Talk:History of Morocco

Former vandal-added "featured article" tag

The following note has been left at this User's Talkpage: "==History of Morocco== You have tagged this article "dubious" without offering your rationale at Talk:History of Morocco. Please do so at your early convenience. Thank you. --Wetman 09:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)"

• Let me apologize for that... I am a fairly novice editor of the wikipedia network, and my tagging was in reference to the aticle "The History of Morocco" has been tagged as a Featured Article, without going through the usual mechanics... I apologize if i havbe caused serious problems here, however I hoped to draw the attention of a more experienced user who could help me here. I made a note of my complaints below on the Talk page Thethinredline 15:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but this never went through the mechanics. It therefore doesn't qualify. This was just a vandal, I move that this FA status is just removed and that we shouldn't have to go through the usual procedures. Thethinredline 14:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I've seen that the "featured" tag was added by a clever hardcore often-blocked vandal, User:217.169.129.33, I have removed the spurious tag. Thanks are due to to Thethinredline's keen eye! Welcome to the sleazy underbelly of Wikipedia! All editors should be required to log in first, to reduce vandalism. --Wetman 21:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad that the gross infringement of wikipedia procedure was found by a higher power, and dealt with. At least I now have someone to go to if i should spot another significant miscarriage of wikipedia ;-P Thethinredline 21:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Barbary State

What of Morocco as a Barbary State? Scott Ritchie 3 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

I noticed that User:Bokpasa has tagged the article as a {{POV}} w/o even ever discussed his issues. I've leaving meassages and questions about their late new edits who are absolutely innacurate like changing all Dynasties to Sultanates!!!! Even blanking a whole section about the chronologies and like if the history only started yesterday!!! I am removing the tag and informing them in their talk page again. Or could you please indicate which parts you see as POV and make our life easy? Cheers -- Szvest 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

I am finding consideragle POV in the way some information is potrayed and mainly a with that which has been left out. Please bear with me, I am working on it and will show my discontent on the talk pages.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 11:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the image about Moroccan Expansion a considerate POV image. First of all Mauritania was never claimed by Morocco, due to differnces within the ruling Istiqlal party, there was a delay in recognition. This is not the same as an actual claim. And the map of Mauritania isn't even right. Check any map of Mauritania and you'll see. I'm removing the image, if anybody has a problem with that, please write your arguments on the talkpage. --karimobo (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

barbary pirates

the First Barbary War article indicates that Morocco was one of the Barbary states that the US warred against in 1801 to 1805 to avoid being held to ransom as the price of avoiding piracy. Yet, no battles were fought with Morocco and Morocco had a treaty of friendship with the U.S. What is the truth here? Perhaps the government of Morocco was conniving with the piracy and Christian slavery of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli? Perhaps, Morocco did not fully control the activities of some its cities and residents? Any facts here? Thanks Hmains 17:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

idris

i replaced idris Ibn salih with Idris ibn Abdallah, who is the correct person, i think. Unixer 18:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why sometime we can read Isqtal want? --Moi 13:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC) unsigned comment by User:Bokpasa

Huh? What do you mean? Please do not change dynasties to what you want. -- Szvest 13:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Some notable references and sources so your vandalism and racist comments on edit summaries would stop one day:

• www.britannica.com/eb/article-46493 - ...The latter was a branch of the Marinid dynasty that had usurped power in Fez...
• ioc.unesco.org/ttr/files/2nd_announcement.doc - Marrakech was lucky enough to serve as a capital city for numerous Moroccan dynasties, namely Almoravides, Almohades and Saadians whose contributions to the city can still be seen in the medina the old part of the city
• www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2765 - ...Moroccan dynasties brought sub-Saharan Africans north as soldiers and slaves centuries earlier...

So please change your way of editing here. If you don't agree w/ the above references than you edits will be officially treated as vandalism.-- Szvest 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Sometimes Dynastys and country, are the same nazarí and Kingdom of Grenade, but Almoravids and Morocco arent not the same,Moroccan dynasties aare the name of alls dynasties life and comand in actually Morroco, but this the same than Italian dynasties ,Savoy, Borbón-Parma, Modena-Este, Bosbon-Dos Sicilias...

If you think they are can be posible.. if posible a sucession bewteen the last Idrisid Dynasty in 974, and the next Maghrawa Dynasty in 987... 13 years interregnum?

Only Isqtal party, write and modifict his history, they are change this real History! unsigned comment by User:Bokpasa

NPOV-section

Morroco is than Almoravids sucessor`s, like Saudi Arabia Caliphate sucessor`s...

I know, that they have the same languague, same religion, and the same culture, and geography.. but are not the same country.unsigned comment by User:Bokpasa

So you base your logic on comparaisons and original research instead of facts and notable references? You brought no valid reason anyway!

By the way, do you have any notable or academic reference that back up your original research? Yes Al Istiqlal party did a make-up to a several sections of Moroccan history as it was done or has been occuring in all parts of the world but that doesn't mean your theory is correct! Do you know that you're editing an encyclopaedia and not teaching at a primary school where pupils just listen to what the teacher is preaching w/o any academic sources? I brought my sources above and was thinking you had a few as well but you got nuffin.

Please don't forget to sign your comments! -- Szvest 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}

Morroco born in 1660

International court of Justice 1975Moi 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Bokpasa. Please guide us to the particular reference and show us explicitly what does that say. -- Szvest 14:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Morroco are similiar like Iran history. Dinastys and kings

In this resolution the Internacional Court of Justice, wrote Morroco, isn´t the same country Almoravides,Amohades... is different, for this reason Morroco wasn`t historic rights to West Sahara, and West Sahara can be a country...

And I can right in english, but in one tratate with Spain, Moorroco reconoce that it haven`t got anyright to the south of Draa river -the year 1880`s.Moi 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran, Sweden, Guatemala, Banana islands are all original research from your side. If you have something concrete, please bring it or else stop this "headache" for once. -- Szvest 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you read corretly?... because I dont think so.... You are muy "headache" because you dont reconoce the "Internacional Court of Justice" in resolution of West Sahara in 1975, rechazed , that Morocco is the heirless of Amohades,Almoravides,Wattasides,.....

Morocco is than Almoravide, like Algeria. Anyone of them are Almoravides. Moi 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very fed up w/ your original research. If you don't stop this nonsense and agree to the terms and policies of Wikipedia (mainly WP:Cite sources), i'll be obliged to treat this as vandalism. -- Szvest 10:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Hitler! ... I have a Primary source and you always dont want reconoce that... Why?..vandalism ., ok.... Moi 11:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bokpasa. If you have a primary source, show it to me explicitly. If not than send it to Hitler instead. I am not Hitler. This lack of objectivity shows that you are just ranting. I'd not call it a personal attack as it is not important. -- Szvest 11:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bokpasa is unfortunately a well-known user in es:. He supports strong anti-Moroccan stances but usually, as here, lacks any sources that sustain their opinions. I think that what he tries to show here is the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on the Western Sahara. In the link provided (only the summary is available) you can see (answer to question 2) that the ICJ states that:

Having considered this evidence and the observations of the other States which took part in the proceedings, the Court finds that neither the internal nor the international acts relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant period of either the existence or the international recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State. Even taking account of the specific structure of that State, they do not show that Morocco displayed any effective and exclusive State activity in Western Sahara. They do, however, provide indications that a legal tie of allegiance existed at the relevant period between the Sultan and some, but only some, of the nomadic peoples of the territory, through Tekna caids of the Noun region, and they show that the Sultan displayed, and was recognized by other States to possess, some authority or influence with respect to those tribes.

Although I don't have the text of the whole Opinion, I understand that Bokpasa's rationale is that, considering that according to the ICJ there is "not territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State", and that the Almohad Empire did include such territories, it's not valid to make the statement "Morocco equals to Almohad Empire". Best regards --Ecemaml 14:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (administrator en es:)

Thanks for your assistance Ecemaml. I've read the court Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975. I must note and remind Bokpasa that the opinion/hearing deals with the situation (as it is mentionned there a few times) "at the time of its colonization by Spain and in the period immediately preceding". There's no indication or reference whatsover to the medieval or early periods of Moroccan history. -- Szvest 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Another note. Morocco's name has ever been "Al-Maghrib" since the Idrissides. Almohad, Idrissides, Almoravides had all the time called their territories the same name, which has been "Al-Maghrib". -- Szvest 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Some contries can usurper names as Mauritania as a moder country and a roman province, Palestine was a roman province and Palestine (Gaza Strip and West Bank), Ghana and the ancient Ghana Empire, F.Y.R.O.M and Greek Macedonia.... the same name it´s not always the same country... And sometime some countries change the names....
  • I remember one tratate Morocco-Spain in 1880`s ,,, the sultan wrote..I haven got anyright to the south of Draa River....

Don't get me involved I don't want to get roped into this, as I have neither expertise nor interest in it, but I will refer you to this, this, and this. While the modern Moroccan state hasn't existed since 1956, clearly a Moroccan nation has existed for several centuries. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Justin. -- Szvest 17:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• When Spain and Portugal was part of Morocco? Wikipedia can be neutral not racist, because the only reason is the "race".... moorish isn`t morroccon.Moi 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls sign your comments and stop trolling and talking about racism!!! In fact, what are you talking about TOI? Where in the article it says Morocco controlled Portugal and Spain? -- Szvest 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop your "Racist" allegations

Bokpasa, que pasa?! Please stop attacking me personally like you dit here. It is not the first time but i hope it will be the last one. I may remind you of the consequences. Back to the subject! Who says Spain and Portugal were part of Morocco? Could you explain to us what's wrong in here? -- Szvest 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • If almohads and almoravids are morrocon dynasty, is the same as Julio-Claudian and Antonine Dynasty dynastys in the Roman Empire... these dynastys aren`t Morrocan...

And why we dont write "Antonine Dynasty" is a Spanish Dynasty... is the same case....emperators born in Spain...as almoravids and almohades in Morocco..

Acording Wikipedia rulers the NVOP BOX, not be remove...but you always removing... Moi 00:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

FayssalF

Why you always vandalist my acts?

You don`t know the different of:

• dynasty: members of the same family
• country

And.

• Moorish
• Morrocan

And

• Magreb
• Morrocco..can you see differents map....

And its good learn more about Morroco, and its real history. Because , your opinion about Morroco its similiar like "Führer" and his "Germany". Moi 22:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

• Dynasty...Yes, a family reigning over a country... Dynasties in Chinese history - Cerdicing Dynasty in England, Jiménez Dynasty in Spain and the list is so long.
• Country...May have been ruled by a succession of dynasties. History of China and China / History of Korea and Korea / History of Spain and Spain / History of Sweden (have you ever called those a Ming, Visigoth, Viking dynasties instead of calling countries by their names?!)
• Moors... Historically, European scholars have divided the Moors into two groups: African, and European-Arab Moors.
• Moroccan (and not Morrocan)... People who have lived in Al-Maghrib since centuries now.
• Maghreb...read the etymology to learn better.

Since you have learned your way (you are reverted in all wiki versions es, fr and here), you can see the effect of your learning. You are totally wrong and mislead. If you have learned the History of Morocco in a Spanish university, so does Ecemaml and other Spanish users here and in the es wiki. So how come your points are different than theirs? It just mean that your are totally using your POV. Apart from all this garbage, you brought no single source or reference to sustain your claims (apart from the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on the Western Sahara which limits its opinion to the 18th and 19th centuries. You brought nothing, am i right?

One more thing, as i already asked you to refrain from personal attacks twice, it is time to have a break. I am blocking you for that according to wikipedia policies that you are not respecting. You have accused me a racist and Hitler. Now you become more sophisticated in this behaviour, you are calling me a Fuhrer. Is this a civilized manner to discuss matters in your life? If so, this is not the right place to do so. You called the other admin in the fr wiki a racist as well!!!! I mean it is sooooo random your accusations are! Learn to be civilized before asking me to learn about the history of Morocco. Don't forget to enhance your English and other languages, and never forget to respect the manual of style in wikipedia.

Tienes entonces que añadir eso a tu propaganda en la pagína de discusión allí. Di a todo el mundo que somos terrerificos y nos parecemos muchisimo al Fuhrer y que nos vamos a matarte despues del bloqueo. No olvides de insister de llamar a ese jaleo istiqlal a la vez del PP. Buena suerte.

P.S. Remover el nonsense no significa que soy pro-morocco como no significa que tu eres anti-morocco. -- Szvest 11:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some items

In order to get a more accurate description of the history of Morocco, I think that some emphasis on the loose character of the statal structures of the different dynasties that ruled Morocco should be introduced. I mean, muslim statal structures were weaker and looser than their counterparts in Europe (heir to the Roman traditions), for example. Also, in order to avoid the constant interference of Bokpasa (as in es: he didn't learn to follow the manual of style, therefore their contributions are usually rubbish) it would be good, especially when talking about early phases to talk about "what currently Morocco is" (or the territory of nowadays Morocco) instead of Morocco. Best regards --Ecemaml 07:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ecemaml. Do you have any particular examples that we can discuss? -- Szvest 11:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Why I can see kingdoms Barghawata and Sijilmassa? again.... Moi 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Add them if they don't appear but please respect the layout:Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Please do not forget to sign (use the 4 ~). -- Szvest 16:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Place

Somebody know where is Aguz (Souira Guedima)?Bokpasa 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Google knows all No, but you could try Google Earth. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of Aguz. Souira Guedima refers to the old name of Essaouira which was Mogador at the times of the Portugueses. Literally "Souira Guedima" means "old Essaouira"! I am suspecting that we have 2 articles talking about the same. -- Szvest 15:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Souira Guedima is the modern name for what used to be known as Aguz, Agouz (or in French translation of el-Bakri spelled Couz), it used to be port for Aghmat in 11th century, then was taken over by Portuguese in early 16th century. It is at the mouth of the Tensift river. MisterCDE 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

World War II

There is not much information on Morocco during World War II. This can be expanded to a section. Jay (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.90 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello,

Please, can somebody lock this article?

Personally, I don't care about Bokpasa's POV, but it's tiring to revert all his edits.

He already was blocked for a long time, both in English and French section, but he didn't get it, as we can see.

I mainly contribute on the French section, but in this case I can't stand by.

Omar-Toons (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I use your own source of information, I write to ask wich part you think it`s wrong but you do not write me, and clear, and wrote Vandalism???

If you are sure Im wrong, write why part with rthre arguments and thrue sorce of Information itws wrong!.

Bokpasa 14:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Sorry, but I don't understand your message, then I can't answer.

Btw, you are the only one who is acting against all the other contributors and giving his own version of this History, and editing articles that were written following a discussion and a consensus, then maybe you are the one who has to give arguments, or not?

I quote your user page: "I was censured (2 days in August, and 1 week in September) because people sometime don´t want history know better". This explains everything.

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Te lo digo en español porque en inglés pareces no comprenderlo, Yo he usado tu propia fuente de información, te he escrito que aprte tú crees que es incorrecta pero tú no me has escrito, y lo borras, y escribes vandalismo?. Si tu estas seguro que me equibvoco, escribe qué parte es con argumentos porqué y verdaderas fuentes de información. Pos data deberías leer lo que pone denajo del Punto de Vista No neutral.95.16.88.187 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

??

Omar-Toons (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Which part of this information think you its incorrect?, and please stop to vandalized the page.

lmao

excuse me, but you are the one who is editing everything, you are the one who disagrees with all the other users, and you are the one who is reverted on all the articles and sections of WP.

then, you are the one who has to explain and give sources.

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OR

• Since Bokpasa ignored all the users' comments about the fact that original research isn't accepted,
• Since he added non-linked non-sourced maps[1] on the article[2],
• Since he continued to modify the article even after a 3R request was launched,
• Since he modified the article by an extreme POV [3],
• Since he was already banned on the English WP because of accusations of vandalism, original research, hoaxes, POV and so on, and permanently banned on the Spanish and French sections for the same reasons,
• Since he claims that people don't know history, and that he does [4],
• Since I said that I will no longer edit the article to avoid being involved in and editwar,
• Since I[5] (and many other users) don't understand what he writes on discussion pages (then I suppose that his contributions could be a copyright violation, but that's only my POV),
• I putted an OR template to prevent people from getting the information shown on the article as creditable.

Omar-Toons (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eppur si muove

I put it correct information, and I will put more references. Bokpasa 08:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Per the request above by Omar-Toons, I have requested temporary full protection for this article. The edit war seems to be getting out of hand --Jubilee♫clipman 06:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you all to discuss your differences while this page is fully protected. There must be some common ground? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The common ground exists and is shared by everyone except Bokpasa, and he doesn't want to discuss.

You can read the previous discussions on this page!

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

MMM....I want to disccus???, maybe Omar-Toons, do not like read!, because I write them a few times to disccus (without request!), and and now he tried to delate all my maps in Commons!....in this page I see a mistake, is Morocco in 1525, not in 1592.Bokpasa 07:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a consensus, you broke it,

there were maps that everybody agreed on their trustiness, you changed em by your own original made maps,

there was a discussion and the changes were discussed, you edited all the article, modified information and blanked whole sections without discussion,

there were references consisting on publications, communications and books, you changed everything, based on your POV, on newspaper's articles and on non-professional websites.

I'm giving up! You are too strong! That's too much for me!

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• If that's the sum total of "discussion" then I dispair of what will happen when the block is lifted later today. Good luck, folks --Jubilee♫clipman 05:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, I said before that I'm giving up... ;)

Omar-Toons (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, Bokpasa, stop including a barely loosed collection of chronological items without proper sources just to push your original research about the nonexistence of Morocco in the Middle and Modern Ages. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

True History vs Official History

The information about the Romans Time in Morocco, its not a only word, read "Tingitana en la antigüedad tardía, siglos III-VII, by Noé Villaverde Vega"

Acording to the origin of the name of Morocco its Marrakech, acording to this not Fez!

Morocco its name a sunnis country not shia like Idrisid dynasty

The legal sucessor of Idrissid was Caliphate of Córdoba, and dynasty sucesor was Hammudid dynasty

Acording to the Turism of Morocco, Taifa of Málaga ruler over Tangier and later Emirate of Tangier http://www.turismotanger.com/historia-tanger.html

Mediterranean Lingua Franca why it`s wrong????, I only link it (that I do not make it).

Sufi order why its wrong????, its only a link (that I do not make it).

When Chefchaouen was built, why????

Why Republic of Bou Regreg and Tekna was delate it??, because acording to Omar-Toons exist!, and he write on them.

Why the Moroccan flag 1666-1912 was wrong???

Acording to Espasa Calpe 1920, the name was "Imperio Jerifiano", and acording to Alberto España in his book "La Pequeña Historia de Tanger" the flag was call Jerifian flag and the money was Hassani.

Acording to the names of king (you can see two king with the same number Mohammed I (828-836) and Mohammed I(1631-1635), Hassan II (954-974) and Hassan II (1961–1999)... and more...

I can find more... only see the timeline...

Acording to a lot of documents saved in Archivo General de Simancas you can see always ancient spanisch wrote "moros" (never maroccan!) to almoravids, almohads, banu marin and nazari. Are you disagree?

Original maps:

Joannes Janssonius, ‘FEZZAE ET MAROCCHI REGNA AFRICAE CELEBERRIMA’ http://www.garwood-voigt.com/catalogues/H22065MoroccoSchenk.jpg in 1700

“A Map of the Empire of Morocco Comprehending the Kingdoms of Fez, Morocco, Etc. By T. Kitchin. Geogr.” http://www.gracegalleries.com/images/AF/AF165.jpg London 1760

‘CHARTE DER NORDKÜSTE AFRICAS ODER DIE STAATEN MAROCCOS, FES, ALGIER, TUNIS, TRIPOLI, UND AEGYPTEN...’. Johann Christoph Matthias Reinecke http://www.garwood-voigt.com/catalogues/H25843NAfricaReinecke.jpg in 1804

Morocco in 1850, Milner's Descriptive Atlas http://www.maproom.org/00/03/present.php?m=0056

Morocco in 1852,James Cornwell, Ph.D. c. http://www.maproom.org/00/11/present.php?m=0221

Morocco in 1862 herausgegeben von Traugott Bromme http://www.maproom.org/00/14/present.php?m=m047

Morocco in 1906 http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/photolib/maps/Map%20of%20Morocco%201906.htm

Diferents maps:

Morocco in 900 http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/900/index.html

Morocco in 1000: http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1000/index.html

Morocco in 1200 http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1200/index.html

Morocco in 1500 http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1500/index.html in this you can see Morocco, but Morocco not Taifalt

Morocco in 1800 http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1800/index.html

Bokpasa 16:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maps around history http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/northafrica/haxmorocco.html

In spite of your barely understandable words, I understand that most of the sources you use are either primary or tertiary sources (read, please Wikipedia:Reliable sources) or not accessible online. That's a problem as most of your faulty editions seems to be original research by means of synthesis.

I therefore agree that the current section on Early Islamic Morocco is poor and lack lots of details (to name a few, the rule of part of Morocco by the Umayyad emirs and caliphs based in Cordoba; the Banû Watâs' kingdom of Fez, which succeeded the Marinids, or the start of the European interference, mentioning of course the Battle of Ksar El Kebir and the mainly Portuguese, but also Castilian, presence in Morocco), but your approach, namely awful use of English language, not needed itemization of something that must be simply worded as an encyclopedic text, and lack of reliable sources) leads to nowhere. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC) PS: I've found an online History of Morocco. Although might be reliable, it's in Spanish.

Yes!, I read this, but with our block I can not put it as source, and not its a "original research", some parts are very good, but we need more information about cities, religion, languagues,tribes, jews... But if you use as reference, some a lot of part of my chronology are good in this reference. I find a Treaty of Aranjuez of 1780, when Morocco wrote Melilla was part of Spain, and if Morocco conquest Gibraltar will ceded to Spain [6]-Bokpasa 22:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you to stop cherry picking? --Ecemaml (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC) PS: your reference is, again, a primary source. And it does not say what you claim it states.

May I suggest Omar-Toons stop cherry picking, because he do not wrote any primary source, he only wrote political wishBokpasa 11:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you, please, stop putting your OR and POV? It is really tiring...

WP is an open encyclopedia, not a blog or a school presentation. The maps that should be shown are the ones representing the maximum extension of a country or a dynasty and important events, not the ones of 1X00 years.

And please, stop claiming that you do know the true History and the others do not, that only shows that your contributions are POV and OR.

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you stop write your pseudo-history? its false and politicized version of the history, in addition without any historical source Bokpasa 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Another map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Afrika_Map_1689.JPG in 1689, you can see 3 countries in Morocco.Bokpasa 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment...

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I found it another map, you can see in "History of North Africa" by Charles-André Julien, version of 1970 (original in 1931), in the page 283 we can see Figuig was part of Ottoman empire, in page 268 we can see Bled al-Siba zone, in page 231 we can see Morocco divided in: Gharb, Zawiya of Dila, Sultanate of Tafilalet, Kingdom of Marrackech, zone of Bu Hassun al-Samlali, in page 25 we can see Idrisid Kingdom and Sijilmassa (independent and Kharajite kingdom since 757)Bokpasa 10:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine. And? What do you actually mean? If you go back to a map of the Iberian Peninsula in the 15th century you'll see Portugal, the Crown of Castile, the Crown of Aragon and Nararre. --Ecemaml (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But Spain its not only Iberian Peninsula, it`s Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands and Baleares Islands too (Portugal, Andorra and Gibraltar are not part of Spain). In with this version of Morocco without any kind of maps, without original research, without... it`s because it`s false... maybe Omar-Toons write Klingon visit Morocco because all it`s Science fiction 95.61.248.103 (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we not have treat everyone the same rulers...in spanich ¿"usais un doble rasero"?

Bokpasa 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Idrissides22.PNG made by Omar-Toons are wrong acording to Omar-Toons????--- Because This made it`s almost correct.Bokpasa 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you can read read the first sentence of my previous comment, below [7].

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to this guy that History isn't written according to maps, but that maps are made according to History?

Can, also, somebody explain to this guy what are Synthesis and Original Research?

Thanks in advance.

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please fix these

• Different number of [[ and ]] brackets. - Map of Morocco in 1844]]
• Reference duplication - Laurousse 1990

Cheers, Vipinhari || talk 18:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes perphaps you can find more mistakes, I have another reference Espasa-Calpe 1921, and Treaty of Spain-Morocco in 1767, in this Morocco wrote that: "The Arabs of that country, with no subordination nor fear anyone, because of the remoteness that are in my Realms, and I have no jurisdiction over them", acording to another reference Souss [8]Bokpasa 20:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

POV?

Bokpasa putted a {{npov}} on the article.

I wonder if he can explain and talk a little bit about what does he consider as POV in this article?

Thanks in advance, Bokpasa.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Article lost 48 years?

On 13 January 2008 the user Perspicacite made substantial edits to the post-colonial sections of this article.
Among other things it resulted in about 22 years being removed so that it now goes from mentioning the Sand War to annexing Western Sahara in 1985.
Surely there must have been something happening in Morocco between these events?
Referring to History of Western Sahara does not make it acceptable to remove all Moroccan history during those 22 years and all Moroccan history not related to the Western Sahara issue since 1963.
Something must have happened in Morocco except that conflict for the last 48 years?
Could someone with the required knowledge please restore/insert the missing information?
85.225.84.165 (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Article improvements

I've marked the article with 3 tags: it needs more references, copy-editing for coherence in tone & style, and may contain original research. The article has 14 references with many sections & paragraphs lacking any reference at all. Given that this is English Wikipedia, from the perspective of a native English speaker/reader, there are a number of areas which require work to help give the article a clear and steady tone/style. I've done a little work in trying to fix the issues myself, however I am not an expert in the subject and would feel more comfortable if other editors addressed the issues. Coinmanj (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to address the question of references - I agree it's probably desirable to add more. I don't think it needs the objection to style, however. I've made some corrections to the English, especially toward the beginning of the article, and I don't think it needs its English language style flagged any longer. Wallace McDonald (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent copy-edit

@Omar-toons:, the article had a copy-edit tag to which I responded; I don't need to gain consensus for a copy-edit, if the tag was there in the first place. That said, I am happy to discuss any specific issues you might have; "you didn't discuss a copy-edit" is not valid ground for reverting me. Specifically, the only information I removed was unsourced; you cannot revert that and demand consensus. More importantly, I am not doing content work, and so I am not hung up on my version; if you add sources and sourced material, I am not going to take the slightest issue, and thanks for addressing some of the CN tags. I did, however, rewrite the lead to match the article content; the lead had unsourced material that wasn't even covered in the article body, which was not going to fly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but responding to copy-edit by adding WP:OR content (such as this sentence that you added: "Until the arrival of the Phoenicians, the region was inhabited by hunter-gatherers, who eventually evolved both the Berber language as well as agriculture") is NOT a solution. --Omar-toons (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Friend, it is indeed cited; see reference 7. Besides, I am not an expert on the content; what I did was to make sure that the lead summarized the body, as required by WP:LEDE. We have a section on prehistoric Morocco, and so the lede should mention that. Do you disagree? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You aren't an expert on the content... fine! Then fix copy-edit issues without changing the information such as replacing the fact that Idrisids are the founders of the Moroccan state and exaggerating the proportion given to pre-state Morocco: if your goal is to deny the fact that Morocco was founded in 789 AD, that's another issue that was discussed many times before.

Now I was planning to edit the article basing on Pennell's book, then thanks to not make major changes, especially basing on non-RS sources (and there are a lot in this article) and information based on them in this article. I'm not asking for sth special... --Omar-toons (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy-editing is not restricted to grammar; tone and style are also a part of it, which is why I re-wrote the lead. The weight given to pre-historic Morocco is the same as is given in the article.

The idea that Morocco was founded by the Idrisids is POV; the kingdom of Morocco, on the other hand, certainly was founded by the Idrisids. Besides, you have no source, and you CANNOT revert in favor of unsourced information. This is a history of the region, not the kingdom. For the same reason, the "more than 12 centuries" first sentence is also problematic. And these are within the ambit of a copy-edit; the article, when I came to it, did not restrict itself to the kingdom, but spoke of the region. If you get consensus to change that, I have no issues.

The Alaouites have not been the ruling family since then; they have been the royal family, which is a slight but important distinction. They have had the status (royal) but under the French/Spanish, didn't have the power (ruling).

Ismail bin Sharif's efforts at consolidation are mentioned in the article, and his use of a non-native army as well as his success in defeating the British and the Spanish; enough weight in the body to require mention in the lead.

"Putting Morocco under [] protectorate" is bad english; I have changed it to dividing it into [] protectorates, which is gramatically correct. Since you had issues with the term "effectively," I have removed it.

I have maintained some of your changes to the lead, and addressed the issues raised here. Take a look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

More corrections; "protectorate" should be plural, because it was not a joint protectorate. "Heads of state," not "head of states." Parentheses are confusing, and the tense was incorrect; past tense, it became the Spanish protectorate. Parentheses are not needed, and confusing. The protectorate didn't dictate that the Sultan had no real power; the treaty did. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

1- As it is clearly written, there was only one protectorate, the French one, while the Spanish had been granted a "zone of influence". Thanks to read the given sources instead of modifying the article basing on your POV.

2- The treaty didn't deprive the sultan from his powers, French administration did.

3- It is said nowhere that the hominids that were living there 400,000 years ago were ancestors to Homo Spaiens, thats a HUGE WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.

And, again, a major fact is that the Moroccan state was founded in the 8th century, thanks to avoid deleting that from the lead. This fact is confirmes by WP:RS, if you have a different POV then gring your own RS and let's talk about it on the NPOVN, but you won't delete a consensual information that was there for many years basing on your own POV.

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Omar-toons, you just breached WP:3RR. Please self-revert, and discuss, or you will be reported to AN3. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please... you are making WP:DISRUPT edits, adding WP:OR information, then pretending that reverting your edits is 3RR...

Actually there is no 3RR, I kept most of your changes but not those that are WP:OR, that's all.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am at 4 reverts, and you are at 5. Therefore, I have stricken my comment, because reporting this will get us both blocks, at best. So, I am not going to edit the article itself for 24 hours, and I suggest you do the same. You have indeed reverted me; you replaced my version of the lead with yours, even though your objections are to minor points. The history of Morocco does not begin in 789 AD; you have no source for that. Provide one, I and have no issues with the statement. The kingdom of Morocco was founded then, and my version of the lead said so. If you object to the term "ancestors," we can remove that. What are your objections to this version of the lead;

The recorded history of Morocco begins with the Phoenician colonization of the Moroccan coast between the 12th and 6th centuries BC, although the area was inhabited by indigenous Berber people for several thousand years before that.

Archaeological evidence has shown that the area was inhabited by hominids at least 400,000 years ago. Until the arrival of the Phoenicians, the region was inhabited by hunter-gatherers, who eventually evolved both the Berber language as well as agriculture. From the 12th century BC the region was dominated by Phoenician traders and settlements, before the the state of Carthage extended its hegemony there in the 5th century BC. Some independent tribal kingdoms, such as Mauretania, existed as satellites of Carthage during this period. With the fall of Carthage in 40 BC, the coastal region became a province of the Roman empire, with satellite kingdoms in the interior. In the mid-5th century, it was overran by Vandals, before being recovered by Byzantine Empire.

The region was conquered by the Arabs in the early 8th century AD, but broke off from the Arab Caliphate after the revolt of 740. Half a century later, the Moroccan state was established by the Idrisid dynasty.[1][2] Under the Almoravid and the Almohad dynasties, Morocco dominated the Maghreb and Muslim Spain. The Saadi dynasty ruled the region from 1549 to 1659, followed by the Alaouite dynasty in the 17th century, who have since been the royal family of Morocco. The kingdom was consolidated by Ismail Ibn Sharif, who used an army of black slaves to maintain control over the Berber people. He also succeeded in driving the English colonial empire from Tangier in 1684 and the Spanish Empire from Larache in 1689.

In 1912, after the First Moroccan Crisis and the Agadir Crisis, the Treaty of Fez was signed, dividing Morocco into French and Spanish protectorates. In 1956, after 44 years of French rule, Morocco regained independence from France, and shortly afterward regained most of the territories under Spanish control.

This is a combination of your version and mine. Please your objections here, and we can go through them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Alaouites are reported by WP:RS as "rulers of Morocco since the 17th century", I see no reason to delete that statement as you did. Being a ruler doesn't imply effective power, unless you consider that European royal families aren't ruling their respective monarchies since they don't have effective power. That's just an example. Anyways, in that case, Alaoutes didn't became rulers again in 1956 but in 1960, since the "Conseil" had effective power from 1956 to 1960... but these are details and shouldn't be treated in the lead.

The following part ("The kingdom was consolidated... 1689") contains details that should be in the body text, but not the lead.

Also, we are talking about "Morocco" and not its territory, and WP:RS say that Morocco was founded in 789 AD. So, yes, we have to talk about the territory on which the state was established before Morocco came to existence, but you can NOT deny the founding date. In the same way, Saadians ruled "the country", "Morocco", the "state"... but not the "region".

Always, per WP:RS, Morocco wasn't divided between French and Spanish protectorates, but was under French protectorate while Spain was given a zone of influence in the northern and southern parts of the country, of which the northern Spanish zone was considered as de facto a Spanish protectorate. Anyways, that shouldn't be detailed in the lead, but the lead shouldn't include WP:SYNTH information. We should find another wording.

You wrote it before: you are not an expert on the content, then, please, don't try to make WP:SYNTH basing on your own understanding. There are a lot of WP:RS talking about the history of Morocco, we can't decide to write things opposed to them on WP.

--Omar-toons (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article is about the kingdom, it should be moved to "kingdom of Morocco," and all the parts discussing the period before that should be trimmed significantly. Until you do that, you are indulging in hypocrisy. You have not, of course, provided a source, instead repeatedly linking WP:RS, as though that adds any information. You added much of the poor grammar and puffery that the copy-edit required removing, if you edit-war them in, you will end up with more maintenance tags at the top I have no further desire to fight with you to improve an article you clearly have more stake in than I do, so do as you please. I have no further interest in editing this article, unless you ask for assistance with the language of it. Ping me if you wish for such; the article is off my watchlist. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So, I will repeat it again: adding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH content (as you did) is not a solution to WP:COPYEDIT issues. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Morocco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924004207/http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staff/hublin/pdf/human_roots.pdf to http://www.eva.mpg.de/evolution/staff/hublin/pdf/human_roots.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303104131/http://morocco.usembassy.gov/early.html to http://morocco.usembassy.gov/early.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

What about King Bagas

Bocchus I was not the first known Mauretanian king, unless this refers to something like the first king after Carthaginian presence had ended in Mauretania when they retreated to Carthage sometime after the 2nd Punic war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7xn (talk • contribs) 11:53, 11 October 2018 (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:

• Mohammed V 1954, Madagascar.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Article shouldn't be a compilation of others

I'm not sure what kind of maintenance template would flag this issue on the main page, but currently large parts of the article are directly copied from several articles, without any trimming to make them fit an overview article like this (see e.g. WP:SUMMARY). Part of the whole point of having dedicated articles for each topic is so that other articles can summarize and link to them rather than literally repeat their entire content (or their whole "history" sections, in this case). Additionally, some of the copied content was already lacking citations at the articles from which they were copied (e.g. the Almohad article), so now these verifiability issues have been imported here too and are unlikely to be fixed independently here. Condensing and summarizing their content, however, would also make it easier to add new citations.

PS: I already alluded to some of these problems in my edit summaries back in September 2021, but I figured there needs to be a clearer notice of this somewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Morocco was founded in 789 ad 5.37.225.76 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

added section on transnational character of anticolonial resistance

I thought that the page did not sufficiently reflect the transnational influence that Morocco had through its nationalist-independence movements, in the global struggle against colonialism. I added a section to further develop:

Nationalism and transnational anticolonial resistance

Morroco has been a key transnational hub in the struggle against colonialism in the Middle-east region. The end of World War II that had weakened European colonial powers, the start of the US-URSS search for influence and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945  praising universal equality, represented an impetus for anti-colonial and nationalist movements in Morocco.^[1]

Through its special international status and the French and US presence in Tangier, the city became a hub for anti-colonial activism. Fromout Tanger, a link was established between the inside resistance and activists from other countries. By creating a transnational network of supporters and public advocates (i.e. cultural elites, politicians, public figures, academics, medias), the nationalist movement aimed to bring the Moroccan cause to the forefront of the international community debate.^[2]

In order to gain influence at a global level, Moroccan nationalist movements globalised their cause by seeking to unite with the pan-arabism movement and the Arab League, extending their activism networks to Cairo.^[3] Another example is Paris, that became an important European city from where cultural elites advocated for the independence cause and brought the protectorate question to the forefront of the public debate.^[4] The independence movement eventually managed to bring their national claim for independence to the UN for the first time in 1951, gaining a vote of 20 states in favour and 23 against.^[4]

(Curiouschanter (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Talk:Alawi dynasty

Hi all, there is a splitting proposal at the Alawi dynasty article that is directly relevant to the topic here and that would likely benefit from further input by interested editors. See Talk:Alawi dynasty#Splitting proposal (and seeking feedback). Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)