Jump to content

Talk:Spanish protectorate in Morocco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

coat of arms

[edit]

I have more than reasonable doubts about the coat of amrs displayed in the infobox being the real one. The one showed now is the modern Spain coat of arms, while Spanish Morocco must have had, for sure, successive older versions of it, if not a distinctive one.

If no one objects, I will erase the coat of arms in days to come.

Mountolive

Name

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


لاحتلال الاسباني للمغرب means "Spanish invasion in Morocco" I'll change it to المغرب الإسباني which literally means Spanish Morocco

The name Spanish Morocco is wrong. see Ar/Es wiki. the right name is Spanish protectorate of Morocco. --Xiquet (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Xiquet, you claimed in your edit summary that this is the "most common name":

Google search for "Spanish protectorate of Morocco" - 62 results
Google search for "Spanish Morocco" - 90,200 results.

Please stop it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give resources? --Xiquet (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the article should be named as the translation of the Arabic and Spanish name. The signature of the protectorate didn't make Morocco "Spanish". --Xiquet (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? I don't quite understand what you're asking, but Wikipedia doesn't use literal translations for names of foreign things (if it did, the Cultural Revolution would be the Proletarian Cultural Great Revolution.) Generally speaking, the most common name is preferred. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we should rename Aden Protectorate to British Aden? --Xiquet (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However. Take a look to http://flagspot.net/flags/ma_es.html. --Xiquet (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aden No, we should not rename Aden Protectorate, because that is a proper name; this is not. I realize some sources may have different names for this, but unless you can show a definitive source that gives it a proper name, then it seems to me that the most common name is the one that should be used. If you still feel otherwise, you can post for help or an RfC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ceuta and Melilla were nor part of the protectorate

[edit]

The box is incorrect, by the fact of Spanish cities of Ceuta and Melilla were nor part of the Spanish protectorate of Morocco, but cities subject to the Spanish central government (as the rest of "Plazas de Soberanía", like Peñón de Alhucemas, Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera, etc). They should be eliminated from the "precceding" and "succeding" part of the infobox. Ceuta and Melilla did not precceded nor succeded the protectorate. --Gardendormouse (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, you are right. I am proceeding accordingly. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties

[edit]

I think my last edition summarises the various edits and re-edits of the last few days, with precise reference to what each of the two treaties does. If you do not agree, please let's discuss it here.

  • In fact, I would remove the following words: in March 1912 (in which Sultan Abdelhafid allowed Germany to cede protection of Morocco to France and Spain) which in my view are redundant with the wikilink to the Treaty of Fez - Timpo, you introduce this text, do you agree to remove it?--Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant: The Treaty of Fez didn't mention a Spanish protectorate but a "further understanding between France and Spain". Also, it wasn't related to the the Agadir crisis (if not, any sources?). The Spanish protectorate was de facto established following the sole French-Spanish treaty, that's all. --Omar-toons (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • relevant: the "further understanding" is precisely the subsequent treaty. The fez treaty is explicitly a consequence of the Agadir crisis, and so is the subsequent one. On the other hand, the subsequent treaty defines a Protectorate in its terms (protection, implementation of a legal system, etc) - it refers to "the Spanish area of influence" as much as it refers to "the French area of influence", both being protectorates.--Megustalastrufas (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, about the "influence" the later Treaty defines a border. One side is described as "the area of Spanish influence" and the other side is "the area of French influence". This is consistent throughout the document. Both sides of the border are described similarly, and in both cases the purpose is to "keep peace" and "introduce reforms" etc, while the Sultan remains sovereign; that's exactly the definition of Protectorate. So, I propose the following wording:

...was established by the November 27, 1912 Treaty between France and Spain regarding Morocco[2] that followed the March 30, 1912 Treaty of Fez,[3]. It ended in 1956, when both France and Spain recognized Moroccan independence.

    • (incidentally, the 1912 treaty has a very long official name name. Let me just mention that it is generally known as the French-Spanish Treaty which is simpler. But the long official name is maybe more descriptive?)--Megustalastrufas (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
de jure it was a Spanish zone within the state which is under French protectorate, and Interwar French press, for example, always considered the Spanish to be a kind of subtenant. Imho, we can't omit that. --Omar-toons (talk) 01:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you read the treaty, you see that the de jure situation is two protectorates on equal terms. The de facto situation is also two protectorates on equal terms. If you read French press, of course, they have a biased view... even today!!!--Megustalastrufas (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the French retained a protectorate over the whole country, but that in the Spanish zones all their protecting powers were devolved to Spain save that of foreign relations. Spain usurped this prerogative out of practical necessity during the First World War and I don't believe she ever relinquished it. Thus, during the interwar years I suspect the case was one of de facto equality, although the de jure situation, at least in French eyes, continued to be a kind of Spanish subtenancy. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two zones

[edit]

The treaty between France and Spain clearly gave Spain two zones of influence in Morocco, as shown in the map on p. 331 of Merry del Val (1920a). He refers to them as the "southern zone" and "northern zone". Our article currently says that "according to Jose-Luis Villanova, the Spanish protectorate only concerned the northern strip". I have looked at both works by Villanova and cannot find where he says so. He deals only with the far more important northern zone, but so by and large does Merry del Val. Srnec (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec and Asqueladd:The two spheres of influence were agreed upon between France and Spain by their secret treay of 1904.[1] The Franco-Spanish Treaty of November 27, 1912, established the Spanish Protectorate over both.[2][1]
The claim of a so-called "disagreement among scholars over whether the southern strip was part of the Spanish Protectorate" relies exclusively on a misinterpretation of a source (as stated above) and original research (editor's analysis of a primary source -census data- to reach a conclusion not stated by it). I restored the article to a previous version until such a claim is either directly attributed to a reliable secondary source or a convincing argument is put forward in its favour.

References

  1. ^ a b J. H. W. Verzijl (1973). International Law in Historical Perspective. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 512. ISBN 90-286-0223-2.
  2. ^ Richard F. Nyrop; American University (Washington, D.C.). Foreign Areas Studies Division (1972). Area handbook for Morocco. For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. p. 47.
M.Bitton (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: : Spain had two "Zones of influence", none of them was de jure established as a Protectorate, but authors disagree about if both zones were de facto governed as a (single?) protectorate or if only the northern zone was governed as a protectorate, while the southern zone was still governed as a zone of influence ; actually, Villanova and the Spanish census consider the second option. --Omar-toons (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My concern is about the difference between a "zone of influence" and a "protectorate", each being a different status.
Then: Spain had two zones of influence (no one disagrees), but, according to authors, only considered the zorthern zone to be a protectorate or considered both to be protectorates.
M.Bitton: please refrain from editing the article with as diff resume "per talk" while the issue wasn't even discussed. Also, do not mixup between "Protectorate" and "Zone of influence", which is my concern here. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies, Materialscientist, and Huon:Omar-toons is at it again, misinterpreting the sources and pushing his original research (content that is neither attributed nor attributable). I don't know whether he's doing it on purpose, or whether he has trouble grasping WP's guidelines and policies, but one thing is for certain, any attempt at pointing him in the right direction seems to trigger an even worse response, leaving the other editors with no choice but to either move on or engage in an edit war. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. M.Bitton (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From my limited experience, this user is proving unable to grasp the limits of original research in terms of interpretating what sources (doesn't) say. Sadly he is forcing similar odd splits in navigation templates.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Omar needs to cite some sources that make the distinctions he is making. Sources could be cited ad nauseam referring to the southern zone as a protectorate and marking the end of Spain's protectorate in 1958. Srnec (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrocession

[edit]

Is "Retrocession" even a word? Surely it is simply cession?203.80.61.102 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Retrocession" means "return of previously ceded land". Srnec (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_protectorate_in_Morocco&oldid=1210480322"