Talk:Si Kaddour Benghabrit

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Si Kaddour Benghabrit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mosquee-de-paris.net/Conf/Histoire/V02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202172209/http://www.licra.org/education/outils/1348-une-resistance-oubliee-la-mosquee-de-paris-1940-44 to http://www.licra.org/education/outils/1348-une-resistance-oubliee-la-mosquee-de-paris-1940-44

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Source 7

Source 7 uses source 8 as the source of the article. Source 7 is worthless to the page and should be removed. OMEGAUNIT (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

March 2020

Regarding this edit: I have checked the source and I can't seem to find the part that is meant to support the following statement Abdelqader then translated the Treaty of Fes into Arabic and signed it as well.. Could you please provide a quotation of the relevant portions of the original source that substantiate the statement? M.Bitton (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Sorry, didn't see this before starting the other topic. Here's the text:

لكن الديبلوماسية الفرنسية استغلت ظروف تحول قيادة الجيش الفرنسي في فاس من وضعية التعاون العسكري إلى وضعية الإرهاب ومحاصرة السلطان، فأوفدت السفير (يوجين رينو) لمحاولة إقناع السلطان بفكرة معاهدة الحماية في محادثات طويلة كان يقوم بدور الترجمة فيها قدور بن غبريط الذي كان يحظى بثقة السلطان. غير أن جلالته لم يقتنع بنظيرة الحماية وعارض بشدة، بل هدد بالاستقالة أمام إصرار السفير الفرنسي على إقناعه بوجهة النظر الفرنسية. وأمام هذا الموقف ندرك قسوة الإكراه الذي مارسته الديبلوماسية الفرنسية على مولاي عبد الحفيظ معززة بالقوة العسكرية المرابطة في فاس. إيان (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@إيان: The source is simply saying that he was the interpreter, where did you get the rest from? M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: If you examine the final page of this document, you'll find Abdelqader Benghabrit's signature certifying the translation: File:Traité relatif à l'organisation du protectorat français dans l'empire chérifien TRA19120019 001 - France Maroc.pdf إيان (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@إيان: That's WP:OR. Where did you get the part about him translating the document in Arabic from? M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I mean... it's right there in black and white. Here's an article that states that he was France's translator in Morocco. إيان (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@إيان: That he was a translator is one thing, but that you attribute Abdelqader then translated the Treaty of Fes into Arabic and signed it as well to a source that does not support the statement is something else (called source misrepresentation). I will be removing the statement and I will ask you to refrain from doing so in the future. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I'll just reword it to be more technically compliant. إيان (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@إيان:The source says that he interpreted the negotiations between Sultan Abd al-Hafid of Morocco and the French diplomat Eugène Regnault. That's what's already in the article, so just leave it at that and please avoid misrepresenting the sources as you did. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: It says in the source "أوفدت السفير (يوجين رينو) لمحاولة إقناع السلطان بفكرة معاهدة الحماية في محادثات طويلة كان يقوم بدور الترجمة فيها قدور بن غبريط" or "The diplomat was sent to try to convince the sultan of the idea of the protectorate in long talks in which Kaddour Benghabrit served in the role of translator." The Treaty of Fes was created in these talks. What I wrote is not a misrepresentation of the source. إيان (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Also, the material you kept has 0 citations. :( إيان (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I gave you the primary source just so you could see for yourself. Please don't mischaracterize my good faith contributions. إيان (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The source says that he was the interpreter, not the translator, and besides, there is nothing in that source that supports what you added to the article. All I know is that you misrepresented the source and that's all I'm stating while asking you not to do it again (without judgement). M.Bitton (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent the source. The source does not specify that he was just an interpreter. In Arabic مترجم is "interpreter" and "translator." I applied deductive reasoning with the facts that a) Benghabrit was the translator at the meetings and b) the Treaty of Fes was an outcome of the meetings. إيان (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Call what you want, the end result is a source misrepresentation. M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Have a look at this source which shows the dangers of your baseless interpolations. On March 24, Henri Regnauft, the French minister at Tangier arrived at Fez, fresh from lengthy consultations in Paris. In his baggage was the protectorate Treaty. Immediately upon his arrival Regnault closeted himself with the sultan. With the assistance of Gaillard and Ben Ghabrit, he was able to induce Abd al-Hafiz to sign the treaty without modification. M.Bitton (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

In what way is this contradictory to the information that I added? إيان (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Taking everything you said and desperately tried to include so far and in light of this important source, I'd say it's time you left this article alone and started dealing with the WP:OR that you added to the Fes treaty M.Bitton (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: What do you mean? I don't think you're right about this. I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia here. I think I would like to open a request for comment. إيان (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: "On March 24, Henri Regnauft, the French minister at Tangier arrived at Fez, fresh from lengthy consultations in Paris. In his baggage was the protectorate Treaty. Immediately upon his arrival Regnault closeted himself with the sultan. With the assistance of Gaillard and Ben Ghabrit, he was able to induce Abd al-Hafiz to sign the treaty without modification." Is the figure in question Eugène Regnault or Henri Regnault? إيان (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Reinstated my edits as I found a source. "ترجم هذا النص قدور بن غبريط، صاحب الأدوار المتعددة من مستشار سلطاني ورجمان ومكلف بالبرتوكول" إيان (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the second source that you misrepresent to push your POV. The source in question, an unsigned paragraph in a questionable site called zamane, does not state that he translated the treaty, instead it claims that:

The French text of the Protectorate Treaty appears to be the only existing text dating back to 1912, later translated by historians and politicians. This is obviously utter nonsense since the treaty held in the French archives (the very treaty that you used to base your OR on) is in both languages.

There here is an old Arabic text as old as the treaty itself which was translated by Kaddour ben Ghabrit, but we do not know if it is An official Arabic version of the treaty. In other words, this is a baseless speculation, which when coupled with the above nonsense, makes the source and its content even more irrelevant.

The two important details to note here are:

1. Nowhere in this questionable source does it say that the treaty signed on the 30 of March 1912 was translated by Kaddour Benghabrit.
2. While the source says that the letter was published in "History of Morocco : a work of synthesis and update", you added that source to the article (first in English and then in Arabic[1]) to make it look as though your POV is supported by two sources.

Another thing worth mentioning at this stage: 1) Maghrebhistory.com, even if it wasn't misrepresented, would still be considered as an unreliable source that should not be used for anything, least of all for a historical subject that is widely covered. We already have a reliable source stating that Benghabrit was the diplomatic interpreter. 2) The other stuff about how long it took to sign the treaty and the image of treaty belong in the treaty article and not in this one, which is primarily about Benghabrit and his life. You already added an image of him and the Sultan, which frankly does not add any value to the article, so please stop. You started a Rfc, now give the others a chance to share their thoughts. M.Bitton (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"This is the second source that you misrepresent to push your POV."

That's your opinion. What exactly, in your view, is my POV? That Abdelqader Benghabrit certified the Arabic translation of the Treaty of Fes with his signature, is not a matter of opinion; it's an objective, empirical fact, and it’s clearly visible in page 8 of the PDF of the treaty. When I mentioned this, you accused me of WP:OR, but as it's not interpretation it's fine per WP:PRIMARY. Seeing the signature of Benghabrit, who is documented to have been present, on the treaty and saying that Benghabrit signed the treaty isn’t “interpretation” and therefore doesn’t constitute OR. It’s also fine to cite the primary source document for that. WP:PRIMARY

Also, the Zamane source literally says that Kaddour translated the treaty.

"The source in question, an unsigned paragraph in a questionable site called zamane, does not state that he translated the treaty, instead it claims that:"

What exactly makes you think it’s questionable? For your information, Zamane is a highly reputable monthly history magazine to which Moroccan as well as international professors and researchers contribute. The source I cited is a free online snippet from issue 13, published November 2014.

“Nowhere in this questionable source does it say that the treaty signed on the 30 of March 1912 was translated by Kaddour Benghabrit.”

This information is right in the treaty. If you have a hard time with the Maghrebi script, it says:

وبمقتضى ما سطر أعلاه حرر الفريقان هذا الوفق وختما عليه بختمهما بعاصمة فاس يوم الثلاثين مارس سنة 1912 الموافق حادي عشر ربيع الثاني عام 1330 عبد الحفيظ له الله

يشهد الواضعان خط يدهما أسفله صحة التعريب أعلاه و مطابقته للنص الفرنساوي حرفا حرفا كما يشهدان بإصلاح التاريخ

While the source says that the letter was published in "History of Morocco : a work of synthesis and update", you added that source to the article (first in English and then in Arabic[2]) to make it look as though your POV is supported by two sources.

Assume good faith. Zamane is where it says Benghabrit translated it. The Arabic version of “History of Morocco : a work of synthesis and update” is where the page of the treaty was published.

"The other stuff about how long it took to sign the treaty and the image of treaty belong in the treaty article and not in this one, which is primarily about Benghabrit and his life."

You're right about the how long the negotiations lasted; this is something we could have discussed and removed through consensus. However, the image of Benghabrit's signature on the Treaty of Fes is important as it illustrates his involvement.

"You already added an image of him and the Sultan, which frankly does not add any value to the article, so please stop."

What? How? In what way is this image not a valuable addition that illustrates Kaddour's role in the colonial Makhzen?

"You started a Rfc, now give the others a chance to share their thoughts."

They’re taking their time to comment and in the meantime you’ve taken it upon yourself to act as if you were the proprietor of this article; it doesn’t belong to you. You're telling me to stop when I have relevant, valid, cited content to contribute to the encyclopedia. You’re making me jump through all these hoops to keep very important and relative content on the page, while leaving uncited material as it is. Kaddour had a massive role in the Treaty of Fes, Moroccan history, and the colonial Makhzen, and that content is not in this article. I’m trying to improve that content despite the scarcity of sources, and you’re impeding me from doing that. إيان (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are now changing your interpretation of the primary source from he signed the treaty, that you included in the article, to he certified the Arabic translation of the Treaty of Fes with his signature. Not really surprising since it's all OR anyway. I also noticed that you drew various conclusions (about the writing styles) from the treaty that you included in the article.[3] Those need to be removed from the article. Please read WP:OR and pay particular attention to the part that says: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

The zamane source, regardless of its merit: 1) starts by claiming that the Arabic version of the treaty did not exist when the treaty was signed, essentially questioning the authenticity of the bilingual treaty that is held in the French archives, the very treaty that you used to base your OR on. The fact that you're willing to overlook this speaks for itself. 2) It then goes on to state that there is an old Arabic text as old as the treaty itself while specifying, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the treaty. This is another bit of information that you're conveniently overlooking. 3) "History of Morocco : a work of synthesis and update" is where this found document, not the treaty, is supposed to have been published. You added this source to a statement that this specific document does not support. 4) Nowhere in this source does it say that the treaty signed on the 30 of March 1912 was translated by Kaddour Benghabrit, and nor should it (per note 1).

They're taking their time to comment. It's their prerogative. You chose the Rfc route, now let it run its course.

And just so we're clear, the disagreement is first and foremost about your misrepresentation of the sources and your OR. M.Bitton (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

“I see that you are now changing your interpretation of the primary source … not really surprising since it's all OR anyway.”

First of all, the condescending tone is not necessary (Wikipedia:5P4) ... but yes, as you have argued (with valid concerns) that there was something wrong with the way I first tried to do it, I am trying to fix it so that we can agree on something that is suitable. This is working toward consensus; this is how we as editors can work together to improve Wikipedia.

“I also noticed that you drew various conclusions (about the writing styles) from the treaty that you included in the article.”

I consulted a specialist trained in Maghrebi script, who confirmed that it was an improvised Maghrebi mujawhar script. If this ad-hoc approach makes you uncomfortable with the word mujawhar, it can be removed. However, that the Arabic text is written in Maghrebi script is obvious from its provenance and style, with ف dotted beneath and ق dotted once above. (WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue)

"The zamane source, regardless of its merit: 1) starts by claiming that the Arabic version of the treaty did not exist when the treaty was signed, essentially questioning the authenticity of the bilingual treaty that is held in the French archives, the very treaty that you used to base your OR on. The fact that you're willing to overlook this speaks for itself."

Yes, I am not surprised by the confusion. When a colleague in the Wikimedia Morocco User Group found the document on the server of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and introduced it to our group, it was completely new for all members, who are well-read people who grew up in Morocco with the impression that the Treaty of Fes had originally only been written in French. In fact, many details of the protectorate period are not covered sufficiently, or are obscured or censored, and gaining access to historical documents can be a byzantine process for different reasons, but I digress. For more, please see this essay about Wikipedia's systemic bias as a result of scarcity of or misrepresentation in external sources.

"2) It then goes on to state that there is an old Arabic text as old as the treaty itself while specifying, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the treaty. This is another bit of information that you're conveniently overlooking."

What can be gleaned from the Zamane source is that Benghabrit in fact translated the Treaty of Fes, whether or not the Zamane source is able to confirm if it was an official translation.

"3) "History of Morocco : a work of synthesis and update" is where this found document, not the treaty, is supposed to have been published. You added this source to a statement that this specific document does not support."

A PDF of Tariikh al-Maghreb: Tahyiin wa Tarkiib is available here. On page 526 of this book (page 545 of the PDF), you will find printed a page identical to page 8 of the Treaty of Fes from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Servers. They are one and the same.

This is the very page featuring Benghabrit's signature, from which I created the image that I added and that you removed.

"4) Nowhere in this source does it say that the treaty signed on the 30 of March 1912 was translated by Kaddour Benghabrit, and nor should it (per note 1)."

This document from the server of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs—as proven above to be the translation mentioned in the Zamane source and printed in Tariikh al-Maghreb—is dated 11 Rabi' al-Thani of the year 1330 of the Hijra, which corresponds to March 30, 1912.

So, in summary:

• Da’wat al-Haqq: Benghabrit was present in the negotiations in the capacity of translator/interpreter
• Zamane: He translated the treaty at the time of its signing, though it might not be an official copy
• Tariikh al-Maghreb: This is the source Zamane cited, with the page of the translated treaty with Benghabrit's signature
• Treaty of Fes: This is the official document from the server of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the final page is identical to the page printed in Tariikh al-Maghreb

"And just so we're clear, the disagreement is first and foremost about your misrepresentation of the sources and your OR."

In fact, this discussion began when you reverted my contribution in which I added this information to the introduction. You claimed: "He's not notable for that."

Please notice that the word notable, meaning "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable" is not equivalent to noted, which means "well known; famous.", so whether or not he is widely recognized for it is not of consequence. His major role in the Treaty of Fes, perhaps the most important piece of legislation in modern Moroccan history, is of great consequence and notability.

For me, the disagreement is first and foremost about the content. As it was, and as it is again after your reverts, this article focuses primarily on the significance of Benghabrit to the West, in that it discusses his activities in Paris and during WWII at length, and only touches on his role in Morocco, and therefore does not represent a global perspective. (Wikipedia:GLOBAL)

With all this said, thank you for your diligence and thoroughness with this, and for your enduring consideration. إيان (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing condescending about stating a fact. You changed your interpretation of the primary source from he signed the treaty, the OR that you included in the article, to he certified the Arabic translation of the Treaty of Fes with his signature (another OR). And contrary to what you seem to think, consensus can only be reached while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The stuff that you included in the treaty article[4] is both OR and WP:UNDUE POV.

The story of the Wikimedia Morocco User Group does not address what I said: The zamane source, regardless of its merit: 1) starts by claiming that the Arabic version of the treaty did not exist when the treaty was signed, essentially questioning the authenticity of the bilingual treaty that is held in the French archives, the very treaty that you used to base your OR on. The fact that you're willing to overlook this speaks for itself. This has nothing to do with WP:BIAS.

What can be gleaned from the Zamane source.. The Zamane source claims, amongst other things, that there is an old Arabic text as old as the treaty itself while specifying, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the treaty.

On page 526 of the book, there is a copy of the bilingual treaty (the one hosted in the French archives). The one that the Zamane source claims did not exist.

Da’wat al-Haqq: Benghabrit was present in the negotiations in the capacity of translator/interpreter. We've been through this. Benghabrit was employed by the French as a diplomatic interpreter, they more than anyone know in what capacity.

Zamane: He translated the treaty at the time of its signing, though it might not be an official copy. That's not what the Zamane source says (see above).

Tariikh al-Maghreb: This is the source Zamane cited, with the page of the translated treaty with Benghabrit's signature. 1) No, this is not the source that the Zamane source cited. This is a copy of the bilingual treaty that the Zamane source claims did not exist at the time of the signing. 2) The signature interpretation is OR.

Treaty of Fes: This is the official document from the server of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the final page is identical to the page printed in Tariikh al-Maghreb. What does this particular source (Tariikh al-Maghreb) say about it?

I stand by what I said: the disagreement is first and foremost about your misrepresentation of the sources and your OR. The rest can be discussed later. M.Bitton (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi, إيان. I would like to provide context to this post by M.Bitton: "In his baggage was the protectorate Treaty. Immediately upon his arrival Regnault closeted himself with the sultan. With the assistance of Gaillard and Ben Ghabrit, he was able to induce Abd al-Hafiz to sign the treaty without modification."

Based on the cited source (Burke), this incident transpired in the winter of 1911-1912 (p. 180). However, this same source cited a previous bout of negotiation where Ben Ghabrit took a more important role. To quote: "In order to facilitate the signing of the agreement the French legation decided to send Kaddour Ben Ghabrit secretly to Fez... His persuasive qualities were very soon turned to advantage. After being closeted with Abd al-Hafiz on April 7 for most of the day, Ben Ghabrit finally managed to convince him of the need to sign the financial accord along with the covering letters, and to agree to apply the tartib (under French supervision) as soon as the rebellion was suppressed" (Burke, p.168). Maybe this can help clarify Ben Ghabrit's role. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Darwin Naz Hello, thank you for your comment. Yes, this source and other sources affirm that Ben Ghabrit played a major role in the Treaty of Fes, and his signature on the treaty is undeniable. That he actually translated it might have been too tenuous a conclusion to draw given the resources available at this time, but this information helps to frame how he was otherwise involved. Thank you. إيان (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This disagreement is not about his role, it's about the misrepresentation of the sources, the OR and, lately, the mistranslation of the sources. I don't know about you, but I see no point in talking about anything else if the principles upon which the WP project is built (trust, etc.) are being trampled on before my eyes. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is explicitly about the subject’s role in the Treaty of Fes. As for your allegations and the principles of Wikipedia, please remember WP:5P4 and WP:5P5, and remember that I am your colleague with whom you are working to improve the encyclopedia, not an adversary you have to try to humiliate. إيان (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Treaty of Fes

Hey @M.Bitton:, my source was cited. Please discuss here. إيان (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@إيان: I asked you a question (see above) and I'm still waiting for a response. M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment on role in Treaty of Fes

What level of detail can be supported about Benghabrit's involvement in the Treaty of Fes? Sources:

• Da’wat al-Haqq
• Zamane
• Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis) (page 526)
• Treaty of Fes
• l'Opinion
• Fikrat ad-Dustūr fi l-Maghrib

إيان (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Original (poorly phrased) RfC summary

Hello, I'm in a disagreement with @M.Bitton: about how Si Kaddour Benghabrit's role in the Treaty of Fes should be covered. I've cited my sources, but I've been accused of WP:OR and misrepresenting a source, and I don't think those are fair accusations. I cleaned up my contributions in this edit to make them as technically compliant as possible, but @M.Bitton: still reverted it. We've been discussing it here: Please share your input. Some Arabic might be required. Thank you. إيان (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Please note: 1) The editor who started this request has been caught misrepresenting a source (falsely attributing to an Arabic source that Benghabrit translated and then signed the treaty). 2) The part about Benghabrit's role as an interpreter is already covered in the article. M.Bitton (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Thank you. As you'll notice, I mentioned that you accused me of that in the summary. Please note that we discussed this here. I said "I didn't misrepresent the source. The source does not specify that he was just an interpreter. In Arabic مترجم is "interpreter" and "translator." I applied deductive reasoning with the facts that a) Benghabrit was the translator at the meetings and b) the Treaty of Fes was an outcome of the meetings." إيان (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Source annotations prepared by إيان

My sources, in case they help clarify my point: * Da’wat al-Haqq: "لكن الديبلوماسية الفرنسية استغلت ظروف تحول قيادة الجيش الفرنسي في فاس من وضعية التعاون العسكري إلى وضعية الإرهاب ومحاصرة السلطان، فأوفدت السفير (يوجين رينو) لمحاولة إقناع السلطان بفكرة معاهدة الحماية في محادثات طويلة كان يقوم بدور الترجمة فيها قدور بن غبريط الذي كان يحظى بثقة السلطان. "But the French diplomacy took advantage of the circumstances of the transformation of the French army leadership in Fez from a position of military cooperation to a position of intimidation and siege around the Sultan. It sent Ambassador Eugene Regnault to try to convince the Sultan of the idea of a treaty of protection in long talks in which Kaddour Benghabrit—who had the trust of the Sultan–was playing the role of translator." * Zamane: "عندما وقع المغرب معاهدة الحماية في 30 مارس 1912، نشر نصها باللغة الفرنسية في العدد الأول من الجريدة الرسمية المغربية بتاريخ 1 نونبر 1912. لم تكن هناك بعد جريدة رسمية باللغة العربية، إذ لم تبدأ في الصدور إلا في فاتح فبراير من السنة الموالية. ومنذ ذلك التاريخ، احتفظ التاريخ بالنص الفرنسي لمعاهدة الحماية، وبدا وكأنه النص الوحيد الموجود، وصدرت له ترجمات عديدة فيما في كتابات المؤرخين والسياسيين. رغم ذلك، فإن هناك نصا معربا قديما بقدم المعاهدة نفسها، لكننا لا نعلم إذا ما كان نسخة عربية رسمية للمعاهدة. ترجم هذا النص قدور بن غبريط، صاحب الأدوار المتعددة من مستشار سلطاني وترجمان ومكلف بالبرتوكول، وقنصل شرفي لفرنسا. ولم يتم الاكتفاء بهذه الترجمة بل صادق عليها «بلان»، نائب القنصل الفرنسي، والترجمان الأول المفوض في المفوضية الفرنسية بطنجة. وتوجد نسخة هذه الترجمة اليوم ضمن أرشيف مديرية الوثائق الملكية بالرباط، وقد نشر نصها في الكتاب الصادر عن المعهد الملكي للبحث في تاريخ المغرب: «تاريخ المغرب: تحيين وتركيب». " Initial translation "When Morocco signed the Treaty of the Protectorate on March 30, 1912, its text was published in French in the first issue of the Moroccan Official Gazette on 1 November 1912. There was no official Arabic-language newspaper yet, as publishing in Arabic only began on February 1st of the following year. Since then, history has retained the French text of the Treaty of the Protectorate, which appeared to be the only one available, and numerous translations by historians and politicians have been published. However, there is an old text of the treaty, as old as the treaty itself, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the Treaty. This text was translated by Kaddour Ben Ghabrit, a sultan's advisor, translator, protocol-incharge, and honorary consul of France. This translation was not the sole document of the treaty, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul, the first commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier. The copy of this translation is now in the archives of the Directorate of Royal Documents in Rabat, and was published in the book of the Royal Institute for Research: Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis)." Revised translation: When Morocco signed the Treaty of the Protectorate on March 30, 1912, its text was published in French in the first issue of the Moroccan Official Gazette on 1 November 1912. There was no official Arabic-language newspaper yet, as its publishing in Arabic only began on February 1st of the following year. Since then, history has retained the French text of the Treaty of the Protectorate, and it appeared as though it were the only text available, and numerous translations by historians and politicians [based on the French text] have been published. However, there is an old Arabic text of the treaty, as old as the treaty itself, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the Treaty. This text was translated by Kaddour Ben Ghabrit, a sultan's advisor, translator/interpreter, protocol-incharge, and honorary consul of France. This translation was not taken as comprehensive, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul "Blanc", the chief interpreter/translator commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier. The copy of this translation is now in the archives of the Directorate of Royal Documents in Rabat, and was published in the book of the Royal Institute for Research: Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis). In other words, he translated the treaty at the time of its signing, though it might not be an official copy. * Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis): This is the source Zamane cited at the end, with the page of the translated treaty with Benghabrit's signature appearing on page 526 (page 545 of the PDF) * Treaty of Fes This is the official document from the server of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the final page is identical to the page printed in Tariikh al-Maghreb. If features Benghabrit's signature and the text: يشهد الواضعان خط يدهما أسفله صحة التعريب أعلاه و مطابقته للنص الفرنساوي حرفاحرفا كما يشهدان بإصلاح التاريخ "The signatories below bear witness to the authenticity of the Arabization above and its conformity to the French text letters for letter, as they bear witness to the correctness of the date (March 30, 1912)" According to WP:TRANSCRIPTION translations and transcription are not considered OR, and in the spirit of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, saying that his signature is there under this text shouldn't count as an "interpretation" of the primary source document. * l'Opinion An article by the Moroccan historian Abderrahim Ouardighi in L'Opinion reviewing the book Kaddour Benghabrit : Un Maghrébin hors du commun by Hamza Ben Driss Ottmani. Ouardighi writes: "En sa qualité d'agent interprète, maniant parfaitement les langues française et arabe, il traduisit en 1912 le texte du traité de protectorat sur le Maroc." Initial translation "In his capacity as an interpreter, with a perfect grasp of French and Arabic, he translated the text of the treaty of the protectorate over Morocco." إيان (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Revised translation: "In his capacity as an interpreter, with a perfect grasp of French and Arabic, he translated in 1912 the text of the treaty of the protectorate over Morocco." * Fikrat ad-Dustūr fi l-Maghrib Footnote on page 64: "عرب هذه املعاهدة كل من عبد القادر بن غربيط ولوسيان لويس بْلان "This treaty was translated by Abd al-Qader Ben Ghabrit and Lucian Louis Blanc." إيان (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

إيان (talk) 04:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Before addressing your annotations, let me start by pointing out the obvious mistranslation of the unreliable source "zamane".

"ولم يتم الاكتفاء بهذه الترجمة بل صادق عليها «بلان»، نائب القنصل الفرنسي، والترجمان الأول المفوض في المفوضية الفرنسية بطنجة" does not translate into This translation was not the sole document of the treaty, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul, the first commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier.

I suggest you have another go as translating it, making sure to stick to exactly what it says, without omitting anything. Once done, strike-through the mistranslation (do not simply replace it). M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

M.BittonSorry for my mistake. Before I update the translation, would you say that this is correct?

"This translation was not the sole document of the treaty, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul "Blanc"[?] , the chief interpreter/translator commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier."

As for your assertion that Zamane is not a reliable source, please see what Susan Gilson Miller, an authority on modern Moroccan history, has to say about the history magazine: https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/33789.

Regards, إيان (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The first part is wrong: "ولم يتم الاكتفاء" is usually followed by something (an action in this case) and is used to state that something (the action) is/was not enough. Let me stress that since this is your source, I expect you to take however long necessary to translate it properly, applying the same skills and principles that you applied to the rest, in order to take full responsibility for the translation.

I don't care about who said what about the zamane source since: 1) each source (the written piece) is judged on its own merit. 2) any source that claims that the bilingual treaty did not exist in at the time of the signing is either to be considered as a piece of garbage that should be ignored or a highly reliable source that should annul the very existence of the treaty that you're interpreting at will. In other words, you can't use two contradictory sources. But, don't worry, I will summarize all of this when I'll address your annotations.

Incidentally, why are you translating the word "ترجمان" as translator when referring to Benghabrit and interpreter/translator when referring to the other person whose name you're guessing? It's the same word. M.Bitton (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

2) any source that claims that the bilingual treaty did not exist in at the time of the signing is either to be considered as a piece of garbage that should be ignored or a highly reliable source that should annul the very existence of the treaty that you're interpreting at will.

Would you please specify where in the text it "claims that the bilingual treaty did not exist in at the time of the signing"?

"ولم يتم الاكتفاء" is usually followed by something (an action in this case) and is used to state that something (the action) is/was not enough."

The main dictionary entry for the verb اكتفى is اكْتَفَى بالشيء: استغنى به وقَنِعَ;—in line with what you said, the verb means "to take something enough and be satisfied with it," or to take something as comprehensive. In context, the idea is that the translation was not taken as enough, was not taken as comprehensive—i.e. there was a French text too.

Incidentally, why are you translating the word "ترجمان" as translator when referring to Benghabrit and interpreter/translator when referring to the other person whose name you're guessing? It's the same word.

مترجم and ترجمان and ترجمة are different words that could each be related to translation and/or interpretation, depending on the context.

... applying the same skills and principles that you applied to the rest, in order to take full responsibility for the translation

If this is intended as a compliment, thank you.

Tell me what you think of this: "This translation was not taken as comprehensive, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul "Blanc"[?], the chief interpreter/translator commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier."

PS: The endorsement of the vice-consul ("بلان"/Blanc [?]) can be seen on the final page of the Treaty of Fes, beneath those of Ben Ghabrit and Abdelhafid endorsing the Arabic translation. إيان (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

M.Bitton: I found another one. In a 2013 article in L'Opinion, the Moroccan historian Abderrahim Ouardighi wrote, in a review of Kaddour Benghabrit : Un Maghrébin hors du commun by Hamza Ben Driss Ottmani: "En sa qualité d'agent interprète, maniant parfaitement les langues française et arabe, il traduisit en 1912 le texte du traité de protectorat sur le Maroc." ("In his capacity as an interpreter, with a perfect grasp of French and Arabic, he translated the text of the treaty of the protectorate over Morocco.") إيان (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There will be no going around in circles. The concern of the contradictory sources was raised 10 days ago, with a further explanation given 9 days ago. Here's your response to it (starting with Yes, I am not surprised..).

I'm talking about a single word ("ترجمان"), used twice in the text (pre-fixed once with the Arabic definite article as "الترجمان"). Why are you translating the word as "translator" when referring to Benghabrit and "interpreter/translator" when referring to the other person whose name you're guessing? Since you say that context matters, what part of the text led you doubt the profession of the second person to the point that you omitted it altogether from your mistranslation?

thank you You're welcome. I don't doubt your translation skills, which makes you mistranslation of the text all the more "surprising".

I found another one This is the only source that you haven't misrepresented, mistranslated or used to base your OR on. Coincidentally, it also happens to be the only non Arabic source.

For the rest, I suggest you re-read my previous comment. M.Bitton (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Upon reëxamination, it appears you may have unintentionally misrepresented the source. You presented the Zamane source as saying: The French text of the Protectorate Treaty appears to be the only existing text dating back to 1912, later translated by historians and politicians. It does not say this. I think the piece that confused you was وبدا وكأنه النص الوحيد الموجود (it appeared as though it were the only text available). What the Zamane source says is:

When Morocco signed the Treaty of the Protectorate on March 30, 1912, its text was published in French in the first issue of the Moroccan Official Gazette on 1 November 1912. There was no official Arabic-language newspaper yet, as publishing in Arabic only began on February 1st of the following year. Since then, history has retained the French text of the Treaty of the Protectorate, and it appeared as though it were the only text available, and numerous translations by historians and politicians have been published. However, there is an old Arabic text of the treaty, as old as the treaty itself, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the Treaty. This text was translated by Kaddour Ben Ghabrit, a sultan's advisor, translator/interpreter, protocol-incharge, and honorary consul of France. This translation was not the sole document of the treaty, but it was endorsed by the French Vice-Consul, the first commissioner of the French Legation in Tangier. The copy of this translation is now in the archives of the Directorate of Royal Documents in Rabat, and was published in the book of the Royal Institute for Research: Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis).
— Zamane

In other words, there is an Arabic translation that is at least as old as the Treaty, but the Zamane source was unable to confirm the "officialness" of the translated document, a copy of which was published [on page 526] in the book of the Royal Institute for Research: Tārikh al-Maghrib: Taḥyīn wa-Tarkīb (The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis), labeled معاهدة الحماية بفاس (الترجمة العربية) 1912 (Treaty of the Protectorate in Fes, Arabic translation 1912), which is the same document as the that of the French Foreign Ministry.

As for “ترجمان,” I suppose I should have also used interpreter/translator in both situations, but you are again choosing not to assume good faith on my behalf, insinuating with your snide commentary that I was willfully deceitful (again, WP:5P4). The omission was not intentional. I get lost in all this back and forth, especially forced to deal with code (which I find very disorienting) in the talk page. What I suspect happened is that the Bing translation, which I used as a base to modify, did this to the sentence in question from the Zamane source:

“This translation was not satisfied with this translation, but was endorsed by Blanc, the French Vice Consul, and the first commissioner of the French Commission in Tangier.“ (Bing translation)

As you can see, the interpreter/translator aspect of the vice-consul’s role got jumbled up, so I missed it.

Also, I also asked you about the incorrect name of the French minister in Tangier in the Burke source that you seem to consider superior to other sources, and you did not respond. I also asked you how my sources contradicted or were irreconcilable with the Burke source, and you did not respond. You also alleged that the photo that I added of Ben Ghabrit with al-Moqri, Abdelhafid, and French officials frankly does not add any value to the article and I asked you to substantiate your claim, but you haven’t. I invite you to clarify these points if you would like to do so.

Otherwise, in light of these resources can I instate my edit as proposed below, or do you still find reason to believe that the subject did not translate the Treaty of Fes and certify the correctness of the Arabic text with his signature? إيان (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring what I said about "there will be no going around in circles" and starting another round is a clear sign that we have nothing more to say to each other.

I will try to make some time this weekend to concisely address all the sources and the issues (to make it easier for the readers). In the meantime, questions and/or requests for clarification from uninvolved editors are more than welcome. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi M.Bitton, I've found another source. This one says he and بلان translated it. The footnote on page 64 says: "عرب هذه المعاهدة كل من عبد القادر بن غربيط ولوسيان لويس بْلان" or "This treaty was translated by Abd al-Qader Ben Ghabrit and Lucian Louis Blanc." It seems this Louis Blanc is this person, but that's probably another tenacious conclusion/OR so in my proposed edit I've just written that Benghabrit "co-translated" the treaty.

I've fixed edited the translation. Sorry for the delay. Please comment on my annotations if you would still like to. If you are not convinced that these sources support my proposed edit, which I've amended in light of this newest source, could we invite a trusted editor of Morocco-related topics such as TheseusHeL1 to comment? إيان (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I was willing to let the matter rest, but since the editor insists, here's my answer to their source annotations:

• Da’wat al-Haqq:

.. the French diplomacy .. sent Ambassador (Eugene Regnault) to try to convince the Sultan of the idea of a treaty of protection in long talks in which Kaddour Benghabrit, who had the trust of the Sultan, was playing the role of translator."

This is the first source that they misrepresented to support the following statement: Abdelqader then translated the Treaty of Fes, which established the French protectorate in Morocco, into Arabic and signed it as well.

1.  Please note The discrepancy between what the source says and what they wrote is blindingly obvious.

2. The last part of the source should be translated as "interpreter" and not "translator" since the latter play no role in long talks. This is basic common sense that they kept ignoring.

3. When I tried to explain to them the dangers of their so-called deductive reasoning by giving them a source stating that the consul arrived with the treaty in his baggage, they completely missed the point and started splitting hair and questioning the source, as if it's difficult to find another one stating the exact same thing ("Le 24 mars, le ministre français à Tanger Eugène Regnault, arrive à Fès, porteur du traité de protectorat à présenter à la signature de Moulay Abd al-Hafid").

4. They denied any wrongdoing and still do.

• Zamane:

Since then [i.e. since 1912], history has retained the French text of the Treaty of the Protectorate, and it appeared as though it were the only text available, and numerous translations by historians and politicians [based on the French text] have been published. However, there is an old Arabic text of the treaty, as old as the treaty itself, but we do not know if it is an official Arabic version of the Treaty.

The is the second source that they misrepresented to support this statement: These negotiations culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Fes, which Abdelqader Benghabrit translated into Arabic.

1.  Please note Nowhere in this questionable source does it say that the treaty signed on the 30 of March 1912 was translated by Kaddour Benghabrit.

2. The claim by the source that the bilingual treaty did not exist in 1912 is factually incorrect, unless we are to assume that by Since then [i.e. since 1912], history has retained the author is specifically referring to the history of the ignorant and the uneducated.

3. Regardless of how you translate the source, it is crystal clear that whomever wrote it does not know that the official treaty was written in both languages.

4. I explained this to them, and here's their response to it (starting with Yes, I am not surprised..): They started by acknowledging the ignorance of some people before going off on a tangent and completely ignoring my concerns.

• The History of Morocco: Update and Synthesis

The Treaty of Fes, 1912 (Arabic translation)

This is the source that they added to this statement to make it look as though it's supported by 2 sources: These negotiations culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Fes, which Abdelqader Benghabrit translated into Arabic.

1.  Please note All this source is showing is a picture of the last page of the treaty with the above caption under it.

2. Nowhere in this source does it say that the treaty signed on the 30 of March 1912 was translated by Kaddour Benghabrit or that the picture is of anything other than the bilingual treaty itself (the one held in the French archives).

• Treaty of Fes

This is the primary source that they used to base their original research about the signature on.

1. The WP:OR policy is crystal clear: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

2. The WP:TRANSCRIPTION cited by them does not apply to signatures. Benghabrit's signature is not known and Wikipedia's editors are not signature verification experts.

3. The WP:BLUE cited by them doesn't apply to unsourceable content.

4. Sources describing who signed the treaty (Regnault and Abd al-Hafid) can easily be found, yet, not a single one of them mentions either Benghabrit or the other unknown person.

• The latest source is simply making a baseless claim in passing (in a footnote) and giving what looks like an made-up name (Lucien Louis Blanc), a name that isn't mentioned in any other source.

As you can see, the biggest issue here is the misrepresentation of the sources and the OR that they have yet to even acknowledge. All the details are in Talk:Si_Kaddour_Benghabrit#March_2020 section. Questions and/or requests for clarification from uninvolved editors and those who have not have been canvassed (either directly or indirectly) are more than welcome. M.Bitton (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

M.Bitton, would you like to also give your opinion on the l'Opinion source?

Please remember that the RfC is explicitly about Abdelqader Benghabrit's role in the Treaty of Fes. إيان (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In response to Point 1: It's fine to carefully use primary resources WP:USEPRIMARY to make "straightforward, descriptive statements" WP:PRIMARYCARE. It's just a statement that the signature is on the document under text that says the signatory certifies the Arabic translation.

re:Point 2: This signature is also available here and here. إيان (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Also updated the proposed edit in last edit; sorry, forgot to mention it in the description. إيان (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is how I propose that the section should look:

Proposed edit

=== Treaty of Fes === The signature of Abdelqader Ibn Ghabrit certifying the Arabic translation on the Treaty of Fes, signed March 30, 1912. In March 1912, Abdelqader Benghabrit, in his capacity as interpreter at the French Legation in Tangier and as a trusted advisor to Sultan Abdelhafid of Morocco, interpreted negotiations between the sultan and the French diplomat Eugène Regnault at the Royal Palace in Fes. These negotiations culminated in the signing of the Treaty of Fes, which Benghabrit co-translated and which established the French Protectorate in Morocco on March 30. Resident General Hubert Lyautey then rewarded him with a position as head of protocol to the sultan.

إيان (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Images

Hello M.Bitton, regarding this edit, you wrote You already added that image to the Mosque's article and introduced an image of the sultan in this one.. The first image is important because it illustrates the subject's involvement in Moroccan affairs in the period 1907-1912. The Moroccan sultan in that image is Abd al-Hafid of Morocco. The image that you removed illustrated the inauguration of the Grand Mosque of Paris, a major event in the subject's life, and among the crowd is Sultan Yusef of Morocco.

You also wrote: There are other photos of him in the mosque with prominent people such as with Vincent Auriol, Caliph Abdulmejid, Emir Faisal I, etc.. I don't know where these images are. Could you add one that you like? إيان (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. M.Bitton (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2022

@إيان: We've been through this at length, so please don't start again. Hamza Ben Driss Ottmani is not a historian and neither is the person who reviewed his book in an unreliable source (l'opinion). Even if he was, we still wouldn't give so much WP:UNDUE space to his opinion. No need to repeat what was discussed. M.Bitton (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so invested in censoring this information? إيان (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so invested in misrepresenting information (see above discussion) and using the crappiest sources to push POV? M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm dedicated to building and improving this encyclopedia and liberating verifiable information in spite of anyone that finds that inconvenient for whatever reason. إيان (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time entertaining your pathetic insinuations, especially now that you reminded me that you are yet to even acknowledge what you did (for anyone interested, see the above discussion where I explained in details how they misrepresented the sources to push a POV). I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an accusation rooted in an assumption of bad faith that you keep bringing up two years later when I addressed it then. But yes, anyone who is interested can wade through the WP:Wikilawyering and read the conversation, which begins here.

You are more than welcome to leave but I am going to seek input from other editors at the Morocco Wikiproject. إيان (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Your first comment is a testimony to your bad faith assumption. No, you didn't address the fact that you misrepresented the sources, in fact you're still denying the obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)