that you're referring to), Christianity disappeared."
Yes you did. Please allow me to remove that incorrect statement from the source and we can be on our way. Is this one statement so important to you? IRGCfan (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works and You know it. To answer your question: No, the sentence is not that important to me, but it's definitely extremely important to you. That said, I don't mind changing it with another sourced statement that says something like ".. disappeared beginning in the seventh century". M.Bitton (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing that matters to me hete is the factual accuracy. What you suggest is not what the source says. It would be original research. IRGCfan (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's your choice. You can leave the article as it is, or replace the sentence that says "but was extinguished when the Arabs conquered the region in the 7th century" with:

before being wiped out by Arab Islamic invasions beginning in the seventh century.[1]

Both of the sentences are obviously properly sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph you listed here is about North Africa, not Mauretania in particular. Even archaeological evidence attests Christianity survived in North Africa.

It is widely known Christianity flourished in North Africa before being wiped out by Arab Islamic invasions beginning in the seventh century.[1]

But as I have already shown Christianity did exist after the Arab Islamic invasions in many towns of North Africa. [4] [5].
If you are giving sources, do not add that which has already been contradicted. IRGCfan (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in either your original research or the fact that you don't agree with the sources. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One of these sources is dedicated to Christianity in North Africa, they mention it. I can give you a map of North Africa whose mention you omitted, you can check for yourself which country is considered part of North Africa. So what original research do you talk about? IRGCfan (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another source from Cambridge says Almohads (descended from Berbers) effectively ended Christianity in North Africa. [6]. Obviously contradictory. IRGCfan (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether you seriously don't get or whether you're pretending not to understand. Let me repeat what I already told you (by reiterating what another editor said to you about content that is outside of the time-period of the article): This article is about Mauretania (which ceased to exist in the 7th century). So any source that doesn't mention this period is simply irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat the same thing then. What you say is not about Mauretania. I didn't add any sources to the article, but nothing prohibits me from using them to contradict what you claim. Mauretania wasn't an actual province until 7th century, Tingitana and Caesaris were. Christianity's decline however occured for long, so this article is not a proper place. IRGCfan (talk) 00:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cornelius Tacitus mentioned Mauretania was already divided in 44 AD to create Tingitana and Caesaris. [7] IRGCfan (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed about the source you used. The authors are described: "Anthony O’Mahony is Director of the Centre for Christianity and Interreligious Dialogue at Heythrop College, University of London. Emma Loosley is Lecturer in Oriental Christian and Islamic Art at the University of Manchester." I would'nt use such people.

What you obviously missed is the book is about interfaith engagement in modern world which one can easily glean from its description. The statement of Christianity in North Africa cited by you is a response by the authors to Sudanese Islamist governments of today portraying Christianity as a foreign import. You use a source that is not about actual history:
in the Sudan, where successive Islamist governments have continued to portray Christianity as a foreign religion imported alongside European colonialism in the nineteenth century. It is widely known that Christianity flourished in North Africa... IRGCfan (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the paragraph in question, finding it to be copied word-by-word from Encyclopaedia Britannica. While M.Bitton keeps claiming Mauretania didn't exist after 7th century, it was already divided in 1st century and ceased to be an official name for any province or kingdom. The same Encyclopaedia Brittanica used here [8] described it as a region, claiming of it existing or not is not logical. IRGCfan (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

Since we seem to be talking at cross purposes, I suggest seeking a third opinion as a way forward. Should you agree to it, I propose you start a new section (call it third opinion) and explain your reasons for wanting to remove the sentence. Once done, ping me and I will do the same before requesting a WP:3O. In the meantime, I will restore what was changed without discussion (we have enough trouble as it is with a single sentence, so this will be discussed later) and remove the contested sentence per your request (as to avoid further disruption to the article). I trust that you won't edit the article any more until this part is resolved. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept your 3rd opinion proposal. People can come here without being influenced though, open forum. You have already contacted administrator Doug Weller. You are going to restore nothing without discussing. You have never had ANY wish of accepting a compromise, otherwise this dispute wouldn't go on. You said that Mauretania stopped existing in 7th century because it was replaced by a much larger province Maghreb. Fact of the matter, Mauretania wasn't an official unit of Byzantine or Rome. Nonsense.
You keep on attempting to only keep "Christianity was extinguished". Only I offered a compromise here which doesn't favor any side. Stop exploiting the rules to remove facts. First leave your insistence on only including your beliefs behind. IRGCfan (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Anthony O'Mahony; Emma Loosley (15 November 2008). Christian Responses to Islam: Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World. Manchester University Press. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-7190-7687-9.

Maurusia - Μαυρουσία - Greek name of Mauretania

[edit]

M.Bitton is at it again. I added the Greek name of the Kingdom of Mauretania (Maurusia - Μαυρουσία), which is older than the Latin name, as well as the largest extent of the province under King Bocchus II, with sources, but M.Bitton for whatever reason reverted the edit. M.Bitton should provide a reason or counter proof to the statements I added. If there's controversy over the name or territorial extent, then the article should reflect this controversy, rather than include a single view or none. I would expect M.Bitton to engage in discussion over such matters, rather than abuse his admin powers to control the content of articles. --Ideophagous (Talk) 11:00, 04 August 2020 (+2)

You haven't responded to the reasons given in User:M.Bitton's edit summary and you've made a personal attack (warning on your talk page) based on some odd misconception that Bitton is a WP:Administrator. It's up to you to justify your edit, Bitton's already justified their revertl. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Apologies once again. As to the reason provided by M.Bitton, I find it rather ambiguous. What is OR, and how did I make a "personal interpretation" of the content of the source? I would normally expect that he opens a discussion on the talk page so we can clear that up. At least that's what I would do, unless there was a clear case of vandalism. The source by Strabo[1][2][3] clearly says that Maurusia was the name used by the Ancient Greeks to refer to the western part of North Africa, aka Mauretania. As to the extent of Mauretania under King Bocchus II, that's also known to anyone who learned the ancient history of North Africa, since Bocchus II was rewarded for his participation with Julius Caesar against the rebellion of Kings Massinissa II and Juba I of Numidia by receiving part of the territories of Massinissa II, effectively extending Mauretania to the Ampsaga river. Here's the relevant quote from the Berber Encyclopedia:[4]

Dans le règlement des affaires d’Afrique, Bocchus reçut la partie occidentale du territoire de Massinissa II qui devait correspondre à la Petite Kabylie et à la région de Sétif. C’est alors que le royaume de Maurétanie s’étendit jusqu’à l’Ampsaga. Le reste du royaume de Massinissa II, c’est-à-dire la région proche de la mer au nord de Cirta et le territoire de Cirta, qui avait appartenu à Juba, furent données à Sittius.

— Encyclopédie Berbère
--Ideophagous (talk) 17:33, 04 August 2020 (+2)
Now that User:Doug Weller has kindly intervened, here's a longer explanation of the revert:
The sourced region was changed to western region. This is OR, if not source misrepresentation.
The sourced it stretched from central present-day was changed to it stretched from the central east of present-day.. Same as above.
At its largest extent, under the reign of Bocchus II, is OR. The french source cited above (unrelated to the revert) doesn't support it either. For all we know, its largest extent was under Juba II.
In Greek sources it was known as Maurusia ... This is an interpretation of a primary source. It's the Scholars' job (not ours) to establish how the Greeks called Mauretania and whether it's worth mentioning.
the Greek name of the Kingdom of Mauretania (Maurusia - Μαυρουσία), which is older than the Latin name. This (unrelated to the revert) needs to be substantiated first and then, if needs be, added to the Mauri_(Moorish)_Kingdom section. Unless consistently used by modern scholars, the Greek name does not belong in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @M.Bitton. The questions you're asking are rather basic, and have been addressed by many authors who wrote about the topic.
Western region is more accurate than "region". Strabo clearly specifies the regions of North Africa in sequence from East to West, starting with Egypt, all the way to the Pillars of Hercules (check previously cited pages from Strabo's Geography). Cicero also did the same in his book In Vatinum, where he related the journey of Vatinus from Numidia to Mauretania.[5]
The extent of the Kingdom of Mauretania under Bocchus II is also known from different sources, quoted by more recent historians as well.[6] Under the oldest attested king Baga of Mauretania, the Kingdom was bordered east by the river Mulucha or Molocath (usually assumed to be modern Moulouya in Morocco). Bocchus I takes over a third of Numidia after delivering King Jugurtha to the Romans, extending the Kingdom further east. Bocchus II takes over more territories to the east. Then Juba II inherits the same kingdom[7] as well as his son Ptolemy, who was the last king of Mauretania. Thus the largest extent was achieved under Bocchus II (his successors simply kept the same borders, and the Kingdom had become a client state of Rome in any case). I've uploaded screenshots from one of the references if you'd like to read them yourself.
Maurusia = Mauretania, especially in the early period of the Kingdom, is also very well known to historians, and is not just an interpretation. It is certainly important to specify where the name Mauretania itself came from in the lead, and that cannot be done without mentioning the Greek name Maurusia. See for example Gsell[8] as well as Mouna Hachim's book[9]. Also Jehan Desanges.[10] To confirm this further, I'll add a quote from the Berber Encyclopedia:[11]

Parmi les auteurs grecs, Aristote, Polybe, Strabon, Appien, Elien confirment la présence en grand nombre des éléphants, particulièrement dans les régions occidentales de la Maurusie (Mauritanie).

If there are no further objections, I shall put back my changes in the article. --Ideophagous (talk) 13:31, 05 August 2020 (+2)
The questions you're asking are.. I didn't ask any questions.
Western region is more accurate than "region". That's a matter of opinion and not a valid reason to insert OR in the middle of a sourced statement. The term region is both correct and neutral; and besides, it's followed by a description of its geographical location.
The extent of the Kingdom of Mauretania under Bocchus II is also known from different sources. This is irrelevant to the unsourced content that you added. Claiming that the largest extent was achieved under Bocchus II without citing a source that says so is pure OR, and if we analyse the primary source that you cited[12] (not that I condone such practice), it becomes factually incorrect too since the source says "a little before my time the kings of the house of Bogus and of Bocchus, who were friends of the Romans, possessed the country, but when these died Juba succeeded to the throne, Augustus Caesar having given him this in addition to his father's empire", therefore attributing a larger territory to Juba II.
Maurusia Nobody is disputing that the Greeks referred to Mauretania using a Greek name (why wouldn't they?), all I'm saying is that the Greek name does not belong in the lead unless the modern scholars consistently use it to refer to what is known today as Mauretania.
As for your sources: 1) I didn't bother checking what Mouna Hachim has to say since she's not a historian. 2) Desanges mentions Maurisie in a specific context (the Eudoxus of Cyzicus). 3) Gsell's mentions the "Ethiopians, neighbours of the Mauretanian kingdom whose dominion extended towards the west until the mountain of Maurisia (Atlas Mountain). This is hardly the Mauretania of the article. 4) Berber encyclopedia: The quote is a cherry picked sentence from an article about elephants mentioning what the Greeks said about their presence in the western region of "Maurusie (Mauritanie)" (notice the spelling). Other than that, the term "Maurétanie", which is how "Mauretania" is spelt in French, is used throughout the rest of the article.
It is certainly important to specify where the name Mauretania itself came from in the lead. As far as I know, Mauretania comes from the Latin word Mauri. Where the Latin word Mauri comes from (with the punic Mauharim being as good a candidate as any) is another issue that should be addressed in the etymology section and not in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/2C*.html
  2. ^ https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/17C*.html
  3. ^ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239%3Abook%3D3
  4. ^ https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/1775
  5. ^ https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/1775
  6. ^ Mouna Hachim. Histoire Inattendue du Maroc. p. 57.
  7. ^ Mouna Hachim. Histoire Inattendue du Maroc. p. 58.
  8. ^ Stéphane Gsell. Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. p. 296-297.
  9. ^ Mouna Hachim. Histoire Inattendue du Maroc. p. 55.
  10. ^ Le royaume de Maurétanie sous Juba II et Ptolémée (25 av. J.- C. - 40 ap. J.-C.)
  11. ^ https://journals.openedition.org/encyclopedieberbere/2134
  12. ^ https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/17C*.html

Massinissa's rule of Mauretania

[edit]

See Appian, "The African Book," chapter 106 (subsection 499 of the Loeb edition). Appian states that Massinissa (the same king famous for assisting Rome in the defeat of Hannibal during the Second Punic War) had, by the time of his death during the Third Punic War, extended his ancestral kingdom "from Mauretania on the [Atlantic] Ocean to Cyrene in the interior." If correct, this detail would be a valuable addition to the list of rulers of ancient Mauretania as currently included on this Wiki page. However it's not immediately clear which of Massinissa's sons succeeded to the rule after his death, possibly Micipsa? (He's the one who got the palace in Cirta.) A second corroborating source would be helpful, but it's a tantalizing detail nonetheless. I'm not making the change myself at this time, because I don't want to run afoul of any community standards; but if others agree that it would be a helpful addition, please feel welcome to add this detail to the Wiki page. Cheers! 50.53.219.168 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A direct link to the source will be helpful. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Mauretania and Mauretania (ancient region)

[edit]

I hereby propose to practically split this page into two pages: One that deals with the ancient region of Mauretania from its pre-historic origins to the arrival of Islam, kinda like this one does right now, and one dedicated to the ancient kingdom from around the 3rd century BC to 40 AD. The latter is supposed to be far more detailed, delving into languages, numismatics and other issues. I have written an early version here, but would need other editors to help me out because of real life issues. Opinions? LeGabrie (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ancient kingdom lasted from the 3rd century BC to 40 AD? A source about what you're referring to would be helpful. M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mauri kingdom, commonly known as Mauretania. This polity is first attested in the late 3rd century BC, when Baga aided Massinissa, became a major player under Bocchus I, disintegrated soon after before being revived under Augustus. Most useful sources for its history are probably Duane Roller "The World of Juba II and Kleopatra Selene: Royal Scholarship on Rome's African Frontier", Enrique Cravioto "Los orígenes del Reino de Mauretania (Marruecos)" and various entries found in "Encyclopédie berbère". LeGabrie (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one mentions "a single kingdom" that lasted from 3rd century BC to 40 AD? M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cravioto. LeGabrie (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read it, but if that's what they claim, then they are at odds with what the RS say (including Duane Roller that you cited above). M.Bitton (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The details on this kingdom do not seem plentiful but are still there. There certainly is enough scholarly work discussing the kingdom in detail during the reign of it's last two rulers while studies also exist on it's early development, such as this work: Bridoux, V. (2020). Chapitre 1. Essor dynastique, rivalités et conquêtes territoriales en Afrique du Nord. In Les Royaumes d’Afrique du Nord (1‑). Publications de l’École française de Rome. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.efr.31990. It's clear a kingdom existed here and does deserve it's own article. I definitely see a distinction between this early "Mauretania Kingdom" and the later Roman, Vandal and Byzantine periods. While I won't do much to help build the article outside a paragraph or two I'd support splitting this page in two. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know the last two rulers who were Roman clients, but that doesn't address the issue of whether there was a single kingdom (as claimed) that lasted from the 3rd century BC until 40 AD. As far as I know, no such kingdom existed and the relationships between the other rulers (who ruled different parts of it) is based solely on unsubstantiated speculations. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source I provided goes into greater detail, describing a Mauretanian king ruling a territory in 108BCE while discussing vague evidence of some kingdom in the early third century BCE ruled by a individual named Baga. As for your argument of a unified kingdom, I do not see why this is relevant. It seems the kingdom was one of multiple in the wider region and gradually expanded over time through warfare and aid from Rome. This is no reason to exclude an article on the kingdom however since reliable sources still discuss it's existence in fair detail. If anything, the other kingdoms of the region may also deserve their own articles, although this is up to reliable sources and not a claim I will make here.
Regardless, the kingdom exists in enough reliable sources focused on the kingdom itself to merit inclusion in a separate article. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the decision is to split the article then. LeGabrie (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, especially given that the sources don't support what you claimed (a kingdom lasting from the 3rd century BC until 40 AD). The very little that we know about the old Moorish kingdoms can be added to this article. M.Bitton (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'd agree. There's enough studies focusing on Mauretania as a kingdom specifically rather than the later Roman province to merit inclusion as a separate wiki article. That being said I'd wait a week or two before splitting to allow any other editors to make their voices heard first. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mauretania&oldid=1249370315"