Talk:Kaftan

May 2020

With regard to this edit]: I will go through the content that I deleted and explain why. The content that I added is properly sourced and needs no explanation.

Although the Ottoman Empire never set foot in Morocco—suggesting that the Moroccan Kaftan pre-dates Ottoman rule—kaftans in Morocco were tailored and re-fashioned by Moroccan cloth makers ("Maalem") during the Marinid Dynasty and were worn by the kings of the region. As well as being irrelevant, this is factually incorrect. See this for more info. In fact, even the khutba (the Friday prayer) was said in the name of the Ottoman Sultan Murad.

Fes city, from the in beginning of the 13th century (around 600 Hijri in the Islamic calendar), the city of Fez was popular, known for its textile factories, numbering 3,046 textile factories at that time. and The atsultans sultansof the time, of time Morocco's of Al-Marinid Dynasty, dynasty Sultans sent of a Morocco sent Kaftans of brocade as a gift to Ottoman Sultans for each one become the new Sultan of the Ottoman Empire,. and to this Kaftan was made by brocard, which make it be the first kaftan that is owned by the Ottoman Sultan. Utter nonsense!. Here's a direct link to the cited source and obviously, there is no mention of any of this nonsense. No surprises there, since the idea that the Ottoman Sultan would accept a caftan from someone is simply unimaginable to anyone who's familiar with what the Caftan meant to the Ottomans.

Here's what the reliable sources say:

the first kaftans worn by the Ottoman sultans were made of Denizli cloth. a white fabric with crescent motifs. Osman I wore a white kaftan. and all the sultans followed this tradition after him until Mehmet II. the Conqueror.

Bursa was an important textile-and silk-production centre of West Anatolia in the 15 century and the textiles for the palace were woven in Bursa, where at that time there were more than 10,000 weaving looms. Traditionally, the sultan's caftans and clothing would be bundled up, labelled and put in store after his death. Stored in the Istanbul Topkapi Palace, the materials in these bundles give extremely helpful information regarding the chronological development of Ottoman textile workmanship. According to the information we have obtained from these materials, the oldest cotton and silk cloths originating from Bursa belong to the time Of Osman Gazi (r. 1281-1324), founder of the Ottoman State, and his nine caftans of white-cotton cloth were embellished with large yellow pomegranate motifs.

Regarding this edit:

Can you explain why you're giving prominence of placement to an unknown author who's article is published in a women's magazine and ignoring what the real scholar has to say? M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Leila.andalusi (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

All the information on the Moroccan Kaftan was removed, and a whole new page for Algerian Kaftan was created. Its pretty obvious who is editing these pages, the Kaftan was first documented in Morocco during the 7th century during the Marinind Empire. It spread to Andalusia as well.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

Leila.andalusi (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, do not delete other people's comments like you did here. Pinging the editors (Jack Frost and Naypta) who responded to your requests as well as the admin (bradv) who semi-protected the page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

In regard to Moroccan kaftan edit of May 2020

this is just to answer few misconception , as for my edit " As well as being irrelevant, this is factually incorrect. See this for more info. In fact, even the khutba (the Friday prayer) was said in the name of the Ottoman Sultan Murad.."

while this factually correct , this is was only case under Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik I Saadi , and Saadin retain their independent and were not turn into regency or Vassal state , in fact later on after the death of Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik I Saadi , Ahmad al-Mansur would recall himself caliph

Rather than simply assume that al-Mansur had the same goals as the Portuguese, it behooves us to consider his actions from within an Islamic context. Mulay Ahmad claimed the title of caliph , a position whose origins date back to the earlies years of Islamic history.

"Utter nonsense!.a direct link to the cited source and obviously, there is no mention of any of this nonsense. No surprises there, since the idea that the Ottoman Sultan would accept a caftan from someone is simply unimaginable to anyone who's familiar with what the Caftan meant to the Ottomans."

The source actually mention this , but not in page 226 but rather 229

and since time of Marinid ,we saw multiple gift that were send to turk that start conquering egypt , levant and hejaz.....

@ABIDALAA: You haven't addressed any of the point that I raised on Talk:Kaftan#May_2020. All you're doing is reintroducing factually incorrect original research and attributing a pile of nonsense to a source that doesn't support any of it. You're also removing (without explanation) content that is attributed to a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: : as in fact i did , including dismissing of entire source solely because you couldn't search in 3 more pages and historical inaccuracy of saadian dynasty being under influence of ottoman base on Abd al-Malik I Saadi alliance with turk , furthermore , i reeddit source that mention the use of kuftan since Marinid Sultanate to confirm what i wrote

again , removing my editing base solely on how you feel and ignoring the sources is simply dishonesty

Like I explained (using reliable sources) on Talk:Kaftan#May_2020, the OR that you added in based on factually incorrect info. Dishonesty (now that you mention it) is attributing a pile of nonsense to an Arabic source in order to deceive the readers and removing (without explanation) content that is attributed to a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

and as i explained i did use reliable sources on Marinid Sultanate use of kaftan pre-dating ottoman and you refuse it base on your beliefs, and i think Dishonesty is deceiving people base on historical dishonesty relating to saadian dynasty and turk , or denying such event from The Historical Diplomacy Of Morocco even existed

as for removing that is attributed to a "reliable source" , as it's stated in Reliable sources rule , Age matters , i thought it was clear so i didn't mention this out

It's very simple. Follow what I did on Talk:Kaftan#May_2020 and quote from each source (using the language used in the source) the part that is supposed to support what you're adding. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

June 2020

@M.Bitton: You're doing a pov pushing on the article by deleting important information from sources you don't like. This vandalism is not acceptable. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of starting a new section for your baseless accusations, I suggest you answer the question that you keep ignoring on Talk:Kaftan#May_2020. Other than that, there is also WP:ANI, the right place for you to complain about me. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, and I could tell them that you're having fun to suppressing some information from credible sources. Why are you suppressing the fact that for Rachida Alaoui the Moroccan caftan is a medieval Andalusian heritage ? Are you trying to impose your unique version on this article? --SegoviaKazar (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I reverted you edit for a very specific reason: You rearranged the section to give UNDUE weight to an unknown person who's article appeared in a women's magazine, while ignoring what the proper scholar has to say. When I asked you to explain why, you ignored my request. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What a joke. Rachida Alaoui is very famous. She's an art and fashion historian, and a specialist in Moroccan costume. She's written several books that I showed you on your discussion page so you can't pretend she's a unknow person.

This magazine is specialized in caftans. That's why they interviewed Rachida Alaoui but all this informations are in her books.

So now you can stop your pov pushing. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Rachida Alaoui is not described as a historian by any reliable source and her name is nowhere to be found on Google scholar, unlike the real scholar "Naima El Khatib Boujibar" who collabored with real historians. The women magazine "Femmes du Maroc" is a joke.

Can you explain why you're giving prominence of placement to an unknown author who's article is published in a women's magazine and ignoring what the real scholar has to say? M.Bitton (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Trying to belittle someone so well known is a useless act. It just shows that you don't know this subject. She is a real scholar, stop your pov pushing. Rachida Alaoui has written specialized books on Moroccan costumes and embroidery. She even made up a essay of " the history of kaftan" .

And you're pretending she's unknow but in fact his books are famous and references on the subject :

So she's an expert on this field. I've answered your question. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Question: If she's such an expert, how come the job of writing an article about the Kaftan in Morocco on the Museum with no frontier, which in case you didn't know works in partnership with the "Rabat Archaeological Museum", the "Larache Archaeological Museum", the "National Library", the "the Royal Library", the "Ethnographic Museum", the "Archeological Museum", etc., and counts among its supporters Morocco's Ministry of Culture, was given to Naima El Khatib Boujibar and not her?

What makes you think that her source (published in a women's magazine) is more reliable than El Khatib's? M.Bitton (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

SegoviaKazar, you need to tone it down with the personal attacks, aspersions, and incivility. I'm sorry to say but your addition does come across as promotional. You need to establish that that is not the case. You need to establish consensus for your changes. If you reach an impasse, here, on the article talk page, feel free to use any dispute resolution request you see fit. Thanks and good luck. El_C 01:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: My accusations are not unfounded. You can see it on this modification of M.Bitton :

He suppressed informations that didn't go in his way. Like " caftan arrived in Morocco thanks to Moorish history and therefore represents a medieval Andalusian heritage"

He put forward his sources.

he adds wiki-links for "Encyclopaedia of Islam" and "Naima El Khatib Boujibar", but not for " Rachida Alaoui".

My modification is absolutely not promotional. Bitton accused me of wanting to add the information of an unknown and illegitimate person. While that person is an expert in the field.

I invite you to read the discussion on this page.

Kind regards. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I am unable to tell the purported expertise of Rachida Alaoui — at the moment, that mention does come across as promotional. You have failed to substantiate it being otherwise, in any case. El_C 20:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, I am looking for mainly mention of Rachida Alaoui in academia rather than in the mainstream, where expertise would be more difficult to weigh. El_C 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@El C: While ignoring the above requests, SegoviaKazar is trying to reintroduce the edit that was reverted and continues with their personal attacks (baseless accusations of trying to hide information). M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I merely pointed out that the information came from the 1913-38 edition. May I ask why this is bothering you? And you make a pov by pretending that Rachida Alaoui's information is unreliable plus you remove her wikipedia link. It's clearly a pov.--SegoviaKazar (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You have failed to establish her expertise and you continue with your personal attacks and edit warring despite what El_C has said. M.Bitton (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I stopped arguing with you when you had the article blocked in your favour and did everything possible to remove the information you didn't like. I do not wish to debate in these conditions.

I showed you the many newspapers and the many books written by Rachida Alaoui. Repeating again and again that her work has been published in a magazine shows that you are not able to accept opinions different from your own. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not failed to establish his expertise and I have shown his many books very well, which make him a reliable source, but I have no desire to debate with someone like you who does everything to impose his vision of things. English is not my mother tongue so I cannot defend my information properly. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me repeat what El_C told you: We are looking for mainly mention of Rachida Alaoui in academia rather than in the mainstream, where expertise would be more difficult to weigh. M.Bitton (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether the content comes from her book (which needs to be verified) or from a magazine, the issue is the same since it's the author's expertise that is questioned here. M.Bitton (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

References

non accurate

Unfortunately , whoever edited this page is spreading false information about the origins of the Moroccan caftan . I think it should be re-edited and changed more accurately . In Morocco, the caftan is very old and deeply ingrained in the country's clothing habits. Indeed it appeared in the 13th century during the Merinid dynasty , when it was worn by Moroccan royalty. Chibt (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2020

In Morocco the Kaftan dates back to the 13 century during the Marinid Sultanate. At that time even though Ottoman empire didn't occupied Morocco but the Marini sultane send to them gifts encluding the moroccan Kaftan. 41.250.244.218 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

With regard to this edit (in response to today's change):

• I restored the sourced content that was removed here.
• The history of textile production in Turkey ... the importance of the sector. This is about textile with no mention of the Kaftan (taken from an unreliable source to boot), therefore irrelevant.
• Though the Ottoman Empire did not extend to Morocco, the sultans of the Marinid dynasty sent luxurious gifts to the Ottoman sultans. This is WP:SYNTH:

  a) The first part is misleading at best (Abd al-Malik entered present-day Morocco with an Ottoman army and the khutba was said in the name of the Ottoman Sultan).

  b) The second part is a case of sourced misrepresentation: There no mention of gifts on page 26. Even if it did, it would still be irrelevant unless it mentions the primary topic.

• The name of Morocco was associated .. the Ottomans welcomed the silk caftan .. Fas Kaftanları. Luckily, the highly unreliable source does not even say that, because the idea that the Ottomans would accept Kaftans from anyone is simply laughable. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Kaftan is originally from Persia and spread far and wide by the Islamic caliphate of the Abbasids. I did recheck the source and it does mention them introducing it to the Barbary states, but the source in question is decades old and since the Abbasids spread the Kaftan far and wide in the Arab world, it is probably them who introduced it into North Africa. I will look more into the Moroccan Kaftan. I copied that edit from the Moroccan Kaftan page in good faith. Also why is it laughable. Do you think Ottomans created the Kaftan? --Ozan33Ankara (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Moroccan Kaftan pre-dates Ottoman Empire rules

@M.Bitton: I have made my changes in Moroccan Caftan which is something related to my country's history and I set a source which says《The caftan became a well- known garment in Morocco from the 12th century until today.》which make the Moroccan Kaftan pre-dates Ottoman rule which make the rest of what was written in the article nonsense.

As long as I have sources I have the right to make any changes, please don't harden your head and restore my changes I made a lot of efforts to make it correct with its sources. Jamaru25 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

1) "Related to your country" does not give you the right to remove properly sourced content. 2) The fact that you have a history of misrepresenting the sources and even using fictitious ones (as proven through your edit history) does not help. 3) Apart from the usual junk, the extraordinary claim that you added contradicts the scholarly sources and is based on nothing more than a thesis that was submitted "in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE". M.Bitton (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: 1) what you are saying is nonsense, a history of misrepresenting the sources?! At least I give sources which gave me the advantage that I don't make changes randomly, I do it according to the sources I find. Stop saying nonsense, I have never used fictitious sources or fake ones, it is just you who is holding a grudge against me which make saying this false charge.

2) My content is sourced too it's just you who didn't seen them.

3) A thesis also is reliable source because it's done after many years of research and published as a book at the the year 1987, so don't think that you own Wikipedia to act as a Dictator here because this is how you looks like here. Jamaru25 (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I stand by what I said and, should we take a trip to ANI, I'm more than willing to provide the diffs to prove it.

You removed the properly sourced content without justification.

1) It's not a book, it's a thesis. 2) A thesis is usually not a reliable source. 3) A thesis that was submitted "in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE" is definitely not reliable for anything to do with history, least of all when it contradicts the scholarly sources. M.Bitton (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: You haven't seen the cover of the book and yet you say that it is a Thesis oh please!! I have restored the original text before it was charged to what it was today. Go to the history of the text and you will find that what I changed was already there. And remember that you don't own Wikipedia so stop being so mean and arrogant we don't work here for you or we are your slaves to talk to us like this, haven't you seen that everyone complaining about you in your talk page?! So change your attitude or leave us in peace. Jamaru25 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You have restored the made-up nonsense that you falsely attributed to a source and added to the article back in 2018. The explanation for its removal is given here.

Maybe this your chance to explain why you insist on deceiving the community by misrepresenting the non-English sources. M.Bitton (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @M.Bitton After reading the discussion, I would agree that you have somehow got a point. However, I would like to suggest that you also examine the section of the Algerian Kaftan and provide your opinion on whether mentioning its existence in present-day Algeria prior to the Ottoman era (Rustamid, Zirid and Zayyanid era) could potentially contradict the scholarly sources (e.g encyclopedia of Islam). Thanks. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

There is at least one clash - there can't be kaftans from the 10th century in Algeria, per the Algeria section, only for kaftans to be introduced to the Barbary States by the Ottomans in the 15th century, per the Morocco section and Encyclopedia of Islam. Either one of these statements and/or sources is wrong, or there are competing definitions of 'kaftan' here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

1. You had no problem whatsoever adding content that contradicts the other statements.
2. It's only after your edit was reverted, because it uses an unreliable source (and not because of the contradiction), that the contradiction became an issue for you.
3. Rachida Alaoui's nonsensical statement (dating from the end of the 15th century, but the first written record is from the 16th century) clearly contradicts the more reliable sources; but that doesn't seem to bother you one bit.

As for your so-called "concerns": there is a difference between the sources that mention its existence and those that state when it became fashionable. Given that the Rustamids were of Persian descent and that Tahert (their capital) became home to an important Persian community, would it surprise anyone to find out that the Kaftan was exported to it?

Ultimately, although I don't care about whether we should mention when it was first attested or stick to the Ottoman period (16th century), the only clear cut contradiction that I can see here lies between your sudden care for "potential contradiction" and your action (see points raised above). M.Bitton (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton:1)- You may notice in my edit that i have added the word "however" so i can shed light on the "contradiction".

2)- To clarify my position, my concern is not with the contradiction itself, but with the misleading way in which the paragraph is written. This is why I asked you to "examine" the section, as it fails to give indication that the Ottomans introduced the Kaftan to the Barbary states but rather suggests that the Kaftan was nothing new to modern-day Algeria back then.

3)- I don't think what Rachida Alaoui stated is "nonsensical", She is an expert historian and she did her research. She can interpret according to her experience in the field. Simoooix.haddi (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Adding reflist 49.177.73.238 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Adhering to sources - Rachida Alaoui quote

The quote and translation do mention the sixteenth century, but, just as the WP article has said for months, before the recent change by Algeriandon, the source says it dates from the "à la fin du XVème [FIFTEENTH] siècle". The source says FIFTEENTH century. It goes on to say, "it is documented in Morocco in the 16th century". It's not a good source, but as it's the one we're using we have to represent what it actually says.

Askelaadden reverted my correction and misread the source quote I added, because, I believe, it is pretty much always assumed registered users are more likely to be correct than IP users. That is why I included the quote. (And, I mean, have a look at the contributions overall of the user who made the initial change that I changed back!) The fact that I have to go to these ridiculous lengths to re-instate a long-standing - and accurate - version of the article, is evidence of ... of ... something not good, about the approach of some WP users. I don't know how to describe it, but it's dispiriting.

Please note, my change was restoring a version that had been settled on as accurate (to the source) since 4 June 2020

"Il remonte à la fin du XVème siècle, et les premières mentions de ce vêtement porté par les Marocains datent du XVIème siècle." English:"It dates back to the end of the 15th century, and the first mentions of this garment worn by Moroccans date from the 16th century." [Emphasis added]

By the way, there is a specific article on the Moroccan kaftan, which gives the wearing of it from the 13th century. When I have time, I will reconcile this section to it, adding sources, (and hope my changes won't be reverted out of hand). in the meantime, I am going to change back, once again, and add a 'contradictory' maintenance tag. Thank you. 49.177.73.238 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Updated: Sorry incorrect user linked. 49.177.73.238 (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Yes, you're right. I had misread the source.

However, I wonder as to the need to maintain this passage which comes from a blog which is absolutely unreliable. Just like the source which gives the date of the 13th century which comes from a blog as well. --Askelaadden (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Askelaadden. I have no particular opinion about the timeline of Moroccan kaftans, but I'm all for including sources with greater reliability. Do you know of such sources? I'm inclined to tread very cautiously with this topic, as it seems to have inflamed editors' feelings at times. However, if there were unimpeachable sources that could be cited, they could be used here and on Moroccan kaftan, and I imagine that everyone could agree on the date of introduction to include in the articles. If different reliable sources disagree, then, as per normal procedure, we would summarise all the authoritative views, as you know.

It's way outside my area of knowledge, but I can read a source, so if we cite a source, we need to state in the article what it actually says. I realise you know this and tried to adhere to it, but it's frustrating to have my clearly policy-compliant edits reverted or challenged: It HAPPENS A LOT, because no matter what the expressed WP attitude (towards anon and all users) may be, editors assume the worst of IP users, and act accordingly. The equality attitude is not carried out in practice. That's to be expected, I guess, given the loads of vandalism that happens, which I why I always put tedious and excessive edit summaries and Talk posts. It still doesn't help! Having a registered account, though, is not a thing I can do for the time being, and it shouldn't be necessary for someone who strives to do the correct thing and be clear about why. My editing starts out as being an interesting and involving pastime, which I enjoy, and devolves over days into frustration and tedium.

Anyway, if you have good sources, or can get them, edit away. My suggestion would be to propose the edits here initially, including your suggested sources, and that way the edit warring can be avoided. Good luck! 49.177.73.238 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, as I make mistakes - probably lots - naturally some of my edits are challenged for those reasons, as they should be.

So, I forgot to say above, that actually I appreciate your edit, because unlike many editors, you said why you were reverting, so I could then see where the misunderstanding came in. Very often I am left to try "mind reading", as editors say things like, "not an improvement"; "not helpful", or do not use edit summary at all. Your summary was nice and specific, and I was unfair to unload all of this on you, especially as you have been very reasonable in responding. My frustration boiled over and you happened to be an innocent party in the way!

I did find a little source. Unsure how it would be viewed, as it's brief and online only, but as a nicely annotated piece from a museum consortium project, it could be a start. Best, 49.177.73.238 (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

References

The moors are moroccans

The moors are indeed moroccan i don’t understand the reason behind deleting statements based reliable sources, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moor-people also the word moor comes from the ancient kingdom of Mauritania in now known morocco you can double check if you want National Geographic proves that the the word comes from the ancient Mauretania [https://books.google.es/books?id=yMNBAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA66&dq=les+maures+sont+marocains&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1heuYsub3AhV8hf0HHRKTCE0Q6AF6BAgJEAI#v=onepage&q=les%20maures%20sont%20marocains&f=false Les moeurs et … — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ella Mary (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the term Moor (for which we have a dedicated article) does not mean Moroccan (I suggest you read the article as well as Mauritania that you mentioned). In any case, this is irrelevant because what you're doing here is known as WP:SYNTH (using a combination of WP:OR and old sources that mention the word Caftan in passing) in order to contradict what the reliable sources say about the topic. Please read the previous discussions and take note of what an admin said about the reliable sources and the expertise of the authors.

I also noticed that: a) you have a history of making baseless and misleading claims to justify the removal of the sourced content that disagrees with your POV, and b) you are now casting aspersions (which add nothing of value to your edit). M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well i have also noticed that you have been going around targeting moroccan content i wonder why ? Could it be that you want to deceive the community. Every word in that paragraph is justified and has evidence i even gave you a source which is the Encyclopædia Britannica stating that the word moorish can be used to refer to moroccans also had you read the paragraph you would notice that i never stat that the moroccan caftan is the moorish caftan so you are just harassing me second of all the paragraph is meant to show that the moors did actually exist just like rachida alaoui said and it was worn by women like the queen and it did have and impact on many societies. If you disagree with Britannica it’s your problem not mine. I don’t know the motive behind your possession with morocco Ella Mary (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no time for those who insist on casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

So you don’t have time to discuss only to delete what ever YOU think is wrong and keep what you wish Ella Mary (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I explained the revert and left you links to articles and policies that I suggested you read, yet you keep making personal attacks (despite being asked multiple times to stop). M.Bitton (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I left you with links to use like Britannica but you ignored it, many of the books used in that paragraph are written by actual historians and know journalists James Reston Karl Köhler Carr, Matthew, i even gave you the book documenting the journey of pedro paez from the 16th century isn’t that enough ? You started the dispute stating that moroccan the word moorish doesn’t not mean moroccan so i shared with you a link to Britannica proofing that the word sometimes can be used to refer to moroccans however the paragraph written never stated that the moorish caftan is actually moroccan. Ella Mary (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If the term Moor means Moroccan, we'd have to change our article and use Encyclopedia Britannica to support that, but it doesn't and we have a raft of sources that explain what it means. If the paragraph has nothing to do with Morocco, then there is no reason to add it to that section. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Rachida aloui’s statment showes that the moroccan caftan is related to the moorish culture and i just added information about it to show that it indeed existed before the ottomans were in the region i mean the ottman were mentioned many times yet the moors who are berbers and arabs descendant can’t ? Ella Mary (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

First, Rachida aloui's statement is disputed (it was tagged as such, but someone removed the tag without explanation) since she's not a historian (see the discussion above and what an admin said about her expertise). Second, even if she was a historian, you still can't do what you did as that would constitute original research (see my first comment and what I said about it, WP:SYNTH and the word mentioned in passing in some old sources). M.Bitton (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well i’m no expert in wikipedia you on the other hand are , you know how to play with the rules. I was looking at you old modifications and you yourself sometimes do use words mentioned passing in old sources. You wanna make it seem as if the caftan never ever existed in morocco before the ottomans as if the arabs who founded the country haven’t wore it before do as you wish I don’t care anymore about this article for it’s manipulated by algerians therefore i will not be wasting any of my time you will do what you want and not let others speak Ella Mary (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Hi @Humanmade1987, i have opened this discussion for you so you can discuss your additions as well as the sources you added. I will ping @M.Bitton and @Neonorange as they are involved. SimoooIX (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing to "discuss" here. The Jewish Wedding Dress (Keswa El Kebira) is not a Kaftan and Historitage is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination (it's a crappy blog). M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, i heven't checked the sources they added yet. But it's always better to encourage new editors to discuss instead of edit-warring. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, SimoooIX! for beginning this discussion. I agree about the importance of encouraging enthusiastic, new editors. I imagine the the English language Wikipedia has many missing articles on clothing. My concern about the recent additions are two—provenance for the image and perhaps an overabundance of details as to influence on twentieth century fashion. Perhaps a summarization, a narrative, of themes incorporated from kaftans into European fashion would be more appropriate than list-like prose.

I am not knowledgable about this subject, though I have worked in Thailand, Iran, Jordan, and other countries of the East. I am grateful that Wikipedia has this article and for the chance that the four of us can work on improvements. I will search for some photos I took when I once travelled for work (some thirty years since, now). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC) —

@Humanmade1987: please explain why you removed the properly sourced content (this is important). Also, what makes you think that historitage is nothing but a crappy blog? M.Bitton (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you delete the paragraphs I add when the official references are mentioned?

I put this book as source: Ars islamica v. 15-16 (1951) Index to v.1-16.

Whereas in the same section of the Moroccan Kaftan you keep sources from blogs? Can you explain? Humanmade1987 (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't delete the relevant part (that you describe as official, it's still there). The part about the embroidery is irrelevant (it's not about the Kaftan). No idea what section or blog you're talking about. M.Bitton (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the Kaftan? It's the art of embroidery that distinguishes it from the Kaftan of another country.

Because the city of Fez was the source of some of the embroidery techniques called "Ntaa" that we put on the kaftan. So we're obliged to talk about these techniques that characterize the Moroccan kaftan.

I did add official sources 'Book" : Ars islamica v. 15-16 (1951) Index to v.1-16 / University of Michigan / Part of: Ars islamica Humanmade1987 (talk) 10:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our core content policies. Next time, before asking questions, at least try to answer the questions that you've been asked. M.Bitton (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

For exemple: Source: 45: cannot be found

1. Lamia Balafrej (2015) Islamic iconoclasm, visual communication and the persistence of the image, Interiors, 6:3, 351-366, DOI: 10.1080/20419112.2015.1125659

Humanmade1987 (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Contrary to what you claimed, that's not a blog (it took me seconds to find it). 2) I'm not here to teach you how to find the sources that you can't be bothered to search for yourself. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I know it's not easy for you to handle all of this throughout the day. But one last question, please. why are you also removing the photos that comply with the rules? Readers need to know what a kaftan looks like. Humanmade1987 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean the image that you uploaded? It's unsourced and way too long. You're welcome to find another one (ideally sourced and similar in proportions to the others). M.Bitton (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, have a nice day Humanmade1987 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ARH 371_The TransAtlantic_Cross-Cultural Representations

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dawhite5 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Dawhite5 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotion claim

User:Skitash, I'm curious what you find promotional about the photo added by this edit, leading you to remove it. Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I thought the user uploaded the same photo as last time (which contained a logo promoting a stylist's business). That said, don't you think there are too many photos in this article? It's bordering WP:NOTAGALLERY. If necessary, the photos can be included in Kaftan#Gallery. Skitash (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that section has a gallery with three images. It might not hurt to add this for the sake of chronological diversity, or perhaps swap one of the ones already there for the modern one, but I don't really have an interest one way or another. Largoplazo (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the matter. I initially inserted an image to give an idea of ​​the general evolution of the caftan without showing all the products so as not to saturate the page and indicated the author of the work to avoid copyright problems; the user above initially reported to me that it was a promotional act so I searched for and used images that did not have logos that could be in accordance with the rules and in fact I thought it was fine until the user cited accused me on my talkpage of WP:EDITWAR; I therefore asked on his page(here) to provide me with explanations on the matter but I did not receive a response. Frankly I do not think that the user's attitude was correct and that it is not profitable in what I believe should be the climate on Wikipedia.

If it were possible I would prefer that there be a modern image so that the idea of ​​the evolution of the dress is shown. Thank you for your patience and I apologize for the long text and for the not yet perfect English. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2025

In the gallery the both caftans are not algerians but the are Moroccan caftan both photos are moroccan caftan. Tariq1919 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm sure Algerian designer Karim Akrouf would be shocked if Wikipedia identified his works as Moroccan. Largoplazo (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2025

At the top of this article, you have asked for more references for why or how the article talks about the abbasid caliphate as a cosmopolitan superculture. I found this article helpful as a reference for that: https://brainly.com/question/40549657 92.40.70.149 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: thank you, but that's not really an article and it doesn't add anything to what we already know about the Abbasid Caliphate, nor does it address the issue of what a Super culture is. M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggested Addition: Kaftans in the Gulf Region

Hello, I’d like to suggest adding the following sourced content to the Kaftan article, under the "Modern Use" section or as part of regional variations.

Kaftans in the Gulf Region In the Gulf countries, particularly Kuwait and parts of Saudi Arabia, the kaftan is commonly known as the *daraʿah* (Arabic: دراعة), with the plural form *daraat* (دراعات). The *daraah* is a traditional, loose-fitting garment worn by women, especially during festive occasions such as Ramadan and Eid. In recent years, Gulf-based fashion brands have reinterpreted the *daraʿah* with modern fabrics, tailoring techniques, and embellishments. This evolution has been influenced by regional designers and social media, with influencers showcasing contemporary *daraat* as a blend of cultural heritage and modern fashion aesthetics.[1]

[1] The Rise of Modern Daraʿat in the Gulf: How Local Brands Are Redefining Tradition, Medium. https://medium.com/@aimnarkw/the-rise-of-modern-daraʿat-in-the-gulf-how-local-brands-are-redefining-tradition-af1f81b0095d

Let me know if any edits are needed. Thank you! Muccii (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

On the validity of the Persian translation of Kaftan

Hi all. As I do not have the authority to edit this page and I'm new to editing so I'll instead leaving this message here for someone else to come do the dirty work. The word Kaftan (Qaftan in Arabic) refers to the long decorated robes with no or half-sleeves that were the customary garments of many peoples and particularly turks and turkic rulers during the early modern era, but the Persian word Khaftan/Xaftan (خفتان) is used to refer to gambeson and protective garments worn under armor, not a ceremonial or day-to-day part of clothing, according to credible dictionaries such as Dehkhoda. Kaftans don't have a specific name in Persian and are referred to as balapush (topwear), Jobbeh (robe), or various other roughly synonymous names instead. But in academic language if one wishes to refer to the garment Kaftan as known in Turkish specifically one uses the term Kaftan (کفتان) instead. Since Jobbeh, Qaba, Aba and other terms refer more specifically to other types of clothing.

On another part of this article it is stated Kafatns are called Khilat (خلعت) in Persian, however Khilat simply means gifted clothing without any specific connotations to a particular form of bodywear.

The terminology is confusing because the Persian language sticks to none of them and one of these words is sometimes used to refer to multiple different clothes. Jobbeh (thick, decorated and open robes with full sleaves) and Aba (the robes shia clerics wear) and Qaba (the shirt shia clerics wear) are used to refer to each other as well as kaftan, and they can all be called Khaftan/Xaftan and Balapush just as well. In any case, the only term specific to describing the Kaftan without overlapping with other terms is, for literal lack of a better word, Kaftan (کفتان).

https://ijar.ut.ac.ir/article_86745_6d41d14036092bc66908a3af726fe53b.pdf?lang=en page 12 of this article specifically uses Kaftan in Persian to describe a Rada (topwear, coat, cloak) being gifted between Safavid and Ottoman monarchs

https://abadis.ir/fatofa/%D8%AE%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86/ and here's the Dehkhoda dictionary page containing several other sources therein describing Xaftan/Khaftan as 'gambeson' Wikibashi (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

New unesco additok for moroccan caftan

hello i was just wondering for something I saw while scrolling online about a unesco thing for moroccan kaftan is this true or no? Simon Vasquez124 (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It's covered in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage boxes and scope of inscriptions

I previously removed two UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage boxes from this article, but the change was reverted, so I am opening this discussion to explain the reasoning and seek consensus before any further edits.

The first box references Rites and craftsmanship associated with the wedding costume tradition of Tlemcen (inscribed 2012). This UNESCO element concerns a specific local wedding ritual and costume tradition. While caftan is mentioned in the narrative description as one of the garments worn during the rite, the caftan itself is not the inscribed element. Using a UNESCO ICH box on the Kaftan article therefore implies UNESCO recognition of the caftan, which is not stated by the source.

The second box references The women’s ceremonial costume in the Eastern region of Algeria: knowledge and skills associated with the making and adornment of the ‘Gandoura’ and the ‘Melehfa’ (inscribed 2024). The official UNESCO title and public description explicitly limit the element to the Gandoura and the Melehfa; the caftan is not mentioned in the description nor the title. In addition, the box uses an altered inscription title by adding garments not named by UNESCO.

UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage boxes are intended for articles about the exact inscribed element, not for culturally related items mentioned within an inscription. Applying these boxes to the Kaftan article misattributes the scope of the inscriptions and gives undue weight to a subject that is not inscribed (WP:V, WP:UNDUE).

I am open to discussion and I’m posting this to reach consensus before making further changes.--Mixinlord (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Both of these directly concern the Kaftan and their inscriptions have been mentioned in the article for years without needing an infobox. Since infoboxes were added elsewhere, there is no reason to exclude it. as for the second box, please read this source from page 7 onwards. Skitash (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with the concerns raised here. Worth adding: the updated title of the second element (revised by UNESCO in December 2025) still does not make the caftan the inscribed subject — the Gandoura and Melehfa remain primary. Meanwhile, the Moroccan Caftan received its own dedicated, standalone inscription in December 2025 ("Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills"), yet carries no infobox in this article. The result is two infoboxes for Algerian traditions in which the caftan is a secondary element, and none for the one inscription where it is the sole subject. That asymmetry is a clear WP:UNDUE issue. Bohosquare1 (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Two months on and no response to the asymmetry point. To keep the record clear: Skitash cited a source about the second Algerian element, but that source does not change the core issue. The Moroccan Caftan inscription ("Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills", December 2025) is a standalone UNESCO recognition in which the caftan is the sole inscribed subject. The two Algerian boxes both cover inscriptions where the caftan is a secondary element mentioned in passing. If the standard for including a UNESCO box is that the element "directly concerns" the kaftan, the Moroccan inscription meets that bar more clearly than either Algerian one. Worth resolving before another editor raises it. Bohosquare1 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Both directly concern certain types of Algerian Kaftan (Chedda and Qadi Kaftan) among other garments. There is no reason to remove the two boxes. Just like the Moroccan Kaftan is a certain type of Kaftan. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging. The distinction is between being the inscribed subject and being one garment mentioned within a broader inscription. For the 2012 Tlemcen element, the Chedda description is fair, but the inscribed title is "Rites and craftsmanship associated with the wedding costume tradition of Tlemcen" -- the caftan is one garment within that tradition, not what UNESCO named. For the 2024 eastern Algeria element, the actual UNESCO title lists five garments: the Gandoura, the Melehfa, the Caftan, the Quat, and the Lhef. There is no "Qadi Kaftan" in the UNESCO title. The caftan is one of five co-listed items. The Moroccan inscription (02077) is titled "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills" -- the caftan is the only named subject, with no other garments alongside it. That is a structurally different level of recognition. A UNESCO box on a page ordinarily signals that the page's subject was inscribed. If we apply that standard consistently, the one inscription where the caftan stands alone as the named element should at minimum carry a box. That is the asymmetry worth resolving, regardless of what we ultimately decide about the other two. Bohosquare1 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The kaftan is clearly a core component of both Algerian UNESCO boxes. removing them because other garments are mentioned is WP:OR.

(Of course the Caftan is mentioned in the second box title, since it has to do with eastern Algerian garments then the Qadi kaftan is concerned here.) Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The WP:OR point doesn't apply here -- reading the official UNESCO title is just reading the source, not interpreting beyond it. The 2024 element's full title is: "knowledge and skills associated with the making and adornment of the Gandoura, the Melehfa, the Caftan, the Quat and the Lhef." The phrase "Qadi Kaftan" does not appear in that title or in the UNESCO description. It is not a term UNESCO uses for this inscription.

Whether the caftan qualifies as a "core component" of either Algerian element is worth discussing, but that is a separate question from the one raised here. The issue is consistency: a UNESCO box on an article normally signals that the article's subject was the inscribed element. The Moroccan inscription (02077) is titled "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills" with no other garments listed alongside it. That is a different level of specificity from an inscription covering five garments or a broader wedding costume tradition. If the standard for including a box is that the element "directly concerns" the kaftan, the one inscription where the caftan is the sole named subject clearly meets that bar. Adding that box would be the simplest and least controversial step, regardless of what is decided about the other two. Bohosquare1 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the key point. Algeria organizes its traditional garments by region rather than by garment type — unlike the Moroccan approach. This is why multiple garments from different regions (such as Tlemcen and Eastern Algeria) are grouped together under one UNESCO submission.

Algeria may also submit a separate file for Algiers, which features its own distinct styles of kaftan along with other traditional clothing. Even if that is accepted, we would not claim that UNESCO fails to recognize the “Algerian caftan” simply because other garments are listed alongside it. That’s not how Algerians understand or categorize their caftans. Each style belongs to its specific region, shaped by local traditions, conception, and usage. They are not grouped under one overarching title called “Algerian Caftan.”

I hope this is clear now. So no point repeating that WP:OR of yours. Best. Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

That is a useful point about how Algeria structures its UNESCO submissions, but it actually reinforces the case for the Moroccan box rather than settling the question of the Algerian ones. If the argument is that the caftan carries real standing within each Algerian inscription even while sharing the title with other garments, then the Moroccan inscription, where the caftan is the only named subject, has that standing even more clearly.

Nobody here is questioning whether Algerian caftan traditions have cultural value or UNESCO recognition. The question is narrower: what does a UNESCO infobox on this Wikipedia article tell a reader? It tells them that the article's subject was inscribed. The inscription titled "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills" (02077) does that directly. The Algerian entries do it through bundled regional submissions where the caftan shares space with other garments. Those are factually different situations, and right now the more direct case has no box while the less direct cases have two.

Whether the Algerian boxes should stay, be restructured, or come down is a separate question and others can weigh in on it. But based on the reasoning already in this thread, including yours, the Moroccan inscription clearly qualifies. Adding that box would be the simplest step forward and the hardest one to object to on any principled basis. Bohosquare1 (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The article should feature two separate recognitions. In the Algerian context, the regional dimension is essential. The boxes make it clear to the reader that UNESCO has recognized two distinct types of caftans originating from two different Algerian regions. This highlights that caftans in Algeria are not a standalone “national” garment but are deeply embedded in specific regional traditions, each encompassing its own styles and associated clothing. This is what the reader should understand about “Algerian caftans”. This is essential to understand their uniqueness…

I’m not interested in comparing this to the Moroccan model, nor do I believe Algeria needs to follow Morocco’s approach to gain international recognition for its caftans. Nourerrahmane (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You've actually made the case yourself. Your argument is that the boxes exist because UNESCO has recognized distinct caftan traditions from specific places, and that recognition deserves to be visible to the reader. Apply that same standard to the Moroccan inscription, which is titled "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills" with nothing else in the title alongside it, and the conclusion is obvious. If the boxes are there to show the reader that a caftan tradition has been inscribed, then the one inscription where the caftan is the sole named subject is the strongest possible case for one.

Right now this article has two boxes and none of them cover the inscription that is exclusively about the kaftan. Whatever is decided about the others, that specific gap is not defensible by any reasoning currently in this thread, including yours. Bohosquare1 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

To reply to the original comment, If anything a regular reader will understand that the Algerian caftans proper are not recognised by UNESCO. Which is wrong. The Chedda of Tlemcen is literally a type of regional caftan specific to Tlemcen, the second box does indeed mention the Caftan of eastern Algeria (after updates in 2025). Therefore the arguments presented here are baseless. Both caftans are mentioned and both boxes are there to stay. I’m done here. Nourerrahmane (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

A couple of things need correcting before this thread closes. The Chedda is not a type of caftan. It is the traditional bridal costume ensemble of Tlemcen, which includes a caftan as one element alongside a headdress, jewelry, belt, and veil. That is not an interpretation -- it is what the UNESCO title itself says: "Rites and craftsmanship associated with the wedding costume tradition of Tlemcen." A wedding costume tradition is not a caftan. Calling the Chedda "literally a type of regional caftan" is not supported by the inscription being cited.

On the second box, noting that the 2024 title was updated to include the word caftan is not a counter-argument to anything raised here. Yes, the caftan appears in that title. It appears alongside four other garments. That has been the point from the start. The question is whether listing a garment among five others in a bundled regional submission is the same as dedicating an entire inscription to it. The Moroccan inscription is titled "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills." Nothing else is in that title. That specific distinction has been raised multiple times in this thread and has not been addressed once on its merits. Declaring the arguments baseless and leaving does not make them baseless. Any editor arriving at this thread can read the exchange and judge for themselves. Bohosquare1 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Since the Caftan is mentionned then it has its place in the article, no need to push your POV. (If "Lebset El-Arftan", a popular name for the Chedda, is not a caftan type, then I donno what it is.)

The arguments are indeed baseless becuase the sidelining attempt through misinterpretation is clear as day here. (Caftan is not mentionned alone so UNESCO doesn't recognise it). Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The argument has never been that UNESCO does not recognise Algerian caftans. That has been stated clearly several times and it is a mischaracterisation to keep framing it that way.

On "Lebset El-Arftan": a colloquial or popular name for the Chedda does not change what UNESCO officially inscribed. The inscription title is "Rites and craftsmanship associated with the wedding costume tradition of Tlemcen." That is what the source says, and that is what the infobox cites. Whether the word for the ensemble's main garment is informally borrowed from "kaftan" is a separate question from what UNESCO named.

The narrow point that remains unanswered is this: the article currently has two UNESCO boxes and neither one covers an inscription exclusively dedicated to the kaftan. The Moroccan inscription (02077) is titled "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills" with no other garments in the title. Whether the other boxes stay or go, there is no principled reason that inscription should have no box while the others do. Bohosquare1 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

If UNESCO does indeed recognise Algerian caftans (including the Chedda) then why are you trying to remove the boxes ? :) Nourerrahmane (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

At no point in this thread have I argued for removing any box. That has been the position of someone else entirely. It is worth re-reading the discussion, because it seems like after several rounds of back-and-forth the original point has gotten lost, or perhaps the defensive mode kicked in and everything started looking like an attack on the Algerian boxes.

The ask has been the same from the start: add a UNESCO infobox for the Moroccan inscription (02077), "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills," which is the only inscription in this entire thread where the kaftan is the sole named subject. That is it. No removal, no challenge to the Algerian entries. Just a box for the inscription that is exclusively about the kaftan. Bohosquare1 (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Section ordering in "Types" — rationale?

The Types section currently runs: Turkic → Algerian → Moroccan. Is there a documented rationale for this ordering? If it is meant to reflect chronology, the article's own cited sources place the Moroccan kaftan tradition from the late 15th century (ref 50, Rachida Alaoui; ref 49, Encyclopaedia of Islam), while the Algerian section's earliest claims rest on regional sources of disputed reliability. If the ordering is alphabetical, that is fine, but it should be stated. Without a clear rationale, the current ordering creates an implied hierarchy that is not supported by the sources. Bohosquare1 (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Problematic sources

I have removed two sources— One was over 150 years old. The other one was unreliable in context. Both these sources contradict Jonathan M. Bloom, the most widely used source on Islamic art in the 21st century. Hu741f4 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request - Add UNESCO ICH infobox for Moroccan Caftan inscription

Please add a UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage infobox for Morocco's 2025 inscription 02077, "Moroccan Caftan: art, traditions and skills." This inscription is the only one discussed in the ongoing UNESCO thread on this talk page where the kaftan is the sole named subject. The article currently carries two UNESCO boxes for Algerian inscriptions where the kaftan appears alongside other garments. The absence of a box for the one inscription dedicated exclusively to the kaftan has been raised and discussed at length in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage boxes thread below. Bohosquare1 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. You are autoconfirmed and can edit the article yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I just checked and it turns out the box is already there, looks like it was added back in March. Moot point then, sorry for the noise. Bohosquare1 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)