Talk:Morocco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morocco was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: December 9, 2007

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Africa      (Rated B-Class) 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. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject on Countries (Rated B-Class) This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Morocco, or visit the project page for more details. B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality. WikiProject Morocco (Rated B-Class) Morocco Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about African countries during the week starting 26 March 2006.

Morocco 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.

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.

Archives

* Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Simple Errors 2 Map and RfC 2.1 Removing the tag 3 Unbalanced Information on Moroccan/Sahara map 4 Mediation 4.1 Note to Justin 5 Royal Family 6 Cannabis production 7 Profanity in article- Jan 31, 2007 8 Morocco/Algeria border 9 System of government 10 {{Dubious}} tag 11 Vandalism 12 Spanish widely spoken in Morocco 13 Official languages 14 Name 15 Tagldit n Lmeghrib 16 New section about map 17 Cuisine 18 Morocco is the third most populous Arab country 19 Fair use rationale for Image:OIC-Flag.jpg 20 Interwiki 21 Good Article Reassessment 22 A propos des origines des POPULATIONS DU NORD AFRIQUE 23 Jews in Morocco 24 Human Rights and Reforms 25 Morocco's official languages? 26 Put navpage links to avoid oversized browser pages 27 More Racial Propaganda

[edit] Simple Errors

Can somebody please correct the punctuation errors? I attempted to, but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrinakcat (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map and RfC

understanding: I don't seem to understand why they don't show melilia and ceuta and the canary islands with a different color when they draw the map of spain but they seem to show morocco split in half. the map's use of words like occpied territory shows a bias on the part of the writer of the article. Anotherpoint is that through out history, the country of Algeria was mostly concentrated in the north while Morocco extended to territotirs far beyond Sengal and Mali. I believe that this shows a true bias on the part of Algeria whose borders include territories they never had and a way to legitmize its self by attacking another country territorial integrity.

Closure This matter needs to come to some resolution. I still say that we do what the UN does: a map of Morocco is a map of Morocco. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Closure The map of Morocco that Morocco uses in its school books and in embassies and in dealing with international organisations and with foreign countries and is endorsed by the Arab League is a map that shows Morocco stretching from Tangiers to Laguera without any differentiating colors nor strips. The map shown in this article shows WS as a territory under Moroccan control, but that control is disputed. It is then neutral to keep the striped map.--A Jalil 06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Priorities Which one is more important in international realtions: Moroccan schools or the United Nations? And why do you put so much stock in the Arab League when you have such apparent distrust of the UN? And what about the African Union? It is not neutral to keep the striped map; neutral parties (such as the UN) don't do this. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Closure I agree that the issue need some closure but I think we need to keep the sprited map to show that it is disputed; and A Jalil please don't use Moroocan examples because they would all have large NPOV. Aussie King Pin 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As an uninterested Wikipedian (to my knowledge, I've made no edits to this article before), I would suggest that the striped map gives a more accurate implication to readers with no prior knowledge of the issue. WS is not part of Morocco, of course, but it is inaccurate to suggest that WS is not (currently) somehow related to Morocco, given that Morocco (currently) administers the territory. The striped map conveys this more clearly than the two-colour map, to my mind. Equally, that the WS is striped in the map makes it immediately apparent that something unusual is going on there, thus a disclaimer next to the map could clarify that the WS is currently occupied and administered by Morocco, but that this is unrecognised by the international community. This seems both more NPOV and factually accurate view than leaving WS coloured the same as Algeria (for example) on the map. Just my €0,02 — OwenBlacker 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Administration Morocco administers part of the territory. Would you advocate a striped map on Israel of the West Bank? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that every word stated above by OwenBlacker reflects my position. Justin says that Morocco administers only parts of the disputed territory which is totally true. So the thing is that those two facts SHOULD be reflected and clearly explained to the reader. How? By inserting "image:Western sahara walls moroccan.gif" into the "Administrative divisions" section of the arcticle and adding a footnote at the infobox refering to the map to be inserted below. I'll be bold and try this out and see how it would help sort this issue out. -- Szvest 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Okay While I appreciate the good faith effort, my statement still stands: neutral parties don't do this, they have the internationally-recognized borders of Morocco in a Moroccan map (i.e. the UN), that is the NPOV way to do it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As another "uninterested party" (I believe I have made the sum total of one minor edit, a spelling correction, to this article in the past) but also as one who is knowledgeable in the politics of the Middle East and North Africa, I will offer my view. First of all I am amazed that Justin (koavf) keeps appealing to the UN as a neutral party. The UN has an agenda and interests of its own and therefore, by definition, is not a neutral party, granted, its agenda may be neither pro-Morocco nor pro-Western Sahara, but it is an agenda nonetheless. The UN can at best be referred to as a "third party", but surely not a "neutral party". Now, for the question of the map. First and foremost, it is important to remember that this is an encyplopedia. We seek to describe events/situations as they are not as we would like them to be or as we think they should be. Should Western Sahara be free of Moroccan control? I think probably yes. But is it?...The answer is most definately "no". The current situation is that Western Sahara is a de facto part of Morocco. The Moroccans claim it and administer it (if we can stretch the definition of "administer"). We would like it not to be. The people of Western Sahara would prefer it not to be. But it is. Our map must reflect that. Until Western Sahara is a self-governing, sovereign nation-state, it must be included in the map of Morocco. I would have no differentiation in shade, just an outline of Western Sahara and Morocco, both the same color with a dashed line demarkating the approximate border between the two entities. However, I do believe the striped map is a good compromise.--WilliamThweatt 22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to remove the disputed tag? -- Szvest 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Yes, it is now time to remove the disputed tag now that Koavf will now be fighting a 6 to 1 battle if he chooses to contest it. Aussie King Pin 05:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also support the map of Morocco including the Sahara as it is a fact.
• When you are in the Sahara you are defacto in Morocco: The moroccan flag is everywhere. When you send a letter you get a moroccan stamp on it. Moroccan police organises the public order etc. It is just like any other part of Morocco. Very peaceful (more peaceful than in neighbouring regions and countries including algeria) and you can see even masses of tourists enjoying surfing and caravaning in Dakhla or somewehere else. These are not my opinion but facts that you can verify.
• An independance is unliklely to happen as an important part of the sahrawi people at least are defintively pro-moroccan and Morocco is determined to save its "territorial intergity" by preparing an autonomy plan which looks like a highly sedusing compromise.
• The idea of Wiliam of a version with the same coulour but with dashed borders could also be discussed.
• I had already provided examples of such maps in international media and websites.

Cheers wikima 09:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ok boys and girls look at it this way: It is clear who controls the territory of the western sahara, and that is Morrocco. The western sahara is also part of Morrocco according to the government of Morrocco. They might know, they live there. Furthermore even if the occupation or administration is not recognized by some countries that hardly matters. Furthermore until definitve action is taken one way or the other the government of morrocco has clear control of the area and what else would it be considered? Part of Algeria or something, I believe the western sahara dispute was solved a while ago, it will be part of morocco for sometime to come. Unsigned comment by User 64.230.106.144

I support the map of Morocco according to the internationally recognized borders of the country.

• Morocco occupies only PART of Western Sahara, not all of the territory. This is not reflected in the stripped map. There are thousands of square kilometers, the liberated territories, where no Morocco's citizens or Moroccan police are seen at all, only Saharawi people and Polisario Army, and UN observers.
• Thousands of people from several countries travel every year to Western Sahara without seeing a Maroccan police at all. Their passports are stamped with the SADR inmigration stamp (for example if you travel from Algeria or Mauritania to Tifariti or Bir Lelou or Zug or Agwanit, or Miyek, or...)
• Most (if not all) of the saharawis (at both sides of the wall) don't see Western Sahara as part of Morocco. Only settlers from Morocco living in the occupied part of Western Sahara say that (same as Israeli settlers see Palestine as Israel territory)
• All other maps on Wikipedia of countries reclaiming a territory, but not recognized by the international community, show the recognized borders (i.e.: Venezuela, Israel, Iraq, etc...). When Iraq occupied Kuwait, it was not included in any "shaded or stripped" map of Iraq. Why should Morocco be different ? Should we put Iraq and Afghanistan now in the USA "stripped" map ?
• Morocco has territorial claims over Spanish exclaves Ceuta and Melilla, over part of Algeria and even over the Canary Islands. Should we include them in the "shaded or stripped" map of Morocco ?
• Nor the United Nations nor the African Union, nor the European Union or any other significant international organization draw their maps with Western Sahara included in Morocco's territory.
• None country in the world has recognized Western Sahara as Moroccan territory. The wish of Moroccan government or king is not enough to impose the rest of the world their point of view.
• To say, as somebody said, that the U.N. are not neutral is, at least, hilarious... Remember that ALMOST ALL of the countries in the world are part of the U.N. Probably U.N. should be more democratic, but that is another matter... If U.N. are not neutral in this case, who is ?, King Mohamed 6 ?
• Wikipedia should say truth to the readers, not wishes. The claims over Western Sahara are clear in the article. The map should reflect the true recognized borders of Morocco, but this map does not reflect the truth (according to international community), but the Morocco's government POV.

-Undeponte

Undeponte, please take some time to read the discussion on this page. All your points are answered, and no need to repeat the same again. Just to let you know that the map is stripped and not continuous. It means that while WS is administrated by Morocco, there is a dispute about sovereignty that is shown by the strips. I do agree with you that Wikipedia should show the truth and facts to readers rather that wishes. If it showed the wishes of Moroccans, the map would have been green from Tangier to Laguera without strips. If it showed Polisario wishes, it could have shown the area in a different color and separated from Morocco. But that is not the case with the stripped map. The facts and the truth are that if you take the plan to Layoune from Las Palmas, you will land in a de-facto Moroccan airport with Moroccan customs and everything. So omitting that is simply not factual. The comparision with Iraq is ridiculous, because Iraq does not administrate Kuwait which is an established independent UN member state. Moroccan claim on Ceuta and Melilla is as legal as the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. Saying that Morocco has claims on the Canary Islands is a clear sign of ignorance. I suggest you make some research on interviews by former Polisario leaders, (military commanders, ministers of interior, foreign affairs, justice,...) who returned back to Morocco, and you will be reviewing many of your ideas about the conflict --A Jalil 23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A Jalil, thank you for your advice, but I have read all the discussion regarding the infobox map before, and I still TOTALLY DISPUTE the Morocco map including Western Sahara,... I am saying my opinion, if you don't mind. As I see in the discussion, there are at least three more people that dispute this.

• The map used in this infobox is ONLY used in Morocco, and is not used in any other part of the world, and also not used by United Nations or the African Union. Wikipedia should not reflect the Morocco's opinion, but the generally and internationally accepted map of Morocco.
• Not all the area stripped is controlled by Morocco, that only controls about 60 per cent of the Western Sahara territory. Thousands of square kilometers are controlled by SADR and Polisario Army. I have been in Western Sahara twice, one time in Agwanit (entering from Mauritania), and other time in Tifariti (entering from Algeria). In both trips never seen a Moroccan Police, a Moroccan customs, a Moroccan soldier or a Moroccan settler, and of course I don´t have a Moroccan stamp in my passport. My documents where inspected both times by SADR officials, and the soldiers and police I have seen there were SADR also (and some Minurso). Also seen lots of saharawis (with SADR documents).
• The Moroccan claims over the Western Sahara are clear in the article, with a map depicting the zones occupied and controlled by Morocco. and not need to put it again in the infobox. A stripped map of Western Sahara may be appropiate for the Western Sahara article infobox, but not for the Morocco article infobox.
• The Wikipedia articles for all other countries with claims over other territories ALWAYS show the internationally accepted map (see Venezuela with Guyana, Israel with Palestine or Indonesia with East Timor, for example). Why should Morocco be different of all the other countries in Wikipedia ???
• Thank you for the advice about reading the interviews of former Polisario leaders... I have read some of them before. I could also give you an advice for reading some international press on this subject, not only Moroccan propaganda, but I think its better if we don't take it personally...

Regards Undeponte

You have every right to give your opinion and dispute everything on Wikipedia. Most if not all of Wikipedia's articles have seen some kind of dispute. While I believe you have read the discussion that has taken place here before, I doubt you read all of my last edit. Here it is again:

• Tha map used in the infobox IS NOT USED in Morocco. It is not allowed to depict Morocco without the "Sahara" in Moroccan maps, nor it is allowed to separate the "Saharan provinces" from the rest of Morocco, either with dashes or strips or a different color. So again, and again, this map IS NOT USED and can't be used in Morocco. It is NOT the Moroccan opinion. The Moroccan opinion looks like this.
• In both of your trips you landed in Algeria/Mauritania, and had to go through these countries' customs, and then you were "smuggled" inside WS. Your passport does not bear any stamp other than that of Algeria/Mauritania. The UN explicitly recognizes Morocco as the administrative power of ALL Western Sahara though it does not recognize the Moroccan sovereignty over it. The Polisario front is recognized as a PARTY to the conflict only. The SADR means nothing for the UN (still there is an article for it in Wikipedia, shall we remove it, then?). Given the fact that the ceasefire agreement limits the movement of the Moroccan Army to the west of the berm, you can see everything on the east of the berm, Polisario members, Algerians, illegal immigrants from sub-saharan Africa, ...etc. You can also enter Afghanistan from either Pakistan or Iran, and head to Taliban controlled territory without seeing an afghan governement representative or police ... etc.
• What about the SADR article?. Does it not seem to you biased, given the fact that the conflict has not been solved yet. Anticipating the result and creating a SADR article for a supposed state that the UN and the vast majority of the World do not recognize, is it not the opinion of the Polisario?. Taking your reasoning as a basis, everything SADR-related on Wikipedia should be removed. That would be fine with me, then I am with you to remove WS from the map of Morocco.
• The difference in the examples you cite is that there is "claiming" and "administrating". Does venezuela control Guyana?, Israel and Palestine Authority recognize each other and negotiate on the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Indonesia does not control East Timor, for it is already independent. How can East Timor then be part of Indonesia?. Morocco is not only claiming, but claims and controls and administrates WS. It is a fact.
• There is nothing personal in inviting you to read from different sources than those for which one's heart is closer. The words uttered by founders of Polisario like Hadrami or Ayoub, .. and former foreign minister of SADR, Brahim Hakim, and another 10,000 former Polisarians that returned to Morocco since 1989, their words are not Moroccan propaganda as you wrongly described it, but reality and facts from the very people who know about the conflict and its inners more that you and me and any other who takes the pen to write about the Western sahara conflict. Cheers--A Jalil 13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the tag

What You removed it within 24 hours of the last comment; I've hardly had a chance to respond. That's a poor show, Svest. If these six against one include three users that have made less than 100 edits that are all to push a pro-Moroccan agenda, that's hardly a strong argument. I never said the UN has no agenda; everyone (including Wikipedia) has an agenda. What I wrote is that they are a neutral party to the conflict, and they take a neutral point of view, as should Wikipedia. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

tsk, tsk...resorting to ad hominem arguments, huh? A person's edit count is not a reflection of their reasoning ability (not to mention you're just plain wrong: I have over 2300 edits). The UN is not a neutral party to the conflict, they are trying to push their agenda as a proposed "resolution" to the issue. It is just a third POV, not a neutral one. The tag should be removed and if you still feel agrieved, you should seek mediation through dispute resolution of an admin. The consensus here is that the current map is the most appropriate and in keeping with the actual situation (as opposed to some ideal situation).--WilliamThweatt 04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, etc. Pitting it as a six-to-one vote was the ad hominem argument - directed to the man verus the men. I'm not saying that one's edit count is to be taken into account per se, but there is a difference between someone who is an active member of the community versus someone who chimes in just to push an agenda. As you can see from the actual opinions voiced in the archive, it was split three-to-three, including one user who only signed on to Wikipedia to voice a pro-Moroccan opinion and make personal attacks about me (a sock puppet?) The UN is a neutral party in asmuch as their opinion is not the opinion of either involved party. Again, as I stated, of course they have an agenda; as does Wikipedia, as does Fayssal, as do I, and so on. The map as it stands is still not accurate as it still shades portions that are not administered by Morocco and is still not a map of Morocco. See also WP:Vandalism regarding removing tags. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Koavf, you won't be happy if the Western Sahara is shaded and I (and various others) won't be happy if the Western Sahara is not shaded. That's fact. So, in situations like this we need to go by the neurtal numbers, and currently those numbers now point roughly 4 to 0 towards keeping the map shaded. Remember Koavf, you were the one that wanted this closed so don't complain now that the result is very likely not to go your'e way.

P.S If you got the other 3 that original supported your'e point back to the table I'd be happy to keep this disscussion going. Aussie King Pin 10:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To Justin. When people talk about a concensus they mean 8/3 (add to the 6 User:Astrokey44 and User:Robdurbar who endorsed the stripped map before).

What it is this poor show stuff???? Why do you have to lie? Apart that, who says that we SHOULD wait for you 24h? Indeed, you came back after 3 months claiming we never had any concensus (see Talk:Morocco/Archive 2#Map).

I changed the tag after exactly 24h and 16min. Look at my edits:

• Awaiting approval at October 7, 20:50
• Technically removed at October 8, 21:06.

Let me be clear w/ you Justin. Whenever it doesn't fit you, you create a havoc. You are not here to abide by the rules of Wikipedia but just to push you POV so hard. I am sorry to say this (we've tried so hard to reach something. Apparently you won't surrender unless your stance is the one to be followed by all of the rest). There should be a limit somewhere on the road. You reverted and put a WP:Vandalism on the edit summary?!!!! WTF?! Isn't that insane? Calling people vandals by removing the tag after more than a month of discussions (and after waiting for Mr Jones 24h) is inacceptable. Look at your block log first and have a deep breath. You've been blocked 8 big times because of WP:POINT and WP:3RR and now you are coming here to accuse me of vandalism? I've never been blocked here Justin. Review your manners please. This is my last kind word! -- Szvest 11:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

This is sad Fayssal, I've interacted with you before and thought you generally edited in good faith and had charity about this communal exercise, but this is making me reassess you as an editor. I put the reference to WP:Vandalism re the following:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

Again, I don't know what you consider to be consenus, but in my mind, it doesn't involve including a handful of editors that make a handful of edits to push an agenda on Wikipedia, nor does it include a slim majority in favor of something that is clearly controversial. So, no, it is not insane. If that's your last kind word, I'd hate to see your first rude one. Also note that several of those block were reversed after review, which you didn't bother to point out here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what i consider to be a concensus? Me or almost everybody on this page? You know it and it's been explained a couple of times above! There's a clear and obvious concensus.

Pov-pushers are not an excuse. You are a POV pusher yourselves. They participate as THEY HAVE THE RIGHT! You can exclude Yasser but you should add User:Wikima and User:Daryou!

Me? A good faith editor. How? Maybe because i let you off sight at all Western Sahara related articles?

You are talking about vandalism! Good stuff!

• POV tag removed after a week in Foreign relations of Western Sahara and many other related articles on the same day w/o discussion and NO CONCENSUS whatesoever.

So which stance of yours shall we follow? Is Removing pov tags vandalism or not? I have an idea. Following what you did above and in order to remove or to sort this issue out, we won't discuss it anymore here. After exactly a week and a half, i'll come and remove it! Sounds fine? Good.

We've made some concessions (footnote, i added myself at the administrative divisions the map). What about you? Any concessions? Remember, what you call Pro-Moroccan POV pushers are just like you in terms of unhappiness but nobody argued why i did added the info? Why you? So every single human here gave us something; except you. Actually, it would only be a symbolic action if you do the same though it is not necessary as we already voted, requested it for comments, etc...

Seriously, if you feel you are being tricked, go ask for help from an arbitrator of file something of a kind. -- Szvest 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Justin, you need to read your own citation of WP:Vandalism: "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus." because that is exactly what you are doing. It seems you are guilty of vandalism by insisting on placing the tag. If you want to wikilawyer this we can go back and forth all day. That's why wikilawyering is not an accepted tactic. You are the only one that objects. As Fayssal says, if you feel you are still being wronged, you need to seek help from an arbitrator because it is now clear this discussion is going nowhere and will not resolve anything.--WilliamThweatt 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fayssal It is neither clear nor obvious that there is consensus, as you can see here. Of course THEY HAVE THE RIGHT. I never said they DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT. All I'm saying is, they make for a flimsy argument in favor of concensus [sic]. Why can I exclude Yasser? Why not A Jalil? How do you decide who gets excluded? I don't even know what this is supposed to mean: "Maybe because i let you off sight at all Western Sahara related articles?" I tried to write something complimentary and you go off on this odd tangent which I don't understand. In the case of the foreign relations of Western Sahara page, the person who was claiming there was a problem was the one that refused to discuss. On the other hand, I'm more than willing to discuss; clearly, that's a germane difference. I don't understand where this sarcasm and bitterness are coming from; I generally thought you were a level-headed editor prior to now, and I don't see what I've done to deserve this kind of treatment from you. If you have some personal vendetta with me, take it up on my talk or e-mail me. You can even call me if you want. And you call me a liar, but then claim that there was a vote. Where? When? Have you seen WP:straw poll? Do you think that the discussion on the archived talk amounts to consensus after reading that?" So every single human here gave us something; except you. What did Yasser give?

William Clearly, there is a dispute. If you want, I'll be happy to go to arbitration to get some closure on the matter. I assumed that we could go through a process of discussion, offering arguments and evidence until we reach a conclusion, but if others insist on not providing arguments and ignoring people's direct and simple questions, I guess discussion will inevitably break down. I'm keeping open the door for intelligent, rational discussion (e.g. not TYPING IN CAPS, and not ignoring people for several days at a time), but if someone removes the tag again, I'll consult arbitration. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin, you are going round and round. The day before yesterday, after i suggested that i'll be bold and add the footnote and the detailed map, you said okay though you expressed your concerns about the UN being a primary ref. Now, you come to push for an edit warring.

Yasser is being silent about my additions Justin! Silence is a kindav ummmmmmmmmm ok ok. If he was against he's have argued. Indeed Yasser didn't vote at all!!! We haven't counted his view anyway!

A simple question Justin. What is a wikipedia concensus? Do you want to wait further? Untill when? I saw User:Wikima being around and if you keep insisting that there was no concesus than we will get into more troubles. He'll not make it easier.

Consensus may be a slightly fuzzy term, but it doesn't mean that. In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. I see you outside the law as you have made 4 reverts so far Justin. What shall we do? A 24h block? -- Szvest 16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Okay I honestly can't understand your first two points, so I'm not sure how to respond to them. The dearth of exclamation points, it appears that you're still angry and don't care to continue discussion. I'm assuming that you, as an editor, want to bypass mediation. Consensus generally means a 60% supermajority as I understand it. And that supermajority does not reflect the votes of sock puppets/dual user accounts, and as far as I'm aware, the tendency is to err on the side of not deleting something versus deleting it. I've made reverts against vandalism (i.e. the removal of a dispute tag), so I didn't break the three-revert rule, if that's what you're implying. If you're threatening me, that's a cheap, petty tactic, and I sincerely hope you aren't. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not threatening anybody. I just alarmed you as i could have reported the actions to ANI/3RR but i am not familiar w/ such tactics (i.e. hit & run).

My 2 first points talk about this. It sounded like an implicit agreement from your part and that we only need to make some tweaking to my suggestion for the closure of this issue as you were the one asking about it. Interested people on the issue here have been thinking it is the right time to have an end to this. I made sure to include a waiting for approval note at my first edit summary before waiting for 24h to remove technically the tag (see my second edit summary) . Do you see my logic?

The other point concern the alleged use of sockpuppets. I remember i asked you gently to go for a CheckUser option so that things are clear as water we drink. I asked you so that the sockpuppet issue would not be a justification for any eventual or potential justification for a discussion's failure. Here we are now facing this.

What i suggest or have for now (got nothing left) is that you, the claiming party, provide evidences to a possible sockpuppetry and that you present it to the ArbCom. Please note that by putting aside those accusations we are far beyond the infamous 60%. Note also that "some actions are regarded as violation of consensus. For example, insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors, has been adjudged a violation of consensus... Stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." source -- Szvest 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I see I suppose I was being unclear. The entire point of that edit was to say that I did not think your solution was factually accurate or NPOV. The word "okay" prefaces it only to say that I understand your rationale. I'm not going to use checkuser for the same reasons that I stated before: Jalil and Yasser have confined their edits to this talk (for the most part) and are essentially irrelevant to the content of the page. Checkuser is a long process and it's pointless for two users that are not particularly threatening if their behavior remains as such. It's ironic that you point out this line "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position" as this "striped map" option is not used on any other map on Wikipedia, including any other territorial dispute as far as I'm aware. In point of fact, I brought up relevant cases that are similar and the opposite position is taken, so it would appear that you're shooting yourself in the foot. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally i prefer to see people editing the main articles instead of just discussing. However, there's no policy whatsoever which obliges them to do both and this implies explicitly that what they do is totally legit.

There's nothing ironic Justin in bringing policies and guideliens to the discussion. It's written in the "Wikipedia book".

No shooting foots. Before shooting myself in the foot, many people brought their opinions and suggestions. What i simply see is that you are thinking your logic is right and the rest is not. That's the point. -- Szvest 21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Me too You may find this hard to believe after so much discussion, but I prefer to edit articles myself, rather than talk about articles. I'm not saying Yasser and Jalil are illegitimate (unless, of course, they are sockpuppets); what I'm saying is, they don't bring to bear a strong argument. You are thinking your logic is right and the rest is not, too. So, how do we find resolution?

Of course we both think we are right as everybody does. The question is how much do we think we are right? Personally, i made suggestions and concessions. I am not comparing again or establishing a balance sheet about your actions and mines but it is worth mentioning that more people think like me. And that's the concensus we are talking about. -- Szvest 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Okay Well I appreciate suggestions and concessions, but that also does not make you in the right. If someone wanted to do Holocaust revision on the World War II pages, and finally conceded that maybe 100,000 Jews died in the Shoah that would be a concession, but still not correct or NPOV. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So why all this fuss about concensus? The NPOV issue is the core of this discussion and if the NPOV was as easy to spot or to define than we wouldn't have gone through all this procedure in order to reach a concensus. This is why more people argued (w/ good faith) in favor of a position than others (w/ good faith as well). The NPOV can always be disputed and forever but never a concensus. It would be like ok, i don't agree w/ your POVs guys, so let's keep this tag forever.

I'll confess to you something. I really do not have any problem in keeping the tag because readers will read and have their judgement! So why the fuss again to remove it? I am supporting the removal of tag because it reflects a concensus to me. You just want to remove the stripes as Wikima wants to make it all green! The position of the majority was expressed Justin and all i see is you and Wikima arguing 'til dawn. I'll support one of your positions when WS becomes independent or annexed to Morocco officially. Now, the situation on the ground is neither this nor that. -- Szvest 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Undeponte I think is your right to give your opinion but I don't think you understand the WS-Moroccan situation. Since when does no country regocnize WS as a part of Morocco. Sudan is an example. So when you're giving your opinion please chek if what you're saying is correct. Karim H. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.246.136.218 (talk) 02:54, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

• I think we can consider this topic as "decided" at this stage.
• Justin needs to understand that this is not a place to "fight" for the independance of WS but Wikipedia.
• Even with with stripped map the information remains unbalanced. Please see section below. Thanks

Cheers wikima 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced Information on Moroccan/Sahara map

Hi

• Does Westen Sahara, from an objective international neutral point of view belong to the so called "sadr" (shrawi republic)?

No. And the "sadr" is not even recognised by the UN. It's not part of it.

• Does the "sadr" control Western Sahara?

No! Western Sahara is controlled by Morocco. "sadr" claims control of a desert empty strip but this "control" is extremly limited.

• Does "sadr" rule the parts of WS that it claims to have control of?

No! "sadr" is based in Tindouf in Algeria. A part from the presenece of casual guerrilla points that strip is an area for some nomads, black market etc.

• Though, if you look at Wikipedia at the page of the "sadr", at the level of map visualisation, the inforamtion says YES to all theses and other questions.
• Please don't tell me there is a footnote - I am talking about the map, images have their own meaning and visualisation is something different from text. In this sense the footnote contredicts the map.

• I had already stated the same previousely and suggested to delete the WS map from the "sadr" page as it is does not appear on the one of Morroco. But I had to face intrangisence in the discussion, although, to be honnest, everything is logical and clear.
• Reffering to Williams remark above, I would suggest to add the map of WS to Morocco in full colours.
• Further to the logic the map would be simple part of Morocco without any separation, as it is fully integrated in the article on "sadr"
• However, in order to avoid the confusion that is already in the article on "sadr", I suggest to separate with a dotted line.
• I have prepared an image that you would be able to see if I succed to upload.

(Please help with the defintiion of the copyright - Thanks)

• We must decide on this in interaction with the article on "sadr" as this information MUST be symetric
• This means, if we reject this image then we must delete the map pattern from the "sadr" article
• The stripped map here would mean Morocco rules WS, as it does effectively and really.

• I would be grateful for a logic and rational discussion.

Thanks wikima 20:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? How did you come to the conclusions of these questions? I know the United Nations visiting mission to Spanish Sahara reported that the Polisario was the legitimate representative of the will of the Sahrawis and affirmed their right to self-determination. But I guess you know more than the UN? The SADR controls part of Western Sahara; Morocco is occupying the rest. If you want to add an image, add text like so:

[[Image:Morocco_Sahara.png]]

just as you did above, but you need to upload the file first. To upload it, click on the link to the left. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Justin, I am not joking and I begg you to remain polite and to co-operate in a logical and rational discussion.
• Polisario and "sadr" are two different things.
• Polisario is recognised as an organisation that represents sahrawis (Although not all of them)
• "sadr" is not recongnised by the UN.
• "sadr" is the republic that was proclamed by polisario (and boosted by algeria).
• I assume these basic facts are best known to you.

Furthermore:

• "sadr" simply does not "own" Western Sahara.
• It does not control it, even not the parts that it claims control of.
• Because "sadr" is simply located in Tindouf in Algeria and not in WS. This is a fact.
• The military presence of polisario is highly limited in that srtip.
• And it is clearly condmened by the UN when it exceeds any limit.
• So tell me please, how can an entity control a territory

• In which it is not present,
• In which no people live (they are in the camps in Tindouf)
• In which it cannot move its military?

• And I am not talking of ruling but simply controlling.
• Morocco effectvely rule Western Sahara. It does not only control it.
• When you are in Western Sahara it's like you are in any other part of Morocco. No difference.

==> So please answer with logic not with what I would feel is impulsive polemic. Thank you.

Thanks wikima

You totally ignored me So how do you come to the conclusion that "sadr" does not "own" Western Sahara; specially after the argument I just presented? How do you know it does not control the Free Zone? I can give you video of them giving a demonstration there, third party sources say they do, do you have any proof for this claim? The military presence is limited by the terms of the ceasefire; Morocco's military is limited in the occupied territories, too. An entity cannot control a territory in which it is not present, in which no one lives, and in which it cannot move its military, but none of these three things apply to the Free Zone. What is the distinction between ruling and controlling in your mind? There are some germane differences (e.g. it's less free politically.) I am answering with logic that is polite and co-operative, am I not? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am not personal. So I am not here to ingore you or not.
• Please read carfully my reaction. I would not like to reapeat myself.
• And, sorry again, an entity that is not recongnised by the UN can not be seen as a state that "owns" a tritorry. It just cannot.
• Morocco rules, means it governs the territory. As I state above, if you are in WS you pay with moroccan Dirhams, you send letters with moroccan stamps on them, you see moroccan flags everywhere, you meet moroccan police on the streets etc. and all kind of sovereignty sign, unifroms and people. There are people living in WS and the Moroccan State organises their live, their economy, their poltics etc. Just like in any other country in the world.
• This is not the case for "sadr" aand the strip that it claims to control (read above)

• All others, please tell me what you think of the map, especially against the one used in the artcle on "sadr" and on the background of symetry of information.

Thank you wikima 21:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not personal? What does that mean? Why is it entities not recognized by the UN cannot be seen as a state that "owns" a t[e]rritory? What about the Republic of China? The same things you wrote about the Sahara apply to the West Bank and Israel; is the West Bank ruled by Israel? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• China is member of the security Council.
• The situation is Israel is pretty much special and complicated. The map of Israel is not definitively drawn, there is a Palestinian authority that is recongnised by Israel, the latter recognises almost a Palestinian state, it pulled back from the Gaza strip etc.
• This said, please lets avoid comparisons that are steril complicated. Each of these cases (Taiwan, Hong-Kong, Cyprus etc.) is individual and complex
• I think that I have given enough evidence that "sadr" does not deserve the map in its article.
• The other way around, if you think it does (for all the arguments that you're trying to push), then this counts even much more for Morocco.
• This means, there is much more reasons why the WS map MUST now be included in the Moroccan one if we don not delete it from the "sadr" article.

• Again, you are fighting for a map for an entity that is not present on the territory, that is located in Algeria and not in the Sahara, that has no effective control on the area, which control is extremly limited on a just an empty arid strip, that has no money, no stamps, which flag is rather symbolic etc., and you are refusing it for a State that is present in the region, that controls and rules it as any other of its regions, that governs with money, police, flag and all effective sovereignty tools and symbols, that organises the conomy, the elections, the administration etc.??

• So where is the logic behind this and where is the balance please??

• I think this is really clear. And the information as is now in Wikipedia is just unbalanced and non neutral.
• I strongly recommend to balance the information.

Wikima wikima 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow The statement "China is member of the security Council" shows either an acute ignorance of the history of China and the United Nations or it shows that you don't want to address a germane contradiction to your argument. "Recognizes almost a Palestinian state?" What does that mean? And this is really confusing "lets [sic] avoid comparisons that are steril [sic] complicated." In addition to being unintelligible English, why should we avoid relevant examples? Because they will contradict what you want to be true? A request like that is bad faith in the least and outrageous at the most. Of course I'm not going to avoid comparisons; that's ludicrous. As for this line "I think that I have given enough evidence that "sadr" does not deserve the map in its article." I have no idea what that has to do with this article. Let's try discussing Morocco on talk:Morocco. By the way, the SADR has minted coins and printed stamps and has a population in the Free Zone and their military and a flag which is symbolic (like all other flags on the face of the Earth.) You act as though you've never read this before. I've explained the logic; I actually gave you arguments and you resorted to meaningless lines like "I am not personal," and "an entity that is not recongnised by the UN can not be seen as a state that "owns" a tritorry. It just cannot." No reasoning, no logic, "it just cannot." Why? There is no reason why that is presented. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, in my eyes you're trying to mislead the dsicussion by insisting on comparisons of obviousely complexe cases.
• You do that by avoiding to take into consideration and to respond to the facts that I present above.
• In the article you link it reads. "The Republic of China (ROC) was one of the founding members of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council from its creation in 1945." Where is it wrong to say "China is member of the Security Council"?
• Israel... Puh! Why not discuss all high level complications of this world here? What about Turkey and Cyprus, Hong Kong, Tibet, kashmir, Taiwan, Tchetchenia, South and North Corea, Gibraltar...? Sorry this is nonsense.
• Examples are meaningfull when the whole contexte is comparable

Just picking certain aspects for casual comparisons from such complexe cases is simplicistic.

• My statements are clear and base on even your own logic: Your arguments for using the map in the "sadr" article count more for using it in the article on Morocco. If you do not undertand what this means ask and I explain it to you. English is not my mative language.
• "sadr coins"? Nowhere in this world you can buy anything with that.
• And "stamps"? Nowhere in the world you would be able to send a single letter with that fictive things.
• I said my statements above and they are clear. As it is now late in Europe I'll wait the reactions of the others.

Thanks wikima 23:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

weakness So you ,koavf, keep on considering me and Yasser as one, and that we are irrelevant and should not be counted, though we live nearly 4000 kms apart. Check for yourself that we are different users or stop saying ridiculous stuff.

• You want to exclude me from the vote. I am pushing a Moroccan POV you said. Well, in your own words, you are here in Wikipedia "to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)."(i.e. the POV of the RASD). Furthermore,you write on Wikime that "I'm gonna do my darndest to free Western Sahara.". Especially this last sentence made me laugh. If you want to try and "free" WS, you should go join the gerilla, and go live in the "refugee" camps. Here in Wikipedia you are becoming a well-known problematic name. More recently on R.E.M template page, you were blocked 3 times within a week (4 days in sum). So if POV pushing disqualifies a voter, you are the first to be irrelevant.
• The UN mission you say found the people of Spanish Sahara in favor of Polisario. Can you tell us which way they found out? Did they conduct a survey? what were the exact results? If no, stop telling non-sense.
• As Fayssal said above, so far you had free hands writing as pleases you on Morocco/WS pages. I found you added "western Sahara is under military occupation" in almost every article where Morocco/WS is mentionned.
• You maybe enjoy arguing, or, you might be investing for the future, in case WS becomes independent (maybe teaching English in Layoune University instead of the improbable Taiwan). WS will never be separated from Morocco. Make your future plans accordingly.
• the map on the RASD page : I already pointed it out. a POV tag should have been already on the RASD page.
• I fully support the map proposed by Wikima. It should be considered.
• Anyway, Wikima and Fayssal, don't lose your time. koavf has a mission to accomplish here in Wikipedia on behalf of Polisario, and forget about logic and reasoning. All disussions will be lenghty and endless. He seems to have plenty of time. Only by bringing matters to vote will cut things short.--A Jalil 06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikima Saying that I'm "trying to mislead the dsicussion [sic]" is bad faith. I'm bringing up relevant examples and showing how there is already a standard or convention by which we should abide. Of course they are all complex - why should that disqualify a comparison? What facts did you present? You just contradicted everything I said with no evidence to support your assertions. The statements you make about China and the United Nations show that you didn't even read the article. There are two Chinese states - the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. One of them used to be in the UN, and was ejected in favor of the other. The former (ROC) still controls some territory (Taiwan and some outlying islands), the other controls mainland China. And so, in conclusion there is a state not recognized by the UN that administers territory. So my question remains why is it entities not recognized by the UN cannot be seen as a state that "owns" a t[e]rritory? You have still not provided any reason for this assertion. What's so complex about Hong Kong? Just writing off every example because they are "complex" and "high level" is ridiculous and bad faith. I do not understand what "Your arguments for using the map in the "sadr" article count more for using it in the article on Morocco" means. I own some SADR pesetas. I own several SADR stamps - they are not "fictive [sic]."

Jalil Jalil, nowhere did I ever say that you and Yasser were sock puppets of one another. I only brought up the prospect that you were sock puppets because it is odd that you would appear out of nowhere in the middle of this debate. That's all. If you were recruited by someone else to join the discussion, I could just build "consensus" by e-mailing all of my friends, telling them to get accounts on Wikipedia, and voting how I wanted; which is devious and something I would not do. I don't necessarily want to exclude anyone, but I have a problem with including people who are on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting party-line on controversial matters. If you want to mock me, take it somewhere else, Jalil; this page isn't for that. Feel free to post offensive comments on my talk page. I have no idea why you put refugee in quote marks. It's not non-sense; they were a fact-finding mission and interviewed people. How is Taiwan improbable? Again, if you have some beef with me, bring it up on my talk or e-mail me, otherwise, let's keep Talk:Morocco about Morocco. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys,

I am suggesting to make the information balanced by using this map for Morocco:

This is the topic - Please do open a new sectin for other discussion. Many thanks wikima 18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin,

• Each time when a change that does not fit your independist opinion is about to happen you scream and divert the discussion into polemics. I think I am not the only one to see that your reactions are problematic. And "ridiculous and bad faith" do not really belong to a language one should use on wikipedia.
• We do not need to be experts in all details of all complex cases of the world politics and history to be able to edit.
• Otherwise we would reject 90% of the editors and their edits
• And we would allow the same for all other pages. The result would be then be that we logically put POV tags on all articles related to Morocco and Western Sahara together until we sort out all kind of comparisons with all kind of complex cases in this complex world. You would agree that this methodology is non accurate, especially that we are all experts in some areas but not in others. I don't think you want to convince us that you know all about every thing.
• With other words, comparisons are good for taking orientation and inspiration but one should be highly cautious to take them 1 to 1. Each case has evidently an own history, own criteria, own environment etc.

• This being said I don't think that we are far from each other. We only need to see the logic without being prisoners of ideologies.
• The reasons why you implement a map in the article on the so called "sadr" are the same reasons why you must do the same for Morocco.
• If you assign the WS map to the "sadr" because it claims the territory, because it "controls it" etc., then you must do the same and include this territory in the map of Morocco as well since the latter also claims the territory, controls it etc..

• In the case of Morocco there are much more reasons or let say, they are even stronger, and this is what I tried to express above, why? Because:

• Morocco controls and rules the majority of the territory.
• Morocco controls and rules all urban areas, towns and cities in Western Sahara including all the relevant among them.
• The Moroccan State is pretty present in Western Sahara, not only military.
• Morocco uses effectively and not just fictively, virtually or symbolically all tools and symbols of sovereignty be it the Moroccan Flag, the Moroccan police, Moroccan postage stamps etc., every thing.
• Western Sahara is directly and totally connected to the rest of Morocco, at all kind of levels, just as is every other region in the country.
• The Moroccan State organises the social, economical, political life in this part just as it does for any other of its regions and just as does any other state with its sovereign parts and regions.
• These are facts, facts! And they are best known to people like you.

• On this background, tell me then please: for what reasons should we include the map of Western Sahara in the article on "sadr" but not include it in the article about Morocco?? What is the difference that makes us decide this way?

I would like to understand this, so I'll wait for you answer on this question as it is at the centre of the debate, and I think that we do not need to travel around the world to understand as things are really pretty clear. Cheers wikima 18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps Well, I don't see how your map improves the situation at all, so I'm going to reject it on the exact same grounds I had before (POV, factually inaccurate, etc.) I could say the same indcitment to you: "Each time when a change that does not fit your occupationist opinion is about to happen you scream and divert the discussion into polemics." Understand me when I tell you: this page is about the article Morocco, not your opinion of me. Making these off-hand value judgements about me 1.) gets us nowhere, 2.) changes the topic from the title of the article (i.e. "Morocco") to me, and 3.) serves as a thinly-veiled proxy to complain about me. If you have a problem with me, personally, or the way that I edit, please bring it up on my talk, and/or e-mail me. You're right, we do not need to be experts in all details of all complex cases of the world politics and history to be able to edit. I don't require that, and I'm glad that we aren't barred from contributing. That having been said, you ignored my question about the Republic of China and why you boldly asserted we "simply cannot" view it as a state that "'owns'" territory. Do you care to explain yourself? That having been said, I'm still not going to agree that analogies should be thrown out the door, for precisely the same reasons I mentioned above. No one is going to agree to stop using analogies. If you want to make a map like the one at Republic of China, that would make sense to me; I'll be happy to make one myself. Morocco does not control and rule all urban areas, towns, and cities in Western Sahara including all the relevant among them: Bir Lelhou, Zug, etc. among the ones administered by the SADR; consequently, they are not fictively [sic] there. The statement "Western Sahara is directly and totally connected to the rest of Morocco, at all kind of levels, just as is every other region in the country" is, of course, POV and won't be included in the text of any article, but is furthermore ahistorical and untrue. Needless to say, you can discuss this elsewhere, as this is Talk:Morocco. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin,

• I will simply ignore your detailled personal reply. It's now off-topic. And I will not reply for now to the other details.
• My question is simple:

=>Why should Western Sahara not be fully included in the Moroccan map although this is the case in the article on the "Sahrawi Republic" ("SADR") - What is the difference?

• Please tell me your answer with clear concrete reasons and not polemic prosa.

For visualisation:

Map used in the "sadr" article (does not include Morocco of course):

Map I am suggesting for the article on Morocco:

Footnote can be added for both of course.

Thanks wikima 22:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Would you please stop pulling these tricks? Honestly. You made it personal. If you want to ignore what I have to say, that's rude, and that's bad faith, but it's just insulting to write things like this. I brought up relevant points and you ignore them; that is the definition of bad faith editing. As for the SADR article, I already gave you an answer above and you ignored that, too. Either read what I write or don't respond. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin,

• Please understand that I don't want to continue loosing time in presonal disputes.
• The other details (China, Bir Lahlou etc.) I will deal with at an other point.
• My question is simple and clear and I helped with visualisation. Shall I assume that you can't give a concrete accurate answer? Thanks wikima 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, this new map is a stupid idea given that the sprited map does the same job. The only difference is that people might be mislead into think that the Western Sahara is just another province of Morocco, Regards Aussie King Pin 09:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Aussie,

• I would begg you to be cautious with the language you use. I feel "stupid" idea is offensive.
• The map I am proposing goes absolutely along with what is done with the map visualisation re Western Sahara in Wikipedia, so far.
• If you think that it would suggest that WS is just an other province of Morocco, then you must logically also think that it suggests WS belongs to the "Sahrawi Republic" on the "SADR"article.
• It is in fact the same map. Only in the case of Morocco it displays the rest of the country.
• The map that I am suggesting presents WS but separated with a dotted border/line. This visualises that Western Sahara has a special situation despite Moroccos control in the region.
• If we use the very same logic as in the article on "sadr", this dotted line should disapear.
• Do you understand? It is important that we understand this symetry.
• Fianllay your reaction does not answer the central question I am asking: "Why should Western Sahara not be fully included in the Moroccan map although this is the case in the article on the "Sahrawi Republic" ("SADR") - What is the difference?"

Thanks wikima 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think the idea of wikima is not as Aussie so harshly describes, and the point he wants to make understood is very clear. While we are debating for weeks for the map of Morocco, the map of the "SADR" is shown as if there is no dispute over WS. --A Jalil 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Look their is a very big difference between the SADR article and the Moroccoan article. In the SADR article we are showing the area of land the the SADR claims but in the Moroccoan article we are showing the nation of Morocco including the claimed area of Western Sahara. Theirfore their needs to be a clear and distinct difference between the two areas. When I first saw the map you are proposing I initional didn't see the dotted line. So if I was a casual observer of the page I could actually think that the Western Sahara is a full part of Morocco which of course would be misleading.

P.S I apologize for calling it a stupid idea, I will be more careful in future. Aussie King Pin 06:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Aussie,

• Thanks for your comment - I understand very well what you are saying as I had a very similar experience with the "sadr" article.
• When I first visited it I was chocked as it presents the "sahrawi republic" like any other common sovereign state in the world, with a flag, a president etc. and a... territory!
• The "sadr" is presented like Germany or France and a casual visitor doesn't think it is just an auto-proclamed governement that is exiled in Algeria.
• When seeing the article about "sadr" a casual vistior will think he or she can book a ticket and fly to Alayoun or Dakhla to visit the "sadr".
• He or she would be totally surprised to learn that this entity only exists in exile (or better said on paper and in ideology), that it is not recognised by the UN and the international community and that the territory is ruled by Morocco just as any, really any of its other parts.
• If, in the "sadr" article, we want to show the territory that is claimed by this entity, why shouldn't we show in the article on Morocco the territory as claimed by the country, its State, its King, its parliament, its people, its political parties, all kind of its organisations, its media etc.?? Why shouldn’t we show the territory as de facto ruled by the Moroccan state, where the Moroccan State is present and effectively (and not just fictively) uses every single tool and symbol of sovereignty?
• In reality you are not far from what I say when you write: "In the SADR article we are showing the area of land the the SADR claims but in the Moroccoan article we are showing the nation of Morocco including the claimed area of Western Sahara."
• This is what I mean. The map that I am suggesting for this article shows the area of land that is claimed by Morocco. We do this for "sadr" so why not for Morocco?

Cheers wikima 18:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, the hands of koavf have polluted about every article where Morocco is mentionned. I will come back to that later, and our fight for removing Polisario POV has not begun yet.--A Jalil 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)--A Jalil 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You guys are generating your own content, which is not what Wikipedia is for. The locator maps are for defined international boundaries, not blobs showing whose armies are where. No respected mapping agency depicts Morocco and Western Sahara as entity - not National Geographic, not the CIA; no organization I have seen. This is nonsense and I'm going to fix it. If you want to use an image depicting Moroccon control across Western Sahara lower in the article and corresponding to some textual content, be my guest. ¦ Reisio 17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Reisio, you do better understand this once for all: there are 3 different maps:

• one showing Western Sahara as part of Morocco without any borders, nor distinguishing colors, thus as one entity not as a disputed territory. It used by Morocco and the Arab League, and in the textbooks in about 20 arab countries. That map is Moroccan POV and is not used here.
• one showing Morocco and Western Sahara as separate entities as if there is no dispute. That map is Polisario POV and is not used here.
• one map showing Morocco and Wesern Sahara with the latter shaded, meaning while this territory is administered by Morocco, the sovereignty over it is not recognized and that everyone looking at the map will understand this territory is disputed. There is furthemore a comment below the map explaining that. That map is used in the article.
• The reason WS is included in the map but shaded, is that it is a de facto administrative region within Morocco. The UN considers Morocco as the administrative power, and there are international flights going from (Layoune) as a Moroccan city to the Canary Islands. There are international treaties with the EU (fishing treaty for ex.) including WS as a Moroccan province. There is trade and people movement between Mauritania and WS as a Moroccan territory, and also there are sea ferries going from Layoune harbor to the Canaries as transactions between Spain and Morocco. Foreign diplomats have been received by the King in WS as a Moroccan region. There are international sporting competitions taking place in WS as a Moroccan province (surfing, ...). To just dismiss all that and show Morocco having nothing to do with WS is exactly the Polisario POV, and that can't be here.--A Jalil 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"one showing Morocco and Western Sahara as separate entities as if there is no dispute. That map is Polisario POV and is not used here."

Ahrmmm? It's Polisario POV to depict Western Sahara as it's been for decades? As the vast majority of political and mapping organizations depict it? Don't be ridiculous.

"The UN considers Morocco as the administrative power"

You've taken words from a UN report out of context.

¦ Reisio 14:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• I dont't see what you meant with "as it's been for decades". If you mean the last three decades, then the right map would be the Moroccan one, because it has been under Moroccan rule for the last 3 decades. If you meant the decades before 1975, then we should show it as part of Spain, as the Spanish Sahara. In any case, it has always been under the rule of some country, and never been a separate entity. So if you want to show it "as it's been for decades" you should be showing it either as Moroccan or as Spanish. So who is the one that is being ridiculous?.
• "The UN considers Morocco as the administrative power". Yes, that is the UN Secretary General who said it in a public document for the security Council, representing the UN position. He choses his words carefully, and that's plain english, so I don't again see how these words could be understood out of context, or how they can be interpreted differently. If you have an "in context" explanation, please do enlighten us too.--A Jalil 16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"it has been under Moroccan rule for the last 3 decades"

According to image:Western sahara walls moroccan.gif, it took a while for Morocco to control what it controls now - which is still not the entire territory.

"If you meant the decades before 1975, then we should show it as part of Spain, as the Spanish Sahara."

The territorial borders and separated depiction is the same as it is now (except according to this article's info box). Furthermore as I've already said several times, the vast majority of political and mapping organizations _still_ depict Western Sahara as a completely separate territory.

"Yes, that is the UN Secretary General who said it in a public document for the security Council, representing the UN position."

If Western Sahara is part of Morocco, explain to me why the UN, Morocco and POLISARIO are all participating in a referendum on Western Sahara's future sovereignty.[1]

¦ Reisio 12:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• The image you are refering to is an inaccurate hand-made sketch, and shows the steps of the construction of the defensive berm. It does not mean that the Moroccan control was always just within the walls as they were constructed. Mobile units of the Moroccan Army and especially the Air Force have been reaching every corner of the Sahara till the cease-fire came into effect. The Polisario had no fixed permanent positions in the Sahara.
• I've seen many maps showing the map of Morocco including WS separated only with a dashed line without distinguishing colors. That is the way TV5, the french international Channel, when treating North African matters, shows the map of Morocco. The World map I bought from a supermarket (in Europe) does the same. I did not talk about the Arab League, nor the Organisation of the Islamic conference, and their sub-organisations that all show Morocco and WS as one entity without even the dashed line. So there are some showing it this way, and others showing it the other way. Not only that, the southern border between Morocco and Algeria is also usually shown dashed because it is not formally recognized by both countries.
• I did not say that the UN sees Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. There is a difference between Administration and Sovereignty, and I think your objection to the map is mostly based on not understanding that difference. For the UN, Morocco has a reason to claim WS (confirmed by former Polisario leaders), and its presence on the territory is not baseless, hence the administration of it is legal, but the sovereignty Morocco claims to have on the territory is not recognized by the UN, hence its efforts to solve the sovereignty issue through a peaceful negotiated solution (referendum, autonomy, ...). --A Jalil 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"The image you are refering to"

I'm not seeing any supporting data for your supposition, so you just wasted your time typing all that out.

"separated only with a dashed line"

Yes, that's a well-used way to mark ambiguous or disputed borders (not borders in the middle of single countries, mind you) - unfortunately it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion for green blobs of color seeping into territorial boundaries. Funny how you guys aren't pushing for a dashed-line border but this striped version.

"the Arab League, nor the Organisation of the Islamic conference"

Two out of how many? Like I said - the vast majority depicts them separated.

"I did not say that the UN sees Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. There is a difference between Administration and Sovereignty"

Ah, then we're in agreement. Glad we got that cleared up.

¦ Reisio 16:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Which data are you talking about?. The sketch is hand-made, and there are battles allover the Sahara between Morocco and the Polisario even when the berms' construction was in its initial phase. What kind of data you need?.
• Yes it is used in some maps to describe the borders of countries having territorial disputes inside their borders also (Azerbaidjan, Georgia, ...). Wikima proposed a map with a dashed line separating Morocco proper from the Sahara but was nearly giving koavf a heart attack.
• "Two out of many?". Bear in mind dude that this is an inter-arab-muslim conflict. The Arabs and Muslims understand its roots and what/who is behind all that. No one knows the pecularities of the conflict as they do. That alone should silence those who know only the scumm of the conflict. Their attitude on the conflict therefore outweights any other sources you may think of.
• If the UN were recognizing the sovereignty of Morocco over WS, the map would have been green from the strait of Gibraltar to the Mauritanian border without dashes nor strips. If there are strips, that is because the administration is recognized for Morocco but the sovereignty is disputed. --A Jalil 19:15, 11 December 2006

Hey guys, i've got a question. Let's assume that WS isn't part of Morocco. What is it part of then? or is it independant?

[edit] Mediation

It is clear to me that no agreement is going to be reached here. Can we please all agree to mediation by uninvolved parties? I see no other way forward. Regards, Asterion^talk 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, Nothing speaks against mediation, however:

• I have the feeling that we regularelly get stuck when it comes to do changes that do not suit the opinion of prop-polisarian independists although this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a place to fight for the indpendance of any regions.
• I think the whole topic with re to the presentation of Western Sahra is unbalanced and non neutral in Wikipedia. For example, Western Sahara is often misused as substitute of the Sahrawi Republic, especially in templates. This I had already discussed, but, because this is not againist Morocco, no mediation was seeked.
• The topic we are "debating" here is pretty much related to Western Sahara.
• Therefore, I would only agree to a mediation if it covers the whole Western Sahara topic as this is definitvely the source of the conflict
• This would be an opportunity to clean out this topic from POVs

Thanks wikima 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the only WS-related article on my watchlist. I am not sure whether the mediation committee would accept such a wide subject. We also need to remember that mediation is ultimately non-binding and it is up to the parties involved to show the goodwill to act accordingly. In any case, I would rather we stay at the mediation stage, without the need to go for full-scale arbitration (it is not a nice solution for anyone). If you could establish the list of individual subtopics you think would need to be debated on, please do so. It is no good to give the mediators a general subject. I have no problems whatsoever with taking any other subjects up for mediation. Best wishes, Asterion^talk 20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have simple question for both Justin and Wikima. Does accepting mediation would help one of you to concede a few parts of what you believe is the supreme universal and divine right?

Accepting a mediation is a positive sign and it can give an answer to my question. I mean you are ready to accept losing some of your positions.

Now, would you accept the results of the poll/vote above? It is the middle point distancing your positions. I mean you 2 and nobody else. If you are ready to surrender some of your points than save us some time and accept what it was generally accepted by participants in the vote.

A last note. We can argue forever about the issue w/o reaching a 100% concensus. So are you ready to help us? -- Szvest 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

I agree with Fayssal. As I said, mediation is not binding. So, if all parties are ready to make sacrifices, we will eventually get somewhere. Asterion^talk 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My take I would be happy to comply with the process of mediation, but if the article remains identical, I will go to the next step of conflict resolution. My line of argumentation still stands, and since I only have a gripe about one particular part of the article, there is not much ground for me to give or take, but I'm willing to see other proposals. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• This is not the way I understand mediation and I did not call for it
• I understand it as involvement of third independant parties who can help to empower objective and rational arguments.
• It's not about a personal conflict between two people but about the accuracy of information and the way it is presented
• And all what I say is, if you want others to get involved then I would only accept if this is done for the whole topic of Westerns Sahara in Wikipedia - and not Morocco as such - as WS it is the source of the "debate".

Szvest,

• I assume the topic that was voted about (stripped map) is decided. The POV tag is now removed.
• I consider however the stripped map as incomplete.
• So, what I am doing is the follwing: I am suggesting a map for Morocco which goes absolutely along wath is done every where in Wikipedia with regard to Western Sahara. This means, you cannot strip the Western Sahara map for Morocco but integrate it fully for a "Sahrawi Republic". This goes against the neutrality of Wikipedia. It is as simple as that.
• If there is a reason for it, I would like to understand it. If not I would like to change this situation.

Thanks wikima 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers wikima 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, i am absolutely aware and i understand your concerns as much as i do w/ Justin ones. In fact, we have 2 issues on hand.

• This article - Your suggestion above is legitimate and you are free to proceed. However, (whatever they are based on facts or hoaxes) you should first discuss it here and eventually ask for a Request for comment or just refer to other venues in Wikipedia that can help. I am also totally aware that you discuss more than revert edits on main. So i am not asking you to refrain from silliness as you abide by the rules. Just follow them and ask for a new poll/vote. The thing is that your suggestion has been implicitly debated above and it would be just redundancy if we start over the procedure.
• WS/Morocco-related articles - I don't see any other solution to that apart from what Asterion suggested. Make a list and organize it well so you can present it formally to a mediation. So start organizing the issues from now and keep this place reserved to sort out the issue on hand- Morocco's map.
• What Asterion did is to present a helping hand. You cannot reject it by simply saying i didn't call for it. We know it is not official but it can still be a possible way out. -- Szvest 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Szvest,

• Thanks - However I am not rejecting any thing
• As I am not calling for mediation I will not prepare any list. But will do if any mediation accepts to deal with the topic in its whole.
• I simply find mediation not helpful if it is related to this article only
• We have very similar if not the same disputes through all Western Sahara related articles
• Mediating only on this one will resolve nothing as thing are interwoven and interdependant as shows the example of the map.

Cheers wikima 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Justin

Justin, it is not a cat and mouse game. Abide by the rules. Please go request a real mediation instead of being an obstacle in front of the rest. File reports, exercise whatever you have as rights. Don't disturb attempts of mediations. Respect the hard work of the people who debated the issue. Don't force your ideas on others. The mediation is about you and Wikima; not about you and the rest. You are the claiming person against the concensus. For us the issue is settled and it is you that should go ask for help. -- Szvest 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Mediation was regarding the dispute, was it not? The tag is there for the dispute at hand. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You are playing a smarty game Justin. Keep the tag (i told you above i don't care about the tag itself) but once this discussion is over (i mean within a week or one week and a half), i will remove the tag under the edit summary of no discussion since 500 BC). Isn't that how you deal w/ tags? So continue arguing you and Wikima (i told you above that the debate w/ Wikima would not be easy, remember?). I am sure one of you will stop arguing and than i will remove the tag. Wouldn't be a cute game? -- Szvest 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Better tag? Clearly, there is a dispute, or else mediation wouldn't be sought, right? If anything, there is more of a dispute, as Wikima seems to think that the map as presented is not optimal, too. I have no idea what the 500 BC thing is supposed to mean. If you're making some sarcastic dig, take it elsewhere. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin, 500 BC refers to any random date that one user can remove a tag after and under the pretext that there has been NO discussion since X time. It is not sarcastic but representative of this same situation. You've done it many times Justin. It's not sarcastic but realistic. Maybe you forgot that you did remove many NPOV tags under the same pretext.

Again, insisting on re-adding the tag is just a breach of the concensus. It is said on "Wikipedia books" that the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. For us, the matter is closed. You are the only one SAYING there's no concensus. It is not me that should take my stuff somewhere but you please take your concerns to the arbitration. Why do you avoid that? There's nothing bad in seeking arbitration. Ittakes a long time to come to a solution from the ArbCom can't be a justification for your edit warring. Go for an arbitrator. Explain yourselves there. Your actions are disturbing contributors here. Everyone here expressed that explicitly and one cannot just unilateraly force others. Respect others. It is a non-respect sign toward people. Go to an arbitrator, go. -- Szvest 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Right Fayssal, don't act ignorant of what you're doing; you were being sarcastic. You know there's a difference between a user that disappears for a month versus someone who is actively on talk. There is neither a need nor a place for sarcastic one-liners in the discussion, so just don't do it. If you want to take off the tag, be my guest if it will stop you from acting like a child here on talk. As for arbitration, I avoided it because someone came in and offered to do the next step in conflict resolution (mediation.) You'll notice that you ignored that prospect when I presented it earlier on talk; that is why I skipped arbitration. Telling me to respect others while mocking me is pretty shallow hypocrisy, Fayssal. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Being absent for months has no grounds. I've been being serious but acting as a kid is a compliment in these situations. If you feel you are being mocked, please go for an arbitration. Please save us some time and do it. It seems that you and Wikima need to rearrange your stuffs. For the rest of us, we declare we reached a concensus. Wikima just discusses a SUGGESTION and not putting the tag on the version upon concensus was built. He's explained themselves and said that he's not against this version though he would have vote for a all greened version of the map. -- Szvest 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Okay Well, it's good that I didn't write "absent for months." There is ground to write something about a user that was absent for a month - Wikima disappeared in the middle of several disputes and I'm assuming it is those to which you were referring. Again, would you please avoid deliberately misconstruing my words and acting childish? I'll let mediation occur with Asterion, and if that isn't suitable, I'll go to arbitration. Why do you want to skip ahead steps in the conflict resolution process? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Skip? Please refer to my support of Asterion's mediation above and also to Asterion response to my message. You are confusing 2 important things here.

• The current version was agreed upon (refer to the archived page). If you still have concerns about that, go for an aritration process. Asterion mediation concerns the 2nd issue/subject.
• Wikima/Justin debate is another issue. Wikima accepts the current version as explained below. He's debating all WS-related articles. Asterion and me commented on that above-- Szvest 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

That's news to me I thought it was all a part of the initial issue I raised. That having been said, you still ignored the prospects of mediation with "my issue." My question still stands: do you want to go to arbitration for it (if, apparently, Asterion is not here to address the issues I initially raised)? If so, and if Asterion responds that he's not here to mediate that, then I'll go to arbitration. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re current version. Yes, you have to go for an arbit. It seems that you really feel biased by people here.

Re your issue w/ Wikima. Wait for Asterion. -- Szvest 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[Deindenting]Justin, if you think the strip map needs to be added to the list of issues to be mediated on, I am no one to stop you doing so. I reiterate my point that in order to get the mediation through, it is better to delimitate subjects quite well. I reckon I missed the bulk of the discussion on the map and I am not completely sure how it ended indeed (working my way back right now).

About the map, I will make my position clear here: I am not happy at all with Wikima's new suggestion (that map may be suitable for a Moroccan atlas but, IMHO, not for Wikipedia, as WS is disputed); I have no great objections to the current map, aside the need for a subtitle immediately underneath the map, along the lines "Morocco and the disputed territory of Western Sahara (striped)" (I do not think the stripes suffice).

In any case, any request for arbitration will be dismissed unless a Request for Comments and then a Request for Mediation have been made beforehand. Well, this is the way things work (otherwise the ArbCom would be dealing with complains all the time). I would rather not having to take anything up to the ArbCom at all, as it is very slow and is always better to get a mutual understanding between wikipedians, reaching some sort of consensus if we want to call it that.

Regards, Asterion^talk 09:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think what Justin is doing is totally not acceptable!
• Above, all except him were for the current map.
• I am opening a new issu and do not need a POV tag for it!
• This should stop. I see the behaviour of Justin as clearly problematic, really!

wikima 22:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Koavf, I have created an account on 3th of July 2006, and was mainly a reader of technical articles of telecommunications (my work field). I remarked the tag on the Morocco article and got involved since then. So forget about sock-puppets.

• A user who has been in Wikipedia for one day is as worthy and relevant as that who has been for one year.
• The number of edits does not give more credibility either. If I want to increase my edit count to 500, believe me I can do it within a week. Spelling corrections, formatting, reverts, edit wars, all increase the count. Just saving a page without edits increases the count.
• Having said that, The dispute about the stripped map is closed with a clear majority in favor of the actual map. Wikima has suggested a new one based on the SADR case, and it should be surely considered. I actually support it.
• I would like to draw Fayssal's attention (he is an admin),that the 3RR rule should be applied. Koavf has been blocked elsewhere for much less than what he did on Morocco page.
• I think that all the articles related to Morocco and WS should be put to light for occurencies of Polsario POV like "western Sahara is under de-facto military occupation".--A Jalil 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work, A Jalil. Justin seems to be ignore the decision made by the numbers just because the numbers include lots of new editiors. It would be better if Justin just accepted the numbers and did some other work. In reply to Asterion, thanks from the suggestion but as only 1 editior is (currently) objecting their is really no need. Aussie King Pin 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A Jalil Okay, your story is ultimately unverifiable, but I'll believe you. All I'm saying is that it is suspicious. I'm happy to have any and everyone be a good faith, competent contributor to Wikipedia. It just seems a bit odd when two people show up out of nowhere and immediately dive into a contentious topic. It's also odd that someone who hasn't edited for months, and only edits articles associated with said topic shows up after so long. That's all. I'm happy to have new contributors that abide by the rules as best as they know how and make sincere efforts to help spread knowledge. All articles related to Morocco and Western Sahara are put to light; the edit histories for all of them are public knowledge. It is not POV to say that Western Sahara is under military occupation; it is factual.

Aussie Why don't you let Asterion decide for himself, as that is his job? Asterion is a grown up (as far as I can tell) and can decide for himself. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

koavf The account creation date link was not OK, retry this one [| 3th of July 2006]. Now you should be sure I did exist way before the discussion began. Wikima did not show a few months for obvious reason: the summer holiday. It is factual to say that Polisario is a separatist puppet in the hands of Algeria. It is not me who says it, but former Polisario leaders.--A Jalil 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay It is not factual to say that Polisario are separatists, because Western Sahara isn't part of Morocco. It is also not factual to say that they are Algerian puppets because they existed years prior to Algerian support. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever been there? Western Sahara is for all intents and purposes most definately a part of Morocco...just because you choose not to view it as such doesn't make it so. Not only is it factual to say the Polisario are separatists, but it is an accurate description of their policies and objectives. Also, your reasoning for them not being puppets of Algeria is based on a logical falacy. Just because they existed before Algerian "support" doesn't preclude them from being manipulated by Algeria today. Not only are you the only one here making these claims but your arguements don't hold water and are not convincing anyone. What is your purpose here other than to disrupt and push your transparent pro-WS POV that nobody is buying?--WilliamThweatt 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No Golan Heights and the West Bank are for all intents and purposes most deinately [sic] parts of Israel... right? It is not factual to say that Polisario are separatists, because they are not seeking to separate from anyone or anything, other than the Spanish Empire, from which they separated on February 27, 1976. Provide evidence that they are being manipulated by Algeria today and I might believe you. If you just give me prpaganda report from Morocco, I'll just view them with as much suspicion and an assumption of mendacious lies as anything else that comes from their information ministry. I don't understand your last question: what is my purpose on Wikipedia, or on this page in particular? I've answered the latter question to a great extent over several days, so I'm assuming you aren't seriously asking me that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone who is familiar with the Sahara question knows that it is a domestic issue for Algeria
• Only a few days ago the algerian governement refused the visa to a Moroccan-French artist just because he supports the Moroccanity of the Sahara. Even the algerian press who is obsessionally anti-moroccan felt ashamed.
• Polisario cannot decide anything without approval from Algier.
• Here is just an example:

Question: "Do you think armed hostilities could resume then?" - "JAMES A. BAKER III: I don't know. I have no idea. I think that's an issue probably that is more on the plate of Algeria than anybody else because it isn't going to resume unless Algeria permits it to happen. As long as Algeria says to the POLISARIO you're not going to fight anymore then they're not going to fight anymore." [2]

• What James Baker is saying here is that polisario are pupets in this conflict and that Algeria is using them in a proxy war against Morocco.
• Algerian military controls Tindouf and are involved in torture [3]
• If you need more evidence on involvement of Algeria and the use of polisario in the conflict let me know.

• An other thing: Polisario founders are all Moroccans and have all lived and studied in Morocco. Most of them belonged to the far left wing political movement and rests of this still exist in Morocco (Nahj party).
• This means that polisario started in Morocco.
• The father of the current president M. Abdelaziz lives in Morocco, he is an former solider of the Moroccan Liberation Armee and a great supporter of the maroccanity of the Sahara. He is also member of CORCAS. Although he is now old and physically weak he never hesitates to participate in actions for the Moroccan Sahara.
• And he is not the only one. Brothers and other members of Abdelaziz live in Morocco as well and they support Morocco.
• You can't find a better example that shows that polisario are separatists.
• In Morocco they are treated as "apostate" and since Abdelaziz refuses to meet his father (Who wishes to see him before he dies) he is disdained in the country.
• To reject the own father is seen in Morocco and the arabo-islamic world as a major crime, especially among the sahraouis who have a great sense of family and tribe.

wikima 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is actually Talk:Morocco If you want to discuss the Morocco article, this is the place to do it. Anything else belongs elsewhere. Polisario started among some Sahrawi college youth who were from Western Sahara and lead by El-Ouali Mustapha Sayed, who was from Western Sahara, not Morocco. To occupy another's land is seen in the Arabo-Islamic world as not a crime? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• When it is convenient for you you divert discussions in endless polemic
• And when you don't know what to say you start giving lessons.
• If you give best practice by applying the rules yourself, then what you say would be more credible.

• As result lets keep two important facts before closing and since we talked about it anyway:

1. Algeria is deeply involved in the conflict
2. Polisario is its puppet

• We will developp at an other place.

wikima 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not to have any position on your discussion but i must state that comments or questions such as "To occupy another's land is seen in the Arabo-Islamic world as not a crime?" are pretty unethical in such a discussion. It may carry a racial connotation indeed. I protest and ask for an explanation to which place it has to make a political argument! -- Szvest 22:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

Wikima Would you just stop? Honestly. You're writing useless garbage that anyone else could write about you like "When it is convenient for you you divert discussions in endless polemic." That doesn't mean anything, it doesn't get us anywhere, and it is just petty. I'm absolutely not going to concede to your two points, and you know it. So why would you waste your time writing something so pointless? If you want to develop in another place, then develop.

Fayssal How is it unethical? I have no idea where the racial connotation stuff came from - I used the exact same words Wikima did, and as memory serves, he is an Arab. Of course it has a racial connotation; it's about the values of a racial group. I don't know what kind of explanation you want, but in general I was contrasting what Wikima said about Abdelaziz being so immoral with the far more grevious offenses of Morocco. It's cheap and tawdry to mention how Abdelaziz is not seeing his father and that is a grave crime in their culture, but it's funny that he's giving a moral blank check to Morocco for doing something much worse by any rational assessment. Which one is worse to you: waging war on a peaceful people and creating a refugee crisis, or disowning your father? It's absurd. If Asterion doesn't respond tomorrow, I'm going to arbitration. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

koavf, the arbitration will concern the whole subject of maps and POV on Morocco/WS portals and pages,and not only the map used on Morocco article.--A Jalil 08:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[DEINDENTING] Apologies for late response. Justin, what do you suggest we should all do? I have proposed to both wikima and you making a list of issues and taking it to mediation, either informal or formal. You are simply not going to convince each other (and I don't like the overtone).

Regarding the matter we were discussing here originally, that is the strip map, we had a Request for Comments and a straw poll about this. OK, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the idea is trying to reach consensus on controversial matters. The way I see this, Wikima's suggestion of a same-colour map is not NPOV, while the strip map is as close as it gets, given the current political situation. Aside Wikima and you, no one else is particularly upset by the strip map.

I think taking this to arbitration if all the dispute resolution steps have not been followed is not a good idea. Anyway, I am no one to stop you if you think otherwise. --Asterion^talk 08:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: Other thing, arbitration will not solve the problem in the sense of telling us what is right or what is wrong, whether WS is Moroccan or a separate stateless nation. It will basically insist on wikipedians being civil, using verifiable sources, etc. Just to give you an idea, please have a look at the ongoing Kosovo arbitration. I would only choose to go to arbitration if there were a problem with trolling, sockpuppets and constant edit wars. And I am sure we are mature enough to be able to avoid this sort of behaviour. Thanks, --Asterion^talk 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you asterion for this
• I am ok with the stripped map a start, as a minimum so to say
• I take it as agreed among the contributors and have no problems with it - All seem to have understood it but one.
• What I am doing is the following:

• Like Jalil I see the topic as global and as affecting all articles in which Western Sahara in involved
• I also think this needs to be checked globally and any arbitration will need to look at the whole and this article is only a piece of it
• I find it for example completly inaccurate, asymetric, conredictory and dangerousely misleading to use a full map and a template for a republic that is not even recognised by the UN, that exists only ideologically and is in every case hosted in algeria and so far from that territory we are talking about!
• And the problem is that this is accepted in Wikipedia!
• But using just the same for Morocco who actually is effetively present there and effectively exercises its sovereignty (although not recongnised) is a whole effort because Mr Justin fights for the truth and the indepedence of Weetern Sahara?!?

• So where are we here please? Is this Wikipedia or a "feel free platform" fro propagandists??
• My conclusion is

1. The current consensus must be kept in evry case
2. We must look at the topic as a whole
3. There must be a general solution as to how further proceed as one can never change any thing without expecting reverts and useless and meaningless long polemics with Justin.

Thanks - wikima 11:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wikima, The way I see it, the WS map in the Western Sahara article makes sense, as it describes a territory on its own. I cannot see any problem with this, I guess. There is also a separate article for the RASD, which also uses the same location map[4] together with another one[5], differentiating between both areas of control (Morocco's and Polisario's). Personally, I think this is a neutral approach, as both Morocco and Polisario claim rights over the whole territory which was previously known as Spanish Sahara. There is also a disclaimer on the map, reading "This map indicates the claimed territory of the SADR. The majority of this territory is currently administered by Morocco." Taking a NPOV approach, I cannot see any problem with this. Any reader can read the rest of this and/or Southern Provinces and Western Sahara articles and will get a clear idea of the conflict and nature of the dispute. I would oppose to having Western Sahara redirecting to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Southern Provinces, as this would give a partisan and partial view of the state of affairs. Regards, --Asterion^talk 12:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Asterion,

• I do strongly dispute the map in the socalled "sahrawi republic" as well as the whole way how this "republic" is presented.
• It is not more than an exiled government that is very largely unrecognised but it is presented like a sovereing independent country and the map plays a central role in this misleading and biase.
• The map in the article on Western Sahara is a slightly different topic.
• But we will need to sort out how we can diffenciate between existing countries and territories.
• If you want you can visit the talk page to see my reasons and participate there [6].
• My reply here was re the arbitration and I have a same opinion as Jalil.
• And... you can follow up how difficult it is to edit or change with Justin as he reverts everything despite of special messages and ongoing dicussion.

• (Addendum: Please read also above about the map. The question that I am asking about why we use this map in the article on "sadr" but not in this one remains unansewered. Cheers wikima)

Thanks - wikima 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Asterion Thanks for the heads-up. You asked "what do you suggest we should all do?" Now, in terms of the dispute regarding the map on this page, I still believe that in the interests of NPOV, the article on Morocco has to have a map of Morocco, and not one that deceives the user into thinking that some territory is Moroccan or even under Moroccan occupation when it is not. I'll continue this through the steps of conflict resolution, resulting in arbitration if I have to in order to get closure on the issue. As far as the broad issues that Wikima and consequently Jalil have discussed, I really have no idea what they want from me. I'm generally happy with the content and quality of WS articles and continue to edit them myself (the only outstanding exception is human rights in Western Sahara, which was part of a lengthy three-party discussion that ground to a halt when Wikima left for several months.) He's the one with the dispute or aggreivance, so the onus is on him to come up with some kind of proposal; I honestly don't know what he wants. Again, in terms of this page, I'm assuming that I have to go to the next step in dispute resolution (formal mediation), so I will. Thanks again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Koav/Justin you are saying: "the article on Morocco has to have a map of Morocco, and not one that deceives the user into thinking that some territory is Moroccan or even under Moroccan occupation when it is not."
• You don't seem to be having problems when the map is used totally in the "sadr" article and deceives the visitor into thinking the "sadr" is just a state like any other in the world!
• And you protest when the map of Morocco includes a stripped map that clearly shows that at least there is something special about this region?
• This shows that in all your action in this topic there is no sense for balance and/or neutrality.
• Several of the articles you are involved in and that are related to Western Sahara are full of pro-polisarian propaganda and needed huge efforts to be cleaned because either you keep reverting (for which you have been blocked several times) or you involve others in endless and meaningless polemics.
• And I am definitively not the only one who has this problem with you.
• I maintaiin my proposal for the full integration of WS in Morocco's map because I don't see any other convincing opinions than this biase.

wikima 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One more time I have alredy told you this several times, and I will tell you one last time: I think it is appropriate to make a map similar to that on the Republic of China page. You totally ignored me every other time I brought it up, and this the last time I'll mention it here. I also cannot believe that you expect this to be convincing to anyone else: "I maintaiin [sic] my proposal for the full integration of WS in Morocco's map because I don't see any other convincing opinions than this biase [sic]." You just read that Asterion said the exact opposite of this, right? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• And I told you, and this is my last word on this
• I will not make a PHD on China, Israel or any other complex case of international politics to be able to intervn here.
• These examples are good to inspire but irrelevant to take 1 to 1 as each of them has own complexity, logics and parameters (otherwise it would be so much easy to resolve problems of this world).
• None of the reactions answers my question as the situation of the article shows a dramatic biase.
• It is no problem to say it, with all respect and politness to asterion, aussie or any other memeber who would like to delight us on this.
• And if you want to read it again, this is my question that adresses the core of the problematic: "=>Why should Western Sahara not be fully included in the Moroccan map although this is the case in the article on the "Sahrawi Republic" ("SADR") - What is the difference?"

Cheers - wikima 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D? I don't have a doctoral degree on Chinese politics either; I'm trying to say that there is a relevant and useful precedent and I'd be happy to implement it there also. If you want to discuss the SADR article, please disucss it on that talk. I've answered this question so many times on so many pages over so many months, but here it is again: No one recognizes Morocco's claim to the Sahara, several states recognize the SADR's claim. That is the key difference, and you know that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nope dear, that is no difference.
• "sadr" is a laregely unrecognised entity as the article itself seems to be saysing.
• All the recognitions are fragile. Every moth a state freezes or cacells its recognition and vice-versa (like a game of chlidren).
• "sadr" is just out, listen out of Western Sahara. It is in Algeria, in Tindouf or I don't know where.
• If you want to meet Mohammed Abdleaziz you'll need an algerian visa and not one that delivers to you the so called "sadr"
• And I presented above that Morocco does not only claim the territory but it governs it as any other of its regions, using its own currency, flag, postage stamps just what you want. There no symbol of soereignty that is not used in WS by Morocco. So.
• I see that you are unable to give an adequate answer to the question
• I seel also that you ignore facts.

Cheers - wikima 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not having this discussion with you here This is Talk:Morocco. If you want to discuss something else, take it up elsewhere. Yes, that is a difference, and please do not call me dear. It is not true that "Every moth a state freezes or cacells its recognition and vice-versa (like a game of chlidren)," and you know that. I've said this several dozen times; the SADR is in the Sahara, and it's verifiable information that MINURSO (who are also there) supports. I neither have nor need an Algerian visa, as I am not an Algerian citizen. I could also enter the Sahara from Mauritania (as Bedouins routinely do) and visit him that way. Morocco does not govern the Sahara like any other of its regions because 1.) it's not a region of Morocco, and 2.) Morocco can get people to drill for oil off its coast, but not the Sahara's; it can sign a free-trade agreement with the US for its own territory but not the Sahara. Clearly, your claim is not true. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Block After all koavf won't go to mediation at least the following two days, for he is (again) blocked for violating Wikipedia rules he so often try to remind others of.

• Comparing the Republic of China (Taiwan) with Polisario's self-declared "Bambo Jumbo" Republic is ridiculous. There is not even one similariy.
• to meet Abdelaziz you will either travel to Algeria and head to the South of Tindouf (you will all the time be on Algerian soil), or you will need the help of smugglers from Mauritania (maybe you will have to be dressed as a woman). What a funny way to enter a republic and meet its president (in the presidential tent).
• I wonder how can Morocco be allowed to drill offshore in waters that are not supposed to be his!!. Are not the waters also part of the sovereignty of a country?. Morocco has signed treaties that include WS like the fishing agreement with the EU. And believe me, I read in the Algerian newspaper Elkhabar that Moroccan fish from Dakhla (in Rio De Oro) is very popular with Algerians.
• I said this earlier, and have to say it again: Everything that is written or said here on Wikipedia or the Net or in newspapers, does not change a thing to the situation on the ground. Don't fool yourself (koavf) with all the edits you do here. Morocco is rock-solid about its Sahara. You just sit and talk/write from the States, but I, if need be, will be in the Southern Provinces defending them with arms.
• Again, the arbitration/mediation will have to concern all the POV on Morocco/WS content. I am finding every day more of it, and most if not all of it was inserted by two users: koavf, and Arre.--A Jalil 22:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• For those interested in the topic: I have opened a proposal to correct facts and biase in the artcile ond the "sadr" - Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Proposal_for_a_Corrected_Version_of_the_Article

Thanks - wikima 13:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Block

• Comparing the Republic of China (Taiwan) with Polisario's self-declared "Bambo Jumbo" Republic is ridiculous. There is not even one similariy.

That's not true. Here's a similarity: both are recognized by several states.

• I wonder how can Morocco be allowed to drill offshore in waters that are not supposed to be his!!. Are not the waters also part of the sovereignty of a country?. Morocco has signed treaties that include WS like the fishing agreement with the EU. And believe me, I read in the Algerian newspaper Elkhabar that Moroccan fish from Dakhla (in Rio De Oro) is very popular with Algerians.

That's irrelevant. All that matters is you said that they are administered like any other province of Morocco and that's clearly not the case. No one in this discussion is interested in Algerian delicacies.

Needless to say, a lot of that post was irrelevant and off-topic, especially the disturbing violent threats. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Family

From the article:

"Arabs lost political control over Morocco when Berbers adopted Islam and started to form their own Islamic dynasties, independent from the Arab East. One of those dynasties is ruling still today in Morocco; the Alaouite dynasty."

I think that last sentence claiming the royal family of morocco is berber is inaccurate. According to my understanding, they trace their genealogy back to prophet Mohammad and Quraish. unsigned comment by User:69.143.122.31

Nice call. I've tried to fix it. Not it reads as following:

The Arab-Muslim Calipahtes (i.e. Umayyads of Damascus and the Abbasids of Baghdad) lost political influence over Morocco when the first Arab dynasty in the country, the Idrisid, cut ties with the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad and the Umayyad rule in Al-Andalus. After the reign of the Idrisids, Arabs lost political control within Morocco. After adopting Islam, several Berber dynasties formed their own Islamic dynasties and reigned over the country. This situation lasted until the Arab Saadi dynasty took over in the 16th century. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, not particularly clear on this. That the royal family claims Chorfa descent is not in and of itself a contradiction to the family being also of Berber descent. Certainly I am aware certain (perhaps many, hard to say) Berbers in Morocco consider the Alaoui to be "Berber" in some sense. Calling the Alaoui Arab or Berber I suppose depends on what you take the basis as. Self ident? Partial or complete descent? Current mother tongue? collounsbury 17:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

True. A very good example to this would be the background of king Mohammed VI. Hi mother, Lalla Latifa Hammou is a Berber. However, it remains marginal as a fact. This serves as an argument for the unity of Moroccans but the Alaouite dynasty still declares itself almost officially as Arab. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a curious footnote, I understand that the royal family always marries Berber families - this is what was told me by my good friend Miriam, who is Sudanese, and so she ought to know. Anyway, it the Alawaites have indeed ben marrying Berbers consistently for the last few centuries, it works out like this: Arab+Berber=half Berber Alawite king; half-Berber+Arab in the enxt generation=three-quarters Berber Alawaite king; until by the present day the Alkawites are so little Arab it doesn't count. As I said, this all depends on the accuracy of what my friend Miriam told me, but I'm sure she's a reliable source. PiCo 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis production

The following is completely unverified, but I lived in Morocco and was told it by someone who had visited Ketama a short time earlier, had seen the process and showed me some of the produce. Is there any way this information can be used in the Wikipedia?

A visitor to the Rif mountains in Dec 1976/January 1977 described the production of cannabis resin. In unheated huts, each worker had his hands and arms inside a regular (50Kg or one hundredweight) plastic fertiliser bag. Inside the bag was a plastic washing-up bowl. Stretched over the bowl was a sheet of "zero-zero" grade muslin. The worker rubbed the leaves of the cannabis plant over the muslin, resulting in a fine powder ending up in the bowl.

100g of the green powder was then wrapped in more "0-0" muslin, put onto a heated metal plate, and rolled down with a bottle. This process leaves a slightly sticky solid brown mass in the form of a square slab, around half the size of a paper-back book and about 1/4" thick. It is finally wrapped in cellophane. Only genuine top-quality "zero-zero" grade cannabis resin carries the imprint of the muslin on the surface of the block.

Visitors were advised to pay extra to have their selected product delivered to a major town, as the Rif area is ringed with road-blocks and passage through them is complicated enough without untaxed produce in your luggage.

Tomrawlinson 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You may try at Hashish itself. Maybe Kief as well. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profanity in article- Jan 31, 2007

The article on Morocco contains profanity which I could not edit out - the offending text does not appear on the edit page.

Fixed. Thanks. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco/Algeria border

Is this not in dispute? If it is disputed, should not the map indicate this as a dashed line or something like that? --ScottMainwaring 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly. A few minor points and an area in the south that is not well defined. Nothing of real dispute. (collounsbury 17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

Is it still closed? 65.93.115.161 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System of government

In the system of goverment field of the infobox, it should probably be indicated who does what in the system. The republics seem to fall into Parliamentary Democracies (president is figurehead), Semi-presidential ones, (The president and the prime minister share power somehow), and Presidential ones (There is no prime minister). It seems to me that Morocco is something like a Semi Presidential Kingdom..... or a semi kingial kingdom.... You guys figure out the term for it. But it should be mentioned in order that school children reading the info boxes can always expect to find the same info in them. --just a guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.232.14 (talk • contribs)

It says it is a Constitutional monarchy where the king is the Head of state. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Dubious}} tag

I've just added the tag as it is really dubious. Why Morocco is not part of the African Union? What? When? Where? etc... I got some notes to add but i m leaving th etag for now. Please remind me if i'd forget. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AU Morocco is not a member because the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic of Western Sahara is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

There is someone playing around and inserting the sentence "Ownership of television sets in [country name] is 243 sets per 1000 households" in articles at random, including this article. Please check if the information is correct. — AdiJapan ☎ 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish widely spoken in Morocco

I don't think so. Please let the spanish language page know if you agree. Talk: Spanish Language Arabic, Berber and French are much more imiportant so Morocco should not be coloured in as a Spanish speaking country.

Spanish is very present in the north for historical and geographical reasons, where it is understood by as much as 3 million people. In the rest of the country, there are schools that teach it as a second foreign language (after French). Students choose either English or Spanish. But English is usually chosen. So when we talk about Spanish language in Morocco, we usually mean the north of the country. --A Jalil 12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official languages

Official languages -de jure: Arabic -de facto: French! wrong!!! French is not de facto language! the most used language in Morocco is Arabic, it's the language of Parlement and most ministries,French's widely used in technology and science and learned from an early age but that doesn't makes it the most used language, only 20% or less of Moroccans can understand French! Arabic is the primary language used in Moroccan education! So that means Arabic is the de jure and de facto language and French is an unofficial second language!

Please sign your comments. Yes, Arabic is the official language. But that's not he entire truth because the spoken variety Darija is very different from official standard Arabic. In fact, most Moroccans neither speak nor understand "Arabic" and Arabic is a second language as French. Why should French be listed as a de-facto language? Of the simple fact that French is massively used everywhere in the country in all domains. Have you ever been to Morocco? If so, you know that you can find more books in French than in Arabic if you enter a bookstore, that French language newspapers are at least as common as Arabic ones, that the domestic television broadcast half of its time in French, that the French language is present everywhere in advertisment, and that a big part of the country's elite is educated in French schools. Aaker 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither speak nor understand formal Arabic is an exageration. The phrasing on de facto is a bit ambiguous, certainly the article shouldn't imply French is the primary language of ordinary conversation. (on the other hand certainly more than 20% of Moroccans understand French...) collounsbury 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Aaker I think you really exagerating the role of French in Morocco. I'm actually someone who stays 1 month in Morocco every year. And I can assure you, more people speak Arabic then French. Television does surely not broadcast half of the time in French. The 12am news broadcast is in French. But I don't think a half-hour is half of the time. And Darija is Arabic for dialect, and is a dialect of Arabic. French plays an important role only in buisness and with the country's elite class. But the elite class, I can assure you, isn't the mayority of the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.246.136.218 (talk) 03:05, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The name section seems to contradict itself. At the top we have:"The word "Morocco" is directly derived from the Amazigh word Mur-Akush meaning Land of God." Yet at the bottom of the section, we have this: "The name "Morocco" in many other languages originates from the name of the former capital, Marrakech." Which is it? Could some expert on the subject please clarify this? Lexington1 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The English (derived from the Spanish or Iberian usage) derives from the Iberian's deformation of Marrakech, which was formerly one of the capitals of Morocco and sometimes used in late Medieval usage to refer to Morocco. Marrakech's ultimate derivation (i.e. where the name of the city came from) would seem to be from the Berber (whether it is Amazight or Tachelhit usage I am not sure, I believe Marrakech is in the Tachelhit speaking area historically) Mur Akouch, although I have not seen a scholarly source on that so am slightly hesitant to accept it straight out given wild claims are often made by and about Berbers. What is clear is that the name derived from the city name PRIMARILY, whereas the city name may be taken perhaps from a regional usage, but was not one for the country as such. collounsbury 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

Mur Akush (probably meaning "land of God") → Marrakech → Morocco. I don't see any contradition. In brief, the latinized name "Morocco" comes from the berber name of "Marrakech" while the Arabic name "Al Maghrib" comes from the Arabic "the Western [kingdom]". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, with all due respect mate, I think there is a bit of a contradiction in the present presentation, as it implies Mur Akush was a name for Morocco as such (which is I would opine, at best an unknowable). Rephrasing for clarity is probably recommendable, to indicate the English is derived from the Iberian (Spanish and Portoguese) corruption of Marrakech, which itself derives from... See what I am saying? collounsbury 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"The full Arabic name of Morocco, Al-Mamlaka al-Maghribiya, translates to "The Western Kingdom". Al Maghrib (meaning "The West") is commonly used. For historical references, historians used to refer to Morocco as Al Maghrib al Aqşá ("The Farthest West"), disambiguating it from the historical region called the Maghreb. The latinized name "Morocco" in many other languages originates from the name of the former capital, Marrakech (Marruecos in Spanish, Marrocos in Portuguese, Maroc in French, and Marokko in German, Norwegian and Dutch, the Persians straightforwardly call it Marakech. The Turks call it "Fas" which comes from the oldest capital, Fès.) The word "Marrakech" is directly derived from the Amazigh word Mur-Akush meaning Land of God."

Any comments? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite good I think. I might note that Maghreb al Aqsa was one classical [historical? medieval?] Arabic term for modern Morocco. Triviality, but clarifies the term comes from classic Arabic usage. BTW is it from Amazight or Tachelhit, Mur Akouch? (collounsbury 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

I really have no idea because the "Mur Akouch" thing got no reliable source in order to verify it. It used to have {citation needed} but some contributors (especially IPs) used to remove the tag and edit war while accusing me of being an "Arab colonizer and propagandist." They just don't care about wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Maghreb al Aqsa (meaning the farest west) was one classical medieval Arabic term. Arab historians used it in parallel w/ Maghreb Al adna (the nearest west which is Tunisia) and Maghreb Al Awsat (middle west which is Algeria). Maybe it is historical as the Romans called them Mauretania, Numidia and Ifriqiya. - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I read history before becoming a financier! Indeed, well, they make natural divisions really, thus the long-lasting divisions and rough historical correspondences between modern states and a whole string of historical regimes. RE the Mur Akouch.... well maybe a slight "apparently derived..." as while as much as I love my Berbers there is a certain tendency in some quarters to fabulate. (collounsbury 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Please verify the section now. References provided as well. Re Mur-Akush, i found something interesting but preferred to discuss it here before deciding what to do: (text translated from French below)

The last, but not the least, is also the strangest, it concerns a solar diety whose divinity controls also hell[s]. I do not have a Berber name to propose if not that of Kush or Akush. The Greeks connected it in Kronos [Cronus]. Akush (A is the article "the"). There too the tradition does not say anything about Kronos but Kush remained in the tradition as the origin of the word Morocco which was initially called Tamurth Akush (Country of Kush) and then in the word kusha (furnace) in the language of the Berber people. In fact, kusha means intense heat.

Ok, fantastic as information but the problem is that "Tamurth Akush" overrides that of "Mur Akush". Ta is a morpheme for feminine. There is another problem is that north-of-africa.com doesn't cite any primary source. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the name thing up, everybody. Lexington1 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagldit n Lmeghrib

Tagldit n Lmeghrib

what does that mean? Mallerd 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Morocco" in Berber. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Mallerd 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I really respect Amazigh language, and I said it's a language not a dialect, and I think it has it's own script, so it should be wrote in its own official script or not wrote at all. Cause that "Tagldit n Lmeghrib" Does not make any sence, thank you!! Koumed 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section about map

This map is much better than the striped one and neutral. Vispec 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the whole page. Once you do that, we can get back to your comment. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuisine

How could moroccan cuisine be influenced by the turkish cuisine when Morocco was never part of the Ottoman Empire??? Please stop writting false information.....Mira Chouiri 24.203.220.188

Through direct relationships (sometimes familial) between Algerian and Moroccan families (i.e. Fes, Tlemcen, Oujda, Oran, etc...) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco is the third most populous Arab country

"Morocco is the fourth most populous Arab country, after Egypt, Sudan and Algeria." There's something wrong in this sentence, Morocco is been always slightly more populous than Algeria, and that makes it the third most populous Arab country, and all statistics prove that. Thank you Koumed 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference to that (fourth). If you can find a better reference backing your point, please use it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my source The CIA Fact book and some random website World's 50 Most Populous Countries, Also, you can take Wikipedia as a source and check the population in the two countries. Thank you --Koumed 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please be bold and update it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It' Done! :) --Koumed 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:OIC-Flag.jpg

Image:OIC-Flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

I am unable to edit the main Morocco article - can someone edit it to include the Kabyle version of it at http://kab.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merruk? The Uvula (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it wrote with a latin letters, wikipedia should not support a language which is not wrote by its official Alphabet. As far as i know there's no official status of Kabyle in latin alphabet, plus it shouldn't even be supported, the one which it should be supported is the unified amazigh which is Taught in schools with its own official alphabet "Tifinagh". --Koumed (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Reassessment

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning mainly sourcing. Several sections need to be expanded in order to become more comprehensive. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Coloane (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Similar to the article below, citations are needed in:

• Culture - no citation

Although other sections have citations (e.g. 1 or up to 2 citations), they are still extremely weak.

It seems to me these sections didn't write down anything (then why not put them to the list of " See also"?):

• Military
• Technology
• Universities
• Sports

These sections needed to be removed or re-write rather than simply putting the tables or list:

• Affliations
• Bilateral and multilateral agreements

References didn't follow MoS. e.g. 8-12 16-22. Coloane (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment here from WP:GA/R for easy reference by anyone who uses this talk page regularly. Please note that "the article below" refers to the Papua New Guinea article. -Malkinann (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• please refer to GAR, this article has been delisted rather than going through the procedure of GAR. Coloane (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A propos des origines des POPULATIONS DU NORD AFRIQUE

1dabord est ce que ces chercheurs ont preleve le dna de tous les 11 millions de tunisiens pour pouvoir donner une telle conclusion? 2comment peut on savoir qu un type est du moyent orient par son dna? 3quelle differnce y a til dans le dna entre un arabe un amazigh un hebreux ou un europeen du sud etant donne que ces populations appartiennent tous a la sous race mediterranide(petite stature cheveux du noir jusuq au blond yeux du noir jusqu au plus clair cranes brachycepahles peau de differnts teins du blanc pilosite pas tres abondante largeur moyenne des epaules)? 4comment savoir si un type est arabe par son dna s'il a par exemple un seul ancetre amazigh qui au cours de dizaines de generations s'est brasse avec des dizaines d'individus arabes? ou bien si dans ces ancetres existent des arabes des amazigh des pheniciens des proto-mediterraneens (les populations paleolithique de l'afrique du nord avant la migration des neolithiques amazigh puis les neolithiques arabes)? c'est a dire disons que un type a 20 milles ancetres(depuis l'apparition du premeir homo sapiens habilis qui avait la capacite de parler cad il y a quelques 80-100 milles ans de nos jours) dans ces ancetres l'ecrasante majorite on ne sait pas quelle langue ils parlaient l'infime reste est partage par exemple entre 100 arabes 23 arabophones 47 amaizgh 6 amazigh arabises 3 grecs turquises n X Yises quel est le critere pour etablir son origine linguistique ethnique nationale ou identitaire(ce sont des contextes differents)? aussi comment savoir "la langue ou l ethnie"de ces ancetres au dela de cette periode(cad depuis l apparition du premier homme homo sapiens sapiens erectus habilis il y a quelques 500 milles annees de la? 5aussi quelle est la difference genetique entre les differentes populations semito-hamitiques (amazigh arabes egyptiens beja etc etc)pour pouvoir determiner qui est qui? 6aussi quelle differnce genetique entre les differentes populations semitiques(arabes hebreux canaanites assyriens pheniciens)pour pouvoir dire qui est qui? 7comment considerer les populations paleolithiques presentes en nord de l afrqiue avant l arrivee des migrations neolithiques des amazigh puis des arabes vu que ces populations se sont amazighises en liassant quelques mots dans les different dialectes amazigh d'apres l'article wikipedia sur les origines genetiques des amazigh

Y chromosomes are passed exclusively through the paternal line. Bosch et al. (2001), found little genetic distinction between Arabic-speaking and Berber-speaking populations in North Africa, which they take to support the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of northwestern Africa, starting with word-borrowing during the 7th century A.D. and through State Arabic Language Officialisation post independence in 1962, as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement. According to this study the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (M78, M35, and M81), 13% Neolithic (J1-M267 and J2-M172), 4% historic European gene flow and 8% recent sub-Saharan African. They identify the "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" component as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in Eastern Africa." The North-west African population's 75% Y chromosome genetic contribution from East Africa contrasted with a 78% contribution to the Iberian population from western Asia, suggests that the northern rim of the Mediterranean with the Strait of Gibraltar acted as a strong, albeit incomplete, barrier. However this study only analysed a small sample of Moroccan Y lineages.

on voit que 75%"sont des M78 M38 et M81"paleolithiques 13%sont des j1-m267 et des j2-m172"neolithiues et les autres europeens et sub sahariens (sans nous donner les haplogroupes de ces derniers ) alors ma question est qui sont les M78 les M35 les M81 les j1-M267 les j2-M172? et aussi si un male est m78 et sa femme est jem267 alors que seront leurs enfants? aussi comment savoir que les m78 sont paleolithiques et les j sont neolithiques et comment etaienet les haplogroupes de leurs ancetres avant d'entrer dans l ere paleolithique et l ere neolithique? 8aussi on sait que les arabes ont vu le jour en ethiopie (d'apres wikipedia)alors comment savoir si il n y a pas des arabes venus d'afrique? et comment determiner les autres populations venues du moyent orient comme les hebreux les pheniciens les kurdes etc etc? 9autre point disons que le type a un ancetre avec M78 alors si cet ancetre se mariera avec un type M35 ou des J quel haplogroupe dominerait ? 10si le type a des ancetres J et parmi ces ancetres certains se sont croise avec des M alors est ce qu on trouvera toutes ces hybridations de J et de M et de x ou y (s'il y a d'autres melanges autres que ces 2)ou bien quoi? 11dans le meme article de wikipedia sur les amazigh

Archaeology The Neolithic Capsian culture appeared in North Africa around 9,500 BC and lasted until possibly 2700 BC. Linguists and population geneticists alike have identified this culture as a probable period for the spread of an Afro-Asiatic language (ancestral to the modern Berber languages) to the area. The origins of the Capsian culture, however, are archeologically unclear. Some have regarded this culture's population as simply a continuation of the earlier Mesolithic Ibero-Maurusian culture, which appeared around ~22,000 BC, while others argue for a population change; the former view seems to be supported by dental evidence

on dit que la culture neolithique caspienne est apparue a 9,500 jusuq a 2,700 ac et on dit que les chercheurs estiment cette culture comme afro-asiatqiue cad elle peut etre semite amazigh egyptienne beja etc etc ou bien tout simplement proto afro-asiatique or dans l article sur l afro-asiatique on estime que cette famille linguistique a vu le jour soit au yemen soit en ethiopie? 12par les analyses genetiques il s avere que 75%des nord africains ont les fameuses haplogroupes M paleolithique et la on nous dit que la culture amazigh est une culture neolithique qui a vu le jour en periode neolithique alors soit les populations originelles paleolithiques ont ete afro-asiatiquophonise linguistiquement soit cette culture caspienne n'est pas afro-asiatique? 13aussi comment savoir si la culture caspienne est une proto culture amazigh en l absence de vestiges d'ecriture ? 14aussi on nous dit que cette culture est la continuation de la culture mesolithique ibero-maurusienne d'ou quelle est la nature ethnique et linguistique de cette culture? 15dans ce passage du meme article

Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib[10]. Another study on Haplogroup J (Semino et al. 2004) agrees with Nebel et al.'s suggestion that J1-M267 may have spread to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 30.1%), which they assume to be a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period.[11]. This theory is disputed by Arredi et al. 2004, who argue like Bosch et al. 2001 that the J1-M267 haplogroup (formerly H71) and North African Y-chromosomal diversity indicate a Neolithic-era "demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."

on nous dit que la majorite des tunsiens et algeriens sont issus de differentes migrations d'afro-asiatiques(amazigh puis berberes)venus du moyent orient or en plus haut ils donnent un taux de 75%d'individus de haplotype paleolithiques? 16aussi on voit qu il y a des amazighophones et des arabophones de race negroide ma question est .est ce qu il est question des memes haplogroupes en question independamment de la race cad quoique on soit caucasoide ou negroides il est tjs question du meme haplogroupe? merci pour l'attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzukik (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Please use English. Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jews in Morocco

The Jews in Morocco had an important role and were in many governments, see here the article of Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) on:

Jews in Morocco (from Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971)

First in Roman times the Jews were on mission in the Berber tribes, then the times were good, and since the Christians came with colonialism the Jews were often blamed for it and had to suffer under the counter movements or the times were mixed.

This link could be taken to the main site.

Michael Palomino 7 Jan. 2007 84.74.58.71 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Rights and Reforms

Near the end of the Human Rights and Reforms section of the article, it says, "The Moroccan parliament is due to vote on these issues in spring 2007." It's now a year later; is there an update on how they voted? Securehope (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco's official languages?

Did the Moroccan government make French official lately? Just to clarify things, Morocco have only one official language which is Arabic, and recognize Amazigh only as a national language, even if french is widly used, it has no official status. someone should mention that clearly to avoid misleading Poeple, and should immediately remove French from the official languages. Koumed (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Put navpage links to avoid oversized browser pages

04-April-2008: Wikipedia has policies defined to avoid creating an access barrier for users: one of the most common issues concerns pages too large to be displayed in some browsers. I have changed article "Morocco" to outlink the bottom 17 navboxes as links to external navpages. Formerly, there had been 18 bottom navboxes hardcoded into the article text, generating 100kb (over 100,000 bytes) of browser code, expanding the Morocco article to 253,279 bytes, or a page size of a quarter megabyte of data. The page size for the 18 navboxes alone was larger than most entire articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, the bottom navboxes now link by the "(show)" option to the external navpages for each navbox, displaying the same nav-links as before, but rolled out to separate pages. The reduced page-size not only fits on smaller browsers, but also displays the Morocco article over twice as fast for all users. Because the article is modified every few days, the double-speed formatting also quickens the edit-preview process as well. When the navboxes were first added into the Morocco article, I doubt many people could have forseen the problem would become a massive stack of 18 bottom navboxes, but at least that problem has been fixed now. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Racial Propaganda

The article mentions: "There is no significant genetic difference between Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan non-Arabs (i.e. Berbers). Thus, it is likely that Arabization was mainly a cultural process without genetic replacement.[24] However, according to the European Journal of Human Genetics, North-Western Africans were genetically closer to Iberians and to other Europeans than to sub-Saharan Africans.[25]"

If life evolved in Africa, you would expected the original people of Morocco to be genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans IF there was NO genetic replacement as you are assuming. There is no measurement of the level of genetic & cultural replacement. But we do know the original inhabitants were greatly influenced by outside ethnic groups. As like any group, there was mixing and demographic changes.

Also, note "Sub-Saharan African" is a label used in Euro-centric view of evolution and history. And more recently this has been proven bias as it is self-contradictory to include "out of Africa" theory yet refer to "Sub-Saharan African". Of course there was genetic replacement.

Leon Spencer, Animis Opibusque Parati 08:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)