Jump to content

Talk:Alawi Sultanate

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

General notes[edit]

This article is the result of a WP:SPLIT discussion at Talk:Alawi dynasty. Its purpose is to cover the history of Morocco during the pre-colonial Alawi period in order to focuse on the state, general history, and other aspects of the period such as culture and economy (similar to other articles like Saadian Sultanate, Almohad Caliphate, etc), while the Alawi dynasty article serves as the article focusing on the Moroccan royal family (e.g. like Hashemites).

I also wanted to leave a few initial notes:

  • The current title is open to revision if needed. I suggested it during the split discussion and there was rough agreement. The term "Alawi sultanate" is indeed used in many sources (I've added some examples to the first citation), but it's not strictly a conventionalized name for the state and it can also be used in the different sense of the office of "sultan" occupied by the Alawis formally until 1957. A more descriptive title may be appropriate if the current one seems insufficient, though the lead should hopefully clarify the scope of the article either way.
  • In the long-term, some improvements are needed to citations from the copied content (mostly the "History" section). Many of them are missing page numbers. This is partly my fault, as I wrote much of that content in my early editing days, so I'll try to fix these when the opportunity (or a more urgent need) arises. In the meantime, the copied content is still, for the most part, carefully sourced, so please be mindful of WP:INTEGRITY when changing or adding material, otherwise it will become much more difficult to maintain and improve citations and verifiability. For all new citations, please be sure to include page numbers where appropriate (e.g. for books), so that we don't add more future maintenance work.

R Prazeres (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just a nitpick for now: should Sharifian Empire or Sharifian Sultanate should be a disambiguation link to both this page and Saadi Sultanate since they both used the name? added makhzen section and merged the judiciary and economy sections NAADAAN (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And yeah, I think it's reasonable to make Sharifian Empire a DAB. R Prazeres (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. R Prazeres (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! NAADAAN (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep running into Sharifian Empire at Regency of Algiers. Please disambiguate. I realize that that's off-topic really, but it jumped out at me. I have skimmed the above discussion and will re-read it in greater detail later. For now my takeaway is that the map used at Regency of Algiers is correct, and there is a dispute about how to adapt it for an article about Morocco? Elinruby (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It formally redirected to Morocco before this, which isn't precise either. Disambiguation should be easy as long as the historical period is clear. I think I'd recommend also using less ambiguous terms that specify the dynastic regime in question (Saadi Sultanate vs Alawi Sultanate), rather than "Sharifian" (which is a term applicable to both).
Re: the map: that's the short of it, yes. It's honestly not a big problem so long as the edit-warring stops (which hopeful asly it has for now. R Prazeres (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been changing it to Saadi Sultanate but I am not convinced that that was always correct. The regime change was fairly early as I recall. I would appreciate it if someone here would check the instances of this. And as demonstrated by that request, I don't think I have sufficient topic knowledge to comment on Morocco at this point but OK. I am keeping an eye on the topic now. Elinruby (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

@R Prazeres: I sketched up an SVG map as a mix of the one used in the draft with the data from the Atlas of Islamic History and added the locations of some settlements that existed during the period of the Sultanate from the Atlas, the original map, and some articles. I'd like some commentary before I can add it, thank you. NAADAAN (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. My only recommendation, just to make it easier to read (in thumbnail form especially), would be to crop some of the bottom in order to focus on the coloured areas (maybe move the legend up a little to accommodate this). If that's not too much trouble. R Prazeres (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded an attempt to zoom it. Hope that's good, I'll put it on the infobox NAADAAN (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice this discussion until now, but regardless, the map that you're suggesting makes claims that aren't in the source. Tuat is supposed to be the lowest point of the map, followed by Tindouf; while in this one, you included Smara, which is further down that Tuat itself. Furthermore, we cannot have two different maps about the same area during the same period (that are supposed to be based on the same source). M.Bitton (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map you added isn't precise either. For instance, the distance between the easternmost point of the Alawid dynasty's core (Bled el-Makhzen) and the regency of Algiers is shorter than indicated in the original source, the same could be said about the southern "borders". It needs a remake. 808 AD (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "precision" (that nobody expects) and baseless WP:OR (a violation of a non-negotiable policy). M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The exact geographic distances/orientations might be an issue arising from which template map was used and the difficulty of replicating things precisely. (I had assumed the new map was just edited from the old one; now I see it's a different template.) In any case, it's true that Smara should not be on the map; its location is not shown in the source and judging by the location of the nearby river in the source map, it wouldn't be included inside the Alawi area. (The town may not have existed for most of this period anyways, if Smara#History is to be believed.) An easy solution might be to just take the old/current map ([1]), crop it (and move the legend), and add more settlements per the source. I see no urgency in this, but I can do so in the not-so-distant future if that sounds alright. R Prazeres (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used this as a baseline, superimposed another map and the relevant page from the Atlas, traced the border and put the settlements included in the Atlas and Pennell's book. I traced the SVG since that'd be favored over a raster file.
I included Smara because I had assumed it was part of Bilad as-Siba in the form of the zawiya of Maa el-Ainine and I felt that was relevant due to the Hibist movement that rose there around the time of French colonization, if that's the sole point of contention (which I think it is) I'll remove it. NAADAAN (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a case of removing Smara, the whole area going south to it needs to be removed, but frankly, all of this doesn't make much sense since we already a perfectly valid map that is based on the same source and used in an article. My suggestion is simply to do what R Prazeres (crop the current one if you wish) or use it as it is (like we did for the Regency of Algiers). M.Bitton (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your request. I wouldn't say it's "perfect" since it's a raster which isn't centered on the Sultanate but rather on North Africa, but that's subjective.
Here's the relevant part from the Atlas, here's the map where I got most of the settlements from, here's the article where I got the settlements in Souss from; this is at worst synthesis -- not OR. NAADAAN (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I described the other as perfectly valid (which it is). As for what you're suggesting: the Smara and its surrounding part is most definitely WP:OR (btw, synthesis is also OR). M.Bitton (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's not valid. Using your own logic, and given that NAADAAN has already removed Smara from the map, the map you added is also a WP:OR for the reason I've shown above. 808 AD (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may come a s big surprise to you, but when we say that something is WP:OR, we need to substantiate it (like I did above when I explained that the southernmost town in the source is Tuat, followed by Tindouf and then it's more or less flat from there going westwards). M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's OR (if you understood my comment correctly). What I'm saying is that it's not precise for the reasons I've shown above, and we can do better than that. No map is perfectly precise, but the one made by NAADAAN is more accurate, respects the source better, and includes more helpful details. Now that NAADAAN has resolved the issue of Smara, if you still find issues with it, you can simply raise them here. 808 AD (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's OR that's what you said when you wrote the map you added is also a WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be the case if we are "using your own logic" (you forgot to quote this) 808 AD (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever! M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your grievance the settlements on the map or the border? NAADAAN (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The border is the biggest issue. As for the settlements, I suggest you stick to what is in the used source. M.Bitton (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my map superimposed over the relevant part of the Atlas (keep in mind that they both have different projections), I would like you to tell me what I need to fix. NAADAAN (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained the part about the Tuat, which regardless of which projection is used, will always be the southernmost part of the map (by a fairly long distance). Anyway, I still see no reason not to use the map that we already have. M.Bitton (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I made a slight mistake on how I adjusted for projection, I edited it accordingly. Thank you! NAADAAN (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that your "adjustments" consists of moving Tuat south. Frankly, all of this just confirms what I said before, better stick to what we have. M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because the way I had adjusted it initially turned out to elevate settlements in the East towards the North -- I have corrected that. How would this confirm anything about what you said? The map you proposed is not a vector, not centered on the Alawis but on North Africa ("Alawids" is literally the smallest text on the map), and doesn't contain most of the settlements in the source. NAADAAN (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Crop it like R Prazeres suggested above and center on the Alawis if you wish. If some settlements that are mentioned in the source are missing, you can add them. It's really that simple. M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with the SVG now? NAADAAN (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you know what the problem is when you start moving borders left right and centre. Do you have a problem with using a map that is used in a related article and based on the same source? M.Bitton (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a problem with how the border is now? NAADAAN (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. By playing with borders like you did, you now have the distance between the Regency's southern border and Tuat much bigger than what is in the source (this is just the tip of the iceberg). Now, can you please answer the above question? M.Bitton (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current map does not provide us with the names of cities or regions, it is not centered on the Sultanate and it's not a vector. Please be concise and explain the problems you have with the borders to avoid me "moving them left right and centre". I will be happy to fix them like I did before. NAADAAN (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking me to needlessly repeat what I said. I suggest you spend some time going through it. Once again, I see no point in wasting time fixing an OR map when we have one that is ready and used in another project. M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After spending some time to go through it, I copied the borders off the raster map you and @R Prazeres proposed. As you mentioned an "iceberg", I assume you haven't addressed most of the issues you had with the previous version so I deemed this to be the best solution so far. NAADAAN (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the eastern borders that I mentioned earlier still remains. I hope you can address that. Thanks. 808 AD (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot simply copy the borders from one projection stick them in another and add captions and names that are not in the sources. You were supposed to go through what I said (adding the missing names, sticking to what the source says, cropping the current map if needs be, etc) and not through the OR map, but since you decided to impose your POV fork and OR through a forced edit, then I guess my input in this fruitless discussion is no longer necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few words about the map currently in use:
We should emphasize that the green part is Algeria or Ottoman Algeria, or Regency of Algiers in the map, and not an unnamed land under direct control of the Ottoman Empire as this map makes us believe. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nourerrahmane: that goes hand in hand with what you said in the below section: deviating from the source to change the meaning of "bled siba" and going out of one's way to describe the Regency as the "Ottoman empire". This is what POV forks are created for. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton bled siba means lawless country, not under sultan control, whether direct or indirect.[2] Indirect control could be applied in the case of Algiers, it held no direct control over its beyliks (provinces) which is why it's considered a federal republic, we can't call the Alawi dynasty a federal monarchy do we ?
So the indication is plain wrong. it should be : Land of dissidence. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to unravel from the discussion above and I'm not going to read through all of it and address every point. I've restored the map that is a near-direct copy of the source for now ([3]). As I mentioned before, there are some settlements missing per the source, but that can be fixed in the future easily without using a new template that complicates the issue of where the borders fall according to the original source. The source (Sluglett & Currie) also uses different wording when it comes to the legend, including for things like the Bled es-Siba/Bled el-Makhzen distinction: a concept which is more nuanced in recent scholarship and should be explained in the article, not the map.

Apologies if this sounds patronizing, but I strongly urge everyone to calm down and slow down on this. The article was created two days ago; there is plenty of time to fix and improve things in the future. And if you think the behaviour of an editor is disruptive, please break the cycle by using WP:ANI instead of this talk page. R Prazeres (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No use of Algerian attribution[edit]

A quick look into this article has shown that it staunchly avoids using the word "Algerian" or "Algerian territory" like Abun-nasr writes. Both "Turkish" and "Algerian" regarding the history of the Regency of Algiers are viable and interchangeable. Abun-nasr also makes use of "Turks of Algiers" and not Ottomans like it's written repeatedly here, as if the Ottoman Sublime Porte itself was involved, he merely adresses the ethnic background of the Algerian rulers. I shall also remind that the Regency of Algiers was.... a Regency, not a Region or just a (part of the Ottoman Empire) as this article claims (without sources). Algiers was a state that enjoyed an independent foreign policy in the 17th century, regardless of its nominal affiliation to the Empire. As an example; we don't speak of an American-Ottoman treaty of Friendship, but an American-Algerian one. Please consider reading the article of the Regency of Algiers to avoid misleading readers. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, but really, nothing surprising there. Anyway, I'm too tired now to deal with the usual POV (after having wasted so much time dealing with an OR map that peddles more of the same). M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on for like...a year, 2 years, or more ? hard to beleive this is innocent at this stage. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the legend, it's presented exactly as it appears in the source (see the legend in the Atlas map, the legend mentions Ottoman Empire, Algiers and Tunis are both depicted in the same colors on the map) and it doesn't present any issue. In cases of significant disagreement, the best approach is to adhere strictly to the source content. Ideally, we could use the Atlas map directly in the infobox, but unfortunately, that would violate copyright policy. Anyway, that's a secondary point, we have more important things to deal with. 808 AD (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's presented exactly as it appears in the source Your claim is factually incorrect (as always). In the source, "Bled al Makhzen" is described as "core" and "Bled Siba" is described as "outlying". The "direct control" and "indirect control" (to refer to the lawless land) legends are not original research, but also pure BS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was clearly referring to the "Ottoman Empire" part. Isn't that the subject here? 808 AD (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't transfer the dispute about the map over to a second discussion when it's still happening above. The comments above seem to be about in-text wording. R Prazeres (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@R Prazeres I'm not satisfied with the current map, but if your edit summary means that you can create a map that adheres to the source as closely as possible, I'm completely fine with that. Thank you. 808 AD (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suglette (source) identifies Algeria and Tunis (as vassal state, autonomous regions), as both are colored in light blue while Ottoman proper is green (Levant for example). Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to both the legend and the body of the article, which clearly substitues the Regency of Algiers with the Ottoman Empire. I suggest you take note of what i said above. This article clearly fails WP:Verifiability. Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Alawi Morocco, not Algiers. To Moroccans at that time, the lands to their east were viewed as 'under Turkish/Ottoman domination'. Furthermore, that's still a secondary point. 808 AD (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nourerrahmane, to bring this back to your original comment: where does it say the Regency is a "region"? I'm not sure I follow that.
As for "Ottoman", this is more or less interchangeable with "Turks" in much of the literature, including Abun-Nasr. It would be a mistake to assume this is purely an "ethnic" label, as the elites and troops of the empire and its vassals (Algiers included) were not all strictly of Turkish ethnicity. Where referring to the 16th century, the Ottoman sultan was also much more involved in decision-making for North Africa during much of that period, so there's nothing particularly misleading about the use of the word "Ottoman" where it sufficiently clarifies the political affiliation.
I think tempers are flaring above and everyone is now looking for POV problems where there's merely generic content from RS that can be refined. R Prazeres (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in the 16th century we're talking about Ottoman foreign policy, however 17th century north african politics do not involve the Ottoman Empire, Algiers was autonomous enough to deal directly with European and north african counterparts alike. The sultan was not involved in these wars with the Alawis, the Regency was.
Regarding the "Turks" , Abun nasr clearly refers to the "Turks of Algiers" as he often writes, that brings us to what i said above, an autonmous North African geopolitical entity called "Ottoman Regency of Algiers".
Speaking of the Ottoman elite of Algeria, they were mostly if not strictly Anatolian Turkish per multiple RS, "Turks of Algiers" that Abun-nasr uses is perfectly accurate...Ottomans who identify themselves politically as Algerians. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about my last sentence[1][2][3][4] Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Abun-Nasr and it's clear that he makes no sharp distinction, he writes "Ottoman Turks" at many points when referring to the Regency authorities and often just "Turks" when he's referring to the Ottomans at large. After the 16th century, "Ottoman" may indeed not be the best term to use exclusively, but the sources don't always make a distinction and it's not really for this article to explain the nuances of the Algerian system, so any general term that is clear in context should be fine. Just because "Algerian" isn't used in text doesn't mean that an "Algerian" identity is being denied. R Prazeres (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why i'm suggesting they should be used interchangeably per RS, not every "Ottoman" mention should be changed to "Algerian". Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what R prazeres said here, however I believe "Ottoman" is the most accurate term when it comes to relations between Sharifian Morocco and the Regency of Algiers. Furthermore, the main reason Sharifians fought the Ottomans was usually to repel their influence rather than conquer the territories of the Regency. This was precisely the case with Moulay Ismail's expeditions to Ottoman Algeria, which aimed to keep Ottoman/Turkish (not Algerian) influence at bay, and succeeded eventually. Not to mention the significant cultural differences between Turks and Maghrebis. 808 AD (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Turkish and not Algerian, you've just proven my point :)
What do you call Regency of Algiers wars with the Regency of Tunis ? Ottoman wars on Tunis ? or Ottoman civil war ? give me a break... Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that this article is about Alawi Morocco, not Algiers or Tunis. To Moroccan Sharifs at that time, they were fighting Ottoman/Turkish influence, not Algerian influence, even though those Turks were usually based in Algiers. This makes perfect sense in the context of the history of Sharifian (Alawi and Saadi) Morocco. Meanwhile Algiers and Tunis were Already under the Turkish influence. 808 AD (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you restrict this to influance, like, the legitimacy of the Ottoman sultan as caliph then i might agree with you, but then again, this "No Algeria" in map nor body eventhough the Alawis were clearly dealing with a political entity holding such name raises questions...
Anyway i have stated my point and i thank @R Prazeres for the few changes made. Best regards. Nourerrahmane (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made another few changes, in part also to clarify citations and remove an unclear detail ([4], in addition to [5]). I believe this should be enough, as I don't think the topic comes up anywhere else in the article currently. R Prazeres (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks R.Prazeres, this was exactly my point. Nourerrahmane (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Studies, American University (Washington, D. C. ) Foreign Area (1979). Algeria, a Country Study. [Department of Defense], Department of the Army. p. 3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Nyrop, Richard F. (1972). Area Handbook for Algeria. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 7.
  3. ^ Naylor, Phillip Chiviges (2006). Historical dictionary of Algeria. Internet Archive. Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-8108-5340-9.
  4. ^ Julien, Charles André (1970). History of North Africa: Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco. From the Arab Conquest to 1830. Internet Archive. New York, Praeger. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-7100-6614-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alawi_Sultanate&oldid=1228609877"