This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
"Laban" means "milk" in Egyptian and "yoghurt" in Saudi or Syrian arabic. "Wadi" is either a valley or a dry riverbed, so I prefered this instead of plain river which is, imo, an inaccurate translation.--Dipa1965 (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: You also need to stop manipulating sources; "This conflict took place in a context of tensions between Algeria and Morocco. Morocco became an Ottoman province in 1554 with the help of the Algerians" The sources doesn't say that but mentions a context of tensions between Ottomans and Morocco, also it says that the Wattassids were vassals of the Ottomans and took the city of Fez with the help of the Turks and not Algerians. It's not the first time I see you, Askeladden or Kabyle20 doing manipulation of sources. You also can't stick to one source ! The fact the majority of French historians who studied this part of history clearly, studying many letters of this period (Les Sources Inédites de l'Histoire du Maroc) for example Chantal de La Veronne who clearly says in French『Cette contrepolitique contrebalançait la défaite que Mulay Abdallah avait infligée aux Turcs au printemps 1558』which can be translated to "This counter-policy counterbalanced the defeat that Mulay Abdallah had inflicted on the Turks (not Algerians) in the spring of 1558". Again she never mentions "Algerians" but only Turks or Ottomans, what you are doing is a manipulation of sources. Mazing107 (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazing107: : The source you added clearly states that:『There the pretender Waṭṭāsside was able to get the help of the Algerians against the sheriff, and with 4 to 5,000 men commanded by Ṣālaḥ Rais, he took the direction of Fez. His sons, who had remained in Morocco, brought him many supporters, and the battle which took place between Sa'dians and Waṭṭàssides at Innaouen had neither victors nor defeated. Then the Turco-Waṭṭàssid army passed the Sebou ...』([1]). So please avoid cherry-picking within the sources. --Askelaadden (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't contradict what I say, you're manipulating sources. You changed this "There the pretender Waṭṭāsside was able to get the help of the Algerians against the sheriff, and with 4 to 5,000 men commanded by Ṣālaḥ Rais, he took the direction of Fez. His sons, who had remained in Morocco, brought him many supporters, and the battle which took place between Sa'dians and Waṭṭàssides at Innaouen had neither victors nor defeated. Then the Turco-Waṭṭàssid army passed the Sebou ...". to this
"This conflict took place in a context of tensions between Algeria and Morocco. Morocco became an Ottoman province in 1554 with the help of the Algerians". Here I see a better version : ""This conflict took place in a context of tensions between Ottomans and Morocco. The Wattassids briefly ruled Fez in 1554 with the help of the Turks and Algerians until it was retaken by the Saadians in the same year." Thank you. Mazing107 (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mazing107: I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your accusation. If you believe that I manipulated the sources, then you have to provide the diff to prove it. M.Bitton (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was chocked to see how many sentences were false for example “ in 1554 morocco became an ottman province” when did this happen? In September 1554 the city fes was captured but they lost the city in the same year [2] and none of the sources mentions anything about morocco being part of the Ottoman Empire Mr bott1 (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the conflict was not caused by conflicts between « Algeria » and morocco, it was caused by the tension between the whole Ottoman Empire and morocco [3] who ever made up this should have at least know that it was called Algiers smh Mr bott1 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gofté Moorish, please use the talk page to discuss disagreements, instead of making unsourced changes to the infobox like this one. There are no less than four different independent references stating the battle was inconclusive, cited in text. Changing it to "victory" without demonstrating a clear consensus in reliable sources is a violation of Wikipedia's core policies, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Do not repeat these edits again; and that goes for any other editors making edits of this kind, in favour of one POV or another. R Prazeres (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
except that the sources in question which designate the battle as inconclusive are apocryphal it's crazy your level of intellectual dishonesty all to refute things including even King Abd'Allah Al Ghalib himself explained how he WON this battle and I can add several other sources such as the History of the Saadian Dynasty of Al Oufrani which is the largest source on the Saadian dynasty which clearly says that the battle was won by the Saadian and it had a big role I can also add the word of An Naciri who also says the enormous impact of this victory or Nabil Mouline several contemporary or modern historians tell us that the battle was won by the Saadians but you persist in saying that it is undecided because of 'an apocryphal source it's really pathetic Gofté Moorish (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
