Talk:Maghreb/Archive 2

Proposed merge of Barbary Coast into Maghreb
Closed (see rationale below). There is no consensus to merge these articles. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:MULTIPLENAMES says that we shouldn't have two articles on the same concept just because it has gone by different names. The Barbary Coast is a historical name for the Maghreb region, or at least a region that overlaps closely enough with the Maghreb that it doesn't make sense for coverage to be split. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are two different subjects, each notable in its own right. The fact that the two regions overlap (just like the Maghreb, North Africa and even Africa) is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Different topics, and entirely different periods. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The Barbary Coast is just the history of the Maghreb region in the Early Modern period - a section that is currently entirely absent from the history section on the Maghreb page. It is an entirely analogous regional designation covering Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Without merging, there is no way of filling in the Early Modern history of the Maghreb region without duplication. The merger is a sensible solution. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see a reason why it has it's own article when it's just an alternative name for the region, albeit only at a specific period of history. --MWahaiibii (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not an alternative name for the Maghreb. The Barbary Coast refers only to the coastal region of the north: a historic region which, from the 16th to the 19th century, developed its own specific characteristics (ethnic, cultural, etc.) due to the massive influx of Moriscos, Europeans (renegades and slaves), etc. M.Bitton (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Coastal region is a very broad term that is often construed as encompassing a swathe of inland territory beyond the literal coastline. The entire Maghreb region consists of heavily populated coastal regions and more sparsely populated hinterlands giving way slowly to the largely uninhabited Saharan regions. According to the Barbary Coast article, one example of a constituent state is the Regency of Algiers, which, according to the map on its page, extended well into the African interior right up to the Tuareg controlled regions of the Sahara - that is your working definition of 'coastal' in this context. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was obviously referring to the literal coastline, where the corsairing activities took place. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get you. My point is that the Barbary Coast States, such as the Regency of Algiers, were not purely "littoral" entities. Anyway, I'd just like to see some more voices in the discussion now, but if we can't agree, I hope that you can at least agree that some of this Barbary Coast history should be represented in the currently empty Early Modern section on the Maghreb page. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not an improvement. Vic Park (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Vic Park Would you care to elaborate? It would be useful to know what your actual thought process was in coming to this conclusion: "Not an improvement" is how one casually dismisses disruptive edits, not how one addresses a proposed merger discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. In reliable sources, the terms are used interchangeably:
 * "The North African coast, called al-Maghreb ('the west') in Arabic, is better known in European history as the Barbary Coast." (published by Taylor & Francis)
 * "At the turn of the nineteenth century, the Maghreb or northern coast of Africa - known to Europeans and Americans as the Barbary Coast - was made up of ..." (published by University of Oklahoma Press)
 * "Barbary, it must be recalled, entered European expressions in the sixteenth century with the 'Barbary Coast' as a reference to what is today's Maghreb, or the middle and western coastal regions of North Africa..." (published by Routledge)
 * "The Ottoman territories of the North African western and central coastlines of present-day Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, referred to as the Barbary Coast or Maghreb during this era, represented..." (published by Brill publishers)
 * "The Maghreb, or the Barbary Coast as the region was known to some European discourses, was home to Jewish populations..." (published by Palgrave Macmillan)
 * "The Maghreb. Once called the Barbary Coast, North West Africa, is now restrictively known by its Arabic name "al-Maghrib"." (published by De Gruyter)
 * "...from their bases on the what Europeans called the Barbary Coast, the Maghreb region of northwestern Africa." (published by Taylor & Francis)
 * "The 'pirates' (or 'corsairs', named after French privateers) of the Barbary Coast - as the Europeans called the Maghreb coastline - were particularly active..." (published by Cambridge University Press) VR talk 13:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that the North African coast and the Barbary coast are different, they are indeed more or less the same (though, the Barbary coast is specific to 4 modern countries and exclude Egypt), but as I explained in my previous comment, the coast itself became notable for its activities (that's what this article is about). M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that leaving this article as is leaves a gaping hole in the Early modern history of the Maghreb where the Barbary Coast should be. The second paragraph of Maghreb even references Barbary Coast in primary definition bold. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * RS seem to view Barbary Coast as just another term for the Maghreb. If there is to be an article, it should be about the term and its usage. Any content on the history, geography, politics and demography of the Barbary Coast should be at Maghreb, not here.VR talk 14:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No they don't and those that don't make a difference between the Barbary States (the Maghreb) and their coast (the Barbary coast) are not RS. The Barbary coast is notable all by itself, what's in the other articles is irrelevant to its existence, though there is nothing stopping us from adding a to the Maghreb article. M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the publishers on all the sources. Which ones do you think are not RS? VR talk 14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Any source, regardless of its publisher, that doesn't make the distinction between the two is simply not RS for the subject. As I explained previously, the Barbary coast became notable for its corsairing activities and ended up developing its own specific characteristics (ethnic, cultural, etc.) due to the massive influx of Moriscos, Europeans (renegades and slaves) that it attracted. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton I'm really not quite sure what you're saying here, because it sounds like you're saying that unless a source pushes your particular take on the uniqueness of the Barbary Coast narrative, you'll ignore it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Barbary Coast page isn't developed enough to give it any grandiose claims of telling a whole history all unto itself. It is currently four paragraphs of text that could easily be in the Maghreb article. It is also simply a geographical descriptor that is a synonym for the Maghreb in the period in question. If you don't to merger simply because you want to write a separate article about the uniqueness of the pirate activities in the Barbary Coast, just call it Pirating in the Barbary Coast. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't need to write a separate article. What I said is clear and doesn't anyone's interpretation. If the closer wants me to elaborate, I'll be more than happy to. M.Bitton (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DABCONGEO, part of the broad-concept article guideline, states Varying uses for broad geographic terms can be discussed in the context of an article describing the overall agreement of which areas definitely fall within that designation, and which areas are only occasionally described as falling with that designation, for certain purposes. That speaks very directly to the situation here and favors a merge. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Move "Barbary Coast" to "Barbary States" While the Barbary Coast may just be an antiquated term for the Maghreb (though, I will add, antiquated terms, for example Shina, aren't always merged into the article for the modern term) the Barbary States is a term of its own. Barbary States already redirects to Barbary Coast, and Barbary Coast already covers what a Barbary States article would. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that'd do to reduce redundant content. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As a Maghrebi myself, I wouldn't include Mauritania and Western Sahara in the Barbary Coast and we're as Maghreb as the rest. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mauritania and "Western Sahara" were part of Morocco at that time anyways, so they are implicitly included.--Ideophagous (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The two terms refer to overlapping and almost identical regions, but they're not equivalent. They're both notable and there's much to be said about each one in its own right. Namely, each term was used in a different geopolitcal context, and invokes different meanings and connotations.--Ideophagous (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I find that unpersuasive. Per the guidance cited above, it's not enough for there to be slight differences; there needs to be significant ones. A region changing its name and boundaries over time doesn't mean it warrants two separate articles; just cover the historical name in the history section. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The guidelines are to be used as indication, but the final decision to merge or split articles lies with the community. First of all, following your reasoning, North Africa, Ancient Libya and Tamazgha should also be merged into one article, which in my opinion would just create a complete mess of a page. Second of all, the usage and context of each term is distinct enough to warrant a separate article, especially since there's enough material to write full detailed articles for each. The article for Barbary coast is namely lacking in many aspects, chiefly the fact that it skips mentioning Morocco (except in the intro) and the Republic of Salé entirely in its history section, despite their importance to the subject. I still oppose.--Ideophagous (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Refactored to remove second bolded !vote &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;   talk 20:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Mahgreb is a modern African term of geopolitical significance only. Barbary coast is a 19th century and before cultural term refering to slavers and corsairs threatening everything bad to the countries of Europe. How can you mix the two? If I were from Mahgreb I would not want to be associated with murderous pirates and slavers. I understand you want to change the English language to make Barbary Coast into an innocuous tourist term - see the beauties of Mahgreb - but in the last century that is last thing Europeans wanted to see. We're not changing history here. There is a solution on WP used a large number of times. Keep the section in Mahgreb but have it say main article: Barbary Coast. What's wrong with that? If Zahgreb gets big enough you would want to split it ANYWAY.Botteville (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m closing this, as there is clearly no consensus for a merge (three editors supporting the OP and six opposing), even before considering the arguments. Whether the term 'Barbary Coast' is synonymous with 'Maghreb' or not (arguable), the scope of the former (a history of the West’s dealing with the Barbary states in the early modern era) is different to that of the latter (an overview – geography, economy, peoples, etc – of an entire region). There may be some merit in renaming Barbary Coast to Barbary States, as was suggested, to clarify that point. The Maghreb article is already 59 Kb, which is plenty large enough, and already has several subsidiary articles (Tamazgha, Moors, etc).  Reasons to merge are Duplication, Overlap, and Context, none of which apply here (in fact the Maghreb article has nothing at all in its early modern history section: Which isn’t an argument to merge, it’s an argument to write a summary paragraph and add a main article link, as has been suggested)  Reasons not to merge are where there are separate (but cross-linked) topics with room to expand, and which are notable in themselves, as we have here. So I have closed the discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Spain
@M.Bitton The Maghreb is a geographical term that is built around the concept of a common cultural base for the region of North-Western Africa. It is not about the countries in it, but focused on their culture, heritage and history.

It is correct that Spain owns territory near Morocco that are in geopgrahical Africa, but that doesn't give Spain a Maghrebi character. Their culture is mainly West-European. For that reason, I don't see the justification to include Spain as a country (not its owned places) as part of the Maghreb.

We also don't say that the European Union is African, South American, Asian and European at the same time just because some of its member states own territory in those continents. For that reason, mentioning that Spain owns territories in the region may be justified, but by including the flag you argue it having a Maghrebi culture making it part of the Maghreb, what is not the case and icorrect.

So, that's why I marked your edit as vandalism, but should have come to Talk:Maghreb before that to explain myself. Keksfresser12 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Though I see that there is no North-Western Africa article. Yet, to own territory in another continent isn't enough to make one African or Asian, so I still think it would be wrong to consider Spain as Maghrebi or France as African (Mayotte, etc).
 * This may be part of a bigger discussion. Keksfresser12 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, the word "vandalism" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (I suggest you familiarize yourself with it). I get what you're saying, but since the infobox is meant to summarize what's in the article, we cannot just omit the information from it, so one possible solution would be to list Ceuta and Melilla (rather than Spain). 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant personally marked it as such and not by Wikipedia definition. Used the wrong word.
 * Mentioning solely Ceuta and Melilla would be also wrong (see Plazas de soberanía). Additionally, if we go by strict geographical standard, technically the Canary Islands would also have to be included as part of North-Western Africa/Maghreb.
 * So, this discussion may be more about Maghreb being a substitute for North-West Africa or whatever we talk more about the cultural aspect. I don't know how other articles with similar issues (Mongolia| East Asia) handle this.
 * Well, if the current version is meant to stay maybe an annotation regarding Spain should be added. Keksfresser12 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See North Africa for the difference between geopgrahical and geo-cultural term. The latter is more what Maghreb is or rather its article should be about. Keksfresser12 (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Tuareg - not included at all?
Just realized that the Tuareg people have not a single mention in the article despite them having been crucial for the trans-Saharan trade and by that the history of the Maghreb.

Should be added therefore. Keksfresser12 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)