Talk:1971 Moroccan coup attempt/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The three images taken from AP are all claimed to have been published without a copyright notice, which seems unlikely -- AP certainly has a copyright statement on the source page, and I don't know why we would assume there was no copyright in 1971. Do you have any more information about why this would be the case?
For File:Mohamed Bachir El Bouhali.png, my reading of the Hirtle chart is that it's still copyrighted; it was published in Morocco and we have no reason to believe a copyright statement was omitted, so it's 95 years from publication until it's in the public domain.
~~What makes yabiladi.com a reliable source? Per our article in the French Wikipedia, it was started as a one-man operation, though I can't tell if it still is.~~

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie

I was not able to find the newsreels on the U.S. Copyright Office's website, I believe I overlooked the copyright statement and I apologize for that. Either way, I am willing to submit a deletion request for those pictures if you deem it necessary. Would uploading the images to Wikipedia under fair use be a workable solution?
Up to you on the deletion request -- if you think they are in fact under copyright, as it appears, that would be a helpful thing to do, I agree. Yes, uploading locally under fair use is a possibility, but WP:NFCC requires minimal use, and also requires that an image would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I don't immediately see an argument that could be made that these would help reader understanding, I have to say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will submit a VRT request to Mohamed Bachir El Bouhali's next-of-kin, Mourad, who most likely controls the copyright on the photograph, I was not aware of such a clause in U.S. copyright legislation. If that goes nowhere, then I believe the photo could probably be uploaded on English Wikipedia rather than on Wikimedia Commons.
There are about 34 journalists for Yabiladi indexed on LinkedIn, and its founder and CEO has been interviewed on newspapers and invited onto national TV shows as a journalist. While it seems that it might have been self-published a few years ago, it seems it is no longer the case and it seems to have somewhat independent coverage. If this isn't sufficient enough, I am ready to swap it with another source if necessary.
I think that's sufficient. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review :-) NAADAAN (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the first of two attempted coups during Hassan's rule". Per WP:LEAD, everything in the lead should also be in the body of the article; as far as I can see this is not mentioned in the body at the moment. This rule is why most editors don't bother with citations in the lead -- it's optional, and there's no harm in having them, but since everything has to be cited in the body, you can usually omit citations in the lead if you want to.
"This angered Medbouh, who felt that it was not enough and that the ministers should have also been criminally charged. Omar Benmessaoud was arrested after the coup attempt and was sentenced to 12 years in jail alongside the former ministers in 1972." So the ministers were in fact criminally charged, but not till after the coup attempt?
"When the firing died down, the King later re-emerged to find himself face to face with a rebel cadet, who apologized for not recognizing him. The King ordered the cadet to bring three of his comrades and recited the first chapter of the Quran, Al-Fatiha. The cadets joined in and shouted, "Long live the King!" The attack lasted an hour and a half." I don't understand this. The rebel cadet abandoned his orders and began to take orders from the King? The King converted all four of them to his side? And does this mean the attack by the cadets had ended at this point?
Medbouh is clearly in Skhirat for the attack, as he found the King; so how could he have been killed in Rabat?
"Ababou ordered Hafez to announce the military refused, Hafez refused, which angered Ababou": unclear what this means.
"He also pointed to foreign interference as 600 Moroccans had attempted to renew their passports in Cairo on the day of the attack": why would this imply foreign interference?
If Chellat, Achour, and M'zireg are not important enough to mention in the narrative of the attack, is it really worth detailing their sentences? Perhaps the escape attempt justifies the mention. But what does "disappeared soon after" mean? If the escape attempt failed, they were still in prison. Did they disappear from the prison?

Overall the prose seems fragmented; it reads like an accumulation of facts, rather than a sequential narrative of events. I'll read through again once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN, are you still planning on working on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am rewriting the article locally. NAADAAN (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- no hurry, so long as I know you're working on it. I'll check in with you again in about a week if I don't hear from you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN, checking in again -- how's the rewrite going? If you think it will take a long time it might be better to fail this and let you renominate when you're ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie, sorry that I was unable to answer earlier, I was preoccupied with work. I have fixed the issues that you pointed out, while trying to make the story cohesive, although I find that to be quite challenging (first GA nomination, not a native English speaker). If it is insufficient, then I apologize. Thank you for your review. NAADAAN (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN, I have read through again. You've resolved some of the issues, but I think it would really benefit from a copyedit. I think it would be possible to get it to GA standard during this review, but I suggest we close this review and you request a copyedit from the WP:GOCE, or any other good copyeditor you know, and then renominate. If you would prefer not to do that I will carry on with the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copyedited the article with the help of a friend and notes I wrote a week ago. Do you deem it to be sufficient enough, or is requesting a review from the WP:GOCE still on the table? There are 2,002 articles scheduled to the WP:GOCE, so I'd rather avoid it, but that can be done if necessary. NAADAAN (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a horrific backlog, I agree. I'll take another look; not sure if it'll be today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN, just a note to say that I haven't forgotten about this -- I'm trying to clear a few other things off my plate and will return to this when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's no rush, take your time if needed NAADAAN (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

Sorry about the delay getting back to this. Reading through again:

"Pan Am should pay the King 600 million": we need to know what currency this is -- dirhams or dollars -- and it would be useful to know the approximate value in modern dollars if this is dirhams, though I don't think that's necessary for GA.
Can you just confirm that this is the right number? It would have been impossible for PanAm to pay this amount; $4 billion, as you convert it, is a third the entire value of United Airlines today. I can understand that Benmessaoud might have been stupid enough to ask for an impossible number, but I want to check this isn't a typo for e.g. $60 million. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This figure comes from Pierre Doublet's "Le complot de Skhirat", which is also cited in this article.

> "Medbouh easily discovers the reason: the president of Panamerican Airways transmitted to his friend William Rogers, Secretary of State, a file containing photocopies of letters from Morocco. Panamerican wanted to buy expensive land in Casablanca to build a luxury hotel. A dignitary close to Hassan II had the stupidity to write, black on white: "We should also pay 600 million to the king.""

The "dignitary close to Hassan" is Benmessaoud, as stated in this article; it is paywalled but here's are translated quotes from it:

> "But to acquire this land, an intermediary has positioned himself, in this case Omar Benmessaoud, a senior Moroccan official, to demand a large sum of money and this to allow Pan Am "to complete its project" in Morocco. It is without any embarrassment that the senior official openly demanded a sum of money in a document."

> "General Medbouh is thus informed of this affair, he takes a copy of the document and decides to inform King Hassan II. But after further investigations, it was discovered that Omar Benmessaoud was not only involved in one case, but in dozens of other cases."

> "Hassan II was furious, and demanded a thorough investigation and to severely punish those involved. Omar Benmessaoud is immediately arrested, he disappears for three weeks (He was probably tortured), and was tried." NAADAAN (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Medbouh discovered that a businessman, Omar Benmessaoud, had asked Pan Am for "sizable commissions" in exchange for permission to build the hotel. Benmessaoud claimed to be close to the King and suggested that Pan Am should pay the King 600 million in addition to his "commission"." I would avoid the use of scare quotes; if the sources are clear that this was definitely a request for a bribe, we should say so and call it a bribe. If the sources are ambiguous we should make that clear.
"The cadets, who believed they were raiding the palace to protect the King, joined in and shouted, "Long live the King!", marking the end of the attack in Skhirat." I don't understand "marking the end of the attack". We have over a thousand cadets attacking the palace, but when the king and four cadets recite al-Fatiha, the attacks ends?
I think this is still an issue; see my note in the spotchecks section below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the books that I have, I improved upon this part. If it's still foggy -- then I will improve more upon it soon. NAADAAN (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"On the evening of 17:45": presumably this should be a date, not a time?~~
"Ababou gave orders to the rebels from the station, and ordered the execution of everyone in the palace by asking that "dinner be served to everyone by 7 pm"." This was some kkind of code phrase? We need to say so if so, and we need to say what the consequences of the order were. Was anyone executed as a result of this order?
~~A sentence or two at the start of the "Attack" section saying that Skhirat was 20 km south of Rabat on the coast would help, since Skhirat is not going to be widely known by English speaking readers.~~
~~"After being wounded, Ababou reportedly asked his right-hand man, CWO Harrouch Akka, to shoot and kill him in order to avoid being captured alive." You don't say if Akka complied or if Ababou died.~~
"The coup attempt led to 278 deaths, including 158 rebel cadets ...". This list doesn't include Medbouh or M'hamed Ababou, assuming M'hamed did die. It also doesn't mention the ten officers executed on July 13.
"died while assisting the wounded" and "died while helping a wounded man" -- it's not clear what this means. They went into crossfire to help these wounded people and were hit? They were killed because they were helping the wounded?

I still think the prose is substandard. Given your request above, I'm going to ask at WT:GAN for a second opinion on the prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, Benmessaoud requested all of his bribes in U.S. dollars; I added the {{US$}} tag, is this sufficient?
I have tried to make this more concise, if this is insufficient; please tell me how I could improve it.
It's of my understanding that Ababou rounded up the remaining cadets to launch an assault towards Rabat.
This has been fixed.
Indeed -- this was a code phrase, I understand that Ababou was probably under the impression that the cadets in Skhirat had captured the King.
I have tried to improve this.
Akka complied and shot him dead; I have improved this.
I have improved this.
I have also improved this.

The Skhirat attack and the subsequent plots against the King had great political reprecussions on the country, so I don't think the full story can be told for a long time. I will take my time tonight to read sources and rewrite it, then I will probably take a break for at most a week (I will have a surgical operation tomorrow). NAADAAN (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

I'd like a second opinion on the prose in the article. My concern is that it is fragmented, with a WP:PROSELINE style and short paragraphs. I have done some copyediting but I think more is needed by someone familiar with the sources. Other than the prose the only remaining issue for the article is spotchecks, which I have not yet done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie - If it helps, and the nominator is willing, I’m be pleased to see if I can smooth out the prose. As it stands, while it’s an interesting and well-sourced article, I’d agree that some of the short paragraphs are too choppy, particularly towards the end. KJP1 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great. I'm sure the nominator would be fine with that, given their comments further up this review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN - So, I've done a first copy-edit as far as Victims. I hope that the changes meet with approval. If they don't, they can be rolled back pretty easily, as I've done them in two batches. Four things where I'd appreciate the nominator's view. I have amended King to king, except where it's King Hassan. I think this is in line with MoS. Re. the Victims section, I'm not a fan of bullet points, preferring prose. I can do this, but recognise it will be quite a major change so wanted to see what NAADAAN thought. Thirdly, Abdesslam Amer is initially described as a "composer", but later as a "singer". I think he could fairly be described as either, or both, but I think we should be consistent. Lastly, the Aftermath section is the "choppiest" of the lot, with multiple short paragraphs. Consequently, it will need the most work. Just wanted to check you were okay with the direction of travel before I begin. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All is fine; sounds good, thank you. NAADAAN (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've had a go at a copy-edit, trying to smooth the prose, combining short paragraphs, converting a bullet list into a prose paragraph, etc. Let me know if there's anything that's still not working and I'll take another look. KJP1 (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. There are a couple of embedded “instructions/notes” in the article, at the start of Background and at the end of Aftermath. I’m not sure if they are aide-memoire that the nominator has already acted upon, or whether they remain to be actioned? KJP1 (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already acted upon them, I'll remove them soon -- thank you very much. :-) NAADAAN (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1, thanks for the copyedit; I've read through and that addresses my prose concerns. That just leaves the spotchecks, which I've listed below. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

~~FN 3 cites "Both Ababou and Medbouh were Riffians from the Gzenaya tribe." Verified.~~
FNs 20 & 35 cite "The attack lasted for an hour and a half before the king emerged to face a rebel cadet who apologized for not recognizing him." FN 35 has "In the meantime, the situation had completely turned around, because a soldier had recognized HM King Hassan II, causing the plot to fail." I don't have access to FN 20; can you quote the text that supports this from that source?
NAADAAN, I still need to see the text that supports "an hour and a half". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN 35 claims the attack ended around 15:00. Paris Match (FN 10) claims that HM Hassan had the encounter with the group of rebels around 16:45. NAADAAN (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~FN 20 cites "Egypt's state-run newspaper, Al-Ahram also celebrated Hassan's reported demise." And can you quote the supporting text here too?~~
~~FN 46 cites "Ten high-ranking officers of the Royal Armed Forces were executed the day following the coup." According to the source the executions were on 13 July, not 11 July.~~
~~FNs 12 & 19 cite "Oufkir was later alleged to have played a passive role in the Skhirat coup attempt." I can see only one of these sources but it does support this.~~

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I physically have access to the sources (they're books in French); I'm afraid directly quoting it would be some sort of copyvio, so I'm unsure how I could send them over (pictures on imgur)? NAADAAN (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Directly quoting short sections for this purpose is not a copyvio; that's how spotchecks are usually handled when the source is unavailable to a reviewer. Talk pages such as this are not indexed by Google, partly to avoid concerns like this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN 20, Al-Ahram mention

Execution date was fixed

FN 12, 26 & 19 agree that Oufkir had a role; FN 19 Oufkir "passive role" mention

With what happened in the King's hiding spot, it is also told in FN 19 NAADAAN (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NAADAAN (and KJP1, I'd like your opinion too, if you have a moment), Google Translatee gives me this for the snippet of FN 19 you link to: "'When these young soldiers saw Us in front of this audience, hands on our heads, one of them recognized Us and asked Us to follow him. He had his finger on the trigger. When We found Ourselves face to face, he stood at attention, then kissed Our hand... We addressed him in astonishment, pointing out to him that on the one hand, he shows obedience and devotion and on the other hand he is participating in a criminal enterprise.' Shortly after, in a press conference, the Sovereign recounted his first feelings towards the other cadets who were facing him: 'It is inadmissible that you have done to the Royal Army what you are doing to it now. unworthy and not in line with what I expected of you. Immediately, some began to cry and we recited the fatiha which is the first surah of the Koran. I must say that from that moment on, it was was the last episode of the denouement, which meant that I was able to recover all the officers who were prisoners.'"

The last paragraph of "Attack in Skhirat" makes it sound as though when the cadet recognized the king, that was the end of the attack in Skhirat, but this doesn't say that. Do the other sources support that once the king was recognized the attack came to an end? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From checking the sources I have online: per FN 10, Hassan's encounter with the rebels was at ~16:45. and per FN 04, the rebels were on their way to Rabat at ~17:10.

I will verify the books I have. NAADAAN (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and pass this. My French is not strong, but the only outstanding point was the spotchecks and as far as I can tell the sources do support the article where I've been able to check, so I'm going to AGF that there are no issues I haven't spotted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Appreciate it NAADAAN (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]