Talk:Ibn Battuta

Suggested phrasing

Ibn Battuta was a Moroccan scholar, traveler, and explorer who widely travelled the Old World… Yusae (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I find no reason not to change it for that especially due to a similar case in which "Ahmad ibn Abi Jum'ah" is referred to as Algerian SahrawiFDakhla (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Making this change per Yusae's argument and the WP:MOSBIO argument made below. DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @RiadS99, please engage with other editors on the talk page before reverting, thanks. The secondary sources clearly agree on labelling the man Moroccan. I would advise you to refrain from arguing that professional historians are engaging in anachronism by doing so. DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@DiodotusNicator Could you elaborate on which specific point of Yusef's argument you agree? I’d also appreciate it if you could cite the exact passage from MOS:BIO that supports your position.

By this logic, Prophet Muhammad would be Saudi and Abd al-Rahman III would be Spanish. I really doubt you are familiar with the topic. RiadS99 (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

These are very poor counterexamples, and it's ironic that you insinuate I'm unfamiliar with the topic in the same breath. How many academic historians are calling Muhammad a Saudi, and how many are calling al-Rahman "Spanish"? None. Please scroll up or down to read the already-supplied evidence of widespread agreement among English-language scholars in labelling Ibn Battuta as Moroccan. That is the central issue here, so please don't dance around it.

For the specific MOS sections, see MOS:ETHNICITY. Note also that MOS:ETHNICITY links WP:MPN, which states directly: "...we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use." DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned that you agree with Yusae's arguments, right? What exactly are they?

If by your logic Ibn Battuta is Moroccan (setting aside the sources for a moment, as that is a separate case), why wouldn't Abd al-Rahman III be Spanish? It is the exact same process of anachronism. Why wouldn't the Prophet Muhammad be Saudi? It is the same logic: we take a historical person and we retroactively nationalize them, right? RiadS99 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Since you're refusing to 1. read the post directly above this discussion 2. substantively engage with my point (the English-language scholars overwhelmingly refer to this man as Moroccan) or 3. engage with the policies being cited, we are probably at an impasse.

• You mentioned that you agree with Yusef's arguments, right? What exactly are they?

For the second time, please scroll up on this page, literally directly above the section subheading "Suggested phrasing", to read Yusae's post. It's bizarre that you've asked me this question twice - with >7k edits you are surely able to navigate a talk page.

• "If by your logic Ibn Battuta is Moroccan"

No, "my logic" has nothing to do with this - please understand that this discussion is about what appears in reliable secondary sources and has nothing at all to with either of our opinions.

• It is the exact same process of anachronism.

This is a frivolous argument that sidesteps the fact that, unlike the academic historians that have been mentioned, you are not a reliable secondary source. DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I will try to make things simple, assuming you are actually serious and not trying to make this talk go in circles :

• We are talking about the 14th century, right? At that time, Morocco did not exist; it is a modern nation-state. Moroccan is a nationality, and being Moroccan is a modern label. This is a fact that no one can oppose. Now regardless of the sources you presented in other talks (like Britannica, which does not refer to him as Moroccan), even if a text refers to him as Moroccan, it won't be added because context matters, and such a label is clearly anachronistic. Sometimes scholars use modern designations as shorthand because they are academics talking to academics; people who read those academic works understand the nuances. Even then, it is an academic mistake that high-level peer reviewers refuse. Unlike those works, this is an encyclopedia. We need to clearly define things in a neutral (and non-national), encyclopedic way and in their proper context.
• You are misusing and misunderstanding the policies and quoting them here incorrectly. You referred to his ethnicity. If we talk about his ethnicity, he is referred to by his Berber tribe: Luwata (al-Luwati). Moroccan is a nationality, not an ethnicity
• A quick check of the Brill reference shows it refers to him as Moorish. A Princeton-published book refers to his home as the Maghrib. I have no problem sharing other sources, even from Moroccan scholars themselves like Abdelhadi Tazi the editor of his Rihla, to prove this point. However, it hardly seems worth the effort; since this kind of discussion is becoming quite redundant. Competence is also required.
• We can define it as a Muslim traveler from Tangier, or we can use Maghrebi. We cannot use North African because Maghrib is not only a geographical word; it is also a demonym. North Africa holds only a geographical meaning and is a term mainly imposed by colonial France to create a racial separation between what they called White Africa and Black Africa.

I have noticed that there is a kind of weird forcing on this talk page by the same group of users attempting to push a nationalistic POV (the last of whom was blocked). This cannot be natural. Just look at the edit summary. What kind of logic is this? What kind of arguments is he making that you would support him? He has 0 solid arguments. This is not a case-by-case article where we can cherry-pick sources and try to force a non-neutral POV.

Per WP:NPOVHOW : Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.; Moroccan is clearly misleading here.

Rules are above consensus. Per WP:CONLEVEL, a local consensus among a few editors on this talk page cannot override sitewide policies like NPOV and RS. There is no point in debating something that is wrong from the outset. RiadS99 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'm not interested in reading your own personal argument that the academic historians being mentioned are engaging in anachronism. I'm interested in reliable secondary sources. Your argument is additionally factually incorrect from the outset - Yusae above has laid out quite clearly why "Morocco" can not be an anachronism; the term is attested in Western sources from the 12th century, since the Almoravid period. It is beyond ironic that you're accusing professional historians of making "academic mistakes" and linking WP:CIR while completely missing this point.
• I did not "Refer to his ethnicity," I linked MOS:ETHNICITY: "...if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable." This immediately links to WP:MPN, as described above: "...we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use." Please do not accuse me of misunderstanding policies if you are not even willing to read the ones I'm citing to you.
• Linking WP:CIR - another incredibly ironic aspersion considering you appear to be totally unable to substantively engage either my argument or Yusae's above.
• Or we can simply use the demonym used by reliable English-language secondary sources.
• Ending the comment with the implication that I'm pushing a nationalist POV is an interesting choice. Please don't bother responding if you're going to continue to ignore 1. the sources 2. Yusae's argument 3. the policies MOS:ETHNICITY and WP:MPN, especially the latter. DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I find it very strange that you are making the same (demonstrably false) argument as M.Bitton - that being that the term "Morocco" as a geographic label is anachronistic. Additionally, instead of discussing a single point that Yusae raises in the edit summary of the diff you linked or in their post above, you simply dismiss it as "0 solid arguments." and imply that they are "cherry-pick[ing] sources" to "try to force a non-neutral POV." Do you have anything to say about the arguments themselves, or is that it? DiodotusNicator (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Providing more sources to demonstrate that Yusae is correct that English-language scholarship widely uses "Morocco" or "Moroccan".

Sources using "Morocco" as a geographical exonym:

• Britannica: "Ibn Battuta (born February 24, 1304, Tangier, Morocco—died 1368/69 or 1377, Morocco)"
• L.P. Harvey, Ibn Battuta , also uses "Moroccan" as a demonym once
• H.A.R. Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battuta' - this is a landmark 4-volume work published by Cambridge University Press that uses Morocco and Moroccan throughout, I even found specific discussion of contemporary Moroccan Arabic dialect - which I found highly interesting, as it further demonstrates the baselessness of the argument that the term "Morocco" is anachronistic as a demonym/exonym in Ibn Battuta's 14th-century context. Example: "A translator may have to choose between the meaning of a word in standard classical Arabic and its meaning in the Moroccan dialect with which Ibn Battuta must have been familiar." in the foreword to vol 4.

Sources using "Moroccan" as a demonym:

• EBSCO: "Ibn Battūtah was a renowned Moroccan explorer and scholar, born in 1304 in Tangier."
• Ross E. Dunn, The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: The second sentence of the preface is "The world should take note of the septicentenary of this pious and educated Moroccan traveler." .
• David Waines, The Odyssey of Ibn Battuta:
  • p24 "Ibn Battuta also experienced Islam as a minority faith in India...In China, according to the Moroccan traveller..."
  • p26 "Located as it was on the umma’s westernmost fringe, [Ibn Battuta] never rejected his Moroccan homeland but rather viewed it as one of several vital points on the perimeter of that greater formation of the umma that he had witnessed in his lifetime of travel."
• Tim Mackintosh-Smith, Travels with a Tangerine: From Morocco to Turkey in the Footsteps of Islam's Greatest Traveler: "All esoteric stuff; but, I reflected, my own interest in the Crimea – in the visit of a Moroccan who had been here for a few days in 1332 – was no less so." - referring to Ibn Battuta's stop in Crimea in 1332. p313 in my PDF. Work also uses Morocco as an exonym for the region ruled by the (contemporary with Ibn Battuta) Marinids throughout.

DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• MOS:CONTEXTBIO
  • The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable. (For guidance on historic place names versus modern-day one, see WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Use modern names.)
• WP:MPN (the policy linked at the end of CONTEXTBIO)
  • For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important....Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources do the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods. Names have changed both because cities have been formally renamed and because cities have been taken from one state by another; in both cases, however, we are interested in what reliable English-language sources now use.

DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@RiadS99 Above, I've cited a variety of reputable tertiary sources and leading English-lang scholars of Ibn Battuta, along with the relevant policies. If you still don't understand why the use of "Moroccan" is demonstrably not anachronistic, please say so and I can explain it in more detail. DiodotusNicator (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Mr rnddude, please respond here if you have a differing interpretation of these policies, as I think they're worded quite clearly. Let me know if you need me to explain why I believe they apply here. DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

You know Diodotus, when you write L.P. Harvey, Ibn Battuta [1], also uses "Moroccan" as a demonym once [2] and then link to pages that say Your search - [Morocco/Moroccan] - did not match any documents, I develop a serious concern. You are not only claiming that this work uses a term it does not; you are also making a claim about how it uses that term without so much as a snippet view of the text. See below for strike explanation. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude Please strike this, you are incorrect here.

1 page matching Moroccan in this book:

"...that only from personal experience could a Moroccan acquire such a good grasp of the special means of transport...", page 22. DiodotusNicator (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

The link still says for me exactly what I said it does on my main browser. It gives me 0 results for both Morocco and Moroccan. I tried a different web browser and it does now present the above quote. I have not previously encountered this discrepancy before, but I noticed that the url in the two browsers is different: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=7Px_AAAAMAAJ&q=Moroccan&redir_esc=y 0 results & https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=7Px_AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Moroccan 1 result. I re-opened the link above in my main browser and it automatically redirects me to the first link. That explains the discrepancy, but I don't know why it directs me away from what was actually linked. Struck above. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I have now checked some of the other presented sources to confirm the quotes: Gibb*, Casada, Dunn, and Waines. Casada and Dunn (note that there are two prefaces to the linked edition) check out. Gibb does as well, but the quoted text does nothing to establish ibn Battuta's ethnicity/nationality. The work quotes ibn Juzayy's introduction in volume I (p. 1) with a footnote by Gibb establishing ibn Battuta as being descended from the Berber tribe of Lawata, and native of Tangier. *Note, Gibb is translating ibn Battuta's writings: 'The travels of ibn Battuta' is self-authored; the footnotes are Gibbs's. Waines, I cannot confirm either quote, but I do only have a preview of the source and the digitization for it is low quality.

I have also checked the four sources cited in-article and they all support the statement that ibn Battuta is Maghrebi (variant spelling Maghribi occasionally used). The sources cited in-text support that version of the text and so I have restored it. You cannot have a statement in article cited to sources that don't directly and explicitly support the content.

The discussion on how to present the opening sentence should continue here. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• the quoted text does nothing to establish ibn Battuta's ethnicity/nationality.
  • This is completely irrelevant, please read WP:CONTEXTBIO, I even bolded the relevant section above.
• You cannot have a statement in article cited to sources that don't directly and explicitly support the content
  • I am highly interested in how you would explain this point further, given that 2 of the sources directly use "Morocco" as an exonym, and the others sources do not contradict that at all. If the entire block of cites is purely for the term "Maghrebi", and not the whole opening sentence, the cite should be moved.

DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop overquoting and using too many bullet points. Be precise and concise. You are arbitrarily mixing demonyms, place names, ethnicities, exonym, and WP rules to make weak claims appear strong. It's not about the sources. I can search online without keywords like "Ibn Battuta" + "Maghrebi" or "Moorish" and still find other sources calling him Maghrebi, Moorish/Muslim or what ever. You are cherry-picking sources that back your claims while ignoring the whole context, similar articles, and most importantly, the era. We should discuss a very targeted point without having to re-explain the whole history to a user. No one is labeled with a modern nationality in those articles—whether Ibn Khaldoun, Abd al-Mumin ibn Ali, or al-Wansharisi, Ibn Tumart and the list can be long, and if there is any article that use those modern nationalities it should be corrected. It is not case-by-case article.

You have not discovered any new hidden sources. These issues have been debated hundreds of times here and on other wikis. Your arguments are clearly illogical. You take, for example, a source that says "Morocco" (Britannica, the source talks about Tangier and adds Morocco to indicate where the city is situated in today's geography, and even that is wrong; it should be written in present-day Morocco), and then you interpret it here as Moroccan. Britannica, is outdated and carries no weight in this kind of discussions, and you make it seem like a strong argument.

Then you take Ross E. Dunn – the same arguments used by the blocked user before you – and you try to present it as if it is the only source that needs to be accepted. Ross E. Dunn's book was published in 1986, which is 40 years old. Is he the biggest expert on Ibn Battuta's work as you claiming? Is there any scholar survey or something?. His work also would not have seen the light before real experts who first edited and studied the Arabic text and wrote about Ibn Battuta's life, such as Defrémery and Sanguinetti, Abdallah al-Tazi, etc. And how does he title his book? The Adventures of Ibn Battuta: A Muslim Traveler of the 14th Century.

And this same author you are using as reference states, in an Ibn Battuta event in 2005: "So Ibn Battuta really saw himself not as a citizen of a particular country, which is a modern idea, but as a kind of citizen of the Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam. The Dar al-Islam was a complex network of interconnected cities and towns that spanned the hemisphere. It was a land either where Muslims predominated in the population or where they ruled.

You take the manual of style for place-names and try to make it as if it talks about strictly demonyms (In the 14th century, all figures linked themselves to the Maghreb, their tribe, city, madhab, etc. – not to a modern nation that did not exist). There are many inaccuracies in your arguments, and no one is obliged to answer them one by one. It is on you to familiarize yourself and acknowledge your mistakes.

Just when you said, "Morocco has been the standard geographic label for this specific [the word specific itself can't be added here] region since the Almoravid period," I stopped replying because this not serious. It makes no sense. But let's assume you are right for a moment and let's use your way of reasoning. Why then the almoravids are not labeled as Moroccan in any serious sources (by your logic, the Almoravid leader Yahya Ibn Ibrahim would be Mauritanian too)?

You talk as if the modern nation-state of Morocco is the same thing that some European texts referred to as "Morocco/Marrakesh" in medieval times, which is absolutely not true. You don't need to read 100 books to know this. Start with a general history books of the former dynasties of the Maghreb, that would be helpful.

Being Moroccan, Mauritanian, Tunisian, or whatever is a matter of nationality, and these are all modern nation-states. Here, we define things as they are, based on very high reliable sources and within their historical context and independently of each nationalist narrative presented by each country. And most importantly, sources can be discussed, just because a source exists and names someone with a modern nationality (short-hand, etc..) does not mean you are right and everyone else is wrong. Marco Polo is not Italian, nor is Saladin Iraqi or Egyptian.

You came directly to this page (I don't know how) to support a single-account user (8 edits, wrong arguments, medieval geographical sources are not RS) and a sockpuppet. This is clearly strange, and I suspect it is a case of false consensus building.

This is my last reply to you. RiadS99 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is a precise and concise reply: Please explain why you believe both WP:MPN, "Use Modern Names" and WP:CONTEXTBIO do not apply here. I have already addressed most of the arguments you have raised here: for example, the writer of the Britannica entry is an academic historian who has published a biography of Ibn Battuta (meaning he is clearly a subject-matter expert).

Being Moroccan, Mauritanian, Tunisian, or whatever is a matter of nationality

This is not about a nationality, it is about a geographic descriptor. You have quoted an argument I have not made: I have demonstrated that Morocco is very commonly used by high-quality English scholarship as the relevant geographic label for Battuta's temporal context. Again, you are the only person referencing the modern nation-state of Morocco, ethnicity, or nationality. I've mixed exonyms and demonyms as they are both geographic labels.

Then you take Ross E. Dunn – the same arguments used by the blocked user before you – and you try to present it as if it is the only source that needs to be accepted.

I cited four other high-quality English-lang biographers, so no, I don't think I presented Dunn as "the only source that needs to be accepted".

You talk as if the modern nation-state of Morocco is the same thing that some European texts referred to as "Morocco/Marrakesh" in medieval times, which is absolutely not true.

I am not arguing that point. The medieval European texts are referring to the relevant geographic region we are discussing here. This point seems very straightforward to me so I'm unsure how to explain it more clearly - again, it's not about any states, not the realm of the Marinids nor the modern state of Morocco, it's used to refer to the geographic region.DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not about a nationality, it is about a geographic descriptor is patently false. The edit rewrote the opening sentence to Ibn Battuta ... was a Moroccan Muslim traveller, explorer and scholar. Moroccan is not a 'geographic descriptor', a term used in mapping being misapplied here; it is a nationality. Even pretending that the intent was to use a 'geographic descriptor', 'Moroccan' is useless for that purpose as 1) a person can be Moroccan without being born/residing/located in Morocco and 2) a person can be born/reside/located in Morocco without being Moroccan. It thus fails to identify location, which is what a 'geographic descriptor' is supposed to do.

That we are discussing a nationality is equally clear from the CONTEXTBIO guideline being cited which primarily focusses on integrating nationality into the lede. That guideline suggests that omitting nationality is an option in contentious cases. Riad suggested above that [w]e can define [him] as a Muslim traveler from Tangier, or we can use Maghrebi. Its guidance is also quite poor on addressing the all-too-common issue of a person being a national of a nation that has ceased to exist.

The MPN guideline applies to geographical articles as stated in its opening clause: For an article about a place whose name has changed over time.... This is a biographical article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Moroccan, adjective: "of, from or pertaining to Morocco..." I think we can probably reach a compromise with "Morocco" instead, if the adjective form is so objectionable. How about a formulation like "prsent-day Morocco", as Ibn Tumart (which was linked above) uses? Or is the phrase "Morocco" suddenly anachronistic two centuries later?

The opening paragraph should usually provide context for that which made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was such when they became notable. I'm not sure how to continue this discussion if we read this differently. I'm not interested in discussing nationality, and above, I have cited scholars referring to "where Ibn Battuta was a national or permanent resident when he became notable". I.e. the physical place - many of the sources refer to "Morocco" throughout their text. DiodotusNicator (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

If you are proposing to add ... from Tangier (present-day Morocco) or equivalent to the sentence, I don't have an objection. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@DiodotusNicator I have no objection to using "present-day Morocco" as a geographic reference. There's a big difference between where a place is today and who a person was back then. I myself use present-day [name of the country] all the time in all the articles I have created (search present-day) or edited, and that is not anachronistic. In fact, that is the strictly correct way to refer to a place when a country did not exist at the time of an event or biography.

What is anachronistic is labeling a 14th-century figure with a modern nationality like "Moroccan." Being Moroccan is a nationality clearly defined, just check Morocco's own constitution, and each country defines its own citizenship. Moroccan cannot be used as a demonym for those eras, since the country did not exist. Here on Wikipedia, we are writing an encyclopedia, not an academic article where such anachronistic shorthand might be acceptable. Here, we should define a person clearly and in a neutral way. Ibn Battuta, besides being a Maghrebi Muslim, was a Lawati, a member of the Lawata tribe, a Berber group whose presence and heritage span the entirety of North Africa (so he cannot be of Moroccan descent (that would be a mix of anachronisms).

While you can find sources that describe him as "Moroccan" (as you did by cherry-picking them, and I have explained the nuances above), that does not serve as an undisputed proof, because we can do the same search, we will find sources that label him as a Maghrebi (I can list them).

Overall summary so you understand the whole context while countering to those articles regardless of the Ibn Battuta we are talking about:

North Africa is a region where countless dynasties/powers ruled over various territories especially following the Islamic conquest. Beyond the major dynasties/powers with established articles here, many other existed, that I am working to create. This landscape persisted until colonialism imported the European nation-state model. This shift resulted in the creation of the borders and new countries recognize today: Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, and Libya etc.. These are all new countries established in the wake of their independence (the people living there can be defined as Moroccan, Tunisian, etc. before the independence (official establishment of the country) — but when? Since the start of their nationalism movement).

To ensure survival, these countries, like all modern nation-states, need a founding myth (Mythomoteur). In Morocco, the national narrative claims the state has existed since the Idrisid dynasty; Algeria traces its origins back to Numidia; and Tunisia looks to Carthage, etc. Each country seeks to nationalize former dynasties, presenting a nationalist narrative to its people. But here, we write an encyclopedia. We present things in a neutral and correct way we do not follow the nationalist narrative. We are not a national media. Unfortunately, POV pushers here try to force this ultranationalist version into Wikipedia.

One can include a country's national narrative, but you cannot take a national myth and build on it. You first present things as they are and in their context, citing very high‑reliable sources. Then you add something like: 'This country's national narrative is X...' In other words: [undisputed fact + sources + other interpretations of that fact, attributed to their authors.] See WP:NPOV for details, and the section on article structure. That's how Wikipedia works.

Now, you have acknowledged your mistake and your misunderstanding. We started from the undisputed fact of him being Moroccan, to then add logical present-day Morocco. But at the ANI, you turned it against me and accused me of tendentious editing.

Sometimes in life, it's far simpler to admit we were wrong, learn from it, and then strive to expand our knowledge. That is how we build a solid understanding, and that is infinitely better.

Sorry for the long reply, I hate it too. I already said above that it was my last reply, but this one is necessary because you are trying to turn things against me, even though you have been completely wrong from the very start.

These kinds of discussions are usually repetitive, and I almost never participate in them. I prefer to devote my time and energy entirely to creating new articles or rewriting existing ones. But sometimes, it's better to explain things to avoid future mistakes. RiadS99 (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to come to a compromise, but I'm disappointed that you chose to write so much text (not this response, but your previous ones) arguing against what I consider to be a confusing strawman, in addition to cramming your reponse full of pointless condescension. From my perspective, this was entirely about the geographic reference from the very beginning! The fact that you are still arguing that the use of "Morocco" and "Moroccan", as I have cited it above, is "anachronistic" because it's "a modern nationality" demonstrates that you are still invested in arguing against this strawman! None of the sources I cited above were using "Morocco" or "Moroccan" in the sense of a "nationality" - if they were referring to nationality, or if I was interested in such, I would have quoted references to the Marinids.

Next time, please assume good faith instead of jumping to the conclusion that your interlocutor is pushing a POV - as you are still seemingly alleging in this response. The idea that the statements "Ibn Battuta was from the region presently known as Morocco" or "Morocco is an appropriate term to provide geographic context for English language speakers" are in any way non-neutral, which is what I understand you to be arguing, is completely bizarre. DiodotusNicator (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly to add that he is from Tangier (in present‑day Morocco). your recent formulation doesn’t reflect what we discussed. RiadS99 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I proposed something, implemented the proposal upon seeing what I assumed was consensus, and you changed the proposal to your preferred version. I don't see any problem here, and am unable to understand how my edit doesn't reflect my proposal, given that it was the implementation of my exact proposal - a proposal to which you did not substantially respond, other than offering a simple acceptance. Did you expect me to read your mind?

I have no objection to using "present-day Morocco" as a geographic reference. DiodotusNicator (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if this is necroing this thread, but referring to NW Africa/Maghreb al Aqsa/whatever as "Morocco" indeed dates back to the Almohads if I'm not mistaken, however of course as is the case with everybody before the Jacobins, none of them had the sense of belonging as a "Moroccan" so to say. I don't personally think referring to him as Moroccan (or Moor) would pose any problem, but ofc there are sensitivities around this.

An interesting reflection is that there's no debate in calling Asian figures Indian, Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, when all four developed their distinct national identities around 19th century (like most of the world). I am not trying to make a gotcha, but I do wonder why.

Personally I prefer calling him a "Berber Muslim traveler" like is the case al-Wansharisi rather than a "Maghrebi Muslim traveler" since the latter doesn't make much sense, until a few hundred years ago the "Maghreb" was referred to in English as "the Barbary states", and it seems like the most factual way to describe this.

I think a good middle ground would be: any figure alive around the 1680s or afterwards when "Moroccan" first emerged as a term should be called Moroccan, and anyone before should be called by their ethno-religious identity prior to that. NAADAAN (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)