Talk:Almoravid dynasty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Morocco" in lead or not?

I think this has come up before, and it's come up again with an anonymous edit I just reverted, so I'll ask here: Do editors want to change the wording of the first lead sentence to replace "centered in Morocco" with something that doesn't mention Morocco, like "in western North Africa and Al-Andalus" or other equivalent? Personally, I think the current wording is fine and clear; it doesn't call the dynasty "Moroccan" so I don't see potential nationalist or anachronistic connotations, though I would maybe specify "present-day" Morocco for the clearest wording. R Prazeres (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd leave "centered in Morrocco" in the lede. However, I still want to change the article title to simply "Almoravids" rather than "Almoravid dynasty". That might imply some changes in the wording of the lede as a consequence. Walrasiad (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Morocco 1073 1147.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

@Alooypasha: your edit doesn't make sense since most sources agree that Marrakesh was founded Abu Bakr ibn Umar. M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

:My mistake i will make clear edit Alooypasha (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alooypasha: What edit are you suggesting? M.Bitton (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alooypasha: Why did you ignore my question? M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

What question? I left a text in your page Alooypasha (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you report me? What have I done wrong I clearly make clarification with citations Alooypasha (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This site added by user:Alooypasha is a mirror of Wikipedia, thus an unreliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Kansas so oxford citation is unreliable, really oxford Alooypasha (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alooypasha: I didn't report you, I simply asked you join the discussion. Collecting "stuff" and sticking it in the lead is not how wikipedia works. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

U said ibn yasin is not the founder of Marrakesh I totally agreed and said your right. Umar is, but the founder of the dynasty was abdallah ibn yasin. Founder of Marrakesh is different than founder of the dynasty Alooypasha (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alooypasha: the founder of the dynasty was abdallah ibn yasin You are 100% wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Than who is it? Yahya ibn ibrahim was the leader of the Godala tribe. It clearly is ibn yasin. It was on oxford page. It was ibn yasin all the time until you decided to change it today. Why today???? You changed your mind or something Alooypasha (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Mr bitton im waiting for your response. Alooypasha (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to teach you history. The fact that you wrong is beyond the pale. M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Answer if you can. Exactly you can't answer. All ur trying to do is rewrite history. Shame on you. Shame. Everyday Moroccan pages are changing and ur the reason removing the truth and adding false Alooypasha (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You just confirmed my suspicion that you are yet another sock of "Rayooni". M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sock or not sock, ur trying to rewrite history with ur false info. Why can't you answer my question then, it's clearly cause your wrong shame on you for rewriting history shame. Literally your still a child Alooypasha (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Who is the founder then answer me? Let see don't make stupid excuses and answer me like a man Alooypasha (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly can't answer. Just proved my point Alooypasha (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• A simple yes or no question: are you a sock of "Rayooni"? M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

No. There you go I answered no your turn. Why are you trying to rewrite Moroccan history???? Alooypasha (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Answer me come on? Exactly that's what I thought? Trying to destroy Moroccan history and making Algerian history better. Isn't that bit suspicious? Alooypasha (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I know from experience that if something looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. So when a "new editor" lands on their feet running and starts casting aspersions, using more or less the same arguments as Rayooni (whose unblock request is still fresh), I feel compelled to open a SPI; but since there is a backlog, I will instead ask a CU (hopping they won't mind). @Doug Weller: Could you please have a look at this? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I know a hater when I see one. I know how much u hate morocco that you decided to vandalise its history. U keep vandalising Moroccan articles and for Algerian article you help evolve it. Don't u think this is a hate crime. Alooypasha (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

2 years from now. The king of morocco birthplace will be changed to Algeria. And I will not be surprised seeing ur the one that change it. Vandalising articles just u hate that country is the main reason ur doing it. Alooypasha (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doug_Weller please do me a favour a check every article he has edited and you will see he mainly changed articles consisting morocco. Don't u think it is suspicious. Check the article Almoravid dynasty and you will see clearly the changes he has done. When I myself added with citation the true founder of the dynasty and still changes it because to him he feels it's inappropriate since it's speaking the truth Alooypasha (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Almoravid Empire-en.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loudiddly.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Family tree

The "family tree" in the article doesn't explain its sources and it's unclear how much of it is verifiable. I see that Walrasiad added it a while ago ([1]). Walrasiad, would it be possible to indicate what sources these are based on? (We can figure out how to insert them in the section later.) There are partial family trees provided in the Encyclopedia of Islam 2 reference (Norris and Chalmetta 1993, cited in article) and in Bennison 2016 (p. 51), but they don't confirm most of the non-ruling family members included here. Aridhims's suggestion here (reverted by a bot) to limit the tree to only the rulers and their immediate relations may ultimately be a good idea if this information can't be verified. R Prazeres (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Family tree is from Hugh Kennedy (1996) Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus, 2014 reprint, Routledge, Appendix 2. I disagree with reduced form. The non-ruling family members in the tree served as notable generals and governors, some quite famous in their own right. These are not gratuitous names. Walrasiad (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! If there's a source, there's no problem. In fact it seems I missed this tree when I was looking through that book earlier. In any case I've added a citation in the title of the chart; if there's a better format for inserting it, feel free to revise. R Prazeres (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Almoravid movement's birth place and it's co-founder

It seems to be that the page is biased and not objective, I have tried to add Abdallah ibn Yasin as the co-founder and spiritual leader of almoravids but my edits seem to be reverted.

Abdallah ibn Yasin and Waggag ibn zalu are the founders of the almoravid movement which has been named after their school "dar al murabitin" ,or "House of almoravids" in sous in modern day Morocco, this is acknowledged in a paragraph contained in the article but shrugged off else where.

Ibn Umar was appointed military leader, while ibn Yasin was the spiritual leader.

The Map in the article showing the expansion of almoravids is also inaccurate, as it shows the expansion of the lamtuna tribes before the founding of the almoravid movement.

I hope this can be fixed in order to keep the article as objective and factual as possible. Goharocko (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

While Ibn Yasin is acknowledged as the spiritual leader, this article is about the Almoravid dynasty (the Government parameter in the infobox, to which you want to add his name, is described as a Hereditary monarchy). M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Goharocko, I've given you a longer reply about this revert on your user talk page, but I barely had time to do that before you just repeated it again without addressing the reasons I gave in the edit summary of that revert (you said I didn't give you a reason, that's not true, read the summary). In general, you need to stop reacting to every revert by immediately repeating your edit again. This is edit-warring and you've been warned about it already. The whole point of the talk page is to deal with this here rather than needlessly making edits that will obviously be reverted. R Prazeres (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Noted, I've read your reply, and I now understand this Goharocko (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Azougui, an entire section in need of citations, Bias against Morocco

I found it extremely odd that azougui was in the info box, while many of the edits that have solid sources get reverted.

The universally accepted first capital of almoravids is aghmat, the "birth" of almoravid empire only started with their alliance with the Masmuda of sous, as such it makes no sense for azougui to be in the info box as the first capital, unless the overwhelming majority of reputable sources agree that it was, which isn't the case, unlike how it is for aghmat or marakesh.

I also see a heavy bias against morocco eventhough it is the birth place of the almoravid movement, and the dynasty while being a specific branch of the sanhaja that allegedly hails from the disputed western Sahara which morocco claims, and parts of present day Mauritania, is still considered a moroccan dynasty given the empire's ideology, government system, and its spiritual leader, came out of "the house of almoravids", a school in sous, Morocco, and the empire itself was centered in morocco, this is like saying the current alaouite dynasty is not a moroccan dynasty because the alaouites are originally from the hijaz region in Arabia.

Some users even suggest removing Morocco's name from the lead altogether, and the wording has already been changed from "centered in morocco" to "centered in present day morocco" as if to detach present-day morocco from 11th century morocco, when there's a scholarly consensus that the moroccan kingdom was founded in 789 and had a continuous existence up till modern day with a total of 7 consecutive dynasties including the current one.

Finally, there are entire sections in need of citations that remain unedited and unsourced, I need permission to edit or atleast attempt to source it.

I hope my concerns can be addressed. Goharocko (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I (seriously) share your concerns about some editors trying to remove mentions of Morocco from history articles like this, and I have steadfastly opposed it (including opposing the current wording in the lede). I have ceased contributing to to this article (and other Moroccan history articles) as a result of an editor's anti-Moroccan bullheadedness.

However, I don't share your opinion about Aghmat being "birthplace". The history of the Almoravids begins with the Lamtuna, in the Adrar plateau of Mauritania.

I have written several long articles describing in quite some detail the Almoravid conquests and politics. I was going to turn them into three separate Almoravid campaign articles for Wikipedia (one on the Sahara, another on Morocco and another on Spain). Until the aforementioned editor decided to go messing about with "Morocco" definitions, and so I decided to hold them back, and not contribute further to Wikipedia articles. I don't have time or patience for petty nationalisms. Walrasiad (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I should've used my words better, I didn't mean all of the tribes constituting almoravids hail from aghmat, but that it's their first capital based on scholarly consensus, however "dar al-Murabitin" in Morocco's sous region is definitely the birth place of the almoravid movement who's ideology was spread in the sahara by Abdallah ibn Yasin, the article should be factual even at the expense of the feelings of some editors.

I have a feeling that I know exactly which editor you're talking about, either ways I've left this here in the discussion not expecting much to change based on what I've seen. Goharocko (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Still resist characterizing Aghmat as 'capital'. These are a desert people, their capital is wherever the emir pitches his tent, so characterizing a particular city as such is a bit anachronistic.

The Almoravids were a Sanhaja empire, under Lamtuna leadership. The Lamtuna fortress of Azougi is the closest we have as the original capital, as per Yahya ibn Umar, the first Almoravid emir, although even that is a stretch. The ribat of Sous was just where Abdallah ibn Yasin was trained, it didn't belong to him, it belonged to Waggag ibn Zelou, and only came under the Almoravids after they launched their invasion of Morocco in 1057. Ibn Yasin did set up his own ribat, probably at Tidra, in Arguin bay of Mauritania in 1040s, but it was hardly significant.

Being rustic desert puritans, the early Almoravids did not live in cities. They conquered cities, purged them and moved on. In some critical places they installed their own Lamtuna governor and garrison, in most others they just re-appointed the local ruler under a new oath (unless he was Maghrawa; the Almoravids hated the Maghrawa, and persecuted them with great ferocity). Aghmat, Sijilmassa, Fez and Tlemcen were the major Maghrawa-ruled towns, all requiring heavy-handed Almoravid governors. The conquest of Aghmat came after the conquest of Sijilmassa and Awdhaghost, and after the conquest of Taroudant. Aghmat was just another city they conquered. The Almoravid leadership stayed in Aghmat about five minutes, before they decamped and pitched their tents in desert-style fashion in the Tensift valley (which evolved into Marrakesh). That - the Marrakesh camp - was where the Almoravid court settled, and is their first true capital. Aghmat, like Sijilmassa, were just citadels held by subordinate governors, and both their mints pumped out coinage, neither claiming supremacy (Almoravid court of Abu Bakr in the Marrakesh camp, was supreme).

Now, it is true that the governor of Aghmat, Yusuf ibn Tashfin, did use Aghmat as the base for his incursions into northern Morocco, and ultimately (after several years) ended up conquering it. But throughout, he was merely a subordinate to Abu Bakr in Marrakesh, just like the governor of Sijilmassa. It was only after the conquest of Fez in 1070 that Abu Bakr decided felt confident enough to deliver authority to Yusuf ibn Tashfin (and he promptly relocated to Marrakesh). Naturally, the rival governor of Sijilmassa was resentful at being overlooked and promptly revolted.

Aghmat is a significant town, yes. And it from there where Yusuf ibn Tashfin, while local governor, launched his northern campaigns. But it was not really the capital, at best a local or regional capital, and certainly not the "first" capital. Walrasiad (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Ignoring the baseless assertions, I'll keep my question simple (for now): was there such a thing as a nation called Morocco back then? If someone can answer the question, I would be grateful; but please, spare me the whinging and the personal attacks, as I have no time for emotional childishness. M.Bitton (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean a "Regnum Marrochiorum"? Once Marrakesh (Morocco) was founded, of course. There are enough documents referring to it. Walrasiad (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Marrakesh doesn't mean Morocco, but that's beside the point, because I meant exactly what I wrote about the existence of a nation called Morocco back then. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course it does - it's the word. But I'll leave you to talk to yourself. I've had quite enough of your POV-pushing campaign. Walrasiad (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There's the emotional childishness I was referring to. Next! M.Bitton (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes the nation of morocco was a thing, Morocco is quite literally Latinized Marakesh, which in turn is the berber name amoor n' akush, and "Morocco" is an exonym.

Even before morocco got its exonym, it already had its endonym, it is widely accepted that morocco was founded by Idris the first in 789,the Idrissid dynasty is the first dynasty of morocco, and as such morocco as a nation already existed before the Almoravids took control of that nation.

You're clearly biased and it's your opinion against many, and against historical fact. Goharocko (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Either you're using words that you don't understand or you're deliberately deceiving the readers with your asinine assertions. Either way, the fact that you keep casting aspersions despite being asked not to means that you have now become irrelevant, and will therefore be ignored. The question remains open for the others. M.Bitton (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I was answering your question, You can't answer my concerns with "now you will be ignored"

"The Idrisids,(are) the founder dynasty of Fas and, ideally at least, of the modern Moroccan state" - Leonard R. Koos et al, Journal of North african studies

"The nucleus of the Moroccan nation was established in the 8th century AD" -"Morocco" page n16, by Anne M. Findlay,  university of sterling, published by Oxford

You asked whether "Morocco existed at that time" , I answered that the moroccan state is widely considered by historians to have been founded by Idris I in the 8th century AD, therefore of course the Moroccan state existed at that time, the name "Morocco" is but an exonym that came later on and it doesn't mark the foundation of the Moroccan state, (an exonym is what other nations call a state, while an endonym is what it calls itself)  therefore almoravids (being a dynasty that came to rule in the moroccan statr) are, in fact, a dynasty of morocco.

Your reply that completely disregards my factual statements simply confirms the bias you have, you can't ask for something then say "you will be ignored" when I provide what you asked for, I hope you understand that, although I doubt it since you seem to have a rather clear bias that drives your every action on this article. Goharocko (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Azougui is not a capital

Azougui cannot be considered as a capital of the almoravids, the real almoravid establishment was by the construction of marrakesh, the sources i deleted cannot be reliable since they are mauritanian sources, i've read the camridge history of africa and azougui is not mentioned on it, i hope you understand. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Typical nationalist nonsense from a typical returning disruptive editor. M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please stick to an impersonal discussion of all concerned reliable sources. Dismissing some as "Mauritanian" is unconstructive.

Also, in the interest of maintaining focus and continuity, can we please keep this discussion to the "How come Azougi to be a Capital?!" section above? (The poorly-written title is not ideal, but that's not what matters.) We now have 3 talk sections about this, and the new ones only serve to further bury the original discussion. R Prazeres (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

How come Azougi to be a Capital?!

I have looked through the ancient books of history where there is no mention to this called city [Azougi] as a capital. Please remove it because this is called as "Falsification of history". The very first capital is Aghmat city then Marrakech city, while there is no recognition of Azougi as a capital of the Almoravids. 41.142.219.152 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we will remove it that easily given that there are sources cited and you don't cite any sources of your own.

That said, I have looked at this before and the claim does seem to be more sketchy than the presence of citations would suggest, and its current presentation in the infobox may be not be WP:NPOV or particularly accurate. The cited sources (minus one I can't access) offer no details about this point other than a brief mention without dates, and one of them puts "capital" in quotation marks, suggesting the author isn't definitively endorsing this label (a convention also used by other authors, among other things because there were probably multiple bases of operation in the south). An earlier capital is indeed not mentioned in other detailed references about the Almoravids that I can find, even those that discuss Azougi (also spelled Azuggi, Azugi, Azuqqi, Azukki, etc). References mention it clearly as a southern capital of the Almoravids, mainly as the base of Abu Bakr after leaving Marrakesh, but these events are well after Aghmat already served as a capital. There are a number of apparently important authors and references that sources cite in relation to Azuggi which are not cited here and which I can't access at the moment (e.g. Saison, B. (1981) "Azuggi: archéologie et histoire en Adrar mauritanien"; Norris, H.T. (1972) "Saharan Myth and Saga"; Norris H.T. (1986) "The Arabic Conquest of the Western Sahara"; etc).

So a deeper dive into the literature would be needed, which I don't have time to do now. The issue is certainly hindered by the fact (mentioned by many scholars) that the early Almoravid period and the southern branch of the Almoravids are still poorly understood. Judging by what I see so far, it seems pretty unlikely that there is actually a scholarly consensus about another "capital" before Aghmat, if indeed there was one; most likely Azuggi should be mentioned as another capital for the southern Almoravids, alongside the northern capitals, perhaps with an uncertain start date and most likely a much later end date. R Prazeres (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Aghmat was only conquered quite late (1058/59), after the crossing of the High Atlas. The Almoravids existed prior to that, having conquered Sijilmassa (twice), Awdaghost, etc. in prior years. Their initial empire stretched across the Sahara, anchored at Sijilmassa in the north and Awdaghost in the south (indeed, the apparent initial goal of the Lamtuna was simply to recreate the great Sanhaja empire in the Sahara; the crossing of the Atlas in 1058 was provoked by repeated attempts by the Maghrawa to recover Sijilmassa. It is conjectured that the Almoravids went into the Atlas initially just to seal the passes to prevent the Magrhawa from crossing south again and protect their holdings; but upon allying with the Masmuda, they were urged to cross over and venture north themselves, into the Aghmat plain; and the rest, as they say, is history.) The homeland of the Lamtuna (core tribe of the Almoravids) was around the Adrar plateau in the Sahara, although being desert-dwellers it is unlikely you can pin-point a single location that served as "capital". Azuggi was certainly an early Almoravid fortress and cited as the base of the first Almoravid emir Yahya ibn Umar in his campaign against the Gudala in 1055/56. Calling it a "capital" is probably an exaggeration. But it is the only Almoravid location we have for certain. Walrasiad (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I've seen so far also. To me this is another example of something that should be discussed in the main body of the article, where all this can be explained (even briefly), rather than inserted into the infobox without context. R Prazeres (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, Azugi 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. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It did, because the southern "branch" of the dynasty survived much longer. But there's no serious scholarly source so far, or certainly nothing resembling a scholarly consensus, around its supposed status as a first "capital" in the early Almoravid years. Like I said in my first response above, it should only belong in the infobox with very different dates and added context. R Prazeres (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Archaeology suggests here that Aghmat was the first Almoravid capital.[2] SimoooIX (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

So does this source. [3]. While this one suggests that it was Marrakesh [4] SimoooIX (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I found it extremely odd as well that azougui was in the info box, while many of the edits that have solid sources get reverted.

The universally accepted first capital of almoravids is aghmat, the "birth" of almoravid empire only started with their alliance with the Masmuda of sous, as such it makes no sense for azougui to be in the info box as the first capital.

I also see a heavy bias against morocco eventhough it is the birth place of the almoravid movement, and the dynasty while being a branch of sanhaja that's in the disputed western Sahara which morocco claims, and parts of present day Mauritania, is still considered a moroccan dynasty given the empire is based on the ideology of "house of almoravids" in sous, and was centered in morocco, this is like saying the current alaouite dynasty is not a moroccan dynasty because the alaouites are originally from the hijaz region in Arabia.

Some users even suggest removing Morocco's name from the lead altogether, and the wording has already been changed from "centered in morocco" to "centered in present day morocco" as if to detach present-day morocco from 11th century morocco, when there's a scholarly consensus that the moroccan kingdom was founded in 789 and had a continuous existence up till modern day with a total of 7 consecutive dynasties including the current one. Goharocko (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

April 2023

Hi @Kkloppm, i have reverted your edit because it was unsourced. You need to provide a reliable source . Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This issue has actually been discussed at length already at Talk:Abu Bakr ibn Umar#Original source of the image. If there is any further productive discussion to have on this issue, I recommend taking it there. Kkloppm's edits are clearly a continuation of earlier edit-warring by a previously blocked account in February 2023. R Prazeres (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Azougui

Read the page on Azougui and tell me why it isn't even mentioned on this page...? CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

1- A Wiki article can't be a source for another one.

2- Don't think that "Mauritania" existed at that moment

Omar-Toons (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Concerning #1 I didn't suggest to use the other Wikipedia article as source, rather a starting step to investigating the connection between the two subjects (which is strongly suggested by the Azougui article).

Concerning #2 not sure what you mean? Is the information at Azougui correct or false? If it is correct, would it not be appropriate to at least mention the origin of the peoples that later form what this article is about?

Remember, I'm not telling anyone to include a link between the two pages. I am merely asking why that is not the case...

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Almoravids were "originated" from the actual Trarza region of Mauritania, from which they migrated north before starting their conquest.

As shown in the map that I gave in the precedent discussion on this page, when the Almoravids started their conquest they were located in an area spreading from Sijilmassa to Adrar, as nomads. Then, yes, the information on the Azougui seems to be false to me. Maybe it was one of their bases during their conquests, but definitely not THE base from which they conquered their empire.

Don't forget that we started to talk about an "empire" when the dynasty (not the "movement") conquered Marrakech and made it their capital city ;)

Regards.

Omar-Toons (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving the incongruity. CapnZapp (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Azougui as first capital is actually correct, there are at lest 7 references sourcing Azougui as the first capital. It was built by one of the Almoravid founders Yannou ibn'Omar el Hadj. But just like Aghmat the second capital, Azougui is in ruins today. They were both were capital of the Almoravids, only that unlike Azougui and Marrakesh, Aghmat wasn't founded by the Almoravids.

Also if one follow your explanation about Azougui not being the first capital of the Almoravid empire because they circulated as nomads/ were in motion: following your logic one can say the same bout their third capital Marrakesh. That when the Almoravids continued their conquest, they were located from an erea spreading from Valencia to Marrakesh region and that for this reason: Marrakesh in not the Capital of the Almoravids but rather for instance Seville, as it rang the finishing point of their motion.

And the Almoravids didn't originate from Trarza but from Adrar the geographic local of the Godala tribe from which the first emir Yahya ibn Ibrahim is from. AvaBrandon2000 (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @AvaBrandon2000, instead of replying to comments that are more than 12 years old, i suggest you take your comment to the latest discussion whose title is "First capital". Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

First capital

Although there have been discussions on this topic earlier, I would prefer to initiate a new discussion. While some sources cited in this article indicate that Azougui was the first Almoravid capital, other reliable sources suggest that it was Aghmat, [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] making it unclear which one was actually the first. Note: There was a discussion on the Azougui talk page about whether to use the term "capital" (which is currently used) or "base" (which was used before 2021) in the lead section. However, M.Bitton and Apaugasma preferred to keep it as it is now.

• I suggest we remove the mention of Azougui from the infobox but instead we try highlight the issue in the body using a phrase like "some sources suggest that it was the first capital while some others say otherwise". Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I essentially said in the earlier discussion above: the issue needs to be explained in proper detail in the body of the article, without editorializing, and the capitals in the infobox will need to be updated accordingly.

The current issue with the infobox is really limited to the dates for Azougui, which are merely the original's editor's own assumption and have little to do with cited sources. Aghmat is probably not the "first capital" in the most general sense either (Sijilmasa was an important base before it), but we do have dates for when it was used as such during the Almoravid northern expansion. For Azougui, it's clear that it was the southern base/capital at least after Abu Bakr's return to the Sahara, as well as an existing fortress before that, but there is no clear information beyond that. It also means that Azougui was still a "capital" after the foundation of Marrakesh, which of course the infobox currently doesn't reflect at all.

The best option would likely be to summarize Azougui in the infobox simply as "southern" capital (with a clarification for the other cities if needed), as the sources do. Otherwise, treating Azougui as the "first capital" of the Almoravids without further qualification is not WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship, as the various more detailed scholarly references on the topic (e.g. Bennison, Messier, etc) mention Azougui as a southern capital but make no claim about it being the "first", which indeed some others attribute to Aghmat. The literature also explicitly notes that early Almoravid history is not well understood, and the southern Almoravids even less so. It's not Wikipedia's job to resolve this. Passing mentions about the "first capital" in some sources do not make up for that, but are relevant and should be indicated explicitly, without further WP:SYNTHESIS. If we can find more clearly verifiable dates for Azougui later, we can add them then. R Prazeres (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally prefer to describe Azougui as a base rather than a capital. But i think mentionnig it as a capital of the southern part of the empire as you suggested sounds very reasonable and i support it (just like the way Seville is mentioned as a capital of al-Andalus in the Almohad article). Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not the southern part, it's the southern branch (the most important of the two until the death of Abu Bakr, the supreme leader of the Almoravids). M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the "southern branch" is more precise, though for an infobox summary "southern capital" seems equally clear to me, without confusing unfamiliar readers. It should be up to the article itself to make the division between the southern and northern Almoravids clearer (among other things), so we can leave that particular side-note open to further discussion, pending further improvements to the main text. R Prazeres (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"the most important of the two until the death of Abu Bakr" this seems like a POV. Could you please provide an RS supporting your claim? If Azuggi held such importance back then, why is it so hard to find mentions of Azougui in reliable History sources? Almost all the books i've read so far, either they don't even mention it or they describe as a mere base. SimoooIX (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the "branch", that's why I mentioned Abu Bakr who remained the supreme leader of the Almoravids until his death. Southern capital would work only if Marrakesh is labelled as northern capital (Aghmat was a temporary base). M.Bitton (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, i misunderstood you. But you still need an RS supporting your claim. SimoooIX (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Which claim? That Abu Bakr remained the supreme leader of the Almoravids until his death? M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, your claim that the southern Branch was the most important of the two until the death of Abu Bakr.

Also Aghmat wasn't a "temporary base", actually it was a "temporary capital", that's what most of RS say. SimoooIX (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please don't answer questions that are not addressed to you. I know you position and have zero interest in what you have to rehash about the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Who were you asking then? SimoooIX (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I thought I was having a discussion with R Prazeres (due to your unindented comment that followed theirs). Needless to say that this ends here. M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I will also reiterate that this has been discussed on multiple occasions (here and on the Azougi article where the consensus was to leave it as it is). If the issue is just with the dates, then to keep it simple, they can be removed altogether (they are not needed).M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing what? Could you please clarify? SimoooIX (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It's been discussed here but never resolved, to be clear. And discussion at Talk:Azougui is instructive but doesn't override ongoing discussion here (indeed, had I known, I would have request that SimoooIX not start a separate discussion there, only to return here). Regardless, the issue remains being accountable to the sources.

To confirm, M.Bitton: are you saying you're ok with removing the dates from Azougui specifically in the infobox? And how do you feel about adding "southern capital" next to it? (The order, as far as I'm concerned, can remain the same.) R Prazeres (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Yes, removing the dates from the Infobox should address the issue (no need to specify what kind of capital it was, even if we knew that for a fact). M.Bitton (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of getting some progress done on this issue, SimoooIX can you confirm whether you object to removing the dates from Azougui in the infobox? (Just the dates for now, not other changes.) R Prazeres (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, i oppose removing the dates. They are needed. SimoooIX (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove the dates. They must be kept in order not to mislead readers. SimoooIX (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that, since it's unsourced. What solution are you proposing?

If there's no agreement, then the only other thing to do for now is to place an inline "disputed" tag until this is resolved. R Prazeres (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the solution is your suggestion above, mentioning it as a "southern capital" without mention of any date (because it's unsourced as you said), but think we must keep the dates for Aghmat and Marrakesh. SimoooIX(talk) 21:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: given the above, I have another suggestion: instead of removing the dates, replace Azougui's with (-1087) to make the end date match the year of the death of the Abu Bakr. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you know exactly what that is called. SimoooIX (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Think what you want, just make sure you keep to it away from my comments. M.Bitton (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion is nothing but WP:OR. SimoooIX (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You're right, it remained a capital even after Abu Bakr's death. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is proving how you want to push your POV. SimoooIX (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You have two choices: a) substantiate your accusations of POV pushing. 2) take them back and apologize. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No i'm not going to apologize, I mean just look at it. When i started a discussion on the Azougui talk page and presented sources indicating that Aghmat was the first capital, you quickly came and objected to this (I wonder what led you there), and cited the Encyclopedia of Islam as evidence that "Azougui was still regarded as a capital even after the fall in the Balearic Islands". (I'm still waiting for a quote), which is not relevant (even if it was mentioned in the source) to our discussion of which city was the first capital and whether Azougui was considered a capital by the traditional definition or merely a military base. And now you suggested that we include an original research date in the infobox, but when I pointed out that this was not appropriate, you responded by saying "You're right, it remained a capital even after Abu Bakr's death. I'm done here.", what does that even mean? SimoooIX (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

That's your prerogative, and since I promised Rosguill not to respond in kind, I will do just that. Incidentally, the other discussion that you're using to justify your aspersions proves the exact opposite of what you're asserting (this comment by Apaugasma sums it up quite well). M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres, I'm sorry, i didn't read your comment properly. I'm not opposing removing the date from Azougui (i thought you meant removing all the dates since i think that's what M.Bitton suggested above) SimoooIX (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent what I said and ideally, avoid mentioning me altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what you said : "If the issue is just with the dates, then to keep it simple, they can be removed altogether", While there was only one date for Azougui. SimoooIX (talk) 07:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, following SimoooIX's last comment, if there are no further objections, I'll start with removing those specific dates. I would prefer to include something like "southern capital" eventually, per the wording used in multiple sources, but this can be decided another day. Not everything needs to be in the infobox by default. I'll also try to find time to add relevant content in the article itself. R Prazeres (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No comment on that as I can't concentrate when people start casting aspersions (I'm still waiting for them to justify their accusation). In the meantime, I will also ping Apaugasma, since they were involved in the other discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, since the meaning of the word 'capital' with regard to Azougui is quite fuzzy, and since sources appear to not give fixed dates for it, removing the date (now done by R Prazeres) was the right solution.

I've only briefly engaged with the sources while working towards a solution for the previous dispute at Azougui, but the impression I got there is that 11th-/12th-century chroniclers like al-Bakri and al-Zuhri regarded Azougui as a kind of symbolic capital, without it ever having officially been declared a capital by the Almoravids themselves. If that is correct (but my impression can be wrong!), it would make sense to not put fixed dates on it, since a symbolic capital is a timeless entity.

I will reiterate that I believe this continued dispute about the status of Azougui to be a wp:timesink caused by tendentious editing, which in my experience not only wastes editors' time but often degrades the quality of the articles themselves. I strongly advise SimoooIX in particular to disengage from this specific subject, and perhaps consider refraining from editing Morocco-related subjects in general (there are many other underdeveloped subjects on Wikipedia which need your editorial help!). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Apaugasma, I find your accusation of my edits being tendentious pretty loose and baseless, Please refer to the discussions above on this talk page where you will see that I am not the only one who has had issues with this subject. Also i appreciate your advice and respect your opinion, but i cannot stop editing Wikipedia, because technically that's what you're asking me to do, just see my userpage in order to know why. It would have been better not to judge my whole contributions here on the basis of one case. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@R PrazeresALMORAVID ITS A MOROCCAN DYNASTY It was founded by a Moroccan named Abdullah bin Yassin and This empire was born in southern Morocco not mauritania . Taha Moroccan (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've compiled every source I could verify on this topic and added brief statements on the matter to the body of the article ([12], [13], and to lesser extent [14]), in the two places where they're relevant to mention. There's probably more to say on the southern Almoravids in the future, but this will require still more sources. I've taken the trouble of including quotes from the relevant passages in every citation, so anyone can read them. Several are in French, but I'm sure Google Translate can give any non-French readers the gist of it. At the moment, I think the infobox content can actually remain as is (following the removal of the dates discussed above).

For historiographical context, Ould Cheikh and Saison's article is instructive, making it clear that primary sources mention the town very sparsely, so it's likely we won't find a lot more on this beyond any more recent archeological studies. I've repeated that particular quote (in French) below:

Au milieu du Ve siecle H/XIe siecle ap. J.C., l'écrivain andalou al-Bakri fait état de l'existence à «Arki» d'une «forteresse...au milieu de 20 000 palmiers...édifiée par Yannu Ibn 'Umar al-Ḥāğ, frère de Yaḥya Ibn 'Umar... ». Cette brève mention est vraisemblablement a l'origine du qualificatif d'«almoravide» qu'en l'absence de toute investigation proprement archéologique, les historiens modernes ont généralement attribué aux ruines apparentes du tell archéologique d'Azūgi; nous y reviendrons. Au siecle suivant, al-Idrisi (1154) localise la «première des stations du Sahara...au pays des Massūfa et des Lamṭa» ; étape sur un itinéraire transsaharien joignant Siğilmāsa a Silla, Takrūr ou Gāna, Azūki, ou Kukdam en «langue gināwiyya des Sudan», abrite une population prospère.
Pour brève et à nos yeux trop imprécise qu'elle soit, l'évocation d'al-Idrisi est néanmoins la plus étoffée de celles qui nous sont parvenues des auteurs «médiévaux» de langue arabe. Aucun écrivain contemporain d'al-Idrisi, ou postérieur, qu'il s'agisse d'al-Zuhri (ap. 1133), d'Ibn Sa'id et surtout d'Ibn Haldun - qui n'en prononce même pas le nom dans son récit pourtant complet de l'histoire du mouvement almoravide - ne nous fournit en effet d'élément nouveau sur Azūgi. À la fin du XVe siècle, au moment où apparaissent les navigateurs portugais sur les côtes sahariennes, al-Qalqašandi et al-Himyari ne mentionnent plus «Azūqi» ou «Azīfi» que comme un toponyme parmi d'autres au Bilād al-Sudān... Les sources écrites arabes des XIe-XVe siècles ne livrent donc sur Azūgi que de brèves notices, infiniment moins détaillées et prolixes que celles dont font l'objet, pour la même période et chez ces mêmes auteurs, certaines grandes cités toutes proches, telles Awdagust, Gāna, Kawkaw, Niani, Walāta, etc... Faut-il voir dans cette discrétion un témoignage «a silentio» sur l'affaiblissement matériel d'une agglomération — une «ville» au sens où l'entendent habituellement les auteurs cités? — dont al-Idrisi affirme effectivement qu'elle n'est point une grande ville»?

Saison has an earlier article about the archeology of the site (Saison, 1981, "Azuggi: archéologie et histoire en Adrar mauritanien"), not accessible to me, but this article seems to summarize his findings anyways (alluded to in quote). I didn't include that part above, as it's quite long and doesn't seem to add anything useful other than confirming the site was occupied during the Almoravid period. R Prazeres (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

R Prazeres, thank you for recent additions, I am aware that it must have taken a substantial amount of time and energy, Your edits are of high quality and well sourced, and I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

However, i think we must do something about the infobox now before this discussion ends up in an archive. The current mention of Azougui in the infobox is vague if not misleading (especially for readers who get enough by reading the lead and the infobox and also i guess everyone here agrees that the three towns mustn't be treated the same) and needs to be clarified, probably "southern capital" would fit? Also i think Apaugasma suggested some interesting stuff above. SimoooIX (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@AvaBrandon2000 The issue is already being discussed here, so please join the discussion rather than trying to shoehorn one POV into the lead while more detailed and nuanced information is being presented in the article itself. That said, the lead sentence starting with "The Almoravid capital was Marrakesh (...)" implies it was the only capital, so it could be modified to simply say "The Almoravids founded the city of Marrakesh (...)", and then leave the questionable issue of other capitals to be covered in the article. The lead will also need to be updated to mention the division between the northern and southern Almoravids, which I think is now explained more clearly in the article itself. R Prazeres (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to your suggestion. Indeed the sentence is misleading. SimoooIX (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to follow through on this, but I've now changed the statement to something more generic ([15]). ~~ R Prazeres (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Almoravides are not Morroco

Almoravides are a different country ,with are different dinasty .But if someone is racist ,can write Almoravid is the four dynasty of Morroco -User:Bokpasa (Moi 12:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)).

The almoravids are indeed moroccan, if not explain why Oqba Ibn Nafi confronts the Lamtuna at the Draa River. Watermelonfan69 (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No almo It's Moroccan DYNASTY It was founded by Abdullah Ibn Yassin and its first capital is the city of Aghmat near Marrakesh Taha Moroccan (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)