Talk:French protectorate in Morocco

File:Casablanca1950s.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Casablanca1950s.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

World War II

Should this article not mention WW2 and Operation Torch, etc, at least in passing and with a link? Richdrich (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Richdrich: Agreed. Also, Zaian War should be mentioned. Putting template on page. B14709 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Name of preceding polity

Hey Robert Prazeres, if it's helpful, the Arabic portion of the Treaty of Fes uses the term "الإيالة المغربية" and the French sources use "Empire chérifien," for which there is an article on Wiki FR and Wiki AR (under "الإمبراطورية الشريفة"). I would personally prefer al-Iyala ash-Sharifa or al-Iyala al-Maghrebiya, as that seems to be how it described itself. It could possibly link to Alaouite dynasty until there is an English article, but it seems incorrect to name the Alaouite dynasty as the preceding polity as they it was an integral part of the protectorate. What do you think? إيان (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly unsure. The infobox template forces you to pick an existing page (I think), so we do need to pick a page, but I don't feel strongly about the display name; it doesn't have to be the precise name used in treaties in my opinion (Wikipedia doesn't use official names in many contexts), but doesn't need to be the exact name of the target page either. As per MOS:INFOBOX the infobox is supposed to be just a quick summary of the page itself, so if the answer is complicated we might want to sort that out in the main text first. The main text does currently start by talking about the Alaouite dynasty in the first section, so that seemed consistent to me for the infobox. If it helps, I think "preceding" also doesn't imply that the preceding state/period ended per se (since not every historical transition is that simple), but merely what was there before the current historical phase; in which case the Alaouites were the regime in place. I put "Sultanate" because in my mind that refers more easily to the sovereign state/empire (which ended) rather than the formal office of the sultan (which continued), so I hoped it would be less confusing than leaving it as "dynasty", but other editors raised a similar issue during an RM discussion at Talk:Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912). Before D4rkeRR9 changed it to Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912), an unsourced page they created, it was simply listed as "Morocco" and linked to History of Morocco; which isn't crazy either.

So in sum: this is my best suggestion without overthinking it, but I don't have a clean answer on the ideal solution. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: Just note that any consensus here can also be applicable at Spanish Protectorate in Morocco, where I made a similar edit. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Republic of the Rif.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant note

@إيان, the information in the note I removed was irrelevant to the article. Whoever is the sultan in the Spanish protectorate does not matter to this article, and the information about how Mohammed VI doesn't belong there. Kornatice (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a useful note. Removing it doesn't make the article better. That the French imposed Ben Arafa and that it was irregular is worthy of note. إيان (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The part about how Ben Arafa got to rule should be in the article, just not in a note in the infobox. Infoboxes shouldn't include every detail about each ruler. Kornatice (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It is an anachronism to style sultan Sidi Mohammed ben Youssef (Sīdī Muḥammad Ben Yūsuf) "Mohammed V" before 1957, when Morocco was proclaimed a kingdom and Sidi Mohammed ben Youssef declared himself as king "Mohammed V" for the fist time.

As for Mohammed ben Arafa, only one Wikepedia editor or two call him Mohammed VI (the French, or anyone else, certainly DID NOT, unlike what an editor write in this article)

I think that since this article is about the French protectorate period, only the form "Sidi Mohammed ben Youssef" ((or Sīdī Muḥammad Ben Yūsuf) should be used, with a note pointing out that he was the future Mohammed V. As for the quaint "Mohammed VI", that's rather embarrassing. Please someone delete that!--Lubiesque (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a fact that "sultan Mohammed V" is short, practical and rather cool, and that "sultan Sidi Mohammed ben Youssef" is not cool at all and rather un-English and unpractical, but that's the way it is. --Lubiesque (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Do you have a source for that? Kornatice (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

“Sidi” is an honorific meaning literally “my lord” and should not be included in the name. Similarly, using regnal numbers is standard and the switch from sultan to king did not affect this. إيان (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That France was as vigilant as ever in her African empire could be gleaned from speeches delivered in connection with today's unveiling of an equestrian statue to the late Marshal Louis Hubert Lyautey, organizer of French Morocco. The ceremony was attended by Marshal Lyautey's widow, members of his family, Sultan Sidi Mohammed of Morocco, General August Nogues, High Commissioner for French Morocco, and Guy La Chambre. The New York Times, November 6, 1938. --Lubiesque (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

PARIS, Oct. 10 -- A Casablanca newspaper, La Vigie Marocaine, declared today that the French Government had documents showing that Sidi Mohammed Ben Youssef, deposed Sultan of Morocco, had made overtures to Hitler's Germany through her Consul General in Tangiers during the last war. The New York Times, October 11, 1953. --Lubiesque (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

MARRAKESH, French Morocco, March 5 — Terrorists tried today for the second time in six months to kill the pro-French Sultan of Morocco, Sidi Mohammed ben Moulay Arafa. (...) The authorities have said the nationalists have killed 60 persons and wounded several hundred others since the French put the Sultan on the throne last August to replace Sidi Mohammed ben Youssef. The New York Times, March 6, 1954. --Lubiesque (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Le sultan du Maroc, Sidi Mohammed Ben Youssef, qui avait débarqué hier après-midi à Cherbourg, est arrivé ce matin à Paris, par la gare de la Porte-Dauphine. Le Monde, June 16, 1945. --Lubiesque (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

April 2024

@Lubiesque: I'm not sure I understand the reason for this removal since that statement is supported by the cited source (p. 584). Furthermore, the issue of the French troops (about 100,000 of them) that remained in Morocco is well known (there are plenty of RS supporting this). M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lubiesque: I noticed that you ignored the above comment and deleted the content again (now restored). Please don't do that without discussion. Also, the content that you added to the lead is more appropriate in the France–Morocco_relations article as it is about the relations between the two countries after Morocco's independence. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Lubiesque: is there a particular reason why you keep editing and ignoring my comments? M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Bitton I will point out that the section I deleted and replaced by my own text had been there, upon verification, since 15 August 2020 and it had NOT been posted by you. Therefore, after nearly 4 years, it was a edit, and not a revert. When you reverted my edit, that was revert No 1. I reverted your revert, that was revert No 2. You reverted my revert, that was revert No 3. Therefore you reverted twice, I reverted once. You initiated an edit war.--Lubiesque (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that supposed to explain your refusal to communicate (despite being pinged multiple times) or is that a justification for why you totally ignored the D part of WP:BRD? M.Bitton (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)