Talk:Morocco/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by USER The Mosquito re Culture & Politics 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Seems reasonable. Go ahead. Arre 11:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very well, done. (Collounsbury 05:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further to History & Language 

message: ===>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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edit to this and [[Mauritania]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: POV tag

message: 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:  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)
thread_title: Phosphates

message: 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 []. --PiCo 09:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Straits of Gibraltar 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for letting us know. The problem is fixed. Svest 18:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  MAR? 

message: The reply of Koavf to a regular vandalism is weird ! 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)
thread_title:  Sneaky vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Population

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Diferets

message: ..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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sorry if I'm being stupid... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Missour

message: 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)
thread_title:  more on Missour 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've just removed it from the list. We'll be working on the suggestions. Cheers -- Szvest 18:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture > Morocco (1930 film) 

message: 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)
thread_title: Appointment of women preachers in Morocco