Talk:Greater Morocco/Archive 1

POV

This articles lacks a neutral point of view, and should be completly refactored. It's exactly the kind of article which will lead to an edit war if moroccans are aware of it.

===>I hate to admit it... But this is true - the page is POV. I'll try to amend it this weekend. Justin (koavf) 20:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

Is there a reliable source for the statement "Spain received (and still receives) 35% of the income from phosphate mining, primarily in Laayoune and Bou Craa"? This is the first time I heard of it. --Ecemaml 17:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for "still receives", I don't know. But the Madrid Accords explicitly stipulated that Spain was to be given a 35% concession from phosphate mining plus extensive fishing rights in WS. This arrangement may have collapsed with the Franco regime, but I honestly don't know. But the Madrid Accords, I seem to recall, were referred to by Spain as late as last year, in connection with EU-Moroccan fishing negotiations. My suggestion is we remove "still receives" and the Disputed-tag.

See, for example, this report - search for "Madrid Accords". Arre 18:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Morocco's Lies

In another way, be careful about this article, because it could create confusion on the reality of the territories that wants to be annexed by Morocco. From an external point of view (that does not have knowledge on the topic) Greater Morocco can be feasible. Truth is in opposite way. For example: Canary Islands exists before Morocco. Its history, peoples, culture, customs... is different. Also Ceuta, Melilla, Western Sahara... Read about every land you have seen on the topic (history, legitimacy...)and make your own opinion. Morocco tries to be deceptive to the world with its megalomaniac politics.

Morocco never claimed Canary Islands. Ceuta and Melilla for Morocco are what Gibraltar is for Spain. Spanish (Western) Sahara was claimed by Morocco in 1956 when it got independence. The Moroccan Liberation army tried in 1958 to recover it by force. The conflict of Western Sahara is a Morocco-Algeria battle for the leadership of the Maghreb. Many of the founders of Polisario have joined Morocco. The conflict of Western Sahara is a waste of time for the Maghreb, because Morocco will never give it up, and Algeria needs to have an opening on the Atlantic.

Template

i'm not sure this template is appropriate. greater morocco has to do with more than western sahara. and possibly the moroccan politics template could be more appropriate? Arre 03:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article with POV focus

This article must reviewed. It is written from a unilateral prespective.
Example, Ceuta and Melilla are considered as parts of Morocco by all Moroccans, by the Moroccan state, by all political parties and institutions, by the Moroccan public opinion and also by the Arab World: people, institutions, public opinion etc.
Very probably there are other (African) states that also consider that these cities still suffer colonialism.
To include them in "Greater Morocco" is biase
Other facts must be added (I'll try to find) to underline that what now have an expansive connotaton like "Greater Morocco" was in its time very supported. Example: When Mauritania proclamed its independance this was boycotted by the Arab Ligue in protest that this part (now independant state) becoming seprate from Morocco (Also I'll try to find a source for this).
This to say, that this term "Greater Morocco" should not be misued and must be situated in its historical context.
Morocco is one of the oldest and most rooted nations of this world. Like all other nations with imperial background it suffers from territorial disputes and separatism (China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, France, UK, Spain, Italy, etc.)

wikima 19:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you say, but I don't see what the problem is. Does the article contradict any of these things? Greater Morocco of course included Ceuta and Melilla, just as it included Rabat, which is also considered "normal Morocco" by Moroccans today. I believe you are correct about the Arab League's (initial) stance, and this should be mentioned, and sourced. Arre 05:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

======> The article still contains some POVs

1- The article starts by giving the impression that "Greater Morocco" concept was a "propaganda tool" to get people to seek independence from France and Spain. This is a sign of ignorance of Moroccan History. It took for more than 15 years (till around 1927) for Morocco to be completely under Spanish and French rule. The Political fight continued from the thirties on till independence in 1956 and beyond. King Mohammed V died in 1961, but already in 1956 Morocco claimed the Spanish Sahara, that is to say, it is not until Hassan II took power in 1961 that Morocco started to claim what it sees belonging to it. So "Greater Morocco" was not a tool for getting people to fight for independence. The word "propaganda" should definitely be removed, and the phrase reformulated.

2- Northern Senegal as a part of the "Greater Morocco" areas. This is the first time I hear it, I would like to see some proof for it, otherwise it should be removed.

3- " In the middle of an economic crisis and after three failed coups d'état, Hassan II decided to send ...". This has a goal to make the reader believe that it is the reason the king claimed Spanish Sahara. Well, first, there were only two coups d'état, in 1971 and 1972. I would like to know where and when was this third. The Green March happened in November 1975. How could the coups d'etat be related to the March???. I am more inclined to believe that a country with a weak economy would rather avoid armed conflicts for which it has no means, and a country with an unstable political situation will have no advantage making new external enemies that would surely harbour and strengthen its internal enemies. So I suggest removing "In the middle of an economic crisis and after three failed coups d'état,"

"enduce more enthusiasm in his population", this really made laugh.

4- " this acquisition could at once revive nationalistic confidence in the monarchy and give the economy a shot in the arm.". I think this is not the sort of language and intelectual level to be in an encyclopedia.

That's it. I think it is not a big deal. I can propose new version for those phrases. --SteveLo 22:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Propaganda

Are you saying that the irredentist claims of Istiqlal weren't propaganda? Bear in mind that Morocco was made a protectorate with the assistance of the Moroccan monarchy. Unless I'm missing something here, you directly contradict yourself in this sentence:

"[i]n 1956 Morocco claimed the Spanish Sahara ... it is not untill [sic] Hassan II took power in 1961 that Morocco started to claim what it sees belongs to it."

They claimed the Senegal River and its interior border, including the city of Saint-Louis. Re: Tony Hodges' Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War, p.88 (map on p.87) "The claim to Saint-Louis in Senegal was also quietly shelved" after the claims to Mali were dropped in 1960. The source of his map is the Georapher from the U.S. Department of State.
It is certainly true that Hassan redoubled efforts for the Sahara during economic crisis and political instability. The article may well be mistaken about the number of attempted coups. The Green March occured after decades of posturing for the Sahara. The article isn't claiming that there is an association between the coup attempts and the Green March. While it is wise that "a country with a weak economy would rather avoid armed conflicts for which it has no means," there is no reason to assume that Hassan II is wise. See, for instance, North Korea, where Kim Jong-il can't feed his population, and he's politically and geographically isolated from almost everyone else in the world, but he's got a huge military and possibly nuclear weapons for some reason.
If you have potential re-wordings for certain passages, feel free to suggest them. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===> Propaganda?? I think, Justin, you don't need anyone to explain to you what is propaganda ;-).

Greater Morocco is a legitimate claim for Morocco and it has its roots in the glorious past of the country. It has been ruled by great dynasties that left the Moroccans proud of their past. Believe me, many of Morocco's neighbors envy them that past. When all the rest of the Arab World was under Ottoman rule, Morocco was standing as an independent empire, exchanging ambassadors and signing treaties with Europe's greatest kingdoms, and was by the way the first to recognize your country. The longest standing unbroken treaty of friendship the US has with any foreign country is the one signed with the Moroccan Empire in 1783. So to say that the idea of Greater Morocco was created by Istiqlal or it is for propaganda reasons is simply not true.
The protectorate was imposed on Morocco, and was due to its weakness. The fact that it is signed by the Moroccan monarchy does not mean it was assisted by it.
there was no contradiction in the sentence. Maybe I did not phrase well. Here it is again: "The claims of Morocco on Spanish Sahara started already in 1956 ... they did not start when Hassan II took power in 1961."
Please, please. If something is a fact, you should not have problem finding sources for it. So, don't bother yourself quoting Hodges. He is the main reference and source of intox in Polisario sites. So, are there any neutral sources?
As to the late King Hassan's wisdom, you can say what you want. His funerals were attended by all the world's prominent leaders including all the living US presidents. I don't think they would bother make the trip say farewell to an unwise person. I read about events related to the conflict of WS, and the balance of power that existed, the diplomatic battle raging in North Africa in the 70s prior to 1976, and when against manoeuvers from Spain, Algeria, Libya, etc,.. today after more than 30 years, the Moroccan flag is in the skies of WS, I think he was more than wise. --SteveLo 10:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Propaganda

It's totally irrelevant if you think that Greater Morocco is legitimate (it's not.) It's also totally irrelevant if you think Greater Albania or Greater Finland are legitimate (they're not.) That changes nothing about the nature of the claims or the terms. Of course Nazis thought that the Final Solution was legitimate, and Mao thought the Great Leap Forward was legitimate. Propagandizers probably do believe what they're saying; that doesn't change the nature of propaganda. The NPOV policy on Wikipedia prohibits us from writing in the context of an article whether or not controversial claims like this are legitimate. That is to say nothing of the evidence against Greater Morocco (lack of historical administration, cruel treatment of Sahrawis, the invasion of a sovereign state or two, the debunking of all other Greater Morocco claims, etc.) The idea of Greater Morocco was of course created by Istiqlal. From where did it come if not them?
If the monarchy signed on to a policy and the monarch is sovereign, that's the policy. That's the nature of monarchy. The protectorate was actually beneficial to the monarch, as there were violent tribes in the south looking to overthrow him, and Spaniards defended the throne.
This statement is correct. Morocco claimed the Sahara from 1956.
If you don't like Hodges or if you don't think he's neutral, that's also totally irrelevant. The fact is, his book is the standard reading on the Sahara in English. He has copious footnotes that you can check if you don't trust him. His book has never been debunked, and he's trustworthy until proven otherwise. You can't simply reject a source out of hand because you don't like the facts they present. The burden of proof is on you to prove that this source is somehow untrusthworthy; that the claims he presents are not true.
They made the trip to his funeral as a goodwill gesture, since Morocco was pro-West under his leadership. It has nothing to do with how wise he was. You could just as easily say "I read about the events related to the conflict of Transjordan, and the balance of power that existed, the diplomatic battle raging in the Middle East in the 30s prior to 1948, and when against manoevers from Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Syria, etc,.. today after more than 50 years, the Israeli flag is in the skies of Palestine, I think David Ben Guiron was more than wise." The simple fact that you win in a conflict (or are the occupying power of a majority of a territory during a ceasefire) does not show wisdom, virtue, benevolence, or any admirable trait at all; it simply shows that you were ahead in a military conflict. You also could have written this in 1954 "I read about the events related to the conflict of the Moroccan protectorate, and the balance of power that existed, the diplomatic battle raging in North Africa in the 90s prior to 1912, and when against manoevers from France, Spain, the Sultan of Morocco, etc,.. today after more than 50 years, the Spanish flag is in the skies of Morocco, I think the King of Spain was more than wise." -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=====> propaganda

What is totally irrelevant in all this is what YOU think. The history of Morocco speaks for itself and does not care what I or you think about it.
Please save me from those comparisions that have nothing to do with the subject. You are jumping from Taiwan to finland to Gaza to Obasanjo to Albania to ... . Please stay focused on the subject. And invoking the Final solution here is a scandal.
The rules of Wikipedia are broken by all the POV inserted in all WS related articles, that try to make Wikipedia an extension of Polisario propaganda sites.
try, Justin, to read about the history of Morocco. You will then stop speaking about lack of historical administration. Algeria administrates 2 million square Km of desert it had never had before the coming of the French.
Which invasion of two states you are talking about? if you mean the war of 1963, it was a border war between two countries. When the Moroccan troops entered Elaiun, there was no other autority than Spain.
"cruel treatment of Sahrawis". Since 1975, what stroke me, is that Morocco never opened fire on demonstrators in the streets of sahrawi cities. Compare them with what happened in other places in Algeria and Morocco.
The idea of Greater Morocco came from the history of Morocco, Justin. Why does not Algeria and Tunisia have one?, take some effort to read about the history of The Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia).
About countries signing treaties that undermine their interests, have a look at Europe in the 30s and 40s, and you will see if many countries have had the choice to bow to Nazi Germany (France for ex.).
Again, Hodges and Shelley, and a few guys dedicated to the Polisario attitude, are just individuals with a point of view. Their views are irrelevant to those who do not accept them, like me. The fact that you have no more sources other than Hodges and his friends and a few unofficial sites that expose their own (biased) ideas, and the fact that the UN documents are not on your side, is a big handicap for your.
You keep on invoking the West bank and Gaza and Taiwan. Well, keep in mind that the West bank and Gaza are occupied territories according to the UN (resolution 442). Israel does not claim them, but see them becoming part of a Palestinian state, in exchange for peace. To compare Taiwan and the republic of Abdelaziz is quite amusing. Taiwan is a country, with all what the word country means. Most probably, the motherboard of you PC is made in Taiwan. to line it up with a "government" seated in Tindouf, and claims to administer one third of WS, while Abdelaziz sets foot in "his" territory only for some mediatic propaganda events, (a couple a year) is ridiculous.
The wisdom of King Hassan as a man is recognized by even his enemies. I remember having read an interview done by the Spanish newspaper Elmundo with Abdleaziz where he praised Hassan II and regrets very much that he is not alive. His wise positions on the Israel-Palestinian problem are well known. in 1975, King Hassan was facing the Petro-Dollar of Algeria and Libya, and strong Spanish efforts to make Sagui Hamra and Rio De Oro formally independent but practically under indirect Spanish control, but he could win all his enemies. --SteveLo 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Ignoring and belligerent

Let me state this formally: BOTH OF OUR opinions on history are irrelevant. Is that better? And what does Moroccan history say exactly?
Writing "please save me from those comparisions that have nothing to do with the subject" is glib and bad faith. You ignored the germane comparisons for no reason. Do you want to have a discussion or not? I'm giving you concrete examples of how bankrupt your line of reasoning is; either defend them or admit that you're in the wrong.
This statement is pointless.
I don't care about Algeria. Don't you understand that every African state (minus island nations and Liberia) has inherited borders? Are civil wars supposed to rage across the African continent because someone's great-granddady used to own a speck of land in a desert? I've read about Morocco and writing "try, Justin, to read about the history of Morocco" is another glib, asinine aside. Don't tell me to read about it, TELL me about it. Give me the resources yourself. Am I honestly supposed to just believe whatever you have to say? Do you seriously think that's rational? I'm trying to provide sources for the statements I make and you respond with something as vague and meaningless as "try, Justin, to read about the history of Morocco." You're wasting my time and yours.
The first state was Algeria, the second was the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Spain was not the authority, as they had left the territory; in fact, it was upon leaving that the SADR was proclaimed.
That's nice. They just dropped napalm on fleeing civilians, arbitrarily arrest them, murder them extrajudicially and dump their bodies in mass graves, but they don't open fire on demonstrators (they just hit them with billy clubs and run them over with cars.)
"take some effort to read about the history of The Maghreb" - another vapid statement.
Okay. And?
You've provided no evidence. None. You've given me sarcastic asides as evidence. Did you ever consider why they are "dedicated to the Polisario attitude" (which is not a claim I'm even endorsing)? Maybe they were persuaded by the facts. Did you ever even consider that they were essentially neutral in the conflict (they're British, so it's not like their interests are at stake), they gave the conflict credible academic study, and they came to a conclusion based on fact, like myself? They are not "just individuals with a point of view;" they are credible authorities on the matter. If you're going to disregard every source you don't like as "just individuals with a point of view," then I can see that discussion will go nowhere. And what does this mean: "the fact that the UN documents are not on your side, is a big handicap for your [position]?" I just pointed you to dozens of UN documents that do support my claims? Did you even look at those links? The UN has called the Sahara occupied territory repeatedly.
Certainly the mainstream opinion among Israelis is that there will be a Palestinian state established, althought a minority insist on a (divine) right to them. The SADR is a country, with all what the word country means. The statment "Most probably, the motherboard of you PC is made in Taiwan" is ungrammatical nonsense. The claimed territory of the ROC is several dozen times larger than what it actually administers (mainland China, Tuva, Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, and several islands), so the SADR administers a higher percentage of its claimed territory. The ROC is only recognized by 26 states, while the SADR is recognized by twice as many. The ROC is not a party to any major international organization, except as a special customs territory in the WTrO, but the SADR is a full member of the African Union. So, tell me, how is the ROC a country, but the SADR is not?
Winning practically all one's enemies is also not wisdom. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major Problem with this Article!

I had another look at this article and now I think there is a major problem with the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article
Does the concept of "Greater Morocco" exist in reality?
The rarticle does not deliver any sources on that
If such a concept exists and was used then we would know about its Arabic and French version. We would know about "Almaghreb Al(3)athim", "Almghreb Ala(3)tham", "Almaghreb Alkabir", "Almaghreb Alakbar", "Le Grand Maroc" etc.
All these concepts simply do not exist in Arabic. They are never used or communicated by the actors listed in the article (Istiqlal Party, Kingdom of Morocco etc.). And they are neither mentioned nor sourced in the article.
The Moroccan public opinion be it represented by the press or the "street" never use them.
Moroccans, the Moroccan state, all the Moroccan institutions, parties, organisations, medias etc. use Morocco and never the term of "Greater Morocco".
Attention: Le Grand Maghreb is used sometimes, not only by Moroccans and it has nothing to do with Morocco as Almaghreb (Al Arabi) is in the same time the name of the region including Morocco, Algeria and Tunesia. The Greater Maghreb could be used to mention the larger version of it including Mauritania and Libya which would with the idea of the UMA (Union du Maghreb Arabe).
A search on google gives back this same article, also as centirely on onther "knowledge" sites [1] [2], and several pro-polisarian site refelcting the views of this organisation on Western Sahara
"Greater Morocco" is used by those who push pro-polisarian claims and POVs in Wikipedia and elsewhere and try to suggest to the world that the Morocco are merely hegemonic and non legitim
No surprise that the article has been created by user:koav.

Result: I consider this article to be a fake. It is a candidate for deletion.

wikima 13:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was entertaining. If you are indeed Moroccan, have you been paying no attention at all to the country's politics (and policies!) for the last, say, 50 years? Anyway, I added some further reading that discusses the issue, mainly in regards to Western/Spanish Sahara and Mauritania, but also its ideological/political roots (from Allal El Fassi to the beyaa tribal vows of loyalty etc). If anyone knows good stuff that relates more to the eastern portions, Sand War, and south, i.e. Mali, then that is most welcome. But now please remove the tag, and why not also read the source material. Arre 22:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arre,

You're kidding aren't you? I put the POV tag because of the pro-polisarian dealing with this created term (Greater Morocco) and you give me exact these source for further reading?? No thanks.
If the Istiqlal Party and Kingdom of Morocco support such an "ideology" as the article states, then tell me how they name it in Arabic, Moroccan and in French? And in which sources and documents? I made suggestions of possible terminology that does not exist.
I have said my arguments above. If you just ignore them and don't react I'll take you last reation as non valid really.

Thanks - wikima 23:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arre I can't speak for him, but the Hodges book is well-sourced. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any reaction? To what I am saying above?
Can anyone tell me how Greater Morocco was called in Arabic (or even French) by Istiqlal? And by the Kingdom of Morocco? And how do all Moroccans call it? How do they learn about it in school?
And please without these routine references to "All-about-Western-Sahara-Morocco-is-the-biest-Polisario-is-the-beauty" further readings.

Thanks - wikima 20:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting out of control, Wikima. I have a nagging feeling you have never read a single of the scholarly works that exist on the Western Sahara question, some of whom I listed here as Further reading. Or have you?

I can only ever remember you sourcing ANYTHING with those two reports of yours, and a couple of articles from the Moroccan state press -- if that is where you get your info, no wonder you're having trouble digesting the difference of opinions that exists on this question.

I have no idea what the subject of this article was/is/should be called in Arabic, and it does not necessarily have a fixed name: there is however very clearly an idea/ideology that says Morocco was unjustly downsized by colonialism, and should (or should have been allowed to) return to part or all of its former glory. It was very much alive and kicking into the late 60s/early 70s, but since then (when Mauritania and the Algerian borders were recognized), little remains except the claim on Western Sahara, and few gov officials would want to embarrass themselves by bringing up old claims on other neighbours nowadays.

You know that you are lying if you are familiar with Moroccan politics and history, and if you're still trying to claim you don't recognize the facts listed in this article. Back down and behave.

Arre 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Arre, why are you so upset. From your agressive reaction I can see that you cannot answer the question.
If there has been such an ideology which at the language level culminates with the term of "Greater Morocco", and if this ideology has been part of political parties such as Istiqlal, or part of the official line of the Kingdom of Morocco, then this ideology or what ever it is will have a name or not?? And this name will certainnyl be in Arabic.
What is it?
I remind you the article is about what you call "Greater Morocco" and not about Western Sahara. If you want to be objective have a look at the reality, at other sources and frop that Western-Sahara-Fiction aside.

wikima 20:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me jump in here If you actually have a dispute with Hodges, feel free to bring it to bear. If not, then you need to accept the fact that his book is considered the standard in English-speaking scholarship on the Sahara. Period. It's also well-sourced, and easily available, so you can read and research yourself if you don't trust him. I know that Arre has a background in Arabic, but is still studying it; I know about five words, so it's entirely possible that neither of us on the English-speaking Wikipedia know the translation of "Greater Morocco" into a different language. I'm also totally ignorant about Moroccan public schooling outside of the university level. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem the believe in scholarship just because it is scholarship. I have spent long years at the university and this is not my way for dealing with "scholarship"
And who has decided this scholarship is "standard"? Is there an totalitarian institution that makes a "standard" and just forbids to everyone to contradict or to reject this "scholarship"?? What does this mean? We must turn off our brains and stop thinking because this "scholarship" is "standard". Wake up man, this is against the progress of human thinking.
We are talking about Morocco not about the Sahara. So you cannot pretend to re-write the history of Morocco and to invent new terminology just because you use pro-polisarian sources or what you call scholarship.
The question is not whether you or Arre need to learn Arabic to tell us what the name of "Greater Morocco" is. If "Greater Morocco" is part of the ideology of a political party, of the Kingdom of Morocco and of many other actors, then this word must have been used in Arabic. To my knowledge this word simply does not exist! Remember the "sadr" is just a fictive non recognised entity and though it is written in Arabic in Wikipedia (you will now count the "recognitions" I know).
What happens now if we realise that there is no such word in Arabic that has been used for "Greater Morocco"? That none in Morocco has ever used it? That it is not part of school programsn and education and that is documented NOWHERE in any propaganda (be it run by the state, any political party or movement) or manifests? That it is not used by the media? Etc.

I am afraid this article is highly problematic and must either undergo radical changes (I mean radical) or simply be deleteds.
I also think that it strongly damages the reputation of Wikipedia.

wikima 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So frustrating Writing things like "You seem [to] believe in scholarship just because it is scholarship" doesn't get us anywhere. I could just as easily write "You seem to believe in propaganda just because it is propaganda." This is asinine, Wikima. I believe some scholarship, I don't believe others. Some scholarship contradicts other scholarship, so no one believes all of it. I do believe scholarship when it presents compelling reasons and there are no cogent arguments in opposition. Scholarship becomes standard by passing a process of peer review, including being published in reputable journals. Why do you write offensive garbage like this? "What does this mean? We must turn off our brains and stop thinking because this 'scholarship' is 'standard.' Wake up man, this is against the progress of human thinking." Plus, it's not even true - the process of assimilating knowledge about our world and testing it against established fact is the foundation of academia, man. I did not invent new terminology; the term "Greater Morocco" has appeared in print, in English, on books about the conflict for over three decades (that is, since the beginning of the conflict.) If you don't know the term "Greater Morocco," that's of no particular concern to me. All you're essentially saying is "I was ignorant about this topic before reading this article, therefore, I think this article is fictitious." Then, in the next sentence, you contradict yourself by saying that the SADR is non-recognized and saying that it is. I don't even know what to make of posts like this. It has been used in Morocco; printed in newspapers by Allal el-Fassi himself (the one who came up with the ideology in the first place.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you admit that "scholarship" does not mean bible. So we can discuss the sources and reject them
The most central idea in this matter is the methodology. This is a main thing that makes scholarship valid or not.
It is also something that makes other stuff being valid or not, such as article in media or in Wikipedia.
Creating an article about something that you call "Greater Morocco" exculsively from a pro-polisarian Point of View is not methodology but dilettantism.

And again:

if there has been an ideology of Greater Morocco, it must have had its actors and it must have been communicated in the country, in the Maghreb region and/or in the Arab World through all kind of mass communication.
Moroccans must have heared and read about it, and learned it in the school, etc.
This means this term must exist in Arabic, everywhere in Morocco related publications.
Can you tell this term? And can you describe where it has been used? And how? Where it has been part of the official politics of the Kongdom of Morocco?
If you can't mention this term in Arabic and if you are unable to describe it outside of your two "books" on Western Sahara, if you are unable to find regular neutral scientific sources for it (not activist perverted "science") then please stop accusing others of ignorance!

wikima 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarship Look, I've no idea what you're talking about here, but I've got source material that's reputable. What exactly do you want? It did have its actors (el-Fassi, Hassan II, etc.) "Books" are books, and they include "facts" which are facts. So, for instance, if you read Hodges book, pages x, 86, 88, 95, 96, 113, 118, 175, 179, and 194, you will find references to Greater Morocco sourced from the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, United Nations Document A/C.4/SR.670, several contemporary newspapers, and more. There is also an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara. These books are easy to find, cheap (at least Hodges), and credible. If you don't want to go to all the trouble of looking for a book, I can type up quotes. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are turning back to your "books are books"! Stop contradicting yourself. People with this attitude believed in Karl Marx' Kapital until the reality dropped them.
Books are just work of human being and can be rejected, easily.
All your references you mentioned deal primarely with Western Sahara. There are pleinty of books on the history of Morocco or of the region but you mention none.
And again ===>My simple question still not answered: If the article is true, so how do Moroccans call Greater Morocco in Moroccan, Arabic, or even French? Where did the Istiqlal party, the Kingdom of Morocco and all the other actors use this term in their communications? Official manifests? How/Where did Moroccans learn about it in schools? In the media? In the public opinion in general? Etc.
If you are unable to answer just admit it and don't tell me about your eternal "scholarly tralali" sources.

Thanks - wikima 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? How am I contradicting myself? Of course books can be rejected. So can web sites. So can anything. My references have to do with the Sahara because that is where I am knowledgeable and what interests me. If you have a credible source to contradict scholarship, present it. If not, why are you here?

Questions:

If the article is true, so how do Moroccans call Greater Morocco in Moroccan, Arabic, or even French? I have no idea - I don't speak, read, write, or understand (Moroccan) Arabic or French outside of a few Latin roots in the latter.

Where did the Istiqlal party, the Kingdom of Morocco and all the other actors use this term in their communications? Official publications, newspapers, the UN documents to which I directed you (did you read them?), etc.

How/Where did Moroccans learn about it in schools? What? How am I supposed to know this? I know nothing about Moroccan primary or secondary education other than the fact that a majority of Moroccans are illiterate. That's it. I cannot possibly answer this question.

In the media? See above.

In the public opinion in general? See above. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you can't answer this simple question and your scholarly sources don't seem to help you much.

wikima 21:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true I just did answer your questions, and my scholarly sources are written in English; they are also not about the Moroccan education system, so asking me questions about it are irrelevant. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I still don't know what word Moroccans, the Moroccan parties and the Kingdom of Morocco used for Greater Morocco. And your "Western Sahara scholarship" can't help.

wikima 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I neither know nor care what the Moroccan Arabic translation for "Greater Morocco" is; since these words were uttered in Arabic, and the United Nations records all discussions in their official languages (including Arabic), you can probably find that term in that language in one of the two UN documents to which I've directed you. Until then, you're being willfully ignorant. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

koavf you wrote much, but did not say anything. Wikima is asking you a simple question and instead of answering him and get over with it, you are accusing him of ignorance, and that his questions are irrelevant. That is a sign you have no answer.--A Jalil 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If you choose to remain ignorant about this topic, that's no fault of mine. This phenomenon is documented in scholarly work prior to (e.g. Mercer, Spanish Sahara, 1976) and since Hodges. If you want to check more resources, see:

Istiqlal's daily newspaper, Al-Alam, July 7, 1956
the Livre Rouge editorial series by Allal el-Fassi, published in Perspectives Sahariennes in 1959-1960
Al-Istiqlal, September 17, 1956
The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara
United Nations Document A/C.4/SR.670
Voice of the Moroccan Sahara propaganda radio broadcasts

If you don't want to view these resources, again, that's hardly my fault. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is meant to be serious now? One sees that you're desperate and that your aim here is not to edit but something else as any method is good to push your POVs, even when it is scandalouse!
You quote Al-Alam from 1956, knowing that anyone would have troubles to find archives even of the most famous newspapers from that time!
And how did Al-Alam name Greater Morocco? How frequently?
And what about all other newspapers between 1956 and 2006? These are 50 years and you can't find anything?
What about the schools? Audio-visual media? The MOroccan State? All other isntutions and parties? The civic cosiety? Etc. etc.???
And this one is the best: "Voice of the Moroccan Sahara propaganda radio broadcasts"! You can indeed blame people who missed to listen or to record that broadcasts (what ever they were)
The only lin that works and that you sell as the ICJ is from Wikipedia, a page in which you are heavily involved next to Arre, both of you created this article. If an academic deals this way information ans soruces he/she will be rejected form the scientific community.
This is more than dilettant, this is scandalouse. You better stop really!

wikima 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is meant to be serious You asked for first-hand sources, and I gave them to you. You now have a wealth of material from which to draw, including some in Moroccan Arabic and French. If you can't or don't want to find these first-hand sources, that's what scholarly literature is for: it investigates and explains sources for you. If you don't want to trust scholarship, you can investigate yourself. The one thing you can't do in the context of an encyclopedia is both reject scholarship and refuse to investigate yourself. I have no idea how easy it is to get to an archive of Al-Alam. I know that there are thousands of newspapers on microfiche three hundred feet from me at university; you claim you've attended university also, and so I wuold suggest you search there if you actually want an archive of Al-Alam. If you're asking what the term for "Greater Morocco" is in Arabic, I still do not know the language, and I am still citing the source of a book in English. I don't understand this series of questions: "And what about all other newspapers between 1956 and 2006? These are 50 years and you can't find anything? What about the schools? Audio-visual media? The MOroccan State [sic]? All other isntutions and parties? The civic cosiety [sic]? Etc. etc.???" What about them? What do you want me to say? The Voice of Morocco was transcribed by Istiqlal; if you want to read those transcripts, my guess is they still exist (they did as of 1982, when Tony Hodges wrote his book.) I can't force you to look at these first-hand sources that you requested. If you want to reject them without having seen them, and reject the scholarship based on them, that's your prerogative, but it's totally irrelevant to a collaborative encyclopedia. If you don't trust me about the ICJ ruling, read it yourself. If you don't trust Hodges, read his sources yourself. If you don't actually care to know, then stop complaining on Wikipedia when someone gives you the resources to learn. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You first created a whole article, then started making a huuuge effort to find some sources when I asked for.
All the days have passed and no answer how Moroccans call their so "Great Morocco"
At the end you come up with Al-Alam from... July 1956!
Sorry I really have to laugh while writing this. Your babbling is entertaining.
And do you know Al-Alam? It's in Arabic, can you read it? Or do you just give sources even when you don't undertsand them?
I think this is one of the most ridiculous things that happened on Wikipedia.

Cheers wikima 22:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (still laughing...)[reply]

So rude I can't believe that you're so rude to me; it's shameful. I didn't make a "huuuge" effort: I opened up the index of an easily-available mass-consumption piece of scholarship, the same way you could if you wanted. But you don't. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map size

Really big pictures are nice and can save on a lot of strain on the eye muscles, but what is the point of having a picture so large that the first sentence of the text in an article is split into two parts that are spaced farly apart? If a picture is going to be that large it might as well be so large that all the text is shoved below it, or perhaps it should be moved (centred, placed left or right or whatever) so that the text appears below the picture. But leaving it at 300 px with the page as it was made the text highly disjointed. Disjointed and highly compressed text may be fine in discussion pages, but the article is not the dicussion page and it only makes it appear as though very little care was actually put in as to how the article should look and be presented and that more care was made into having really nice pictures (and thus it appears as if there was little respect for anyone who might actually want to read the article). If every picture in an article was made sufficiently large so that no one ever had to click on it, then a lot of articles would be difficult to read (and a few currently are). This is an encyclopedia where text and images come together to inform the reader, so why must the image be squeezing out the text? Articles with such poor formats will probably never even attain "Good" status, much less anything approaching that. Well since nobody seemed willing to try to experiment with making the page at least look decent (even though it has a "Disputed" tag), I did so myself and managed to achieve a completely cohesive text with the large picture that was so stubbornly insisted upon.72.27.29.151 07:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and an archive needs to be created for this discussion page.72.27.29.151 07:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it Web design is tricky business in the first place, so try resizing, using different browsers and screen displays, etc. If you can find one that works better, be bold. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the discussion as it is not finished.
Ther article is absolutely wrong and shall be either radically modified or simply deleted.
Once resolved the discussion can be archived.

Thanks - wikima 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I removed the templates. The implication of placing the "politics of Morocco - template" would be that it is a policy of he current government, which it is not. The implication of placing the "Western Sahara - template" would be that it is especially directed at that region, which it is neither. S710 15:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? Neither of those assertions are true. The policy of Greater Morocco is the government policy as long as it is occupying the Sahara. There is no reason to assume that Western Sahara is particular because of the placement, but that having been said, it is particular, as it is a portion of the ideology that is still state-supported (unlike, say, claims to Mauritania.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what what?? "Greater Morocco" as a term has never been used by any Moroccan official. The Istiqlal party used the map that the Late Allal Elfasi had drawn in the 50s as what Morocco should be if it got back all the territories that once formed the Moroccan empire. It has never been endorsed by the government of Morocco. So, to put it as such, is a big lie, and is part of the propaganda by those who oppose the territorial integrity of Morocco. Hodges and Co. will not rewrite history, and they are not credible soures, they are a cornerstone in the Polisario propaganda. Hodges is openly Pro-Polisario, and that says it all. --A Jalil 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not possible "'Greater Morocco' as a term has never been used by any Moroccan official;" you're trying to prove a negative, and that's not possible. Clearly, this has been endorsed by the government of Morocco, as several dozen sources assert (e.g. occupying the Sahara.) I could just as easily write that anything you present is openly anti-Polisario, and that says it all. That says nothing, of course. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source not credible

Hi,

Basically I wanted to deal with this article in a more radical manner as it is a sort of completely faked and weared content. This will come.
Koavf and Arre have demonstrated that they only have one-sided sources and information which have no touch with reality (for instance they are unable to says how MOroccans named "Greater Morocco" in their language).
Meanwhile S710 has done an important remark: The source used in the article: http://www.wsahara.net/gmorocco.html respectively http://www.wsahara.net is notcredible and must be removed.
I may be wrong but - if I remember well - this site is developed and maintainded by koavf himself
The same for the maps: They are created by himself or private and not credible.
All this should be removed.
I am sure Koavf would not mind as he is the one who always insists on "scholarly sources"

Cheers - wikima 20:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense If you don't like the sources, that's fine, but there's no good reason for anyone else to reject them as anything other than scholarly and reputable. Bear in mind that the bulk of the article comes from Hodges, who is, in fact, a scholarly source. I have not now, nor have I ever, developed or maintained http://wsahara.net/ nor any portion thereof. I also did not create any maps of Greater Morocco for this site or any others. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you a lot. Just read above.
And you're not able to provide evidence and facts a part from pro-polisarian sources.
Your sources are about the independence of Western Sahara not about Morocco.
And "Schloraship" is against value judgement and writing history form an ideoligical POV
Be sure that this article will undergo radical changes.

Cheers - wikima 21:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're saying much, but that doesn't mean you're telling me anything Any source I would provide you would call pro-Polisarian, so it's an impossible task. I've provided scholarship; the burden is on you to prove that it's not reliable, or come up with better scholarship. Until such time, there is no reason to disregard what I've presented. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of bringing the proof is on the one inserting the allegations. Hodges is not a neutral source, and should be used with care. If something is cristal clear there should be a lot of sources supporting it, other than Hodges & Co. and Polisario sites.--A Jalil 22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are also not actually saying anything Jalil, no source is neutral. Provide me with a neutral source, please. The entire issue of mid-1950's Moroccan irredentism is pretty obscure, so I'd imagine there isn't much literature on it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history of a political concept, inadequate

The article lacks footnotes referring to primary sources in which the concept of "Greater Morocco" was developed. There are no quotations from documents. It also lacks exact footnotes to pages in publications of unbiased historians in which is explained what the status and influence of this concept was in the Moroccan government at different points of time. Preferably it should also explain how the historians arrived at their conclusions.
Now there are 3 footnotes referring to an anonymous LOC Country Study and one to a summary of the MIT (Sand War). None of the central information in the article has sources.

S710 23:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Your point is well-taken; I can add more direct quotes from the sources if you'd like. Presently, I'm not at home, but I will be in three days. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, S710. It's irrelevant whether a source is biased or not (as all are), but whether or not it is factual. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

A "self-published" map being used in this article (homemade by "Arre" (pseudonym)) is a primary source and cannot legitimately be used as a secondary source in this article according to the Reliable sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. I therefore deleted it.S710 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay You're ruining the article; I can scan a map from the Damis book Conflict in North Africa if that's better. This still doesn't address the issue that I brought up in the first place, though: if you have a problem with the article, join in the discussion (as there is already a disputed tag), don't just delete mass portions of the article with no explanation, or, as you submitted above, an explanation that applies to only a part of the large edit you made. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links not relevant

I deleted the following links from see also. They do not refer to related Wiki-articles, but to external articles on the Western Sahara question (not on the Greater Morocco - concept of El Fassi):

Western Sahara – An Overview by Richard Knight, political activist/consultant of the American Committee on Africa and The Africa Fund [ http://richardknight.homestead.com/files/westernsahara.htm]
Desert Dreams, Saharan Nightmares: Morocco, Polisario, and the Struggle for Western Sahara ), 1998 by Mark Wibe, (BA-student, Instructor: Professor Elaine Glenn, dep. of Political Geography, Central Washington University) [ http://www.wibemedia.com/sahara.html]
The Inventory of Conflict & Environment, Case Study, Sahara Dispute and Enviroment, by Shari Berke, 1997 [ http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/sahara.htm]
Country Studies/Area Handbook Series sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Army between 1986 and 1998,

Mauritania, History, Background to Mauritanian Policy [ http://countrystudies.us/mauritania/3.htm] S710 09:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed The naming of the section was inappropriate and I deleted one of the links I think the others are still relevant. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the legend of the map. The map does not correspond to the map of the Morroco under the Saadian dynesty, as indeed during this period the border between Algeria and Morroco was the Moulouiya river, so current day eastern Morroco was part of Algeria. Saadian dynesty army did indeed conquered Tomboktoo in Mali, but soon its armies returned with the gold leaving a ravaged country without governant. To the south there is no historical source that attest that the Saadian dynesty reached as far south as Mauretania, not even as far as Western Sahara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristmed (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning POV

Please remember Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. This requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.S710 09:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV I've tried to tone down some of the (admitted) POV language in the article, but you'll need to give me more precise issues for resolve or a draft that doesn't omit half the article with which I can work. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial disputes

In my opinion section 2 Territorial disputes should not be treated in the context of this article. To treat them here might suggest that there is a clear connection with the subject of this article, which there is not. Better delete it or move the section to history of Morocco.S710 11:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true The cause of the territorial disputes is a direct product of Greater Morocco. How can you claim they are unrelated? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no historical sources on which to base that connection.S710 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Greater Morocco ideology

I deleted the title "Origin of the Greater Morocco ideology", because that is not the subject of that section. S710 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what the...?

Okay, what is happening here? Last time I checked, this article was twice the size, with a map that illustrated the areas discussed, and in-depth discussion of how relations with neighbours that Morocco (formerly) claimed parts of had been affected by that. Also, there were several books mentioned who discuss the subject. Now, all that is deleted, and -- most amusingly -- someone has then put up a banner complaining of lack of sources... Well, no fucking wonder, if you're deleting them. Would whoever's responsible please get a grip on himself and revert the most abusive edits. Arre 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down Arre, and please don't use words like you used on the edit summary. what is happening is that the article was full of lies and allegations, and it is undergoing corrections.

What is the Arabic terminology of "Greater Morocco", if that is an official Moroccan policy? You are Algerian and can speak arabic.
The map you spoke about, where did you get it?
Is Allal AlFasi, who supposedly had drawn some map showing what should be returned to Morocco, is Allal's views and the Istiqlal party considered the Moroccan official position?.
How can Ceuta and Melilla, that even many Spaniards, think should be returned to Morocco be considered a hegemonist claim by Morocco.
Is the sahara, which is the heart of Morocco, and the birthplace of the rulling dynasties, Almoravids, Almohads, Alawits, just a manifestation of Moroccan claims on others.
If Morocco claimed Tindouf, and Bechar ( which France annexed to French Algeria just a few decades before the Sand War), was Morocco then claiming foreign lands?
Mauritania and Western Sahra are historically one. It is France and Spain who made the actual frontiers. Afeter Morocan independence many Mauritanians wanted to reunite with Morocco (Dey ould Sidi bab, fal Oueld Oumeir, ..).
You join Koavf in considering Hodges and Co. as the ultimate (and only) sources on The Sahara problem. Can't you find any more sources, neutral?
And remember, it is not the size of an article that makes it important. The size does matter sometimes but not always :). If you think something is worth adding, bring it to the talk page with credible sources.

--A Jalil 15:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no source connecting the label "greater Morocco" to the Western Sahara conflict, I deleted the article from Template:Sahara conflict.S710 13:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Jalil:

1. I am not Algerian, though I can speak (some) Arabic. I am not from the region at all (though presently in the region, which I wasn't before).
2. I made the map myself, from sources cited in the article. Most of them have since been deleted and replaced with a "no sources" tag... Most maps on Wikipedia are hand-made by editors from sources, I don't see why it should be any different here -- given that we all agree that these areas have at one time or other been claimed by Morocco post-independence.
3. Allal El Fassi and his maps was at the root of all this, as was historical Moroccan involvement with some or all of the territories. However, what was the official Moroccan position should be clear in the article: for example, that Mauritania wasn't recognized as a state for several years after its independence -- due to Moroccan territorial demands -- but that it now is, and that relations are today calm and peaceful. These things are what I wrote and what you are deleting.
4. I mentioned several sources except Hodges, all of them discuss this. (Mercer, Adloff/Thompson etc -- anyone who has read either book knows that that is hardly pro-Polisario material...). You have of course not bothered to read a single book on the topic, but still insist that they are all bad. Would be funny, if it wasn't so very unfunny.
5. No-one said that any of this is "hegemonistic" or even negative claims. These claims have existed and should therefore be listed in the article, whether we agree with them or not. I personally, for example, strongly support the Moroccan claims to Ceuta and Melilla (and, yes, that shitty little island, Perejil). Stop viewing this as a political debate.
6. If Tindouf/Bechar etc are "foreign lands" in respect to Morocco -- well, that's kind of the question, isn't it? Arguing about it on the talk page does no good: that debate should be referred on the page ... if it hadn't been deleted.

Arre 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S710: What do you mean, no source connecting the label to the WS conflict? I mentioned three or four books, virtually all of the major scholarly material that exists on the topic in English (Hodges x2, Mercer and Adloff/Thompson are the standard references). They all treat it in some detail. You deleted that! Now you come saying that there are no sources?

As a result, this article is now overtly POV, as it even states in the beginning that these areas were under Moroccan sovereignty -- which was of course the question from the beginning.

Arre 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the POV ?

Hi,

Thanks to S710's efforts the article has now changed and has become neutral and reliable.
I would suggest to remove the POV tag.

Rgds - wikima 20:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to S710 efforts

Arre,

S710 has done great efforts in changing this article.
His changes have been done step by step and are discussed.
You can't just restore so violently a former version.
Please do an effort as anybody else (we are all equal): Do suggest, and do discuss things.

Thanks - wikima 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What S710 did was to gut the whole page, removing even the sources cited. It was not done consensually, but in a whirlwind of quick changes, and I used what little Wikipedia access I had at the time to complain and ask him to stop it. Everything he added to the text is still there (the Ashford quote), so he's lost no work on this. What complaints he had (such as no sourcing for the map) have been adressed, plus I added a whole paragraph detailing the Moroccan view of pre-colonial sovereignty models. If you feel some other things should or should not be in there, you're free to complain or suggest changes, but it's obvious to anyone that the version you just reverted is significantly less useful and informative. Arre 04:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We all have little access to wikipedia.
S710 was doing things step by step and every one could use the opportunity to discuss with him his changes one by one.
What you did was to de facto reject discussion (as usual) and to simply restore a whole long version with slight changes. Including for example a first hand map which is unacceptable in wikipedia.
I could have done the same, but as you can see I preferred to engage in a long discussion instead of just turning versions as you do.
So, sit down, look at things please and cooperate, as we all do, step by step.

Thanks - wikima 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The page was not "edited", it was unilaterally destroyed, even if (rapidly) piece-by-piece. Just compare the two versions, and you'll see for yourself. As I said, all of S710's sources and veiws are still there, so the only difference between the two versions is that mine (= the original + more) contains vastly more material and information; all of it when contestable properly sourced. If you disagree with any of the material I have added/re-added, tell me what. Your only real argument so far is over the map, which I specifically mentioned has been sourced after the previous complaints -- not that its limits were ever really in dispute, that was a sheer formality trick, but now there's really nothing to complain about on that score. If you had read either my comment above or the article version you're deleting, you would have known that. Apparently you're just reverting blindly. Arre 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your behaviour is completly nonsense rather.
If the page was full of wrong and biase and if it was cleaned, then so it was.
Your problem is that you think every thing you write or write is holy.
The current version is the result of a whole effort done by S710, step by step.
If you or not ok with it, explain in the discussion, step by step.
For this reason I will get it back to S710's version as a new start.
So again, co-operate and don't put yourself on top of all.

wikima 17:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what I write, I didn't even write most of the original page. The problem is that the page was gutted from an extensive original articel and replaced with the poor jumble of paragraphs you're trying to revert to. It was cut down to maybe a fourth or fifth of its size, with even the sources removed. If you want to consider that a "new start", then by all means, consider this a "new edit". It's up to you to find something wrong with it: a good start would be to actually read it, which you obviously have not done (see above). I can't for my life figure out what you're up to, since the page (original version) is describing exactly what you're saying below: that many Moroccans believe their country was dismembered by colonialism, and that this has had an impact on the country's politics. Now: reverting. Arre 23:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't answer major questions (such as the arabic naming of "greater morocco"), which you think they are just marginal.
What I am talking about below is a more complex view that is hardly to be found in such simplistic guerilla "sources" you're presenting here.
You don't even care and leave the template box as if this is official part of Morocco. Same for the self made map, and you continue calling article.
The worse is that you think that the size of the article is a sign for its accuracy. This you wouldn't tell even in the middle-age and I won't discuss it.
So call it a new edit if you like, and I am pretty happy with it as the article needed ineed a completly new edit (what I always called radical edit above).
And now lets start with this clean new edit.
You've got the opportunity to learn and adjust siome stuff in your mind about Morocco.

wikima 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new moroccan sources

sad how this discussion has ended in a struggle who keeps up longest.. and that one's sources might be debatable, but there aren't any sources put up against it..

a new interesitng french moroccan source which can be used are recent articles in liberal french moroccan magazine Telquel. According to dutch newspaper De pers (the press, relevant issue can be downloaded here: http://depers.coolcreations.nl/papers/14.pdf , page 9, in dutch): Telquel has explored the moroccan claims on different territories and tries to seperate fact and fiction. It has come into conflict, together with sister magazine Nichane (which had an article about humor and Kink Mohammed VI) with moroccan press authorities. These debates and judicial processes hopefully will help clarify this artice

But in general, Wikima et al, don't be afraid to show that there are sources who tell a different story, just balance them with other sources..

Romanista 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Romanista,

The sad thing about this sort of "articles" is that they are not written to share knowledge but to abuse of wikipedia and the community to disseminate and to promote the thoughts of polisario.
Any balanced sources and objectives editings are more than welcome
S710 has done a huge effort, based on methodology, rational step-by-step kind of doing, and in deep compliance with wikipedia rules.
He cleaned out the article and his last version can be used for a real wikipedia article on the subject, not for one that only wants to transmit certain ideological messages and POVs.

This being said, I believe that the topic is more complex than some literature may show.
"Greater Morocco" has - as such - never been official part of Morocco, but Moroccans strongly believe that their country had been dismembered by colonialism.
And when Moroccans think this, they don't think hegemonic, in the sense of invading others. No, they think that what other want to sigmatise as "Greater Morocco" has been their country and that it is their duty now to save at least the parts that obviously belong to the country in their eyes, e.g. Western Sahra, Melilla, Ceuta, and certain ilands.
This is rather related to a collective consciousness and its evoultion along time and history than to any diabolic stuff some people insist in putting on wikipedia.
This is for instanace one of the reasons why none could find out the naming of "Greater Morocco" in arabic when I asked above.

Cheers wikima 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that it is difficult to balance it, but i think the article should contain links that some sources say there are thoughts in morrocco that are beyond the current borders (and that includes), that some partly be logical part of morocco (Ceuta), some are more disputed (like the western sahara), the source i cites (which is alas in dutch), shows that Tel Quel is trying to (to translate literally) seperate fact from fiction in casu. Sure, Tel Quel is opion magazine, not an objective source, but that can be added as well.. Romanista 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Romanista,

Thank you for your kind reaction.
I remember one or two articles of Telquel that attempted to describe how the former king Hassan II was about to attack Mauritania after Oueld Dada declared indepence, and then how he refrained as the UN recognised the sovereignty of this country (Morocco and Mauritania have usually very good relationships since).
On the Sahara there was a similar article entiteled "How we lost our Sahara"...
Telquel is part of the Morocco public opinion and believes also that Morocco has lost major parts of its territory because of bad governance.
This is basically the criticism that Telquel usually wants to express and not that Morocco is hegemonic. It wants to say: "look, our kings and rulers have missed opportunities to keep the country together".
BTW I never remember having read Greater Morocco in Telquel, and if they ever do, this would be an import from external sources, since in Morocco this concept does not exist.
Anyway, by next opportunity I will source these articles and see what we can add from them in here.

Kind regards

Request for Comments

This can't go any further without someone coming in from the outside to look at the article. I will briefly outline what I believe is the conflict here below, and others are free to add their versions if they have a different view.

Arre's point of view

Articles dealing with the Western Sahara and related subjects are sensitive. There have been frequent edit wars between Moroccan editors who believe that this territory is a part of Morocco (like A Jalil, Wikima and formerly Daryou), and others who argue it is under Moroccan occupation (like me, Arre, and formerly Koavf). Some kind of neutral ground is often found, often by simply mentioning the views of both sides, but the devil is in the details.

There are two basic versions of this page.
This one (supported by Wikima) was created between 7-10 November 2006 by S710 in a rush of edits, mostly large-scale deletions (let's call it the SMALL VERSION). He since seems to have abandoned the page. These were protested at the time by Koavf (who has since been banned, after reverting too much in another, unrelated edit war), but the debate never went on from there. I was abroad and had very little Internet access at the time, but also registered my protest, as can be seen above on talk. My main problems with this version are:
- It is basically a gutted version of the first one, almost all info has been lost.
- It is strongly political in stating that these areas were in fact once under Moroccan sovereignty -- this, of course, is the whole dispute.
- It is self-contradictory in implying that this conception of historical Moroccan borders, (a) on the one hand has no real adherents in Morocco and is invented by Western Sahara supporters, and (b) on the other hand, was supported by the Istiqlal party and has led to the annexation of Western Sahara, the refusal to recognize Mauritania, etc.
- It complains of a lack of sources, after deleting a number of written and Internet sources.

The other version, which I support and am trying to revert back to now that I have Internet access, is found here (let's call it the BIG VERSION). It is the same as before S710's edits, but with extra sources added in response to his complaints on talk (some of which were perfectly legitimate), and an extra chapter ("Pre-colonial situation") added to detail the Moroccan view of pre-colonial sovereignty, both because I felt that was missing and because S710 and other editors said the article was unbalanced. It also makes clear that the concept of a "Greater Morocco" is not a unified ideology, but simply a way of naming the article dealing with Moroccan irredentism in general. All additions by S710, like the Ashford source, have been preserved and edited into the original text. I support this version because:
- It is vastly more informative, with chapters on each of the contested borders (Algeria, Mauritania, W. Sahara) and much more detail.
- It has historical background without saying that these areas either were or were not Moroccan or non-Moroccan, i.e. not taking sides.
- It has discussion of the important political consequences of this view (a war in 1963, annexation of W. Sahara in 1975, poor relations w. Algeria until today, etc), and just more detail overall.
- It also has a handy map showing the areas discussed, made by me and based Pennell and other writers mentinoed in the restored Further Reading section. One of S710's complaints was that it was unsourced: this is now fixed.

Wikima argues that the SMALL VERSION version was achieved after consensual debate and thus cannot be reverted. I think a reading of the talk page above, and of the editing history, disproves that. Since no facts are missing from the SMALL VERSION version in the BIG VERSION, I think the latter is vastly preferable since it should thus satisify both sides (assuming one of the sides isn't simply interested in wrecking the article). If anything in the BIG VERSION, on the other hand, is wrong, then that should be pointed out and corrected through normal editing -- I have no problem whatsoever with that, and I think a good start was adding S710's edits to the BIG VERSION. But I can't stomach the wholesale destruction of this page after all the work I and others have done with it.

I again ask you to compare: which article would you want to find as a Wikipedia reader interested in Moroccan border issues?

This one? (BIG VERSION)
Or this one? (SMALL VERSION)

There is now a revert war going on, and I hope someone from the outside will come in and solve it. Please add any comments below.

Jalil's point of view

First things first: Arre is a hardcore militant devoted to the defence of the Polisario front's position in the Western Sahara conflict. Believe it or not, he presents himself as Swede who speaks Arabic. The strangest about that is that there is not a single Sweden related edit in all the history of his edits. On the opposite, he knows about Algeria and its geography and history and political figures as a well-informed Algerian. He has been "abroad" - in algeria and in the Tindouf camps and even in Tifariti -. He has met Polisario leaders and activists and has made wikipedia practically more than a mirror for the Polisario propaganda. His job description includes tearing down the image of Morocco by creating or editing a whole bunch of articles from a negative perspective; everything positive is downplayed and everything negative is magnified. In light of this, he expanded this article, "Greater Morocco". As can be seen from Arre's introduction, WS is at the heart of the subject. This article is just a brick in the wall.

First, I invite everyone to have a look at the first version created by Arre's partner, Koavf 1st version. It shows the rationale behind the existence of the article in the first place and also you will understand why Koavf has been indefinitely blocked. The article is meant to level Morocco's claim to Western sahara to an ideology rather than to historical claims.
There is no such thing as "Greater Morocco" in the Moroccan political or historical vocabulary. Arre (and his partner Koavf) were asked to provide the Moroccan/Arabic equivalent of "Greater Morocco" (and remember that he is a Swede who speaks Arabic), but they provided none. In arabic, "Greater Morocco" translates to "Almaghrib Al-Akbar". I (a Moroccan) have never heard of it, and if Arre can find an Arabic source, it will be more than welcome. The other variant, "Almaghrib alkabir" is a term used to describe the Maghreb (Morocco, algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania). So, how can such a thing as an ideology of "Greater Morocco" even exist if the term describing it, in the first place does not exist??
Arre makes it as a choice between a long and short version. He seems to think that if you can stuff an article and make it long that's always better than a short article. No, it is not, especially if you stuff it with inaccurate and propaganda material.

So what is the problem?, the answer is that Arre is intentionally mixing two different things:

A "Greater Morocco" ideology, that I showed have no existence.
The Moroccan legitimate claims to the territories it once were part of it, and lost during the colonial period.

If the article is about the so-called "Greater Morocco", then the short version is the most appropriate, because there is no such a thing as a "Greater Morocco" ideology.

If the article is about the Moroccan territorial claims, then the title should be changed from the ill-intentioned one to a more descriptive one, and the POV-pushing sentences and false allegations and inaccurates data removed from the long version (and there are many), and the rest kept. The two can't be mixed.--A Jalil 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Arre

Oh my, you're even weirder than I thought. Shame I have to spend so much of my precious little time on Wikipedia cleaning up the mess you leave everywhere, instead of editing stuff I like (such as, yeah, Algerian history, Mauritanian history, Lebanese history, and much else apart from Western Saharan and Moroccan history). And for the record, and so you can sleep at night: jag talar utmärkt svenska tack, betydligt bättre än min arabiska, av lätt insedda skäl. Och om jag minns rätt har jag visst gjort ett par svenskrelaterade grejer, men inte mycket. Är det månne något särskilt du saknar? Säj bara till. Din, Arre 02:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick word on the translation demand, to which I have responded before:

I have no idea what, if anything, these ideas have been called in Arabic (al-maghrib al-akbar is as good as anything, al-hudud at-tarikhiya for the "historical borders" or somesuch is equally probable -- it must have varied from person to person, of course). Perhaps it's been called nothing at all, since there's no reason for anyone to name them as a coherent concept -- they're not, as is clear from the article. It is NOT about an "ideology", but about Moroccan postcolonial irredentism (rename it that if you please), whether one agrees with it or not.

What I do know is that the sources cited (check the "Further reading" section of the BIG VERSION listed above, hardly "hardcore Polisario" material) all use the expression "Greater Morocco", and that it is thus consistent with English-language scholarly use. And scholarly English usage is what is supposed to be used in Wikipedia.

So, "Greater Morocco" stands, even if the name could very well change to "Moroccan irredentism" and be just as good. If you want to find an Arabic equivalent, go do so. But do not use those kinds of sophisms as excuses for deleting 90% of this article. Arre 02:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jalil

As I wrote on your talk page, I don't think anyone is lead to think that if you can speak swedish, you are a Swede. I am still to see your Sweden related contributions, and again an Algerian (might have a Sewdish passport) living in Sweden is more fit to your profile than a Swede dedicated to Algeria and its Polisario to the point to have been in places only open to the restricted circle of hardcore activists (Tifariti), and to have such an aggressivity towards Morocco.

You confess that you and Koavf have all the time tried to portray WS as occupied. We, Moroccans, do see it as a Moroccan territory, and that it will always be, but in Wikipedia, for the sake of neutrality, we describe it as a disputed territory under Moroccan administration. That is exactly what the UN and many others say. So is that something you want to "clean"? to replace it with what?.
I repeat myself once more: you agree with me when I say that if the article is about the alleged concept/ideology of "Greater Morocco", that doesn't exist in Morocco but that someone elsewhere has chosen to label Morocco's legitimate territorial claims as such, you agree that the short version is the appropriate, because it states just that?.
If on the other hand, you want to speak about Morocco's territorial claims (Spain has also territorial claims on Gibraltar, but no one called that claim "Greater Spain", Japan, and China, etc...also still have), then, fine, but that is not called "Greater Morocco". You cannot and will not label the Moroccan claims wrongly. I know and you know the rationale behind this article, and it is useless to play the ignorant: your (and Koavf's) aim with this article is about Western Sahara; to give the impression that it is a (hegemonist) concept/ideology called "Greater Morocco" that is behind Morocco's claims to Western Sahara.
So I see little ground for discord in all the matter and if you want the longer version, fine, but as I wrote above, we put it in its right context
This one is for the fun: when I wrote we should remove the "POV-pushing sentences and false allegations and inaccurate data" from the long version, you react by saying "do not use those kinds of sophisms as excuses for deleting 90% of this article". Well, well, what might that 90% of the article then be??? :).Din,--A Jalil 13:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I edited this article to what strikes me as a rational presentation of this frankly terribly trivial issue. Amusing as it is to see the triviality that the Western Sahara is get more electronic ink than Algeria or Morocco, it rather strikes me that the obsession is overdone. collounsbury 17:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to see you're back here. I have no problem with your edit as such, but I think you're missing the point of the dispute. It's about which one of two radically different (though not necessarily contradictory) versions should stand as a basis for further edits. The one you edited now I've referred to as the "Small version", since it is frankly a slashed version of the other, "Big" one. Do have a look at the other one, which I feel is both more informative and explains both sides of the issue(s).

About W. Sahara vs. Alg/Mor, I cannot but agree, but it follows from the fact that it is controversial. I've done plenty of editing on the other two as well, but never run into the kind of rabid resistance like on Western Sahara (or Israel, Palestine and Lebanon), where local editors invariably show up to fight for their sides. Arre 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

collounsbury, I thought it is important to mention that the term "Greater Morocco" it is not mentionned in arabic literatur (or used in arabic) and that it is not part of the Moroccan public opinion.

Otherise you're absolutely right that all this is some how ridiculous. I didn't check but I am sure that if not in aboslute terms, then at least proportionally Western Sahara has by far more pages than Marocco or Algeria, or even both together.
This is just one of the obvious and material indications that the editing and interest of users such as Arre (and koavf) are purely ideological and have nothing to do with the spirit of Wikipedia.
Wihtout this ideological motivation this article would have possibly not existed or may be would have appeared in a completly other form.
All the trouble Arre is doing and the mediation theater is just to say at the end, look, Morocco has hegemonic interests and has invaded Western Sahara as she already did and would do with other regions.
And I think that it is a shame that a noble project like Wikipedia is abused in such a way.
This sort of behaviour has damaged Wikipedia and such political abuse is regularely reported in the media.

Cheers - wikima 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see how you're deeply, deeply wounded by the partisan spirit of editors like Koavf, seeing as how your're known for your strict neutrality. I do challenge you to prove, however, with a quote, anything that implies that Morocco "has hegemonic interests" (more than any other state in the region) in the old, now largely gutted version of the article. The difference between that and this one is that it cites more sources than a single article, and that it describes the various border conflicts in detail. Why that is a problem or "anti-Moroccan" is plain beyond me.

Ending on a positive note, at least no accusation that I'm being paid by the Algerian government to smear the glorious history of Morocco this time. Or was that A. Jalil? I forget! Arre 17:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a childish and diappointing reaction
If I were to behave like you an koavf I would have created tens and dozens of pages around how Moroccan is Western Sahara.
Apparently just the fact to balance and/or push your edits in direction of neutrality is for you an act of militantism. I wil never allow you to compare me with koavf or with yourself. I am not a militant for anything!
But YOU ARE and this is why your edits and all you behaviour on Wikipedia is not acceptable as it is driven by ideological aims and by the will to fight for the independence of WS.
If yout think that I am that stupid to quote you then you're wrong. What I mean is that this article like all your edits is not written to explain to the world a concept (that is so/too complex for simplistic view), but to construct a whole context in which Morocco appears as a hegemonic power that invades WS and her neighbours.
BTW the follwing is the very first version of the article as created by koavf, which says a lot:

"Greater Morocco" was a propaganda tool of King Hassan II to "reintegrate" the entirety of Algeria, Western Sahara, and Mauritania, along with portions of Senegal into the Kingdom of Morocco.

As I have already recommended, look for some space on myspace or on the web and let wikipedia be what it should be: an encyclopaedia and not a medium for political propaganda.

wikima 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the chatter above you suddenly turn to substance, and write that "If yout think that I am that stupid to quote you then you're wrong.". Now, I have no idea what this means, except that apparently I'm not ever going to know why the bigger, original version is bad -- you're just going to tell me over and over again that it's part of my secret anti-Moroccan plot. Fine. But don't try to hold me responsible for quotes from another, third version by Koavf, which I have not defended. My version is cleansed of all that, for good reason, and I belive it to be largely neutral. That's why I have time and again asked you and A. Jalil to quote some specific problems, so we could adress them. But if you refuse, what can I do? Arre 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arre, you write "... in the chatter...". This is the problem: your arrogance.
I think that I have explained and honnestly don't want to repeat myself. Read the "chatter" carefully. But you can choose to close your eyes.
The very very first version of koavf only shows the intention behind this article, an intention that you fully share with koavf: fighting for the independence of WS.
I will tell you an other major problem with your version of "Greater Morocco" (besides the fact that it simply does not exist and misses the reality): It is presented like a driver or better the main driver behind all Morocco's behaviour in the region and its international relations. And that's rubbish.
Sure Morocco wants Melilla and Ceuta, a few ilands and other stuff back. But describing this in the context of "Greater Morocco" gives a simplicistic and wrong view. As Jalil (?) rightly states, do we talk of Great China when China want Taiwan back? Do we say Great Spain when the country opposits bask separatism? Do we use "Great Russia" when Russia tries to keep republics in its empire? Do we say Great Sudan when the country tries to prevent to loose provinces and be cut in two? Look how absurd your "Greater Morocco" is.
... and have a think as well.

wikima 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arre, It is not a choice between a "big" and a "small" version. To not repeat myself, here I paste some text you should have read above:

"If the article is about the so-called "Greater Morocco", then the short version is the most appropriate, because there is no such a thing as a "Greater Morocco" ideology.

If the article is about the Moroccan territorial claims, then the title should be changed from the ill-intentioned one to a more descriptive one, and the POV-pushing sentences and false allegations and inaccurate data removed from the long version (and there are many), and the rest kept. The two can't be mixed."

I only add that after that (or in parallel with it), we will have to create similar articles for at least Algeria (border problems with Morocco(including the need to have an opening on the Atlantic through WS), with Tunisia, and with Libya), because it sounds weird to me that Morocco is honored in wikipedia with an article detailing its border disputes while others are denied that honor. --A Jalil 09:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mon dieu. Okay, I looked at the longer version. Actually I rather liked it in many respects. Some language could be cleaned up, but it was interesting and largely not bad at all. I'd vote to work off the long version as it makes far more sense. collounsbury 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Just to say "this makes sense to me" is not an argument. I am sure you don't want us to put it things just because they make sense to you, do you?
For me that version does not make sense and I will tell you why:

The description says "Greater Morocco is a name used to describe areas believed by many Moroccan nationalists to have historically formed a part of the country". This is vague and contredicts the rest of the 1st paragpraph which immediately states that there is no such ideology and that the territories claimed to have belonged to the country vary in history etc. And if it is a name, then who uses this name? Along the discussion here we made sure that such a word does not exist for Morocco and Moroccans. It does not exist in the Arab World. It does not exist in Arabic. So there are sources that use that name and they are Western Sahara related.
The concept is presented, though, as an existing and lively one, with consequences on the politics of Morocco. This is wrong, because as said, it does not exist for Moroccans at any level.
Relations with Algeria and Mauritania as well as the Western Sahara question are explained from this point of view in three long paragraphs. This is not accurate and false. When Moroccans (be it people, the king, the poltical parties, the public opinion etc.) deal with their foreign relations they do not have in mind any thing called Greater Morocco, but Morocco only.
There are many problems with the formal accuracy. E.g. the template box indicates that Greater Morocco is part of the official rule in Morocco, but it is not.
The map, which Arre insists to put in is selfmade ans as such not accepatable as source

If we remove the map, the box, the three paragpraphs dedicated to foreign relations, and if we mention that the concept is basically used by sources on WS, then we end up having the "short" version, which is more accurate and which S710 has done after long effort.

As I already state Greater Morocco refers to an idea that exists, namely that Morocco had been dismembered by colonialism and that it needs to do an effort to get back the parts of its territory that were - in the eyes of Mroccans - obviousely occupied by other countries such as Western Sahara and Ceuta and Melilla
When Spain tries to get back Gibraltar or to integrate the bask land, does it become Greater Spain for you? I guess not, and I guess you still call it spain. So is the way to do with Morocco as well.
The idea behind what some sources call Greater Morocco is to be seen in an other, completly different context which I will try to describe in a different topic (if time permits).

wikima 21:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill mate. You're grossly over-reacting. The longer version of the article has decent information. I agree that it would need to be edited to be less prejudicially phrased and more accurate - that is to remove the snide implications that the concept was more than a passing fancy as it were at the moment of decolonisation. The map I agree is probably not acceptable without proper sourcing. The short version is rather clumsy, to be frank. The long version scans better, although it has rather large amounts of POV language. collounsbury 21:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No worry, I am cool. Just used to write more (probably one of the defects of my academic past).
I would agree to deal with the "longer version" if we:

remove the 3 paragraphs (Morocco does not deal with Algeria, Mauritania and WS as Greater Morocco, but just as Morocco)
remove the map
remove the template box

Adjust the rest and remove all POV language
Make some effort and explain deeper what it is about (not only take stuff from books promoting polisario)

Cheers - wikima 22:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking of taking a hand at editing this when I have a free moment. I am sure you can be confident in my aggressive neutrality. If the edit did not look good, no worries on reverting it. 22:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, if everyone now agrees to start from the longer version, then the problem is suddenly solved. I certainly see that it can be improved, and I'm sure there's all sorts of POV-things that needs to be straightened out, so go ahead. For the three specific points made above:

The 3 paras on territorial claims (on Mauritania, Algeria, W. S.) I think are among the best adds to the article, since they treat the specific demands and their concrete, documented effects on Mor:n foreign policy, instead of just treating the "lost territories" concept as some abstract will to expand (that would be an anti-Moroccan POV). Rather than deleting them, we should add a paragraph for Mali, from which huge areas were also claimed, where we point out that Morocco pragmatically recognized it as independent almost immediately (60/61?), and has had proper bilateral relations ever since.
The Allal El Fassi map is "self-made", yes, like every map on Wikipedia, but sourced by page number to a map in Pennell's book. Similar maps exist in lots of books and articles on Moroccan nationalism, but that was the one I had handy. The only way it could be less "self-made" than it is now, is if scanned directly from the book. However, I have neither the scanner nor the energy to do it.
The template box: it originally had template boxes for both Morocco and W. Sahara, since this affects those two countries/territories the most. The W.S. infobox was removed by someone (Jalil?), and perhaps it's better that way. But it should have some infobox, if not necessarily all (it's not terribly relevant to Mali's history, but perhaps it is to Mauritanias).

And then the point about the name. This conception of Moroccan borders is routinely referred to as "Greater Morocco" in virtually all of the literature I've read on it, if it is given a name at all. "Greater X" is a common way to denote a country's assumed territorial rights outside its recognized/present borders. It does not per se imply a value judgement.

Still, I don't mind changing the page name to "Moroccan irredentism", if that lets Wikima sleep at night. But moving/renaming pages is serious work, and I don't care either way, so count me out for the actual effort. As for the suggestion that there should be a page on Algerian irredentism too, well go ahead if you find any to write about. Otherwise, I think Libyan expansionism (Aouzou etc) might deserve a page.

Arre 12:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose this! And I find your demagogic reaction just unacceptable (don't know where you learned this method of deturning other people's words?).
The reason's why I oppose your version are said above, and I'd find it most biase, false and wrong to explain Morocco's foreign relations by this construct of "Greater Morocco".
If you feel like you'll dye to developp articles of such stuff, irredentism etc. on other countries such as libya or algeria feel free to do. I bet you wouldn't, because then in that case there will be no ideological motivation for you.

wikima 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other points of view

. . .

Comments...

...in favor of SMALL VERSION

...in favor of BIG VERSION

...in favor of some other solution

Some thoughts on “Greater Morocco”

Some thoughts on “Greater Morocco” and pro-Polisario dilettantism and phantasma

The idea behind what some sources describe as Greater Morocco is basically rooted in an other one, which has always palyed a great role in the arab nationalisms from the Atlantic to the Euphrates: The unitfication of the Arab- and Islamic world.
On this background, the idea of “Greater Morocco” appears as one the last "pieces" in the cyclic attempts of unification of the Arab and Islamic World or Oumma (~Nation) that lasted long centuries, basically since the islamisation of the Maghreb and the current Arab World and was described by great scientists such as Ibn Khladoun in the past and Abdellah Elaroui in the present.
It is a global and complex concept of the unification which met relative success during the Islamic empire(s) and which remained at the core of all nationalisms in the Arab and Islamic World. The idea was particularly strong in the time of independence form the European colonialism and was mainly driven by the Nasserism (with reference to Jamal Abdenasser) and the baathism (with reference to the Baath Party in Syria/Iraq).
This dream of unification still exists and is widely shared in the Arab public opinion and among all political parties and movements, not only in Morocco. It is the idea which is at the core of the Paanarabism. But also the radical islamists for instance simply do not recognise any political borders between the Arab countries as they view all Arabs and Moslems as brothers from the same folk. This explains why islamist terrorist groups have memebers form all Arabic and/or Islamic countries.
On the other hand voices with pragmatic realpolitik thoughts view this idea of a unified Arab World more and more as de facto dead and not realisable.
The idea remains strongly discussed as there exists effectively an Oumma with the same language, the same ethical background, collective consciousness, identity and affects, ideolody etc.
In the Maghreb the idea of the unification was meant to start with the region before dealing with the rest of the Arab/Islamic World. Not only Istiqlal (the Moroccan independence party) but all nationalist movements were to fight against colonialism in Morocco (incl. Sahara + current Mauritania), Algeria and Tunisia. This idea was particularly strong in Morocco because the major attempts of unification came from this country and were driven by Moroccan dynasties.
Note: one of the first dynasties of Morocco is named Almohads / Almouahidoun (the unifiers).
Note also: not only Moroccans are "proud" of the times of the Moroccan dynasty of Almoravids who unified the region and controlled Andalusia but all Arabs.
This idea of unifying the Arab/Islamic World was particularly strong among the nationalist movements who accused the Moroccan Monarchy of doing the opposite by accepting the independence while parts Morocco (reffering to Western Sahara, Melilla, Ceuta etc) and the Maghreb (in special Algeria) were still uner colonial control.

- In the South many members in the Army of Liberation did not accept the independence and were underway to liberate the Sahara but were totally oppressed by the French and the King in the Ecouvillant operation.

- One of the members of this army is the father of polisario chief Mohammed Abdelaziz, who lives in Morocco (!), is member of the CORCAS and a fierce fighter for the Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara

- According to Barazani (himself founder member of Polisario and former senior in the organisation), all Polisario founders are children of members of the Moroccan Armey for Liberation! Barazani states that they never had separatist ideas in the beginning but only started to do when the Monarchy ignored their demands to further fight and to liberate the Sahara as well. [3]

- Many sahrawi activists [ ] and other Moroccans [4] make the same statement and refuse to admit that Polisario founders were separatists in the beginning.

- Same thing in the North: leaders like the famous Abdelkrim Elkhattabi wanted to liberate the whole Maghreb from colonialism before stopping to fight. Many don't understand why this figure for the berberists dies in Cairo, the capital of Panarabism and of Jamal Abdennasser's country.

I had the opportunity to talk to veterans and former high level officers in the "army" of Abdelkrim Elkhattabi, people who are venerated in Algeria and in the Arab World, and I can tell you that they hate and disdain Polisario and its "ideology".
In this context it appears logical that the Arab League does not support Polisario’s and Algeria’s attempts to create a sahrawi republic. This goes towards further dismemberment of the Arab Nation and not against its unification.

For the same reason the Arab League rejected the independence of Mauritania (and not because Morocco brought it to do so as the article wrongly stated)
The public opinion in the Arab World which bases on an Islamic ethic (despite the formal laicism of the Panarabism) views separatism as Fitna, a major crime. This is probably one of the many reasons why Abbassi Madani the Algerian FIS leader is strongly against the "independence" of Western Sahara. He is joined in this view by Ben Bella (though he is not that explicit about it), one of the figures of algerian Paanarabism. (Louise Hanoun is critical as well with the Algerian position but takes this position from a similar ideological point of view: a socialist one)
Morocco, as any other country in the Arab World, would never dare to express any ideology of "Greater Morocco". Not even Egypt would dare to think of Greater Egypt. Because this idea is simply non existent and any country that dares to be greater without taking the lead for unification would be condemned. This may explain partly why the Arab public opinion was not that irritated when Sadam Hussein invaded Koweit. Sadam knew that he will get support if he positions this in the context of the unification of the Arab and Islamic World and position himself as a leader of this unification. Same with Syria/Libanon, the Arab public is convinced that thier separation followed a colonial complot (s. Sykes-Picot_Agreement and would not oppose if both countries get togther.
The idea of the unification takes sometimes bizarre looking forms. So who can understand that Hassan II and Kadhafi, both always antagonists, will start the Unification of the Arab Maghreb (UMA = Union du Maghreb Arabe)? Kadhafi is one of the fanatics of this “Union” idea and he was one of the main actors behind the African Union. He tried to implement it at the African level when he became desperate of the Arab World.
The public opinion in the Maghreb is still demanding this and views it as a defeat that the countries cannot unify.
If you don't understand this, if you don't have contact with people in the region (and not officials), you will keep on inventing dilettantisms such as "Greater Morocco".

wikima 14:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Has everybody, or anybody, calmed down sufficiently now, to want to discuss why the original version cannot be used? If not, we're stuck with this miserable Ripper victim of an entry until reason prevails. Just please go back and actually read it and tell me what's wrong, what sentences are wrong, what should be changed, instead of lambasting Algeria and Qadhafi and whatever else it is. This is leading nowhere. Arre 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was to give you some thoughts on where a term is rooted which you try to present in such a dilettant simplistic way. These are things that the WS literature won't tell you. But you can choose to ignore realities and stuck into the polisarian ideological autism.

wikima 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, you're engaging in rabid Moroccan nationalist over-reaction. You know the expression, Pot, Kettle, Black? (collounsbury 18:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

No, sorry, I am not sure about that. I am trying to clarify a term that is used in a dilletant way, so...

Thanks & regards - wikima 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The authority of the sultan in this territories was very flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.121.159 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification in the article

During that years, Mauritania denounced Morocco's involvement in terrorist attacks on its territory sourced by this [5]. Well guess what? This is just a random article in Spanish about the independence movement in Congo And does not mention once neither Morocco nor Mauritania. I wonder how much of this type of falsification occurs in other related article.
Further someone added, just after the above statement: A strategy that was repeated again in the mid-1970s in Western Sahara. sourced by nothing. This never existed, was removed, until proven otherwise.
The map, supposedly Appearing in Allal al-Fassi book, is un-sourced and was arbitrarily drawn based on its author's impression. removed WP:OR.Tachfin (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Why this article, do not can have a map?188.76.165.189 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canary Islands???

I heard somewhere that Mororoco also claims the Canary Islands, currently an autonomous community under Spanish rule. Should that be inculded if ture? --121.219.13.87 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724134916/http://www.wsahara.net/gmorocco.html to http://www.wsahara.net/gmorocco.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV