Talk:Royal Moroccan Army

Figures and sources
I am very concerned about the accuracy of the figures re this articles. I've seen different figures changing but none is referenced. Could you please tell us guys about your references? --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

986 pattons? 200 T72?

real numbers are more like:

- (48) T-72 bought in 2002 to Bielorussia - (360) M-60 Patton (240) M-60 A1 in not working condition (120) M-60 A3 TTS bought from spain in 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.126.10.233 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I second this and currently (1/26/2020), it seems the active strength of the Moroccan Army is given way too high. How can there be 355,000 active duty soldiers in the army when there are only around 280,000 active duty personnel (probably even less now) in the whole Moroccan Armed Forces minus the Gendarmerie. All armed forces across the world have been downgrading in the past several decades, and these inflated figures on these pages on Wikipedia for various armed forces have to fixed.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

'Russian Brigade'
Pour les T-72bv y'a une brigade qui s'appelle là brigade Russe avec que du matérielle russe performent ( AT-11 pour les munitions ) elle et stationnées en partie prés de la frontière Algérienne ( le profil du T-72 et plus apte a la géographie qu'un M60A3TTS ) -http://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index.php?topic=8464.105 Potentially '6eme BRB' Buckshot06 01:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Roughly: For the T-72BVs, there is a brigade which is called the 'Russian brigade' with which the material Russian is in use (AT-11 amongst others). The brigade is stationed in part near the Algerian frontier.

la-nouvelle- 4BI (Ben Slimane)sera equipée du SAR-21 & la nouvelle veste/gilet tactique. Coté M16 ya qq unites qui l'utilisent au sein des FAR comme à la GR(GISGR) http://far-maroc.forumpro.fr/materiel-et-infrastructure-des-far-f16/tous-vos-questions-sur-les-far-t3-30.htm Buckshot06 01:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you need to include the content into the article or just translate it? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs translation. Buckshot06(prof) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Translation -- For the T-72bv there is a brigade called the 'Russian Brigade' using performant Russian material (AT-11 as ammunitions). It is stationed, in part, near the Algerian border.

The new 4BI (Ben Slimane) will be equipped with SAR-21 and the new tactical ballistic vest. As for the M16 there are some units which are used by the Royal Moroccan Army such as the GISGR. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

From Sp:Wiki
Needs translation and verification. Buckshot06(prof) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Orden de Batalla Ejercito de Tierra De Marruecos
Se desglosa el orden de batalla de Ejército de Tierra Marroquí, en el cual se han organizado las unidades por zonas o ciudades donde tienen base estas fuerzas. Las unidades del Sector Fronteras y Norte pueden estar destacadas (o parte de ellas) en la actualidad en la zona del Sahara, ya que es normal la rotación periódica a la zona de unidades de otros sectores.


 * Translation (I'll translate the below table and verify the information later on) -- The order of battle of the Moroccan ground army is organized by units per zones or cities where they are based at. The border and northern units can be organized depending on the situation at the Sahara zone as it is normal for such units to be rotated periodically.

 SECTOR FRONTERAS Y NORTE

 SECTOR SAHARA



Order of Battle of the Moroccan Army 2006
Hi i am --Hispania2 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC), and im editting the spanish page of FAR. The Order of Battle of the Moroccan Army since 2006 was published in this magazine but when i tried to link the places with their respective coordinates many of them had dissapeared. That's because in 2006 became a reorganization in FAR, and more that 100 new bases have been built. Many bases have been grouped, leading to larger bases and concentrated. The problem is that many of them don appear, Guelmin particularly, one of the most important. I found this article (in spanish) and I think it has less errors and is more graphic:

The deployment of the FAR is mainly concentrated in the south of the territory, specifically in the areas of Draa (header Guelmim) Saguia-al-Hamra (El Aaiun), Uad-ad-Dahbar (Dakhla) and Headquarters South Zone (Agadir). In this region are featured 3 Mechanized Infantry Brigade, 9 Mechanized Infantry Regiment, 25 Infantry Battalions sector (distributed in garrisons guarding the walls), 3 Parachute Battalions, 2 battalions of the Corps on camels, 4 Armoured Squadrons, 5 and 7 Squadrons reinforced Mechanized Artillery groupings. .) These units are protected by six wall sections that cover a distance of approximately 1,200 km. The walls consist of a protective stone and sand for 3 to 5 feet high, by 4 to 6 meters wide at its base. Are protected by a moat and in front of them is a barrier of barbed wire and mines. According to the sections, each 5 km there is a detachment type company and every 15 radar that provides data to a firing field artillery battery. Every 45-60 km there is a long-range radar.

On the other hand, there are relatively large forces in the border areas with Algeria Ouarzazate (1 Mechanised Infantry Regiment and 1 Cavalry Squadron Group), Er Rachidia (1 Mechanized Infantry Regiment, and 1 Cavalry Squadron Group) and Oujda (2 squads Groups AMX-10, 1 Artillery Group and 3 Infantry Battalions). Such a concentration of units shows that the main threat perceived by Morocco, Polisario Front then, comes from its neighbor to the east.

In the rest of the Moroccan almost no operating units: 1 Mountain Battalion, 3 squads (one armored, one mechanized and one third of Chivalry) and 1 Field Artillery Association. The rest are bodies logistical, bureaucratic, educational, representation (Royal Guard), or staff of outstanding units in the Sahara

The organization of the force is: - 3 Mechanized Infantry Brigades - 2 Airborne Brigades - 1 Safety Light Brigade - 8 Mechanized Infantry Regiments (each with two or three battalions) - 1 Mountain Battalion - 37 Infantry Battalions Sector - 3 Motor and Camel Battalions - 10 Groups of Armoured Squadrons - 2 Horse Squadrons Groups - 4 Special Operations Units - 2 Airborne Battalions - 12 Groups Propelled Artillery - 3 Towed Artillery Groups - 1 Air Defence Group - 1 Transmissions Regiment - 3 Regiments Sappers - 5 Groups Logistics - 4 Battalions Repair Material - 3 Ordnance Battalion (Ammunition) - 3 Transport Battalions

In general, the Moroccan army is provided with a material antiquated and submitted to a notable wear as consequence of the inclemencies of the Sahara Desert; nevertheless, it is to a great extent operative, constitutes an offensive considerable force, and it is possible to recognize him a defensive important character. The informative inscrutability that makes a detour to this topic impedes to know with accuracy the material of which they arrange the FAR. The tables that we attach are brought near, since in some cases it is a question of useless equipments that they have not been given of fall - case of any light cars of combat and of vehicles of combat of infantry - or it is a question of initial requests that they have not managed to concentrate. In opinion of some authors, the FAR would be the best army of the Maghrib; not so much for his material, minor in number that the Algerian and the Libyan, but for his operability and instruction.

The instruction of the troop and of the pictures of control is carried out across the national system of military formation and of the participation of Moroccan personnel in courses given in France, Spain and The United States, which include both the stage of academy, and specialized courses or Staff Officer's studies. The tactical doctrine is in his most of French origin, though also it contains own elements, result of the experiences of the military campaign of the Sahara. Regardless this, the degree of training of the human resources is low if it is compared with that of the pictures of control and troop of the armies of the Atlantic Alliance.

The logistics is based on 5 Logistic Groups, 4 Battalions of Repair of Material, 3 Ammunition's Battalions and 3 of Transport. An organization that can seem to be poor and defective, if it is compared with that of the European armies, but that has allowed for years to live and to attack more than 100.000 men opened to thousand kilometres of Rabat.

VT1A and M1Abrams
The purchase of 150 VT1A is already confirmed by many international medias...so there is no need to erase all the time the post.

As we can see in the link of M1 abrams, Moroccan GOV is already workin to purchase the tanks, is already preparing the know-how with American Army and the facilities, etc...

It is that enought to respect the aquisitions of both tanks and stop erasing it all the time??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.120.23 (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So show me those 'international medias'. All that have ever been used as a citation are personal blogs, and Chinese propaganda sites.  Find something that meets the criteria off a good reference, and it will stop getting deleted.  Ditto with the M1 Abrams - Morocco is a potential[ buyer, but no money, and no tanks have ever changed hands, and no contracts have been signed.  Please stop adding it until these have become official - and even so, they would not belong in the current inventory list, but in a future acquisitions list. - Jonathon A H (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Please look at your sources for the VT1A - None of them meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a reliable source. Please, please, please read WP:IRS.  All you have right now is a bunch of fan sites, and second hand information that keeps getting passed around and creating a feedback loop.  If Morocco has actually purchased these tanks, where's the official Moroccan newspapers or other legitimate media outlet publishing a piece on the buy?  Where are the recognized Defense analysts and news sources like Jane's commenting on it?  Don't you think it's funny that all you ever see are links from Chinese defense blogs, and forums which copy information from said Chinese defense blogs?  No?  Think here... - Jonathon A H (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

http://i41.servimg.com/u/f41/09/01/13/73/tacom-10.jpg http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/future_buys/FMSWRN.cfm

Confirmed purchase — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrisius (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither says anything of the sort. One says 'Estimated Future Buys', which means the vehicle sale is estimated, and the other says 'FY 12', which means July 2012-June 2013, which is also in the future. Discuss this on the talkpage and come to a reasonable wording, or you will be blocked for edit warring. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you only object to what's "on order" or "confirmed purchase" you could edit just that. You reverted other constructive changes. --Tachfin (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hasty. Too much dealing with nationalist POVwarriors. I've reverted myself, though removing the strange POV material seemingly copied from some government website. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are wrong, I'm not an a "nationalist POVwarrior", event if I don't understand what POVwarrior means. Some info, is true that I found it in government webs, such as history or others, but i'm just trying to get this page more useful and accurate. If we couldnt get to a conclusion you could ask before shooting, cause as you could see, I found a way to put our two ideas in common, creating a "future purchases" part, having both reason in our expressions. Next time, if try to read the full history before imagining the ending. If you realy can read French, try to read the french version of this page, and see the diferences, and try to read the history of page, and see all my contributions, not only in this page but in others too. Tabrisius (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not meaning to imply you were one of those who insisted upon their own Point of View though all indications to the contrary. I mean I've had too many run-ins with others (often on Azerbaijani Armed Forces) who do the same thing. The rest of my changes speak for themselves; I am not clear why the armed forces motto was here, for example. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I apreciate your changes, I think is better this way. So Thanks ;) Tabrisius (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Shaba I (under Colonel Loubaris? - operation Bonite?)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaba_I Reference used: Chris Cook and John Stevenson. The Routledge Companion to World History Since 1914, 2005. Pages 321-322. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrisius (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've seen that. Do you have further information? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found this: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field%28DOCID+zr0186%29 (Library of Congress) 1.500 moroccan soldiers fighting in Shaba I with Zairian "Army"... Tabrisius (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Tabrisius
Can you just stop reveting an edit, that is clearly not vandalism, with the summary "removing vandalism". I remind you that this article is not your property WP:OWN, and that you have to address other people respectfully and not slander them with false accusation of vandalism. We're not in a Mou9ata3a here ;) OK? --Tachfin (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * YOU should stop editing with unsourced and vandal ways...Moroccan Armed Forces had been deployed in all those conflicts and there are sources posted in the article. Next time you edit i'll contact somebody to make you respect a bit others work...There are no UN missions in conflicts...SFOR, KFOR and UNITAF aren't UN missions but NATO missions, Morocco stayed in Zaire till 1979, and YES malian and mauretanian sources confirmed moroccan Special forces in MAli (See sources) So STOP editing and go read a bit about moroccan involvement in recent conflicts...Tabrisius (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First you are in WP:3RR violation. Where are these sources? I think you should learn a thing or two about Wikipedia. This isn't your personal blog & review the way you address others on here.
 * Re content, 1) provide reliable sources for your claims (i.e. military involvement in Northern Mali conflict, or the Huthi conflict in Yemen which is just alleged. 2) Peace-keeping missions (whether UN or not) are not combat missions and therefore should not clog the infobox in place of other major conflicts. 3) The Moroccan Gendarmerie was only involved in Shaba I, remains to be proven that they did participate in Shaba II.
 * BTW whats this? a threat? "Next time you edit i'll contact somebody to make you respect a bit others work" We're on Wikipedia remember? --Tachfin (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you Kiddin me?? you don't see the sources posted, are you really kiddin me?? YOUR ARE TROLLING ME?? Shaba II, Northern Mali conflict , , ,  Operation Scorched Earth , READ MORE ABOUT Unified Task Force, SFOR and KFOR... Saying that UNITAF, SFOR and KFOR werent combat conflicts is an insult to all those who died in Serbia, Kosovo and Somalia under enemy fire. IF THERE ARE SOURCE ABOUT AND ARE ACCEPTED SO YOU SHOULD STOP BECAUSE ITS VANDALISM... so stop your trolling and vandalism EDITING and ERASING INFORMATION FORM MULTIPLE SOURCES (so the 3RR rule apply TO YOU not to me) If you want mor sources I can give you more...but stop trolling and editing as a Vandal reliable sources and verified information.  Tabrisius (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need to calm down. Shouting and down-talking won't help persuade anybody, least me. Please read WP:RS and WP:Cite. According to the very LSE document you just linked, Morocco was not involved in Shaba II. The subsequent African peace-keeping force that was sent there IS NOT Shaba II. The alleged involvement in Operation Serval, is at best speculation and not supported by any reliable sources. (Sorry self published news sites such as maliactu.com/malijet.com aren't reliable sources). Again I reiterate that peace keeping missions (which are not battles, exception made for Mogadishu) do not belong to the infobox which should only include major military combat ops. Finally, you've thrown at me quite a few personal attacks and a threat, please take a look at WP:PA and WP:CIVIL--Tachfin (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ¿me calming down? stop acting as a troll and stop acting as a victim...and read a bit the sources ¿selfpublished sources? they are newsites and one even have a radio chanel!!! Jeuneafrique a self-published source???really?? who you are trying to convince??? Who the hell you think you are to say that a source is not valid, not one, but three differents and that have nothing to dou with Morocco or Moroccan Army or even are pro-moroccan??? you think that posting some rules will change something when you don't even know how all them work??? I've been creating, editing and publishing in wikipedia for years, don't tell me how to contribute...Shaba II was in 1978 LIKE IT IS WROTE IN THE SOURCES THAT THE MOROCCAN ARMY WAS FIGHITING IN ZAIRE WITH LUBARIS!!! WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY DOING THERE? WERE THERE ANY OTHER CONFLICTS IN ZAIRE IN 1978??? ARE WE ALL IDIOTS OR WHAT??? Stop trolling, stop acting as a vandal...you want me to put the conflicts instead of the missions? Ok...you'll have your conflicts. BW...Wich personal atacks? I MUST WARN YOU THAT YOU ARE ACTING AS A TROLL AND AS A VANDAL BEFORE CONTACTING AN ADMIN ¿DID YOU KNOW THAT? Tabrisius (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: I am a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion Project. The request for a Third Opinion in reference to this dispute has been removed because this dispute does not meet the requirement of the Third Opinion project that, "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." All moderated content dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia require extensive talk page discussion before requesting assistance. If one removes the shouting and name calling which has occurred so far in this discussion, there has been very little real discussion of the issues here and even less on-topic back and forth. For example, Tachfin has asserted that, "self published news sites such as maliactu.com/malijet.com aren't reliable sources". Discussion on that point would proceed by discussing what defines a reliable source and what defines a self published source and then examining whether the named sources meet those definitions. If help is needed to work out uncertainties, you could then ask a question at the reliable sources noticeboard. That kind of thing is clearly not what has happened here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks TransporterMan for your feedback. user:Tabrisius, I reiterate my request to you to: refrain from personal attacks, keep the discussion WP:Civil and WP:AGF. No, you do not WP:OWN this article. Trust me you're not doing yourself any favours by behaving like above. --Tachfin (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Battles in infobox
I hereby explain/summarise the content dispute in question: As it stands the disagreement is about:
 * 1) It started with an edit from me in which I added the battle Shaba I to the infobox. In that edit I also removed peace-keeping missions (from the infobox). Since, as in other army articles, the battles/conflicts in infobox are not meant to be exhaustive lists of every move by the army in question but only its major/notable engagements. As pointed out in the documentation of template:Infobox military unit: "battles – optional – any notable engagements in which the unit participated. The decision of what constitutes a notable engagement is left to the editors of the specific article". In that same edit I also removed the Northern Mali conflict. As hinted in the main article of this conflict, an involvement from the Moroccan army is not substantiated by any reliable source and is in any case not acknowledged officially neither by Morocco, France nor Mali. (note: in the same edit, I also put the conflicts in chronological order and removed conflicts—such as WWI, WWI—that preceded the foundation the Royal Moroccan Army (founded in 1956). This is somehow considered vandalism by Tabrisius)
 * 2) user:Tabrisius, reverted that edit with the edit summary: "erasign previous BS". In that edit the user also added Shaba II to the conflicts list and removed the mention "alleged" in the Houthi conflict, in which the participation of the Moroccan army is not a proven fact but only rumoured.
 * 3) After reverting the edit above further explaining why I did remove peacekeeping missions, I was again reverted two or three times more with the edit summary "vandalism" further reverts with the mention vandalism continued and Tabrisius even frivolously reported me for Vandalism, a report which was obviously rebuffed by the admins.
 * Involvement of the Moroccan army in operation Shaba II: as per the main article and also sources provided by Tabrisius Morocco did not participate in that conflict but participated in the subsequent peacekeeping mission as part of a joint pan-African operation that included troops from Senegal/Ivory coast et al.
 * Inclusion of peace-keeping missions in the "engagement field": as per documentation of the template and the practice in other army articles, this field is not an exhaustive list of every military operation but should include only notable/major events.
 * Inclusion of conflicts (in particular Northern Mali conflict) in which an involvement from the Moroccan army is not supported by the main article, is not substantiated by reliable sources (note that Tabrisius tends to add refs such as as wordpress blogs, and as earlier disscussions in this talk page indicates may be misquoting sources as well) and not acknowledged by any party of the conflict.

I've done my best to summarise the disagreement. Now waiting for involvement from the community to reach a consensus. Tachfin (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's see:


 * Shaba II May 11-June 1978   . In shaba I (1977) the comander was Dlimi, in Shaba II (1978) Morocco sent Loubaris as stated.
 * Operation Joint Guardian, Operation Joint Forge, Operation Joint Endeavor were part of Serbian and Kosovan Conflict.
 * UNITAF wasn't a Peacekeeping mission read main article.
 * Northern Mali conflict sources are  lets see the first:
 * Malijet is a Mali webnews, is a reliable source, and it's not a self-publishing source (read where it's wrote " Source: La revelation")
 * jeuneafrique a non reliable source?? lol
 * maliactu...has a TV, Radio a Newspaper as one of biggest media in Mali ¿non reliable source? lol

What else? and next time you revert something to erase just the part where YOU ARE NOT AGREE. Tabrisius (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tabrisius - do you agree with Tachfin's description of the three points of disagreement? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No Hchc2009, I do not...There are a lot of articles, books and even videos in youtube showing General Loubaris in Zaire in 1978, there are multiple source saying that moroccan special forces were in Mali, UNITAF wasn't a Peacekeeping mission (we just have to read main article) and Missions in Serbian and Kosovo war were en't in the beginning a Peacekeeping force. In those point, definetly, I do not agree... Tabrisius (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify - do you agree that those are the points of disagreement? (i.e. the dispute is about those three issues) Hchc2009 (talk)
 * Yes Hchc2009 I think that those are the only points...I think...ask him, he is the one who have problems with my sources (Even a picture from Worpress)

Okay. Would it be possible for you to summarise your counter-arguments to those three points, in a similar style to the way Tachfin's explained his? Imagine you're explaining your position to a non-specialist (e.g. me!) who doesn't fully understand the dispute and needs things laid out fairly simply. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Hchc2009 I think that those are the only points...I think...ask him, he is the one who have problems with my sources (Even a picture from Worpress)

Okay. Would it be possible for you to summarise your counter-arguments to those three points, in a similar style to the way Tachfin's explained his? Imagine you're explaining your position to a non-specialist (e.g. me!) who doesn't fully understand the dispute and needs things laid out fairly simply. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure Hchc2009 (talk) it'll be easy and clear:


 * The conflict of Shaba I took part in Zaire in 1977, and it's well known that Morocco sent troops to help the regime in it's war, the mission was commanded by General Ahmed Dlimi, and it was a succes. But the next year, in 1978, another attack from the "enemy" forces against Zairian regime created another war, this time called Shaba II, and one more Morocco sent troops al along with France and Belgium, as can be red in the sources I put. It's even wrote in Ahmed Dlimi wikipage and I didn't edit anything there.
 * Operation Joint Guardian, Operation Joint Forge, Operation Joint Endeavor were international military intervention operations part of Serbian and Kosovan Conflict, that easy...and it is wrote in main articles.
 * UNITAF wasn't a Peacekeeping mission it can be read in main article. It was an American-led, United Nations-sanctioned multinational force and charged with carrying out United Nations Security Council Resolution 794 to create a protected environment for conducting humanitarian operations in the southern half of the country.
 * in the case of Northern Mali conflict, There are multiple local sources who confirmed the presence of Moroccan special forces during the conflict, and those sources are local media, they have nothing to do with Morocco, even Jeuneafrique is known as "anti-moroccan" because it supports saharawi claims over Western Sahara, wich means that the information given ins't interested.

I hope that I clarified my points...cheers Tabrisius (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Tabrisius, misquoting sources won't help you. Read your own documentation, Morocco was not involved in Shaba II, as per main article and the links you brought up. But did participate in subsequent peace keeping mission. That's like considering Bangladesh part of the Western Sahara War just because they sent troops for MINURSO.
 * Oh and just for your information, as you seem to be considering yourself an expert on the Moroccan army, Shaba I was under the command of Laanigri (Gendarmerie), Dlimi being in any case busy in Western Sahara at the time. I won't reply to other sloppy gibberish as to keep discussion on track Tachfin (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you but you are not right:

What else do you need? Obama telling you that moroccans where there? Tabrisius (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaba_I#Execution Dlimi was the commander as seen in main article
 * Second: Read sources...moroccan forces were sent to zaire in May 1978. It's not my fault if you don't want to read the sources I bring.
 * Third: CIA document (Monday 5 June 1978 CG NIDC 78/130C. NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION) showing moroccan presence in Zaire in 1978 Quote: "The Moroccan Commander of the interafrican force in Shaba, colonel Loubaris...", Quote: "Moroccan unit temporary withdrew..."
 * Thanks all. I'll try and have a look through some of these tomorrow morning (it is quite late in my time zone!). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hchc2009 for your feedback.
 * @Tab, Well you are not shouting, threatning and insulting in cap letters any more, we're making progress here.
 * "First: Dlimi was the commander as seen in main article" No you just added that because apparently it's the first time you visit that article. There is no doubt that Dlimi visited and probably coordinated given his tremendous powers at the time but it's no mystery that the forces there were paratroopers, i.e. Gendarmerie, commanded by Laanigiri on the ground and not Dlimi who was not even there (again per the very offline article you probably never read and snatched from antoher sentence in the middle of the Shaba I page to support an entirely different claim). Similarly, Dlimi may have visited or coordinated from intelligence/diplo standpoint during Yom Kippur war but that doesn't change the fact that the Moroccan forces there were commanded by General Sefrioui and not Dlimi.
 * "Second: Read sources...moroccan forces were sent to zaire in May 1978. It's not my fault if you don't want to read the sources I bring." last time I reply to this, you seem to think you can just misquote a source and make it say whatever you like. That's childish and has no place in an encylopedia. I leave others to decide on this VERY clear point.
 * Third: CIA document (Monday 5 June 1978 CG NIDC 78/130C. NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION) showing moroccan presence in Zaire in 1978 [16] Quote: "The Moroccan Commander of the interafrican force in Shaba, colonel Loubaris...", Quote: "Moroccan unit temporary withdrew..." ditto above.
 * You probably don't know this but Morocco did participate in another peace keeping force as early as 1960 in Congo, it was under the command of General Kettani. . Now that you know this I hope you don't get all excited and add this to the infobox and EW, shout, insult, threaten etc when contradicted. --Tachfin (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And now YOU start insulting?? that's funny...
 * FIRST; You don't even understand French....this is from your source: "Hamidou Laânigri, colonel à l'époque, y coordonne la brigade de gendarmerie royale envoyée dans le cadre de la force interafricaine." Translation: he comanded the GENDARMERIE forces in the interafrican forces (not the armed forces!! ITS YOUR ARTICLE!!!) You think that posting french sources will help you post whatever you want? Of course...
 * SECOND; Thank's you have just showed us that you are a great liar...this is BEFORE MY ADDING: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaba_I&diff=594051906&oldid=591123424 you can read the source in execution threat...this is called lying!!! of course you forgot to edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaba_I#Execution too...Wikipedia is not yours you know?
 * THIRD; You don't accept an official declasified 1978 CIA document as a source where it's wrote that moroccan forces were in Zaire??? who can you be that arrogant?? But there isn't only one CIA declasiffied document but TWO (5 June 1978)  (27 November 1987) How can you be that liar and arrogant???
 * FOURTH; Sources talk about moroccan intervention in 1977 and 1978...I'm not stupid to think that they are talking about the ONUC mission (A mission that I POSTED before you even started editing the moroccan army page) Read them before saying anything and stop lying...and stop thinking that you know everything about the Moroccan Army, I've been writing and learning about for three years now...so stop treating people as stupid when you are acting like that... Tabrisius (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Tachfin (talk) can you explain to the rest of human mankind how moroccan soldiers were deployed and 8 of them died in the Battle of Kolwezi(1978) during Shaba II, read main articles...thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabrisius (talk • contribs)
 * That's it. Personal attacks have to stop, you have serious user conduct problem. Not worth a reply really...Tachfin (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the engagements at issue are Shaba II, the peacekeeping missions in Yugoslavia, UNITAF, and Northern Mali in the last couple of years. Now as users above have correctly identified, Morocco was present *after* Shaba II, with the Inter-African intervention force that guarded the border afterwards for a while. They were not present during the fighting. Regarding the peacekeeping missions in Yugoslavia, that's a matter for the intent of the infobox, and should be decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, not here. ARe infoboxes for peacekeeping operations, or not, is the question. UNITAF saw significant fighting and can probably be considered an engagement. Northern Mali hinges on the reliability of the sources - argue your case at the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not here.
 * To all participants, grow up!! What you are fighting over is the infobox; you should be focusing on adding reliable sourced information which explains the issues in context in the text. What goes in the infobox is really not an issue either way, because real life is a lot more complex than a list of battles/engagements. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Buckshot06 (talk). But, I do not agree. For sure Morocco stayed with the interafrican force and even commanded it after the conflict, but what do you think about Battle of Kolwezi? it's part of Shaba II and moroccan presence is confirmed even by the French National Federation of Volounteer Fighters, It's said in the source: "Des militaires marocains et belges participeront aux opérations" (Belian and Moroccan soldiers participate in the operations), and "Un parachutiste belge et un para-commando marocain y ont également laissé la vie." (A Belgian and a Moroccan paratrooper lost their lives). As I said, if Moroccan soldieres weren't present during Shaba II, hwo moroccan soldiers (paratroopers in this case) died during the conflict in battles as the Battle of Kolwezi?? Thank you Tabrisius (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The academic literature uniformly says that Morocco was not present until after Shaba II. I've just reviewed again Odom's manuscript as a check, and he makes no mention of Moroccan personnel until the arrival of the Inter-African Force. Against this, random non-official webpages simply don't meet the criteria of WP:Reliable Sources. Again, work on expanding the text with good solid data, and we wouldn't need to have this kind of discussion. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I've learned a lot about the Moroccan Army by reading through the article and this discussion - thanks! Secondly, as promised, some thoughts from me.


 * As a general point, I'd echo Buckshot's comment about not arguing over infoboxes. In few other areas of life do we try to pack so much into a small box on the right hand side of a page; ambiguities are hard to communicate, and it so often ends in confrontation and argument. I'd always recommend working on the main text first, and then dealing with the infobox.


 * In terms of the detail:
 * The involvement of the Moroccan army in operation Shaba II. An admittedly brief overview of the literature suggests that the conventional view is that Moroccan army returned after Shaba II. I'm tempted to think that the French website you've linked has made a slight mistake in the sequencing? If there is a set of references supporting Moroccan involvement, though, I'd advise adding it into the main text, noting that it is a minority view.
 * Inclusion of peace-keeping missions in the "engagement field". I'd suggest moving the debate away from whether a particular operation was a "peace-keeping operation" or not; the terminology is not exact, and in itself is not an indication (or otherwise) of notability. I'd suggest that factors to consider in notability might be the numbers deployed, or the losses incurred during the op, along with its prominence in the literature. I also wonder if there might not be a compromise position: could you list the major engagements, and then have a collapsible box list underneath with the less important ones, as we do with some medieval rulers who had prodigious numbers of children? Yet another option would be to have a comprehensive "list of Moroccan engagements" article, and link to that from a "more" tag in the infobox, getting the best of both worlds.
 * Other conflict. In terms of other conflicts, I'd advise agreeing the text in the main body of the article first, then dealing with the infobox. Where possible, I'd focus on the highest quality sources (academic books, scholarly references etc.) One recommendation, where particular news sources state involvement in a very recent conflict, but where others take a contrary view (as in the case of the Northern Mali dispute) might be to reference the statement to the actual source (e.g. "the MaliWeb states that the Moroccan Army was involved..."). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from user:Tachfin regarding Shaba II:
 * As stated before Moroccan army did not participate in Shaba II, which lasted from 18-19 May to around the first week of June and according the French Ministry of Defence 14 June, which corresponds to the day the last French soldier left. However Moroccan army DID participate in the joint-African force that arrived after the combats ended, to patrol the area.
 * Concerning the Battle of Kolwezi, the first battle in the Shaba II conflict, the main article is wrong (currently) in stating that Morocco was a belligerent. Indeed, the Moroccan army was not present in Zaire at the time this battle took place (18-19 May 1978). The source used in supporting the participation of Morocco is page 304 of this book which is actually referring to Shaba I, as reading the quote below in its contest clearly shows (note: page 304 is freely available at Gbooks)
 * "Une semaine plus tard, l'opération d'assistance temportaire de la France s'achevait alors que les premiers détachements marocains étaient déjà à l'oeuvre sur le front. Les unités des FAR, avec à leur tête le colonel Abdelkader Loubaris, reconquirent en quelques jours le Shaba. Il ne leur en coûta que huit morts, dont quatre par accident"
 * Tranlation "One week later, the temporary assistance operation of France ended whilst the first Moroccan detachments were already operation on the front. The FAR unites (note: FAR=Royal Moroccan Armed Froces), headed by colonel Abdelkader Loubaris, reconquered Shaba in a few days. This had costed them only 8 dead, of whom 4 by accident"

Further in page 311 the same book states, now about Shaba II:
 * "Leur mission terminée, les légionnaires français et les parachutistes belges commencèrent à quitter le Zaïre dès le 7 juine 1978. Trois jours plus tôt, les troupes marocaines étaient arrivées dans la province du Shaba."
 * Translation: " Their mission complete, French legionnaires et Belgian paratroopers started leaving Zaire since 7 June 1978. 3 days before Moroccan troops arrived in the Shaba province."

Further sources clearly showing that Morocco arrived only after Shaba II combats ended:
 * Account from the French Ministry of Defence (supplemented by a chronology on page 11). It states that the inter-African force arrived on 14 June after the departure of French/Belgian forces and the end of French combat operation baptised "Opération Léopard".
 * Aleth Manin, Annuaire français de droit international, Année  1978, Volume   24, Numéro   24, pp. 159-188 states:
 * "Le 27 mai, une partie du 2e R.E.P est repliée sur Lubumbashi, capitale du Shaba, officiellement en vue de prévenir un début de panique chez les européens. Le 7 juin, le rapatriment des troupes françaises a commencé. Trois compagnies regagnent, à bord d'appareils américains, leurs bases de départ en Corse, la quatrième quittera le Zaïre une semaine plus tard. La relève des troupes fraçaise et belges a été assurée par des unités venues du Maroc, du Sénégal et de quelques autres etats africains. [Note: 1500 hommes transportés par avions américains. Le Sénégal a envoyé environ 500 hommes. L'Egypte a également fait parvenir du matériel de guerre et dép^ché des instructeurs militaires. Outre le Sénégal et le Maroc, l'assistance a été fourni par le Tgo, le Gabon, la R.C.A et la Côte d'Ivoire]."
 * Translation: "On 27 May (1979), part of the 2nd R.E.P retreated to Lubumbashi, capital of Shaba, officially to prevent a begining of panic amongst Europeans. On 7 June, the repatriation of French troops started. 3 units return, aboard American planes, to their bases in Corsica, the fourth will leave Zaire one week later. The relief of French and Belgian forces was insured by units from Morocco, Senegal and some other African states. [Note: Morocco sent 1,500 men transported by American planes. Senegal sent approximately 500 men. Egypt sent military equipment and military instructors. A part from Morcco & Senegal, assistance was provided by Togo, Gabon, Central African Republic and Ivory Coast"


 * LSE paper: The “Cuba of the West:” France and Mobutu’s Zaïre, 1977-1979 By Nathaniel Kinsey Powell on page 22 you can read:
 * "Hassan had his own worries about communist influence on the continent, fears shared by other “moderate” francophone leaders such as Léopold Sédar Senghor, Omar Bongo, and Félix Houphouet-Boïgny. In surprisingly short order five African countries contributed troops to establish a Force Inter-africaine (FIA) to act as peacekeepers in Shaba. By June 5th, barely two weeks after the French and Belgian interventions, this force deployed to Shaba. Morocco took the lead with some 1,500 elite troops to the region under the former force commander, Colonel-Major Loubaris. A nearly 600 man strong battalion of Senegalese, a company of Togolese and Gabonese, and an Ivoirian medical detachment combined with the Moroccans to form a force of some 2500 troops.143 French and American transport aircraft transported these troops, with both countries also providing some vehicles and other equipment to the units.144 Particularly, the French left all of their vehicles used during their intervention behind for the Moroccans to distribute among the FIA.145 This represented the first time that African countries collaborated on a joint peacekeeping force."

--Tachfin (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement from user:Tachfin regarding the inclusion of Northern Mali conflict, Kosovo missions et al. in the infox:

--Tachfin (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The general principle in this type of infoboxes is to only list major/notable engagements. As I stated before, this infobox field is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every move by the army. As quick look on other army article will show, this is the common practice, and the Moroccan army was already involved quite some major/notable conflicts to include in the infobox (e.g. Western Sahara war, Sand war, Yom Kippur war, Ifni War, Gulf War, Shaba I, 1957 Rif revolt, etc). It isn't as if we were short of things to mention, and therefore there is no need to clog the infobox with UN mission/Peacekeeping forces or other conflicts where Moroccan involved is dubious, only alleged/rumoured and whose scale is any case not known. Sometimes, intelligence sharing or logistical support may be considered an involvement, but that does not equate to troops actually fighting on the field.
 * 2) Involvement from the Moroccan army in the Northern Mali conflict is yet to be proven. The sources provided are paper thin, and amount to journalistic speculation/opinion or the casual rumours heard in the press. In any case, the scale of this involvement is not known. However, Moroccan army does have a field hospital in southern Mali treating civilian population, but this hardly amounts to Morocco being a belligerent alongside France in that Mali conflict.
 * 3) Same, reasoning goes for Operation Scorched Earth in Yemen. Although I DID leave that conflict in the infobox with the mention "alleged" between brackets, since this seems to have been frequently mentioned in the press and never denied officially. Further enquiry is required though to have a better idea.
 * Re, various peacekeeping missions in Kosovo; again Moroccan army was not a belligerent and did not participate in combat.
 * Re, the Battle of Mogadishu (1993), although the main article does not mention Morocco and it is incredibly difficult to find sources mentioning its participation in this conflict, The Moroccan army did actually participate in combat here and lost 3 soldiers including one colonel. At the time, their funeral was broadcasted live on state-TV and even Hassan II was present. (I happen to know these details, seemingly forgotten in Morocco, since one of the 3 dead was a relative of mine) Since this conflict was overseas and involved casualties, I consider it to be major/notable, that's why I left it in the list.
 * 1) One more issue with Tabrisius' last edit, which removed the official titles of the commanders of the Moroccan army (i.e. Moroccan army chief of staff is called "inspector general of the armed forces", and king holds the tile of "supreme commander"). This will be reverted since it removes information from the article instead of building on it.

Regarding disagreeing user, and since going be Wikipedia's principle that one should rather assume incompetence rather than malice, I believe the user's understanding of English is only summary, in which case they only get a general idea of what's in English sources or what's being said to them here. Thereby exacerbating misunderstanding and causing frustration which then transforms to shouting/insults etc. I hope the above quotes from French sources—a a language I assume the user is more familiar with—clarify some misunderstanding. Additionally, after all of this lengthy discussion, I hope not to have to take this to an RFC if EW continues. --Tachfin (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments Tachfin. I think it is generally agreed that there was no Moroccan involvement in Shaba II. Would you mind please:
 * (a) adding the text you've added above to the relevant articles, where it's sorely needed
 * (b) as the Moroccan field hospital in Mali could easily confuse any people regarding the Northern Mali conflict, adding details and a ref to the article.
 * (c) adding a ref for Morocco in UNOSOM II. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)