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.
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)? Robdurbar12:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
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. Arre22:39, 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.
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... --Robdurbar11:38, 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.
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??
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.Cgonzalezdelhoyo11:00, 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 -- Szvest11:05, 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 youCgonzalezdelhoyo00:08, 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." ? 69.249.173.14402:49, 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 -- Szvest11:02, 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, EAsterionu talking to me?19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Szvest17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Wiki me up™
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·M20:06, 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. -- Szvest11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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, EAsterionu 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·M20:08, 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. Szvest10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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·M13:30, 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 -- Szvest13:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Request for Comment
Talk:Morocco#Request_for_CommentRfC 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:
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.
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·M15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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. Arre13:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
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 --Ecemaml17:16, 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. Rhialto15:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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.--LucVerhelst17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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 Pin10:09, 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. -- Szvest12:34, 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·M13:04, 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. -- Szvest13:42, 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·M13:53, 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. -- Szvest15:39, 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·M16:00, 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. -- Szvest17:49, 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·M18:23, 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 Jalil07:04, 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 Pin11:46, 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·M17:03, 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. -- Szvest17:25, 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·M18:00, 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. -- Szvest18:11, 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·M16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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.
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 Jalil12:06, 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·M14:49, 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 Jalil12:06, 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·M13:40, 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 Jalil23:59, 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·M17:36, 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 Jalil07:04, 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·M17:03, 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??.--213.216.199.606:48, 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·M16:12, 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. Robdurbar18:06, 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 --Ecemaml17:27, 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 Jalil23:59, 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·M16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
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, --Asteriontalk17:50, 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·M00:42, 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·M17:21, 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 Jalil07:00, 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·M12:42, 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.
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 Jalil23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
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. Arre14:02, 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. -- Szvest14:52, 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 Jalil06:50, 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·M16:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Third Way map
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, EAsterionu talking to me?17:07, 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? EAsterionu 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. -- Szvest17:55, 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. EAsterionu 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. -- Szvest18:08, 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. EAsterionu 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" okayS71013:56, 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? --Ecemaml16:18, 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 Jalil23:59, 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·M17:46, 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 Jalil07:04, 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·M17:03, 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 Jalil06:50, 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"
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 Jalil06:03, 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:
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.
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 Jalil07:00, 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
understanding: I don't seem to understand why they don't show melilia and ceuta and the canary islands with a different color when they draw the map of spain but they seem to show morocco split in half. the map's use of words like occpied territory shows a bias on the part of the writer of the article. Anotherpoint is that through out history, the country of Algeria was mostly concentrated in the north while Morocco extended to territotirs far beyond Sengal and Mali. I believe that this shows a true bias on the part of Algeria whose borders include territories they never had and a way to legitmize its self by attacking another country territorial integrity.
Closure This matter needs to come to some resolution. I still say that we do what the UN does: a map of Morocco is a map of Morocco. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M17:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Closure The map of Morocco that Morocco uses in its school books and in embassies and in dealing with international organisations and with foreign countries and is endorsed by the Arab League is a map that shows Morocco stretching from Tangiers to Laguera without any differentiating colors nor strips. The map shown in this article shows WS as a territory under Moroccan control, but that control is disputed. It is then neutral to keep the striped map.--A Jalil06:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Priorities Which one is more important in international realtions: Moroccan schools or the United Nations? And why do you put so much stock in the Arab League when you have such apparent distrust of the UN? And what about the African Union? It is not neutral to keep the striped map; neutral parties (such as the UN) don't do this. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Closure I agree that the issue need some closure but I think we need to keep the sprited map to show that it is disputed; and A Jalil please don't use Moroocan examples because they would all have large NPOV. Aussie King Pin02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As an uninterested Wikipedian (to my knowledge, I've made no edits to this article before), I would suggest that the striped map gives a more accurate implication to readers with no prior knowledge of the issue. WS is not part of Morocco, of course, but it is inaccurate to suggest that WS is not (currently) somehow related to Morocco, given that Morocco (currently) administers the territory. The striped map conveys this more clearly than the two-colour map, to my mind. Equally, that the WS is striped in the map makes it immediately apparent that something unusual is going on there, thus a disclaimer next to the map could clarify that the WS is currently occupied and administered by Morocco, but that this is unrecognised by the international community. This seems both more NPOV and factually accurate view than leaving WS coloured the same as Algeria (for example) on the map. Just my €0,02 — OwenBlacker19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I must confess that every word stated above by OwenBlacker reflects my position. Justin says that Morocco administers only parts of the disputed territory which is totally true. So the thing is that those two facts SHOULD be reflected and clearly explained to the reader. How? By inserting "image:Western sahara walls moroccan.gif" into the "Administrative divisions" section of the arcticle and adding a footnote at the infobox refering to the map to be inserted below. I'll be bold and try this out and see how it would help sort this issue out. -- Szvest20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
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·M21:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As another "uninterested party" (I believe I have made the sum total of one minor edit, a spelling correction, to this article in the past) but also as one who is knowledgeable in the politics of the Middle East and North Africa, I will offer my view. First of all I am amazed that Justin (koavf) keeps appealing to the UN as a neutral party. The UN has an agenda and interests of its own and therefore, by definition, is not a neutral party, granted, its agenda may be neither pro-Morocco nor pro-Western Sahara, but it is an agenda nonetheless. The UN can at best be referred to as a "third party", but surely not a "neutral party". Now, for the question of the map. First and foremost, it is important to remember that this is an encyplopedia. We seek to describe events/situations as they are not as we would like them to be or as we think they should be. Should Western Sahara be free of Moroccan control? I think probably yes. But is it?...The answer is most definately "no". The current situation is that Western Sahara is a de facto part of Morocco. The Moroccans claim it and administer it (if we can stretch the definition of "administer"). We would like it not to be. The people of Western Sahara would prefer it not to be. But it is. Our map must reflect that. Until Western Sahara is a self-governing, sovereign nation-state, it must be included in the map of Morocco. I would have no differentiation in shade, just an outline of Western Sahara and Morocco, both the same color with a dashed line demarkating the approximate border between the two entities. However, I do believe the striped map is a good compromise.--WilliamThweatt22:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
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 Pin05:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I also support the map of Morocco including the Sahara as it is a fact.
When you are in the Sahara you are defacto in Morocco: The moroccan flag is everywhere. When you send a letter you get a moroccan stamp on it. Moroccan police organises the public order etc. It is just like any other part of Morocco. Very peaceful (more peaceful than in neighbouring regions and countries including algeria) and you can see even masses of tourists enjoying surfing and caravaning in Dakhla or somewehere else. These are not my opinion but facts that you can verify.
An independance is unliklely to happen as an important part of the sahrawi people at least are defintively pro-moroccan and Morocco is determined to save its "territorial intergity" by preparing an autonomy plan which looks like a highly sedusing compromise.
The idea of Wiliam of a version with the same coulour but with dashed borders could also be discussed.
I had already provided examples of such maps in international media and websites.
ok boys and girls look at it this way: It is clear who controls the territory of the western sahara, and that is Morrocco. The western sahara is also part of Morrocco according to the government of Morrocco. They might know, they live there. Furthermore even if the occupation or administration is not recognized by some countries that hardly matters. Furthermore until definitve action is taken one way or the other the government of morrocco has clear control of the area and what else would it be considered? Part of
Algeria or something, I believe the western sahara dispute was solved a while ago, it will be part of morocco for sometime to come. Unsigned comment by User 64.230.106.144
I support the map of Morocco according to the internationally recognized borders of the country.
Morocco occupies only PART of Western Sahara, not all of the territory. This is not reflected in the stripped map. There are thousands of square kilometers, the liberated territories, where no Morocco's citizens or Moroccan police are seen at all, only Saharawi people and Polisario Army, and UN observers.
Thousands of people from several countries travel every year to Western Sahara without seeing a Maroccan police at all. Their passports are stamped with the SADR inmigration stamp (for example if you travel from Algeria or Mauritania to Tifariti or Bir Lelou or Zug or Agwanit, or Miyek, or...)
Most (if not all) of the saharawis (at both sides of the wall) don't see Western Sahara as part of Morocco. Only settlers from Morocco living in the occupied part of Western Sahara say that (same as Israeli settlers see Palestine as Israel territory)
All other maps on Wikipedia of countries reclaiming a territory, but not recognized by the international community, show the recognized borders (i.e.: Venezuela, Israel, Iraq, etc...). When Iraq occupied Kuwait, it was not included in any "shaded or stripped" map of Iraq. Why should Morocco be different ? Should we put Iraq and Afghanistan now in the USA "stripped" map ?
Morocco has territorial claims over Spanish exclaves Ceuta and Melilla, over part of Algeria and even over the Canary Islands. Should we include them in the "shaded or stripped" map of Morocco ?
Nor the United Nations nor the African Union, nor the European Union or any other significant international organization draw their maps with Western Sahara included in Morocco's territory.
None country in the world has recognized Western Sahara as Moroccan territory. The wish of Moroccan government or king is not enough to impose the rest of the world their point of view.
To say, as somebody said, that the U.N. are not neutral is, at least, hilarious... Remember that ALMOST ALL of the countries in the world are part of the U.N. Probably U.N. should be more democratic, but that is another matter... If U.N. are not neutral in this case, who is ?, King Mohamed 6 ?
Wikipedia should say truth to the readers, not wishes. The claims over Western Sahara are clear in the article. The map should reflect the true recognized borders of Morocco, but this map does not reflect the truth (according to international community), but the Morocco's government POV.
Undeponte, please take some time to read the discussion on this page. All your points are answered, and no need to repeat the same again. Just to let you know that the map is stripped and not continuous. It means that while WS is administrated by Morocco, there is a dispute about sovereignty that is shown by the strips. I do agree with you that Wikipedia should show the truth and facts to readers rather that wishes. If it showed the wishes of Moroccans, the map would have been green from Tangier to Laguera without strips. If it showed Polisario wishes, it could have shown the area in a different color and separated from Morocco. But that is not the case with the stripped map. The facts and the truth are that if you take the plan to Layoune from Las Palmas, you will land in a de-facto Moroccan airport with Moroccan customs and everything. So omitting that is simply not factual. The comparision with Iraq is ridiculous, because Iraq does not administrate Kuwait which is an established independent UN member state. Moroccan claim on Ceuta and Melilla is as legal as the Spanish claim to Gibraltar. Saying that Morocco has claims on the Canary Islands is a clear sign of ignorance. I suggest you make some research on interviews by former Polisario leaders, (military commanders, ministers of interior, foreign affairs, justice,...) who returned back to Morocco, and you will be reviewing many of your ideas about the conflict --A Jalil23:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
A Jalil, thank you for your advice, but I have read all the discussion regarding the infobox map before, and I still TOTALLY DISPUTE the Morocco map including Western Sahara,... I am saying my opinion, if you don't mind. As I see in the discussion, there are at least three more people that dispute this.
The map used in this infobox is ONLY used in Morocco, and is not used in any other part of the world, and also not used by United Nations or the African Union. Wikipedia should not reflect the Morocco's opinion, but the generally and internationally accepted map of Morocco.
Not all the area stripped is controlled by Morocco, that only controls about 60 per cent of the Western Sahara territory. Thousands of square kilometers are controlled by SADR and Polisario Army. I have been in Western Sahara twice, one time in Agwanit (entering from Mauritania), and other time in Tifariti (entering from Algeria). In both trips never seen a Moroccan Police, a Moroccan customs, a Moroccan soldier or a Moroccan settler, and of course I don´t have a Moroccan stamp in my passport. My documents where inspected both times by SADR officials, and the soldiers and police I have seen there were SADR also (and some Minurso). Also seen lots of saharawis (with SADR documents).
The Moroccan claims over the Western Sahara are clear in the article, with a map depicting the zones occupied and controlled by Morocco. and not need to put it again in the infobox. A stripped map of Western Sahara may be appropiate for the Western Sahara article infobox, but not for the Morocco article infobox.
The Wikipedia articles for all other countries with claims over other territories ALWAYS show the internationally accepted map (see Venezuela with Guyana, Israel with Palestine or Indonesia with East Timor, for example). Why should Morocco be different of all the other countries in Wikipedia ???
Thank you for the advice about reading the interviews of former Polisario leaders... I have read some of them before. I could also give you an advice for reading some international press on this subject, not only Moroccan propaganda, but I think its better if we don't take it personally...
You have every right to give your opinion and dispute everything on Wikipedia. Most if not all of Wikipedia's articles have seen some kind of dispute. While I believe you have read the discussion that has taken place here before, I doubt you read all of my last edit. Here it is again:
Tha map used in the infobox IS NOT USED in Morocco. It is not allowed to depict Morocco without the "Sahara" in Moroccan maps, nor it is allowed to separate the "Saharan provinces" from the rest of Morocco, either with dashes or strips or a different color. So again, and again, this map IS NOT USED and can't be used in Morocco. It is NOT the Moroccan opinion. The Moroccan opinion looks like this.
In both of your trips you landed in Algeria/Mauritania, and had to go through these countries' customs, and then you were "smuggled" inside WS. Your passport does not bear any stamp other than that of Algeria/Mauritania. The UN explicitly recognizes Morocco as the administrative power of ALL Western Sahara though it does not recognize the Moroccan sovereignty over it. The Polisario front is recognized as a PARTY to the conflict only. The SADR means nothing for the UN (still there is an article for it in Wikipedia, shall we remove it, then?). Given the fact that the ceasefire agreement limits the movement of the Moroccan Army to the west of the berm, you can see everything on the east of the berm, Polisario members, Algerians, illegal immigrants from sub-saharan Africa, ...etc. You can also enter Afghanistan from either Pakistan or Iran, and head to Taliban controlled territory without seeing an afghan governement representative or police ... etc.
What about the SADR article?. Does it not seem to you biased, given the fact that the conflict has not been solved yet. Anticipating the result and creating a SADR article for a supposed state that the UN and the vast majority of the World do not recognize, is it not the opinion of the Polisario?. Taking your reasoning as a basis, everything SADR-related on Wikipedia should be removed. That would be fine with me, then I am with you to remove WS from the map of Morocco.
The difference in the examples you cite is that there is "claiming" and "administrating". Does venezuela control Guyana?, Israel and Palestine Authority recognize each other and negotiate on the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Indonesia does not control East Timor, for it is already independent. How can East Timor then be part of Indonesia?. Morocco is not only claiming, but claims and controls and administrates WS. It is a fact.
There is nothing personal in inviting you to read from different sources than those for which one's heart is closer. The words uttered by founders of Polisario like Hadrami or Ayoub, .. and former foreign minister of SADR, Brahim Hakim, and another 10,000 former Polisarians that returned to Morocco since 1989, their words are not Moroccan propaganda as you wrongly described it, but reality and facts from the very people who know about the conflict and its inners more that you and me and any other who takes the pen to write about the Western sahara conflict. Cheers--A Jalil13:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing the tag
What You removed it within 24 hours of the last comment; I've hardly had a chance to respond. That's a poor show, Svest. If these six against one include three users that have made less than 100 edits that are all to push a pro-Moroccan agenda, that's hardly a strong argument. I never said the UN has no agenda; everyone (including Wikipedia) has an agenda. What I wrote is that they are a neutral party to the conflict, and they take a neutral point of view, as should Wikipedia. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
tsk, tsk...resorting to ad hominem arguments, huh? A person's edit count is not a reflection of their reasoning ability (not to mention you're just plain wrong: I have over 2300 edits). The UN is not a neutral party to the conflict, they are trying to push their agenda as a proposed "resolution" to the issue. It is just a third POV, not a neutral one. The tag should be removed and if you still feel agrieved, you should seek mediation through dispute resolution of an admin. The consensus here is that the current map is the most appropriate and in keeping with the actual situation (as opposed to some ideal situation).--WilliamThweatt04:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Consensus, etc. Pitting it as a six-to-one vote was the ad hominem argument - directed to the man verus the men. I'm not saying that one's edit count is to be taken into account per se, but there is a difference between someone who is an active member of the community versus someone who chimes in just to push an agenda. As you can see from the actual opinions voiced in the archive, it was split three-to-three, including one user who only signed on to Wikipedia to voice a pro-Moroccan opinion and make personal attacks about me (a sock puppet?) The UN is a neutral party in asmuch as their opinion is not the opinion of either involved party. Again, as I stated, of course they have an agenda; as does Wikipedia, as does Fayssal, as do I, and so on. The map as it stands is still not accurate as it still shades portions that are not administered by Morocco and is still not a map of Morocco. See also WP:Vandalism regarding removing tags. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Koavf, you won't be happy if the Western Sahara is shaded and I (and various others) won't be happy if the Western Sahara is not shaded. That's fact. So, in situations like this we need to go by the neurtal numbers, and currently those numbers now point roughly 4 to 0 towards keeping the map shaded. Remember Koavf, you were the one that wanted this closed so don't complain now that the result is very likely not to go your'e way.
P.S If you got the other 3 that original supported your'e point back to the table I'd be happy to keep this disscussion going. Aussie King Pin10:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
To Justin. When people talk about a concensus they mean 8/3 (add to the 6 User:Astrokey44 and User:Robdurbar who endorsed the stripped map before).
What it is this poor show stuff???? Why do you have to lie? Apart that, who says that we SHOULD wait for you 24h? Indeed, you came back after 3 months claiming we never had any concensus (see Talk:Morocco/Archive 2#Map).
I changed the tag after exactly 24h and 16min. Look at my edits:
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! -- Szvest11:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
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·M12:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't know what i consider to be a concensus? Me or almost everybody on this page? You know it and it's been explained a couple of times above! There's a clear and obvious concensus.
Pov-pushers are not an excuse. You are a POV pusher yourselves. They participate as THEY HAVE THE RIGHT! You can exclude Yasser but you should add User:Wikima and User:Daryou!
Me? A good faith editor. How? Maybe because i let you off sight at all Western Sahara related articles?
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. -- Szvest15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
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.--WilliamThweatt15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Fayssal It is neither clear nor obvious that there is consensus, as you can see here. Of course THEY HAVE THE RIGHT. I never said they DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT. All I'm saying is, they make for a flimsy argument in favor of concensus [sic]. Why can I exclude Yasser? Why not A Jalil? How do you decide who gets excluded? I don't even know what this is supposed to mean: "Maybe because i let you off sight at all Western Sahara related articles?" I tried to write something complimentary and you go off on this odd tangent which I don't understand. In the case of the foreign relations of Western Sahara page, the person who was claiming there was a problem was the one that refused to discuss. On the other hand, I'm more than willing to discuss; clearly, that's a germane difference. I don't understand where this sarcasm and bitterness are coming from; I generally thought you were a level-headed editor prior to now, and I don't see what I've done to deserve this kind of treatment from you. If you have some personal vendetta with me, take it up on my talk or e-mail me. You can even call me if you want. And you call me a liar, but then claim that there was a vote. Where? When? Have you seen WP:straw poll? Do you think that the discussion on the archived talk amounts to consensus after reading that?" So every single human here gave us something; except you. What did Yasser give?
William Clearly, there is a dispute. If you want, I'll be happy to go to arbitration to get some closure on the matter. I assumed that we could go through a process of discussion, offering arguments and evidence until we reach a conclusion, but if others insist on not providing arguments and ignoring people's direct and simple questions, I guess discussion will inevitably break down. I'm keeping open the door for intelligent, rational discussion (e.g. not TYPING IN CAPS, and not ignoring people for several days at a time), but if someone removes the tag again, I'll consult arbitration. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Justin, you are going round and round. The day before yesterday, after i suggested that i'll be bold and add the footnote and the detailed map, you said okay though you expressed your concerns about the UN being a primary ref. Now, you come to push for an edit warring.
Yasser is being silent about my additions Justin! Silence is a kindav ummmmmmmmmm ok ok. If he was against he's have argued. Indeed Yasser didn't vote at all!!! We haven't counted his view anyway!
A simple question Justin. What is a wikipedia concensus? Do you want to wait further? Untill when? I saw User:Wikima being around and if you keep insisting that there was no concesus than we will get into more troubles. He'll not make it easier.
Consensus may be a slightly fuzzy term, but it doesn't mean that. In fact WP's standard way of operating is a rather good illustration of what it does mean: a mixture across the community of those who are largely agreed, some who disagree but 'agree to disagree' without disaffection, those who don't agree but give low priority to the given issue, those who disagree strongly but concede that there is a community view and respect it on that level, some vocal and unreconciled folk, some who operate 'outside the law'. You find out whether you have consensus, if not unanimity, when you try to build on it. I see you outside the law as you have made 4 reverts so far Justin. What shall we do? A 24h block? -- Szvest16:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I honestly can't understand your first two points, so I'm not sure how to respond to them. The dearth of exclamation points, it appears that you're still angry and don't care to continue discussion. I'm assuming that you, as an editor, want to bypass mediation. Consensus generally means a 60% supermajority as I understand it. And that supermajority does not reflect the votes of sock puppets/dual user accounts, and as far as I'm aware, the tendency is to err on the side of not deleting something versus deleting it. I've made reverts against vandalism (i.e. the removal of a dispute tag), so I didn't break the three-revert rule, if that's what you're implying. If you're threatening me, that's a cheap, petty tactic, and I sincerely hope you aren't. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not threatening anybody. I just alarmed you as i could have reported the actions to ANI/3RR but i am not familiar w/ such tactics (i.e. hit & run).
My 2 first points talk about this. It sounded like an implicit agreement from your part and that we only need to make some tweaking to my suggestion for the closure of this issue as you were the one asking about it. Interested people on the issue here have been thinking it is the right time to have an end to this. I made sure to include a waiting for approval note at my first edit summary before waiting for 24h to remove technically the tag (see my second edit summary) . Do you see my logic?
The other point concern the alleged use of sockpuppets. I remember i asked you gently to go for a CheckUser option so that things are clear as water we drink. I asked you so that the sockpuppet issue would not be a justification for any eventual or potential justification for a discussion's failure. Here we are now facing this.
What i suggest or have for now (got nothing left) is that you, the claiming party, provide evidences to a possible sockpuppetry and that you present it to the ArbCom. Please note that by putting aside those accusations we are far beyond the infamous 60%. Note also that "some actions are regarded as violation of consensus. For example, insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors, has been adjudged a violation of consensus... Stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is not justified under Wikipedia's consensus practice." source -- Szvest20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I see I suppose I was being unclear. The entire point of that edit was to say that I did not think your solution was factually accurate or NPOV. The word "okay" prefaces it only to say that I understand your rationale. I'm not going to use checkuser for the same reasons that I stated before: Jalil and Yasser have confined their edits to this talk (for the most part) and are essentially irrelevant to the content of the page. Checkuser is a long process and it's pointless for two users that are not particularly threatening if their behavior remains as such. It's ironic that you point out this line "stubborn insistence on an eccentric position" as this "striped map" option is not used on any other map on Wikipedia, including any other territorial dispute as far as I'm aware. In point of fact, I brought up relevant cases that are similar and the opposite position is taken, so it would appear that you're shooting yourself in the foot. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally i prefer to see people editing the main articles instead of just discussing. However, there's no policy whatsoever which obliges them to do both and this implies explicitly that what they do is totally legit.
There's nothing ironic Justin in bringing policies and guideliens to the discussion. It's written in the "Wikipedia book".
No shooting foots. Before shooting myself in the foot, many people brought their opinions and suggestions. What i simply see is that you are thinking your logic is right and the rest is not. That's the point. -- Szvest21:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Me too You may find this hard to believe after so much discussion, but I prefer to edit articles myself, rather than talk about articles. I'm not saying Yasser and Jalil are illegitimate (unless, of course, they are sockpuppets); what I'm saying is, they don't bring to bear a strong argument. You are thinking your logic is right and the rest is not, too. So, how do we find resolution?
Of course we both think we are right as everybody does. The question is how much do we think we are right? Personally, i made suggestions and concessions. I am not comparing again or establishing a balance sheet about your actions and mines but it is worth mentioning that more people think like me. And that's the concensus we are talking about. -- Szvest22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay Well I appreciate suggestions and concessions, but that also does not make you in the right. If someone wanted to do Holocaust revision on the World War II pages, and finally conceded that maybe 100,000 Jews died in the Shoah that would be a concession, but still not correct or NPOV. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M22:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
So why all this fuss about concensus? The NPOV issue is the core of this discussion and if the NPOV was as easy to spot or to define than we wouldn't have gone through all this procedure in order to reach a concensus. This is why more people argued (w/ good faith) in favor of a position than others (w/ good faith as well). The NPOV can always be disputed and forever but never a concensus. It would be like ok, i don't agree w/ your POVs guys, so let's keep this tag forever.
I'll confess to you something. I really do not have any problem in keeping the tag because readers will read and have their judgement! So why the fuss again to remove it? I am supporting the removal of tag because it reflects a concensus to me. You just want to remove the stripes as Wikima wants to make it all green! The position of the majority was expressed Justin and all i see is you and Wikima arguing 'til dawn. I'll support one of your positions when WS becomes independent or annexed to Morocco officially. Now, the situation on the ground is neither this nor that. -- Szvest22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Undeponte I think is your right to give your opinion but I don't think you understand the WS-Moroccan situation. Since when does no country regocnize WS as a part of Morocco. Sudan is an example. So when you're giving your opinion please chek if what you're saying is correct.
Karim H. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.246.136.218 (talk) 02:54, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
I think we can consider this topic as "decided" at this stage.
Justin needs to understand that this is not a place to "fight" for the independance of WS but Wikipedia.
Even with with stripped map the information remains unbalanced. Please see section below. Thanks
Does Westen Sahara, from an objective international neutral point of view belong to the so called "sadr" (shrawi republic)?
No. And the "sadr" is not even recognised by the UN. It's not part of it.
Does the "sadr" control Western Sahara?
No! Western Sahara is controlled by Morocco. "sadr" claims control of a desert empty strip but this "control" is extremly limited.
Does "sadr" rule the parts of WS that it claims to have control of?
No! "sadr" is based in Tindouf in Algeria. A part from the presenece of casual guerrilla points that strip is an area for some nomads, black market etc.
Though, if you look at Wikipedia at the page of the "sadr", at the level of map visualisation, the inforamtion says YES to all theses and other questions.
Please don't tell me there is a footnote - I am talking about the map, images have their own meaning and visualisation is something different from text. In this sense the footnote contredicts the map.
I had already stated the same previousely and suggested to delete the WS map from the "sadr" page as it is does not appear on the one of Morroco. But I had to face intrangisence in the discussion, although, to be honnest, everything is logical and clear.
Reffering to Williams remark above, I would suggest to add the map of WS to Morocco in full colours.
Further to the logic the map would be simple part of Morocco without any separation, as it is fully integrated in the article on "sadr"
However, in order to avoid the confusion that is already in the article on "sadr", I suggest to separate with a dotted line.
I have prepared an image that you would be able to see if I succed to upload.
(Please help with the defintiion of the copyright - Thanks)
We must decide on this in interaction with the article on "sadr" as this information MUST be symetric
This means, if we reject this image then we must delete the map pattern from the "sadr" article
The stripped map here would mean Morocco rules WS, as it does effectively and really.
I would be grateful for a logic and rational discussion.
Is this a joke? How did you come to the conclusions of these questions? I know the United Nations visiting mission to Spanish Sahara reported that the Polisario was the legitimate representative of the will of the Sahrawis and affirmed their right to self-determination. But I guess you know more than the UN? The SADR controls part of Western Sahara; Morocco is occupying the rest. If you want to add an image, add text like so:
You totally ignored me So how do you come to the conclusion that "sadr" does not "own" Western Sahara; specially after the argument I just presented? How do you know it does not control the Free Zone? I can give you video of them giving a demonstration there, third party sources say they do, do you have any proof for this claim? The military presence is limited by the terms of the ceasefire; Morocco's military is limited in the occupied territories, too. An entity cannot control a territory in which it is not present, in which no one lives, and in which it cannot move its military, but none of these three things apply to the Free Zone. What is the distinction between ruling and controlling in your mind? There are some germane differences (e.g. it's less free politically.) I am answering with logic that is polite and co-operative, am I not? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not personal. So I am not here to ingore you or not.
Please read carfully my reaction. I would not like to reapeat myself.
And, sorry again, an entity that is not recongnised by the UN can not be seen as a state that "owns" a tritorry. It just cannot.
Morocco rules, means it governs the territory. As I state above, if you are in WS you pay with moroccan Dirhams, you send letters with moroccan stamps on them, you see moroccan flags everywhere, you meet moroccan police on the streets etc. and all kind of sovereignty sign, unifroms and people. There are people living in WS and the Moroccan State organises their live, their economy, their poltics etc. Just like in any other country in the world.
This is not the case for "sadr" aand the strip that it claims to control (read above)
All others, please tell me what you think of the map, especially against the one used in the artcle on "sadr" and on the background of symetry of information.
Not personal? What does that mean? Why is it entities not recognized by the UN cannot be seen as a state that "owns" a t[e]rritory? What about the Republic of China? The same things you wrote about the Sahara apply to the West Bank and Israel; is the West Bank ruled by Israel? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M21:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
China is member of the security Council.
The situation is Israel is pretty much special and complicated. The map of Israel is not definitively drawn, there is a Palestinian authority that is recongnised by Israel, the latter recognises almost a Palestinian state, it pulled back from the Gaza strip etc.
This said, please lets avoid comparisons that are steril complicated. Each of these cases (Taiwan, Hong-Kong, Cyprus etc.) is individual and complex
I think that I have given enough evidence that "sadr" does not deserve the map in its article.
The other way around, if you think it does (for all the arguments that you're trying to push), then this counts even much more for Morocco.
This means, there is much more reasons why the WS map MUST now be included in the Moroccan one if we don not delete it from the "sadr" article.
Again, you are fighting for a map for an entity that is not present on the territory, that is located in Algeria and not in the Sahara, that has no effective control on the area, which control is extremly limited on a just an empty arid strip, that has no money, no stamps, which flag is rather symbolic etc., and you are refusing it for a State that is present in the region, that controls and rules it as any other of its regions, that governs with money, police, flag and all effective sovereignty tools and symbols, that organises the conomy, the elections, the administration etc.??
So where is the logic behind this and where is the balance please??
I think this is really clear. And the information as is now in Wikipedia is just unbalanced and non neutral.
Wow The statement "China is member of the security Council" shows either an acute ignorance of the history of China and the United Nations or it shows that you don't want to address a germane contradiction to your argument. "Recognizes almost a Palestinian state?" What does that mean? And this is really confusing "lets [sic] avoid comparisons that are steril [sic] complicated." In addition to being unintelligible English, why should we avoid relevant examples? Because they will contradict what you want to be true? A request like that is bad faith in the least and outrageous at the most. Of course I'm not going to avoid comparisons; that's ludicrous. As for this line "I think that I have given enough evidence that "sadr" does not deserve the map in its article." I have no idea what that has to do with this article. Let's try discussing Morocco on talk:Morocco. By the way, the SADR has minted coins and printed stamps and has a population in the Free Zone and their military and a flag which is symbolic (like all other flags on the face of the Earth.) You act as though you've never read this before. I've explained the logic; I actually gave you arguments and you resorted to meaningless lines like "I am not personal," and "an entity that is not recongnised by the UN can not be seen as a state that "owns" a tritorry. It just cannot." No reasoning, no logic, "it just cannot." Why? There is no reason why that is presented. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, in my eyes you're trying to mislead the dsicussion by insisting on comparisons of obviousely complexe cases.
You do that by avoiding to take into consideration and to respond to the facts that I present above.
In the article you link it reads. "The Republic of China (ROC) was one of the founding members of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council from its creation in 1945." Where is it wrong to say "China is member of the Security Council"?
Israel... Puh! Why not discuss all high level complications of this world here? What about Turkey and Cyprus, Hong Kong, Tibet, kashmir, Taiwan, Tchetchenia, South and North Corea, Gibraltar...? Sorry this is nonsense.
Examples are meaningfull when the whole contexte is comparable
Just picking certain aspects for casual comparisons from such complexe cases is simplicistic.
My statements are clear and base on even your own logic: Your arguments for using the map in the "sadr" article count more for using it in the article on Morocco. If you do not undertand what this means ask and I explain it to you. English is not my mative language.
"sadr coins"? Nowhere in this world you can buy anything with that.
And "stamps"? Nowhere in the world you would be able to send a single letter with that fictive things.
I said my statements above and they are clear. As it is now late in Europe I'll wait the reactions of the others.
weakness So you ,koavf, keep on considering me and Yasser as one, and that we are irrelevant and should not be counted, though we live nearly 4000 kms apart. Check for yourself that we are different users or stop saying ridiculous stuff.
You want to exclude me from the vote. I am pushing a Moroccan POV you said. Well, in your own words, you are here in Wikipedia "to particularly represent the interests of truth and the Sahrawis of Western Sahara (SADR)."(i.e. the POV of the RASD). Furthermore,you write on Wikime that "I'm gonna do my darndest to free Western Sahara.". Especially this last sentence made me laugh. If you want to try and "free" WS, you should go join the gerilla, and go live in the "refugee" camps. Here in Wikipedia you are becoming a well-known problematic name. More recently on R.E.M template page, you were blocked 3 times within a week (4 days in sum). So if POV pushing disqualifies a voter, you are the first to be irrelevant.
The UN mission you say found the people of Spanish Sahara in favor of Polisario. Can you tell us which way they found out? Did they conduct a survey? what were the exact results? If no, stop telling non-sense.
As Fayssal said above, so far you had free hands writing as pleases you on Morocco/WS pages. I found you added "western Sahara is under military occupation" in almost every article where Morocco/WS is mentionned.
You maybe enjoy arguing, or, you might be investing for the future, in case WS becomes independent (maybe teaching English in Layoune University instead of the improbable Taiwan). WS will never be separated from Morocco. Make your future plans accordingly.
the map on the RASD page : I already pointed it out. a POV tag should have been already on the RASD page.
I fully support the map proposed by Wikima. It should be considered.
Anyway, Wikima and Fayssal, don't lose your time. koavf has a mission to accomplish here in Wikipedia on behalf of Polisario, and forget about logic and reasoning. All disussions will be lenghty and endless. He seems to have plenty of time. Only by bringing matters to vote will cut things short.--A Jalil06:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikima Saying that I'm "trying to mislead the dsicussion [sic]" is bad faith. I'm bringing up relevant examples and showing how there is already a standard or convention by which we should abide. Of course they are all complex - why should that disqualify a comparison? What facts did you present? You just contradicted everything I said with no evidence to support your assertions. The statements you make about China and the United Nations show that you didn't even read the article. There are two Chinese states - the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. One of them used to be in the UN, and was ejected in favor of the other. The former (ROC) still controls some territory (Taiwan and some outlying islands), the other controls mainland China. And so, in conclusion there is a state not recognized by the UN that administers territory. So my question remains why is it entities not recognized by the UN cannot be seen as a state that "owns" a t[e]rritory? You have still not provided any reason for this assertion. What's so complex about Hong Kong? Just writing off every example because they are "complex" and "high level" is ridiculous and bad faith. I do not understand what "Your arguments for using the map in the "sadr" article count more for using it in the article on Morocco" means. I own some SADR pesetas. I own several SADR stamps - they are not "fictive [sic]."
Jalil Jalil, nowhere did I ever say that you and Yasser were sock puppets of one another. I only brought up the prospect that you were sock puppets because it is odd that you would appear out of nowhere in the middle of this debate. That's all. If you were recruited by someone else to join the discussion, I could just build "consensus" by e-mailing all of my friends, telling them to get accounts on Wikipedia, and voting how I wanted; which is devious and something I would not do. I don't necessarily want to exclude anyone, but I have a problem with including people who are on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting party-line on controversial matters. If you want to mock me, take it somewhere else, Jalil; this page isn't for that. Feel free to post offensive comments on my talk page. I have no idea why you put refugee in quote marks. It's not non-sense; they were a fact-finding mission and interviewed people. How is Taiwan improbable? Again, if you have some beef with me, bring it up on my talk or e-mail me, otherwise, let's keep Talk:Morocco about Morocco. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Guys,
I am suggesting to make the information balanced by using this map for Morocco:
Each time when a change that does not fit your independist opinion is about to happen you scream and divert the discussion into polemics. I think I am not the only one to see that your reactions are problematic. And "ridiculous and bad faith" do not really belong to a language one should use on wikipedia.
We do not need to be experts in all details of all complex cases of the world politics and history to be able to edit.
Otherwise we would reject 90% of the editors and their edits
And we would allow the same for all other pages. The result would be then be that we logically put POV tags on all articles related to Morocco and Western Sahara together until we sort out all kind of comparisons with all kind of complex cases in this complex world. You would agree that this methodology is non accurate, especially that we are all experts in some areas but not in others. I don't think you want to convince us that you know all about every thing.
With other words, comparisons are good for taking orientation and inspiration but one should be highly cautious to take them 1 to 1. Each case has evidently an own history, own criteria, own environment etc.
This being said I don't think that we are far from each other. We only need to see the logic without being prisoners of ideologies.
The reasons why you implement a map in the article on the so called "sadr" are the same reasons why you must do the same for Morocco.
If you assign the WS map to the "sadr" because it claims the territory, because it "controls it" etc., then you must do the same and include this territory in the map of Morocco as well since the latter also claims the territory, controls it etc..
In the case of Morocco there are much more reasons or let say, they are even stronger, and this is what I tried to express above, why? Because:
Morocco controls and rules the majority of the territory.
Morocco controls and rules all urban areas, towns and cities in Western Sahara including all the relevant among them.
The Moroccan State is pretty present in Western Sahara, not only military.
Morocco uses effectively and not just fictively, virtually or symbolically all tools and symbols of sovereignty be it the Moroccan Flag, the Moroccan police, Moroccan postage stamps etc., every thing.
Western Sahara is directly and totally connected to the rest of Morocco, at all kind of levels, just as is every other region in the country.
The Moroccan State organises the social, economical, political life in this part just as it does for any other of its regions and just as does any other state with its sovereign parts and regions.
These are facts, facts! And they are best known to people like you.
On this background, tell me then please: for what reasons should we include the map of Western Sahara in the article on "sadr" but not include it in the article about Morocco?? What is the difference that makes us decide this way?
I would like to understand this, so I'll wait for you answer on this question as it is at the centre of the debate, and I think that we do not need to travel around the world to understand as things are really pretty clear.
Cheers wikima18:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Maps Well, I don't see how your map improves the situation at all, so I'm going to reject it on the exact same grounds I had before (POV, factually inaccurate, etc.) I could say the same indcitment to you: "Each time when a change that does not fit your occupationist opinion is about to happen you scream and divert the discussion into polemics." Understand me when I tell you: this page is about the article Morocco, not your opinion of me. Making these off-hand value judgements about me 1.) gets us nowhere, 2.) changes the topic from the title of the article (i.e. "Morocco") to me, and 3.) serves as a thinly-veiled proxy to complain about me. If you have a problem with me, personally, or the way that I edit, please bring it up on my talk, and/or e-mail me. You're right, we do not need to be experts in all details of all complex cases of the world politics and history to be able to edit. I don't require that, and I'm glad that we aren't barred from contributing. That having been said, you ignored my question about the Republic of China and why you boldly asserted we "simply cannot" view it as a state that "'owns'" territory. Do you care to explain yourself? That having been said, I'm still not going to agree that analogies should be thrown out the door, for precisely the same reasons I mentioned above. No one is going to agree to stop using analogies. If you want to make a map like the one at Republic of China, that would make sense to me; I'll be happy to make one myself. Morocco does not control and rule all urban areas, towns, and cities in Western Sahara including all the relevant among them: Bir Lelhou, Zug, etc. among the ones administered by the SADR; consequently, they are not fictively [sic] there. The statement "Western Sahara is directly and totally connected to the rest of Morocco, at all kind of levels, just as is every other region in the country" is, of course, POV and won't be included in the text of any article, but is furthermore ahistorical and untrue. Needless to say, you can discuss this elsewhere, as this is Talk:Morocco. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M21:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Justin,
I will simply ignore your detailled personal reply. It's now off-topic. And I will not reply for now to the other details.
My question is simple:
=>Why should Western Sahara not be fully included in the Moroccan map although this is the case in the article on the "Sahrawi Republic" ("SADR") - What is the difference?
Please tell me your answer with clear concrete reasons and not polemic prosa.
For visualisation:
Map used in the "sadr" article (does not include Morocco of course):
What? Would you please stop pulling these tricks? Honestly. You made it personal. If you want to ignore what I have to say, that's rude, and that's bad faith, but it's just insulting to write things like this. I brought up relevant points and you ignore them; that is the definition of bad faith editing. As for the SADR article, I already gave you an answer above and you ignored that, too. Either read what I write or don't respond. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Justin,
Please understand that I don't want to continue loosing time in presonal disputes.
The other details (China, Bir Lahlou etc.) I will deal with at an other point.
My question is simple and clear and I helped with visualisation. Shall I assume that you can't give a concrete accurate answer? Thanks wikima22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikima, this new map is a stupid idea given that the sprited map does the same job. The only difference is that people might be mislead into think that the Western Sahara is just another province of Morocco, Regards Aussie King Pin09:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Aussie,
I would begg you to be cautious with the language you use. I feel "stupid" idea is offensive.
The map I am proposing goes absolutely along with what is done with the map visualisation re Western Sahara in Wikipedia, so far.
If you think that it would suggest that WS is just an other province of Morocco, then you must logically also think that it suggests WS belongs to the "Sahrawi Republic" on the "SADR"article.
It is in fact the same map. Only in the case of Morocco it displays the rest of the country.
The map that I am suggesting presents WS but separated with a dotted border/line. This visualises that Western Sahara has a special situation despite Moroccos control in the region.
If we use the very same logic as in the article on "sadr", this dotted line should disapear.
Do you understand? It is important that we understand this symetry.
Fianllay your reaction does not answer the central question I am asking: "Why should Western Sahara not be fully included in the Moroccan map although this is the case in the article on the "Sahrawi Republic" ("SADR") - What is the difference?"
I also think the idea of wikima is not as Aussie so harshly describes, and the point he wants to make understood is very clear. While we are debating for weeks for the map of Morocco, the map of the "SADR" is shown as if there is no dispute over WS. --A Jalil18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Look their is a very big difference between the SADR article and the Moroccoan article. In the SADR article we are showing the area of land the the SADR claims but in the Moroccoan article we are showing the nation of Morocco including the claimed area of Western Sahara. Theirfore their needs to be a clear and distinct difference between the two areas. When I first saw the map you are proposing I initional didn't see the dotted line. So if I was a casual observer of the page I could actually think that the Western Sahara is a full part of Morocco which of course would be misleading.
Thanks for your comment - I understand very well what you are saying as I had a very similar experience with the "sadr" article.
When I first visited it I was chocked as it presents the "sahrawi republic" like any other common sovereign state in the world, with a flag, a president etc. and a... territory!
The "sadr" is presented like GermanyorFrance and a casual visitor doesn't think it is just an auto-proclamed governement that is exiled in Algeria.
When seeing the article about "sadr" a casual vistior will think he or she can book a ticket and fly to Alayoun or Dakhla to visit the "sadr".
He or she would be totally surprised to learn that this entity only exists in exile (or better said on paper and in ideology), that it is not recognised by the UN and the international community and that the territory is ruled by Morocco just as any, really any of its other parts.
If, in the "sadr" article, we want to show the territory that is claimed by this entity, why shouldn't we show in the article on Morocco the territory as claimed by the country, its State, its King, its parliament, its people, its political parties, all kind of its organisations, its media etc.?? Why shouldn’t we show the territory as de facto ruled by the Moroccan state, where the Moroccan State is present and effectively (and not just fictively) uses every single tool and symbol of sovereignty?
In reality you are not far from what I say when you write: "In the SADR article we are showing the area of land the the SADR claims but in the Moroccoan article we are showing the nation of Morocco including the claimed area of Western Sahara."
This is what I mean. The map that I am suggesting for this article shows the area of land that is claimed by Morocco. We do this for "sadr" so why not for Morocco?
Wikima, the hands of koavf have polluted about every article where Morocco is mentionned. I will come back to that later, and our fight for removing Polisario POV has not begun yet.--A Jalil 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)--A Jalil23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You guys are generating your own content, which is not what Wikipedia is for. The locator maps are for defined international boundaries, not blobs showing whose armies are where. No respected mapping agency depicts Morocco and Western Sahara as entity - not National Geographic, not the CIA; no organization I have seen. This is nonsense and I'm going to fix it. If you want to use an image depicting Moroccon control across Western Sahara lower in the article and corresponding to some textual content, be my guest. ¦ Reisio17:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Reisio, you do better understand this once for all: there are 3 different maps:
one showing Western Sahara as part of Morocco without any borders, nor distinguishing colors, thus as one entity not as a disputed territory. It used by Morocco and the Arab League, and in the textbooks in about 20 arab countries. That map is Moroccan POV and is not used here.
one showing Morocco and Western Sahara as separate entities as if there is no dispute. That map is Polisario POV and is not used here.
one map showing Morocco and Wesern Sahara with the latter shaded, meaning while this territory is administered by Morocco, the sovereignty over it is not recognized and that everyone looking at the map will understand this territory is disputed. There is furthemore a comment below the map explaining that. That map is used in the article.
The reason WS is included in the map but shaded, is that it is a de facto administrative region within Morocco. The UN considers Morocco as the administrative power, and there are international flights going from (Layoune) as a Moroccan city to the Canary Islands. There are international treaties with the EU (fishing treaty for ex.) including WS as a Moroccan province. There is trade and people movement between Mauritania and WS as a Moroccan territory, and also there are sea ferries going from Layoune harbor to the Canaries as transactions between Spain and Morocco. Foreign diplomats have been received by the King in WS as a Moroccan region. There are international sporting competitions taking place in WS as a Moroccan province (surfing, ...). To just dismiss all that and show Morocco having nothing to do with WS is exactly the Polisario POV, and that can't be here.--A Jalil23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"one showing Morocco and Western Sahara as separate entities as if there is no dispute. That map is Polisario POV and is not used here."
Ahrmmm? It's Polisario POV to depict Western Sahara as it's been for decades? As the vast majority of political and mapping organizations depict it? Don't be ridiculous.
"The UN considers Morocco as the administrative power"
You've taken words from a UN report out of context.
I dont't see what you meant with "as it's been for decades". If you mean the last three decades, then the right map would be the Moroccan one, because it has been under Moroccan rule for the last 3 decades. If you meant the decades before 1975, then we should show it as part of Spain, as the Spanish Sahara. In any case, it has always been under the rule of some country, and never been a separate entity. So if you want to show it "as it's been for decades" you should be showing it either as Moroccan or as Spanish. So who is the one that is being ridiculous?.
"The UN considers Morocco as the administrative power". Yes, that is the UN Secretary General who said it in a public document for the security Council, representing the UN position. He choses his words carefully, and that's plain english, so I don't again see how these words could be understood out of context, or how they can be interpreted differently. If you have an "in context" explanation, please do enlighten us too.--A Jalil16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
"it has been under Moroccan rule for the last 3 decades"
According to image:Western sahara walls moroccan.gif, it took a while for Morocco to control what it controls now - which is still not the entire territory.
"If you meant the decades before 1975, then we should show it as part of Spain, as the Spanish Sahara."
The territorial borders and separated depiction is the same as it is now (except according to this article's info box). Furthermore as I've already said several times, the vast majority of political and mapping organizations _still_ depict Western Sahara as a completely separate territory.
"Yes, that is the UN Secretary General who said it in a public document for the security Council, representing the UN position."
If Western Sahara is part of Morocco, explain to me why the UN, Morocco and POLISARIO are all participating in a referendum on Western Sahara's future sovereignty.[1]
The image you are refering to is an inaccurate hand-made sketch, and shows the steps of the construction of the defensive berm. It does not mean that the Moroccan control was always just within the walls as they were constructed. Mobile units of the Moroccan Army and especially the Air Force have been reaching every corner of the Sahara till the cease-fire came into effect. The Polisario had no fixed permanent positions in the Sahara.
I've seen many maps showing the map of Morocco including WS separated only with a dashed line without distinguishing colors. That is the way TV5, the french international Channel, when treating North African matters, shows the map of Morocco. The World map I bought from a supermarket (in Europe) does the same. I did not talk about the Arab League, nor the Organisation of the Islamic conference, and their sub-organisations that all show Morocco and WS as one entity without even the dashed line. So there are some showing it this way, and others showing it the other way. Not only that, the southern border between Morocco and Algeria is also usually shown dashed because it is not formally recognized by both countries.
I did not say that the UN sees Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. There is a difference between Administration and Sovereignty, and I think your objection to the map is mostly based on not understanding that difference. For the UN, Morocco has a reason to claim WS (confirmed by former Polisario leaders), and its presence on the territory is not baseless, hence the administration of it is legal, but the sovereignty Morocco claims to have on the territory is not recognized by the UN, hence its efforts to solve the sovereignty issue through a peaceful negotiated solution (referendum, autonomy, ...). --A Jalil15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"The image you are refering to"
I'm not seeing any supporting data for your supposition, so you just wasted your time typing all that out.
"separated only with a dashed line"
Yes, that's a well-used way to mark ambiguous or disputed borders (not borders in the middle of single countries, mind you) - unfortunately it doesn't have much bearing on a discussion for green blobs of color seeping into territorial boundaries. Funny how you guys aren't pushing for a dashed-line border but this striped version.
"the Arab League, nor the Organisation of the Islamic conference"
Two out of how many? Like I said - the vast majority depicts them separated.
"I did not say that the UN sees Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. There is a difference between Administration and Sovereignty"
Ah, then we're in agreement. Glad we got that cleared up.
Which data are you talking about?. The sketch is hand-made, and there are battles allover the Sahara between Morocco and the Polisario even when the berms' construction was in its initial phase. What kind of data you need?.
Yes it is used in some maps to describe the borders of countries having territorial disputes inside their borders also (Azerbaidjan, Georgia, ...). Wikima proposed a map with a dashed line separating Morocco proper from the Sahara but was nearly giving koavf a heart attack.
"Two out of many?". Bear in mind dude that this is an inter-arab-muslim conflict. The Arabs and Muslims understand its roots and what/who is behind all that. No one knows the pecularities of the conflict as they do. That alone should silence those who know only the scumm of the conflict. Their attitude on the conflict therefore outweights any other sources you may think of.
If the UN were recognizing the sovereignty of Morocco over WS, the map would have been green from the strait of Gibraltar to the Mauritanian border without dashes nor strips. If there are strips, that is because the administration is recognized for Morocco but the sovereignty is disputed. --A Jalil 19:15, 11 December 2006
Hey guys, i've got a question. Let's assume that WS isn't part of Morocco. What is it part of then? or is it independant?
(Please help with the defintiion of the copyright - Thanks)
