Talk:Morocco/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Map Again

Following this discussion of the maps included in the country templates on the SADR page, I was wondering what the reaction would be to a footnote to the template map, noting that Morocco's de facto territory extends into the disputed Western Sahara (or something along those lines)? Robdurbar 12:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

A footnote that says something like:
"In addition to its recognized territory, Morocco is also in de facto military control over much of the territory of Western Sahara, which it views as its 'Southern Provinces'. This is disputed by the United Nations, which holds that Western Sahara is a non-decolonized territory belonging to the Sahrawi people, still awaiting a decision on its final status ([citation needed] "citation needed" added by Szvest). For more information, see History of Western Sahara"
would be fine. Changing the map, on the other hand, gives the impression that this is just a border dispute, or something like that -- which is not okay, considering the very clear international (UN etc) position on this, which is that the territory is NOT Moroccan, but rather a completely separate non-decolonized, non-sovereign territory. Arre 22:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


  • The UN has never decided. It has never said that WS is just not Moroccan. The territory is disputed, the conflict about it is lasting since 30 years now an the UN is involved in a long process of finding a solution. This is what must be reflected in the article. Saying that WS is not Moroccan is biased and does not refelct the reality.
  • The sentence related to the border with WS must be corrected to say that Morocco's border to the south is disputed.
  • The note above is irrelevant as we are discussing the matter in the talk on sadr. I do not want to discuss it here but it is pro-polisario fiction, from the reallity. Morocco does not just controll military the region, it governs it, just like a sovereign country.
  • Since the map topic is still going on and since it reflects this article as well I will put neutrality banner on this article. I can not accept that wikipedia assign a map to the so called "sadr" but does evcerything to cut it from Morocco. It is unencyclopedic and non neutral.
Cheers wikima 11:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't see what the problem is with having a striped version here. BTW, I reject the claim that Morocco controls it like a sovereign country; it is highyl regulated by the UN.

But if we stripe the map here, have the map with a note on the SADR, it means that we're not taking a stance on the situation. People can then read the relevant aritcles for the full details. Someone has to relent here... be reasonable one of you... --Robdurbar 11:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:LocationMorocco striped.PNG
Made a striped map to see how it would look --Astrokey44 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it reasonable. I also agree w/ the suggestion of Robdurbar. -- Szvest 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
In my view this map reflects much better the factual situation. wikima 17:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This articles is POV because it has hardly any information on Morocco's history since independence

It can be argued that the last 50 years in Morocco’s history have been the most relevant as it has become an independent country and has had a belligerent foreign policy with its neighbours, Algeria and western Sahara.

How come the only link to the green march is in the Geography section and is not mentioned in the history??? How come there is no link AT ALL in the article to the sand war.

How come that the hundreds of victims of 30 years of repression are written of with a couple of lines: " Hassan II became King of Morocco on March 3, 1961. His rule would be marked by political unrest, and the ruthless government response earned the period the name "the years of lead"."

If you visit the article on Hassan II you get a little bit more of information, but why is this information not included in the main article about Morocco??? Is it only of interest to the personality of Hassan II??

Why is there no mention of the reasons for this political unrest, and the civil and student protest marches that were brutally dissolved by police? Why is there no mention of the extensive use of torture against dissidents? Why isn't there a reference to Tazmarat and other concentration camps to which these where sent?

One aspect of Moroccan torture is that the King is "the giver of light" so many of those imprisoned are submitted to entire years at a time without any light...

Even important aspects of its pre-independence history are ignored. From the ethnological map you can see that Morocco is mainly divided by Arabs in the Plains and Berebers in the mountains. For hundreds of years tribal relations prevailed and when there was disagreement conflict would arise, with a deadlock, as the mountains proved superb defence positions. It was only until the French arrived and set up an effective road system to move troops around, that the country could finally be ruled under one unified leadership.

Why is there no mention about this??

All the questions I pose are discussed at length in Gilles Perrault Notre ami le roi ISBN 2070326950.

Other books are: Stolen Lives: Twenty Years in a Desert Jail (Talk Miramax Books, April 2001)

And Oufkir, un destin marocain (Calmann-Lévy) published by Stephen Smith, formerly African correspondent for the French newspaper Libération and now working for the prestigious daily Le Monde. http://www.nd.edu/~romlang/news/oufkir.html

Conclusion

The rule under Hassan II was oppressive and repressive, he killed thousands for various reasons, and several attempts where made on his life, mainly from his own military. He started wars with Algeria when they where weak, just after their independence. He took over Western Sahara when Spain was weak, creating a conflict that is raging today.

That this dark history of modern Morocco is dispatched in the article with a couple of passing comments is shameful. We may have an excellent encyclopaedic article, but it is useless if it says nothing.

There are thousands of words to be written, but it seems that Hassan II has done a good job and the truth is buried and forgotten to the majority of its people and the international community. What will happen if I add this information to the page??

This is only supposed to be a general overview of the country, more detail on the history is in History of Morocco --Astrokey44 02:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I didnt find History of Morocco initially, but it still does not address most of the issues that I raise. Furthermore it is mainly drawn for US congres archives and I will proceed to make similar criticism there. I also question that an overview of the country, does not centre on it recent / modern history. Specially from the point it gained its independence.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 11:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Gonzalez. We appreciate your concern and find it reasonable. However, if you find it teh way it is than you can help instead of criticizing editors for not being able to include the info. Please work on it. Cheers -- Szvest 11:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Sorry, I didnt mean to critize the editors, rather point what I consider big gaps in the articles. I will try to work on the article though I am a newbie and tend to restrict myself to the talk pages. It is the first time I am invited to contribute and appreciate it. Thank youCgonzalezdelhoyo 00:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources for nationals living abroad

Is there a source for "Its second largest source of income is from nationals living abroad who transfer money to relatives living in Morocco." ? 69.249.173.144 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you go. The article is in French and it reads Les sommes transférées par les travailleurs émigrés vers leur pays d’origine sont énormes. Elles représentent la deuxième source de financement externe des pays en voie de développement, après les investissements directs étrangers...Les sommes transférées par les travailleurs émigrés vers leur pays d’origine sont énormes. Elles représentent la deuxième source de financement externe des pays en voie de développement, après les investissements directs étrangers.. Source: Le Journal Hebdo. Cheers -- Szvest 11:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Tamazight

Imazighen, no one is doubting of the importance of Berber culture in Morocco, but your last edits amount to POV-pushing, to say the less. They are far from neutral and are factually wrong. You are also in breach of the 3RR rules and I find your behaviour very disruptive indeed. Please reconsider your position and discuss any new edits. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

She/he's been already warned. -- Szvest 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Non official and non sourced materials

User:Amazigh Man. It's become known to you by many users and me as well that such material is not official and not sourced. You've already been warned many times and subsequently blocked. Please refrain from doing it again or else you will be blocked for a longer time as this is considered Vandalism. -- Szvest 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Wikicharts

According to WikiCharts — Top 100 — 08/200, this article is the 18th most visited site in Wikipedia w/ ± 28000 hits. -- Szvest 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Map

Inappropriate I have no idea how this happened, but I missed out on how someone inserted this location map for Morocco in this article without consensus from the two people disputing it (Arre and myself.) I've changed it back to the map that has Morocco only with its neighbors in gray, like every other location map of every other territory (except possibly Kashmir between India and Pakistan.) Discuss if you'd like; I'll be watching this page again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want an idea when was that heppened you can just refer to the discussion above. Please do not make changes to stuff that had already been agreed upon. If you have a particular comment discuss it above and wait for the comments of the contributors who worked hard to reach such an agreement. -- Szvest 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
Hi Justin, I believe that the current map transmits well the idea of the dispute. Anyone reading the article would understand clearly. There was a discussion about this a while ago indeed. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 17:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Inconsistent There was not consensus. The two Moroccan editors liked it and the two non-Moroccan editors that had objections did not agree to it; that's hardly consensus. Again, I don't know how or why this happened (I just happened to check this page yesterday and it was off my watchlist for some reason), but this is unacceptable. This article is about the entity of Morocco which begins at the upper Atlas and ends at the Sahara. See also the vote at Western Sahara. The inconsistency is obvious if you check the Israel map; the Palestinian territories aren't striped. No state other than Morocco has recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara, and striping it is not consensus; it is legitimizing their position. Furhtermore, it is inaccurate and deceptive, since Morocco does not administer the entirety of the territory. Needless to say, all of the objections I listed above stand. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Justin. It is not a case between 2 moroccans and other 2 non-moroccans. It is a concensus reached by the implication of almost every editor of this page. If you persist than the right way is to request a new vote so your voice can be heard. Reverting it is not the proper way. Szvest 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
Consensus What I'm saying is, there was never consensus; there was agreement between the people who already agreed and some people who were otherwise unassociated with the discussion. I'll put it up on RfC if you'd like. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Put it on RfC. That's the proper way as well. Meanwhile, and waiting for the comments, i am reverting the map back until the issue is decided. Cheers -- Szvest 13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Request for Comment

Talk:Morocco#Request_for_Comment RfC on map issue There is a dispute about whether or not the location map for Morocco should include references to Western Sahara. There are two options currently being discussed:

See comments below:

The non-striped map
The non-striped map

Arguments in favor of Image:LocationMorocco.png

Endorsement by Justin (koavf)

  • It is consistent with the Israeli example. The Sahara is under military occupation, and no state recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara. Will we go to the Israel article, and amend that map with stripes in the Palestinian territories, too?
  • It is consistent with the Syria example. Just because a state claims another state, or publishes maps of their own with the latter included, that doesn't mean we should. The map at Syria does not include Lebanon as a part of Greater Syria, and it didn't even when the Syrian military was occupying it. Why should this be any different?
  • This is the map used by third party, neutral sources. For instance, the CIA World Factbook, which does not recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, nor the Moroccan claims to the Sahara; or the United Nations, whose maps do not include the Sahara, striped or otherwise as "Morocco."
  • This article is about Morocco, not anything else, so the map should show Morocco, which ends before the Sahara starts. Morocco is a geographic and political entity that is bordered by Algeria, the Atlantic Ocean, and Western Sahara.
  • This article is not about Greater Morocco. Should we also put stripes on Mauritania, the Spanish enclaves, parts of Algeria, part of Senegal, part of Mali, etc. just because they are or have been claimed by Morocco?
  • It deceives the user. Morocco claims, but does not administer the entirety of Western Sahara. This map implies that it does administer the entirety, and as such is misleading.
  • There is simply no need. The article discusses at length the dispute, and there are several articles that explain it, if the user is inclined to read more.-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement by Arre

  • I fully agree with Justin/Koavf. This page is not about Western Sahara, and it is not included in the surface area, population etc of Morocco. To include it on the main article map would therefore be completely contradictory. Also, as Justin exemplifies, it is in breach of virtually all established examples from other cases, on Wikipedia and outside it. This is an article about Morocco, as internationally understood and recognized, and Western Sahara has its own article. Let`s keep it that way.
  • Still, I do think the striped map can be included further down in the article, in a section that deals with the Western Sahara issue, to show what areas Morocco claims in addition to its recognized territory. But not as the main map, since all other main maps show recognized territory only, with no regard for whatever irredentist policies their governments may pursue. Arre 13:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement by Ecemaml

  • I'm sorry to say that I can't see any valid reason to include the territory of the Western Sahara in any way that might involve a endorsement of the sovereignty of Morocco over such a territory. My general understanding is that the map in the country box should reflect the borders of the country as internationally recognized. At this very moment, no country in the world recognizes the sovereignty of Morocco over the Western Sahara, so that why should it be endorsed somehow in the map?
  • If the argument is just the claim, I can't see any other example in this wikipedia. Let's take Venezuela and its claim over the so-called Guayana Esequiva. The map in the country box in the Venezuela article doesn't show the territory covered by such a claim.
  • If the argument is the de facto situation, the map is again wrong (since it should include only the territories to the west of the Moroccan Wall). Anyway, I don't see in the Israel map that it includes the West Bank.
  • All these arguments have nothing to do with how fair the arguments of Morocco or the Frente Polisario are. Simply, from a neutral point of view I can't see why wikipedia should somehow endorse the Moroccan claim to a territory that is not internationally recognized (I'm not saying that a map showing this claim shoulld not be included in the article, but I regard as not according to the wikipedia principles to include it in the country box). Best regards --Ecemaml 17:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I too am in favour of teh non-striped version. It is consistent with other articles which only show internationally recignised borders. Insisting on the striped version for npov's sake is a red herring. npov means giving each pov an airing. It doesnt mean giving every pov, especially minority ones (as Morocco's claim to that area certainly is, it not being recognised outside Morocco), equal time. Rhialto 15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The striped map
The striped map

Arguments in favor of Image:LocationMorocco striped.png

Endorsement by LucVerhelst

  • It shows that there is a dispute about the striped area. On reading the article, I understand that the Moroccan state considers (part of) the Western Sahara to be part of Morocco. That is the official Moroccan POV. The POV of the international community seems to be that the Western Sahara is not part of Morocco. Wikipedia needs to give both POV's, both in the text and in the illustration. Therefor, I prefer the striped map. I would just suggest one alteration : change the color of the stripes from green to another color, not related to Morocco nor to the other parties in the conflict.--LucVerhelst 17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement by Aussie King Pin

  • The Western Sahara is a disputed territory. Unless all 191 other nations in the UN regonisied or were netural to the status of the nation we need to use the striped map to show that it is a disputed territory. Aussie King Pin 10:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Recognition A great many governments don't recognize Israel - should its map be striped green for the British Mandate? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Justin, you avoid the fact that Israel is a member of the UN. You avoid the fact that the Palestinian Authority is a United Nations General Assembly observer. WS should go thru a long process to become one of those. Their leaders are in exile and Morocco governs (occupies if you'd like) most of the parts of the disputed territory. Palestinians got their institutions in place w/ a gov't governing from Ramallah by a formally elected gov't and a formally active Palestinian Authority. We all know the particularities of the Israeli/Palestinian case. There's no relevant or perfect comparaison between the 2 cases.
If we follow your analogy and logic thru all this discussion, we would allow ouselves to declare that Morocco in a whole should not exist geographically as it was invaded by a bunch of crazy Arabs. What map shall we use? A Roman one? A Berber one? The ground and facts are the relevent things. In this case, whatever you name it (occupation, annexation, etc..), WS territory is governed by Morocco and in order to be as neutral as possible we don't suggest to show a map of Morocco covering the whole. Instead, we suggest stipes to indicate w/ a footnote that the territory is disputed and why. It's the status quo and unless there's a clear recognition by the UN of WS as an independent entity as in the case of East Timor (or at least an observer at the UN), deciding here that WS got a map is innacurate, if not clear POV. -- Szvest 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Bait and switch We were talking about one thing and then it shifts to another. Aussie's criterion was "all 191 other nations in the UN regonisied [sic] or were netural [sic] to the status of the nation we need to use the striped map to show that it is a disputed territory." This is patently irrelevant as:
  • There are members of the UN that don't recognize other members (vis-a-vis Israel and several Arab states), and
  • It is not the case that all UN members are either neutral or recognize Morocco as the legitimate administration; in point of fact, several dozen recognize the SADR as the legitimate Sahrawi government.
Furthermore, why should the SADR go through a long process? Montenegro was hardly independent before it joined the UN. The same with East Timor (a more germane example, as it was also occupied and annexed territory.) Why should the Sahara be any different? I don't like the fact that Morocco occupies the majority of the Sahara; and here's the point: my opinions about the occupation don't change the facts of their reality. Their leaders are in exile, true, but that doesn't make them illegitimate. The UN has said that the Polisario are the genuine representatives of the Sahrawi people. The Dalai Lama remains the spiritual head of Tibetan religion and culture in Dharamsala. And what does "disputed territory" even mean to you? In many cases, a disputed territory is land that is subject to the territorial claims of rival states (e.g. Kashmir - India/Pakistan.) Are you saying the SADR is a state? If not, then whom is disputing what with whom exactly? (Bear in mind that the UN has recognized the Polisario as the other party to the conflict and the Polisario leadership are constitutionally identical to the SADR leadership as long as the government is in exile.) Now, if you're going to say that the PNA came into being by a formally elected government, you're kidding yourself and me; Arafat ran opposed by an elderly woman that encouraged people to vote for him! The PNA also exists as devolved government; a political solution granted by Israel as the administering power. The SADR exists despite Morocco's best efforts. The thing that is genuinely similar about the Palestinian and Sahrawi plights (occupation, refugee crises, statelessness) are the very things that are being ignored by Moroccan apologists.
As for the Romans, et al., of course there is an historical statute of limitations. I'm not saying that black people own the whole Earth because they got here first. What I'm saying is that Morocco was not the administering power directly prior to colonization (by their own admission); no one recognizes Moroccan sovereignty; all other African states are made up of inherited borders, except Liberia; and Morocco had a xenophobic, irredentist agenda in claiming the Sahara (and Mauritania, and parts of Algeria, and parts of Mali, and parts of Senegal, etc.) If you want to appeal to the facts, then appeal to the facts - why is the Free Zone shaded in when Morocco doesn't administer it? Are you ignorant of its existence? Do you just not care? Do you want to deceive people into thinking that Morocco administers the entire territory? You'll notice that you and everyone else ignored this line of argumentation when I first presented it. Why? Because it would mean that the SADR is also a state: it has territory, a permanent population, a government, and that is unacceptable to the Moroccan party line. The accusation about "crazy Arabs" is confounding and borderline libelous. Are you accusing me of anti-Arab racism? If so, that's a crass low-blow from someone that I thought was above that kind of petty slander. You'll also notice the ironic appeal to facts on the ground in one sentence and then a relativistic about-face in the next sentence - occupation, annexatoin, whatever you name it. It's not "whatever you name it." It is what it is. It is occupation. Answer me this: Is Morocco an occupier? It's a simple question, and I gave the answer above. When you want to insist on facts, and then conveniently gloss over them in the next breath, it's hard to have a meaningful dialogue, Svest. If you truly want to be neutral, you will not deceive readers into thinking that Morocco governs "WS territory," but a portion thereof, and that the rest is governed by another state - the SADR. You could be consistent with the approach to the article on Western Sahara itself and treat it like a geographic entity, or even a political one; this is about Morocco, not Western Sahara, nor Saskatchewan, nor Kathmandu; so the map should show Morocco, not Western Sahara, nor Saskatchewan, nor Kathmandu, regardless of any claims that Hassan made to them or how many troops he sent into their borders. I would be keenly interested in reading your footnote as to why the territory is disputed, also. And for one last comical irony, notice that you insist on using the terminology of the UN as a disputed territory, but you refuse to admit that it's occupied when the UN says just that itself! It's all bait-and-switch, smoke and mirrors. When one course of reasoning fails you, hop ship to another and see how long that will take you. Last, but certainly not least, if you're going to allege POV on the part of an editor, it is only meaningful to assert what that POV is, and how another POV is superior. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I am amazed by the lack of civility, Justin. It's a surprise and i am sure i didn't mean anything of what you thought (re Are you accusing me of anti-Arab racism?). No, it wasn't my last comical irony. -- Szvest 13:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Bait and switch to the extreme That's possibly the most offensive thing you could have done: completely ignore the points that I raised and not answer the simple direct questions asked of you. Would you care to address them (e.g. the "crazy Arabs" remark), or are you done discussing? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There's a diff between what you want to hear and what i had to say. "A great many governments don't recognize Israel - should its map be striped green for the British Mandate?" was your question and my first paragraph's comment deals w/ what you said. -- Szvest 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Aversion It's like banging my head against a wall - I ask you simple, direct questions and you ignore them. It's rude and it's not constructive. I addressed the arguments you made about Israel. Are you going to address the very simple questions that I've asked you or not? If not, what is the point of having talk pages? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Justin, i think it is not your day today and you're not being patient. Anyway, what i simply said is that Morocco occupies/administers/governs (use any terminology for that) that territory. If i use the word "occupation" i'd be wrong as i believe in Moroccan sovereignity on WS since centuries (the point we disagree w/ eachother about). There was no SADR before. Personally, i am neither an advocate nor an opponent for that. The point is that Morocco is on WS and got an army, police, administrations there. That means that Morocco is the sovereign entity there. It doesn't matter if we like it or not. These are facts. So these facts should be represented by a stripped map w/ a footnote stating that Morocco annexed unilateraly the territory and that X countries do not recognize that while Y countries recognize that. -- Szvest 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Facts And you're just ignoring the germane point about the territory they don't administer, and the fact that Israel is the administering/occupying/governing authority in the West Bank. Where it's convenient to some political end, you're applying a standard and where it isn't, you ignore it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
False Comparisions Koavf, you have locked your thinking on Palestine and other completely different situations and can't address WS proper. You asked if Morocco was an occupier, and the answer is NO. Morocco almost liberated WS in 1958. In the 60s, it was Morocco who put the question of Ifni and Spanish Sahara on the UN agenda and on the list of territories to be decolonized. There was no Polisario, nor RASD, nor anyone contradicting Morocco's claim but Spain, the occupier. You keep comparing to Palestine. WS has never been a different country before Spain occupied it. WS is the birthplace of the most glorious Moroccan Dynasties, the Almoravids. Has any PLO leader moved to Israel and declared Palestine Israeli?, well many of the founders of Polisario are now Moroccan officials, and itinerary ambassadors explaining the rights of Morocco on its southern provinces. Most recently, one of the hardest and hawkish of the Polisario front, El Canario, returned to Morocco and affirmed the right of Morocco on its Sahara.--A Jalil 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply First thing first, Szvest please don't assuce Koavf on being uncivil. Yes he pushes his point very hard but he is allowed, play the ball not the man. Having said that, Koavf has assume various things in my sentence which I did not mean. Firstly, you assume this is a debate about the Western Sahara sovereignty which it is not. It is about whether it would be NPOV not to have the Western Sahara striped on the Morocco map. For the record, I agree with the Western Sahara cause but I don't think every single nation in the UN agrees with me so in regonising that this is a disputed terriotry I think the map should be striped. Now I need to explain my definition of a disputed territory. A disputed territory is simply an area which is claimed by 2 or more countries. Yes, the West Bank is oe by this doesn't make it completely relavant to this case. So in summary, I do not think that the Western Sahara is part of Morocco, but we do need to show that it is disputed. Aussie King Pin 11:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Jalil and Aussie Of course Morocco is an occupier - I gave you the definition, and they are a classic example. Morocco's claim was for self-determination in the 50's, hoping that the Sahrawis would choose to be with Morocco. No one disputes that claim, except Morocco themselves, who invaded and annexed the territory with Mauritania. Regardless of defectors, that doesn't change the validity of the Sahrawi's rights. Is Morocco discredited because of Ali Lmrabet? This is all irrelevant. Aussie, your point about the scope of this discussion is well-taken. But the larger issue, I suppose, becomes under what conditions do we put striped maps on these country articles? And why this standard instead of another? And are there exceptions to the rule? What I'm saying is this: this article is entitled "Morocco" and is about Morocco, so the map should show Morocco. This is what everyone understands to be the geopolitical entity of Morocco: it starts up in the Atlas, and ends at the Tarfaya. What Morocco thinks Morocco is or should, could, or would be is irrelevant. The article on Finland does not and should not show Greater Finland, the article on Israel does not and should not show Greater Israel, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Justin, the whole point about occupation is irrelevant. Finland and Israel's maps are what they are because they do not govern those territories. The fact here is that Morocco do govern this disputed territory. Is Morocco right? Is Morocco wrong? It is out of the scope. I'd say Morocco and Israel are occupiers but these are different cases. Morocco does have Moroccan institutions in the territory. Israel does not. That's what is relevant. -- Szvest 17:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Governing powers Israel does govern the West Bank, and they do have institutions there (e.g. settlers.) Furthermore, Israel claims its capital in annexed territory (Jerusalem, vis-a-vis Eastern Jerusalem.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel does not administer Palestinians areas. No palestinian living in the West Bank is affiliated to Israel. It does not govern anything apart its settlements Justin. Israeli Arabs live w/in Israel. Moroccan Saharawis live in WS. -- Szvest 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Israel/West Bank Israel absolutely does administer the West Bank; in parts alone, in parts with the PNA, and in parts the PNA are alone. I don't know if "affiated to Israel" is supposed to mean citizenship, but that is also untrue; there are West Bank Palestinians (Israeli Arabs) living in and around East Jersualem. The rest of the Palestinians are stateless. Similarly, Sahrawis in the Free Zone and Tindouf are stateless. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement by Szvest

  • The claims made against this option are based on POVs. It is claimed in the arguments above that the stiped area belongs to Western Sahara. I must remind you that the striped map reflects the total NPOV policy of wikipedia. Wikipedia does not claim anything and the striped map reflects a situation by representing a disputed territory where Morocco governs most of it. Removing the stripes would only mean removing the right of one side. It is a disputed territory and no single side should force wikipedia to represent its claims. It is also said that Morocco borders the Western Sahara! Who says that? There are other POVs saying that Morocco borders Mauritania!
  • Justin brought an example of Syria. I must say that Morocco governs most of the territory while Syria was not administering Lebanon.
  • The UN and the CIA factbook are not an encyclopaedia. They represent and reflect political agendas. Wikipedia is based on NPOV.
  • There's a large footnote explaining the situation. The reader is not being decieved.
  • The analogy w/ Israel and Palestine is false. Most Saharawis carry Moroccan passports.-- Szvest 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

Endorsement by Jalil

  • Western Sahara is not occupied but a disputed territory meaning the outcome can be independence, or being part of Morocco, or some compromise can be reached between the parts in conflict.
  • The comparision with Palestine or Syria is non-sense, because Palestine is occupied and there is only one solution to the conflict which is to be liberated. That is why a referendum cannot be in Palestine.
  • As to Syria, I dont see what it has to do with this. Syria and Lebanon sit side by side in the Arabe League conferences as two independent states.
  • As to the map, the actual map is quite neutral, because showing Morocco without the Sahara is the position of one side of the conflict, and showing the Sahara as part of Morocco without any kind of distinction that the sovereignty is disputed is to take the side with Morocco.
  • By the way, in the page of the SADR, the map of Western Sahara is shown as if there were no dispute, I suggest that this discussion extends to the map used for the SADR.
  • I think the issue here is not the map but whether WS is occupied or disputed. The answer to this question has an impact on a lot of pages on Wikipedia dealing with Morocco/WS.--A Jalil 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • "Most Saharawis carry Moroccan passports" That's not true; more Sahrawis live in Tindouf than in Western Sahara; and there are many in Mauritania also. Needless to say, I have other arguments to present to counter yours, but this is a simple matter of mathematical accuracy, and I don't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion any more than I already have. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply to comments
  • To say that most sahrawis live in Tindouf is completely wrong: The UN published its lists for the referendum in the 90s, and there were more Sahrawis in Moroccan controlled areas that in Tindouf camps.
  • Tindouf camps are the only places in the world where the UNHCR has never been allowed to conduct a population count. Needless to say that if there were more Sahrawis outside WS, it would have been used by Polisario, but as far as I know, the exact number of the population in the Tindouf camps is a taboo. --A Jalil 12:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Population You directly contradict yourself in the above passage Jalil. There are 267,000 people in Western Sahara and 170,000 or so in Tindouf. Of Saharans, the majority are a settler population from Moroccan occupation; Sahrawis probably make up about 85,000 of the total. Plus, there are still several thousand in Mauritania. So, no, most Sahrawis do not have Moroccan passports; most are stateless persons.
Occupation How is the Sahara not occupied? Clearly it is; it's a classic case of occupation. The Moroccan military moved into, fought a war in, and annexed a territory that wasn't theirs. And they're still there. It couldn't be a better example of occupation. As for Palestine it's not true that "there is only one solution to the conflict which is to be liberated" - for instance, the destruction of the Israeli state, the creation of a binational state, or the expansion of Israel. This reads more like Pan-Arab campaigning than thoughtful contribution. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Population where did you get that 170000 figure?. Did you read that the UNHCR has never been allowed to count the "refugies"?. The MINURSO found that there were around 40000 people aged 18+ years in the tinduf camps. Given the fact that the Polisario complains that they lack medical help and thus have one of the highest child mortality in the world, the figure you gave (which is less than the 260000 declared by Algeria) still means there are 130000 children in the camps. Can't you see that it is you who is contradicting yourself?
  • Occupation or Dispute: I will suppose that you did not understand what I wrote and will write it again: If a country is occupied, there is only one solution to the conflict, and that is the departure of the occupant and the independence of the occupied. The UN cannot propose any other solution. The alternatives you cited in the case Palestine have never been proposed by the UN, and therfore have no weight nor authority. In the case of the WS conflict, the UN is proposing a referendum that might lead to the Sahara being part of Morocco. If WS were seen as occupied, the UN would never allow that. Occupation is not found in any UN document related to WS, because it is considered a disputed territory. --A Jalil 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Population and occupation I have no idea where you're getting this 40,000 figure, but MINURSO's latest reports mention over 90,000 being fed by international donations. I still don't see how I'm contradicting myself. Jalil, you're clearly not a fluent speaker of English, so maybe you're confused about what occupation means: "the seizure and control of an area by military forces, esp. foreign territory." The Sahara is a perfect example of occupation. Not all occupied territories become independent (e.g. Tibet since the People's Republic of China annexed it), and not all are even proposed to be independent (the Dalai Lama wants autonomy within a Chinese state.) What does this mean: "the alternatives you cited in the case Palestine have never been proposed by the UN, and therfore have no weight nor authority."? Why does the UN matter? It was a British mandate, so they were the administering power before the UN even existed. Also, all those propositions were made by parties to the conflict, so I think they have some weight. The UN has called the Sahara occupied on numerous occassions. If you would like to know more about the legal and political history of the Sahara, I'd be happy to direct you to resources. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Population and Dispute: OK, let's suppose you don't know, around 40,000 is the figure MINURSO found as the elligible voters 18+ years, if you add the children to that figure how many "refugies" you will have?. No here is your flagrant contradiction: How come the UN is providing food for only 90,000 people while there are 170,000(koavf figure) or 260,000(Algeria figure)?. The seizure and and control of an area by force does not necessarily mean occupation, my friend. Syria moved its military and seized the Golan heights in the beggining of the Kippur War, and Egypt did the same with the east of the Suez Channel, were they liberating their claimed lands or occupying them?. WS was not a foreign territory, do you know that the Moroccan liberation Army in 1958 liberated more than half WS until France and Spain interveened to allow Spain to re-occupy it? do you know that?. Again the UN matters when you like it and does not matter when you don't.--A Jalil 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Statistics Jalil, neither the UN nor myself said there were 90,000 total. What MINURSO said was that there are at least 90,000, as those were how many were being fed by international aid, there could be an infinite amount more than that, but no less. What does occupation mean, Jalil? I gave you the definition and then you just write that it's not what it means? Are you kidding me? Why do you expect me to just believe you over Merriam-Webster? I am familiar with the Ifni War, yes. Sahrawis fought alongside Moroccans to expel the Spanish, not to integrate with Morocco. WS most certainly is foreign territory, as it was not a part of the Moroccan protectorate during colonization, and it was not controlled by Morocco prior to the Scramble for Africa. The UN does matter, and I don't know where you got this figure of 40,000 - what does it mean? How was it collected? Was it a representative sample? etc. Allow me to rock your world for a moment Jalil THE UN SAYS THERE ARE NO LESS THAN 158,000 PEOPLE IN THE CAMPS. Had you done any research at all, you'd know that. Now, are you done playing around? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Rocking If it is that you call rocking, let me show you the real rocking: You continue to ignore the numbers published by Minurso for the referendum, the last was in 1999. You try to ignore the fact that UN or the UNHCR NEVER conducted a population census, and is not allowed to do so, why??. The document you refered says that the UN has lowered its help. It has lowerd the figure of beneficiaries from 158,000 to 90,000. I ask any one with the lowest IQ to tell us, does it mean, the UN has found that the actual number is just 90,000 (all the population) or does it mean it wants the rest (68,000) starving??.--213.216.199.6 06:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Personal attacks and simple facts I know that the UN never conducted a census; if they did, they would have found a number in excess of 40,000 and 90,000 put together. The controversy over voting rights for the referendum is Byzantine and absurd in the first place - it's not representative of the population, but the population present from the 1974 census that found 74,000 some inhabitants of the territory, some of whom have died and some of whom live in the Moroccan-administered portion. I don't know what this "lowest IQ" comment is supposed to mean - in part because it came out of left field, in part because it's not grammatical - but the UN is not necessarily leaving 68,000 people to starve; the Sahrawis receive aid from a variety of sources. So, still, there are no less than 158,000 people in Tindouf.' -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Further Comments

The striped map was created back in May 2006, in reaction to some complaints from Morrocan users, in particular User:wikima. I created because I think it works well enough, and I'm pretty sure I've seen similar maps used before. To be honest, the comparisons with other situations (Palestine/Syria etc.) are a little tenuous - all these, and the WS situation, are unique. In the end I don't really have an opinion on this issue; most users ought to be sensible enough to read the article, which explains the situation in detail; a map is needed and, as far as I can tell, this is one of those situations where some people will always be unhappy. Robdurbar 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Further comments: what UN says

Taken from the 2006 Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the situation concerning Western Sahara (accessible through here (pg. 10):

"...such wording would imply recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was out of the question as long as no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty."

The issue is that no country in the world recognized the sovereignty of Morocco over the territory of Western Sahara. Therefore, the Morocco's internationally recognized borders to the South are the ones between Morocco and the Western Sahara. Claim or occuppation (regardless of how fair the arguments are) are not a valid argument to include a stripped land in the country box (I think). Best regards --Ecemaml 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Recognition : What do you mean with "No country recognized...". What a country must do to be considered as recognizing the Moroccan sovereignty over WS?. Is it enough that the head of state makes a statement supporting the right of Morocco in its southern provinces? if Yes, then, never say "No country recognized ..". Senegal, Jordan, Gabon, Camerun, Kuwait, Yemen, Saudi arabia, ..., have in numerous occasions made their support to Morocco in the conflict.--A Jalil 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

WS is neither occupied nor disputed, it was under moroccan sovereignty before its occupation by the spanish imperialism, therefore it should have came back under moroccan authority. If you must label the western sahara it should be called a civil war where a terrorist organization (polizario) backed and manipulated by Algeria (who just want a "friendly" port on the atlantic ocean to export its oil)trying to forge a state out of moroccan control. the sahrawis are moroccans and vice versas. History proves it, i'm sure dna tests will too. Moroccan population consists of multiple background; romans, phoenicians, berbers, arabs, jews, subsaharans...if every single one of them declared independence you'll all have more than one stripped area to argue about. And please don't mention the un or other international organizations to back your arguments because the UN is useless, since 1945 they haven't solved a single international conflict or apply any of their resolution only to weak third world countries. And the african union is nothing but a dictators club no good will ever come out of it. yasser sep 18th 7:00pm

That was odd In case anyone is wondering "Yasser" has not edited anything other than this talk page. My guess would be he's a sock puppet for pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda. Note also that "A Jalil" has also edited nothing other than this talk page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You can refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser if you really doubt it. Include my account in the request. -- Szvest 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign
No problem either but I have to point out I consider my edits on wikipedia to be NPOV. In real life you could even argue my position could be seen as pro-RASD, I guess. In any case, if you want this cleared up, just go ahead (you may have the request turned down, as I do not see any disruption going on and checkuser is not for fishing. Cheers, --Asteriontalk 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks As long as Yasser and Jalil stick to ranting on this page (in particular Yasser), they're altogether harmless. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice!!! first of i'm not the US goverment; i don't put my nose where it doesn't belong. that's why i haven't edited or wrote something in any other page second of all i just signed up to this site. third of all i was born in laayoun I and only I know what im talking about. forget the moroccan gov. forget the sadr, ask the sahrawis wut they think of this whole situation. i am pro-moroccan because i am moroccan. yasser

Nice! Anti-American, anti-UN, anti-Sahrawi bigotry won't get you far, especially since you provided no cogent arguments and a string of propaganda unrelated to the actual discussion at hand. That doesn't help anyone. I've asked Sahrawis and, strangely enough, none of them want to live in the desert with a string of landmines and foreign troops in their homeland. And get this: they would prefer to be independent! Ain't that a hoot? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anti-american, unless you mean the goverment if you smart you'll know the difference. it's like asking an arab "do you hate the jews?" he'll say no..."do you hate Israel?" he'll say yes. I'm against every govt that's bias in all their interventions so don't start with this bigotry crap. If the un had any power over anything we wouldn't be in this or any other dillema everytime they come up with a resoltion not favorable to the u know who it gets VETOED. Sahrawis built the current capitol of morocco Rabat and the former one marackesh, Sahrawis reconqered the moorish spain...Sahrawis reentroduce sunni islam to morocco...If anythig morocco should demand independence from the sahara...You are american right? let me ask you a question...If Arnold scwarzeneger started a revolution and said "we demand that calfonia becomes an independent state with our own govt and parliament..." would you agree to have calfornia stripped from amerca's map... yasser

Maybe you're confused You're not addressing the fundamental issue here, Yasser: Wikipedia is not a forum for your political screeds, regurgitated Moroccan propaganda, or political slander. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, don't post anything. It's also mildly racist and hugely bigoted to assume that if you ask an Arab whether or not he hates Israel he'll say yes. (It's also naive and bigoted to assume he won't say that he hates Jews.) If you want to debate the relative merits of the UN, this is not an appropriate forum. I am American. I would not agree to have California stripped from America's map. America also actually administers California and was decolonized from European powers centuries prior. There are a myriad of reasons why the analogy breaks down, and moreover, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
If Yasser is "Maybe you are confused", you koavf are surely confused. You take me (Jalil) for Yasser, and maybe Yasser for Szvest, and so on. You can check for you convenience that we are different users, and I can even add, we are thousands of kms away from eath other. You complain that we have only edited in this page, and at the same time you don't want us editing in other pages, as if Wikipedia is your dady's ranch. You don't stand reading Moroccan positions but are completely at ease without any shame defending Polisario propaganda that was revoked by Ex-Polisario leaders themselves(Hadrami, Barzani, Hakim, ...). Yasser lives in Layoune, and is Sahrawi, and knows what it is about. And you, in the USA, got to the conclusion that Sahrawis want independence because you asked, and some members of Polisario told you so. What a logical deduction?. Instead of sticking to the issues, you start getting personal: "mildly racist", "hugely bigoted", "naive and bigoted". If the USA administers California, Morocco also administers WS. You have every right to take the stand you want on any issue, but calling opponent positions as "screeds", and "slander" is a sign one did not get an education of tolerance and respect. We can discuss these issues for decades, but as Yasser and others have said: WS is and will always be Moroccan, regardless of the means to achieve that. You will change nothing to the situation. But you can comfort yourself with what you edit here in Wikipedia.--A Jalil 07:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
What? What are you talking about? I never said anything about Fayssal possibly being you or Yasser; you're just making up lies. I'm not complaining that you've only edited this page per se but that you are apparently on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda, and refuse to acknowledge cogent arguments (see below.) That's not helpful editing. I never said that I don't want you editing other pages, either. Again, that's some bilious lie. If you have any arguments that I've brought to bear that are untrue, tell me. I've actually given you sources, you've given me nothing in return. Prove to me that some claim I'm making isn't factual; don't just tell me I'm wrong. Where does that get us? If you can't offer evidence and instead only have bombastic invectives (such as the one above), then why are you on Wikipedia? Just to pick fights? I didn't just ask members of Polisario; I asked Sahrawis. Also, the United Nations visiting mission to Spanish Sahara found the same. But they're just "cooked" liars without any credibility that are secretly run by Algeria, right? Just like everyone else on earth? These hate-filled invectives are pointless. Either discuss issues like a grown human being or go somewhere else; I'm sure there's a message board out there waiting for these kinds of antics. Notice the sheer hypocrisy of saying I "did not get an education of tolerance and respect" (whatever that means) and then writing such vile trash about me in the same post. You say "you have every right to take the stand you want on any issue" and then post a-historical and untrue propaganda like "WS is and will always be Moroccan, regardless of the means to achieve that?" I think you're confused, too. Also, could those means include dropping napalm on fleeing women and children? What about occupying other people's land and strewing it with land mines? This is atrocious. And you aren't going to dissuade me from a cause in which I believe by mocking me - that is the true test of whether or not someone got an education of tolerance and respect. Feel free to take your hypocrisy and slander elsewhere. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 12:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please let us save our times. Yasser, Jalil and Justin, please avoid general and personal discussions as it is time consuming and doesn't lead to anything concrete.

According to Wikipedia:Talk pages, Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match.

The purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the article in question. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.

Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles (i.e.Discussion forums). There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.

You may also assume good faith and avoid incivility. Cheers. -- Szvest 12:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign

RfC

Coming from the RfC, the weight of neutral sources that have been provided so far leans in favor of the non-striped version. Rather than arguing to the unfairness of the non-striped version, proponents of the striped version need to demonstrate that this is the way Morocco is usually presented in reliable sources. How do Britannica, textbooks, etc. draw the map? NPOV isn't about being fair or just, it's about neutrally representing the full breadth of views. If most uninterested sources draw the map one way, then we should draw the map that way too. The differing claims of the parties can be discussed in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most Arab countries have in their school books, maps of the arab world showing Morocco extending to Mauritania without any dashed lines or distinguishing colors with WS. --A Jalil 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
So? How is this relevant? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember: its about the map only

Thank you, C. Parham, for pointing that out. This debate has gone political, and both sides needs to see that it isn't leading anywhere, and that our different views of politics should not be related to map presentation on Wikipedia.'
What we should consider is: (a) Wikipedia standards (Koavf names a few similar map disputes). (b) Global standards (Mr. Parham's suggestion to look up Britannica and textbooks). Little else should matter, and certainly not Tindouf population statistics -- it's all about the map here. Let me try to be systematic:
  • In case (a), there is as far as I can see no single case where a CLAIMED but NOT CONTROLLED territory has been included, striped or otherwise, in a main country map on Wikipedia, on the basis of the claim only. See that example of Venezuela, for example, or Lebanon's claim on the Shebaa Farms, Chinese claims to Taiwan, Taiwanese claims to China, or Japan's claims to the Kuriles -- renamed the "Northern Territories" by Japan, no comment on that... (Since this is the situation of the Polisario-held areas of Western Sahara, which are claimed but not controlled by Morocco, whatever the outcome of this debate, they should not be included in the map.) Neither are, for more obvious reasons, areas that are NON-CLAIMED but CONTROLLED (i.e. Iraq won't show up on US maps). And finally, not even CLAIMED and de facto-CONTROLLED, but unrecognized, areas are included in the maps (such as Golan Heights, formally annexed & 100% controlled by Israel, as a province within the country, but w. no international recognition). This last one is the case most closely resembling Western Sahara. The only difference is that while Golan is internationally seen as part of Syria, WS is seen as an entity of still-undetermined status. Still, the world's recognition of Western Sahara as a legally separate territory with recognized borders (albeit without a sovereign ruler) is just as firm as its recognition of Syria as a legally separate territory with recognized borders (with sovereignty, thus an independent country). So the presence or lack of a government doesn't affect the argument that the territorial unit itself, and its non-inclusion in surrounding countries, is legally recognized.
  • In case (b), map collections, textbooks, formal UN and third-party government maps, encyclopedias and other sources overwhelmingly show Western Sahara as a wholly separate territory, though sometimes labeled as "WESTERN SAHARA (Morocco)" or "WESTERN SAHARA (occupied b. Morocco)" or something similar. It is extremely rare that the territory is included within Morocco; sometimes the border is striped, but that is the case in all situations of border dispute. Meaning, the borders between Syria, Israel and the Golan Heights are also striped, as is often the border between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a less well-known dispute - etc - without this amounting to a denial of recognition of either territory's existence. The exceptions to this are of course Moroccan maps, and maybe most but certainly not all Arab maps. As for English-language and global, all-langauges material (which I believe is the source material sought by this Wikipedia) it will, I repeat, overwhelmingly show W. Sahara as a separate territory.
So, when looking to Wikipedia standards and the standards of reputable source material globally, this is a no-brainer. As I mentioned above, I still support including the map (thanks to Robdurbar for creating it) further down in the article, where the issue of Morocco's borders and claims on Western Sahara is properly dealt with. But it should not be squeezed into the main map, in contradition of all established norms, just to push the POV that Morocco has "liberated" Western Sahara, as someone here put it. Arre 14:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Arre. Well said. I agree w/ you that the discussion was getting a bit political. I appreciate your effort trying to limit the scope of the discussion. -- Szvest 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Reading Arre's contribution one would think the map included is the one used by the Moroccan state where WS is an integral part of Morocco without any dashes or distinguishing colors. Again the comparision between WS and Israel/Syria/Golan etc. is put forward to make the reader believe that WS is occupied. Do we need to recall the difference between the disputed and the occupied?. The stripped map shows clearly WS as a territory where the sovereignty is disputed, but it is controlled by Morocco, and Morocco is 50% right, pending the final solution that would either confirm its claim or lead to WS being independent. Showing a map where Morocco has nothing to do with WS, is deciding the outcome of the conflict in favor of one of the parts of the conflict. Again, I draw your attention that the neutral (stripped) map is not the one used by Morocco, and does not represent the Moroccan POV.--A Jalil 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Occupation Yes, the area is occupied, as simple common sense and the UN will tell you (see below for my response for UN documents detailing occupation.) There is no inherent difference between disputing and occupying a territory. In fact, common sense would again demand that occupied territories are a subset of disputed ones, if anything, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I have no idea what "Morocco is 50% right" is supposed to mean. Showing a map where Morocco has nothing to do with WS, is not deciding the outcome of the conflict in favor of one of the parts of the conflict; it is showing what the international community defines as "Morocco," as one would expect in an article on "Morocco." Now, if the article was entitled "Morocco and occupied territories," I would be all for this map. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Way map

Location map of Morocco and W. Sahara
Location map of Morocco and W. Sahara

Rationale

I have been thinking about this for a while and could not make my mind up to vote for any of the two maps above. I have devised a possible alternative. It is a map of both entities, with Morocco (as recognised internationally) in dark green and Western Sahara in a lighter green/gray shade. This is to be coupled with a change to the infobox, to read Location map of Morocco and Western Sahara. This is basically a NPOV description and would tag well with the description of the territorial dispute as explained in the article. I understand that this may be difficult for many to accept by I think that it could indeed be a way out this problem. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and go with a compromise even if no one is happy. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this option the same as the striped map? We already included a footnote in the article. -- Szvest 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. The two differences are: Colours for Morocco (a.r.i) and Western Sahara are not the same, and there is a note immediately beneath the map (people can read this and then the article and make up their own minds). I believe Justin had a problem with the striped map because it looked as an extension of Morocco? E Asterion u talking to me? 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I see this reasonable as well. The thing is that having a note saying that the map is of Morocco and Western Sahara implies that there are 2 entities instead of meaning that is a disputed territory. -- Szvest 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I realise. I don't know what's the best way to do it. On the other hand, the opposite is also true: If there is no note, it could be understood as a single entity. E Asterion u talking to me? 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have this formulation in my mind... Location map of Morocco. In light green, the disputed territory of Western Sahara. -- Szvest 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What about Location map of Morocco and Western Sahara (disputed territory)? (Maybe followed by a more thorough footnote). In any case, what does the rest of editors think? I am easy either way, as long as we can get some sort of consensus. E Asterion u talking to me? 18:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Light green seems fine. "Location map of Morocco. In light green, the disputed territory of Western Sahara" okayS710 13:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Should we go to the Argentina map and include Falklands islands in light green (with a footnote saying "the disputed territory of Falkland Islands)? What about Israel and the Golan Heights? --Ecemaml 16:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that Argentina only claims the falklands (as does Spain over Gibraltar and Morocco over Ceuta and Melilla). But Morocco not only claims but assumes control over WS, and has it included in official maps used by the Arab league (an international body), and has international flights to/from it (Spanish Canary Islands), and has land trade and people movement with neighboring country (Mauritania), and has international agreements involving WS as a Moroccan region (fishing agreement with the EU) and occasionally foreign politicians are received in WS (Lybian officials for ex.). If Layoune football Club (Chabab almasira) wins the Moroccan championship or Cup, it will represent Morocco in the African and Arab competitions. WS is integral part of Moroccan politics, sports, media, culture, etc. In brief, the inclusion of WS in the map of Morocco is completely justified. --A Jalil 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Facts Jalil, as you likely know, Morocco administers part of Western Sahara. Also, Israel administers all of the West Bank, so should it be on their map? Of course not. The EU fishing agreement does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty. Also, Lybia recognizes the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (as does the African Union, an international body.) I know nothing about international soccer tournaments, but I don't see how they're relevant to the discussion, either. Western Sahara is a separate political instution, geographic mass, cultural group (Sahrawis), and is partially administered by the SADR. In short, its inclusion on a map of "Morocco" is completely unjustified. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Facts You keep on comparing WS to Palestine even though it has been proven to you that they are completely different situations. Palestine is occupied, and there are many UN resolutions stating that explicitely, while you are asked to bring a single UN document where WS is termed as occupied. If you can't then stop fooling yourself with those lengthy inappropriate comparisions between completely different situations.--A Jalil 07:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Completely different? They aren't completely different. Here are some similarities: they're occupied, they're Arab, they're stateless, they're represented by government bodies that are members of international organizations, they're experiencing refugee crises. How in good faith could you call them completely different? What are you talking about with the UN? I gave you a link earlier in this page to dozens of UN documents calling the Sahara occupied. Is this some kind of joke? If so, I just don't get it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
UN documents what do you take me for? you put a search for the words 'Western' + 'Sahara' + 'occupation' + 'Morocco' and you show me the search result as your proof of UN documents refering to WS as occupied. May I explain what you got? you got all the documents containing those words. That's it. I clicked on the first hits, and I found no mention of what you alledge. Again, in front of all here, I will rock your world: give me the reference , or the title or the UN resolution number where you read that WS is occupied by Morocco. Are you up to this challenge? Are you?.----A Jalil 06:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay I suppose I took you for someone of good faith that would look at the evidence. If you have neither time nor patience to look for them, here are two documents:
UN General Assembly Resolution 34/37 - November 21, 1979, vote: 85-6, with 41 abstentions reads in part:
"the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation by Morocco and the extension of that occupation to the territory recently evacuated by Mauritania"
Link to that session of the GA
Direct link to the pdf
UN General Assembly Resolution 35/19 - November 11, 1980, vote: 88-8, with 43 absentions reads in part:
"terminate the occupation of the territory of Western Sahara"
Link to that session of the GA
Direct link to the pdf
If you want, I'm sure you can find more. Now do you admit that you were wrong about the UN sources? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
No. I was not wrong. Actually what you showed me is a VOTE for an already "cooked" document. It was not a reflection of the UN opinion. In the seventies, the Arabs voted a resolution where Zionism was equated to Racism. In the 90s, after the fall of the East Camp, another resolution was voted to declare that Zionism is not Racism. Depending on which resolution you prefer to refer to, you can say either of the two versions. The same thing can be said about WS. Now, the UN calls for a mutually accepted political solution to the conflict. It does not say "free the occupied ..", and "we support the struggle of the Polisario...". The so called UN documents you refer to can never pass through the security council. That is why the GA documents have no weight and do not oblige anyone to take them into consideration.--A Jalil 06:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Quotes
"Occupation is not found in any UN document related to WS, because it is considered a disputed territory."
"Palestine is occupied, and there are many UN resolutions stating that explicitely, while you are asked to bring a single UN document where WS is termed as occupied."
That alone should speak volumes. Otherwise, you're somehow claiming that someone (Algeria?) forged documents for years at the United Nations General Assembly, and then tricked a vast majority of member states into voting for them? Is this some kind of arcane joke that I'm just not getting? What is a "so-called UN document?" All of the sudden GA documents have no weight (in whose eyes? Yours? Just some guy on the Internet?) So, Jalil, the real hypocrisy shines through (and I quote) "the UN matters when you like it and does not matter when you don't." By the by, if you'd like to see how the UN handles the sensitive map issue, here it is:
Western Sahara is a "non-self-governing territory" and not included in the map of Morocco in any way; there are no stripes and it does not read "Western Sahara (Morocco)".
As for the UNSC, they only passed one resolution on the Sahara prior to the establishment of MINURSO, which recalls a UNSA resolution, which recalls a UNSA resolution, which recalls a UNSA resolution that calls the Sahara occupied by reaffirming all previous resolutions on the Sahara. Implicitly, they've affirmed it by recalling all of these prior resolutions. Furthermore, they specifically cite the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario as the parties to the conflict.
Are you going to concede defeat here, Jalil, or do you have another Byzantine argument to bring to light? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So you simply ignored my point and the example I gave you. Do I need to recall it?.

  • The UN position is different from the majority position. there is UNGA res. Zionism=Racism, and UNGA res. Zionism!=Racism. Which of them is the UN position?, or is it simply the position of the majority at the time of vote?.
  • The link you provided shows a document that was drafted in Havana by Algeria, Libya, Cuba, and many other revolutionary dictatorships and put them to vote, when in the cold war era, revolutionaries were the majority in the UN. The 10 points were drafted in Havana. New York was only the place of vote.
  • Today, or more precisely, a few days ago, was the Non-Allined movement conference in Cuba. Contrarely to the 70s and 80s Western Sahara was a minor point, and in the final declaration they called for a mutually accepted solution. The latest UNSC resolutions call for a negotiated solution.

===> a Majority of countries can make a vote pass on whatever issue, but the position of the UN is there and is clear. If it calls for a referendum, it is beacause there is a dispute and not an occupation. The UN had never called for a referendum in Palestine, or the Golan or South Lebanon.

  • Because of their nature as simple majority votes at at a certain international, UNGA documents are not binding and have no obligation on anyone. Check it for yourself, I am not the one saying it. When I say a UN document I mean a UNSC document not UNGA manifesto.
  • Western Sahara was listed on the list of territories to be decolonized by Moroccan demand in the 60s, when no one else than Morocco claimed it, and when it was a Spanish colony. That alone should be enough for those with good faith, to understand the Moroccan position in the conflict. Because in 1975 the departure of Spain was followed by the starting of a conflict, removing WS from the list, would have been seen as a UN allignment with Morocco, the status was left unchanged on the 4th commitee for that reason. The term "Western Sahara is a "non-self-governing territory"" did not originate in 1975, but when it was under Spanish occupation.
  • I am glad you say the UN considers the dispute between Morocco and The Polisario front, and not the SADR. For the UN, there in no such thing as SADR.
  • "Recalling previous resolutions" is a general phrase that is in the template of most UN documents. The proof is that the adopted resolution can be quite different on recommendations from the "recalled" one.--A Jalil 07:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If we agree to portay the map of the southern provinces of morocco with strips, then it is crucial that we change the map of WS on the sadr article into a striped one. since it is a disputed region. yasser

Doesn't the Palestinian Authority administer the West Bank? How is this comparable to the situation? John Riemann Soong 19:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This analogy has been discussed above. -- Szvest 00:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) User:FayssalF/Sign