Talk:Q1028

Inception

@Nehaoua: Hello. The official history of Morocco, according to the Moroccan State, starts from 789 with the foundation of the Idrissid kingdom. We can argue about the exact start date (some would push it as far as the Kingdom of Mauretania), but putting the inception date from 1956 is completely ridiculous. The name "Morocco" itself was used for several centuries at least, not from 1956. The Alaouite dynasty that rules in Morocco today goes back to and ruled continiously from the 17th century. The Makhzen (local name of State institutions) goes back at least to the 12 century. There are several accounts of Europeans travellers and historians from previous centuries, that use the name "Morocco" to refer to the country, such as "The Land of an African Sultan: Travels in Morocco, 1887, 1888, and 1889", by Walter Harris, "A Visit to the Court of Morocco" by Arthur Leared (1879), "A Journey to Mequinez: The Residence of the Present Emperor of Fez and Morocco" by John Windus (1725), etc etc.--Ideophagous (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Tagging interested users @Reda benkhadra, Anass Sedrati, Mounir Neddi, Achraf112: -- Ideophagous (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Ideophagous your argument and your sources of the name of the state of Morocco date max since 1879 or 1725 ( Fez and Morocco) and Not 786. cordially Nehaoua (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

But it's most certainly earlier than 1956. Also, it shows that the country existed with that name at least from the Alaouite period (which started in the mid 17th century). The sources are just what I found offhand in book titles. Looking into Britannica for example, I see that they're starting the history of Morocco from the 16th century (Saadi dynasty). Other sources start from earlier. I suggest putting multiple inception dates based on various sources while specifying the date's significance, e.g. with the property "identity of object in context".-- Ideophagous (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ideophagous good idea

I suggest putting multiple inception dates based on various sources while specifying the date's significance

cordially Nehaoua (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Nehaoua, Reda benkhadra, Anass Sedrati, Mounir Neddi, Achraf112: and thank you for tagging in this discussion. Actually the date of 1956 is the year when Morocco became independent from France and Spain (this colonization started in 1912), not the date when Morocco became a country. Before 1912, Morocco was already a sovereign country with institutions. For example, Morocco had ambassadors in the UK already in the 16th century (see this list). What should we call this country then if not Morocco? -- Anass Sedrati (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Anass Sedrati (see this list) is not a source, thank you for the explanation, I know the history of Morocco (thank Wikipedia) And I am actually preparing the list of authors in the Arabic language, only Morroco have Authors before 1800, and other countries have not because property (P27) is different, and for this reason I checked this date and found it is bizarre!

cordially Nehaoua (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, @Nehaoua, Reda benkhadra, Anass Sedrati, Mounir Neddi, Achraf112: I added the following dates of inception:

• 1631: as the beginning of the currently ruling Alawi (Alaouite) royal dynasty.
• 1549: as the beginning of the previous Saadi dynasty, as documented in Britannica, which starts the history of Morocco from the 16th century.
• 789: as the beginning of one of the first Islamic Kingdoms in Morocco and founders of the city of Fez (capital of Morocco until 1927), as documented in the Jewish Virtual Library which lists rulers of Morocco from that date.
• 400 BCE: as the estimated beginning of the first local Kingdom in the territory of Morocco (Kingdom of Mauretania)

--Ideophagous (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

country (P17)

@Ideophagous: by removing P17 you have created an error message on the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) of the regions of Morocco, like Tanger-Tétouan-Al Hoceïma. All the other countries have themselves as P17. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"located in the administrative territorial entity" (P131) is a property for regions or administratove divisions within countries, not for countries. If you want to specify the country for Q19951300, just use the property country (P17). Putting a self-reference in an object (unless it has a special relationship to itself, not a self-reference) is just pointless. -- Ideophagous (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

P131 is the administrative level just above the subject. This may or may not be the same as the country (P17). Chefchaouen Province (Q2354922) has Morocco as P17 only, and has Tanger-Tétouan-Al Hoceïma as P131. Tanger-Tétouan-Al Hoceïma has Morocco as both P17 and P131 since P17 alone would not convey that it is a first-level division of Morocco.

Also it is even more pointless to do Morocco differently from the other countries and Tanger-Tétouan-Al Hoceïma differently from the other regions. If you want to change the general practice you should discuss it with a larger audience like the Project Chat.

The best would probably be to exclude the countries from the property constraint with something like exception to constraint (P2303), except applicable to an entire class. Then we would remove the P17s from the country items and keep the P131s from the first-level region items. But for now this is not possible. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no poiht in specifying country (P17) for a country. The statement itself is nonsensical. P131 is used for lower level regions, but once you get to the first level divisions, you just use P17, no P131. Ideophagous (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ideophagous: this is ridiculous. Are you claiming that the use of P131 on every first-level subnational division on Wikidata from California (Q99) to Bavaria (Q980) to Tokyo (Q1490) is wrong? GrandEscogriffe (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@GrandEscogriffe Yes, I think it's complete nonsense. Anyways, I posted a question about this in the Wikidata Telegram group. Somebody said that having countries refer to themselves makes querying easier, but I think that's just an excuse not to write better queries. Ideophagous (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that the P17 statement on country items carries little information, but still it is correct, does not cause any problem, and is useful for at least these two technical reasons: satisfying the constraint on P131 plus easing the queries.

On the contrary, I insist that P131 on first level divisions is an important info expressed in the most direct way. California is not only in the US, it is directly under the US. That is what we say with P131. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)