Draft talk:History of Morocco (1666–1912)

Inaccurate historical information

This draft contains several issues. Firstly, it seems to be primarily compiled by @NAADAAN and some IPs and new accounts, lacking centralized sources, with the presence of significant anachronisms. It appears as if the Kingdom of Tlemcen is being portrayed as the history of Algeria (1235–1556), which is incorrect and cannot be true historically.

This draft fails to address the complexity of territorial conflicts during that period. It is not feasible to use a single map to represent the entire duration, as territories were constantly changing hands between different factions.

It doesn't reflect the history of Morocco, but rather the history of different dynasties that ruled over specific regions within the actual territory of Morocco, each with their own historical proper names. Like, the Romans aren't Italians, the Pharaohs aren't Egyptians, and the Zayyanids aren't Tlemcenians. It seems that the writing aligns a lot with the ideas of Movement Moorish (far-right extremists), who aim to spread Inaccurate historical information.

I will notify some interested users in history, inviting them to share their opinions and perspectives on this draft. @M.Bitton @Nourerrahmane @R Prazeres.

Riad Salih (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the pre-colonial Alaoui period, per a proposal by @R Prazeres. There were attempts to do this in User:Blacksmith062/Cherifian_Empire, and Draft:Chérifian empire.
From my understanding, European authors began referring to "Morocco" with the Saadi period and that term became widespread under the Alaouites.
I had planned to refer to this as "Morocco" or "Maroc" and start an RfC on whether it should be "Alaouis (1666-1912)" or "Sharifian Empire". I however deemed from a cursory search of contemporary literature that "Morocco" was the English WP:COMMONNAME for the pre-colonial Alaouite state.
This is a draft for God's sake. It still has MOS problems and is far from being finished.
"It is not feasible to use a single map to represent the entire duration"; the Ottoman Empire uses a map of its greatest extent, so does the Holy Roman Empire, is there any consensus against using a map of a country by its greatest extent?

NAADAAN (talk) 02:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is already covered at Alawi dynasty and History of Morocco, with the former already covering a lot more detail. Please discuss any WP:SPLIT at one of those talk pages first, as this must be discussed carefully to avoid a bad content fork. The idea I've previously floated is to split Alawi dynasty into two articles of different scope, but it would need consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I planned to have a pre-written article focused on the pre-colonial Alaoui state, foreign relations, and society rather than the dynasty (hence the draft and why I didn't begin writing it in mainspace when I could have) so I could have something that I'd be able to propose, then discuss a split on the talk page for the Alaouis to take it off draft. I would much rather discuss actual problems on the finished article rather than entertain ideas of me somehow being a member of a supposed "Movement Moorish" which I had no knowledge of until now. NAADAAN (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NAADAAN I didn't say you are being a member of Movement Moorish. I chose my words wisely. I said the writing aligns a lot with the ideas of Movement Moorish (far-right extremists) who aim to spread inaccurate historical information. So, please, let's avoid any unnecessary drama. Wikipedia:Drama Riad Salih (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I am however curious how this article is linked to any of this supposed movement's ideas. Virtually everything on the article is sourced. NAADAAN (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN, before doing all of that, I still recommend getting a consensus for a WP:SPLIT first. A whole detailed history section already exists at Alawi dynasty; if we split the topic, we would simply move that existing content to the new article, as it has been revised and discussed by multiple editors already (and can continue to be improved). We would then leave behind a shorter summary at the dynasty article, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I'm concerned that you are likely to spend a lot of time writing material from scratch that can be discarded. If a new article is approved, you can then add more to it.

If you want, I can open an explicit discussion at Talk:Alawi dynasty. It's an overdue discussion anyways. R Prazeres (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be objected to an RfC at Talk:Alawi dynasty, there are Arabic and French splits as well. NAADAAN (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an RfC in this case (unless it devolves into a dispute), WP:PROSPLIT simply requires a discussion to determine consensus. R Prazeres (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Alawi dynasty‎. I restated the reasons I believe there should be a split in general, but anyone is free to comment in any way. I hope it'll help. R Prazeres (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NAADAAN (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There's no need to allege nefarious political aims here, per WP:AGF. But this is an example of why discussing this with other editors first helps to avoid future conflicts and make sure everyone's time and energy is being spent on the right things. R Prazeres (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the previous drafts, I have no objections. Similar articles can be found on the Arabic and French Wikipedia pages.

However, the historical term used is Empire Chérifien instead of Histoire du Maroc (1666-1912) in both the Arabic and French versions. This change avoids anachronism as the concept of Morocco as a nation, along with Algeria, Tunisia, and others, is a relatively recent development as I mentioned with the Kingdom of Tlemcen which is not the history of Algeria.

When it comes to the map, it is important to acknowledge the complexity of the North African region, which experienced various dynasties and rules. The sources for this period are also complex and diverse, unlike the more straightforward histories of the Roman and Ottoman empires. The current sourcing is unreliable, as it mainly consists of some compilations lacking genuine historical references.

and I assume good faith; that's why I started a talk. I see no political aims. If there are any, please feel free to mention them. Riad Salih (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From contemporary sources I could find; "Empire Chérifien" was the formal term used by French authors for "Maroc", while the British used the term "Sultanate of Morocco" for "Morocco", some Arab sources show that the country was literally referred to as the "Sharifian Sultanate" since the Saadi era. I find that to be a topic worth another conversation and is probably worth waiting until consensus is reached over splitting the article. NAADAAN (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, first of all the map is absolutely inaccurate and was done by a certain Omar toons, a known banned push Pov. The Sharifian empire or Sharifian sultanate (It wasn’t called Morocco officially) never looked like this, the siba territory is not shown and should be highlighted as the sultan’s authority didn’t extend there (hense why it’s called siba). The extensions towards Tuat region were periodic and were never under permanent and constant Sharifian control. Algiers regency map is false. I recommand Suglett’s map or at least some primary sourced map (which are numerous in commons). Nourerrahmane (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More on the map, I’ve never met a map showing Sharifian control extend south beyond the Draa river. The borders with Algiers are absolutely false per sources, since there the Sharifian never extended beyond the moulouya till early 19th century, taking over Oujda and figuig and tuat. This was covered in the Regency of Algiers article in the end of history section. With sources. Julien's map here could be found in numerous other RS [1] Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Consensus in the Alawi dynasty's talk page was reached regarding the removal of this map. These are maps that could give a better idea of the Sharifian domain. [2][3][4] and more, depending on the period and accuracy. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a draft and this is the first map I found on Commons, so I can't exactly vouch for its validity. I think that there is enough precedent to show the Alaouite Sultanate at its greatest extent on the infobox as the article still needs a map. The discussion about the article's name is being held in Talk:Alawi dynasty.

It's my understanding that tribes under Bilad as-Siba still held some links with Morocco which included an oath of allegiance to the Sultan. So I would disagree with completely ommitting it, perhaps still include it as Morocco with a different color. I also believe, although uncertain, that the Alaouites didn't control Oujda around the given time period so perhaps a new map should be probably requested in the Commons map workshop. NAADAAN (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is 18th century morocco's map according to Julien [5] i'm not saying the Siba should not be included in the map of Morocco, i'm saying it should be highlighted per this source. Nourerrahmane (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm not objecting to there being a difference in maps between Bilad al-Makhzen and Bilad al-SIba -- that's just a matter of facts. If a proper SVG map is available, perhaps similar to Julien's map in something that looks like this which would include the Tekna confederation in the Sahara that held an oath to the Moroccan sultan, then I'd be more than ready to include it. While I'm not in a position to make such a map right now, I think it's worth raising with the map workshop. NAADAAN (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the oath of Alliegence, it never meant actual rule in this case. In fact in most cases it means religious suzrainty or fictive rule, starting from late Abassid period, this became a mere religious duty and a form of local legitimacy for the "nominal vassal" which had no real obligations (Like the Almoravids alliegence to the abassids). I think this is a reason why early modern and contemporary cartographers and historians didn't include periodic and not simultanous rule of the Sharifians in those remote, desertic regions after Al-Mansur, since they had more to do with securing trans-saharan trade routes through peace with the tribes rather than actual direct rule over half the continent like this false map tries to make the Sharifian empire look like. Suglett and Julien's maps show actual domain of the Sharifian state and how it should be understood. I advice we stick with what's there in RS. Nourerrahmane (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another fact about the oath of Aliegence, it was reseved for the actual ruling suzrain and had to be renewed each time he passes away. Which is why most of those regions renounced this suzrainty after Al Mansur or Moulay Ismail. Though Al-Mansur's rule was more evident than what came after. Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still deem it worth including into the map w/ diff. color, as it's still part of the Sultanate and other RS included it into maps albeit with a different color. NAADAAN (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julien's map is good; it correctly shows that in the late 18th century, the Berber regions of the Atlas mountains were not part of Bled Makhzen, and it also correctly depicts Oued Tafna as the border between Algeria and Morocco. However, it has two main problems: it only focuses on the 18th century, not the entire Alawi period and secondly doesn't show the actual borders of Bled Siba. 808 AD (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euratlas is not a reliable source, and besides, we already have a reliably sourced map that contradict it. As for the rest, I can some issues with the draft, but I don't think they are worth bringing up now that there a discussion about a possible split of the Alawi dynasty article. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"something that looks like this" referring to the style of the map. I also see a number of issues with the article. NAADAAN (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, Bled siba is generally seen as the lawless area of the Moroccan Sharifian empire, although there were attempts to establish Makhzen control in those regions. For example, Moulay Hassan is considered the last Alawi sultan capable of exercising control over the more remote areas of Bled siba, particularly the Gourara-Touat-Tidelikt region.[6][7] Additionally, as far as I know, the Arma people in Timbuktu acknowledged the spiritual suzerainty of the Moroccan sultan until around 1800. Also, the Alawi sultan Moulay Ismail managed to conquer territories as far as modern Mauritania and secured the allegiance of local tribes to him.[8][9] I find the map shown in the article about the regency of Algiers relatively acceptable, but I have some issues with its precision. 808 AD (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I understand that Bilad as-Siba were far from being an "independant realm" or "free tribes", but a vague term designating all areas which were under nominal Alaouite control only or which only held religious ties with the Alaouite sultan. Timbuktu and Gao were also under nominal Moroccan control up until the late 1700s until a pledge of allegiance to Hassan I in the 1880s. I think the map should show the Sultanate at its greatest extent, so perhaps under Moulay Ismail's rule. NAADAAN (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Almoravids were under the "nominal control" of the Abbasids. Are you suggesting that the map of the Abbasid Caliphate should extend all the way to the Atlantic? M.Bitton (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not the same thing. If you check out the sources I gave, you'll see the difference. 808 AD (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It never is, that's why we insist on using reliable sources (including maps). M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable maps include Bilad as-Siba (like Julien's) as Morocco albeit using different coloring do they not? I was under the impression that an agreement has been reached to use a map of the Alaouites at their greatest extent with Bilad al-Makhzen and Bilad al-Siba marked in different colors like in the article for Saadis. I really don't get the point you're trying to make. NAADAAN (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Siba land are included, this doesn't extend beyound the touat and south beyound the draa, anything different is considered venturing in WP:OR territory, i already explained what Bay'a is and therefore pretty much why RS didn't include periodic and nominal suzrainty of the alawites in those remote desertic regions. The Alawaites didn't have effective rule there. Again, please stick to RS as no one here is elgible to do otherwise. Nourerrahmane (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from opposed to a map of the Alawis c. 1900 like the one off the Atlas of Islamic History. The largest concern I have is that I remain uncertain on what Bilad as-Siba would have been during the greatest extent of the pre-colonial Alaouites, since @808 AD showed a source claiming that Bay'ah was given by tribes in Timbuktu.

It also seems like Hassan I had some level of control (36) around Guelmim-Oued Noun, as reflected in the map shown in the Atlas. Per the same source, it also seems that Moulay Abdelaziz gave a significant amount of resources to help with the founding of the city of Smara (58), should tribes like Ahl Ma al-'Aynayn be counted as having been under influence of the Moroccan sultanate? NAADAAN (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]