Talk:Morocco/Archive 4

Is the green march an armed force??
The green march (la marche verte) is cited as an armed force, please correct this error or unlock the document (I see no vandalisme risk at all!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindyroot (talk • contribs) 07:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple Errors
Can somebody please correct the punctuation errors? I attempted to, but the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catrinakcat (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just skimming this article there's a boat load of grammatical errors. Perhaps the writers first language is not English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.48.25 (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your talk pages, from the same occasion, there is no longer error; good day from Casablanca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.25.88 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A propos des origines des POPULATIONS DU NORD AFRIQUE
1dabord est ce que ces chercheurs ont preleve le dna de tous les 11 millions de tunisiens pour pouvoir donner une telle conclusion? 2comment peut on savoir qu un type est du moyent orient par son dna? 3quelle differnce y a til dans le dna entre un arabe un amazigh un hebreux ou un europeen du sud etant donne que ces populations appartiennent tous a la sous race mediterranide(petite stature cheveux du noir jusuq au blond yeux du noir jusqu au plus clair cranes brachycepahles peau de differnts teins du blanc pilosite pas tres abondante largeur moyenne des epaules)? 4comment savoir si un type est arabe par son dna s'il a par exemple un seul ancetre amazigh qui au cours de dizaines de generations s'est brasse avec des dizaines d'individus arabes? ou bien si dans ces ancetres existent des arabes des amazigh des pheniciens des proto-mediterraneens (les populations paleolithique de l'afrique du nord avant la migration des neolithiques amazigh puis les neolithiques arabes)? c'est a dire disons que un type a 20 milles ancetres(depuis l'apparition du premeir homo sapiens habilis qui avait la capacite de parler cad il y a quelques 80-100 milles ans de nos jours) dans ces ancetres l'ecrasante majorite on ne sait pas quelle langue ils parlaient l'infime reste est partage par exemple entre 100 arabes 23 arabophones 47 amaizgh 6 amazigh arabises 3 grecs turquises n X Yises quel est le critere pour etablir son origine linguistique ethnique nationale ou identitaire(ce sont des contextes differents)? aussi comment savoir "la langue ou l ethnie"de ces ancetres au dela de cette periode(cad depuis l apparition du premier homme homo sapiens sapiens erectus habilis il y a quelques 500 milles annees de la? 5aussi quelle est la difference genetique entre les differentes populations semito-hamitiques (amazigh arabes egyptiens beja etc etc)pour pouvoir determiner qui est qui? 6aussi quelle differnce genetique entre les differentes populations semitiques(arabes hebreux canaanites assyriens pheniciens)pour pouvoir dire qui est qui? 7comment considerer les populations paleolithiques presentes en nord de l afrqiue avant l arrivee des migrations neolithiques des amazigh puis des arabes vu que ces populations se sont amazighises en liassant quelques mots dans les different dialectes amazigh d'apres l'article wikipedia sur les origines genetiques des amazigh

Y chromosomes are passed exclusively through the paternal line.

Bosch et al. (2001), found little genetic distinction between Arabic-speaking and Berber-speaking populations in North Africa, which they take to support the interpretation of the Arabization and Islamization of northwestern Africa, starting with word-borrowing during the 7th century A.D. and through State Arabic Language Officialisation post independence in 1962, as cultural phenomena without extensive genetic replacement. According to this study the historical origins of the NW African Y-chromosome pool may be summarized as follows: 75% NW African Upper Paleolithic (M78, M35, and M81), 13% Neolithic (J1-M267 and J2-M172), 4% historic European gene flow and 8% recent sub-Saharan African. They identify the "75% NW African Upper Paleolithic" component as "an Upper Paleolithic colonization that probably had its origin in Eastern Africa." The North-west African population's 75% Y chromosome genetic contribution from East Africa contrasted with a 78% contribution to the Iberian population from western Asia, suggests that the northern rim of the Mediterranean with the Strait of Gibraltar acted as a strong, albeit incomplete, barrier. However this study only analysed a small sample of Moroccan Y lineages. EMSE

on voit que 75%"sont des M78 M38 et M81"paleolithiques 13%sont des j1-m267 et des j2-m172"neolithiues et les autres europeens et sub sahariens (sans nous donner les haplogroupes de ces derniers ) alors ma question est qui sont les M78 les M35 les M81 les j1-M267 les j2-M172? et aussi si un male est m78 et sa femme est jem267 alors que seront leurs enfants? aussi comment savoir que les m78 sont paleolithiques et les j sont neolithiques et comment etaienet les haplogroupes de leurs ancetres avant d'entrer dans l ere paleolithique et l ere neolithique? 8aussi on sait que les arabes ont vu le jour en ethiopie (d'apres wikipedia)alors comment savoir si il n y a pas des arabes venus d'afrique? et comment determiner les autres populations venues du moyent orient comme les hebreux les pheniciens les kurdes etc etc? 9autre point disons que le type a un ancetre avec M78 alors si cet ancetre se mariera avec un type M35 ou des J quel haplogroupe dominerait ? 10si le type a des ancetres J et parmi ces ancetres certains se sont croise avec des M alors est ce qu on trouvera toutes ces hybridations de J et de M  et de x ou y (s'il y a d'autres melanges autres que ces 2)ou bien quoi? 11dans le meme article de wikipedia sur les amazigh

Archaeology The Neolithic Capsian culture appeared in North Africa around 9,500 BC and lasted until possibly 2700 BC. Linguists and population geneticists alike have identified this culture as a probable period for the spread of an Afro-Asiatic language (ancestral to the modern Berber languages) to the area. The origins of the Capsian culture, however, are archeologically unclear. Some have regarded this culture's population as simply a continuation of the earlier Mesolithic Ibero-Maurusian culture, which appeared around ~22,000 BC, while others argue for a population change; the former view seems to be supported by dental evidence EMSE

on dit que la culture neolithique caspienne est apparue a 9,500 jusuq a 2,700 ac et on dit que les chercheurs estiment cette culture comme afro-asiatqiue cad elle peut etre semite amazigh egyptienne beja etc etc ou bien tout simplement proto afro-asiatique or dans l article sur l afro-asiatique on estime que cette famille linguistique a vu le jour soit au yemen soit en ethiopie? 12par les analyses genetiques il s avere que 75%des nord africains ont les fameuses haplogroupes M paleolithique et la on nous dit que la culture amazigh est une culture neolithique qui a vu le jour en periode neolithique alors soit les populations originelles paleolithiques ont ete afro-asiatiquophonise linguistiquement soit cette culture caspienne n'est pas afro-asiatique? 13aussi comment savoir si la culture caspienne est une proto culture amazigh en l absence de vestiges d'ecriture ? 14aussi on nous dit que cette culture est la continuation de la culture mesolithique ibero-maurusienne d'ou quelle est la nature ethnique et linguistique de cette culture? 15dans ce passage du meme article

Arab settlement, on the other, a fusion took place that resulted in a new ethnocultural entity all over the Maghrib[10]. Another study on Haplogroup J (Semino et al. 2004) agrees with Nebel et al.'s suggestion that J1-M267 may have spread to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 30.1%), which they assume to be a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period.[11]. This theory is disputed by Arredi et al. 2004, who argue like Bosch et al. 2001 that the J1-M267 haplogroup (formerly H71) and North African Y-chromosomal diversity indicate a Neolithic-era "demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East."

on nous dit que la majorite des tunsiens et algeriens sont issus de differentes migrations d'afro-asiatiques(amazigh puis berberes)venus du moyent orient or en plus haut ils donnent un taux de 75%d'individus de haplotype paleolithiques? 16aussi on voit qu il y a des amazighophones et des arabophones de race negroide ma question est .est ce qu il est question des memes haplogroupes en question independamment de la race cad quoique on soit caucasoide ou negroides il est tjs question du meme haplogroupe? merci pour l'attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanzukik (talk • contribs) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia. Please use English. Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jews in Morocco
The Jews in Morocco had an important role and were in many governments, see here the article of Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971) on:

Jews in Morocco (from Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971)

First in Roman times the Jews were on mission in the Berber tribes, then the times were good, and since the Christians came with colonialism the Jews were often blamed for it and had to suffer under the counter movements or the times were mixed.

This link could be taken to the main site.

Michael Palomino 7 Jan. 2007 84.74.58.71 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights and Reforms
Near the end of the Human Rights and Reforms section of the article, it says, "The Moroccan parliament is due to vote on these issues in spring 2007." It's now a year later; is there an update on how they voted? Securehope (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

On the human rights section it says that the Mudawana gave women 'more' rights when in fact woman officially had equal rights to men. That should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.1.173 (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Morocco's official languages?
Did the Moroccan government make French official lately? Just to clarify things, Morocco have only one official language which is Arabic, and recognize Amazigh only as a national language, even if french is widly used, it has no official status. someone should mention that clearly to avoid misleading Poeple, and should immediately remove French from the official languages. Koumed (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Put navpage links to avoid oversized browser pages
04-April-2008: Wikipedia has policies defined to avoid creating an access barrier for users: one of the most common issues concerns pages too large to be displayed in some browsers. I have changed article "Morocco" to outlink the bottom 17 navboxes as links to external navpages. Formerly, there had been 18 bottom navboxes hardcoded into the article text, generating 100kb (over 100,000 bytes) of browser code, expanding the Morocco article to 253,279 bytes, or a page size of a quarter megabyte of data. The page size for the 18 navboxes alone was larger than most entire articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, the bottom navboxes now link by the "(show)" option to the external navpages for each navbox, displaying the same nav-links as before, but rolled out to separate pages. The reduced page-size not only fits on smaller browsers, but also displays the Morocco article over twice as fast for all users. Because the article is modified every few days, the double-speed formatting also quickens the edit-preview process as well. When the navboxes were first added into the Morocco article, I doubt many people could have forseen the problem would become a massive stack of 18 bottom navboxes, but at least that problem has been fixed now. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Zone error?
The "Time Zone" box shows Morocco as having a DST of GMT+1. But according to "zdump -v Africa/Casablanca", if I read it right, Morocco haven't had this in effect since 1978.

There is an anomaly in zdump's output as it states that the standard time was GMT+1 for part of the time in 1984 and 1985, but the DST bit isn't set for those years.

The [CIA World Fact Book page for Morocco] agrees with ZoneInfo (i.e. no Daylight Saving Time).

My question - can anyone verify the correct time zone for Morocco so we can tell whether this is an error in Wikipedia or in the Zoneinfo file?

I tested this on both Linux Debian Etch and CentOS 5. Here is the output on Debian Etch (Cento's zdump seems not to cope with year 2038 properly):

$ zdump -v Africa/Casablanca Africa/Casablanca Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 UTC = Fri Dec 13 20:15:32 1901 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=-1820 Africa/Casablanca Sat Dec 14 20:45:52 1901 UTC = Sat Dec 14 20:15:32 1901 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=-1820 Africa/Casablanca Sun Oct 26 00:30:19 1913 UTC = Sat Oct 25 23:59:59 1913 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=-1820 Africa/Casablanca Sun Oct 26 00:30:20 1913 UTC = Sun Oct 26 00:30:20 1913 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Mon Sep 11 23:59:59 1939 UTC = Mon Sep 11 23:59:59 1939 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Tue Sep 12 00:00:00 1939 UTC = Tue Sep 12 01:00:00 1939 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Nov 18 22:59:59 1939 UTC = Sat Nov 18 23:59:59 1939 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Nov 18 23:00:00 1939 UTC = Sat Nov 18 23:00:00 1939 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sat Feb 24 23:59:59 1940 UTC = Sat Feb 24 23:59:59 1940 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sun Feb 25 00:00:00 1940 UTC = Sun Feb 25 01:00:00 1940 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Nov 17 22:59:59 1945 UTC = Sat Nov 17 23:59:59 1945 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Nov 17 23:00:00 1945 UTC = Sat Nov 17 23:00:00 1945 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sat Jun 10 23:59:59 1950 UTC = Sat Jun 10 23:59:59 1950 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sun Jun 11 00:00:00 1950 UTC = Sun Jun 11 01:00:00 1950 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Oct 28 22:59:59 1950 UTC = Sat Oct 28 23:59:59 1950 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Oct 28 23:00:00 1950 UTC = Sat Oct 28 23:00:00 1950 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sat Jun  3 11:59:59 1967 UTC = Sat Jun  3 11:59:59 1967 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sat Jun  3 12:00:00 1967 UTC = Sat Jun  3 13:00:00 1967 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Sep 30 22:59:59 1967 UTC = Sat Sep 30 23:59:59 1967 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Sep 30 23:00:00 1967 UTC = Sat Sep 30 23:00:00 1967 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sun Jun 23 23:59:59 1974 UTC = Sun Jun 23 23:59:59 1974 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Mon Jun 24 00:00:00 1974 UTC = Mon Jun 24 01:00:00 1974 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Aug 31 22:59:59 1974 UTC = Sat Aug 31 23:59:59 1974 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Aug 31 23:00:00 1974 UTC = Sat Aug 31 23:00:00 1974 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Fri Apr 30 23:59:59 1976 UTC = Fri Apr 30 23:59:59 1976 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sat May  1 00:00:00 1976 UTC = Sat May  1 01:00:00 1976 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Jul 31 22:59:59 1976 UTC = Sat Jul 31 23:59:59 1976 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Sat Jul 31 23:00:00 1976 UTC = Sat Jul 31 23:00:00 1976 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sat Apr 30 23:59:59 1977 UTC = Sat Apr 30 23:59:59 1977 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Sun May  1 00:00:00 1977 UTC = Sun May  1 01:00:00 1977 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Tue Sep 27 22:59:59 1977 UTC = Tue Sep 27 23:59:59 1977 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Tue Sep 27 23:00:00 1977 UTC = Tue Sep 27 23:00:00 1977 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Wed May 31 23:59:59 1978 UTC = Wed May 31 23:59:59 1978 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Thu Jun  1 00:00:00 1978 UTC = Thu Jun  1 01:00:00 1978 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Thu Aug  3 22:59:59 1978 UTC = Thu Aug  3 23:59:59 1978 WEST isdst=1 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Thu Aug  3 23:00:00 1978 UTC = Thu Aug  3 23:00:00 1978 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Thu Mar 15 23:59:59 1984 UTC = Thu Mar 15 23:59:59 1984 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Fri Mar 16 00:00:00 1984 UTC = Fri Mar 16 01:00:00 1984 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Tue Dec 31 22:59:59 1985 UTC = Tue Dec 31 23:59:59 1985 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=3600 Africa/Casablanca Tue Dec 31 23:00:00 1985 UTC = Tue Dec 31 23:00:00 1985 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Mon Jan 18 03:14:07 2038 UTC = Mon Jan 18 03:14:07 2038 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 Africa/Casablanca Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 UTC = Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 WET isdst=0 gmtoff=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosshapira (talk • contribs)


 * Morocco has been having DST of GMT+1 since June 1st, 2008. DST ends on midnight between Saturday, September 27, 2008 and Sunday, September 28, 2008 local daylight time. And zdump is correct; GMT+1 was adopted between March 16th, 1984 and October 1st, 1985, and again for the month of June in 1989. This article explains it all. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  08:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I confirm what FayssalF stated. Why do we continue to cite the CIA world "fact" book, the same organization that kidnaps "suspects" to be tortured? (Casa2000 (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Give it a rest, the CIA Factbook is a research publication, the spooks have fuck all to do with it. It is only a question of being dated, with the Moroccan government's rather badly managed time zone transitioning. (collounsbury (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

More Racial Propaganda
The article mentions: "There is no significant genetic difference between Moroccan Arabs and Moroccan non-Arabs (i.e. Berbers). Thus, it is likely that Arabization was mainly a cultural process without genetic replacement.[24] However, according to the European Journal of Human Genetics, North-Western Africans were genetically closer to Iberians and to other Europeans than to sub-Saharan Africans.[25]"

If life evolved in Africa, you would expected the original people of Morocco to be genetically closer to sub-Saharan Africans IF there was NO genetic replacement as you are assuming. There is no measurement of the level of genetic & cultural replacement. But we do know the original inhabitants were greatly influenced by outside ethnic groups. As like any group, there was mixing and demographic changes.

Also, note "Sub-Saharan African" is a label used in Euro-centric view of evolution and history. And more recently this has been proven bias as it is self-contradictory to include "out of Africa" theory yet refer to "Sub-Saharan African". Of course there was genetic replacement.

Leon Spencer, Animis Opibusque Parati 08:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub-saharans were not in Morocco before Arabization, it was the Berbers that were 'Arabized.' And indeed, Berbers were genetically almost identical to Arabs, so the article is right on that issue. Sub-Saharan Africans were only introduced much later as slaves by Arabs through the trans-saharan salt routes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.1.173 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all the article doesn't deny that there was mixing, it merely suggests that the Berber component was likely the more significant one in both Arabic and Berber speaking populations (and this is corroborated by history which suggests that the migrations to Morocco from Arabia, though significant, were not overwhelmingly large compared to the Berber population already present in Morocco at the time). Secondly, your analysis that one would expect Moroccans to be genetically closer to Sub-Saharan Africans were they genuinely of mainly Berber descent is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, note that the Sahara has served as a relatively effective natural barrier between the populations of Northern Africa and the rest of the continent since the end of the humid period shortly after the ice age. Secondly, note that as humans did indeed originate in Africa, and migrated out of it only (relatively) recently, the amount of genetic divergence to be expected in Northern Africa (which is not where humans are thought to have developed - it is believed the origin is most likely in East Africa) from Sub-Saharan populations should be of approximately the same magnitude as that expected in Arabia (or anywhere else in the world, really).

Lastly, I admit that the above is unsourced information and merely reflects my analysis of the facts presented in this article and in other related articles on Wikipedia. I am merely making a genuine effort at defending what I see as being facts that are corroborated by good research (as sourced in the article) and that seem to make sense (to me) in the context of other knowledge we have of Moroccan history and human genetics. Elostirion (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Map issues
No way The infobox should have a map of the international boundaries of Morocco, plain and simple. See also Israel. There is no rationale for presenting this striped map as the map of Morocco; it's not. This map represents neither Morocco's claims, Moroccan administration, nor the international boundaries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please revert yourself Justin and wait untill everything is discussed here as per WP:Consensus. Editing there a stable version and come here to say No way is not really a good way. Thanks. Please, revert and start a proper discussion here. Thanks. --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 05:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Proper discussion? What is improper with what I have written? I think it is entirely fitting. The map that I have now in the infobox is a map of Morocco and similar to the ones used in all other infoboxes, so I do not think it is necessary or even appropriate to revert to a version that I think is biased and POV. I would put on a dispute tag, but I'm afraid that you might delete it and instigate a revert war about the tag itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, have the courtesy of leaving it at the stable version and then come to discuss. This is what wp:Consensus states Justin. --  fayssal   / Wiki me up® 06:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The map clearly states there is a dispute on the southern borders, and this has been discussed before. No reason to modify the long established map. If the UN is to be used as a reference for eveything in Wikipedia, then anything to do with the SADR should be removed because the UN does not recognise it.--A Jalil (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The striped map reflects the real situation on the ground. Western Sahara is a disputed territory. And I believe that user:A Jalil is not forcing the other polarized and radical point of view --a view supported by user:Wikima as you know.

It also reflects Wikipedia practices and good use and application of Wikipedia core policies --especially wp:npov, wp:consensus; two very important policies. Also, wp:OTHERSTUFFEXIST --though an essay-- is very relevant. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  00:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really This article was up for mediation and never went through; there was hardly a consensus achieved. The NPOV position is that of the UN, right? What is so POV about using the maps that have the same borders as the UN? The striped map doesn't represent anything - the situation on the ground is that Morocco claims the entire territory and occupies part of it. What do these stripes even represent? Territorial claims? Administration? The claim of Morocco is that Western Sahara is a part of Morocco, so making stripes to offset it does not represent the Morocco POV. Morocco does not administer the entire territory, so striping all of it does not represent their administration and occupation. This map doesn't actually mean anything.
 * "If the UN is to be used as a reference for eveything in Wikipedia, then anything to do with the SADR should be removed because the UN does not recognise it" doesn't mean anything. If we're going to have a map in the infobox, that should represent the borders of Morocco. The UN seems like a credible source for publishing maps on the borders of Morocco; what is your objection to that?
 * Note also that on Israel, their map is of the international borders of Israel, not occupied or claimed territories. Why should Morocco by any different? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also If you want to talk about stable versions, a version of this article without Western Sahara on the map was around for several years prior to this one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you tell to a Sahraoui with a Moroccan passport living in Dakhla and voting for USFP or whatever? Would you tell him that you are living in another country? --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Just like how I would tell an Israeli living in the Golan Heights - you are living in occupied, annexed territory that is within the legal borders of Syria. The international community understands what constitutes Morocco to end at Western Sahara, not to include it. Shouldn't the map of "Morocco" in the infobox correspond to the international understanding of what constitutes "Morocco" regardless of any other factors about annexation, occupation, or passports? What is the case against the UN- or CIA-style map showing Morocco's legal borders? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Passport" is only one single point among many (please refer to above and archived discussions for others). Also, you are talking about the international community as if it were more than 200 hundred countries recognizing Western Sahara as a country. Please read again what A Jalil says above. You are also comparing the incomparable (Golan heights is a disputed area between two legally recognized countries). It is not the case here. And we are not saying that the map is inclusive (we are talking about ground facts trying to be as much neutral as possible). And I totally agree with A Jalil here indeed. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  17:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Law and such How is the internationally-defined border between two states somehow different than the border between a state and another territory? Should the map between Suriname and French Guiana be different somehow than the map between Canada and the United States? I am not talking about the international community as though they all recognize the SADR; I am talking about them as though they recognize a border between two entities, which they do. It's irrelevant if they recognize the SADR. When you write "we are talking about ground facts trying to be as much neutral as possible" I honestly have no idea what you mean, because - as I've already pointed out before - this map does not represent any "ground facts." What exactly is this map saying? From which perspective is it made? None. It's just a nonsense map that confuses more than elucidates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's relevant that they recognize SADR; a territory with no government? Israel and Syria both have seats at the UN. The Palestinian Authority got an observer status. The SADR is neither a member nor an observer of the UN, and Western Sahara is listed by the UN as a "non-self-governing territory". And the last UN Security Council resolution talks about talks and encourages the Moroccan Autonomy Plan. And please, let's stop this wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because, clearly, there are no exact similar circumstances which can be compared to this case.
 * The map represents the facts. There are Moroccan Saharaouis living in there (they got Moroccan passports and they are eligible to vote). There are Moroccan administrations. There is the Moroccan military presence as everywhere in Morocco. The thing for sure is that it is a disputed territory. Once SADR becomes the first government of an independent Western Sahara, we can then do as you wish. Once Morocco gets its autonomy plan approved, user:Wikima can get what he wishes. For now, both your and Wikima's POVs are extreme and do not consider the realities of the ground. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  21:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff I don't know how I can make any kind of argument if every time I bring up an analogy, you simply say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is a consistent and logical pattern of using the internationally-defined borders of a state in the infobox and that is not an invalid analogy. Again, it's irrelevant that Israel and Syria are both UN members - what does that have to do with anything? - my point is that there is an internationally-recognized border (one that is recognized by the UN as well.) That border is recognized by states irrespective of their recognition of the SADR as the legitimate government of Western Sahara. This map does not recognize any facts - there are Moroccan Sahrouis living in some parts of the shaded region, but not all of it. The stripes there do not represent Moroccan administration. There is a Moroccan military presence in part of it because it is occupied territory - Morocco proper is not occupied. My POV is not "extreme" - I want to just use the internationally-defined borders. This has nothing to do with the SADR and so I have no idea why you keep on bringing them up. It has to do with a border between Morocco and not-Morocco. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So we are back to Koavf's POV circus again? Primo Kid, Israel has not formally annexed the Occuppied Territories nor given citizenship to the inhabitants. It makes no pretension to a recent historical sovereign relationship with the inhabitants (as the Moroccan argument), and treats the Occupied Territories non-settler inhabitants as foreigners. Non comparable. The prior map, which I reverting to makes clear the disputed status, but also the effective reality on the ground. This is an effective conveying to non-partisan readers of actual facts. Your endless baiting and sly returning to break consensus are very tiresome. As for something actually comparable, I would look to the Kashmiri situation with India, or the Tamil zone of Sri Lanka. In each case there are rather more active seperatist movements claiming real control over territory. (collounsbury (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Returning to comparables, here is a map of India showing disputed areas (Kashmir, the Eastern provinces http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/India-states-numbered.svg) that is effectively the same in style as the map KOAVF keeps trying to disappear. As to the idiotic reference to the UN MAP, well, if idiot boy would read the fucking map, ''The boundaries and names shown and the designations used

on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.'' The official boundaries (as in the Indian cases) are in dispute and there is not clear international consensus. Your POV is partisan and extreme, and your editing remains dishonest and fucking pig headed(collounsbury (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Bloody yay! No way am I going to get into another pissing match with you: act like an adult or don't post. Note that I also mentioned the Golan Heights, which are annexed and claimed, and you conveniently ignored them. There are now two maps and an assertion of POV on my part by displaying both of them is nonsense. Also, could you take a moment to be slightly less childish and not delete interwiki links when you revert? It's not hard to do nor much to ask; unlike, say, being a civil human being. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Given your status, you really want to Edit War again kid? Your faux politeness I have no fucking use for as I see nothing polite in your bloody sleath edit warring year after fucking, ignoring consensus blundering in. As for Golan, they expelled the fucking population you git. Actual analogies as I already raised are treated precisely like the prior case.(collounsbury (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC))
 * What? Morocco expelled as much of the Sahrawi population as did Israel in the Golan - there are still plenty of Druze and Arabs living there right now. All that is immaterial to their territorial claim - it's an irrelevant point that does not address the claim that I made. You are writing such nonsense on this page and in your edit summaries that I hardly know how to respond to them and frankly, I would rather you had faux politeness (whatever that is) than you belligerency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I have the same problem with Justin (Koavf) in 'List of countries' page. He is trying to convince the editors that there is a republic setting in Western Sahara and that Western Sahara is a sovereign country/state!!! I notice on this talk page that Justin is using the same arguments to distore the reality on the ground. Well, Justin is the admin of the Western Sahara Wikiproject where many wrong or incomplete information are considered as established facts. He is simply inducing the readers into grave errors using biases and allegations. I need some neutral help on the page 'List of countries' to find a consensus. Thanks. --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I saw the page, I don't see the problem. The list calls W. Sahara a largely unrecognized state whose territory is admined by Morocco. It seems like an appropriate placing to me. Like it or not, SADR does have some diplomatic recognition and a tiny toehold on the fringes of the territory. It maybe irritating to you, but that's factual. (collounsbury (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC))
 * MS: Is Western Sahara a sovereign country? Is "SADR" a sovereign state? I think no well I am sure no. In such case, there is no reason to keep it as it is now (with a flag and a name of a republic). There is another contradiction on this list : Western Sahara figures as a country and also as a disputed territory in the section on the bottom of the list.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I already said, it appears the way the information is presented that the presentation is fair. Ranting on about W. Sahara as sov. really is pointless insofar as it appears the entry addresses that. Unless you have a coherent explanation for why the current presentation (besides ranting sov sov sov) is wrong, I can't support your obvious POV bias. (collounsbury (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
 * MS:How did you get the statute of disputed article on this page? How does it work?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Disputing article accuracy you can add a warning label - the coding you have to look up - and discuss in the talk page. If others are convinced by your argument, it stays, else.... you lose. The challenge is you can not merely assert your POV. collounsbury (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Moroccan economic model : advantages and limits Advantages of the Moroccan economic model: 1.	Social policy as a development tool

Social policy in Morocco undoubtedly provoked growth as more and more proletarians managed to get their lives materially better, thus increasing the global GDP. The policy of encouragement of microcredit, initiated around the beginning of the decade has enabled the creation of thousands of small companies, especially in services, that in turn have permitted the economic restructuring of poor areas (partially) as well as the creation of employment opportunities. This policy is led by NGOs themselves financed mostly by European Union funds. The second social policy with big economic impact has been the policy of relodging of slum inhabitants (called bidonvilles). The state offers economic incentives to big construction national firms (land owned by the state, tax breaks) and these corporations build social housing. Thanks to this policy, the construction sector has grown rapidly becoming a pillar of the Moroccan economy. This model has also limits that are: -	The focus on social housing leaves the growing middle class without an adequate offer; -	Speculation through legal and illegal means left the lumpenproletariat out of theses offers, especially in the bigger cities of Casablanca and Tangiers, -	This policy created an irrational exhuberance on the construction sector provoking a bubble and the beginning of a burst. Third, the policy of fighting unemployment through various mechanisms (most of them liberal based) provoked the increase in the rate of activity in the country, thus increasing the GDP. Fourth, the social infrastructures (electrification, rural roads, new hospitals and health infrastructure) provoked a demand aimed at the private sector that managed then to increase its revenues. Finally, the so-called national initiative of human development, basically the public financing of NGO’s, initiated in 2004 was behind the financial capacity of many NGO’s to create jobs as well as to work on social problems, some of them directly aimed at reducing the economic incapacities in the country (descolarisation, hard drugs…). 2.	The public financial management and monetary policy The Moroccan government has kept along these last ten years public finance under a tight control, arriving to a better public budget situation than most European countries. Public debt amounts to about 60% of GDP, high level of deficit is kept at bay, with 2008 as a surplus year, international based public debt is slowly but surely eliminated or replaced by national debt. Besides, there has been a policy of relative pegging to the Euro (the Euro zone being the most important client of Moroccan products and services) permitting the country to increase monetary realibility and thus insuring exporters against sudden change effects. While international investors have the right to re-export their dividends and capital, nationals are under monetary control, thus solidifying the monetary structure of the country. The local currency, the dirham is not convertible, blocking the monetary speculation against a country relatively weak in terms of GDP, foreign reserves or geopolitical importance. Finally, the lowering of tax pressure paradoxally increased the tax receipts. More and more businesses find it more convenient to declare their income and workers rather than spending the corruption money necessary to hide them, thus permitting for instance the income tax receipts to increase dramatically over the last three years. 3.	The diversification of the economy Among other policies, an industrial policy was designed to diversify the export opportunities of the territory. Inculding special cluster free zones (with limited tax) and other incentives, this policy was aimed at creating and developing newly born sectors, such as services outsourcing, the automobile industry and aeronautics. The success of these policies is quite impressive although the current crisis provokes conjonctural problems. By the way, traditional industrial sectors (apparel and agri-industry) also benefit from this special attention of the government with the so-called program contracts signed for the apparel sector and the elaboration of an agri-industry policy possible. Tourism also benefited from tax breaks and the creation of new touristic zones (with the first one opening in 2009 as planified) as well as from a more adapted commercial approach to markets. The sector however lacks a diversification towards emerging markets like China, Russia or India and relies heavily on Spanish and French tourists, wether from Moroccan origin or no.

Limits of the Moroccan economic model 1.	The securitarian obsession Watever policy designed in Morocco, the security concerns come first. The National Initiative of Human Development is for instance financed through the Interor Ministry (Home Office), security measures include a heavy surveillance on education contents from primary schools to universities, freedom of speech is tolerated but heavily manufactured through various means, including the exile of subversive journalists and closing of newspapers. This security primary paradigm doesn’t permit the creation of an inititiative mentality enabling the creation of both adapted business situations and innovative public policies. In other words, the general mentality in Morocco is to try as much as possible not to appear too clever, too innovative or too avant-gardiste by fear of presenting a threat to the system and provoking to yourself various types of problems. Even universities do not invest in libraries because this is deemed as potentially dangerous. 2.	The excessive centralization 1258/ This centralization is both political geographical, cultural and a little bit ethnic. All the strategic decisions in Morocco, including most of those discussed in the above chapter comme as a direct result of the famous inthronisation anniversaries discourses of his majesty the king. The following decisions are themselves mostly taken by the government, the central and the local administrations, where people directly named by the sovereign decide on all matters institutionally, or at least have a veto right on elected members, through a complicated constitutional system of control of the people’s representatives. Moreover, the system of government in Morocco has been inherited to the French Etat Nation system, which means that the upper control on all types of decisions come from the capital, and on the secong hand, the walis in the regions, themselves pure products of the capital administration for most of them directly named by his majesty. Third, 90% of the elite is French cultured, a direct product of the French school (from which the writer ironically also comes from) of Morocco, as cluster of about five or six high schools where they all grew up in the same cultural apparatus. More than that, they most of them studied in France and most of them are in the same sports centers, the same parties, go to the same coffee shops and for the youngest of them take the same drugs from the same dealers. This small village governs with his majesty the country through hierarchy or influence while living in the small french cultured village based in Rabat and Casablanca. The exceptions to this culture exist, they are however rapidly integrated into the cultural paradigm or rejected from the power circles. The final level of centralization is ethnic. The called people from Fes and the amazigh (Berber) ethny from Souss control most of the big companies in Morocco, wether they own them or direct them for the state or the multinationals. There are many cases when despite the diversity of ethnies in job applications, only one or these two ethnies are invited over for the first interviews. The funniest is the a:lliance-rivalry between these two dominating ethnies, not representing more than 15% of the population. 3.	The education sector The education sector is itself in a total state of disarray, especially comparing with the economic needs of the country. Public schools face problems of means, motivation of both professors and students, discipline and absenteeism, as well as drugs problems. In universities, libraries are minimal and inadapted, information technology infrastructure is insufficient, academic control is extremely high and institutionalized, and as a result, the universities is controlled by the main opposition movement (the Muslim fundamentalist pacific association of Al Adl wal Ihsan) while producing people going to the unemployment sector after university. There are a few elite schools (especially engeneering schools), but only at university level, knowing that most important positions will be held by French or American educated alumnis. At school level, the situation is so terrible that most parents that have the material means prefer to send their children to private-owned schools or preferably to the French or American school. As a result, the cultural domination of the western culture (and its sometimes violent reactions) continues with all the problems of the inadaptibility of the economic policies, the lack of significative social lifts and thus the discouragement of the popular and middle class and its lack of entrepreneuship.

4.	The economic judicial uncertainity If for grave cases like murder, terrorism, rape or similar cases the judicial and police system is relatively efficient, economic justice is relatively less reliable. Depending if you’re close to the power circles (national or regional), if your case has political content, depending on the judge instructing the affair, if you are a national or a multinational company, your trial has a big chance to be judged differently. This uncertainty makes people rather invest in non-risked investments like a property, land or even agriculture than investing in a risky sector with all the legal problems that can arise. This is all the more important for new sectors not very present in the economy where the legal system is not yet adapted to the economic situation.

To conclude, Il shall say that if the problems including only economic policy measures are well masterized by the Moroccan regime, a passage to the next stage of development in the upper range of emerging countries needs somemore  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.214.201.23 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

CORRECT THE WHOLE THING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.101.52 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't copy paste. It's plagarism 71.131.199.173 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

spelling error
the writer(s) misspelled which and put wich instead. it's in the economy section. just +F to find out where it's at exactly.

Evride (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic group in Morocco
I want to know how did you know about the percentage of ethnic groups in Morocco? I mean what is the reference?! According to the CIA wordl fact books and Morocco's government the main ethnic group of moroccans is the Arab-berber block with more than 98% of population.Everybody knows that in Morocco about one third of the population speak a berber dialect besides those tribes who are originally berber but have been arabized such as Dokkalla Regraga and Shawiya...etc. which means that berbers makes up the majority. So the person who has written the article has exagerated in the estimation of arabs of about 80% and I hope that this mistake will be corrected soon.thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xairmad (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"The striped area on the map shows Western Sahara, most of which is de facto administered by Morocco as its "Southern Provinces"."

WTH, there IS no striped area of the map.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 80% Arab figure is probably inflated. Britannica suggests it is nearer two thirds (66%). I am inclined to change the figures as not only do the current figures strike me (and many others, no doubt) as questionable, but Britannica is undoubtedly a more respectable source than the Looklex Enyclopedia currently cited, even though it is less explicit with the numbers. Does anyone have any objections/input? If not I will change the figures to ~66% Arab and ~33% Berber pending another source that is more explicit with the numbers and more reliable than the Looklex "Encyclopedia". Elostirion (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups again
If no one objects, I will change the "60% Arab, 30% Berber" statement to "98% Arab-Berber". As the former is not only misleading and giving a false idea about the ethnic situation in morocco but is downright false, even if "arab" and "berber" were to be taken from a linguistic point of view, which is usually not the case. All discussion is welcomed here.MassNssen (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated it to reflect the figures from the CIA World Factbook. Turns out the EB reference was either outdated or just plain wrong. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the "60% Arab, 30% Berber" figures were presented from a linguistic point of view. I was the one who introduced these figures, which were based on EB's claim that "Arabic, the national and official language of Morocco, is spoken by two-thirds of the population, and Modern Standard Arabic is taught in schools. The Amazigh language, known as Tamazight, spoken by roughly one-third of the people, has been preserved in Amazigh enclaves. Many Imazighen also speak Arabic, and Tamazight is taught in schools." They were not intended as permanent figures (See Ethnic Groups topic above), but served rather to replace older "Looklex Encyclopedia" figures that cited a rather questionable source. Elostirion (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've apologised for the misunderstanding on my talk page, but I'll clarify for the benefit of everyone here as well. I looked merely at the Ethnic groups section of EB, and did not read down to the language section where the correlation between Arabic speaking and Berber speaking was quite correctly identified. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Good page review
I've done some rather big edits following the suggestions in the review. The history section is still to long and it needs refferences. Also the geography section needs improvements as suggested.MassNssen (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Education
I'm not sure that it is compulsory for children to attend school until 15. Most of the more rural villages only have the provisions for 6 grades (from age 6), which means that providing that a child does fail a year they can complete school by 12. To attend secondary school they have to go to the bigger towns.

So, perhaps a reference could be added to support what is written. 163.1.171.112 (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment
I'm afraid that in my opinion this article was prematurely promoted and as a result I am taking it to GA Reassessment for another look. I mean no offense to anyone involved, I am only interested in making sure that this article gets a proper review and the GA standards are maintained.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Languages
I just noticed that in Languages two paragraphs have nothing to do with language. I'm not sure where they would go. My guess is either Demographics or geography. Just something I noticed and friendly reader feed back, Thank you.96.255.133.78 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

History
The history does not match other histories of surrounding regions.

1. Carthage: Why aren't the Carthaginians and Hannibal notably mentioned as being the prime resources and foundation during the period of 1000 BCE to 1000 CE? Firstly, the Phoenicians controlled most of the Mediterranean alternatively with the Greeks, even past both Punic wars and Hannibal's attack of Rome.

2. The Portuguese Citadel at Mogador: According to the article, this was built by the Portuguese to honor the Sultan Mogador. What other empire has ever subjugated itself to a lesser authority? Obviously, The Portuguese Empire lasted at least a century.

3. The Almoravids: It wasnt until circa 1100 CE that Islam truly had any foothold on Essaouira/Mogador. Until this time, the Greeks, the Berbers, the Carthaginians, and the Phoenicians alternatively battled for this vital choke point.

4. European abandonment: "The Age of Exploration" was mostly due to Egyptian/Alexandrian, and Somalian Navies throughout the 8th, 9th,10th, and 11th centuries. Additionally, Portugal had formed the best seafaring navy at that time, among western Euarasian contingents. The only Navy grater may have been the Chinese Navies at the time.

5. French Emergence: During the time of the Spanish Armada (1500s), it was actually the French who took a foothold on many portions of North Africa. This is almost totally ignored.

6. This is a biased article. The more I searched other sources, the more I found the period from 1000 BCE - 1000 CE to be very inaccurate. -- So. Who are "you" to state "This is a biased article"? I'm just passing by, but, aren't you supposed to identify yourself? (Paleocon44 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC))

Language of Morocco
The language of morocco is ARABIC in general and this MOROCCAN ARABIC is something doesn't exist because Moroccans speak very different Dialects I m from the north and my dialect is very different than the dialect of RABAT. and every region has a different dialect from the other. so STOP saying MOROCCAN ARABIC and let me tell you something : in Morocco there is a lot of cultures. Dialects. traditions. .....mentalities ......... the only things that gather us is ISLAM and ARABIC SO the language of morocco is ARABIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.217.213 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article says: "Morocco's official language is Modern Standard Arabic. The country's distinctive Arabic dialect is called Moroccan Arabic. Approximately 10 million (30% of the population), mostly in rural areas, speak Berber – which exists in Morocco in three different dialects (Tarifit, Tashelhiyt, and Tamazight) – either as a first language or bilingually with the spoken Arabic dialect. French...". In base of this I reworded it "Although Arabic is the majority language, modern studies show that the Arabization process in Morocco was mostly cultural. The Moroccans or Moroccan Arabs, are a largely homogenous group speaking Moroccan Arabic, although regional variation does occur." Tb hotch Ta lk C. 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) You are correct, the official language of Morocco is Arabic, as is listed in the info box and [referenced here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco#cite_note-0]. However, Moroccan Arabic, also known as darija is the local dialect, with as you note a lot of regional variants. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

re: GA status
I'd strongly oppose this. Everything said here reads to me like a tourist brochure. The kingdom of Morocco is regarded as an authoritarian regime by the economist and by amnesty. No mention is made here of that, or of human rights abuses, or of the huge number of refugees that come from morocco (many of whom use morocco only as a transit point, and aren't moroccan - but some are). No mention is made of the fact that Morocco is the worlds largest producer and exporter of illicit hashish (which it is *famous* for!), and that it serves as a conduit for the smuggling of hard drugs into europe. The very contentious situation in western sahara is glossed over and one editor actually says "opposition parties are legal and some have recently been formed" as though that was somehow wondrous. In short, while many aspects are excellent, I suspect someone very patriotic to morocco to be heavily involved in its writing - frankly I suspect government involvement though plainly I accuse no one. It reads, as I say, like a brochure or piece of mild propaganda - which is not to say anything here is factually incorrect. Just incomplete. Attention is needed from an NPOV expert, or better yet: several POV experts. If an article involving politics says only flattering things about its subject, it ought to set everyone's alarms ringing. Not a GA nomination. Duracell (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazigh name of the kingdom
The Amazigh name should be "Tagelidt N' Umerruk". It is currently "Tageldit Umerruk" which means "Kingdom Morocco" in english. Omitting the "N" makes the title without the proposition "Of". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bougayou007 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
Morocco < Marrakech
 * but Moor < Maurus = inhabitant of Mauretania / no mention of it on the article! Böri (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No Summer in Morocco?
It appears that Morocco is not using Summer Time in 2011 and after; but verify that from authoritative Moroccan sources before making a change. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

la structure politique marocain
am maroc comme toute les pays dimocratiques, avait un systeme politique c'est de crèè les partis politiques en tout libèrtè , et aussi les libertè des syndicas et des associations. le régime, marocain est établis comme suite:

parti libertarianisme, droit(loyal), extrême droite , gauche loyal , gauche(contradictoi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.250.83.29 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Formatting - Cities -> Western Sahara
The Cities box messes with the formatting of the next heading. Can someone sort that ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

POV
however, they imposed their advanced culture and their religion

what does this mean? That Berbers are savages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.11.169 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppressed?
"Compulsory military service in Morocco has been suppressed since September 2006." -- What does this sentence mean? It sounds like some foreign power is preventing Morocco from maintaining an army by means of a system of compulsory military service. Surely that is not the intended meaning. "Suppressed" is not the right word. P0M (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara and Spanish territories in Northern Africa
Concerning Western Sahara, that area has not been recognized as part of Morocco, so it should not be considered part of Morocco in the map.

Concerning the part that says "Spanish territory in Morocco comprises four enclaves on the Mediterranean coast"

This enclaves are not "Spanish territory in Morocco" but in Northern Africa, given that they are not Morocco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertuccio (talk • contribs) 13:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Official languages
Please change "Berber" to "Tamazight" (that is the official name for Berber in Morocco). Note that the term Berber is considered derogatory in North Africa and this name is no longer used officially by the government in Morocco. Also I would change the status to pending until July 1st when the constitution will be voted on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.224.196 (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Alphax26, 25 July 2011
This is a page about Morocco. It should be used to present facts and only facts about the country. I found that some people (namely Tachfin) is using the page to advocate for the cause of the Berber minority. Refusing to mention that Morocco is part of the Arab world is absoluy reduculous. The section about the DNA is false (we are not in Germany 1942). Please don't use scientific studies to draw ideological conclusions. Also when you say that 18 million of Moroccans are Berber I hope you can show as some statistical reference not only an obscure book that no one can find. This is important to any claim, especially that ethnic statistics are forbidden in Morocco.

Best

Alphax26 (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Alphax26/Ouail
 * Please refrain from making wild accusations (see WP:AGF), as I did not write this article. My only contributions to it were related to correcting/adding general pop figures and reverting your vandalism/blind deletion of sourced material..
 * The sections you're referring to are heavily sourced. The one about the DNA has a very respectable source: the US National Library of Medicine. I suggest you find better sources to refute what you disapprove of.
 * As for "The Arab world", a vague term and a disputed political expression, lacking any substantial accuracy. "part of the Maghreb" is enough said and accurately describes the: geographical, geopolitical, cultural, historical, economic and linguistic affiliations of Morocco. (as a side note: Of all the Arab league member states articles, there isn't one which is described in its lead section as a part of the "Arab world", precisely because of the vagueness and disputed meaning of the term)
 * You've discredited yourself with some partisan/Un-Encyclopedic edits: However, Arabs contributed by their great culture. (in the middle of a refed statement).
 * See: WP:NPOV WP:Disrupt.
 * Regards, Tachfin (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am always open to good discussion. I have three remarks on the article: 1. In the article we read "Morocco has been inhabited by Berbers for at least the last 200,000 years"! I think we should erase "Berber" form this sentence because Homo sapiens and Neanderthal appeared ONLY 200,000 years ago. http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal. 2. In the DNA section someone uses an article from the, US National Library of Medicine as a reference then draw his own conclusions that are not mentioned in the article. The article says "Recent studies make clear no significant genetic differences exist between Arabic and non-Arabic speaking populations... However, they imposed their culture and their religion". I doubt the author who published in the US National Library of Medicine would use the sentence #they imposed their culture and their religion#. 3. Many references are in French. I wonder how we are supposed to verify them. But maybe this acceptable!
 * (Response to unsigned comment)
 * Agreed.
 * Not sure what you mean but the source does say They imposed their culture and their religion . I don't see anything pejorative in this, however I do not object to a more neutral rewording as Their culture and religion was adopted.
 * Many editors here speak French and there are translators available. EnWiki does not prohibit the use of non-English sources. WP:NONENG
 * PS1: Please do not edit my signed comments WP:TALKO
 * PS2: Don't forget to sign your comments
 * Regards, Tachfin (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I am declining this edit request because it does not request a specific change to the article. The edit request template is to be used for specific edits that the requester wishes to see (for instance, "Please change 'morocco' to 'Morocco' in paragraph three"), not for complaints about the article or vague "don't do this" statements. The proper venue for disagreement between editors is our dispute resolution process. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Amazigh official?
According to new constitution Amazight is second official language. But whether the new constitution has already entered into force? In the case of Burma, new constitution came into effect long after the referendum. So, there is no sources confirmed that new Moroccan constitution now in force, and according to the CIA Word Fact Book still old constitution is in force. Aotearoa (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It entered into effect immediately after the referendum. This is confirmed by the official bulletin of the government that you can find at the official government website: . I'll add a ref to that later. Tachfin (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirm, the new constitution entered into effect on 29 July 2011. As per the Dahir 91.11.1 of 29 July 2011, published on the same date in the official government bulletin which you can find here . Tachfin (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found French text too . Aotearoa (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Arab spring
why some deleted about arab spring in the lead of the article ?? There are major protests ongoing in Morocco since 20 February ShenmueIII (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because there are protests doesn't mean it belongs in the lead. It's highly WP:UNDUE. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

= Intro =

Just curious, but who are these 'neutral observers' in the sentence 'Parliamentary elections were held in Morocco on 7 September 2007, and were considered by some neutral observers to be mostly free and fair;' Vince (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Off topic material removed
An IP removed a large section from this article (correctly). The material seems possibly worthwhile for a different article, so I'm listing it here for review by anyone interested. (I'm no expert and cannot comment on the validity of the text). Manning (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The map, again ...
At the bottom of the map, I read Internationally recognized territory of Morocco (territory recognized by the African Union organizatión). So, first, it is Organization not Organizatión. And then, why the AU point of view is the only one taken into account? The Arab League recognizes that Western Sahara belongs to it as a part of another member (map here Arableagueonline - Member States. I think we need a fairer presentation of the map which show that the WS territory is actually under Moroccan control but that it is not recognized by all states. Here is an example of Azawad in Mali, which is not recognized by any other state but it is in different color Mali - Azawad LimberikoFintchiss (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted, per WP:NPOV.
 * Regards.
 * Omar-Toons (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't we use File:Morocco (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg? It shows the actual control on the ground, illustrating the extent of the current Southern Provinces administration. CMD (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this one? --Omar-Toons (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Off the standard green and grey, but interesting, in terms of informativeness. I'd prefer it over the current one. CMD (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

consensus?
Consensus isnt what Gun Powder Ma says goes. This long-standing attempt to denigrate any non-Christian institution of higher learning goes against both core Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say on the subject.  nableezy  - 21:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, your attempts to denote Muslim mosque schools as European universities may well be regarded as a case of eurocentrism: You want the madrasa, an institution of the Muslim history, to be referred to in terms of the university which is a classic institution of Europe. That is eurocentrism. Think about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Think about this. Reliable sources, several of them, say that al-Karioune is the oldest university in the world. How you like them apples?  nableezy  - 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your sources are mostly not reliable and misinterpreted, that is the problem. International experts on the history of the university are agreed that it was a uniquely European institution and that there were no parallels in the medieval Islamic world, see here. Your claim that this madrasa was a "university" ignores this consensus among specialist historians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas you think that because an encyclopedia has an entry for "madrasa" and not one for "university" that becomes a "source" for the claim that this cannot be a university. Please, get off it.  nableezy  - 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would request you not to remove the views of scholars on the history of the university. They are all sourced and accurately represented, compare here:
 * Whereas you think that because an encyclopedia has an entry for "madrasa" and not one for "university" that becomes a "source" for the claim that this cannot be a university. Please, get off it.  nableezy  - 17:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would request you not to remove the views of scholars on the history of the university. They are all sourced and accurately represented, compare here:

"The university is a European institution; indeed, it is the European institution par excellence. There are various reasons for this assertion. As a community of teachers and taught, accorded certain rights, such as administrative autonomy and the determination and realization of curricula (courses of study) and of the objectives of research as well as the award of publicly recognized degrees, it is a creation of medieval Europe, which was the Europe of papal Christianity...
 * Walter Rüegg

No other European institution has spread over the entire world in the way in which the traditional form of the European university has done. The degrees awarded by European universities – the bachelor's degree, the licentiate, the master's degree, and the doctorate – have been adopted in the most diverse societies throughout the world. The four medieval faculties of artes – variously called philosophy, letters, arts, arts and sciences, and humanities –, law, medicine, and theology have survived and have been supplemented by numerous disciplines, particularly the social sciences and technological studies, but they remain none the less at the heart of universities throughout the world.

Even the name of the universitas, which in the Middle Ages was applied to corporate bodies of the most diverse sorts and was accordingly applied to the corporate organization of teachers and students, has in the course of centuries been given a more particular focus: the university, as a universitas litterarum, has since the eighteenth century been the intellectual institution which cultivates and transmits the entire corpus of methodically studied intellectual disciplines. (Rüegg, Walter: "Foreword. The University as a European Institution", in: Ridder-Symoens, Hilde de (ed.): A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-521-36105-2, pp. XIX–XX)"

"No one today would dispute the fact that universities, in the sense in which the term is now generally understood, were a creation of the Middle Ages, appearing for the first time between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is no doubt true that other civilizations, prior to, or wholly alien to, the medieval West, such as the Roman Empire, Byzantium, Islam, or China, were familiar with forms of higher education which a number of historians, for the sake of convenience, have sometimes described as universities.Yet a closer look makes it plain that the institutional reality was altogether different and, no matter what has been said on the subject, there is no real link such as would justify us in associating them with medieval universities in the West. Until there is definite proof to the contrary, these latter must be regarded as the sole source of the model which gradually spread through the whole of Europe and then to the whole world. We are therefore concerned with what is indisputably an original institution, which can only be defined in terms of a historical analysis of its emergence and its mode of operation in concrete circumstances. (Verger, Jacques: "Patterns", in: Ridder-Symoens, Hilde de (ed.): A History of the University in Europe. Vol. I: Universities in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0-521-54113-8, pp. 35–76 (35))"
 * Jacques Verger

"In studying an institution which is foreign and remote in point of time, as is the case of the medieval madrasa, one runs the double risk of attributing to it characteristics borrowed from one's own institutions and one's own times. Thus gratuitous transfers may be made from one culture to the other, and the time factor may be ignored or dismissed as being without significance. One cannot therefore be too careful in attempting a comparative study of these two institutions: the madrasa and the university. But in spite of the pitfalls inherent in such a study, albeit sketchy, the results which may be obtained are well worth the risks involved. In any case, one cannot avoid making comparisons when certain unwarranted statements have already been made and seem to be currently accepted without question. The most unwarranted of these statements is the one which makes of the "madrasa" a "university". (Makdisi, George: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 255–264 (255f.))"
 * George Makdisi

"In the following remarks, it will be seen that the madrasa and the university were the result of two different sets of social, political and religious factors. When speaking of these two institutions, unless otherwise stated, my remarks will refer, for the most part, to the eleventh century in Baghdad and the thirteenth century in Paris. These are the centuries given for the development of these institutions in the Muslim East and the Christian West, respectively.

Universitas, the term which eventually came to be used synonymously with studium generale, and to designate what we now know as the university, originally meant nothing more than a community, guild or corporation. It was a corporation of masters, or students, or both...The madrasa, unlike the university, was a building, not a community. It was one among many such institutions in the same city, each independent of the other, each with its own endowment.

In the West the scholars of the University were ecclesiastics, people of the Church...Now, whereas the popes were the ultimate guardians of orthodoxy in the Christian hierarchy, in Islam which lacked a religious hierarchy, it was the ulama, or religious scholars, themselves, who ultimately had to see to the preservation and propagation of orthodox truth.

Centralization in medieval European cities, and decentralization in those of medieval Islam–such was the situation in the institutions of learning on both sides of the Mediterranean. Paris was a city with one university; Baghdad, on the other hand, had a great number of institutions of learning. In Paris organized faculties were brought into a single system resting on a hierarchical basis; in Baghdad, one leading scholar (and others of subordinate positions) taught in one of the many institutions, each institution independent of the other, with its own charter, and its own endowment. Here we have another essential difference between the two institutional systems: hierarchical and organized in medieval Europe, individualistic and personalized in medieval Islam.

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the two systems is embodied in their systems of certification; namely, in medieval Europe, the licentia docendi, or license to teach; in medieval Islam, the ijaza, or authorization. In Europe, the license to teach was a license to teach a certain field of knowledge. It was conferred by the licensed masters acting as a corporation, with the consent of a Church authority, in Paris, by the Chancellor of the Cathedral Chapter...Certification in the Muslim East remained a personal matter between the master and the student. The master conferred it on an individual for a particular work, or works.

Before the advent of the licentia docendi, the conditions for teaching were much the same in medieval Europe and in the Muslim world...But Europe developed the license to teach, and with its development came the parting of the ways between East and West in institutionalized higher education...The license to teach in medieval Europe brought with it fixed curricula, fixed periods of study and examinations. Whereas the ijaza in Islam kept things on a more fluid, a more individualistic and personal basis.

There is another fundamental reason why the university, as it developed in Europe, did not develop in the Muslim East. This reason is to be found in the very nature of the corporation. Corporations, as a form of social organization, had already developed in Europe. Their legal basis was to be found in Roman Law which recognized juristic persons. Islamic law, on the other hand, does not recognize juristic persons. (Makdisi, George: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 256–264)"

"Thus the university, as a form of social organization, was peculiar to medieval Europe. Later, it was exported to all parts of the world, including the Muslim East; and it has remained with us down to the present day. But back in the Middle Ages, outside of Europe, there was nothing anything quite like it anywhere. (Makdisi, George: "Madrasa and University in the Middle Ages", Studia Islamica, No. 32 (1970), pp. 255–264 (264))"

"In many respects, if there is any institution that Europe can most justifiably claim as one of its inventions, it is the university. As proof thereof and without wishing here to recount the whole history of the birth of universities, it will suffice to describe briefly how the invention of universities took the form of a polycentric process of specifically European origin. (Sanz, Nuria; Bergan, Sjur (eds.): The Heritage of European Universities, Council of Europe, 2002, ISBN 978-92-871-4960-2, p. 119)" Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC) And I request that you use sources related to the topic of this article and address the fact that those sources say, plainly, that al-Karaioune was established as a university. None of the sources you quote above mentions Morocco or the establishment of that university. And finally, edit-warring to achieve what you cannot gain consensus for is not an acceptable tactic. You made an edit, it was reverted. Next step is to establish a consensus for your edit.  nableezy  - 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Heritage of European Universities
 * This isnt an article on the history of the university, and edit-warring while warning others of doing so is simply asinine. None of your sources are about what you are writing in this article, and further some of them are completely nonsense (eg the claim the because the Encyclopedia of Islam has an entry on madrasa and not one on university that means al-Karaioune is a madrasa and not a university). I am, once again, reverting the edit.  nableezy  - 19:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, is this going to be subject to a procedural revert? Just wondering really if is GPM able to force an edit through by edit-warring.  nableezy  - 05:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Board discussions determine consensus
I removed unreliable sources per discussion on the RS noticeboard and restored the standard view per consensus on the NPOV board. Please discuss any changes to this first there, not here, because we don't want to bring a third board, ANI, into play, do we? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we do not, so stop edit-warring. Shillington does not say what you repeatedly mis-attribute to him. Lying about sources is an unacceptable tactic. There is no source for a "standard view", lying about what sources support is an unacceptable tactic. Edit-warring to push your changes through is an unacceptable tactic. Kindly stop lying, both about the sources and about what NPOV/N says, and edit-warring. Thank you.  nableezy  - 14:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
Per the discussion here, needs to be replaced with  in the external links section. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 20:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. By the way, if anyone is wondering why the link doesn't show up any more, that was done at Wikivoyage-inline, not here, and it was done on purpose. More details can be found at Template talk:Wikivoyage-inline. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Section review,...Meanwhile
Gents,

Sorry for the delay as I was (again) in a business trip that took me very far from home. I will add the modified section here in few hours. But, before that, I will take the time to answer allegations (regarding of course the section as it has been first written) I did not get the chance to address. Thanks. Fort-Henry (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)