Talk:Amadu III of Masina

Revert to original name
I'm proposing to move this article back to its original title, which is what one sees in the literature and what is used locally in Mali. This is the same issue with the article for Amadu Seku, "Sekou Amadu II."--A12n (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seku Amadu III → Amadu Amadu – Name more commonly used in literature and local usage relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC) A12n (talk) 11:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose (explanation below). This one is not as clear as the II, simply because the person is less important and so naming conventions are not as clear. But, this seems as reasonable a name as any that he is referred to in RSs. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The full, formal name in Arabic, the language of most of the primary sources, is Shaykhu Aḥmadu bin Aḥmadu bin Aḥmadu Lobbo. "Shayku" is a religious title, given as "Seku" or "Shehu" in Fulani. "Aḥmadu bin Aḥmadu bin Aḥmadu" (Amadu mo Amadu mo Amadu) is his name, father's name and grandfather's name (Ahmed son of Ahmed son of Ahmed).  "Lobbo" is the family name.  See The Cambridge History of Africa p.151 for a basic discussion of the grandfather's names. Admittedly Arabic Literature of Africa p.211-212 follows the full names with "known as" names of son and grandson as Ahmadu Seku and Āmadu Āmadu, but these are slang names rather than formal.


 * Amadu III (or spelling variants) is the name commonly used in scholarly works. A History of Africa p.15 names son and grandson as Ahmadou II and Ahmadou III. Amadu III is used in books such as History Of Islam In Africa p.140, Slavery and Colonial Rule in French West Africa p.50, Warriors, Merchants, and Slaves p.82, La Guerre sainte d'Al-Hajj Umar p.37 and so on. "Aḥmadu III" is used in Africa in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries p.302, Social History of Timbuktu p.217, Muslim Brotherhoods in Nineteenth-Century Africa p.92, The Cambridge History of Islam p.378, Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions p.1116 and Britannica. The name that is generally used in English-language books is the appropriate article title. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So here's where the discrepancy comes, books talking about local practices in the region use some version of Amadou Amadou (for the clearest example, see Louis Brenner p. 138), understandably since the sources for these works are the local references. Books talking about the kingdom and its relations use III, once again understandably because the sources are the European and Islamic records which used that name. The literature clearly prefers III over Amadou Amadou (or other names), but the situation is not so clear with II. Last Great Muslim Empire 1969- pg. 138, Disease and Empire pg. 83, Islam, etc. The way I see it is there is probably a common name for III, not so clear for II, and so we should decide uniformly for both on some way that makes it clear for both so that improvement of the articles is eased. I'm not convinced this is II and III for the names (my gut preference at this moment actually thinks full Fulani names would be most appropriate). AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (See also below). Amadu III is clearly the preferred English form. Amadu II is less common, although it is often used. Amadu b. Amadu is also quite common. But "Amadu Seku" is just "Seku Amadu" written the other way around, as it can be.  All three of the Lobbo rulers were Amadu Seku and Seku Amadu.  I suppose to really be consistent with other articles on rulers it would be "Amadu II of Masina".  I don't see that being used by sources though, while Seku Amadu II is used. The big advantages of the numerals, probably why they are commonly used by academic sources, is that it is easy to distinguish the three Amadus when writing about all three, and they are short and convenient. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support (voting for my proposal, if that's ok): Thanks for pointing out use of Amadu II & III. I think one can go back & forth with lists of citations, which I provide some of below, so I don't think it is accurate to say the numbered versions are mainly used. But the main issues for me are that the numbered versions are alien to local usage and, while one can make a case to include notes in the articles to the effect that these have been used, they are arguably of secondary importance at best looking at overall usage (and that must IMO include French as well as English). The names Seku Amadu, Amadu Seku, and Amadu Amadu are not and never have been "slang names," as they are used in the Fula language (Fulfulde). The linguistic situation of the era was somewhat complex since at the time, Arabic as language of religious scholarship was used in writing (Fulfulde was also written but perhaps not in formal communications?), so an Arabic naming is useful, but not more appropriate. Also I suspect that personal naming conventions locally did not conform to Arabic or Western forms. In any event, the language of day to day governance at the time would have been Fulfulde - which is of course still prominent in the region. I also suspect that the numbered names entered into some academic writing as a way to distinguish similar names (in David Robinson's writing for instance, he was faced with two different rulers with the name Amadu Seku). A quick list of sources follows:
 * Academic studies. I include French language sources also, since I consider all academic sources relevant in this discussion. A couple of books and some random articles, among many:
 * Bâ, Amadou Hampâté and Daget, Jacques. 1962. L’empire peul du Macina, 1818-1853. Nouvelles Editions Africaines. (classic account; in all of his writings, Bâ uses the Fula names, in French orthography)
 * Ibironke, Olabode. 2000. "Islam, Ritual and the Politics of Truth in Maryse Condé’s Segu." Nordic Journal of African Studies 9(2): 105-119.
 * Sanankoua, Bintou. 1990. Un empire peul au XIXe siècle - La Diina du Maasina. Paris, 1990.
 * Soares, Benjamin F. 1996. "A Contemporary Malien Shaykh: Al-Hajj Shaykh Sidy Modibo Kane Diallo, the religious leader of Dilly." Islam et sociétés au Sud du Sahara 10: 145-153.
 * Traoré, Ismail. 2012. Les relations épistolaires entre la famille Kunta de Tombouctou et la Dina du Macina (1818-1864)  (summary for thesis defense)]
 * Sources that list both but with the numbered version(s) in secondary importance:
 * "Amadu Seku." Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias, en.academic.ru
 * Bâ, Amadou Hampâté. 2008. A Spirit of Tolerance: The Inspiring Life of Tierno Bokar. World Wisdom. (Translation of Vie et enseignement de Thierno Bokar: Le Sage de Bandiagara) refers to: Amadou Amadou (or "Amadou III") [sic] on p. 3
 * Example of popular usage:
 * Condé, Maryse. Segu. (Condé researched this work of historical fiction in Mali)
 * (in French spelling) Teriya Voyage page on Hamdallaye - reflects use of the names in popular culture in Mali--A12n (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Long reply: My strong preference is to use English-languages books as sources wherever possible. In this case there are plenty of English books available with preview, some listed above.  It is natural to use the same name they use.  Amadu III also has the advantage of being short. I like to repeat the subject's name fairly often in an article, and have to in cases like "A did this. B did that. A did the other". "Amadu mo Amadu mo Amadu Lobbo" is awkward. Using full Fulani names could also get confusing. The example above from Islam: Continuity and Change refers to Ahmadu Seku Tall, which perhaps illustrates the issue. All three Lobbo-dynasty shaykhs were sometimes called Seku Amadu and sometimes Amadu Seku. I see the current names as the least likely to cause confusion, and consistent with books on the subject.


 * Short reply: The formal names in Fulani and Arabic, perhaps the French forms, and certainly the modern popular names, should be given in the lead sections. But Fulani, Arabic and French usages are not relevant in choosing the title. We should follow English-language academic sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Aymatth is correct (both by policy and evidence). The best answer is the current names. (Changed my vote above). Thanks to A12n and Aymatth2 for the careful thought on the subject. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. Will have more info later. In the meantime I'm thinking that the numbered names usage must have begun within a limited academic context (not all, as we have seen from the literature) and could arguably be compared to the short career of "Nigerois" - a journalistic coinage (easily distinguishable from references to Nigeria) with no local relevance in Niger, which actually was for a while enshrined in the New York Times style book and picked up by other news sources.--A12n (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've posed the question to the academic lists, H-West-Africa & H-Africa, and hope for some additional input from replies. Part of my concern is the impact of Wikipedia elevating a form (Seku Amadu III) of an appellation (Amadu III) that is used in some academic sources, but not in others, and apparently in selected contexts, to a wider usage that it does not merit. (Wikipedia content, of course, is a first/early point of contact many people have with many subjects, and is mirrored widely as is.)--A12n (talk) 02:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support restore to stable title - this is another RM starting from the wrong end. 15 February 2013‎ Aymatth2 moved page Talk:Amadu Amadu to Talk:Seku Amadu III: More standard form of name) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that only 1 source Robert O. Collins Historical dictionary of pre-colonial Africa 2001 - Page 270 supports the new title and adding Seku/Sheikh is problematic with WP:HONORIFIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All the sources in the article are from Google books with preview, and all use "Amadu III" or a spelling variant. A search in Google Books with preview for "Amadu Amadu", after the Hephaestus and non-English books are skipped, yields only Brenner 1993, Brenner 2001 and Hunwick 2003 (who gives the name in parentheses after Aḥmad III). Clearly "Amadu Amadu" is not a reasonable title. I would not strongly object to "Amadu III of Masina" as an alternative to "Seku Amadu III", but that is a different discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet as we have seen there are sources in English that do use Amadu Amadu - another one for example being De Bruiin and Van Dijk 2001. I'd maintain that academic sources in French are indeed relevant to this decision, as is local usage (and non-usage). In the context of the region, Amadu Amadu is recognized, and as such would indeed be a reasonable title. If a fuller title is needed, however one could also discuss building on that name without using the numbered system. Waiting to hear more on the latter, but my sense is that numbering was first introduced in some writing as a way of disambiguating names where that was needed - which of course should be mentioned in the article.--A12n (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are indeed a few English sources that use Amadu Amadu, but the book search results show that Amadu III is much more common with English authors. It seems reasonable to assume that these authors introduced numbering for the sake of clarity where, for example, "Seku Amadu" or "Āmadu mo Āmadu" would be ambiguous. I doubt that the forms "Amadu III" or "Amadu Amadu" were used during his lifetime. That could be mentioned if we could find a source that backs it up. But the name commonly used by English histories is the name to use. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What we've established is that there are alternative ways of referring to the successors of Seku Amadu. Agreed that we can be confident that "Amadu III" was not used in the days of the Massina Diina, and it's my impression that it is still not used popularly at all today. (It's also worth remembering that although the succession in Massina ended up going from father to son to grandson, it was not intended as such a hereditary monarchy, and indeed the decision of the successors was made by the grand council of the state.) The authors using the numbered name forms had their good reasons and we don't need to call those into question in this discussion (though it would be informative to know more about how this usage began). However on the other question of appellation, I think we can also be confident that the name Amadu Amadu indeed was used in some way during his lifetime - see for instance the patrilineage of Sekou Amadu in Ba & Daget, which illustrates the formation of names - given name plus father's name. Stepping back and looking at all academic literature, popular usage, and Fula culture and naming customs of the period, the original title of this article - Amadu Amadu - would be appropriate.--A12n (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The relevant guideline is Naming conventions (use English), which opens with "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources)." Aymatth2 (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you are trying to do the right thing for Wikipedia on this, but there really does not appear to be a clear standard to invoke (much as I thought there was in the opposite sense that you proposed). ALthough these were (are) locally/regionally important figures, they ruled a relatively small area that for less than half a century, a polity that did not interact directly with Europe, so there is not a huge literature in English such that one can IMO speak of a common way of referring to them in the language, especially given the divergent use. In this kind of situation it seems that the local and non-English (esp. French) academic usages seem relevant, in order to give us a wider sense of what is used. It would at this point also be useful if we had direct input from experts in the history of Mali and its region.--A12n (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (use English) is the relevant guideline. There are many English-language sources.  Aymatth2 (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It might help to reframe the discussion: The proposal is actually whether to revert the name from "Seku Amadu III" to its previous title "Amadu Amadu." In ictu oculi points out that only one source uses "Seku Amadu III." Part of Aymatth2's rationale for the move is reference to sources that use "Amadu III," and much of our discussion has been on that as opposed to "Amadu Amadu." But maybe we need to focus on the fate of the current title first, which would not as such seem to meet the WP naming conventions guideline however interpreted, and furthermore risks creating an artifact in an already complex set of names.--A12n (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title "Seku Amadu III" is non-standard, so have moved to "Amadu III of Masina". Some English sources uses that exact term, others use "Amadu III" in phrases like "the ruler of Masina, Amadu III". That raises the interesting question of what the best name for the Seku Amadu article would be. If we remove the title, we are left with the common name "Amadu", which really does not work. "Amadu I of Masina" would be consistent, but I do not find that term used anywhere, and only find one reference to Amadu I.  It is a bit like moving from "Bishop Smith" to "Smith". The first is poor but the second is worse. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thanks also for not introducing "Amadu I" into the mix. That however illustrates to me how far astray this renaming could get. And the new name introduces another artifact with "of Masina." I still maintain that the original titles are best & fit the needs and guidelines of Wikipedia for stable, sourced titles, and that the usage of the numbered forms by some sources does not oblige us to choose those as titles - especially as the numbered names as far as I've ever heard or read is alien to the local context (this was not a monarchy in the European or even the Ethiopian sense). Sanankoua's history of the Diina is an example of how the local usage is reflected in academic writing, as are other articles and works focusing on the region. We still need to know more about how & when usage of the numbered forms arose (probably for ease of disambiguation needs in certain contexts). These two stories - who uses what form in what context, and how the numbered forms came into the use you note today - are important to the decision on naming these articles.--A12n (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * At risk of being extremely repetitive, we do not need to know what the local usage is or why the English sources chose "Amadu III" as the dominant form of the name. "John III" may have been a pope, king, duke or Rockefeller. Perhaps he was never called John III in his lifetime, but only Giovanni, Johann, Jean le Gros, or maybe even "John John". It does not matter. Naming conventions (use English) is the relevant guideline.   All that matters is that English sources overwhelmingly call the subject Amadu III. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to repeat myself either, but there is a legitimate difference of opinion on the main points that has not yet been resolved. And this whole issue arose because a significant change was made without first making a move proposal and working through the ensuing discussion (by the way, I think the standard one week discussion period is too short for topics without a large number of followers, as we have seen elsewhere). Such a discussion might have arrived at a decision that did not necessitate changing the article names, if at all, more than once. Nevertheless, we are past that now, so to outline some main points one final time:
 * I appreciate the work you have done on various topics relating to West African history, and your evident efforts to raise the standards generally. I also accept that your move of the articles now in question was intended in that vein. Thanks also for pointing out the use of the numbered names, which was something I had overlooked.
 * There is a need for more expert input into this issue - it would help to hear from others familiar with the region present and past, and with the period of history in question. This would hopefully help arrive at a decision (and move us past a discussion dominated by two voices). That expert input could come now or later (per #7, below).
 * There may be a need to revise the WP naming guidelines. The English edition of Wikipedia has become so important to global knowledge sharing, that when it treats topics outside of the Anglophone and English-official-language world, it should consider academic and popular usage in other relevant languages as well. There really is not a "commonly used form" in English for everything one might cover in the world. The topics at issue in this case are treated in select sets of academic literature and usage clearly varies - and in such cases it probably isn't worthwhile to count instances in English as if it were the only language in which the subjects are treated.
 * To the extent we're looking at specialized sources in English, the reason it would be useful to know more about the origin and network of adoption of the numbered forms of the names is in order to evaluate this usage. Certainly not because it is "wrong" in any way (unlike the use of "Nigerois" arguably was - and that was for a time listed in English-language journalism and government style books that one could have referred to in a discussion like this), but because they may not have been intended as standard titles.
 * Thanks for your explanation about numbered names and places. The point here however is that in this case it still appears to create an artifact. (Of the 10 total hits for "Amadu III of Masina" or variants I found in quick searches on Google, 7 are derivative of Wikipedia in the short time since the latest article move; the other 3, including one in French interestingly, are in sentences in academic sources, but not as titles.) Wikipedia articles are more than reflections of usage - they (especially in the case of articles in the English edition) - begin to set trends in usage. And that process has already begun with introduction of two new titles for the article formerly titled "Amadu Amadu." (Google gives 1270 hits for "Seku Amadu III" which appear from a quick look to be overwhelmingly mirrors of recent Wikipedia content.)
 * The previous title "Amadu Amadu," whatever the faults one may find with it, was a stable title, widely used, and in no way inappropriate. In all 3 of the articles about the rulers of the Maasina Diina, there will need IMO to be a discussion of the names of the individuals with reference to the naming customs involved in that era (Fula and in written Arabic sources), so all usages can and should be mentioned in the articles.
 * The best course of action at this point IMO would be to revert the article to its original title, and allow for a discussion of proposals to move/rename it at a later time. The numbered forms would still be an option, but the case is not IMO strong enough to use them (per points previously made), and they present some issues with respect to creating artifacts (per the recent title changes that by necessity have to add terms to the numbered forms). The previous forms (i.e. Amadu Seku and Amadu Amadu) were stable and eventual proposals for renaming could also be built on those (without numbering, but with attention again to not to creating artifacts). It is probably also an appropriate time to revisit the guidelines on names in en.wikipedia.org per the points above.
 * If I'm taking the time to write all of this (believe me, I have much else to do) it is because I support Wikipedia and feel strongly about African voice in its editions and beyond. Africa needs better coverage in Wikipedia editions (for instance, WikiProject Africa counts less than 2% of articles on en.wikipedia.org). People such as us should be collaborating on content, which in part means that major changes should be proposed rather than imposed.--A12n (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Follow up on article name & move proposal
First of all, thanks to the powers that be for extending discussion on the move proposal. Disappointed that there was not more input. FWIW, still maintain that despite good intention, the original move from the stable title leaves us with a suboptimal solution for naming the article - anything using the numbered names will require modifications (as we have seen with Seku Amadu III and now Amadu III of Masina) that in effect create artifacts (per previous discussion). This could have been avoided by first proposing the move and going through a discussion period. I'll gladly support any proposal to move the article back to Amadu Amadu and consider any proposal to move to Amadu Amadu plus a modifying term, probably parenthetical, to facilitate disambiguation.--A12n (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick addendum: About a month after this decision I got an email from a professor emeritus who had used the numbered form of the name, and he indicated that the numbered form was a matter of convenience, and that were he to choose a title, it would probably be based on the indigenous usage. He wrote that he may indeed have been the source of the numbered usage, picked up by some other academics as well as reference works. IMO, the title of this article needs to be changed back to a more appropriate form, and if necessary, I'd suggest that WP guidelines be modified to accommodate situations like this, where counting instances on Google and article searches in English-only without consideration of context may lead to a solution that however well intended, is neither stable nor helpful to users. I remain ready to support a proposal to revert the title to the original.--A12n (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's not reopen this discussion. Perhaps the professor was the source of the convenient numbered form, perhaps it was first used by some earlier writer: it does not matter. The title the professor would choose is also not important. Wikipedia naming conventions are what matter. We use the name that is most often used by reliable English-language sources, right or wrong, and that is Amadu III. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Don't really see that the discussion is closed, but would agree that it is not my place to reintroduce a proposal. Part of my reason for writing earlier was follow up on information that is relevant, but was not available at the time when the earlier proposal was discussed. I still firmly believe that "Amadu III" is not an appropriate title for this article, and if WP rules helped get us to this place, then they need to be modified to allow consideration of wider context than counts (e.g., the origin and context of use of particular forms by reliable English sources, use in other languages in which the name is important, etc.). It is also worth remembering that the actual current title of this article, "Amadu III of Masina" is not "most often used," and in fact is a creation - arguably necessary once one has gone down the road of renaming the article "Amadu III," but also unique to Wikipedia (and now whatever sources have mirrored WP content - which gets back to another point: WP is not just a neutral reflection of usage, but actually has an impact on knowledge and usage). In any event, I do appreciate that you were trying to do the right thing, but from my perspective the outcome looks wrong for African studies, students beginning introduced to the history of Mali, and Wikipedia's representation of African history. I'll leave it here until such time as the issue is brought up by others.--A12n (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)