Talk:Morocco/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Morocco. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Pending tasks

Arabic is in fact the only official language of Morocco. The most widely spoken language is a dialect of Arabic (locally called Darija). Berber is mostly spoken in rural areas. French is the dominant business language. Most people in the northern part understand Spanish and some can speak it.

Edits by USER The Mosquito re Culture & Politics

I am reverting the edits by the user theMosquito. His description of Morocco as a fully functioning democracy is simply not factual and the cultural additions are highly POV and factually questionable. (Collounsbury 19:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)).

Further to History & Language

Why is the section on history so short? The article spends one short paragraph talking about the indigenous Berbers, then in the next paragraph skips all the way to 1912. I'm interested (as I'm sure many others are) of all the history in between, particularly the influence and eventual dominance of Arabic culture.Loomis51 22:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A valid point, the article shows signs of having been edited by "Berberist" activists who tend to deny or downplay the entire Arabo-Islamic period (in reaction to Arabist sins of ignoring the Berbers, to be fair). I'm too lazy to edit that (nor do I have references on hand), so perhaps a POV or some kind of warning is of order. (Collounsbury 20:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)).

Morocco is commonly known as an Arabic country, with Arabic as its national language. However, Arabs originate from Arabia, a peninsula in the middle east. I'm genuinely interested in knowing what happened to "Arabize" (if that's a word), Morocco, and for that matter all the countries of North Africa, namely Algeria, Tunisia, Lybia and Egypt. I'm not sure why it would be in the interest of "Berberist activists" to even delete this portion. It can only work in their favour, as acknowledging that they were the original inhabitants of Morocco, and were only later subjugated by Arab invaders. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. It's like North American Aboriginals describing their history by skipping the whole European element. Can someone explain to me why a Berber would want to skip over this period of history?Loomis51 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the process of Arabisation is a long one, ongoing in fact - which is where political activist sensitivities come in. Post-decolonisation saw an increase in state-sponsored Arabisation, rather than slow acculteration, largely I would say a reaction to French colonial attempts to "split" Arabs and Berbers - divide and conquer so to speak. A certain set of ethnic activists, often called the "Berberists" like to gloss over the complexities of a thousand years of history and present (like the Kurds are going) a simple "the Arabs have oppressed us, the true culture is this" narrative. Reality reflects a rather complicated history, and not much in the way of Arab qua Arab oppression of Berbers. Saying the Berbers were subjugated by the Arabs rather ignores many Berber kingdoms collaborating with them, etc. (Collounsbury 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)).

As a French speaker, I checked out the French version of this article and it contained a detailed and comprehensive account of the past couple of thousand years or so. Too bad its not in English, as my English is better.Loomis51 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The English main text on Moroccan history, a seperate article, is also far, far and away better. A summary of that core text would likely be a useful thing to do. (Collounsbury 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)).

I have lightly edited and inserted said text into the article. It could do with further tightening, but is a step above the original. (Collounsbury 02:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)).

The text on Moroccan history here is frankly wrong: "Morocco's indigenous people are called the Berbers. Berbers absolutely never use the term "Berber". Berbers call themselves "Imazighen" a plural form of "Amazigh". "

Firstly, most Berbers I know (and am married to) refer to themselves as Berber or by their dialect group name, e.g. Chleuh. Absolutely never is clearly wrong. The phrase Amazight is largely the scope of political activists. That's neither good nor bad, but stating flat out Berbers absolutely never use the term Berber. Berbers call themselves ..." is outright wrong.

Unless there is an objection I am going to edit this text to correct it.

Also I note that the following: "Marrakech means in Berber "the land of God" with "mur" meaning Land and "Akush" meaning God. The oldest name of current Morocco is "Mauritania" which is slightly, by the Romans, transformed from the Amazigh (Berber) word "Tamurt nnegh" meaning: our land." does not match anything I have read on either Marrakech / Marrakesh or Mauretania etymologies. I would suggest this text be removed.

(Collounsbury 03:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)), updated (Collounsbury 03:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)).

Seems reasonable. Go ahead. Arre 11:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, done. (Collounsbury 05:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)).

geography

I added Spain as a country bordering Morroco. Indeed, Morroco has direct land borders with the Spanish autonomous cities of Ceuta and Melilla.

Neighbouring countries are Mauritania to the southwest Looks like the border is with Western Sahara, not with Morocco. Shouldn't we delete this reference in the geographic boundaries? Looks like a political challenge rather than geography... Wetman 14:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

definitly No ! if this subject is noticed, I am afraid this will lead to an edit war, moroccans are really very very touchy about the Western Sahara subject a war was held here in morocco,africa

Wetman, Western Sahara is disputed territory. We should not ommit this fact from the article Morocco and Morocco's boundaries, because some users are more outspoken than others. Facts and the principles do matter! Gidonb 23:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, once the Western Sahara is declared a sovereign country, you can ommit that. Regards Svest 21:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I think the map should show Western Sahara as at least marked in some way. We can not ignroe the Moroccan viewpoint that Western Sahara is part of Morocco, even if we disagree with it. --24.147.128.141 21:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A scheduled U.N. referendum on the Western Sahara issue has not yet taken place. Up until then, Western Sahara is effectively under Moroccan administration, and this fact should be acknowledged in the map in some way. --213.146.115.42 21:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===>Why on the map? It's discussed at length in the article and in others, also. Plus, Morocco does not administer the entirety of the territory. Justin (koavf) 22:07, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Administring 1/12 or 1/1 is not a basis. Check and tell me the difference between the maps for Israel and State of Palestine in Wikipedia! The basis are what I wrote below instead. Regards Svest 21:10, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

The map ought to mark Western Sahara differently than the rest of Africa (and Morocco), exactly because it is disputed territory. The current map material is offending to Moroccans because it unilaterally endorses Polisario's opinion, and ought to be at least commented accordingly. Unless this happens, the neutrality of this article should be contested. --213.146.115.42 16:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I am moroccan citizen who lived between 1980 and 2002 in Sahraoui provinces, most of the time in Laayoune. 213.146.115.42 is right: Our maps include the Sahara, and the roads and infrastructure were all built by our people. Our national integrity is very important to us. We know and accept that it is disputed though. Thank you for being precise here. No pb. with saying it is disputed territory, just don't be one-sided. Thank you and salaam alaikum. Samir Abdelhamid.

Samir, thank you for sharing your knowledge. We're all trying to make this article as accurate as we can. --213.146.115.42 00:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Folks, I respect everybody's point. I am a Moroccan citizen and of course support my country's claim. However, this is an encyclopedia and as long as the problem of the Western Sahara is not solved, we cannot claim our rights to have a map that includes it in an encyclopedia. I'll be the first one to include it the day it will be confirmed. The point is not the map but it is rather the way we present our issue. A map is just a map! This article is the main ground; if there are any facts to provide, it would be helpful. We know how the issue of the Sahra maghrebia is touching every Moroccan but this is an encyclopedia and an encyclopedia cannot show a map that is disputed just because we represent ourselves as Moroccans. Otherwise, we will lose credibility of Wikipedia. Cheers and respect -- Svest 20:58, May 29, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I support this point of view, the only way to be NPOV here is to present all the points of view regarding this issue, otherwise the edit war will never end. For the map we need to take into account the fact that moroccans consider it a moroccan territory, while the rest of the world generally consider it a diputed territory.--Khalid hassani 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit to this and Mauritania

===>Issue: A user from an anonymous ip (213.146.115.42), has been editing out references to borders with Western Sahara using this justification: "Western Sahara is not an internationally recognized country." Granted. But, if a country, such as Suriname, borders a dependency (French Guiana), that border is mentioned in the description of the geography. Furthermore, deleting references to Western Sahara makes the maps unintelligible. The issue is discussed at length in several articles, and I trust that readers are intelligent enough to digest this information. Justin (koavf) 22:17, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a real argument. French Guiana is under effective administration of France, while Western Sahara is not under effective administration by the RASD. Mentioning Western Sahara as a state is factually incorrect (after all: this is a political, not a geographical or topological map). As soon as the U.N. referendum has taken place, and the result turns out to be a new state, then (and only then) will the formulation be correct. Anyway: as a compromise, let's keep references to Western Sahara, and add a sentence about the disputed character of Morocco's southern (and Mauretania's northern) border. Effectively, both countries ARE sharing a common administrative border. --213.146.115.42 15:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===>On the contrary: It is a "real" argument. I was objecting to the justification used to delete Western Sahara (it isn't a state), and how that justification is arbitrary (which it is). To mention that Morocco borders the SADR is not POV, and is in fact the policy of the United States State Department, which does not recognize the SADR. To say that Western Sahara is a part of Morocco is POV. I never mentioned Western Sahara as a state, and the example that I gave (French Guiana) shows that it is not necessary for a state to border another state: it can border a separate entity entirely. I would still argue that Mauritania is not sharing a common administrative border with Morocco, as the part of Western Sahara administered by the SADR is south of the berm, and conseqeuntly directly north of Mauritania, but I think your compromise is generally fair and useful to readers. Justin (koavf) 18:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Justin. Most Moroccans can live with that too. Thank you for clarifying this. --213.146.115.42 20:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the legend to the CIA-provided map: a writer modified the legend, stating that this map reflects the neutral policy of the CIA w.r.t. the sovereignty of Western Sahara. I beg to disagree on two points: first of all, Morocco doesn't consider this map as neutral. It is a possible POV, but to call it neutral is stretching the limits beyond correctness. Secondly, the CIA doesn't make or have a position on foreign relations. This is not their prerogative. The CIA just reflects the official position of the United States. I strongly think that it is important not to hide from readers the fact, that Morocco uses a map both in schools and official documents that differs from the provided one. We may agree or disagree with them on this particular issue, but it is an important piece of information to understand the local situation, so it should not have been removed. Thanks. --213.146.115.42 20:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===>True. You are, of course, right. The CIA does not establish policy like this - it is the State Department. I'll edit the map description accordingly. Justin (koavf) 21:32, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

The US Dept. of State's background note on Morocco defines the official position of the United States: "While recognizing Morocco's administrative control of Western Sahara, the United States has not endorsed Morocco's claim of sovereignty." --213.146.115.42 01:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I lived in Morocco's Rabat and Salé between 1973 and 1986, and am keeping very close ties to many people who live in that country up until today. That's the reason I'm quite familiar with Morocco and their specific view on the Western Sahara issue. I've witnessed the Green March and seen the moroccan version of the map being used in schools without second thoughts. To moroccans, it is crystal clear that Western Sahara is theirs and they are very confident to win the referendum. That's why it's important to me to be precise here. Thank you again for helping keeping us all as neutral, yet informative as possible. --213.146.115.42 21:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

This articles has over 30 external links! isn't that madness? Two or three should be enough. We are not google after all! Waerth 16:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is more organized and selective than Google.--Patrick 10:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still more than 30 doesn't really serve a purpose does it? Waerth 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some can be removed, after studying which are the least useful.--Patrick 21:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I contest the neutrality of the map/article

Dear people,

When looking at the map in the article we see Morocco without the sahara. This is however not right. You may be pro polisario ou wish the sahara to be independent but this is an encyclopedia that MUST inform in all neutral and objective possible way and not your personal website.

The Sahara issue is not clarified yet and this is the situation that should be shown in the map. Many media use for example a map tha shows Morocco and the sahra separated with a dotted line or a colour with different temperatures. This is what I would suggest as a compromise that is mostly close to the facts.

Contirubtions above witness that the Sahara is under moroccan administration and moroccan people deeply believe in the Sahara as part of their country. etc.

Your map is definitly NOT NEUTRAL. I do contest this herwith and ask for an other solution. Thanks (unsigned comment by Wikima)

===>There are three maps:

The first map, due to design issues, does not actually feature borders, but rather negative space between states and dependencies, so a dashed line would not work. It also reflects the internationally-recognized borders of the country. See similar situations with Israel and Taiwan (that is, the Republic of China). Since the annexation of Western Sahara is not recognized by any country, this map shows Western Sahara as a separate entity.

The second map is modified from the CIA, and represents the United States' position of neutrality on the subject. A discussion about this very issue arose earlier on this talk page, and I modified the caption accordingly after reaching consensus. In this map, the border is a continuous line, but Western Sahara's font is not the same as other entities recognized as states.

The final map is a satellite photo which shows the landscape of Morocco. It does not have borders on it, as it is not a political map, and contains portions of several political entities.

The facts are that Western Sahara is recognized as a state by several states, Morocco's annexation is not recognized by any state, Morocco does not administer the entire territory, the article discusses the dispute and attempts a neutral position on them, and Sahrawis feel very strongly about their independence.

Do you have objections other than the ones raised in the conversation above? Justin (koavf) 15:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

With respect to both comments, I must say that the article is neutral whereas the map is not. Many things you stated Koavf are true but that doesn't mean that if for technical problems we cannot use the dashed verion than we have to use the one featured now.

If you have a look at Israel map, or Taiwan you would notice (maybe in purpose in order to avoid controversy) that the maps are shown so small. However, if we take a look at the map at Geography of Israel you would notice the dashed map!

My opinion, is that if for technical problem we cannot have the dashed version than better show nothing instead a map that nobody has agreed about yet (refering to the UN while waiting for a referendum). Everywere in the world, disputed territories are shown using dashes. Therefore, Wikima is somewhat right in his comment. Cheers Svest 16:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

===>CIA maps featured here (Morocco) and here (Western Sahara) (and reproduced on Wikipedia) do not feature dashed lines, and rely on the context of the article to explain the political situation. In point of fact, the only dashed lines I see on the maps are in reference to Israel, Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (for some reason, the Golan Heights article has been deleted). Since the other disputed territories are all islands (Taiwan, Spratlys, Antarctica, etc.), there is no clear indication of why two standards are used in the two disputes. I have seen and own several maps of Western Sahara, and dashed lines make up the majority of them, with straight lines and different fonts making up something like 40% (pure speculation). The only maps that I have ever seen incorporating them as one territory are Moroccan. While I'm happy to discuss the matter, I don't see how this issue is any different than the one discussed previously, and why the consensus reached then can't apply now; if anyone can enlighten me, please do. Justin (koavf) 19:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am not arguing for including the Western Sahara into the Moroccan map. I simply argue the fact that disputed territories use dashed frontiers. The map featured in the article suggests that it is the definite political map, which isn't. Another thing is that you are giving reference to the CIA maps while you had said earlier that it represents the position (neutral it might be) of the US toward the issue. I also invite you to check the last updated map of Africa by National Geographic Magazine (though it is not completely neutral as it is shows the dashes but still mentions (Western Sahara -Morocco). [1] (pls use the zooming feature). Cheers Svest 21:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

===>National Geographic map This map is incorrect both geographically and politically, as it shows Asian Egypt on the map, and does not address the Western Sahara issue in any depth. Personally, I think National Geographic is not as accurate as, say, Rand-Mcnally. I honestly don't understand the problem with the map as it stands, considering the caption that accompanies it and the treatment given in the article. Justin (koavf) 23:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I just mentionned National Geographic as an example and not as a justification. I've said that it is not neutral. The problem with the featured map Koavf is that it decides something not yet decided (and we don't want WP to decide things for anyone)! Cheers -- Svest 23:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

>> Additionally to Svest's comment:

Again the sahara issue is still a conflict and it is not resolved. It is pending and this is a fact that none can deny. If the international community does not "recognise the annexion" of the sahara by Morocco it has not decided yet whether the sahara is moroccan or not. The map however has already decided. And this is deviously.

Fact also is that the recognition of the "SADR" by several countries does not mean that the sahara is already an independent and sovereign country. This recognitions can not be substituted to decisions of international instances.

Also these recognitions are highly instable and partly rooted in the cold war. Ca. 25% of the countries who recognised the "sadr" have cancelled, frozen or suspended their recognition. Other pro-socialistic countries whose recognition is anchored in the cold war (most prominently cuba) may change their position in case of a regime change. Is this a basis for drawing maps??

Most of the sahara territory as well as all urban centres and important cities are under moroccan control and administration. It’s a conflict case and it is fully normal that Morocco will not control 100% of the territory. Even algeria can not have full control of its desert although it enjoys sovereignty on it.

A balanced view of the topic must keep also in mind that chances for a political solution as wished by the Moroccan government (autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty) are real as well!

For at least these reasons I maintain that the current map is inaccurate.

There are actually three sorts of maps:

1) Morocco map without the sahara (as in the article),

2) Morocco map including the sahara as part of its territory (used in Morocco and some Morocco friendly media etc.)

3) Maps that show Morocco with the sahara but separated in format (dotted line, different colour temperatures etc.) and suggest that the situation is unclear. The latter reflect more the current situation and show that the sahara conflict still persists. Here you can see some examples ans see how widely they are used. This should inspire for a compromise in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38717000/gif/_38717539_morocco_sahara_map150.gif

http://www.uneca.org/aisi/nici/country_profiles/image/morocco.jpg

http://www.universes-in-universe.de/islam/eng/archiv/mar/map.html

http://www.soschildrensvillages.org.uk/sos-children-charity/morroco.htm

http://www.lintelligent.com/images/fiche_pays/maroc/carte.jpg

A presentation in wikipedia must follow these examples.

PS: The satellite photograph is similar to the the political map without the Sahara. So non relevant because disputed as well.

PPS: Your remark on the feelings of the sahrawi people are not based on any facts. There are many unionists among the sahrawis who - for different reasons - are against the independence. And if you look at facts, it is rather true that many of the main and prominent polisario politicians fled to Morocco. Mohammed Abdelaziz himself is nothing but a Moroccan whose family still lives in Morocco. And I wonder who would stay in Tindouf if algeria decides one day to open the camps...

Cheers

Wikima 11:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I still believe the dotted line map reflects the real situation; a territory under dispute. Cheers -- Svest 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

==>Allow me to respond to Wikima

"If the international community does not "recognise the annexion" of the sahara by Morocco it has not decided yet whether the sahara is moroccan or not."

This is untrue. There are several independent states in the international community who have decided that Western Sahara is not Moroccan. The others have simply decided a policy of neutrality or chosen no policy at all. Furthermore, the African Union has also made up its mind, by admitting the SADR as a full member. All you are really saying is that no one has made up their mind that Western Sahara is Moroccan, except of course for Morocco themselves.

"Also these recognitions are highly instable and partly rooted in the cold war. Ca. 25% of the countries who recognised the "sadr" have cancelled, frozen or suspended their recognition. Other pro-socialistic countries whose recognition is anchored in the cold war (most prominently cuba) may change their position in case of a regime change. Is this a basis for drawing maps??"

Of course. Political maps represent political realities. If the next regime in Cuba does not recognize the SADR, then so be it. If no state recognizes the SADR, it will no longer be a de jure state, but may well be a de facto state, such as Somaliland. The maps are necessarily political. Some recognitions are unstable, others aren't. Some have been bought off by Morocco, some can't be. The fact that South Africa and Kenya have both given full recognition to the SADR as the rightful government of the territory in the past year proves that there is a legitimate cause for believing it a state, and recognition is not simply a product of the Non-Aligned Movement or Third World Cold War politics.

"Even algeria can not have full control of its desert although it enjoys sovereignty on it."

Yes, but no other state controls that desert. The SADR is the law in the other portion of the territory, and administers it whereas no one else does.

"A balanced view of the topic must keep also in mind that chances for a political solution as wished by the Moroccan government (autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty) are real as well!"

The Moroccan government staunchly denied this very position for almost a quarter century, and only acceded to it after it was suggested by the United Nations, so this is hardly the Moroccan position. If Morocco could have any outcome it wanted, that would be full integration into the Kingdom of Morocco. Although, I agree that all options presented as viable solutions should be explored: independence, partition, autonomy, integration, and the status quo. Of course, all of these are to the benefit of Morocco other than the first option.

"Your remark on the feelings of the sahrawi people are not based on any facts. There are many unionists among the sahrawis who - for different reasons - are against the independence. And if you look at facts, it is rather true that many of the main and prominent polisario politicians fled to Morocco. Mohammed Abdelaziz himself is nothing but a Moroccan whose family still lives in Morocco. And I wonder who would stay in Tindouf if algeria decides one day to open the camps..."

This part is confounding, and borderline offensive. The most reliable polling data suggests that 80% or so of the Sahrawi population favors independence. There are no studies that indicate anything approaching a majority in favor of Moroccan sovereignty. To say that there are many unionists is true, but is a deceptive statement. Every Polisario member who has defected has been given a lavish lifestyle compared to living in a refugee camp - it may simply be a matter of being tired of living as a refugee in the most hospitable environment in the world other than Antarctica. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Morocco has abducted, imprisoned, and murdered innocent civilians, so it is entirely possible that these unionists are choosing defection to keep their family members from becoming "the disappeared". I have no idea what you mean when you write that "many of the main and prominent Polisario politicians fled to Morocco" - as far as I'm aware, only some generals, and no members of government have ever defected.

Mohammed Abdelaziz is a Moroccan by birth (that is, he was born inside the borders of the current-day state of Morocco), but is a Sahrawi nationally and ethnically. I have no idea why where his family lives is relevant at all. The camps are only closed in as much as the border between Algeria and Morocco is closed, and why is that the case? Because Morocco started a border war with Algeria as the latter was being decolonized. Morocco has always wanted to appropriate the territory of other independent states and former colonies as a part of its nationalist vision of "Greater Morocco", including the whole of Western Sahara, Mauritania, the Canary Islands, and parts of Mali, Senegal, and Algeria. The people are there as refugees because of Moroccan aggression against Sahrawis and are kept there because of Moroccan aggression against Algerians. The refugee situation is entirely the fault of Morocco and Spain and France for financing and instigating the conflict. Justin (koavf) 02:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

>>>> My answer (although I do not want a long polemic around this).

I have provided above some examples of maps that are used by different medias and institutions that I have really selected randomly via google. There much more examples that show that not only the Moroccan or the polisario exists but that people deal with the matter by using their brains. I suggest to think of such a compromise. We need a decision. The current map is disputed, one-sided and does not reflect the current situation in an objective and accurate way.

As re Justin's reaction this is what I can reply, quickely (lack of time):

" This is untrue. There are several independent states in the international community who have decided that Western Sahara is not Moroccan."

Sorry they do not represent the whole world and can decide for themselves but not in the absolute global sense. And I am talking about the international community as represented by the intrantional instances and not about individual countries or geopoltical entities that may recognise one day and cancel recognition an other day just following the politicial opportinities of the moment.

When more than 25% (almost a third) of these countries and not just a few specific cases cancel their recognition then this means that this basis is heavily instable. In this sense I maintain that the international community has not decided otherwise we would have a situation of no dispute, which is, sorry, not the case. The CIA yearbook is not the bible for absolute knosledge and the US neutral position is the position of a country which is the USA and not the position of the entire world. And this MUST be reflected at the level of the map if this is to be an objective neutral encyclopnedia.

" Of course. Political maps represent political realities. […] of the Non-Aligned Movement or Third World Cold War politics."

In my opinion Morocco is too poor to buy off political positions. This can rather be guessed for involved countries with resources from oil and gas. But we are not guessing. Here again more than 25% of cancellation is simply too much, espcially for a territory that has NEVER been a state nor a country. South Africa and Kenya are countries with one “voice” just as any other country. The fact that someone from the ANC like Mbeky is at the power suggests rather that the position of SA is definitively rooted in the cold war.

"Yes, but no other state controls that desert. The SADR is the law in the other portion of the territory, and administers it whereas no one else does."

Polisario is in tindouf. The "portion" of the territory that it claims to control is – again – an extremly peripheral marginal part. Exactly like algeria or other countries in Africa this kind of area can be easily invested by separatist or (as in the case in algeria) by terrorist groups. The fact that Morocco governs most of the territory, with all the atlantic coast, including all urban centres and important cities can not be denied. Morocco is the power in the sahara. And this is simply a fact.

" The Moroccan government staunchly denied this very position for almost a quarter century, and only acceded to it after it was suggested by the United Nations, so this is hardly the Moroccan position. […]"

This is your personal interpretation. If Morocco sugests this then this is his position no matter what the history of this position was. An other possible interpretation which goes against yours is that Morocco shows more smart behaviour, is ready to discuss and to go for a compromis, and is interested in finding a solution.

" This part is confounding, and borderline offensive. The most reliable polling data suggests that 80% or so of the Sahrawi population favors independence."

Sorry but I doubt heavily that any independant study with accurate results has been done in this sense, neither in tindouf nor on the moroccan side. On my side I am telling you above facts, FACTS, that you and everybody can verify. When highly important members of polisario escape to Morocco than this has a big meaning and automatically puts under big doubt what you are vagly trying to say about the sahrawi "feelings".

The last one who joined Morocco just one month ago had the position of a minister for justice. And if these people are so easy to manipulate and to buy just by a poor country such as Morocco as you claim then what can we say about the others who live in algeria and the credibility of this "organisation"?? And why do these people flee to Morocco and do not chose an other country for asylum such as Spain for example? And why do they flee to Morocco when the country that hosts and supports them is full of petrodollars???

These are not fictive stroies. I am telling you facts that everyone can verify around politicians and responsibles whose faith must be strong, so stong that they should give their lives for their cause. I won’t talk about simple citizens who, as the US Committee for Refugees states, are obliged to stay in the camps.

" I have no idea what you mean when you write that "many of the main and prominent Polisario politicians fled to Morocco" - as far as I'm aware, only some generals, and no members of government have ever defected."

Are you aware of what you are saying?? "Some generals" is TOO much! For an organisation such as polisario generals are sometimes more important than politicians. And I think many of those who defected were founder members of the organisation.

Further to the presse Hamati Rabbani, the last one who joined Morocco just a few weeks agao, was "minister for justice" in polisario.

All this shows that the nucleus of polisario is highly problematic.

"Mohammed Abdelaziz is a Moroccan by birth (that is, he was born inside the borders of the current-day state of Morocco), but is a Sahrawi nationally and ethnically [...]"

You may be do not know about Morocco. In Morocco sahrawi is one of the many things that moroccans can be. The country is diverse and deeply rooted in Africa and the Sahara. Most of its dynasties if not all of them are from the Sahara, so the current dynasty as well. To be sahrawi does not necessarely mean to be something different than moroccan. Abdelaziz was a moroccan person, nationally and ethnically. It is relevant to underline that all his family is moroccan and still living in Morocco. The first leader of polissario is not sahrawi but moroccan. This is an important fact. And moroccans know that. In algeria he decided to get "algerian papers" as one says in the region, but this is evident and does not mean any thing.

"The camps are only closed in as much as the border between Algeria and Morocco is closed, and why is that the case? [...]"

This is not what the US Committee for Refugees says. It says that they are surounded and that algerian armee forces back into the camps everyone who tries to flee.

Algeria knows pretty well that if it opens them none would stay there. As you say conditins of live are extremly difficult and I personaly guess that many would go to spain and others would join their family members in the part that is controled by Morocco. And this way, both algeria and polisario would lose all basis for their fight.

" Because Morocco started a border war with Algeria as the latter was being decolonized Morocco has always wanted to appropriate the territory of other independent states and former colonies as a part of its nationalist vision […]"

This must stop and I will not comment on it. It has nothing to do with the topic nor with the encyclopedia.

(Wikima 15:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC))

Koavf and Wikima, your comments are not touching the core of this section. And I don't believe we can reach a consensus easily that way.

What I stand for is that the map is INACURATE simply because it doesn't reflect the present situation. All world is uncertain about the outcome of the conflict. We are not talking about who is right and who is wrong but rather we are talking about facts. I repeat my stance... The map should be dotted to reflect the status quo and not to reflect feelings of both sides.

One more thing Koavf (which is out of subject). I suspect you have studied the complete history of Morocco. If so then you would know that the Alaouite dynasty are from Tafilalt. Maybe also you would know that Morocco is an old country that governed many parts of Western Africa. It is not a country that came yesterday and invaded a nation. The same nation that the actual king of Morocco represents. I am also curious why don't you have a Palestinian flag in your list. Cheers -- Svest 18:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

===>My final word

Okay. So, Wikima, you claim the international community has not decided their view of the status of Western Sahara. This is not the case for several states, but nonetheless, we can overlook that. This article is about Morocco, not Western Sahara. The international community has made up its mind in regards to what constitutes Morocco. No state prints maps, or has diplomatic relations with Morocco on the grounds that "Morocco" is composed of the area that stretches from the Atlas mountains to Mauritania, inclusive. None. The international understanding of "Morocco" is exactly what is reflected in the map - the community has made up their minds, without exception. NOWHERE (other than Morocco, of course), will you EVER find a map that has Morocco and Western Sahara undivided as "Morocco". Since what is presently in our maps as "Morocco" is what EVERY state recognizes as "Morocco" there should be no dispute at all. EVERY state recognizes the geographic and political entities of "Morocco" and "Western Sahara" as two separate things. This alone should be case closed. I will give you two maps, also chosen at random, by reputable news organizations, one American, and one European, that show exactly what we have here: BBC News The Christian Science Monitor Every map printed by Rand McNally since 1976 shows the same thing, also. The fact of the matter is, the situation is unresolved; until it is, we will require more than pictures to explain it. This and several other articles explain the Moroccan annexation in detail, and the readers of Wikipedia are smart enough to read them and understand themselves. You say "we need a decision"; well, the decision has been made, and it's simply not the one that you want. The issue has been discussed, consensus reached, and the map captions amended to explain.

You also say that states cancel recognition of the SADR due to "political opportunities of the moment" and then you claim that Morocco is too poor to buy off recognition. Which one is it? No state has anything to gain by recognizing the SADR - what incentive is there? However poor Morocco is, the Sahrawi population living in Tindouf is by far poorer; they're refugees! Morocco can trade favors ("political opportunities"), whereas the SADR cannot, and that is the simple fact of the matter. The same thing occurs between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. The PRC is not rich (per capita, they are poorer than the ROC by far), but they spend tremendous amounts of money to buy recognition as the sole China (see Grenada).

You're calling "personal interpretation" on matters that are clearly historical fact. King Hassan II refused to meet with anyone from Polisario without Algerian accompaniment for decades. Is that a fact or interpretation? This forces the hand of Algeria to represent the Sahrawis themselves. You were the one who initially mentioned "feelings", and did not present evidence for them. If you want to check my facts, read the definitive English book on the subject, Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War by Tony Hodges or Toby Shelley's Endgame in the Sahara: What Future for Africa's Last Colony?

The organization (Polisario) is credible precisely because defectors are the exception to the rule - they live in the most hostile conditions on the planet as refugees, and the vast majority remain loyal, and have remained loyal for decades. Who can impugn their credibility? Yes, the citizens are obliged to stay in the camps: go west, you'll run into the wall of anti-personal landmines that Morocco strewn about the desert in contravention to international law, go south or east, and you will leave the borders of Algeria, go north, and you will encroach on the native population of Algeria. The Algerian state already supports the refugees under a tremendous strain, and to integrate them into society would be disastrous for both Algerians and Sahrawis.

To be Sahrawi is to be something different than Moroccan. Sahrawis have different societies and ways of living, economics, a different dialect of Arabic, have never lived under a king, and instead desire democracy, they make different music. The Sahrawi nationality is distinct from the Moroccan, and that is clearly the case - no one can dispute that. Even when Sahrawis live inside of the borders of Morocco, they still identify as Sahrawis. Also, you imply that Mohammed Abdelaziz is the first leader of the Polisario, and this is also not true: the movement was founded and lead for three years by El-Ouali Mustapha Sayed. Polsario will only "lose [all] basis for the fight" once Western Sahara is independent; that is why the fight was started and those are the terms on which it will end.

The most offensive part is when you say that Morocco's nationalist and irridentist visions have nothing to do with the map, and they must stop. What about maps of so-called "Greater Morocco" that had the entirety of other countries and portions of even more? Moroccan nationalism has everything to do with the map controversy, because it caused the conflict in Western Sahara in the first place.

Since a map can only reflect one point of view (as it is one image), this map should reflect the view of ALL states other than Morocco: that Morocco is a geographic and political entity that is bordered by Algeria, the Atlantic Ocean, and Western Sahara.

Faysall, I appreciate your diplomatic approach to the discussion, but I disagree with your assertion for the same reasons stated above: a dotted map is not the universally-accepted way of dealing with the dispute, and the dispute is irrelevant anyway, since the international community never includes Western Sahara as a part of what it calls "Morocco". Since this is a map of "Morocco", it should not matter if there is a dispute over Western Sahara, since that is a different entity.

I understand that Morocco has a rich history, and as a kingdom has ebbed and flowed in size. But, directly prior to colonization, it did not control the Sahara. This is reflected in every map that I've seen from the time period (and I personally own over a dozen maps of northwest Africa printed between 1890 and 1914). This is also consistent with the ruling of the International Court of Justice. Their advisory opinion from 1975 (prior to the annexation) explicitly reads that both Morocco and Mauritania had no claim to soveriegnty or ownership over the Sahara. None. Feel free to read the opinion from the Court's site itself. Morocco did invade the Sahara - it took troops into the territory and attacked with lethal force, which contradicted the will of the people and the promises made by Spain as the colonizing state.

As for why I don't have Palestine among the flags on my user page, it is, of course, a complex issue. First of all, I would largely consider myself pro-Israel. Also, I have never really had a passion or interest in the conflict (unlike the Sahara or Papua). I feel that the plight of the Palestinians is different from the Sahrawis in several fundamental aspects:

The Sahrawis have no state (the Palestinians have Jordan)
The Sahrawis have largely resorted to peaceful measures and abided by international agreements for the past 20 years, whereas the Palestinians have not.
The Polisario have, with very few exceptions, targeted aggresive military personnel. High-level Palestinians support terrorism by harboring terrorists, encouraging the destruction of private property and giving subsidies to families of suicide bombers, essentially encouraging the deaths of innocent people.
Israel exists under constant threat of destruction from its neighbors, and has to defend itself from lethal, aggressive opposition constantly, whereas Sahrawi (or, for that matter, Algerian) independence posed absolutely no threat to Moroccan well-being.
Israel has made genuine attempts on several occasions to disengage Palestinian territories, whereas Morocco never has. In fact, when Ehud Barak offered to help create a Palestinian state the next day, and Yasser Arafat refused to make a counter offer, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia said that blood would be on his (Arafat's) hands. Shortly thereafter, the Second Intifada was declared.
There is a very real possibility that an internationally-recognzied, de facto Palestinian state will exist within a matter of months, due in large part to the cooperation of Israel, whereas that is not the case with the Sahara.

Those same statements could essentially be said of Papua and Indonesia also. I personally feel for the people who live under occupation and their human suffering is indefensible, but Palestine has supporters and a network of information and resources that does not exist for the Sahrawis or Papuans. Justin (koavf) 05:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

>> Knowledge never ends:

Justin, knowledge and science never end. As long as there are members asking questions, discussing, requesting and/or suggesting other views you can not close the topic if you you don't want to force a decision.

Again: Everyone knows that the issue of the sahara is unresolved. And until then this very situation MUST be reflected at the level of the map. None is asking to present the Moroccan view, but to provide something that is close the what the reality is. And the current map does not reflect to reality. It reflects a political position.

This must apply to the whole topic. One-sided information MUST be avoided.

I have proposed a couple of links to show that there ways to better reflect the situation as many media and institutions do. I think we MUST take this thought into consideration.

Your very long reaction appears to me as your expressing your political position mentioning what you call "historical facts". Some of them are extremely fragile and out of the subject (e.g. re polisario's credibility, sahrawi identity, omission to mention the green march, etc.).

I will not react to that as I do not think this is the right place for such polemic.

The rest does not convince (me).

I will not be there for the next couple of weeks. But I will return, sure.

I request again:

- To leave this topic open as I do NOT think that there is a consensus reached for the map

- To mention in the comment under the map the way how many other medias and institutions present the Moroccan map as well (diff. colours, dashed or dotted line etc.). For now it only shows the source (CIA) and says that Moroccan does not recognize it. As I show above there are numerous other ways. And this must be mentioned until a final solution.

In order to provide more clarification on this topic I suggest to add a sub-section that presents showing all the three versions of the map, the pro Moroccan version, the pro "sadr" version and the version of compromise (s. examples that I list above).

Cheers

Wikima 11:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Having read through I think this discussion should be ended as it was started, to agree that the current map (morocco + sahara in strips) is the one that best represents the current situation. Between Blak and White there is an infinite shade of greys (i.e. between the sahara being shown as white or green). The ultimate reality is that Sahara is occupied and governed by Morocco. Think of Letonia, Etonia and Latvia, they where part of soviet Rusia and are today once again independent.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

The POV tag is irrelavant at the top of the aricle. The thing disputed are the Western Sahara issue (this means only the provinces section and geography would be disputed). In WP, there's a {SectNPOV} dedicated to disputed issues and sections. I had to put a tag on the two section mentioned above. Cheers -- Svest 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Phosphates

I don't agree about the sentence related to the production of phosphates. It goes like largely from occupied Western Sahara. There's only one major production site/mine in the Western Sahara. The rest are found between the region of Khenifra and Marrakech. Here are the details in billions of cubic meters (Source: [2] Mining-Technology.com)

Khouribga: 37.3
Bengurir: 31.1
Marrakech: 15.9
Oued Eddahab/Rio de Oro (Western Sahara): 1.1

For the currently mined sites, you can find a detailed map here Mining Review Africa.

I hope that would make it clear why I was removing the sentence from there. Cheers -- Svest 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Treaty of Friendship

To whom he removed that part w/o any comment or notice:

"Morocco was one of the first countries to accord recognition of the new American republic when it allowed American ships access to Moroccan ports in 1777, shortly after the outbreak of the American Revolution. Less than ten years later, the two countries signed a Treaty of Friendship and Peace which was renewed for an indefinite term in 1836. As testament to the special nature of the U.S.-Moroccan relationship, the Moroccan city of Tangier is home to the oldest U.S. diplomatic property in the world, and the only building on foreign soil that is listed in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, the American Legation in Tangier." (source US Embassy - Rabat)

"Moroccans recognized the Government of the United States in 1777 before the end of the Revolutionary War. Formal US relations with Morocco date to 1786, when the two nations negotiated a Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Renegotiated in 1836, it is still in force, constituting the longest unbroken treaty relationship in US history." (source US Department of State Dispatch, Vol 2, No 39)

I hope also he can find about what he delated in the following links and sources:

I hope that would not be deleted again. Cheers -- Svest 19:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Fayssal,

Like you, I wish none deletes your input. Plus, I hope all Americans read your input, they might sympathize more with Morocco claims in Western Sahara. I'm not going to describe your input as a political begging. But, bearing in mind the context of this talk page, I'm afraid I'm going to. Cheers, Basiri, (RASD).

Thanks for the comment Basiri. However, I wonder why everything nowadays is related to Western Sahara? If there was a treaty in the 18th century between 2 countries and when anon editors delete info about it while others reverting that, what that has to do with begging and WS?! Cheers Svest 07:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I added the following link, which contains a detailed description of the Treaty of Friendship to the external Links section:

Historical Background on United States - Morocco Relations

I hope it won't be vandalized again. --213.146.115.42 14:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Straits of Gibraltar

I deleted some material relating to the Straits of Gibraltar which I believe to be factually incorrect, or at very least misleading. The material states that Morocco 'controls' part of the Strait and thereby has 'power' over shipping movements between the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. In fact the UN Convention on Law of Sea, to which Morocco is a signatory (although it hasn't yet ratified), regulates what can and cannot be done in international waterways such as the Stait - and the gebneral gist of the Convention is that countries bordering such passages do not have power over them of the sort implied in the deleted material. (See [[3]]. --PiCo 09:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted the deletion to its original status. True that the UNCLOS regulates such passages when it talks about "innocent passage" which doesn't contradicts that a country in such straits has the control over parts of the sea.

www.un.org. A 12-mile territorial sea would place under national jurisdiction of riparian States strategic passages such as the Strait of Gibraltar (8 miles wide and the only open access to the Mediterranean), the Strait of Malacca (20 miles wide and the main sea route between the Pacific and Indian Oceans), the Strait of Hormuz (21 miles wide and the only passage to the oil-producing areas of the Gulf) and Bab el Mandeb (14 miles wide, connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea).

hydrographicsociety.org Gibraltar: Sovereignty Disputes and Territorial Waters

Gibraltar Territorial Waters A sea map defining the borders at the Straits of Gibraltar. -- Cheers Svest 19:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

MAR?

Why does MAR redirect here? Perhaps this is an abbreviation, like "Morocco Arab Republic"? I could not find it in the article itself. --Aleph4 13:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. The problem is fixed. Svest 18:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

MAR is the abreviation for the country's name in French -- Maroc. Some international organizations, such as the IMF, use MAR as their abbreviation for Morocco. You should keep the redirect around for reference.

MAR also stands for Medication Administration Record. If you're going to keep this around, refer it to a disambiguation page, please.--Silverhand 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

The reply of Koavf to a regular vandalism is weird [4]! Instead of setting a good example for a sneaky vandal to follow, Koavf prefered to reply in an offensive manner and irresponsible one. By saying Morocco is good, the vandal may have meant everything about Morocco except its politics, especially when the vandal didn't edit anything related to occupation!! I just find Rv. Morocco is an occupier and you're a vandalizer as rude and irresponsible comment from an established wikipedian. ^{Wiki me up}

Well, it was just an edit summary but I see where youre coming from - it probably would have been better to just write 'rvv' or something like that ---- Astrokey44|talk 12:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Population

The official statistics say that there are 29.891.708 people living in morocco, so I edited the page. PS: I am myself a Moroccan.

Thanks for the note. But do you have any reference that you based your edit on? Cheers -- Svest 23:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

The last Moroccan census, a Google search gives many occurrences. I have already done the correction in Demographics of Morocco which are extracted from the CIA factbooks, which is based on estimations and have not been updated according to the last census. --Khalid hassani 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

-Hi Hassani According to the last general census (2004 not 2003), Morocco's total population reached 29.891.708inhabitants (including 51.435 foreigners) in 2004. It is from an official source(the official website of the governmental departement of communication). http://www.mincom.gov.ma

Here is what you'll find there : "La population légale du Royaume du Maroc a atteint, au 1er septembre 2004, 29.891.708 habitants, dont 29.840.273 Marocains et 51.435 étrangers.

Elle est répartie, selon le milieu de résidence, en 16.463.634 citadins et 13.428.074 ruraux, soit un taux d'urbanisation de 55,1pc contre 51,4 pc enregistré lors du recensement de 1994.

La répartition régionale est marquée par la concentration de près du tiers de la population dans trois régions : le Grand Casablanca avec ses 3 ,6 millions d'habitants (12,1pc), Sous-Massa Draa et Marrakech-Tensift -Al Haouz avec 3,1 millions chacune (10,4 pc). Le reste est réparti selon des proportions variant entre 0,3 pc (Oued Eddahab-Lagouira) et 8,3 pc (Tanger-Tétouan).

Selon les provinces et préfectures, avec près de 2.950.000 personnes, soit un Marocain sur dix, Casablanca se détache du lot. Suivent, ensuite, trois provinces dont la population dépasse le million. Il s'agit de Kénitra, El Jadida et Marrakech. La province la moins peuplée est celle d'Aousserd avec 20.513 personnes. "

So with your permission, I'm going to make the correction. PS: I see you put (est: 2005), here we're talking about the official census, not estimations, and the last census was carried out in 2004, not 2005.

Where on earth did the 2005 est come from? The 2004 census was just executed, one rather doubts Morocco added 4 million people in one year. (Collounsbury 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Western Sahara: An ex-colony or an ex-province of Spain?

I have a question why user:FayssalF , always when I write that Western Sahara was a province of Spain, he always write a colony and put that morroco have right abouit it ?

In spanisch: En 1884, España creo un protectorado en esta zona. En 1958 se unieron las posesiones de Río de Oro (zona sur) y Saguía el-Hamra (zona norte); y formaron la provincia del Sahara español - unsigned comment by User:Bokpasa

Hi Bokpasa. I don't say Morocco has the right about it. I simply revert your edits that Western Sahara was an ex-province of Spain instead of saying it was an ex-colony! Canary Islands are a province of Spain as they belong to it.

According to your logic, all South American countries were a province of spain?

In the Spanish wiki, that point is simply POV and should be corrected! Again, please read Colony and understand that a colony means that In politics and in history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. Cheers -- Szvest 14:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

^{Wiki me up}

===>It's a floor wax! No, it's a dessert topping! It was a colony, and then a province on January 10, 1958 (see History of Western Sahara), after the 1957 invasion of Spanish Sahara. Justin (koavf) 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be both cant it? Province is more of a political term, whereas colony is maybe a general term for an overseas controlled territory. -- Astrokey44|talk 15:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Six of one, half dozen the other? I don't think it can be both simultanseouly. That would be like Puerto Rico being both a commonwealth and a state. Justin (koavf) 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Koavf is right. After the Army of Liberation uprising, Spain turned it from a colonial holding into a province of Spain. Through this, Spanish Sahara was given political representation in the Cortes (Franco's rubber-stamp parliament), in the hope that this would help to co-opt support from Sahrawi elites. Internationally it was of course still treated as a colony, just as in the case of the Algerian "département" -- or in the present-day, when it has been turned into a province of Morocco. Arre 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Which means that it is both simultaneously - sort of: It is a province technically but it is treated internationally as a colony. -- Astrokey44|talk 10:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

==Oversea possession and colonys are diferents.... by user:bokpasa

You didn't explain anything Bokpasa. Please tell us why it was a province and not a colony. -- Cheers Szvest 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

As someone noted above, it was a colony and later was a province because it was entlited as such and had same treatment than any other spanish province. Saying geographical distance defines what a colony is would make Hawaii or Alaska colonies of the USA, Canary Islands a spanish colony or Galapagos an equatorian one. Please read Colony where it states In the modern usage, colony is generally distinguished from oversea possession. In the former case, the local population, or at least the part of it not coming from the "metropolitan" (controlling) country, does not enjoy full citizenship rights.. Sahara was a spanish province and sahrawi citizens were spanish citizens, with same rights that if they had born in Madrid (not that they had many rights under Franco's dictatorship anyway). It is always shocking to see on TV sahrawis showing their old spanish ID cards that entitled them as spanish citizens.

Colony ,oversea province ,Commonwealth ... diferents=

Spanish Sahara was a province but ,,if you acept is was a colony because is far of the metropoli ,,, Hawaii before to convert a state , the original name was Territory ,, but was a colony and Puerto Rico is too and ..... we need a agrement to this User:bokpasa

Diferets

Was a province because sended representive to Parlament in Spain ,wherever another parts of Spain user:Bokpasa

And de real name was no colony ,was Protectorate , to protect to the British Empire or French Empire.

Thanks. I will hope you can bring a reference or two to what you said about the representation to the Parliament. I'll than surely accept that. Cheers -- Szvest 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Check timeline in the History of-article:

1958 - January 10 Spanish Sahara and Ifni become Spanish provinces, rather than colonies; El Ayoun becomes an administrative center.
1963 - May First provincial elections held in Spanish Sahara.
- July 15 Three representatives of the Sahara take their seats at the Cortes Generales.
1965 - The second round of elections take place.
1967 - Sahara's number of seats in the Cortes increases from three to six.

That said, I don't think it is necessarily wrong to use the word "colony".

Arre 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Though we should never have interwiki references. It wasn't because of I am favouring colony than province but it was because of the lack of discussing issues by Bokpasa. -- Szvest 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Geography of Morocco

There is an NPOV tag on the geography chapter, and there was no mention of Western Sahara. I corrected the later problem. Is there another dispute on this part, or could we remove the tag? I suppose it's old, since I can't find any other possible NPOV problems. Arre 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the same thing goes for Provinces of Morocco. Arre 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is fixed now. Have a look. We'll deal with the provinces section later when the geography is agreed about. Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up}

It looks pretty OK. Thanks. Arre 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being stupid...

..but whay did Morocco leave the African Union? I scanned the article, but it didn't seem immediately obvious to me.. but I am quite dumb though.. Vanky 00:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

===>I'm posting this at Talk:Morocco and User talk:Vanky Morocco left the Organisation for African Unity/African Union because in 1976, they took over Western Sahara, in spite of international condemnation and calls for self-determination for the Sahrawis of the region. They currently live in refugee camps in Tindouf Province, Algeria. The AU, as well as dozens of states recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as the rightful government of Western Sahara. If you have any more questions, please let me know. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Or rather less partisanly - Morocco suspended its participation in the OAU. Some Sahraouine are in camps in Algeria, most are not. A small handful of states recognise Polisario, most countries take a neutral stance.(Collounsbury 06:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you very much for answering! It's a very complicated issue overall, and I'm still trying to get my head around it! Vanky 11:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Collounsbury's close All of the Sahrawi camps are in Algeria. I have no idea what he's talking about with non-Algerian camps. -Justin (koavf), talk 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why Koavf is not answering the question to make Vanky's life easier!!! As Collounsbury put it: Morocco suspended its participation in the OAU and that was due to the presence of a RASD delegation in a OAU summit. It is not as Koavf is implying. It sounds like Morocco was kicked out from the OAU because of its occupation. Cheers -- Szvest 15:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

He says that "Morocco left", doesn't he? And they left because the OAU/AU recognizes the SADR as Western Sahara's legitimate government, which Morocco finds hard to stomach. I don't see what there is for you two to fight about here, other than general disagreement. Arre 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Saharawis, many left and live as refugees in Algeria. Some stayed. Morocco has been repopulating the region and hopes that in the future there will be enough Moroccans in western sahara to guarantee that a vote on independence will fail. At the moment this would probably be so if the 300k+ refugees in Algeria are not allowed to vote. So far the Baker plan has been stalled by Morocco manipulations of the voting registrar, if all people in Western Sahara and the refugees in Algeria were to vote tomorrow, Western Sahara would be independent. Unfortunately there is no hope for saharawis.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to know is there a place name missur thank you!!! (Sorry mate, but have you heard of something called a Map??? They have an index in the back. ja ja jaCgonzalezdelhoyo 00:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

MISSOUR

'''I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE IS A PLACE IN MOROCCO NAMED MISSOUR THANK YOU FOR YOUR INFORMATION'''!!!

Missour

Yes, there is. It's famous for its birdwatching sites. Missour is located in the Boulemane region (eastern Morocco) and is bounded by the Middle Atlas and High Atlas mountains. Maps are available in the web. --Angelikmeg 15:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

more on Missour

There is a Missour. It is located north-east of Midelt, in a different administrative region though, the same as Fes according to a map I got here. It has a population of 20,978 (according to 2004 recensment) Omega Said 19:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Omega Said. Will check the regions' list on the gov' site --Angelikmeg 21:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

== Thanks For the info on missour....It was very helpfull ==

Culture > Morocco (1930 film)

Why is a link to Morocco (1930 film) under the culture section? One film doesnt describe one countries culture to the point that it can be used as a resource. A proper article should be created Cinema in Morocco. This probably would be to specific now so i would recommend making an article Arts in Morocco.

On the other hand this could be a bit premature as the Culture of Morocco is still quite poor. Back to my original point, I believe one film does not deserve such prominent link (since its one of the four links in Culture section). Does anyone agree?  Tutmøsis (Talk) 17:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed it from the list. We'll be working on the suggestions. Cheers -- Szvest 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Appointment of women preachers in Morocco

There was an article on this on the BBC news - can someone expand as appropriate in Women as theological figures please.

Jackiespeel 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

POPULATION RE

The official governmental website http://www.mincom.gov.ma/ reports a population of 29.891.708 inhabitants (2004 Est). Please do not edit until you provide a link to respected and official sources. thanks