Talk:Capture of Fez (1576)

Is this topic about the capture of Fez?

Is the "capture of Fez" actually the main event here? If so, the page should have more details about what this particular event is: was there a decisive battle near Fez? E.g. the relevant cited source (Dictionary of African Biography) seems to name the "Battle of Rukn", although with no more details. The page here currently only mentions the role of Fez in passing and seems to be more about the wider Ottoman campaign into Morocco. Since Fez wasn't the Saadi capital, it's not clear why the page is named this way or whether this is the best name for the topic. More details would help either way. R Prazeres (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, Fez was the capital at that time (al-Mutawakkil was proclaimed sultan in Fez and he fled the capital following its capture). To answer your question, I'd say the main event here is the capture of the capital (Fez) and the installation of the Ottoman client king on the throne. M.Bitton (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems (by checking EI2) that he was governor of Fez so it makes sense he was proclaimed there when al-Ghalib passed, but I've never seen mention of Fez actually being the capital at any point. (Aside from the divisions between 1603 and 1627 of course, when it competed with Marrakesh, and aside from presumably using Fez as a northern base when needed; granted, Al-Mutawakill's reign was short so maybe it was simply not notable enough for other sources to mention.) In any case, more info and more sources would help clarify things. I've found more sources mention the Battle of al-Rukn as the decisive confrontation, so I'll try to take a moment to add some minor info on that anyways. R Prazeres (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it was the capital of his father for a short period (before he moved it to Marrakesh). Either way, I don't think it would change anything to the main event (installation of Abd al-Malik on the throne). M.Bitton (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear though, the sources cited here don't make this impression clear at all, and the scope of the topic as it stands on this page seems quite larger than the occupation of Fez. That said, I leave this as an open question/invitation for future editing of this article to sort out, as my focus isn't here. R Prazeres (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleting POV, non-relevant material in Aftermath

I'm removing a part of the already unusually long "Aftermath" section because it appears to be a clear POV fork attempt. Claiming or implying that al-Mansur and his successors were Ottoman "vassals", this is an old attempt to push a POV that the same editor tried unsuccessfully to push at Saadi Sultanate in April 2021, where this issue is already covered in more detail and in better line with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I didn't notice the additions here earlier. Al-Mansur and others did send payments to the Ottomans but that does not signify vassalage, a word here which appears to be taken out of context from a passing mention in one single source (Berthier), and indeed this contradicts and ignores plenty of reliable sources on the topic. The citation spam here, in an attempt to make it look like a consensus of sources, is a familiar tactic.

Other than the status quo inherited by Ahmad (which was indeed a state of vassalage), none of this information is relevant or attributed to the outcome of this battle, so it doesn't belong here regardless. What happened afterwards is covered at the main article Saadi Sultanate, and if editors want to change what is presented there, they should discuss it there, rather than come to a minor article like this one to impose a different POV. R Prazeres (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

That battle was a victory for Abd al-Malik as well, who was a Moroccan a victory for a single man? Is that what you want to add? M.Bitton (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Abd al-Malik wasn't only a "single man", he was a Saadian prince. The Ottoman sultan, Murad III, ordered the Wali (governor) of Algiers to provide him with a small armed force, which didn't meet any opposition when they entered Morocco, as the people were all in his side. When he entered Fez, he was welcomed by its population. [1] 808 AD (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That's one man, but regardless: what exactly are you suggesting? M.Bitton (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's begin with facts:

1) That's basically a conflict between the Saadians themselves. The infobox, which is supposed to summarize the article, doesn't seem to reflect this fact. Abd al-Malik, thanks to the help of the Ottomans, won the conflict. So that's a victory for him.

2) In return, Abd al-Malik accepted to be vassal of the Ottomans (that's why they helped him), which means that's also a victory for the Ottomans.

Notably, the primary support came from the Turks of Algiers (janissaries), following a directive from Sultan Murad to his governor. That "Ottoman Algerian" in the infobox is unsourced and ridiculous.

As for my suggestion, of course we should shed light on the victory of Abd al-Malik over his nephew. Also this "Algerian" shouldn't be there, for the reasons I presented above. What do you suggest? 808 AD (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The only ridicoulous here are your contributions, looking at the overall history of your disruptive and tendentious attitude, you seem to be an SPA with a clear nationalist agenda, as your contributions are centered around the same topic (Tlemcen and "Ottoman" affiliation of Algeria, mostly cherry picked and not very important to the subject) as if you're trying to push a political POV. It's easy identify this behavior, and i suggest you take a look into this before going straight to the end of the cliff...

Regarding the Regency of Algiers in brief:

- It's an internationally recognized, well documentented, largely autonomous, early modern Algerian State from 1516 to 1830.

- The Ottoman elite of the regency is officially and effectively Algerian, the regular Anatolian Janissary of Algiers, also known as the "Odjak" as well as the multiethnic corsairs or the "Rais" are officially and effectively Algerian. Therefore, there is not contradiction between Ottoman and Algerian regarding the regency of Algiers, unless we're talking about the Regency's relations with Sublime Ottoman Porte.

- Whenever a supreme authority or a regular army of the regency of Algiers is involved in a battle or a war, then the State of Algiers is invovlved and therefore added to the infobox.

- The historiography of Algeria identifies the Regency of Algiers as the modern State of Algiers.

- Regarding this subject, the leader of this campaign is Caid Ramazan Pasha, Beylerbey of Algiers, therefore the Regency of Algiers is the main actor in this conflict, with the aim to overthrow a Saadi ruler and replace him with the Ottoman vassal Abd Al-Malik, therefore the Victory is Algiers, as both The leader and the Army (Odjak and Zwawa) are Algerian.

I end it here; the next time you edit war, it's gonna be on ANI. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

It is clear from this message who really has a "nationalist agenda". The sources are there, you can check them. The Ottoman Sultan was giving direct orders to his governor in Algiers. 808 AD (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the capture of Fez, which was accomplished by an army that was sent from the Regency of Algiers and commanded by Ramdane Pasha. The aim of the military expedition (to install an Ottoman vassal) and its aftermath should not be confused with the result of the military expedition itself (who won the battle and the aftermath are both highlighted in the Infobox). M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If we base our judgment on the army. Then the most accurate result would be a Turkish-Kabylian victory, since the army was composed of Turks and Berbers of Kuku. Of course that doesn't make any sense anyway. The victory was Ottoman as the sultan accepted the vassalage (temporarily, maybe we can consider that as an aftermath). However and more impotantly it represents a victory for Abd al-Malik as he defeated his nephew. 808 AD (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course that doesn't make any sense . You're still into the turks bubble, answer the question, was Algiers a state or not ? Not answering will end this debate. Nourerrahmane (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How can I answer such a ridiculous question? How do you define a "state" first? Do you mean a nation-state? Of course it wasn't. And certainly the province wasn't independent at that time. 808 AD (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

[2][3][4] It was, Known both as Ottoman Algeria and Regency of Algiers from 1516 to 1830, that's your last warning. Don't remove sourced content. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nourerrahmane, You can't change anything untill we reach consensus. 808 AD (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

So ? does that mean Algiers was not a State ? does that undermine the autonomy of Algiers ? this is not up to your interpretations, Algiers around the 16th century was still abiding by the Ottoman foreign policy unlike later years, despite still in need of the Sultan's legitimacy, yet this doesn't undermine a bit its statehood nor its direct implication in such wars as a geopolitical entity, as per sources. spinning around terms to distort information is pathetic. Nourerrahmane (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC on infobox result

What is the accurate result for this event? Is it:

1. Ottoman-Algerian victory (as the current version)
2. Ottoman victory
3. Victory of Abd al-Malik

Any other suggestions are welcome.

808 AD (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

No Change (A) You pretty much can't circumnavigate around this, in addition to what was said earlier, Abd Al malik was not in charge of the Ottoman Algerian force, the entire campaign was undertaken by the Regency of Algiers and its Beylerbey Ramazan Pasha, being Ottoman ruled nowhere puts Algiers at the same level as directly administrated province of the east, since Algiers was itself an Ottoman State, that's a fundamental aspect that your Moroccan editors fail to understand (assuming you don't). Like all the other battles and wars won and lost by the Regency, this one is no exception, it's actually more precise and more adequate to have the regency in the infobox since it was the main Ottoman strong vassal in the west mediterranean, ruling over Tunis and Tripoli, your WP:EW will only undermine your cause, which is more of a carcass with no educationtional utility. Nourerrahmane (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@808 AD: My thoughts are that my knowledge and the discussion above have no bearing on this article's content, which should be based solely on what reliable published sources say. The same goes for anyone else's knowledge. Bazza (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 The discussion above was diverged from its original subject due to the intervention of Nourerahmane. Of course I agree that the article's content should be solely based on reliable published sources, however that's not the case with the current version. Thanks. 808 AD (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

C and B I personally support the third one. And I'm not objecting the second as long as we calrify that Abd al-Malik defeated his nephew.[5] 808 AD (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No Change (A) The regency of Algiers is regarded as having been a nominally independent state by reliable sources, merely acting under Ottoman suzerainty. As @Nourerrahmane stated, Abd al-Malik was not leading the force, and was acting under Ottoman direction, so he should not be included in the bold result, instead remaining under it in plain text. 296cherry (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The independence depends on the period. If we're talking about 1576, certainly it wasn't independent (The Ottoman sultan was giving direct orders to his governor in Algiers). The Dictionary of African biography mentions that "He [Abd al-Malik] marched against his nephew Muhammad al-Mutawakkil and defeated him at the battle of al-Rukn".808 AD (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A: No change. We do not say "Victory of Napoleon" at Battle of Austerlitz, or "Victory of Alexander" at Battle of Gaugamela, or "Victory of Hannibal" at Battle of the Trebia, or "Victory of Saladin" at Battle of Hattin, etc. Instead, per the infobox template instructions, it should simply read "[victorious state] victory"—in this case, "Ottoman-Algerian victory". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think your analogy is correct, Also the results of the battles you mentioned are well-sourced and undisputed. It's not the same case here. Basically, that's a conflict between Abd al-Malik and his nephew, both are Saadians. If there was a victorious state here it would be the Ottoman empire, as Abd al-Malik accepted to be their vassal. It was actualy the Ottoman sultan that gave orders his governor of Algiers to provide him with a small force, which didn't meet any big opposition when they entered Morocco. 808 AD (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You've already been proven wrong in the discussion, so let people have their say and refrain from bludgeoning the process. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's quite intriguing that you say both that the results of the battles you mentioned are well-sourced and undisputed. It's not the same case here. and The victorious state here is obviously... And, for what it's worth, a good rule to follow in Wikipedia discussions is this: the more you reply, the less people will listen. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Indeed It seemed intriguing. I have modified it now. Hope there is no problem with that. I'm not a native speaker of English, which means sometimes I fail to express myself correctly. Thanks. 808 AD (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: that "Algerian" was added by this (Algerian) IP here [6]. The former result was "Ottoman victory". 808 AD (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith, aspersion casting and redaction of of comments that have been replied to have been duly noted, now for the last time, please stop bludgeoning the process. M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No change (A) the fact that the military operation was undertaken exclusively by "Ottoman Algeria" is undisputed, therefore, there is no reason to mention something else. Also, the claim by the OP that there was no battle is factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't claim there was no battle. 808 AD (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

which didn't meet any big opposition when they entered Morocco is what you wrote. Further comments from you will simply be ignored. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't blame me for sticking to what reliable sources say. 808 AD (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)