Talk:Alawi Sultanate

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)

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)

Thanks! And yeah, I think it's reasonable to make Sharifian Empire a DAB. R Prazeres (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. R Prazeres (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you! NAADAAN (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (), 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whatever! M.Bitton (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Is your grievance the settlements on the map or the border? NAADAAN (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's the problem with the SVG now? NAADAAN (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Do you have a problem with how the border is now? NAADAAN (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@M.Bitton bled siba means lawless country, not under sultan control, whether direct or indirect. 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)

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 (). 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)