Talk:Alawi dynasty

transition

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

Country/dynasty???

Like all other Moroccan dynasty articles we have one article describing two things, the state and the dynasty. Although these two institutions were largely intertwined in Moroccan history, they still have a different history.http://books.google.com/books?id=jdlKbZ46YYkC&pg=PA155#v=onepage&q&f=false Therefore I suggest we create an article about Alaouite sultanate of Morocco (1666-1912) (and keep this one for the actual dynasty, which btw survided many state forms (Sultanate, French protectorate, and current Kingdom) --karimobo (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The other articles are redirecting the dynasty to the article related to the political entity. You article was a doubloon, then, I redirected it the this article.

Omar-Toons (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems the most logical. I don't get why someone decided to merge both pages... they are two totally different things. Iammga21 (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

WOW!! Were are the references!?

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)

relationw/SYRIANSEKT?

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.179.44 (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Barakah

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)

Conference/Treaty of Madrid

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)

Fixing the scope and topic of the page

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.
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)

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)

Merger proposal

Proposal: merge Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) with Alaouite dynasty
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)

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)

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)

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)

It's been a bit over a week, there's been no opposition, and given the support already expressed at Talk:Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912), I'll close this and make the merge by blanking and redirecting the page to here. R Prazeres (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 15 August 2021

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: moved

I find there is a strong consensus against the current name. Only one editor opposes moving, on the basis the current name is more common in news articles and magazines. Even if true (and no evidence is provided), per WP:NEWSORG we prefer scholarly sources.

As to the new name, the !votes are as follows: 4 for 'Alawi (including R Prazeres), 3 for Alawite, 2 for Alawi. Where an editor has expressed support for either of two options, I have counted their !vote under both. The search engine results are indecisive and I find there is no consensus as to the new name. Per WP:OTHEROPTIONS I must pick one of the options.

Per WP:TRANSLITERATE we prefer to use our standard Romanisation, but we do not appear to have a standard for Arabic (see WP:ROMAN). This should be fixed. Nevertheless, "w" appears to be a usual Romanisation of و, while "ou" is non-standard. Unfortunately, the participating editors have given little attention to the Romanisation of ع. Although this letter is unpronouncable by most English speakers, I doubt that omitting it entirely can be a standard Romanisation. For that reason, and because it has a slight lead in the !votes, I will move this article to 'Alawi dynasty.

Any editor who disagrees or has a better suggestion may open a new RM. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Alaouite dynasty → 'Alawi dynasty – "Alaouite" is the French transliteration of the name "'Alawi", which is unnecessary to use in English Wikipedia, and this name has nothing to do with the pre-1912 rulers of Morocco. The name "'Alawi" is used much more than "Alaouite" in English sources. Google Scholar: "Alaouite dynasty" 1,530 vs. "'Alawi dynasty" 2,610, Google Books: "Alaouite dynasty" 3,400 vs. "'Alawi dynasty" 6,870. 86.141.92.181 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose Alaouite dynasty appears to be much more common in news articles and magazines. LK (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd support in principle because "'Alawi" is indeed used more in English reliable sources (i.e. scholarly sources), plus it's easier to pronounce for English readers. But I'll hold off until hopefully I hear more, because like it or not a lot of French transliterations in North Africa are still seen in English and are sometimes more likely to be seen in common usage, local media, signage, etc. If there are more Moroccans who can comment, it'd be good to know which form is more familiar to them in English, if any. R Prazeres (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. "'Alawi" is the English spelling, "Alaouite" is the French spelling, and the general rule is WP:USEENGLISH. You'll tend to find the French spelling "Alaouite" in travel guides, where they try to use French spellings for everything (easier for tourists). A way to test it is to look for whether "Alaouite" is used in combination with English transliterations for other things ("Marrakesh", "Fez"), or whether it is found in books which use French spellings everywhere ("Marrakech", "Fes"). But just doing a few searches, it is not clear. Alawi is a bit more dominant in English language books, but not overwhelmingly so. But I'd still support the change. N.B. - the audience for Wikipedia articles are English-speakers around the world, not Moroccans. General recognizability, not local preference, should be the priority. Walrasiad (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Morocco has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Africa has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject History has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support I reran the "Scholar" searches above, restricting results to the last twenty years only, in case there has been a trend towards—or away from—one or the other of the terms. What I found is that the ratio has grown to almost a 2–1 difference, or more exactly, 1950 to 1110. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment using quotation marks for an exact search match, I get different results from the ones highlighted by the IP. 1) Scholar: "Alaouite dynasty" (312), "Alawite dynasty" (378), "Alawi dynasty" (303) 2) Web: "Alaouite dynasty" (52.000), "Alawite dynasty" (15.500), "Alawi dynasty" (8.300). 3) Google Books Ngram: the ngram results are consistent with those of the web search. Taking everything into consideration, it's clear that if there is a need to change the title (I'm not convinced that there is one), then the choice should be between "Alaouite dynasty" and "Alawite dynasty", with the latter being a possible good compromise candidate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Your figures are wildly off. As for your number of 52,000 on the web, the real number is closer to 137, as can be seen by forwarding through the list of SRPs by following the "Next page" link at the bottom of the page, until you get to page 14 (Update: now, at page 15; Google results vary with time and other factors.) which says,

  In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 137 already displayed.

In the case of your ngrams link, the numbers are very sparse, and they are *totals*, which means they count irrelevant results with the same weight as the most relevant ones. If you redo your search in Google books (which is the only thing ngrams measures) with an OR'd search of the three terms in Google books, and look through the most relevant results (that is to say, the first page of results), the picture is *very* different, in fact, the opposite. Mathglot (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If the web results are "wildly off", then they are wildly off for all of them (which doesn't help in this instance), but still, once you reach page 14, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

The same goes for the ngrams, which leaves us with the Scholar results. What do you think of those? M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the last thing you want to do, because omitted results are by definition mirrors or copies, i.e., non-WP:INDEPENDENT. Already commented on scholar results above. Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: your Scholar results are obviously different than mine since you haven't used quotation marks (important when you want to get an exact match). What are your thoughts on "Alawite dynasty"? M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support I support a move to Alawi dynasty, which is correct title transcription of علوي according to English orthography even if not so common, but would prefer Alawite over Alaouite to remove the colonial French orthography on Wiki:EN. إيان (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support I also support the move to Alawi dynasty or Alawite dynasty due to consistency. Every language transliterates this dynasty into their own mother tongue and I find it odd that the English page uses the French name. On top of this, doing a cursory look at this title in books on this area, there is a marked preference for either Alawi or Alawite. I agree the name should be changed, the only thing to consider is either Alawi or Alawite. I have seen both names fairly frequently Sanctusune (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Regarding your question above about 'Alawite dynasty' (responding here so as not to belabor the Survey section with extended discussion): well, it should depend on what the common usage is in published, English reliable sources of course. But as far as my thoughts on it (and this is pretty much O/T for the RM, but since you asked:) I'd say that the difference among the choices presented amounts to how one chooses to transliterate an Arabic wāw ( ) in this context, which is a consonantal context in this case as it is followed by an alif vowel (as you can see in the middle of the middle term in the Arabic expression in the lead sentence of the article). In English we usually transliterate the consonantal wāw as 'w' (as in wadi) and the vocalic one as 'u' (as in hummus; sometimes 'ou' if it comes through French). French doesn't really have a 'w' sound, and so they transliterate both the consonantal wāw and the vocalic one as 'ou', which is less accurate by my way of thinking, because whereas English captures a bit of the sense of the consonantal bilabial approximant, French overloads the 'ou' for both the consonantal and the vocalic sounds (which to their ears, are the same thing, but not to ours). That leaves English with more options how to transliterate an Arabic word with wāw.

In the end, English speakers are going to pronounce unfamiliar words according to how they are written in English, and I have no idea what most English speakers would do with Alaouite; with that four-vowel combination in the middle it looks even more foreign than Alawite which at least looks like something we could take a stab at pronouncing and not murder too badly. Having said all that, I don't think it really has any impact on the decision here, although maybe it gives some background on how some English sources ended up with the -aoui- in there, because it came through French first or was influenced by French, sort of like how we ended up with hummus but couscous. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough response, especially with regard to the pronunciation. In French, the 'w' sound is achieved using 'ou', that's why some old French sources call it "la dynastie Alaouie" (without the 't'). I have no idea when or why they changed it, but it looks like they ended up influencing how it's used in English sources either in the form of "Alaouite" or "Alawite". To go back to what you said about the common name usage in RS: as far as I can tell, "Alawite dynasty" is used more often than "Alawi dynasty", whether in Scholar or Google books. So my question to you and to everyone who answered so far is: would you support a move to "Alawite dynasty"? M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would. I'm always open of course to new data that might change how I interpret the situation, but currently, yes. The ending -ite in French can form a noun based on another noun : Israël, Israélite (an Israeli [person]), or can form an adjective: de confession Israélite (of the Jewish faith).

We're getting pretty far afield, now, but as far as Alaouie, did you see a lot of that? If there weren't too many, it might be that they thought that the base term Alaoui could do double duty as both an adjective and as a noun (just like Israélite can, say), and if they thought that, and wanted to say "Alawi dynasty" in French using "Alaoui" as a supposed adjectival form, then it would have to be dynastie alaouie because dynastie is feminine and the -e has to be added to the adjectival root to conform. Other than that, I can't see any reason for it. (Note that alaouie has *five* vowels in a row in a word of only seven letters; that must be some kind of record.) If they added something, it's not a -t as an infix to Alaouie, but the suffix -ite to the base form Alaoui with the extra i being elided. Mathglot (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, 'Alaouie' is rarely used, but I somehow doubt that they put much effort into its transliteration (if the mess they created with the names in North Africa is anything to go by). M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit-warring in lead

Regarding these edits by an edit-warring IP, some of the mess has been fixed thanks to Quebec99, 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 [1], [2], 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)

Flag

As flags are also being discussed elsewhere, I should note that there are (unsurprisingly) issues with the current flag image in the infobox (this). 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 this (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. this): 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)

Hi @R Prazeres, I sourced this file[3] on commons a bit more, do you think it could be added to the infobox ? Nourerrahmane (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

Thanks, two more secondary sources were added to it, flag added to the infobox. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you Nourerrahmane, but we should solicit a consensus once there's an objection to a recent change/addition. I think what Hamamat32 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)

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)

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)

@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)

Map image

Hamamat32, This edit is disruptive and does not make much sense:

• You have not provided any valid reason for removing the map discussed above ([4]). 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 ([5]), this shows little more than Morocco's geography. The previously-added map ([6]) 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)

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)

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)

Infobox and scope

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 ([7]).

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)

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)

Fanack is not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

@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)

No problem! See also my new comment to the previous topic above. R Prazeres (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: 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)

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 [8][9]) 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)

Requested move 26 September 2023

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)

---

'Alawi dynasty → 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)

Support per nom. Wybxis also bold-moved this earlier ([10]) 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)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead image

cc @R Prazeres; in my previous edit, the primary focus of the lead image on the article was the family tree at Rabat's Dar al-Makhzen as opposed to the focus being the current monarch (I still view the picture to be relevant so I will probably add it again on a different section), I deemed it to probably be useful to start a conversation on the talk page regarding this. The Alaouites are not a dynasty similar to Western nobility and does not have a coat of arms in of itself, making this difficult.

There are a couple candidates for a lead image such as an alleged royal standard on Commons, the emblem of the Royal Guard (I will likely change the blobs on that image to its Arabic caligraphy once I find the time), the Moroccan flag with a golden outline (seen at Dar al-Makhzen), the coat of arms of Morocco (used in royal letters, it is worth adding that Hassan II's Danish Order of the Elephant used the state coat of arms) and the flag of the RMAF (which was seen at a conference room at Dar al-Makhzen).

I am interested in hearing any commentary or suggestions regarding this. Thank you! NAADAAN (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I did indeed miss the family tree. That said, I would still prefer not to have the current king in a lead image (even with a caption mentioning the background), as that looks typical of a biographical article. I'm honestly fine with no lead image for now, as it isn't strictly necessary. Like you said, there doesn't seem to be a family-specific coat of arms (or at least none referenced so far), and I don't think it's appropriate to add another flag/emblem that's merely used by the state or another state institution.

This is another issue where the oft-suggested but not yet fully proposed WP:SPLIT between the topic of the family/dynasty and the topic of the historical state/period might eventually help. Until then, I'm reluctant to accept an image of the king (or another specific monarch) in the lead of an article that covers centuries of history, whereas in an article that's more specifically about the family it wouldn't be out of place. R Prazeres (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem with that, that is understandable. With regards to the split, is it a split between the pre-colonial and the post-colonial Alawite state? In a similar fashion to Empire chérifien and Royaume du Maroc on French Wikipedia. Perhaps an image of the Royal Palace in Rabat could serve as a lead image, but I am not optimistic. NAADAAN (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This addition looks good by the way. For the split, we'd have to figure out a good, non-ambiguous title that could cover the pre-colonial period up to 1912 at least. There's an article about the French protectorate already, and the post-colonial period would be covered by Morocco or History of Morocco (or by another subarticle in the future, if needed). A pre-colonial Alawi period could be something like "Alawi Sultanate" (though this could arguably cover up to 1912 or 1956), or something more descriptive. R Prazeres (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal (and seeking feedback)

I believe we are due for a WP:SPLIT of this topic into two articles: one focused on the present-day royal family (analogous to Hashemites, British royal family, etc) and another focused on the historical period and/or historical state (analogous to Saadi Sultanate, Regency of Algiers, etc). The first one could retain the title "Alawi dynasty" but I'm not sure about the title of the second one.

Motivation for split: there is an obvious break/transition between the pre-colonial Alawi state and the protectorate and post-protectorate periods, and the pre-colonial period deserves to have its own article that can cover subtopics like pre-colonial administration, literature, artistic developments, society, etc, much like other periods do. The issue is that the title "Alawi dynasty" equally refers to the present-day royal family, which makes it awkward/confusing to use this article to cover all of that content.

Most reliable English references use the dynasty's name to refer to the historical period (just as they use dynastic names to refer to other periods; Saadi, Marinid, etc), so I personally think "Alawi" should be in the title of any such article, but I'm not sure exactly what that title should be. Maybe "Alawi Sultanate" or something similar? Either way, feedback and suggestions are appreciated. R Prazeres (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I vouch for a split, I think WP:COMMONNAME could apply here. Though a cursory search of 19th century sources, it seems that most English-language literature of the pre-colonial Alaouite period around the time where Morocco began opening to Western diplomats and explorers refer to a "Sultanate of Morocco" or "Morocco". This was opposed to the use of "Barbaria" during the Mernid and Saadian era by Western authors.

For instance, sources regarding diplomacy with the pre-colonial Alaouite state refer to the Anglo-Moroccan Treaty of 1856 also refers to a "Sultanate of Morocco" in English, although I am not sure about its Arabic version. Mohammed ben Ali Abgali, the Moroccan ambassador to the U.K. was referred to as "Legat[ion] Maroc" in a 1728 edition of Edward Chamberlayne's Present State of England, while Mohammed Benhaddou was referred to the ambassador of "Morocco and Fez".

For explorers of pre-colonial Morocco, Arthur Leared referred to a "Sultanate of Morocco" in a book regarding his expedition written in 1879. This was the same for Friedrich Gerhard Rohlfs who in 1874 referred to an "Empire or Sultanate of Morocco". John Drummond-Hay referred to the country as Morocco as well.

For non-contemporary sources, Amira Bennison refers to an "Alaoui Sultanate of Morocco" and David Birmingham refers to the state as the "Sultanate of Morocco (p. 19)", likewise for Joshua Schreier , Ahmet Akgunduz and Michael E. Meeker. However, a translation of the French appelation of the pre-colonial Alawite state, "Empire Chérifien" (formal, as opposed to the informal "Maroc") or "Sharifian Empire", is also used by Sylvie Thénault, Harrold D. Nelson, Jonathan Wyrtzen. This seems to be based on "السلطنة الشريفة" or "Sharifian Sultanate", which was used since the Saadi period.

I certainly am far from opposed to the article being called "Alawi Sultanate", "Sharifian Empire", or something along those lines, but I view that "Sultanate of Morocco", "Morocco (1666–1912)" would be the best per WP:CRITERIA. NAADAAN (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating this; it's about time someone addressed it. I've always felt that the coverage of Alaouite Morocco on English Wikipedia is lacking. I've had the idea of creating an article focused specifically on the history of the Alaouites, given their continued status as the ruling dynasty, which sets them apart from other Moroccan dynasties. Regarding the title, I've considered "Alaouite/Alawi Sultanate" or perhaps "Alaouite/Alawi Morocco" as the existing "Alawi dynasty" article leans more towards modern aspects rather than historical ones. Both the Alaouites and the Saadids share many similarities, particularly their Sharifian ancestry. The terms "Sharifian Sultanate" or "Sharifian Morocco" are also applicable to both. The year 1957 marks a clear split point, as Sultan Mohammed V is regarded as the last Moroccan sultan, and since then, Moroccan monarchs have been referred to as kings rather than sultans. 808 AD (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

(Re: NAADAAN) Just keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME means following current reliable secondary sources, not historical primary sources. We want the title to reflect what readers would expect to find in such sources, but also be precise enough for the Wikipedia context. "Sultanate of Morocco" would be too vague on its own. "Sharifian Empire/Morocco" is also ambiguous because it can also refer to the Saadi Sultanate (also doesn't appear to be most common in English). It's not clear to me that there will be a single convenient, unambiguous name of course; if adding the years in parenthesis are necessary, for example, then so be it.

Since the scope would be specifically tied to the start of the Alawi dynasty, that's why I recommend a title referring to that. In my experience, this generally matches how the relevant chapters/sections are labelled in wider history references, including some of the ones mentioned already, e.g.: Nelson, Pennell, Wyrtzen, Naylor, Abun-Nasr (p.228 or see table of contents at start), Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (Terrasse), Encyclopedia of Islam 3 (Bennison) (the latter two behind paywalls unfortunately). R Prazeres (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, "Alawi Sultanate" is fine. Maybe include "officially the Sharifian Sultanate and commonly known as the Sultanate of Morocco" in the lead. NAADAAN (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

A state-period article serving a similar role to French protectorate in Morocco is certainly a viable topic. I'm unsure how much would be split from this article however, as it is a compact article which does not deviate from the main topic of the dynasty. CMD (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The current article is essentially a political history from the 17th century to the present, so I propose transferring the quite detailed subsections about the pre-colonial period and then condensing the corresponding material here for WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I generally wrote the last subsections (colonial rule and independence) to stick especially close to the dynasty to avoid too much duplication of History of Morocco, so those should be good to remain as they are. The two articles can then be further expanded to fit their new scopes. R Prazeres (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:History of Morocco, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Morocco. R Prazeres (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)