Talk:Battle of Chelif

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: African 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 has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force

Hello @Whatever748:, concerning the result of this battle, the fact that the historian Delof relates the fact that the Algerians gained a "great advantage" against the king of Morocco cannot be considered as decisive? [1] Regards, --Askelaadden (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They did gain a great advantage over the king of Morocco, but the thing is that this battle wasn't a standalone one. It was part of a larger war between the Algerians, and a Moroccan-Tunisian alliance. As a matter of fact the first campaign launched by Zeidan ibn Ismail was launched at the same time as a Tunisian campaign from the east on purpose.[2] The war lasted until 1702 when the Tunisian Bey was assasinated. The Battle of Chelif, although an important Algerian victory, didn't put an end to the war, and it only served to stop the Moroccan advance to Algiers. The Algerians didn't counterattack into Morocco, and the borders shifted back to what they originally were. This battle simply only served the purpose of reconquering territories lost to the armies of the Sultan of Morocco. Regards, Whatever748 (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop calling it Algerian to begin with, when it was actually Morocco vs the Ottomans? (even though this is all just fantasy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:2C40:12E4:CB:2339:A1D9:8D60 (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to what the sources say and avoid

personal research. --Askelaadden (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Askelaadden: The name "Ottoman Algeria" is a collective name referring to the Ottoman territory, and later Nominal subject in modern Algeria, as it had many names throughout it's existence, including Beylerbeylik of Algiers, Deylik of Algiers[3], Kingdom of Algiers,[4], Republic of Algiers,[5], etc. The term Ottoman Algeria was not used by any sources until the 20th century (google books for example shows no sources on "Ottoman Algeria" before 1830), and the name "Algeria" was hardly ever used to refer to the Regency, with a few exceptions.[6]. Thus i believe that a time appropriate name should be used, such as the Regency of Algiers, or the Deylik of Algiers. Whatever748 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatever748: I think we should stick to the sources dealing with this battle which mostly use the terms "Algeria" and "Regency of Algiers". "Deylik of Algiers' is not the appropriate and untraceable term for Algeria in 1701 at the time of this battle. I am not opposed to the term "Regency of Algiers". --Askelaadden (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The battle didn't start and both parties agreed on taking peace and going back to the old border which was ouad tafna!!! 102.38.8.5 (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the current map do not fit either because: 1- It show morocco divided when it was not in the battle 2-It has exagerrated algerian borders 3- It has a long time gap between it and the battle (1650 is not 1701) So I propose supressing the image until a well sourced one is added 4-It do not show AIt Abbas which was independent at that time So I propose to replace it with: 1- This one: File:Maghrebi wars map (2).jpg 2- this File:Maghrebi War (1699–1702).jpg Shadi (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per this discussion: User talk:شادي : Ridiculous map, obvious POV vandalism.

- Your sources are either a fictitious Wikipedia map that nowhere meets the criterias of WP:Verifiability.

- A single primary source, though close to the maghrebi wars period, it's obvious that this file overexaggerates the size of the Sharifian Sultanate while at the same time ignores the Algerian map size from the same primary source.

- No

secondary sources

were provided to support this file.

So it is useless and has no place neither in the infobox nor the body of any Wikipedia article. Nourerrahmane (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane

First, I based my map over two Actual maps of that era one of Delisle other one shiwing moroccan dependencies in the sahara go and look at them.

Secondly, the primary source in the article Show the map of algeria in 1650 YOU SEEE 1650 MOROCCO WAS NOT YET UNITED IT WAS STILL KINGDOM OF FES AND MARAKECH BUT THE MAGHREBI WARS ARE IN 1701 MANY THINGS HAD CHANGED SINCE THEN, AT THE VERY VERY LEAST MOROCCO REUNITED.

I BASED MY SELF OVER TWO MAPS OF THAT ERA (AND MANY SOURCED WIKIPEDIA MAPS) SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABSURD, please we are in wikipedia, we must be neutral, if you find the map exaggerated you clearly ignore many primary sources that claims otherwise. Shadi (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are many reliable second sources just check them and go read the file description Shadi (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you pointed out was about an early version of the map ( which was inaccurate) but I cotrected it and used now two actual maps, I improved

Either way the map of 1650 shall be removed it is inaccurate for the simple reason that it show morocco divided when it was not at that time, easy to understand even if you somehow oppose my map, which I find riduculous after the bkg amount of sources I added and fixes I made to it to be as accurate as possible, this do not by any mean defend the map already put there which is 1650 while the conflict is 1701 and therr were undoubtely many border changes in 1650-1701 period.

All what you do if say it has no souces when it clearly does and I even added new ones and TWO ACTUALLLLL MAPS OF THAT ERAAA, I ask you to go and refute my sources one by one, see them and explain where I got wrong, and stop using vague inprecise always working words that are supposed to convince Shadi (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore the size of algeria in the primary souce, because that was algeria border in 1650 not 1701,if I was making a map of 1650 I will show algeria controlling oujda and tafilat for sure.

But many things has changef since 1650.

-First morocco reunified and expanded you cannot claim that Moulay Ismael did nothing when thry are clear historical recors of him sending convoys and expiditions to the sahara and touat.

-Algeria cannot control tafilalt at 1701 while it is in this exact place that Alaouite came to existance and a governor of tafilat was on that era it is like the core of the Alaouites, and dangerously close to Meknes the capital of morocco then. Shadi (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still oppose adding your ridiculous map, the most fitting map here is the 1707 one, and regarding this article, I don’t think a map is even worth adding, since this article is about a single battle.

waiting other contributors per WP:consensus Nourerrahmane (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NourerrahmaneGood we reach a small consensus, yes I agree with 1707 map or no map at all but the map right here is unfitting.

Still wonder why you still consider my map ridiculous after all the souces and actual maps I gave you,still opposing without directly refuting my arguments without any kind of vagueness, but this is your opinion, still wait for other contributers for consensus

Thank you for your response. Shadi (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NourerrahmaneWe all like waiting forever, we agreed to do 1707 map, so let do it if anyone oppose it can be expressed in talk page, alright? Shadi (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A suitable map was added in the Maghrebi war (1699–1702), and like i said above, this has to go through a WP:Consensus and my opinion is that it's not suitable to put an entire map or a map focusing solely on Morocco for an article that covers a signle battle that happened in the heartland of Algeria itself. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you, but @User:M.Bitton(Bruh, I cannnot believe I am pinging him again) for some reason removed it because of a pseudo argument ( do not need a map) why? IDK. He really see wiki pages as sacred texts that should not be modified.

Well anyways plz ask him for the motives of such an edit, and thank you for your collaboration.Shadi (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nourerrahmane Shadi (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source that claim that the border after the battle stabilised in molouya is broken. here you are: https://books.google.com/books?id=mzTNDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT274 Do you see? And the sources that say the border is tafna are two sources So because @M.Bitton please do not revert the edit unless you have a serious argument you post here. If you have one, it will be my pleasure to revert my edit and never edit this info again. Shadi (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything (your link doesn't work). In any case, I removed the irrelevant info from the infobox. If you disagree, you seek consensus for its inclusion. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton Thank you very much for your response, The thing is yes absolutely the link do not work and guess what it was used as a source to say that the molouya was the border, but the tafna river has two sources confirming it.

Although, I do not disagree with what you did right now on the article. Shadi (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]