Talk:Maghreb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maghreb is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Tifinagh This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Berber script; however, the article does not have that version of its name in the lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Berber script.
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of the Arab world WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Maghreb, definiton, historically accurate definition, culturally accurate definiton

This entire artcile is not encyclopedic and not objective. It is also historically inaccurate. As a native, the region that is known as the Maghreb is known to represent Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, sometimes also including Libya and sometimes Egypt, but never Mauritania and never the countries that are cited here, under the label "geopolitical", countries that do not share a history with the countries of the southern mediterranean, which has always been historically what defined these countries. As is well known, most of the action has taken place along the coasts and this is where the identity is derived from. These new notions are not to be applied to the Maghreb. I also notice the article was written in a very non-objective vein, it almost seemed to me anti-maghrebian, in that it denies the region's history and factual reality and aims to draw a picture of it that is in reality imaginary. Perhaps this is due to the fact that very few Maghrebians actually use english wikipedia and thus, most articles pertaining to the region have been hijacked. As the region is mostly francophone, and has historically associated with France, it is understandably highly unfamiliar to english speakers it seems, which might explain why some ludicrous extremist non-scholarly wikpedians have hijacked its pages and in the process broken every wikipedian PILLAR! Furthermore, the Maghrebs Arab identity is being denied, though as a Maghrebian, I can assure you that the region is Arab, with the Berbers populations mostly living on the periphery and at times vastly excluded, they are almost a people apart. This is nothing to be proud of, but my point here is that as the numbers state, there are a small number of Berbers, as is listed for instance in Tunisia, with 130,000 in a country of 10 million, or in Egypt, around 80,000. The region's Arab identity is being spitefully, absurdly and very frighteningly denied, ignored and excluded by non-natives! non-scholars. Its deliberate exclusion can only be symptomatic of a general ANTI-ARAB prejudice by some contributors who seek to deny or downplay the Arab aspect of Maghrebian identity. Such acts reflect IGNORANCE, PERSONAL VIEWS THAT ARE EMPIRICALLY INSUBSTANTIATED, NOT FACTS, and COMPROMISE the LEGITIMACY, NEUTRALITY AND ACCURACY OF wikipedia and this article as well as others.

My sole concern is that ACCURATE, REAL, INFORMED and fully VERIFIABLE information be placed on these pages, and that this information is respectful of the region's culture, history and identity. Furthermore, the region's vastness must be respected. It must be remembered that the region that is known as the Southern Mediterranean/North Africa and more narrowly here the Maghreb which historically is composed of solely three countries, is enormous, more than TWICE the size of Europe. It is therefore only commonsensical to understand the impossibility that demographic studies using subjects from southern morocco be applied to subjects in Tunisia or Libya. Furhter, the sources must be cited in such hierarchical societies. One would not use a study conducted in Scotland and apply the findings derived threfrom to Poland ,now would they? yet the two countries are closer geographically. I hope that we will be able to probably analyze the issues raised above in a manner that is IMPARTIAL and reflects COMMONLY used terms whose legitimacy derives from history and culture rather than those that betray an extremist, eccentric, unfounded, and sadly absurd ingrained personal prejudice. Mariam83 05:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell. First, chill.
Second, your whirlwind of edits and rewriting seem to take a rather personal view. I am not particularly a fan of the original document, but statements like " Mauritania, a country that is not Maghrebian in any sense of the word;" and "Many Maghrebians, however, do not recognize Mauritania as part of the Maghreb." in the text, which are clearly your own opinion are hardly an improvement. "Sole concern" self-percieved aside, personal opinion is not of necessity an improvement. (collounsbury 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC))
Second note, I am removing the whole ranting on about Berbers name "imposed on them" - it's a tedious bit of silliness. One could write that "German" is imposed on "them" by Latinate and English literature equally accurately. Most peoples in the world are not known to others by their own language name, and neo-nationalist obsessions in this area are not helpful either. (collounsbury 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


Mariam makes some valid points. This article should not have been locked. Khalidmn 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As I rather think you are in fact the same user, what can I say. The article needs to be locked until the edit warring ends. Some valid points were made. They should have been discussed collegially in Talk. They were not. collounsbury 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section and its discussion races

This section is absolutely ludicrous. How can you know who (Caucasoid or Black) was present in the Maghreb in the cited era pre BCE 5500?? The written word was unique to specific historical areas, and not that area at that time. (At the earliest it developed in ca. BCE 3110, outside of that area, in Egypt). Where are your sources? Dogru144 16:47 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism and use of racial categories

When describing true historic events or groups of people it is not appropriate to use the terms White or Black. When used in this way these terms become Memes. There is no such thing as a white Cro-Magnoid or Black for that matter. Race relates to the evolution of humans. If you were to say Cro-Magnoid in relation to Homosapien then this would be somewhat more appropriate but it actually goes deeper than that. Race when used in terms of color of skin is used by those who practice racism. By definition Racism is the practice of seperating groups according to the ideology or fictional difference in humans. In doing so one who practices racism is by definition a racist. I do not think you wish to carry that label so therefore it is appropriate to use the terms European and African. There is no such thing as a Black person or White person for that matter, neither is there a yellow or brown or red person as the Native Americans were wrongly and racistly called. I hold two PHD's one in Egyptology and one in Anthropology in addition to a masters degree in Architecture. I base my changes on realistic and historical facts and not based on accepting the Meme of race. If you doubt what I am saying you should read J.A Rogers book "Nature Knows No Color Lines" in addition to Dr. Yosef A.A Ben Jochannan "Africa: Mother of Western Civilization". On another note concerning those who use google as a authority for posting. Google is not an authority on history Google is only a search engine catologuing web pages. Anyone can write articles online and have it pulled by Google. That doesn't mean it is true. Research is the key here gentlemen, without proper research postings are just opinions unless backed by facts. - Elohimgenius 21:05, 14 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Aziri, go look up "Moors" at the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - here's the link. Read the article. Tell me what it says. Then admit that you simply don't know what you're talking about, and should go away and learn some more English before you venture to try "correcting" other people's definitions. - Mustafaa 17:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

he is one who read the articles of yours .Aziri 11:20, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The author forgot to mention the existence of Iberomaurusians in Northwest Africa.. It's fixed.

"Originally, the Maghreb was inhabited by "white" Cro-Magnoids (Iberomaurusians) in the north and by "black" peoples in the Sahara. Later, about 8000 BC, there came from the east "white" speakers of northern Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber at least since the Capsian culture."

What the hell is a white Cro-Magnoid?? Where is the source for dividing original Maghrebis from 10 000 years ago into Whites and Blacks?? What is the point anyways?--Burgas00 15:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem bit inaccurately racialised. (Collounsbury 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Moghreb & Inclusion

Regarding edit by Arre, Moghreb is an older usage one runs into. Arre's not encountering is not a reason to delete. Regarding inclusion of Libya and Mauretania, in my experience Maghreb does not commonly include Libya and Mauretania in typical English language usage. North Africa, does, but there is not perfect overlap. (Collounsbury 01:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).

Hello! I rather agree with this. Both my Oxford and Webster's dictionaries indicate Libya (in O as (Tripolitania) is sometimes included in the region. Neither indicates Mauritania. In a general sense, however, they both concur with the online Columbia University Gazetteer, a proprietary database with limited access, provides the following description (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005; accessed 6 Feb./06):
None mentions Moghreb.
I hope this helps. I'll tweak appropriately. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no distinction between the sound e and i in Arabic, hence the confusion, the most common transliteration in my opnion, and this for historic reasons is the the French one which is Maghreb --Khalid hassani 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
True. In the context of the Maghreb, one gets in Anglophone writing a potpourri of transliteration styles based on French, English and the author's own ear. I know I am personally inconsistent (Collounsbury 19:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).
Ditto. I think the current renditions (which at least are in cited in common English publications/compendiums or otherwise in the Arabic translation) are sufficient while not throwing in the kitchen sink. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree that my not having encountered it is not a reason for deletion, but someone has to have seen it in the first place, in order to include it. Right? I get very few English hits for it on Google (and they're mainly weird, part of French titles or from this page). I don't think we can or should cover every transliteration we may run across (there's also Magreb, Magrib etc). Instead we should focus on reasonably common variants, and Moghreb isn't one of them.
As for inclusion, the Arab Maghreb Union includes both Libya and Mauritania; Libya I think is almost always included when the Maghreb is discussed, but I agree that Mauritania is sometimes not. Arre 01:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I will readily grant that Libya is much more frequently included than Mauretania, however in my professional experience, working in the Maghreb, the reference is typically to Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. (Collounsbury 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)). As to Moghreb, I've seen. Older English texts - not something one can bloody well "google" (Collounsbury 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).
I generally agree: we needn't list Magrib since this is partially already reflected in the Arabic translation, but retain -o- with proviso. We should list membership in the union after commonly reckoned definitions of the region (e.g., as above) ... that should kill two birds with one stone.  :) Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection per se, it does strike, however, useful to note Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia as the core of the definition. Not obligatory, certainly. (Collounsbury 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).
But I don't even believe it's uncommon, I believe it's a spelling error. First of all, I can't see how anyone could make either the Arabic or English pronounciations sound like "Moghreb". Second, I have never seen it on paper despite years of interest in the subject. Third, I get only 650 hits on English-language Google, while an intentional spelling error like "Mahgreb" results in 14,300. If there's a source for this being an older transliteration, that's fine with me, but up until then I believe it's just a mistake. Arre 02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
What you "believe" is bloody well besides the point. It is an old usage. Googling proves fuck all (although I have 11k plus hits). I have seen it on paper. It's usually 19th century, why the bloody hell would anyone make this up? Noting Moghreb is archaic is fine (and one can argue as it is archaic one could skip it), but just deleting because you "believe" it is an error is wrong-headed ignorance. (Collounsbury 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).
I'll look into it: if we can't source or verify it, I agree we should nix -o-. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
A quick perusal of searching online books for Moghreb gets you citations such as the publication house "Les éditions du Moghreb, Casablanca, 1939"; also quoting from Digital Information Library "Of particular note, the TALMS Library contains a collection of 19th century travel accounts, books on the precolonial and colonial period, and studies on social organization (tribes, Berbers, etc.). The library maintains a collection of English language newspapers published in Tangier (The Tangier Gazette or Moghreb El Aksa, 1884 to1960) in hard copy." (http://www.aiys.org/aodl/public/participants/libraries.php) In short, not a bloody spelling error.(Collounsbury 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).
I believe that settles the matter – keep. I think, as well, the current article lead satisfies everything ... perhaps replacing "uncommonly" with "previously"? Thoughts? Thank you all. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I would opt for a variation on "less frequently" or "less commonly" in terms of inclusion of Libya and Mauretania. Perhaps e.g. "somewhat less frequently" (Collounsbury 03:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).
I think "sometimes" (as currently) describes all of the above without the extra words. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still don't that's sufficient for inclusion: it's old and it's uncommon and it's a faulty transliteration. And if those aren't reasons against, there is a zillion similarly creative spellings that are more common. But if you insist, just leave it there, I'll look for something more important to fuss about. :-) Arre 06:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Faulty transliteration or not (and that is utterly besides the point), it is clearly something that was not a "spelling error" as you would have had it, and there is a case to be made for informing persons such as yourself that the spelling (like it or not) exists. (Collounsbury 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)).
I agree, C. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 07:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

One medieval definition was that the maghreb was Tripolitania and everything west, while the Mashreq was Cyrenaica and everything east, so that modern Libya was split down the middle. AnonMoos 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes! I think inclusion of Libya, as is, is sufficient upfront. However, Tripolitania would be a good addition for the list of (rename?) historical territories below or (better yet) if a brief statement was included about the historical connotations/constituents of the term/area. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:26, 20 February 2006

When describing true historic events or groups of people it is not appropriate to use the terms White or Black. When used in this way these terms become Memes. There is no such thing as a white Cro-Magnoid or Black for that matter. Race relates to the evolution of humans. If you were to say Cro-Magnoid in relation to Homosapien then this would be somewhat more appropriate but it actually goes deeper than that. Race when used in terms of color of skin is used by those who practice racism. By definition Racism is the practice of seperating groups according to the ideology or fictional difference in humans. In doing so one who practices racism is by definition a racist. I do not think you wish to carry that label so therefore it is appropriate to use the terms European and African. There is no such thing as a Black person or White person for that matter, neither is there a yellow or brown or red person as the Native Americans were wrongly and racistly called. I hold two PHD's one in Egyptology and one in Anthropology in addition to a masters degree in Architecture. I base my changes on realistic and historical facts and not based on accepting the Meme of race. If you doubt what I am saying you should read J.A Rogers book "Nature Knows No Color Lines" in addition to Dr. Yosef A.A Ben Jochannan "Africa: Mother of Western Civilization". On another note concerning those who use google as a authority for posting. Google is not an authority on history Google is only a search engine catologuing web pages. Anyone can write articles online and have it pulled by Google. That doesn't mean it is true. Research is the key here gentlemen, without proper research postings are just opinions unless backed by facts. - Elohimgenius 21:05, 14 Mar 2006 (UTC)

[Vandals] Why are the Vandals and their allies left out of the article?

There should be something here about this significance of the Maghrabi traders in Jewish history. --Christofurio 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locator maps

Which locator map is better, the blue one or the green (UN subregion) one? I myself have no preference. Does it depend on modern or ancient definitions of Maghreb? --Wing Nut 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The blue one is good. Historic Maghreb is northern (not southern) Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and northwestern Libya. Modern political Maghreb is Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya; the green one marks neither. - Mustafaa 11:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

===>And the Sahara If Morocco and Mauritania are part of the Maghreb, certainly Western Sahara is too. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There for sure needs to be a map here Epson291 07:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree! A map is essential. --84.9.84.89 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I miss Mustafaa... Anyway, re-added the blue one. El_C 10:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictionalized

this region has not had any historical ties to sub-saharan africa, unless you consider involvement in the slave trade that was begun by Arabs an "important historical tie." Further, the Maghreb refers to three countries, therefore it is inapproriate to post a map that includes two non-maghrebian, sub-saharan african countries. You are inserting your own personal views in this article, which is not in keeping with history, fact or wikipedian pillars. I urge you, Callounsbury, to be neutral and objective and to stop abusing Wikipedia. Mariam83 09:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Though the Arab League has accepted Mauritania and Sudan into the Arab world, as two demongraphically non-Arab but Arab-speaking countries, this article discusses the Maghreb, and not North Africa, or the Greater Arab world or Greater North Africa, that is, with new incongruous additions. As the Intro states, the Maghreb refers to THREE countries, therefore, a map of these THREE countries in the Mediterranean context is appropriate. Your additions are not encylcopedic, partial and inapproriate. Please do not use wikipedia to further your own personal wishes.
this article is about the Maghreb, not North Africa. A map of N.Africa should not be used. Maghreb differs from North Africa in that is does not include countries like Egypt, Mauritania and Libya, though Libya is sometimes included. Mariam83 10:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Listen lady, your personal views are not the standards of wikipedia. However flawed this thing is, the issue of Point of View is pretty bloody clear, and your editing articles to match an idiosyncratic point of view is in clear violation - as well as your utter disregard of the inputs and edits of others. I don't even disagree with a number of your points. What I am going to do, however, it to continue to revert your vandalism via POV editing until we get a response from editors and you learn to edit with regard to consensus, copyright - never mind good English language. collounsbury 10:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC).


How are my views "idiosyncratic"? Because they do not conform with your imaginary understanding of the word "Maghreb"? I know that you are doing your best to distort reality and include sub-saharan, central african black countries in North Afric aand the Arab world, but this is simply not the place for absurdities. I have merely used a map that corresponds to the encyclopedic definition, that is, that the maghreb refers to three countries, Mor, Algeria, & Tun, and sometimes include Libya. I am also correcting your insertion, namely that historically a link with susb-saharan africa exists, though as I wrote, as based on the source, an encyvlopedic source, no such link exists. I know you want one to exist and to have existed, but it doesnt and has never existed, unless you consider the slave trade an important link. Please stop attacking me for being VIGILANT as I intend to remain vigilant. Mariam83 11:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Your views are idiosyncratic insofar as they are highly specific and personalized. See your attacking "my imaginary" understanding of the word Maghreb. (i) It is not my understanding at all, it is the consensus writing of the article, (ii) The usage of Maghreb in English covers more than the core classic usage - the map covers the wider Arab Maghreb Union usage which is sometimes, perhaps often used in English. Correct or not, it is a point of reference, and as such the map was included (not by me I may add). Your "vigilence" is not appropriate, nor does it understand editing techniques here. It is not up to you to just unilaterally pop in with a new map and blank out vast sections of text based on your personal understanding. (collounsbury 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
How many times must I point out to you that the Maghreb does NOT mean North A? By reading the first paragraph, this ought to be OBVIOUS to you! Maghreb means "Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia" hence, a map showing these three, and not some map that best demonstrates what you would like "Maghreb" to mean ought to be used! I request Edit lock, and I request that this Collounsbury be WATCHED! he is not being objective at all! Mariam83 11:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
How many times do you have to be told to chill out and discuss? The Maghreb in common usage covers those countries. The map you keep taking away is not my bloody map; it is, however the map agreed to in past editorial consensus, based on the Arab Maghreb Union map. It does not reflect what [I] would like, it reflects the definition of an international body that is one point of reference for a neutral third party. I would highly suggest you stop (i) personalizing edits, (ii) stop confusing your particular point of view with "the sole correct point of view" and (iii) start paying attention to criticisms. I am, my dear, thoroughly objective. I am not even protecting my own text. What I am insisting on is that your POV editing cease, that you calm down, discuss (not shout, not lecture, discuss) and as well, listen to what people are telling you. Now, as to the facts, indeed, I am well aware of the various usages of Maghreb -in region as well as elsewhere. In Arabic as well as not in Arabic. That, however, is not the point. The article is not here to reflect personal point of view, nor personal knowledge. collounsbury 11:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Maghreb Map Disagreement

If you want to include two sub-saharan african countries under Maghreb, which means and has meant historically only the three countries ive mentioned repeatedly, then rewrite the whole article, as the article as it stands is contradictory. Maghreb does not include Mauritania, though now, North A. does, though not geographically. again colounsbury, please stop cursing, the word bloody is rude and as a religious person, I am offended. Again, this article is not about North Africa or the Maghreb Union, but about the Maghreb, which does not include these two countries.


Bouha, since when are Mauritania and the Western Sahara, both sub-saharan african countries, part of the Maghreb, which means and has meant historically Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia?! These countries do not fall under the Maghrebian category but under Arab or North African, though that is contested and not based on culture or geography but their inclusion in the Arab League, which derives from language and religion. Mariam83 11:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Will you please stop? Mauritania and Western Sahara territories are included in certain international references points and in English usage regarding Maghreb. Yes, historically the Arabic term usually covered only the core Maghreb countries. However, that usage does govern English usage. The map may be discussable, but your grabbing of the CIA map is not good form, not an improvement, and your unilateral insertion of the same again and again over reasoned objections is not good form. I do not think anyone here loves the current map, but it is simply bad form to plop in a quick cut and paste of the CIA map because of your idiosyncratic objections and extreme personalization of the issue. collounsbury 13:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
Blah blah blah collounsbury. Save your drivel. An instance of semantic discrepancy perhaps? I seriously doubt it! We are not discussing literature my dear fellow but countries, history, identities and maps! Sadly, your belief that borders shift in diff languages is absurd. My insistence that historical and yes, ARABIC definitions be respected does not imply any particular point of view and are in no way POV though I am not even sure what that means, as I have not lived my life here on "wikipedia." Maghreb is a tern that is used by Arabs of the three countries and applies to them, it should therefore be defined by them. It is one that is used by both Arabs and non-arabs to refer to the three countries mentioned in the introductory paragraph, which means that its use on wikipedia is not only accurate but obligatory as commonly used terms are to be used and not obscure or ambiguous terms. And no, you may not broaden the definition as you see fit. Simply reverting as you do, without in any way contributing except on these talk pages is guaranteed to cause problems! Lines and limits must be respected. Mariam83 13:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
POV = Point of View. You can look it up. As for Maghreb being defined by Arabs in Arabic, well shoulda coulda woulda. Language doesn't work that way. collounsbury 13:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Bouha: seems like a decent and rational compromise. I have no problem either way on the titling of the map. Now, can we start having a proper discussion instead of having Mariam throw around accusations and the like? As for Mariam and her objections, well, again the usage of Maghreb in English does not of necessity match "historical" usage. Current usage clearly sometimes includes Mauretania in the Maghreb - following on the bloody Arab Maghreb Union usage perhaps or for other reasons. Your continued petulant insistence on your personal point of view is POV - and let me again emphasize that personally I use the word Maghreb rather close to what you (Mariam) use; however that is not the bloody point, the point is an encyclopedia reflects wider usage. collounsbury 11:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Content flawed

This article is badly written and inaccurate. I have removed collounsbury addition, which he made on a whim, because it is inaccurate if one read's the region's history and unsourced. Furthermore, the Maghreb means and has meant historically Mediterranean North Africa countries, not including Libya and Egypt. It seems like these articles are using sources from the UN's special humanitarian agenda programs etc. but since when is the UN an authority on anything? they can't even prevent illegal wars from occuring. I think we should stick to the scholarly, encyclopedic definition. This excerpt might be of interest to COLLOUNSBURY, an exuberant but reckless contributor:

Maghrib

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

  Page  1  of  1     
(Arabic“West”)


, also spelled Maghreb region of North Africa bordering the Mediterranean Sea. The Africa Minor of the ancients, it at one time included Moorish Spain and now comprises essentially the Atlas Mountains and the coastal plain of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. The weather of the Maghrib is characterized by prevailing westerly winds, which drop most of their moisture on the northern…

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9049990/Maghrib Mariam83 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I made on a whim? I was compromising between content you keep deleting for the sole reason you have racist feelings toward sub-Saharan Africa and Africans (perhaps you want to call me Abid again to illustrate?) and don't like Mauritania included for that reason. Neither Mauritania's inclusion nor the prior editions reference to sub-Saharan Africa were mine originally, however your editing is purely imposing your own particular view. Now control yourself slightly and leaving aside your attacks on the UN, it is a point of reference used in other articles. Your dislike of the reference and the definitional scope are purely personal (and one can not that the Arab Maghreb Union includes these countries - evidently the definition is imprecise). collounsbury 10:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


You added that sentence without referencing it. You added it to a paragraph that very closely resembles Bartley's definition, which is another reason why this article needs to be rewritten. I provided very authoritative links for you, as you are in dire need of some knowledge as opposed to just speculation. Mauritania is not part of the Maghreb, and though certain rather ill informed individuals have decided to add it for practical reasons, the scholarly community has not conformed to these absurd developments. Why don't we include Iceland in Britain? I am not even going to bother reading your response, as I am certain it is again simply a rant about wikipedian "ethics" when it should be focused on the CONTENT. Frankly, I am tired of dealing with amateurs. I will take my concerns elsewhere, like to the region itself, where force can be used, and physicality to further my point. Enjoy editing forever and distorting history and reality. In the end, your vision will be squandered, of that I am sure. Mariam83 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I addede the sentence as a summary compromise from the prior versions that emphasized rather more the sub-Saharan connexions of the Maghreb, the version you went nutty about. It hardly needs referencing to be quite frank, given the obvious history (Almohads, Almoravids, the trans-Saharan trade history, Saadine dynasty, Mansour's little jaunt / invasion, the tariqas influence, etc etc) as for your continued lunatic attacks on others, I have no comment. Recall the 3 REV rule? Well, here's your warning again. What factual basis do you have for objecting to the comment, other than your racist desire to exclude any connexions whatsoover? collounsbury 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Just to add some brief support of the inclusion (as mentioned and supported by Collounsbury) of the links to sub-Sahara. Some other bits need reworking as well, e.g. links, grammar... Bouha 13:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Bouha, you have a history of supporting all claims made by Collounsbury. You work in tandem, covertly. Good luck rewriting history. You will fail in the end. Mariam83 08:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What is your problem? Frankly Bouha and I never interacted before you began your hectoring and unreasonable edits and commentary. Neither of us (as far as I know) even were responsable for the text. There is no "rewriting of history" - the passage you dislike for reasons unexplained (other than perhaps your evident hatred of black Africa) was merely a compromise with respect to the reality of sub-Saharan connexions of the Maghreb (which of course also has more substantial connexions with the Med Basin) text you disliked. collounsbury 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] New Map Maghreb Map

"Arab League" added a new Maghreb Map, apparently self made, which while attractive strikes me as slightly problematic. (i) If Libya is highlighted as "sometimes included" then one should also ID as Mauretania as well in this manner. (ii) Defining the 'core' Maghreb plus Mauretania as the "Arab Maghreb" strikes me as problematic. Two reasons - first the "Arab Maghreb Union" defines itself as core Maghreb plus Mauretania plus Libya and second a significant number of Berbers in the Maghreb find the insertion of "Arab Maghreb" into "Maghreb" willy nilly annoying if not downright insulting. While one can make a reasonable case they're being thin skinned, it would be more appropriate to either give the Arab Maghreb Union map identified as such, or if one makes the differentiation as in this new map, one shows the "Arab Maghreb" as the wider definition as per Arab Maghreb Union, and simply "the Maghreb" for the old core, to avoid needless slight to Berbers (and in addition in recognition that it's mostly not a phrase used in English at all). collounsbury 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

its called Arab Maghrib because its the Gharb غرب (west) of the arab world, i believe berbers wouldnt refer to themselevs as West...

Mate, I am well aware of the Machreqi and Arab Nationalist usages. My suggestion was with respect to the significant and non trivial point of view of the indigenous non Arab point of view.

Maghrib alone is refering to Morocco in the Arabic Language, while Arab Maghrib, or Maghrib Arabi referes to the Entire NW africa region, Libya is sometimes included in this definition, because of its Distinctive difference from the rest of the Maghrib States, such as Atlas mts, and its majority Arab Populations, Also Libya is technically in the Middle of the Arab World, rather then East or West...

Well historically the term was, to use transiliteration al-Maghrib al-Aqsaa for modern Morocco (in modern Arabic usage, al-Memlikah al-Maghrebiyah).
I am leaving aside a frankly irrelevant and ill-informed reponse re Libya re both usage and populations.
Ergo, I am reverting and will do so until you engage the observations noted (and show some degree of informed sensitivity re the Berber issue). (collounsbury 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

please see (Arab Mashriq) Arab League

if you still find it a problem and find my prespective rather ignorant please dont hesitate to reach me again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arab League (talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I find lots of problems, but then your user name suggest them. (collounsbury 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Arab League, maps follow the flow of articles and not vice versa. Please don't add it again as it is a bit WP:OR. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman times

From the introductory section: "The region was united as a single political entity only during the first years of Arab rule..." It was also united under the Roman Empire, from the first century B.C. to the fifth century A.D. Maproom (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)