Talk:Elections in Morocco

Occupation in Moroccan elections

 * Justin, you removed the mention that Morocco has had a multiparty system since the fifties, when At the time it was the fashion in the third world to have a one-party system. I would like to hear an explanation on why you removed this information.
 * "Due to ongoing military occupation". This is taken from the mouth of a Polisarian. Elections have been held in Westren Sahara as the Moroccan southern provinces since 1977, and have always known a high participation. Western Saharans are in the every Moroccan Party, and in the parlement, and in the government. I think the phrase you added is ment to hijack the subject on Moroccan election, and unfortunately when you added it there was none to shed light on it. --SteveLo 21:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Moroccan "democracy"
 * Part of the reason is the illegitimacy of the Moroccan party system; since they all spun out of Istiqlal and none of them offer genuine alternatives. There are other legal parties in the People's Republic of China, but that's hardly a multi-party system like the United Kingdom, for instance.
 * There is high participation due to the fact that Morocco has given government subsidies to people to become illegal settlers in the Sahara. You say "high participation" as though it is somehow a good thing. Would it be good if a bunch of Israelis were given money to vote in PNA elections? I don't know what you mean by "Western Saharans" - are you talking about native Sahrawis, or Moroccan settlers, or both? As I recall, and this is strictly from memory, all of the governors of the provinces are and have always been ethnic Moroccan settlers.
 * Is the Sahara occupied? How is it outrageous to compare the Sahara to Palestine? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean "I think the phrase you added is me[a]nt to hijack the subject on Moroccan election[s], and unfortunately when you added it there was none to shed light on it." "None" what? I added the phrase several months ago to indicate that elections for officials within the Moroccan government happen outside of Morocco, and that's generally an odd occurence worth mentioning. It would be great if you answered all of these questions. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I inserted a clearly neutral text. I will re-insert it. Let's not fight here another POV war on the Western Sahara. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV dispute We'll discuss the dispute here and try to reach consensus. Wilfried, what are you doing? I didn't think the text was acceptable before, so why would I now? Why would you reinsert this link to your web site, which is only an HTML redirect to Politics of Tunisia for some reason? Do you care to explain how this makes any sense at all? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===> Justin, the text you insered is not acceptable and needs a discussion. That means it should be proven and agreed upon, and not taken for granted as we discuss. --SteveLo 22:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>This is going nowhere You completely ignored what I said. Was this on purpose? The text existed as it was for months without anyone complaining, so really it's you that has the burden of proof. And don't take off the POV template from a page; remember how that got you banned before? Now, do you want to discuss it or not? If you do, you can start with the questions that I posed earlier. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear wikipedians. The text as edited by User:FayssalF is neutral, so please Koavf argue why that text is not neutral. Otherwise the POV tag has to be removed. BTW, sorry, I didn't intend to reinsert the link to my website, since is doesn't exist anymore as a separate website. It happend in a revert to a neutral text. Your text is not neutral, since pro-Moroccans won't consider it occupied. Disputed is a text which cannot be disputed, I would say. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 15:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV Here's the POV: you aren't taking out references to the West Bank as occupied, are you? The argument that certain people with agendas won't find the page neutral is bogus. People that don't believe in gravity won't find the page on gravity neutral. So what? Also, you'll notice that Steve is still ignoring the simple and direct questions I asked him a few days ago. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV, part 2 The only reason one would refuse to mention that elections for a state occur outside that state in occupied territory is to push a political agenda. It is an obvious and necessary fact. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

===>NPOV Please inform yourself about the POV policy of Wikipedia. Disputed is neutral. The DARS claims Western Sahara as an independent state (a claim I support), Morocco claims it as a part of Morocco. The difference with the West Bank is that Israel doesn't claim it as part of Israel. The only neutral variants are disputed or governed. Morocco doesn't consider it as occupied butr as legally part of the country. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)