Talk:Sand War

Edits to Sand War Article

Arre, are you kiding me??.

• Tindouf and Bechar amputated from Morocco to French Algeria in the 1800s????. You better read again North African history.
• What a source you provide!!! a Polisario site. Do you take the readers for stupid to this level??
• The Moroccan sultanate ("Assoltana Almaghribia"): In this I might think you are not Algerian. Never in Moroccan History have I read this terminology. You might have mixed the Turkish sultanate with the Moroccan Kingdom. Though most Moroccan rulers have been called Sultans and Emir Almominin "Commander of the Faithfuls", Morocco has always been called either the Kingdom of Morocco or The Moroccan Empire as the Americans described it in the 1700s.
• "Regions of ... Algeria payed allegiance to ...": In the name of what would Algerians pay allegiance to the King of Morocco??. Did you know that allegiance is an islamic act "beyaa" of declaring a ruler your leader and you are part of his community??. You would go to jail in Algeria if you say that in public, and what makes it worse, to Morocco.
• the treaty has been ratified by Morocco in 1991, as a gesture from Hassan II to help strengthen Chadli against the Army.
• Regarding the attitude to WS, the Sand War has had an impact on the party that suffered defeat in it (Algeria) not Morocco. Morocco's attitude towards WS or then Spanish Sahara has not changed from 1956(way before the Sand War, 1963).
• All the stuff about the Polisario, the referendum is already in the dedicated articles, You are only trying again to accomplish your role of militant for the Polisario's lost cause.
• The GPRA did accept what the Moroccans asked: immediately after independence, the start of nogotiations for the return of the Moroccan territories of Tindouf and Bechar. So saying to negotiate is misleading if you don't continue your sentence.
• So you see, that apart from "arab nationalist" Ben Bella for which I have no stance, al the rest of your edits were baseless, and the version you yourself aknowledged as neutral and correct is restored.--A Jalil 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop being so aggressive... I thought you were doing a good job, just had some changes I wanted to make. Plus I don't understand some of your accusations.

• The 18/1900 was a mistaken key stroke.
• I am not Algerian, and I never claimed to be. Quite the contrary, I regularly seem to have to prove I am not.
• The GPRA under Abbas said yes to negotiations, yes. Then Ben Bella -- who was against the idea from the beginning -- said that, well, enough negotiating, the answer is no. Wasn't that what I wrote? It didn't agree specifically to "returning" the areas, however, even if this may have been implicit. That is what made Ben Bella able to say he wasn't breaking the terms of the deal.
• The Ifrane (or whichever one it was) treaty has not been fully ratified by Morocco, I think it is the parliament that is still pending. That is wholly symbolic, though.
• It is not entirely obvious that Algeria suffered defeat in the Sand War, since there were no border modifications. I think the article as it was before, was correct: Algeria took a blow militarily, but held its ground politically.
• I know there are articles on Western Sahara, I just thought it would be helpful to explain what the dispute is about in two-three lines. Is that militating for Polisario?
• Beyaa: yes, I believe that people in parts of what is now western Algeria paid allegiance to the Moroccan Sultan. That's what I wrote? And that's what you wrote? Sovereignty was normally defined in tribal and personal allegiance in pre-colonial Morocco (esp the outlying/later disputed areas), not by territorial demarcation. How now is this an attack on Moroccan glory -- it's exactly what the kingdom has always argued?
• The Beirouk page was there in the previous version, I didn't add it. What I wrote wasn't contingent on it, but I thought that it was better to leave it in than delete it -- the more sources the better. Arre 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• There is no mention at all of how the source of the war, which are the terrtoriel claims of 'Great Morocco' by Istiqlal party in 1957.
• Using the Library of congress as a reference to sovereignty of Morocco over southwest Algeria in the 19 century is joke. Need to use a serious reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristmed (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay This is better, but you're simply asserting things without providing any evidence. What makes you think that the territorial claims of Greater Morocco caused the Sand War (and, for the record, I agree with you)? I don't think you understand what the Library of Congress is - it's not a source, it's a repository of sources. Since it is the second largest library in the world, it's not a "joke" at all. What are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Added new text and references to complete the background. All of it comes from the translation of the French version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bristmed (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! This is much better and stress-free. As an aside, I would like to encourage you to sign your posts on these talk pages by typing in four tildes (~~~~) after your posts. As you notice, SineBot keeps signing for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Removed the part of a supposed offer from France to return the terretories, I didn't find any reference any where of the detailed offer. It is possible that France asked to discuss the Algerian Sahara future with Morocco, but the supposed content of the discussion/offer remains unknown/undisclosed. Similarly it is possible that the GPRA chief did discuss with the king of Morocco the border issue, still there is no record/detail of the supposed treaty. I removed those parts because they have no solid ground basis and are mostly speculations. Bristmed (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Background is lacking

In the current version, there is no mention of the French role in setting vague administrative boundaries (the Varnier and Trinquet lines), which eventually turned into poorly-defined borders. This plays an essential part in shaping the conflict. The current wording also shows anti-Moroccan bias ("The Moroccan dynasty encouraged and manipulated these claims") and is poorly sourced. --Gribeco (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right Do you have any better suggestions or sources to provide for contextualizing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure:

• C.R. Pennell, Morocco since 1830: a History, New York University Press, 2000, ISBN 0-8147-6676-5
• Stephen O. Hughes, Morocco under King Hassan, Garnet & Ithaca Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8637-2285-7
• Benjamin Stora, Algeria, 1830-2000: a Short History, Cornell University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8014-3715-6
• Piero Gleijeses, Cuba's First Venture in Africa: Algeria, 1961-1965, in Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 28, No. 1, (2/1996), pp. 159-195, Cambridge University Press, JSTOR
• Patricia Berko Wild, The Organization of African Unity and the Algerian-Moroccan Border Conflict: A Study of New Machinery for Peacekeeping and for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes among African States, in International Organization, Vol. 20, No. 1, (Winter, 1966), pp. 18-36, JSTOR

--Gribeco (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If Morocco's "territorial integrity" includes Western Sahara, then how could it explain partitioning off Western Sahara with Mauritania and then accusing Algeria of having such designs. Furthermore, if Western Sahara is an indivisible part of Morocco, then how come Polisario Front is never accused of being an occupier?. As a fact, Polisario controls over 30% of the territory and, yet, Morocco seems to just hope everyone forgets about that part. Perhaps in the same way as the claims on Mali and Senegal had 'vanished'. When many Saharawis fled their country, avoiding the continuos Moroccan bombing raids, it was Algeria who opened its borders to the fleeing innocent lives. Scores of refugees were killed in the raids. It was Algeria who faced the sudden influx of so many refugees [the writer was one among them] and posed enormous logistical problems to its government. The main responsibility for feeding, clothing and sheltering fell on the Algerian government. Despite all allegations of whether or not the Algerian support was dictated by strategic interest, the validity of its stand is, however, indisputable. Algeria did not waver, nor falter to the pressions exercised by some countries. It was the invaders who underestimated the courage, strength and determination of the Saharawi people. This is, in esence, what the Moroccan media fails miserably to comprehend. Perhaps, the world will never know or understand that we, the Saharawis, pay to Algeria the tribute it deserves, and owe the Algerian people a debt of gratitude for its unwavering support that can never truly be repaid. That debt of gratitude is certainly owed also to everyone all over the world who believed in the Saharawis' inalienable rights to freedom and independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.222.70.181 (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Integration into Western Sahara article

I suggest this topic might usefully be integrated into Western Sahara together with Algeria–Morocco relations and this page mad a redirect to that new section? The UN and western Sahara#Baker Plan described there would then make better sense, and also be easier to maintain perhaps?Timpo (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1 says Algeria suffered 60 dead and 250 captured, "according to French sources". Those French sources apparently include Le Monde. These sources appear to be of similar or greater reliability than Morocco Under King Hassan by Stephen O. Hughes, which cites "estimates" without stating who did the estimating. If we assume Hughes confused "killed" with "casualties", 60 dead and 250 captured would agree nicely with about 300 total casualties, but I don't think we can make that assumption, particularly since Hughes also gives figures for the captured. Regarding the Moroccan casualties sources are in much better agreement; Hughes gives the official Moroccan figure of 39 dead, while the Historical Encyclopedia says Moroccan casualties were unconfirmed but "probably lower" than the 60 dead reported for Algeria. So how should we cover this? For Morocco I see no reason not to go with the official figures that seem to be of the right order of magnitude. For Algeria, however, we should likely go with either the arguably more reliable Le Monde-based figures or, at the very least, with both figures. Huon (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't rely on a source only for the casualities of one side without the other ; do these "French sources" also give figures for Moroccan casualities? If not, they are simply irrelevant. --Omar-toons (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw, note that COW estimates/calculations (p.123) give a figure of 1000 casualties for the Algerian side. --Omar-toons (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Please cite the policy or guideline that says we cannot use reliable sources that give the casualties for only one side. I'm not aware of one that says a source cannot be cited unless it covers some other information as well as the one I want to cite it for. COW does not give a figure of 1000 casualties for the Algerian side. It cites Clodfelter, Warfare and Armed Conflicts, pp. 585–588, 591, for figures of 300 for Algeria and 200 for Morocco, and then goes on to state that it's "possible" based on analogy and guesstimates that the Algerian figure may have been 1,000. That's no serious estimate. I'll add Clodfelter's numbers to both sides. I'm sure you won't object to those numbers since Clodfelter satisfies your condition of giving losses for both sides. I'll also re-add the numbers reported by Le Monde until you can explain why a source reporting casualties for only one side should be dismissed. Huon (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Omar-toons has not explained why a source that reports only on one side's casualties should be dismissed. He now also claims that the sources mentioned above, namely Clodfelter's book, are primary sources. I don't see how that's correct. Primary sources are "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on". Clodfelter's book summarizes statistical data for wars worldwide from 1492 onward. Clodfelter obviously wasn't close to many of those wars, and I see no indication that his work on the Sand War is any more of an "insider's view" than on, say, the Thirty Years' War or World War II. Similarly, Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia and Le Monde aren't primary sources either; the "good source" cited by Le Monde would be primary while Le Monde itself is a secondary source. Huon (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Huon's right. It isn't necessary to dismiss a source that only offers casualties from one side. Ideally, we'd want one that covers both, but that isn't always possible. As for primary sources, Huon's also right: that covers docs prepared at the time by people involved. (I'm not sure autobiographies are.) So, are there good-quality reliable sources for casualties on both sides? Or are there only estimates? It may be a case of "take what you can get"... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I sorted the estimates numerically. I see no reason to deviate from that, and none at all to give Hughes pride of place. Highly reliable scholarly sources generally accept the estimate originating with Le Monde; see for another example the Historical Dictionary of Algeria. We should not, however, include the International Security article's numbers. It clearly marks those rather high figures as guesstimates and states, "One cannot be confident in any of these adjustments, however, until additional data on the battle wounded are available". If the source itself isn't confident, we should not report the figures. Huon (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just like Huon, I too see no reason whatsoever to give Hughes (a non scholar's book, unrelated to the primary topic, mentioning in passing estimates without stating who did the estimating) undue weight (prominence of placement), especially since the others are more reliable, with Le Monde's source (a statement of fact) being by far the most reliable and prominent of all (it's the only one that's consistently used by scholars ).

Tanisha's debate is all about how she thinks wars and armed conflicts have been under-counted because of advances in military medicine (which have made battle deaths less likely and non-fatal battle casualties more likely). Basically, as well as guestimating based on past wounded-to-killed ratios, she suggests that the veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other war-induced psychiatric conditions should also be counted as casualties. A primary source whose findings most definitely do not belong on Wikipedia. Luckily, she made the decision for us by dismissing the adjustments herself ("one cannot be confident in any of these adjustments, however, until additional data on the battle wounded are available"). M.Bitton (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are a little bit late : all sources are kept per WP:BOLD. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Including the names of references' authors in infoboxes generally is not done, and no reason was given why those estimates would need to be attributed to the specific sources. The names convey no information to our readers. Also, Omar-toons used that revert to once again add an etimate that even the scholar doing the estimating called unreliable. That should not be added. Claiming that my revert was about the names when I removed an unreliable source that discredits itself seems disingenious. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the references; Clodfelter does not give that estimate. I also see no purpose to adding "low/unconfirmed"; if anything, that's an indication that the official Moroccan figures, the ones reported by Hughes, should not be considered confirmed. It's vague and unhelpful. Huon (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Readetr should know that the 200 dead estimate for Morocco and 60 dead estimate for Algeria aren't from the same source (it is sure that figures for Algeria were much higher than for Morocco, there's no reason to let the reader make some misunderstanding through comparing figures from different sources as if they were from the same one) : estimates for each side should be compared with the equivalent for the other side, that's all. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh and, unless the opposite is proven (through WP:RSN), Hughes is a valuable secondary source.

Also, I see no reason to not mention that Mikaberidze gives an estimate for Morocco too.

You are accusing me of POV-pushing, but actually you are the one who is pushing a POV.

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Except that your favourite source, Hughes, is himself mixing disparate sources: Official figures for Morocco, and estimates of unknown provenance for Algeria. I've done what we should have done long ago and wrote a section that properly explains the various casualty estimates, with information on whose estimates, respectively official figures, those are. Huon (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to avoid judging my "intentions" : I have no "favourite" source. I only find that giving figures for one side based on a given author while giving figures for the other side basing on another author isn't relevant.

And I won't repeat it again : unless WP:RSN decides that Hughes isn't reliable, he remains valuable. --Omar-toons (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot : when authors disagree on figures (the case here), it is not NPOV to give preference to any of the authors and all figures should be cited --Omar-toons (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Removing Le Monde's mention from the article after you specifically asked for it is quite worrisome. M.Bitton (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am just here after browsing the article, clicking the history and seeing an ugly, ugly mess. From this discussion it appears as if Huon is correct in his opinion. also I cannot find any archives or any other previous discussion, so maybe it was discussed on user TP. So @Omar-toons have any other editors agreed with your opinion regarding this matter? for as far as I can see you seem to be going against the general consensus. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal : defining casualties as "unconfirmed / unknown" on the infobox, with a link to the specific section. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be a disservice to our readers. It seems four editors see no problem with the current treatment of casualties in the infobox. Huon (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Support

sources have to be provided for the support of France and the USA to Morocco.

Actually France supported both sides as you can read below:

le général de Gaulle eut cette réponse décapante : «Il ne faut rien proclamer du tout. Et, d’abord, c’est faux ! Nous aidons les Marocains, en leur fournissant des armes. Nous aidons les Algériens en mettant à leur disposition notre aérodrome de Colomb-Béchar.» Pour être encore plus clair, l’ancien chef de l’Etat français reformule sa pensée sentencieusement : «Par le fait, nous les aidons à s’entretuer. Pourtant, il faut faire comme si nous étions neutres !»

source: the book 'C’était de Gaulle' by Alain Peyrefitte --196.65.93.163 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Support in the infobox

For a start, the edit destroyed the infobox. Second, MOS is not a policy and the recent removal of "supported by" didn't change anything. looking at other military conflicts, such as the six day war, those who had a minor involvement in the war (many countries, including Algeria) are not even mentioned in the Infobox. M.Bitton (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a formatting error which has now been fixed. I cited the specific policy on your talk page in explaining the rationale for this edit a few hours ago. Deleting my talk page message doesn't change the fact that "support" sections are deprecated in the infobox. If you think edit warring is taking place, I strongly encourage you to take this to an administrators' noticeboard or some other forum and request action be taken there. However, I haven't violated the 3RR rule.

To reiterate: while multiple combatant sections are permitted, "supported by" sections have been struck from conflict infoboxes per the relevant Manual of Style. While I personally disagree with this policy, it's much better to describe all parties to a conflict as belligerents in the infobox if they had troops on the ground. We could add a footnote explicitly stating that Cuban forces did not see action, but were present on the ground before the hostilities actually ended (which makes them a belligerent to the conflict in my book). --Katangais (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

While I personally disagree with this policy, Again, MOS is not a policy.

I don't need to take it to the admin board as I expect you to know what BRD and consensus stand for. I suggest removing those that had a minor role in the conflict (similar to the six day war). M.Bitton (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm. If the MOS is irrelevant, I will be requesting a third party comment as that seems to be the most desirable course of action moving forward. --Katangais (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact your edit was also reverted by Skitash means that there is already a third party. M.Bitton (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable if an administrator or someone otherwise previously connected with this article weighed in with regard to the support section. If I'm wrong, I need to hear this from aforementioned third party as it will inform my actions and perspective on the infobox MOS moving forward. --Katangais (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest either removing those that had a minor role in the conflict (similar to the six day war) or replacing "support" with "Minor involvement" (the point is here is to separate the main belligerents from the rest while leaving the stable version that so far proved to be informative without being misleading). Let me know what you think. M.Bitton (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

France had a relatively minor role in hostilities considering it did not have military personnel or equipment present in the theater of conflict. The extent of French political involvement is covered in the body of the article and is so nuanced a mention in the infobox is unnecessary. As far as the UAR/Egypt and Cuba are concerned, they should be listed as co-belligerents with Algeria because they indeed had military personnel and equipment present in the theater before hostilities ended, similar to the way the Soviet Union and China are listed as co-belligerents to North Vietnam in the Vietnam War article. --Katangais (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

They all had a very minor role, that's why they shouldn't be listed alongside the main belligerents. The six day war doesn't even mention similar ones in the infobox. Ultimately, the article has been stable for years and I certainly see no reason to change it, expect perhaps for what I mentioned above, i.e., remove those that had a minor role or replace "support" with "minor involvement". M.Bitton (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Considering this has come up as an issue again, I'm changing the topic name to "support in the infobox" so newer contributors to this article can find the discussion easily, and offer their own comments. --Katangais (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skitash: Thank you for pointing out this discussions. But I have yet to see affirmative consensus to override RFC conclusion to deprecate "Supported by" at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind their removal, on the condition that they won't be reinstated alongside the main belligerents. M.Bitton (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Refer to documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict which states combatant parameters are for "parties participating in the conflict," meaning direct military action is the inclusion criteria, regardless of whether the role was minor or major.

Based on this interpretation and discussion above, France should be excluded. Regarding Egypt and Cuba, they also should also be excluded. Despite deploying troops and preparing for combat, they never actually engaged in active conflict. Therefore, their involvement should be detailed in the article body, not the Infobox. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You've consistently failed to read the body or the annotations for most of the articles you've been editing in the past twenty four hours to depreciate the "support" section. This has resulted in some rather uninformed and chaotic removals of relevant information. Egyptian forces did take part in the fighting, which is clearly stated in the article under the sub-section entitled "Tindouf offensive". Under that criteria, Egypt certainly qualifies as a belligerent here. --Katangais (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. If there is a source that explicitly states Egypt fought alongside Algeria against Morocco, yes, it qualifies as a |combatant= per template documentation. But for France and Cuba, I think we all agree to remove them. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed regarding what's informative without being misleading (as done in similar articles). Some of them don't mention those that had a minor involvement, while others changed "supported by" with various descriptions, including "minor involvement" (the mentioned RfC doesn't apply to such changes). Some articles don't even list all the belligerents: for instance, there is no mention of the US in the Gaza war infobox, despite the fact that it's a belligerent that is described as such in various reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Algeria victory

@M.BittonIf Morocco has claims on Algeria, and Algeria can fend off these claims, then that is a clear victory for Algeria. Then why do they change it to Military Stalemate? That can't be a military stalemate if Algeria fends off all attempts, do you know what I mean? Wasserschneider (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been around long enough to know what not to buy. I'm sure you understand perfectly what I mean by that. M.Bitton (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

But how did it get this name?

I was looking around in this article for some mention of how it got this name (I have visions of the soldiers on both sides just picking up sand and throwing it at the enemy; it would be nice if this sort of childish behavior was the worst that wars got, but the article of course belies that notion) since sand (especially in the Sahara) isn't that valuable, and there are plenty of other wars that could get this name. So why this one? Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

June 2025

@Tacosjajajajja: you are clearly edit warring to impose your POV. This has to stop. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Dismissing my efforts to correct bias as "edit warring" is a convenient excuse to avoid addressing the real problem: selective censorship. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tacosjajajajja Considering you've already been blocked for edit warring and are on a 1RR as a result, I'd tread lightly. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 14:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

While i recognise my 1RR status, I firmly believe my block was unwarranted and driven by biased moderation rather than any geniune misconduct. My only goal has been to contribute fair, well sourced content and to stand against persistant imbalance. I remain willing to collaborate respectfully within Wikipedia's rules. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I firmly believe my block was unwarranted this says it all (without even adding the uncalled for personal attack that you left on my talk page). M.Bitton (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You're entitled to your view, but I stand my position: my block was unjustified, and I have acted in good faith throughout. If content-based criticism is interpreted as a personal attack, then the boundary between accountability and censorship is being blurred. I remain more than prepared to escalate this through proper dispute channels if needed

Tacosjajajajja (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

While the recent edits by Tacosjajajajja should've been discussed on the talk page first, M.Bitton I'm genuinely concerned that your history of reverting many edits to this article, engaging in edit warring with discussion only initiated as a last resort, and past reluctance to participate in mediation efforts reflects an almighty lack of good faith. Just a gentle reminder that this will continue to be a recurring theme, especially with regards to this article in the future, unless it is addressed. --Katangais (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You wouldn't say that if you read the uncalled for personal attack that they left on my talk page. I deal with SPAs and their POV pushing on a daily basis, and therefore, I don't pay attention to their nonsense. Also, I remind you that you engaged in an edit war on this very article (for no valid reason whatsoever, since most of your edits were left untouched). Your almighty lack of good faith has been duly noted. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

"an almighty lack of good faith" See WP:GFISNOT. Good faith doesn't mean overlooking clear patterns of disruptive editing. Tacosjajajajja was indeffed for disrupting this very article and is still repeating the same behavior. It doesn't make sense to frame M.Bitton as the one acting in bad faith. Skitash (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

It is clear from the repeated removals and dismissals of well-sourced Amazigh and Moroccan perspectives that there is a pattern of biased editing favoring certain national narratives. This selective enforcement undermines Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and inclusivity, and it must be addressed to ensure that all legimate viewpoints are fairly represented without being surpressed under the guise of "good-faith" or "POV-pushing" accusations. Tacosjajajajja (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

We are all in agreement that nobody is entitled to an unlimited amount of good faith. Skitash the general point I was making is that edits here get consistently reverted on a regular basis, with discussion on the talk page almost never being pursued as a first resort, and voluntary efforts at mediation being rejected. That is a problematic trend. What it is not is an excuse for personal attacks, or disruptive editing, but it does often lead to pointless edit wars far more often than necessary. The frustration of new editors is understandable when they try to contribute to this article and automatically hit this wall. Tacosjajajajja, the onus is also on you to assume good faith when it comes to other contributors. Please, if you have a problem with the current structure of the article, appeal to arbitration and make sure somebody else puts their eyes on it. But read WP:BATTLE for great advice on how not to handle a scenario like this one. --Katangais (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2026

Change the description of the infobox image from an Algerian SU-5-2 to a Moroccan Mk.61 105mm self propelled howitzer. Geltsdale (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Day Creature (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2026 (UTC)