On 15 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Alouite dynasty to 'Alawi dynasty. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How did the transition between the Saadi Dynasty to the Alaouite Dynasty occur? Polkmin ( talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.179.44 ( talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Hamamat32, This edit is disruptive and does not make much sense:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On 15 August 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Alouite dynasty to 'Alawi dynasty. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How did the transition between the Saadi Dynasty to the Alaouite Dynasty occur? Polkmin ( talk) 04:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.179.44 ( talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Hamamat32, This edit is disruptive and does not make much sense:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)