Talk:Morocco/Archive 3

Mediation
It is clear to me that no agreement is going to be reached here. Can we please all agree to mediation by uninvolved parties? I see no other way forward. Regards, Asterion talk 11:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Asterion, Nothing speaks against mediation, however:
 * I have the feeling that we regularelly get stuck when it comes to do changes that do not suit the opinion of prop-polisarian independists although this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a place to fight for the indpendance of any regions.
 * I think the whole topic with re to the presentation of Western Sahra is unbalanced and non neutral in Wikipedia. For example, Western Sahara is often misused as substitute of the Sahrawi Republic, especially in templates. This I had already discussed, but, because this is not againist Morocco, no mediation was seeked.
 * The topic we are "debating" here is pretty much related to Western Sahara.
 * Therefore, I would only agree to a mediation if it covers the whole Western Sahara topic as this is definitvely the source of the conflict
 * This would be an opportunity to clean out this topic from POVs
 * Thanks wikima 18:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the only WS-related article on my watchlist. I am not sure whether the mediation committee would accept such a wide subject. We also need to remember that mediation is ultimately non-binding and it is up to the parties involved to show the goodwill to act accordingly. In any case, I would rather we stay at the mediation stage, without the need to go for full-scale arbitration (it is not a nice solution for anyone). If you could establish the list of individual subtopics you think would need to be debated on, please do so. It is no good to give the mediators a general subject. I have no problems whatsoever with taking any other subjects up for mediation. Best wishes, Asterion talk 20:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have simple question for both Justin and Wikima. Does accepting mediation would help one of you to concede a few parts of what you believe is the supreme universal and divine right?
 * Accepting a mediation is a positive sign and it can give an answer to my question. I mean you are ready to accept losing some of your positions.
 * Now, would you accept the results of the poll/vote above? It is the middle point distancing your positions. I mean you 2 and nobody else. If you are ready to surrender some of your points than save us some time and accept what it was generally accepted by participants in the vote.
 * A last note. We can argue forever about the issue w/o reaching a 100% concensus. So are you ready to help us? -- Szvest 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fayssal. As I said, mediation is not binding. So, if all parties are ready to make sacrifices, we will eventually get somewhere. Asterion talk 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My take I would be happy to comply with the process of mediation, but if the article remains identical, I will go to the next step of conflict resolution. My line of argumentation still stands, and since I only have a gripe about one particular part of the article, there is not much ground for me to give or take, but I'm willing to see other proposals. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the way I understand mediation and I did not call for it
 * I understand it as involvement of third independant parties who can help to empower objective and rational arguments.
 * It's not about a personal conflict between two people but about the accuracy of information and the way it is presented
 * And all what I say is, if you want others to get involved then I would only accept if this is done for the whole topic of Westerns Sahara in Wikipedia - and not Morocco as such - as WS it is the source of the "debate".

Szvest,


 * I assume the topic that was voted about (stripped map) is decided. The POV tag is now removed.
 * I consider however the stripped map as incomplete.
 * So, what I am doing is the follwing: I am suggesting a map for Morocco which goes absolutely along wath is done every where in Wikipedia with regard to Western Sahara. This means, you cannot strip the Western Sahara map for Morocco but integrate it fully for a "Sahrawi Republic". This goes against the neutrality of Wikipedia. It is as simple as that.
 * If there is a reason for it, I would like to understand it. If not I would like to change this situation.


 * Thanks wikima 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers wikima 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikima, i am absolutely aware and i understand your concerns as much as i do w/ Justin ones. In fact, we have 2 issues on hand.
 * This article - Your suggestion above is legitimate and you are free to proceed. However, (whatever they are based on facts or hoaxes) you should first discuss it here and eventually ask for a Request for comment or just refer to other venues in Wikipedia that can help. I am also totally aware that you discuss more than revert edits on main. So i am not asking you to refrain from silliness as you abide by the rules. Just follow them and ask for a new poll/vote. The thing is that your suggestion has been implicitly debated above and it would be just redundancy if we start over the procedure.
 * WS/Morocco-related articles - I don't see any other solution to that apart from what Asterion suggested. Make a list and organize it well so you can present it formally to a mediation. So start organizing the issues from now and keep this place reserved to sort out the issue on hand- Morocco's map.
 * What Asterion did is to present a helping hand. You cannot reject it by simply saying i didn't call for it. We know it is not official but it can still be a possible way out. -- Szvest 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Szvest,


 * Thanks - However I am not rejecting any thing
 * As I am not calling for mediation I will not prepare any list. But will do if any mediation accepts to deal with the topic in its whole.
 * I simply find mediation not helpful if it is related to this article only
 * We have very similar if not the same disputes through all Western Sahara related articles
 * Mediating only on this one will resolve nothing as thing are interwoven and interdependant as shows the example of the map.

Cheers wikima 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to Justin
Justin, it is not a cat and mouse game. Abide by the rules. Please go request a real mediation instead of being an obstacle in front of the rest. File reports, exercise whatever you have as rights. Don't disturb attempts of mediations. Respect the hard work of the people who debated the issue. Don't force your ideas on others. The mediation is about you and Wikima; not about you and the rest. You are the claiming person against the concensus. For us the issue is settled and it is you that should go ask for help. -- Szvest 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Mediation was regarding the dispute, was it not? The tag is there for the dispute at hand. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are playing a smarty game Justin. Keep the tag (i told you above i don't care about the tag itself) but once this discussion is over (i mean within a week or one week and a half), i will remove the tag under the edit summary of no discussion since 500 BC). Isn't that how you deal w/ tags? So continue arguing you and Wikima (i told you above that the debate w/ Wikima would not be easy, remember?). I am sure one of you will stop arguing and than i will remove the tag. Wouldn't be a cute game? -- Szvest 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Better tag? Clearly, there is a dispute, or else mediation wouldn't be sought, right? If anything, there is more of a dispute, as Wikima seems to think that the map as presented is not optimal, too. I have no idea what the 500 BC thing is supposed to mean. If you're making some sarcastic dig, take it elsewhere. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Justin, 500 BC refers to any random date that one user can remove a tag after and under the pretext that there has been NO discussion since X time. It is not sarcastic but representative of this same situation. You've done it many times Justin. It's not sarcastic but realistic. Maybe you forgot that you did remove many NPOV tags under the same pretext.
 * Again, insisting on re-adding the tag is just a breach of the concensus. It is said on "Wikipedia books" that the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. For us, the matter is closed. You are the only one SAYING there's no concensus. It is not me that should take my stuff somewhere but you please take your concerns to the arbitration. Why do you avoid that? There's nothing bad in seeking arbitration. Ittakes a long time to come to a solution from the ArbCom can't be a justification for your edit warring. Go for an arbitrator. Explain yourselves there. Your actions are disturbing contributors here. Everyone here expressed that explicitly and one cannot just unilateraly force others. Respect others. It is a non-respect sign toward people. Go to an arbitrator, go. -- Szvest 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Right Fayssal, don't act ignorant of what you're doing; you were being sarcastic. You know there's a difference between a user that disappears for a month versus someone who is actively on talk. There is neither a need nor a place for sarcastic one-liners in the discussion, so just don't do it. If you want to take off the tag, be my guest if it will stop you from acting like a child here on talk. As for arbitration, I avoided it because someone came in and offered to do the next step in conflict resolution (mediation.) You'll notice that you ignored that prospect when I presented it earlier on talk; that is why I skipped arbitration. Telling me to respect others while mocking me is pretty shallow hypocrisy, Fayssal. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Being absent for months has no grounds. I've been being serious but acting as a kid is a compliment in these situations. If you feel you are being mocked, please go for an arbitration. Please save us some time and do it. It seems that you and Wikima need to rearrange your stuffs. For the rest of us, we declare we reached a concensus. Wikima just discusses a SUGGESTION and not putting the tag on the version upon concensus was built. He's explained themselves and said that he's not against this version though he would have vote for a all greened version of the map. -- Szvest 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay Well, it's good that I didn't write "absent for months." There is ground to write something about a user that was absent for a month - Wikima disappeared in the middle of several disputes and I'm assuming it is those to which you were referring. Again, would you please avoid deliberately misconstruing my words and acting childish? I'll let mediation occur with Asterion, and if that isn't suitable, I'll go to arbitration. Why do you want to skip ahead steps in the conflict resolution process? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Skip? Please refer to my support of Asterion's mediation above and also to Asterion response to my message. You are confusing 2 important things here.
 * The current version was agreed upon (refer to the archived page). If you still have concerns about that, go for an aritration process. Asterion mediation concerns the 2nd issue/subject.
 * Wikima/Justin debate is another issue. Wikima accepts the current version as explained below. He's debating all WS-related articles. Asterion and me commented on that above-- Szvest 23:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's news to me I thought it was all a part of the initial issue I raised. That having been said, you still ignored the prospects of mediation with "my issue." My question still stands: do you want to go to arbitration for it (if, apparently, Asterion is not here to address the issues I initially raised)? If so, and if Asterion responds that he's not here to mediate that, then I'll go to arbitration. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re current version. Yes, you have to go for an arbit. It seems that you really feel biased by people here.
 * Re your issue w/ Wikima. Wait for Asterion. -- Szvest 23:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * [Deindenting]Justin, if you think the strip map needs to be added to the list of issues to be mediated on, I am no one to stop you doing so. I reiterate my point that in order to get the mediation through, it is better to delimitate subjects quite well. I reckon I missed the bulk of the discussion on the map and I am not completely sure how it ended indeed (working my way back right now).
 * About the map, I will make my position clear here: I am not happy at all with Wikima's new suggestion (that map may be suitable for a Moroccan atlas but, IMHO, not for Wikipedia, as WS is disputed); I have no great objections to the current map, aside the need for a subtitle immediately underneath the map, along the lines "Morocco and the disputed territory of Western Sahara (striped)" (I do not think the stripes suffice).
 * In any case, any request for arbitration will be dismissed unless a Request for Comments and then a Request for Mediation have been made beforehand. Well, this is the way things work (otherwise the ArbCom would be dealing with complains all the time). I would rather not having to take anything up to the ArbCom at all, as it is very slow and is always better to get a mutual understanding between wikipedians, reaching some sort of consensus if we want to call it that.
 * Regards, Asterion talk 09:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what Justin is doing is totally not acceptable!
 * Above, all except him were for the current map.
 * I am opening a new issu and do not need a POV tag for it!
 * This should stop. I see the behaviour of Justin as clearly problematic, really!

wikima 22:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Koavf, I have created an account on 3th of July 2006, and was mainly a reader of technical articles of telecommunications (my work field). I remarked the tag on the Morocco article and got involved since then. So forget about sock-puppets.


 * A user who has been in Wikipedia for one day is as worthy and relevant as that who has been for one year.
 * The number of edits does not give more credibility either. If I want to increase my edit count to 500, believe me I can do it within a week. Spelling corrections, formatting, reverts, edit wars, all increase the count. Just saving a page without edits increases the count.
 * Having said that, The dispute about the stripped map is closed with a clear majority in favor of the actual map. Wikima has suggested a new one based on the SADR case, and it should be surely considered. I actually support it.
 * I would like to draw Fayssal's attention (he is an admin),that the 3RR rule should be applied. Koavf has been blocked elsewhere for much less than what he did on Morocco page.
 * I think that all the articles related to Morocco and WS should be put to light for occurencies of Polsario POV like "western Sahara is under de-facto military occupation".--A Jalil 07:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work, A Jalil. Justin seems to be ignore the decision made by the numbers just because the numbers include lots of new editiors. It would be better if Justin just accepted the numbers and did some other work. In reply to Asterion, thanks from the suggestion but as only 1 editior is (currently) objecting their is really no need. Aussie King Pin 09:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A Jalil Okay, your story is ultimately unverifiable, but I'll believe you. All I'm saying is that it is suspicious. I'm happy to have any and everyone be a good faith, competent contributor to Wikipedia. It just seems a bit odd when two people show up out of nowhere and immediately dive into a contentious topic. It's also odd that someone who hasn't edited for months, and only edits articles associated with said topic shows up after so long. That's all. I'm happy to have new contributors that abide by the rules as best as they know how and make sincere efforts to help spread knowledge. All articles related to Morocco and Western Sahara are put to light; the edit histories for all of them are public knowledge. It is not POV to say that Western Sahara is under military occupation; it is factual.
 * Aussie Why don't you let Asterion decide for himself, as that is his job? Asterion is a grown up (as far as I can tell) and can decide for himself. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * koavf The account creation date link was not OK, retry this one [| 3th of July 2006]. Now you should be sure I did exist way before the discussion began. Wikima did not show a few months for obvious reason: the summer holiday. It is factual to say that Polisario is a separatist puppet in the hands of Algeria. It is not me who says it, but former Polisario leaders.--A Jalil 23:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay It is not factual to say that Polisario are separatists, because Western Sahara isn't part of Morocco. It is also not factual to say that they are Algerian puppets because they existed years prior to Algerian support. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever been there? Western Sahara is for all intents and purposes most definately a part of Morocco...just because you choose not to view it as such doesn't make it so.  Not only is it factual to say the Polisario are separatists, but it is an accurate description of their policies and objectives.  Also, your reasoning for them not being puppets of Algeria is based on a logical falacy.  Just because they existed before Algerian "support" doesn't preclude them from being manipulated by Algeria today.  Not only are you the only one here making these claims but your arguements don't hold water and are not convincing anyone.  What is your purpose here other than to disrupt and push your transparent pro-WS POV that nobody is buying?--WilliamThweatt 00:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No Golan Heights and the West Bank are for all intents and purposes most deinately [sic] parts of Israel... right? It is not factual to say that Polisario are separatists, because they are not seeking to separate from anyone or anything, other than the Spanish Empire, from which they separated on February 27, 1976. Provide evidence that they are being manipulated by Algeria today and I might believe you. If you just give me prpaganda report from Morocco, I'll just view them with as much suspicion and an assumption of mendacious lies as anything else that comes from their information ministry. I don't understand your last question: what is my purpose on Wikipedia, or on this page in particular? I've answered the latter question to a great extent over several days, so I'm assuming you aren't seriously asking me that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone who is familiar with the Sahara question knows that it is a domestic issue for Algeria
 * Only a few days ago the algerian governement refused the visa to a Moroccan-French artist just because he supports the Moroccanity of the Sahara. Even the algerian press who is obsessionally anti-moroccan felt ashamed.
 * Polisario cannot decide anything without approval from Algier.
 * Here is just an example:
 * Question: "Do you think armed hostilities could resume then?" - "JAMES A. BAKER III: I don't know. I have no idea. I think that's an issue probably that is more on the plate of Algeria than anybody else because it isn't going to resume unless Algeria permits it to happen. As long as Algeria says to the POLISARIO you're not going to fight anymore then they're not going to fight anymore."
 * What James Baker is saying here is that polisario are pupets in this conflict and that Algeria is using them in a proxy war against Morocco.
 * Algerian military controls Tindouf and are involved in torture
 * If you need more evidence on involvement of Algeria and the use of polisario in the conflict let me know.


 * An other thing: Polisario founders are all Moroccans and have all lived and studied in Morocco. Most of them belonged to the far left wing political movement and rests of this still exist in Morocco (Nahj party).
 * This means that polisario started in Morocco.
 * The father of the current president M. Abdelaziz lives in Morocco, he is an former solider of the Moroccan Liberation Armee and a great supporter of the maroccanity of the Sahara. He is also member of CORCAS. Although he is now old and physically weak he never hesitates to participate in actions for the Moroccan Sahara.
 * And he is not the only one. Brothers and other members of Abdelaziz live in Morocco as well and they support Morocco.
 * You can't find a better example that shows that polisario are separatists.
 * In Morocco they are treated as "apostate" and since Abdelaziz refuses to meet his father (Who wishes to see him before he dies) he is disdained in the country.
 * To reject the own father is seen in Morocco and the arabo-islamic world as a major crime, especially among the sahraouis who have a great sense of family and tribe.


 * wikima 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is actually Talk:Morocco If you want to discuss the Morocco article, this is the place to do it. Anything else belongs elsewhere. Polisario started among some Sahrawi college youth who were from Western Sahara and lead by El-Ouali Mustapha Sayed, who was from Western Sahara, not Morocco. To occupy another's land is seen in the Arabo-Islamic world as not a crime? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When it is convenient for you you divert discussions in endless polemic
 * And when you don't know what to say you start giving lessons.
 * If you give best practice by applying the rules yourself, then what you say would be more credible.


 * As result lets keep two important facts before closing and since we talked about it anyway:
 * Algeria is deeply involved in the conflict
 * Polisario is its puppet
 * We will developp at an other place.
 * wikima 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not to have any position on your discussion but i must state that comments or questions such as "To occupy another's land is seen in the Arabo-Islamic world as not a crime?" are pretty unethical in such a discussion. It may carry a racial connotation indeed. I protest and ask for an explanation to which place it has to make a political argument! -- Szvest 22:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®


 * Wikima Would you just stop? Honestly. You're writing useless garbage that anyone else could write about you like "When it is convenient for you you divert discussions in endless polemic." That doesn't mean anything, it doesn't get us anywhere, and it is just petty. I'm absolutely not going to concede to your two points, and you know it. So why would you waste your time writing something so pointless? If you want to develop in another place, then develop.
 * Fayssal How is it unethical? I have no idea where the racial connotation stuff came from - I used the exact same words Wikima did, and as memory serves, he is an Arab. Of course it has a racial connotation; it's about the values of a racial group. I don't know what kind of explanation you want, but in general I was contrasting what Wikima said about Abdelaziz being so immoral with the far more grevious offenses of Morocco. It's cheap and tawdry to mention how Abdelaziz is not seeing his father and that is a grave crime in their culture, but it's funny that he's giving a moral blank check to Morocco for doing something much worse by any rational assessment. Which one is worse to you: waging war on a peaceful people and creating a refugee crisis, or disowning your father? It's absurd. If Asterion doesn't respond tomorrow, I'm going to arbitration. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * koavf, the arbitration will concern the whole subject of maps and POV on Morocco/WS portals and pages,and not only the map used on Morocco article.--A Jalil 08:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [DEINDENTING] Apologies for late response. Justin, what do you suggest we should all do? I have proposed to both wikima and you making a list of issues and taking it to mediation, either informal or formal. You are simply not going to convince each other (and I don't like the overtone).
 * Regarding the matter we were discussing here originally, that is the strip map, we had a Request for Comments and a straw poll about this. OK, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the idea is trying to reach consensus on controversial matters. The way I see this, Wikima's suggestion of a same-colour map is not NPOV, while the strip map is as close as it gets, given the current political situation. Aside Wikima and you, no one else is particularly upset by the strip map.
 * I think taking this to arbitration if all the dispute resolution steps have not been followed is not a good idea. Anyway, I am no one to stop you if you think otherwise. -- Asterion talk 08:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: Other thing, arbitration will not solve the problem in the sense of telling us what is right or what is wrong, whether WS is Moroccan or a separate stateless nation. It will basically insist on wikipedians being civil, using verifiable sources, etc. Just to give you an idea, please have a look at the ongoing Kosovo arbitration. I would only choose to go to arbitration if there were a problem with trolling, sockpuppets and constant edit wars. And I am sure we are mature enough to be able to avoid this sort of behaviour. Thanks, -- Asterion talk 09:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you asterion for this
 * I am ok with the stripped map a start, as a minimum so to say
 * I take it as agreed among the contributors and have no problems with it - All seem to have understood it but one.
 * What I am doing is the following:
 * Like Jalil I see the topic as global and as affecting all articles in which Western Sahara in involved
 * I also think this needs to be checked globally and any arbitration will need to look at the whole and this article is only a piece of it
 * I find it for example completly inaccurate, asymetric, conredictory and dangerousely misleading to use a full map and a template for a republic that is not even recognised by the UN, that exists only ideologically and is in every case hosted in algeria and so far from that territory we are talking about!
 * And the problem is that this is accepted in Wikipedia!
 * But using just the same for Morocco who actually is effetively present there and effectively exercises its sovereignty (although not recongnised) is a whole effort because Mr Justin fights for the truth and the indepedence of Weetern Sahara?!?
 * So where are we here please? Is this Wikipedia or a "feel free platform" fro propagandists??
 * My conclusion is


 * The current consensus must be kept in evry case
 * We must look at the topic as a whole
 * There must be a general solution as to how further proceed as one can never change any thing without expecting reverts and useless and meaningless long polemics with Justin.


 * Thanks - wikima 11:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wikima, The way I see it, the WS map in the Western Sahara article makes sense, as it describes a territory on its own. I cannot see any problem with this, I guess. There is also a separate article for the RASD, which also uses the same location map together with another one, differentiating between both areas of control (Morocco's and Polisario's). Personally, I think this is a neutral approach, as both Morocco and Polisario claim rights over the whole territory which was previously known as Spanish Sahara. There is also a disclaimer on the map, reading "This map indicates the claimed territory of the SADR. The majority of this territory is currently administered by Morocco." Taking a NPOV approach, I cannot see any problem with this. Any reader can read the rest of this and/or Southern Provinces and Western Sahara articles and will get a clear idea of the conflict and nature of the dispute. I would oppose to having Western Sahara redirecting to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Southern Provinces, as this would give a partisan and partial view of the state of affairs. Regards, -- Asterion talk 12:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Asterion,


 * I do strongly dispute the map in the socalled "sahrawi republic" as well as the whole way how this "republic" is presented.
 * It is not more than an exiled government that is very largely unrecognised but it is presented like a sovereing independent country and the map plays a central role in this misleading and biase.
 * The map in the article on Western Sahara is a slightly different topic.
 * But we will need to sort out how we can diffenciate between existing countries and territories.
 * If you want you can visit the talk page to see my reasons and participate there.
 * My reply here was re the arbitration and I have a same opinion as Jalil.
 * And... you can follow up how difficult it is to edit or change with Justin as he reverts everything despite of special messages and ongoing dicussion.


 * (Addendum: Please read also above about the map. The question that I am asking about why we use this map in the article on "sadr" but not in this one remains unansewered. Cheers wikima)


 * Thanks - wikima 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Asterion Thanks for the heads-up. You asked "what do you suggest we should all do?" Now, in terms of the dispute regarding the map on this page, I still believe that in the interests of NPOV, the article on Morocco has to have a map of Morocco, and not one that deceives the user into thinking that some territory is Moroccan or even under Moroccan occupation when it is not. I'll continue this through the steps of conflict resolution, resulting in arbitration if I have to in order to get closure on the issue. As far as the broad issues that Wikima and consequently Jalil have discussed, I really have no idea what they want from me. I'm generally happy with the content and quality of WS articles and continue to edit them myself (the only outstanding exception is human rights in Western Sahara, which was part of a lengthy three-party discussion that ground to a halt when Wikima left for several months.) He's the one with the dispute or aggreivance, so the onus is on him to come up with some kind of proposal; I honestly don't know what he wants. Again, in terms of this page, I'm assuming that I have to go to the next step in dispute resolution (formal mediation), so I will. Thanks again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Koav/Justin you are saying: "the article on Morocco has to have a map of Morocco, and not one that deceives the user into thinking that some territory is Moroccan or even under Moroccan occupation when it is not."
 * You don't seem to be having problems when the map is used totally in the "sadr" article and deceives the visitor into thinking the "sadr" is just a state like any other in the world!
 * And you protest when the map of Morocco includes a stripped map that clearly shows that at least there is something special about this region?
 * This shows that in all your action in this topic there is no sense for balance and/or neutrality.
 * Several of the articles you are involved in and that are related to Western Sahara are full of pro-polisarian propaganda and needed huge efforts to be cleaned because either you keep reverting (for which you have been blocked several times) or you involve others in endless and meaningless polemics.
 * And I am definitively not the only one who has this problem with you.
 * I maintaiin my proposal for the full integration of WS in Morocco's map because I don't see any other convincing opinions than this biase.


 * wikima 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more time I have alredy told you this several times, and I will tell you one last time: I think it is appropriate to make a map similar to that on the Republic of China page. You totally ignored me every other time I brought it up, and this the last time I'll mention it here. I also cannot believe that you expect this to be convincing to anyone else: "I maintaiin [sic] my proposal for the full integration of WS in Morocco's map because I don't see any other convincing opinions than this biase [sic]." You just read that Asterion said the exact opposite of this, right? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I told you, and this is my last word on this
 * I will not make a PHD on China, Israel or any other complex case of international politics to be able to intervn here.
 * These examples are good to inspire but irrelevant to take 1 to 1 as each of them has own complexity, logics and parameters (otherwise it would be so much easy to resolve problems of this world).
 * None of the reactions answers my question as the situation of the article shows a dramatic biase.
 * It is no problem to say it, with all respect and politness to asterion, aussie or any other memeber who would like to delight us on this.
 * And if you want to read it again, this is my question that adresses the core of the problematic: "=>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?"


 * Cheers - wikima 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ph.D? I don't have a doctoral degree on Chinese politics either; I'm trying to say that there is a relevant and useful precedent and I'd be happy to implement it there also. If you want to discuss the SADR article, please disucss it on that talk. I've answered this question so many times on so many pages over so many months, but here it is again: No one recognizes Morocco's claim to the Sahara, several states recognize the SADR's claim. That is the key difference, and you know that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope dear, that is no difference.
 * "sadr" is a laregely unrecognised entity as the article itself seems to be saysing.
 * All the recognitions are fragile. Every moth a state freezes or cacells its recognition and vice-versa (like a game of chlidren).
 * "sadr" is just out, listen out of Western Sahara. It is in Algeria, in Tindouf or I don't know where.
 * If you want to meet Mohammed Abdleaziz you'll need an algerian visa and not one that delivers to you the so called "sadr"
 * And I presented above that Morocco does not only claim the territory but it governs it as any other of its regions, using its own currency, flag, postage stamps just what you want. There no symbol of soereignty that is not used in WS by Morocco. So.
 * I see that you are unable to give an adequate answer to the question
 * I seel also that you ignore facts.
 * Cheers - wikima 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not having this discussion with you here This is Talk:Morocco. If you want to discuss something else, take it up elsewhere. Yes, that is a difference, and please do not call me dear. It is not true that "Every moth a state freezes or cacells its recognition and vice-versa (like a game of chlidren)," and you know that. I've said this several dozen times; the SADR is in the Sahara, and it's verifiable information that MINURSO (who are also there) supports. I neither have nor need an Algerian visa, as I am not an Algerian citizen. I could also enter the Sahara from Mauritania (as Bedouins routinely do) and visit him that way. Morocco does not govern the Sahara like any other of its regions because 1.) it's not a region of Morocco, and 2.) Morocco can get people to drill for oil off its coast, but not the Sahara's; it can sign a free-trade agreement with the US for its own territory but not the Sahara. Clearly, your claim is not true. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Block After all koavf won't go to mediation at least the following two days, for he is (again) blocked for violating Wikipedia rules he so often try to remind others of.
 * Comparing the Republic of China (Taiwan) with Polisario's self-declared "Bambo Jumbo" Republic is ridiculous. There is not even one similariy.
 * to meet Abdelaziz you will either travel to Algeria and head to the South of Tindouf (you will all the time be on Algerian soil), or you will need the help of smugglers from Mauritania (maybe you will have to be dressed as a woman). What a funny way to enter a republic and meet its president (in the presidential tent).
 * I wonder how can Morocco be allowed to drill offshore in waters that are not supposed to be his!!. Are not the waters also part of the sovereignty of a country?. Morocco has signed treaties that include WS like the fishing agreement with the EU. And believe me, I read in the Algerian newspaper Elkhabar that Moroccan fish from Dakhla (in Rio De Oro) is very popular with Algerians.
 * I said this earlier, and have to say it again: Everything that is written or said here on Wikipedia or the Net or in newspapers, does not change a thing to the situation on the ground. Don't fool yourself (koavf) with all the edits you do here. Morocco is rock-solid about its Sahara. You just sit and talk/write from the States, but I, if need be, will be in the Southern Provinces defending them with arms.
 * Again, the arbitration/mediation will have to concern all the POV on Morocco/WS content. I am finding every day more of it, and most if not all of it was inserted by two users: koavf, and Arre.--A Jalil 22:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Proposal_for_a_Corrected_Version_of_the_Article
 * For those interested in the topic: I have opened a proposal to correct facts and biase in the artcile ond the "sadr" - Have a look:

Thanks - wikima 13:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Block


 * Comparing the Republic of China (Taiwan) with Polisario's self-declared "Bambo Jumbo" Republic is ridiculous. There is not even one similariy.
 * That's not true. Here's a similarity: both are recognized by several states.


 * I wonder how can Morocco be allowed to drill offshore in waters that are not supposed to be his!!. Are not the waters also part of the sovereignty of a country?. Morocco has signed treaties that include WS like the fishing agreement with the EU. And believe me, I read in the Algerian newspaper Elkhabar that Moroccan fish from Dakhla (in Rio De Oro) is very popular with Algerians.
 * That's irrelevant. All that matters is you said that they are administered like any other province of Morocco and that's clearly not the case. No one in this discussion is interested in Algerian delicacies.
 * Needless to say, a lot of that post was irrelevant and off-topic, especially the disturbing violent threats. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Royal Family
From the article:

"Arabs lost political control over Morocco when Berbers adopted Islam and started to form their own Islamic dynasties, independent from the Arab East. One of those dynasties is ruling still today in Morocco; the Alaouite dynasty."

I think that last sentence claiming the royal family of morocco is berber is inaccurate. According to my understanding, they trace their genealogy back to prophet Mohammad and Quraish. unsigned comment by User:69.143.122.31


 * Nice call. I've tried to fix it. Not it reads as following:
 * The Arab-Muslim Calipahtes (i.e. Umayyads of Damascus and the Abbasids of Baghdad) lost political influence over Morocco when the first Arab dynasty in the country, the Idrisid, cut ties with the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad and the Umayyad rule in Al-Andalus. After the reign of the Idrisids, Arabs lost political control within Morocco. After adopting Islam, several Berber dynasties formed their own Islamic dynasties and reigned over the country. This situation lasted until the Arab Saadi dynasty took over in the 16th century.  --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  11:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, not particularly clear on this. That the royal family claims Chorfa descent is not in and of itself a contradiction to the family being also of Berber descent. Certainly I am aware certain (perhaps many, hard to say) Berbers in Morocco consider the Alaoui to be "Berber" in some sense. Calling the Alaoui Arab or Berber I suppose depends on what you take the basis as. Self ident? Partial or complete descent? Current mother tongue? collounsbury 17:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * True. A very good example to this would be the background of king Mohammed VI. Hi mother, Lalla Latifa Hammou is a Berber. However, it remains marginal as a fact. This serves as an argument for the unity of Moroccans but the Alaouite dynasty still declares itself almost officially as Arab. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  10:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just as a curious footnote, I understand that the royal family always marries Berber families - this is what was told me by my good friend Miriam, who is Sudanese, and so she ought to know. Anyway, it the Alawaites have indeed ben marrying Berbers consistently for the last few centuries, it works out like this: Arab+Berber=half Berber Alawite king; half-Berber+Arab in the enxt generation=three-quarters Berber Alawaite king; until by the present day the Alkawites are so little Arab it doesn't count. As I said, this all depends on the accuracy of what my friend Miriam told me, but I'm sure she's a reliable source. PiCo 04:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis production
The following is completely unverified, but I lived in Morocco and was told it by someone who had visited Ketama a short time earlier, had seen the process and showed me some of the produce. Is there any way this information can be used in the Wikipedia?

''A visitor to the Rif mountains in Dec 1976/January 1977 described the production of cannabis resin. In unheated huts, each worker had his hands and arms inside a regular (50Kg or one hundredweight) plastic fertiliser bag. Inside the bag was a plastic washing-up bowl. Stretched over the bowl was a sheet of "zero-zero" grade muslin. The worker rubbed the leaves of the cannabis plant over the muslin, resulting in a fine powder ending up in the bowl.

''100g of the green powder was then wrapped in more "0-0" muslin, put onto a heated metal plate, and rolled down with a bottle. This process leaves a slightly sticky solid brown mass in the form of a square slab, around half the size of a paper-back book and about 1/4" thick. It is finally wrapped in cellophane. Only genuine top-quality "zero-zero" grade cannabis resin carries the imprint of the muslin on the surface of the block.

''Visitors were advised to pay extra to have their selected product delivered to a major town, as the Rif area is ringed with road-blocks and passage through them is complicated enough without untaxed produce in your luggage.

Tomrawlinson 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You may try at Hashish itself. Maybe Kief as well. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  14:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Profanity in article- Jan 31, 2007
The article on Morocco contains profanity which I could not edit out - the offending text does not appear on the edit page.
 * Fixed. Thanks. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Morocco/Algeria border
Is this not in dispute? If it is disputed, should not the map indicate this as a dashed line or something like that? --ScottMainwaring 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. A few minor points and an area in the south that is not well defined. Nothing of real dispute. (collounsbury 17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Is it still closed? 65.93.115.161 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

System of government
In the system of goverment field of the infobox, it should probably be indicated who does what in the system. The republics seem to fall into Parliamentary Democracies (president is figurehead), Semi-presidential ones, (The president and the prime minister share power somehow), and Presidential ones (There is no prime minister). It seems to me that Morocco is something like a Semi Presidential Kingdom..... or a semi kingial kingdom.... You guys figure out the term for it. But it should be mentioned in order that school children reading the info boxes can always expect to find the same info in them. --just a guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.232.14 (talk • contribs)
 * It says it is a Constitutional monarchy where the king is the Head of state. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up ®  12:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

tag
I've just added the tag as it is really dubious. Why Morocco is not part of the African Union? What? When? Where? etc... I got some notes to add but i m leaving th etag for now. Please remind me if i'd forget. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  06:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * AU Morocco is not a member because the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic of Western Sahara is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is someone playing around and inserting the sentence "Ownership of television sets in [country name] is 243 sets per 1000 households" in articles at random, including this article. Please check if the information is correct. — Adi Japan   ☎  04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish widely spoken in Morocco
I don't think so. Please let the spanish language page know if you agree. Talk: Spanish Language Arabic, Berber and French are much more imiportant so Morocco should not be coloured in as a Spanish speaking country.


 * Spanish is very present in the north for historical and geographical reasons, where it is understood by as much as 3 million people. In the rest of the country, there are schools that teach it as a second foreign language (after French). Students choose either English or Spanish. But English is usually chosen. So when we talk about Spanish language in Morocco, we usually mean the north of the country. --A Jalil 12:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Official languages
Official languages -de jure: Arabic -de facto: French! wrong!!! French is not de facto language! the most used language in Morocco is Arabic, it's the language of Parlement and most ministries,French's widely used in technology and science and learned from an early age but that doesn't makes it the most used language, only 20% or less of Moroccans can understand French! Arabic is the primary language used in Moroccan education! So that means Arabic is the de jure and de facto language and French is an unofficial second language!


 * Please sign your comments. Yes, Arabic is the official language. But that's not he entire truth because the spoken variety Darija is very different from official standard Arabic. In fact, most Moroccans neither speak nor understand "Arabic" and Arabic is a second language as French. Why should French be listed as a de-facto language? Of the simple fact that French is massively used everywhere in the country in all domains. Have you ever been to Morocco? If so, you know that you can find more books in French than in Arabic if you enter a bookstore, that French language newspapers are at least as common as Arabic ones, that the domestic television broadcast half of its time in French, that the French language is present everywhere in advertisment, and that a big part of the country's elite is educated in French schools. Aaker 20:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither speak nor understand formal Arabic is an exageration. The phrasing on de facto is a bit ambiguous, certainly the article shouldn't imply French is the primary language of ordinary conversation. (on the other hand certainly more than 20% of Moroccans understand French...) collounsbury 22:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Aaker I think you really exagerating the role of French in Morocco. I'm actually someone who stays 1 month in Morocco every year. And I can assure you, more people speak Arabic then French. Television does surely not broadcast half of the time in French. The 12am news broadcast is in French. But I don't think a half-hour is half of the time. And Darija is Arabic for dialect, and is a dialect of Arabic. French plays an important role only in buisness and with the country's elite class. But the elite class, I can assure you, isn't the mayority of the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Name
The name section seems to contradict itself. At the top we have:"The word "Morocco" is directly derived from the Amazigh word Mur-Akush meaning Land of God." Yet at the bottom of the section, we have this: "The name "Morocco" in many other languages originates from the name of the former capital, Marrakech." Which is it? Could some expert on the subject please clarify this? Lexington1 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The English (derived from the Spanish or Iberian usage) derives from the Iberian's deformation of Marrakech, which was formerly one of the capitals of Morocco and sometimes used in late Medieval usage to refer to Morocco. Marrakech's ultimate derivation (i.e. where the name of the city came from) would seem to be from the Berber (whether it is Amazight or Tachelhit usage I am not sure, I believe Marrakech is in the Tachelhit speaking area historically) Mur Akouch, although I have not seen a scholarly source on that so am slightly hesitant to accept it straight out given wild claims are often made by and about Berbers. What is clear is that the name derived from the city name PRIMARILY, whereas the city name may be taken perhaps from a regional usage, but was not one for the country as such. collounsbury 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
 * Mur Akush (probably meaning "land of God") → Marrakech → Morocco. I don't see any contradition. In brief, the latinized name "Morocco" comes from the berber name of "Marrakech" while the Arabic name "Al Maghrib" comes from the Arabic "the Western [kingdom]". -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fayssal, with all due respect mate, I think there is a bit of a contradiction in the present presentation, as it implies Mur Akush was a name for Morocco as such (which is I would opine, at best an unknowable). Rephrasing for clarity is probably recommendable, to indicate the English is derived from the Iberian (Spanish and Portoguese) corruption of Marrakech, which itself derives from... See what I am saying? collounsbury 15:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "The full Arabic name of Morocco, Al-Mamlaka al-Maghribiya, translates to "The Western Kingdom". Al Maghrib (meaning "The West") is commonly used. For historical references, historians used to refer to Morocco as Al Maghrib al Aqşá ("The Farthest West"), disambiguating it from the historical region called the Maghreb. The latinized name "Morocco" in many other languages originates from the name of the former capital, Marrakech (Marruecos in Spanish, Marrocos in Portuguese, Maroc in French, and Marokko in German, Norwegian and Dutch, the Persians straightforwardly call it Marakech. The Turks call it "Fas" which comes from the oldest capital, Fès.) The word "Marrakech" is directly derived from the Amazigh word Mur-Akush meaning Land of God."
 * Any comments? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite good I think. I might note that Maghreb al Aqsa was one classical [historical? medieval?] Arabic term for modern Morocco. Triviality, but clarifies the term comes from classic Arabic usage. BTW is it from Amazight or Tachelhit, Mur Akouch? (collounsbury 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
 * I really have no idea because the "Mur Akouch" thing got no reliable source in order to verify it. It used to have {citation needed} but some contributors (especially IPs) used to remove the tag and edit war while accusing me of being an "Arab colonizer and propagandist." They just don't care about wikipedia policies and guidelines.
 * Maghreb al Aqsa (meaning the farest west) was one classical medieval Arabic term. Arab historians used it in parallel w/ Maghreb Al adna (the nearest west which is Tunisia) and Maghreb Al Awsat (middle west which is Algeria). Maybe it is historical as the Romans called them Mauretania, Numidia and Ifriqiya. - FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I read history before becoming a financier! Indeed, well, they make natural divisions really, thus the long-lasting divisions and rough historical correspondences between modern states and a whole string of historical regimes. RE the Mur Akouch.... well maybe a slight "apparently derived..." as while as much as I love my Berbers there is a certain tendency in some quarters to fabulate. (collounsbury 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Please verify the section now. References provided as well. Re Mur-Akush, i found something interesting but preferred to discuss it here before deciding what to do: (text translated from French below)

Ok, fantastic as information but the problem is that "Tamurth Akush" overrides that of "Mur Akush". Ta is a morpheme for feminine. There is another problem is that north-of-africa.com doesn't cite any primary source. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  21:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing the name thing up, everybody. Lexington1 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagldit n Lmeghrib
Tagldit n Lmeghrib

what does that mean? Mallerd 16:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Kingdom of Morocco" in Berber. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) Mallerd 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I really respect Amazigh language, and I said it's a language not a dialect, and I think it has it's own script, so it should be wrote in its own official script or not wrote at all. Cause that "Tagldit n Lmeghrib" Does not make any sence, thank you!! Koumed 05:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

New section about map
This map is much better than the striped one and neutral. Vispec 15:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the whole page. Once you do that, we can get back to your comment. Thanks. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine
How could moroccan cuisine be influenced by the turkish cuisine when Morocco was never part of the Ottoman Empire??? Please stop writting false information.....Mira Chouiri 24.203.220.188
 * Through direct relationships (sometimes familial) between Algerian and Moroccan families (i.e. Fes, Tlemcen, Oujda, Oran, etc...) -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Morocco is the third most populous Arab country
"Morocco is the fourth most populous Arab country, after Egypt, Sudan and Algeria." There's something wrong in this sentence, Morocco is been always slightly more populous than Algeria, and that makes it the third most populous Arab country, and all statistics prove that. Thank you Koumed 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a reference to that (fourth). If you can find a better reference backing your point, please use it. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my source The CIA Fact book and some random website World's 50 Most Populous Countries, Also, you can take Wikipedia as a source and check the population in the two countries. Thank you --Koumed 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please be bold and update it. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It' Done! :) --Koumed 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OIC-Flag.jpg
Image:OIC-Flag.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
I am unable to edit the main Morocco article - can someone edit it to include the Kabyle version of it at http://kab.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merruk? The Uvula (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it wrote with a latin letters, wikipedia should not support a language which is not wrote by its official Alphabet. As far as i know there's no official status of Kabyle in latin alphabet, plus it shouldn't even be supported, the one which it should be supported is the unified amazigh which is Taught in schools with its own official alphabet "Tifinagh". --Koumed (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force for GA sweeps. I think the article currently doesn't meet the requirements of the Good article criteria concerning mainly sourcing. Several sections need to be expanded in order to become more comprehensive. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article reassessment to get a better consensus on the article's status. Coloane (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Similar to the article below, citations are needed in: Although other sections have citations (e.g. 1 or up to 2 citations), they are still extremely weak.
 * Culture - no citation

It seems to me these sections didn't write down anything (then why not put them to the list of " See also"?):
 * Military
 * Technology
 * Universities
 * Sports

These sections needed to be removed or re-write rather than simply putting the tables or list:
 * Affliations
 * Bilateral and multilateral agreements

References didn't follow MoS. e.g. 8-12 16-22. Coloane (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved the above comment here from WP:GA/R for easy reference by anyone who uses this talk page regularly. Please note that "the article below" refers to the Papua New Guinea article. -Malkinann (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * please refer to GAR, this article has been delisted rather than going through the procedure of GAR. Coloane (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)