Talk:Saadi Sultanate

Untitled

Needs Latin alphabet standardization. Since the Arabic script page already exists, this should be accomplished with a minimum of fuss. --Mashford 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Saadian isn`t Morrocco

Court International of Justice 1975,(Moi 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)).

How is possible one is two countries sucessor`s?

• Talifalt
• Saadi Dynasty

[[1]] can you see this.(Moi 20:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)).

I believe that the reasoning that has been used for a long time and now above proves that you are confusing the notion of the relationship country/monarchy.

Please, try to understand that any country/nation can be governed by many different and successive monarchies. A monarchy is a body (or family) governing a nation. This monarchy can be overthrown and replaced by a new one.

Examples... List of Spanish monarchs shows that the country of Spain has been governed by different monarchies throughout history. The French monarchs family tree proves further your POV is totally wrong. You can see that Carolingians, Capetians, Valois, Bourbon, were all French monarchs. Those two examples are still less proving than the case of Morocco where the name Al-Maghrib was used by all governing dynasties since the Idrissides!

Now, let's go see your sources above! As it is mentionned in the Court International of Justice advisory opinion 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.

As for your linked external link above; it simply shows the genealogy of the actual reigning Alaouite dynasty of Morocco. To show you that the authors of the website solely present the actual reigning monarchies, please have a look at the chinese entry on that website. It starts the Chinese history from The Manchu Dynasty!!! Where did go the Ming Dynasty???? The Persian entry on that website, starts with Cyrus II, King of Anshan!!! That's complete nonsense! I advise you to look for better sources of knowledge and avoid nonsense. -- Szvest 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Morocco ??

Are you say Mali never exist????, because Timbuktu are part of Mali!!!87.217.107.3 (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionnal map

I'm right now working on a map showing the rising of the Saadians.

This map is already on Fr.Wiki and Pt.Wiki articles (I putted it on the Fr.WP after a consensus and somebody else putted it on the Pt.Wiki article), and I will translate it before adding it to this article.

Does any user have a remark about this map, so I can edit it before uploading?

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• That map shows european possesions -yellow- going really far inland into tribal territory, especially around Marrakech, Mogador, Anfa & Asfi area. That wouldn't have been possible without tremendous manpower & risk on part of the Spanish. Reasonably, those possessions did not exceed the coastlines.
• If possible, it would be preferable to have the map in SVG format, it makes further editing much easier.

Regards Tachfin (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of Morocco 1258 1659.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Were they of Arab or Berber descent? or both?

I've been watching the edits go back and forth on the characterization of their ancestry. This is outside of my area of expertise, but wouldn't they be termed Arab-Berber? I know they claimed direct paternal lineage back to Ali & Fatimah, but I don't know about the other branch's of their ancestry which I presume included local berber families. Gecko G (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Per:

• Routledge Handbook of history of global economic thought.Vincent Barnett. Page 229. Year 2015, the section concerning the Saadi dynasty is written by Hamed El-Said, Chair and Professor of International Business and Political Economy at the Manchester Metropolitan University Business School (UK). This person's expertise does not appear to be history or this time period.
• Realm of the evening stars.A history of Morocco and the lands of the moors, Eleanor Hoffman. page 116. Hoffman appears to be an author of children's books.[2]
  

It appears neither of these books is a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

According to The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VIII, page 723;

• "'SA'DIDS, SA'DIANS, a Sharifian dynasty which ruled in Morocco from the 16th century to ca.1659. The Sa'dids or Sa'dians or Banu Sa'd, make their appearance in the history of Morocco at the beginning of the 16th century, at the time when the last ruling dynasty of Berber origin, the Banu Wattas [see WATTASIDS], was in decline. The Banu Sa'd claimed to have come originally from Yanbu' in the Tihama of the Hidjaz and to be descendants of the Prophet; whatever their origin, they bore the title of sharif." --Chantal De La Veronne. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Identity of the Rulers

There is absolutely no proof that the ruling family of the Saadi dynasty identified as Berbers. They however identified as Arabs. The rulers of the Almohad and Almoravid dynasties identified as Berbers. [3] --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New name

The page has been moved without any discussion, which has already been criticized elsewhere, but the new name does fit the page topic and the term "Sultanate" should be appropriate since the title "sultan" is applied to the Saadians regularly in the sources (including new ones added). So I've revised the lead section to fit the new name. However, I've removed the claim that the common name was "Morocco" or the demonym "Moroccans", as these are contemporary European names that don't automatically apply in retrospective. R Prazeres (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2020 (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:

• Saadiens - Carte fin XVIe siècle.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not use the Saadi Empire map at its greatest extent?

Like the one at the French Wikipedia page https://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Saadiens#/media/Fichier:Maroc_-_fin_XVIe_si%C3%A8cle.PNG And Arabic Wikipedia: https://ar.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%B9%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9#/media/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Saadi_dynasty_of_Morocco-ar.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:2C40:12E4:24FF:7907:F8A0:EE5A (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

How is that different from the current map, which shows the same thing, but is more closely based on a reliable published source? R Prazeres (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternate names in lead

It seems redundant to repeat the multiple English renderings of the name (Sa'di, Sa'did, Saadian, etc) twice in the lead merely due to the wording that introduces the "Sa'di dynasty" in the second sentence after the "sultanate". I've suggested in this edit that the alternate names be listed once after the first bold name, but not sure if this is the best arrangement. Feel free to adjust it or comment.

PS: Though this also wouldn't be a problem if we returned to the article's original name, "Saadi dynasty" (it was moved without discussion in December 2020), and simplified the lead accordingly. R Prazeres (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Saadi or Banu Zaydan

The original name of the dynasty is Banu Zaydan, the term Saadi was later used after the fall of the dynasty. I suggest including it to have more factual information Zagora9 (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That may well be, but since the article is about the Sultanate, adding "originally Zaydani dynasty" (as you did to the opening sentence) is confusing. M.Bitton (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zagora9, please familiarize yourself with policies and best practices at Wikipedia, particularly verifiability and reliable sources, as I mentioned already. You have not provided any reliable sources to demonstrate that "Zaydani dynasty" or "Zaydani Sultanate" is a commonly used alternate name. In fact, looking up information about this dynasty shows that it's almost never, if ever, used; therefore it is not a "significant" alternate name that would be justified by the relevant guidelines like WP:OTHERNAMES. Only the term "Banu Zaydan" (not "Zaydani sultanate/dynasty") is sometimes discussed among the details of the topic, mainly in regards to the dynasty's origins and family background, but not as a main name for the topic. There is already enough terminology to clarify in the opening lines due to the multiple transliterations of Saadi/Sa'did/Saadian/etc (which are the commonly used names). We do not need to make the lead more complicated for regular readers by adding non-significant names that are not in use by reliable sources. See also MOS:LEAD for general guidelines on introductory sections, if you're interested.

Just as importantly, please do not reimpose your changes on the article again, as this is what we call "edit-warring"; see WP:EDITWAR for more details and for potential consequences if you continue to do that. You can continue to solicit a consensus on changes here if you want, but you should address the relevant Wikipedia requirements if so. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

PS: Just to be extra clear, I should add that the "source" you wrote in your recent edit (this) is a self-published book that is literally copied from Wikipedia, as clearly stated there. It is therefore not a reliable source. R Prazeres (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

This map is false, It was created by an algerian user to falsify our history as usual, the lands of sub-saharian africa were never vassals of the Saadis, those were integral saadi territories and the border with ottoman empire has been falsified too. Please corrrct this map with the precedent version. Just look at the french version of this page you will see the real map.

Thank you. 46.193.64.15 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Declined. You haven't based your proposal on reliable sources. Also, the instructions for placing an edit request state that you should be soliciting consensus through discussion first, rather than requesting what you almost certainly know is a controversial edit given the history of this article (see Wikipedia:Edit requests). And next time don't make or insinuate personal attacks against other editors when discussing a change; this is inappropriate behaviour and only undermines your argument (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). R Prazeres (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres the editor who made this map certainly didn't respect the source he cited. The map shown in the source says that the vassal terrutories reached as far as Wadan (modern day Ouadane, Mauritania), the map in this article doesn't show that. Secondly, the guy who made this map did include his own POV (he souldn't do it), for example he added the name of some cities that aren't mentioned in the source like Oujda (we all know that the situation of Oujda and Tlemcen wasn't stable at that time due to the Ottoman-Moroccan conflicts). Please stick to the source. 808 AD (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres Also take this source into consideration please https://books.google.co.ma/books?id=g9Mu0faODjsC&pg=PA11&dq=Saadi+territory&hl=fr&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdpuzl4-6CAxVZxQIHHYgkDIoQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=Saadi%20territory&f=false

It says: "Oujda was considered Saadi territory and Tlemcen was Ottoman" 808 AD (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Per other sources ([4]), it changed hands multiple times up to the end of the 18th century, so there's no obvious problem here. I don't really mind removing Oujda entirely from the map, since the original source doesn't show it either, but then Melila should be removed as well for the same reason. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source but it's fine, I think we can remove the cities that aren't mentioned in the source. However I believe we should add those that are. Don't you see that the map is not well copied? I mean it doesn't really correspond to the original map, it should be remade. (Thank you for the answer) 808 AD (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@R Prazeres I agree the map should be remade to be as to be more correspondant to the original map, could you do it? Shadi (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the vassaliship of these territories are rather much disputed, what we know for sure is that the Pashalik of Tombuktu ceased to be dependent of the Saadis after the death of Al mansur, since the realm was split in two again (Fez and marrakesh), this map was taken from a RS, yet you would be much surprised if you had seen the maps draws by contemporary cartographers of that period, i can give you links to few of those if you want. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Saadi flag

why isn't the saadi's red flag is shown in the article, according to the Moroccan historian Faqih Al-Menouni, the saadi's had a plain red flag, it's mentioned in the book " Faqih Al-Menouni's research " that's been published by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs 102.38.8.5 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Saadian invasion of the Songhai Empire#Requested move 11 December 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saadian invasion of the Songhai Empire#Requested move 11 December 2023 that may be of interest the editors of this article. 808 AD (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead opening

I've modified the opening paragraph of the lead as per WP:UNDUE and MOS:OPEN, as through a quick Google search, the term Zaydanids as an alternate name for the Saadi's is barely referenced in sources, and certainly is nowhere near a similar level to Saadis/Saadians; as such I've moved the the name to the origins of the dynasty section per WP:UNDUE's prominence of placement directive. As for the specification of the dynasty's origin in southern Morocco, I've omitted this from the opening per MOS:OPEN's injunction, "...without being too specific". Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Snowstormfigorion, there is nothing in MOS:OPEN that backs up this nonsensical edit; "from southern Morocco" is hardly "too specific". You have been warned about edit-warring over ridiculous nonsense like this, don't do it again. R Prazeres (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Pardon? "ridiculous nonsense"? It is needlessly specific and holds no particular significance, thus MOS:OPEN evidently applies. Why, exactly, does the pinpoint region of Morocco needs to be stated in the lead? Moreover, a single revert is far from edit warring. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It is ridiculous. You have shown a repeated lack of common sense and judgement over non-issues like this before. You're doing it again. And restoring your preferred version against consensus is exactly what edit-warring is, pretending otherwise is not an excuse. R Prazeres (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

What consensus? and you still haven't answered my question. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The dynasty's geographic origin, which is described in the article and relates to its rise to power, taking up no more than three words in a lead section with no length issues, is a non-issue. Your attempt to apply MOS:OPEN to delete a brief, relevant, amd verifiable general detail from the lead is ludicrous. And you know exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is. I consider the matter settled unless other editors have something to add. R Prazeres (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a crucial aspect as to outright describe them in the opening paragraph as "a dynasty from southern Morocco". As a compromise, I've moved the wording from the lead's intro paragraph to a more fitting and relevant area in the second paragraph; this way it's still in the lead while also not being in the intro and overly specific, as per MOS:INTRO. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: Reverting with a mere "Not a compromise" without explaining nor elaborating further is textbook WP:STONEWALLING and disruptive behaviour and you know this, especially considering how quick you are to throw the edit warring plaint; why exactly does the phrase "southern Morocco" fit more in this version as opposed to this one? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've explained it above already, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over just because you insist on having other editors satisfy you. The current version stays unless you get consensus from other editors. Unless that happens, don't ping me again and don't attempt to repeat your change again, which will be a continuation of your edit-warring and will be reported. R Prazeres (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"I've explained it above already". No, you haven't. That was concerning the phrase's omission, not the proposed compromise of moving it to the introduction of the lead's second paragraph. Again, please provide an explanation and valid reasoning for your objection to the latter change, otherwise if you continue stonewalling I will seek administrative attention. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have ([5]), but now I see I misread this diff that came afterward: I thought you had removed the material from the lead again and moved it to the body of the article, which would have made it redundant and would have ignored the point I made. Given that you actually just moved it to the second paragraph of the lead right below, that's a reasonable fix to my concern. I apologize for the misunderstanding and this change looks fine to me. Your edit today ([6]) is still technically edit-warring, but I consider that moot now.

Aside from that, there is still a minor wording issue: the change from "present-day Morocco and parts of West Africa" to "present-day Morocco and parts of Northwest Africa" alters the statement's meaning and the link. The point here was that they extended their rule beyond Morocco to parts of what is geographically West Africa (present-day Mali). The second version is somewhat redundant (Morocco is in NW Africa) and implies they controlled other parts of the Maghreb, which isn't the case. I'm not dedicated to the original wording either, but we should find something clearer. R Prazeres (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. As for the wording, do you have any suggestions? Snowstormfigorion (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)