Talk:Sharifian Empire

Convert page back to a redirect
I'm sorry to say it, but this page should redirect back to Morocco, or maybe another page like History of Morocco; the sources don't speak of a "Sharifian Empire" as a distinct topic. There are Sharifian dynasties to be sure, but the Saadian state was dismantled and the Alaouites built up a new state over them; aside from some general territorial continuity, lumping the two together as one is confusing and presents an unnecessary content fork (see WP:CONTENTFORK) based on original research (which is prohibited, see No original research). Our efforts would be put to better use by cleaning up and improving the Alaouite dynasty and Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) page (see also my remarks at Talk:Alaouite dynasty). So far it seems like most of the content here is copy-edited from other pages; any new sourced content here should simply be moved to other relevant pages. R Prazeres (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging, , and (or any others I can't think of off the top of my head), in case they can weigh in on whether my thinking above is correct and this page should be reverted, or whether it's fine as is? R Prazeres (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is indeed an WP:OR based WP:CONTENTFORK. I suggest you revert it and let the editor who changed it seek consensus for their change. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check-in. : not sure if you've been reading this too but just giving you a heads up that I'll be reverting this page back to its original redirect format for the reasons above. I'll have a quick look at what's on this page now and transfer any helpful material that isn't already at Saadi Sultanate or Alaouite dynasty, so it may take a day or two before it happens. Feel free to do any of it yourself in the meantime, or ask questions here. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: I should add, in clarification: I will only transfer material that is properly sourced. This is not an invitation to add original research to other articles. R Prazeres (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, In my opinion, I think it would be a good idea if this page can be left as it is because the "Sharifian Empire" was a term used along with the "Sharifian Eyalet" which were both ruled by the Saadian and Alaouite dynasties, following the collapse of the Saadi dynasty, the term was still used because the Alaouites were also a Sharifian dynasty, following the Treaty of Fez signed by Morocco in 1912, the state had multiple names and one of them was the "Protected Sharifian Moroccan state". Tell me if you change your mind. Thanks, Mhd240 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Mhd240, I know what you mean, but this is more an issue of how Wikipedia is structured and the best way to present information without confusing readers. It's also a matter of what is found in existing reliable sources: most, if not all, relevant history books split the historical periods of Morocco between Saadis and Alaouites before 1912, and they don't use "Sharifian Empire" as the main name (or not in English, at any rate). For example, you can have a look at some of the main references used at Saadi Sultanate page; many of them cover more of Morocco's history and they all follow this division. Since there are already main pages for the Saadis and Alaouites, this article here is creating a "content fork" (see Content forking), meaning that the same information or the same topic is duplicated in an unnecessary way. Ideally, we want each topic to have one page where readers and editors can focus their attention.
 * For comparison, you can think about this hypothetical example: some English and French sources sometimes refer to the Almohads and Almoravids together as the "Berber Empires" because they existed one after another and occupied relatively similar territories (Morocco and Al-Andalus with Marrakesh as capital), they were both ruled by Berber elites, and there are some resemblances which set them apart from other states before and after them; however, that would not be a good reason to create a new article called "Berber Empires" that covers the topics of the Almoravids and Almohads, as these have their own main pages already and there is no advantage to creating an extra page about them.
 * If you disagree, you can ask for a wider consensus from other editors (see Consensus) to support your changes, but you would have to present reliable sources and clear reasons for why this extra article should exist. I hope this response helps. R Prazeres (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you think we can instead insert Template:Distinguish at the top of the page to avoid confusion rather than redirecting this whole page? I think readers would find this page useful rather than confusing if there was a notice distinguishing the two dynasties from this page. Mhd240 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As it is, no, the page simply shouldn't exist as its own topic. So far it's a content fork and it's original research. To me this was obvious and I've asked a few people to confirm I wasn't imagining it. It would be up to you to show that the need for this topic is supported by reliable sources. I'm sure it's disappointing, but ultimately it's the encyclopedia and its policies that come first. There is still plenty of work you can do for these topics, but you should do it on their existing pages. I myself am hoping to help clean up and revise the Alaouite dynasty and Sultanate of Morocco (1665–1912) pages in the near future, for example. R Prazeres (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've transferred a few parts to other pages, and the revert is now done. R Prazeres (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)