Talk:Alawi dynasty

message: How did the transition between the Saadi Dynasty to the Alaouite Dynasty occur? Polkmin (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  transition 

message: You guy are talking about the wrong things. There is nothing to substantiate anything on the main page. What makes it wrose is that content from the main page is used in summery on other pages(which is how I found this page). That should be the number one goal here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.89.123.154 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WOW!! Were are the references!? 

message: .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.179.44 (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationw/SYRIANSEKT? 

message: A descendant of Muhammad might be superstitiously believed to improve date palm crops, thanks to his barakah ("blessing"). But I don't think that this belief could be translated as charisma, which is personal and not supernatural.203.80.61.102 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barakah 

message: I don't normally edit Wikipedia pages, but discovered when reading this that the "Conference of Madrid" link in the European Contact and French Protectorate section was linked to the wrong page like so: "Conference of Madrid 1880". It should probably link to and English version of Madrider Konvention (1880) but there isn't a English page for it that I could find.
I'm not familiar with wiki-editing policies here so as a temporary solution until someone who knows what they are doing comes along I simply re-linked it to the placeholder for the non-existant English version, just to alleviate confusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.80.209 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference/Treaty of Madrid 

message: Since this will have to be addressed at some point or another, I figured I might as well launch this discussion here.
This page is currently linked to and integrated with many pages on Moroccan history as the main article for the Alaouite period. A new page, Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912), has recently been created to cover the Alaouite period up to beginning of the protectorate. Needless to say, the two overlap tremendously and there's potential for a content fork, and there are now inconsistent links to one page or another. It doesn't help that the new page is entirely unsourced and may consist of original research; though, in fairness, this page needs a lot of work too.</br>
So I think it would be good to hear other editors' thoughts on this question: is this new topic split desirable? (If so, then presumably this page should be limited to talking about the royal family, while the other page covers the pre-colonial historical period.) Or is it better for readers if the two topics are merged in one fashion or another?
If there can be a consensus on the issue, then it would be easier to improve these pages in the future and in the meantime we can modify the links on other pages to lead to the right topic where needed.
Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Still looking to hear advice from other editors on this, but in the meantime we have another pseudo-content fork at Sharifian Empire, made in good faith but definitely not desirable. I've left comments on the talk page there for now. R Prazeres (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the scope and topic of the page 

message: Proposal: merge Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) with Alaouite dynasty </br>
In the request move discussion at Talk:Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) (since withdrawn), there seemed to be already a partly-formed consensus for merging that topic back to this longstanding main page. Both the content and the name of that newer page are WP:OR and significantly overlap with the topic here. This article is already integrated and linked across a wide number of pages and effectively serves the purpose that the other page was supposedly meant to serve. While there is a technical reason why the topic could be split, arguably none of the pages involved are sufficiently developed (my own recent expansion of this article notwithstanding) to warrant multiple separate pages at the moment. For all these reasons, the "Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912)" page is a problematic WP:CONTENTFORK. In the future, a new page might be certainly warranted, but it would need a very different name (for reasons mentioned in RM discussion there) and it would need a clearer consensus from editors in order to work. R Prazeres (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one paragraph in Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) has any sourcing, so I would be more inclined to redirect without merging unless it's a particularly unique paragraph. CMD (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point yes, I forgot to mention I don't know that anything there can be salvaged, so it would probably go along those lines. I assumed that it still counts as a "merge" but should I post this proposal differently? (Even that one sourced paragraph looks sketchy to me, and I transferred it from a similar problematic article that was blanked and redirected.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to post something different, although you may want to notify participants of the move request. CMD (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Regarding these edits by an edit-warring IP, some of the mess has been fixed thanks to , who fixed the references, but very little of the material itself is still viable as is. It's generally unsourced because most of the actual substantial information deviates significantly from the information in the cited sources, and some information looks unsourced entirely. The tone is also... all over the place. Much of it probably falls under the WP:BLP policy. For example, the figures for the wealth estimates are wildly off from what's stated in the cited sources (nowhere near "$200 billion") and they concern the current king specifically, not the "dynasty" or the family as a whole. The king's wealth is already covered more clearly at Mohammed VI of Morocco. The Moroccan government is definitely authoritarian but it is not classified as an absolute monarchy and it does have "democratic" institutions ("Constitutional monarchy" per , , etc), notwithstanding the many valid political points that could be made beyond this formal classification. Much of this work belongs at Politics of Morocco; some of the appropriate work has been done at Morocco#Politics. In short, the only valid information remaining would need to be rewritten and wouldn't necessarily belong in the lead, since the article is currently mostly about the dynasty's history (though that can, and maybe should, change in the future). I'm waiting in order to steer clear of 3RR for the moment, but I'll try fixing all this later if no one else beats me to it. R Prazeres (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit-warring in lead 

message: As flags are also being discussed elsewhere, I should note that there are (unsurprisingly) issues with the current flag image in the infobox (). It's included in the "coat of arms" parameter and its appearance here implies it's the flag of the dynasty, but there's actually no source saying what the current flag of coat of arms of the dynasty is, or what it used to be, or indeed whether it would be any different from that of Morocco generally. The current flag in the infobox is based solely on a brief appearance in this 1953 video (see at 2:31), with no further context or information. It could easily just have been a variant of a flag used for that occasion. Surely if the flag was in common and/or current use, we would be able to find it elsewhere; if that's the case, please provide the sources (as long as it's clearly not a source that just copied Wikipedia). There are some other Moroccan flags from the last couple of centuries which don't look like this. The actual current coat of arms of Morocco is  (as apparently confirmed here). Potentially this could be the appropriate coat of arms here too, but I'm not sure.
Lastly, a note on the aforementioned flag (i.e. ): the details inside the central star should actually be Arabic inscriptions, not random scribbles, as clearly visible in the source video. I assume the creator of the image couldn't decipher the inscriptions in the video and so put these in as visual filler; but it's problematic to replace Arabic writing with meaningless scribbles, and makes this flag image partly inaccurate even according to its source. R Prazeres (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @R Prazeres, I sourced this file on commons a bit more, do you think it could be added to the infobox ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, good work. Yeah I think that's good enough to put in the infobox. Based on the sources you listed, we may also want to include a short caption that says "flag up to 1915" or something like that. Thanks. R Prazeres (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, two more secondary sources were added to it, flag added to the infobox. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Sorry to revert you , but we should solicit a consensus once there's an objection to a recent change/addition. I think what  is essentially saying is that since the dynasty is in power today, readers would expect the flag or emblem in the infobox to be current one (if there is one). After some thought, I think that's a reasonable point. The flag can still be mentioned in the article of course. Also, I note that Flag of Morocco#History currently mentions the former flag being solid red but lacks sources for that statement, so that's something that could be improved with the sources you gathered. R Prazeres (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, however the red color still makes the emblem of the dynasty according to the sources in commons, the green star was added in the french protectorate, So i think it's both accurate and current to have the red flag in the infobox especially if we're talking about the dynasty itself, before he protectorate, the state was named after the dynasty (Sharifian Sultanate) and it's only natural for it to have the emblem of the dynasty. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll find a place for it, but maybe not in the infobox, to minimize confusion and contention. R Prazeres (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Hamamat32@R Prazeres Since this article is about the Alawi dynasty itself and not the state (Sharifian Sultanate), then i might agree on removing the map, but why not put the red standard in its place ? sources affirm that the plain red flag was dynastic and i think it fits very well in the article especially if we want to make a difference between the Alawi dynasty and the modern Moroccan state. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't see how language is outright not a considered as a factor whatsoever. Didn't really intend for any disruption or edit warring though, so apologies for that. Frankly, I don't think the maps are necessary, they just feel out of place and the version prior was completely adequate with the info explained clearly through text. Hamamat32 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't a factor whatsoever, but it wasn't a reason to remove the image outright in this context. That said, I understand your good intentions and if you feel the map is simply out of place, then I'll remove it until there is consensus to have it. Like you said, the article was still understandable without it. And there's a chance that a map based on reliable secondary sources will become available at some point in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: , This edit is disruptive and does not make much sense:
* You have not provided any valid reason for removing the map discussed above (). There is no rule forbidding non-English text inside an image, especially when there is a caption explaining to readers exactly what the image is. There are plenty of images with non-English text inside them throughout Wikipedia, so stop repeating this. Pre-modern maps and images, by definition, do not have modern English text in them. We do not have any other informative maps so far based on secondary sources, so this primary source, clearly identified as such, is pertinent.
* Re: "this map also shows a greater extent of the sultanate", The image you added (this) does not show any "extent" clearly: I see a part of the desert in the corner shaded more darkly than the rest, and what appears to be a border line running through the High Atlas mountains, which if anything would exclude the Tafilalt and the other oases on that side of the mountains. That may or may not be correct, but is clearly not a "greater extent" than the other map, and is from an entirely different period anyways. Along with the previous map you added (), this shows little more than Morocco's geography. The previously-added map () is actually representative of what the accompanying text describes with regards to Ismail's expansion of control over the desert oases, as it shows the Touat region as part of his territory. The other maps don't show this at all.
* Re: "Replace image of Hassan with one of Ismail", this isn't what you did: you removed the image of Hassan and replaced it with the map just mentioned. You haven't provided any valid reason for removing the image of Hassan.
If you want to add relevant images to the article, you're free to do so and the article is currently large enough to accommodate that. But do not mix constructive additions with deletions that you know are contentious. That's disruptive and, in this case, dips into WP:EDITWAR territory. If you have a substantial objection to the previous images, please explain here on the talk page. If there is no agreement on the usefulness of any of these maps, then we'll just remove them per WP:STATUSQUO. R Prazeres (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how language is outright not a considered as a factor whatsoever. Didn't really intend for any disruption or edit warring though, so apologies for that. Frankly, I don't think the maps are necessary, they just feel out of place and the version prior was completely adequate with the info explained clearly through text. Hamamat32 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it wasn't a factor whatsoever, but it wasn't a reason to remove the image outright in this context. That said, I understand your good intentions and if you feel the map is simply out of place, then I'll remove it until there is consensus to have it. Like you said, the article was still understandable without it. And there's a chance that a map based on reliable secondary sources will become available at some point in the future. R Prazeres (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Map image

message: Not sure that I agree with this revert, as the article is currently as much a historical overview as anything else, just like Almoravid dynasty and others. But in any case, I've moved the recently-added map to the relevant history section in the meantime (). 
It's perhaps worth noting again that other editors have occasionally expressed support for creating a separate article about the Alawi state/period up to 1912, which could be more like a typical historical state article (like Saadi Sultanate, Almohad Caliphate, etc), because indeed it's a little awkward to add other historical info about Morocco during this period when the article title can imply a more narrow scope about the present-day royal family (like the Hashemites article). R Prazeres (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree with the latter, though I don't think that splitting the article is necessary. Regarding the map, I found an article from a reliable site using an identical map which is attributed to NYU author of Morocco since 1830 C.R. Pennell. Hamamat32 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fanack is not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes it's not a scholarly source, and the map there is clearly a copy of the one on Wikipedia, rather than from somewhere else. There's no such map in either of Pennell's two book on Morocco, as far as I can see. R Prazeres (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @R Prazeres Sorry for my previous edit, didn't knew there was new topic in this talk page Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! See also my new comment to the previous topic above. R Prazeres (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  same thing here, don't know if it's from some other work, but couldn't find it on either of the two books. Hamamat32 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a reliable source, it doesn't even respect the borders between the Regency of Algiers and the Sharifian Sultanate in early 18th century, the moulouya river was imposed as border between the two states by the end of the Maghrebi war, the map you deleted (and other historical maps of the 18th century ) show pretty accurately those borders unlike this map, it also shows the maximum extend under Moulay Ismail, the Alawis lost the touat in the 2nd half of the 18th century as shown in the two linked maps...so i oppose adding your map in the article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox and scope

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  Jerium (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Alawi dynasty →  – Page should move based on prevalence (the name occurs either most or at least equally frequently in scholarship without an initial apostrophe denoting an 'ayn), more generally for simplicity's sake, the greater naturalness in English and the benefit of lay readers not familiar with the 'ayn in Arabic transliteration, and also per the less stringent requirements of the basic transliteration of the 'ayn in the initial position per WP:MOSAR. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Support per nom.  also bold-moved this earlier () but it was reverted. Straightforward enough: for general English readers, the apostrophe will lend itself more to confusion, while those who are familiar with Arabic will be informed of the native pronunciation by the opening line. R Prazeres (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Support Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 September 2023