Talk:Morocco: Difference between revisions

Template:GA-countries Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board/template

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Morocco Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Help expand the project: edit history watch purge You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mounir Charïbi Assess : Rate the Unassessed Morocco articles and Unknown-importance Morocco-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to articles in Category:Morocco articles missing geocoordinate data Photo : See requested photographs in Morocco Stubs : Morocco stubs Other : Translate from Arabic: Sellam Ameziane, Mrebih Rebbu

Template:Assessed

Chronological Archives
General, The map

Topical Archives
External Links

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]