Talk:Morocco 2026 FIFA World Cup bid

Airports
This is a confusing section. What are the existing airports in the area ? What are the airports proposed to be built and what are just supposed "needs" ? POV here should be removed.--Brenont (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Western Sahara
In this section is linked twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D By Uncle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One links to the conflict, the other to the article on the territory. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with the North American Bid
GeorgeWhite8 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

On 13 June 2018 the winning bid for the 2026 World Cup will be announced. As there are only two bids I think editors should strive for similar standards between the two pages (this one and the North American (NA) one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_2026_FIFA_World_Cup_bid)), as many Wikipedia users will be looking at both pages to compare. At the moment, there are various inconsistencies which show bias towards the NA bid. For example, on this page under the "Concerns, criticism & controversy" subheading, many factors mentioned are finished off with "unlike in the North American bid" and similar comments. These comments give a clear tone suggesting that the NA bid is better and gives the impression that the NA bid is without its own concerns, without evidence nor an equivalent section on the NA bid page. The worst part regarding this is the Security/Safety topic, which mentions a 2011 terrorist attacks yet gives the impression that similar issues are not a problem in North America. Any mention about the threat of gun crime in prohibited in the NA Bid Wikipedia page and so to achieve consistency I believe this section should be removed as well, or at the least the NA comparison should be removed.

On the whole, whilst I do believe the "Concerns, criticism & controversy" section should be on this page as it adds balance and debate to the article, I think the editors should focus on these criticisms on the own merits and not compare to the NA bid, especially as the NA bid's equivalent section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_2026_FIFA_World_Cup_bid#Criticism) is very brief. It is only fair to include short, unsubstantiated comparisons with the NA bid if users could compare one bid's criticisms with the other. The combined bias of the two bids' pages is disappointing and I hope amends are made as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitegeorge88 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is clear bias especially in the Security/Safety topic as you have said. And I think it should be removed or to make one in the United bid page (especially considering Morocco is far more safer than the US, UNODC data shows that.) Terrorism has hit the US more than Morocco in the past decade, while Morocco has only been hit once. The rate of homicides in the country is also extremely low. The "Financial Problems" topic is also clearly showing signs of dishonesty, most of the budget allocated to the world cup will go to infrastructure (only about 3 billion dollars from the 16 billion dollars will go to stadiums). The hooligan topic is almost irrelevant, if the world cup bid is awarded to either country hooliganism might take place and it won't necessarily be due to the host country's native hooligans. The last paragraph of the readiness topic is a joke, talking about logos and websites, how is that important? And the last comment comparing it to the North American bid. This is clear bias, it's clear some people are looking at everything they can find to throw in there. This whole section should be redone, or removed. Webtarentula (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2018
The "Financial problems" should be removed, the argument that the US has a higher GDP is pointless. The US has a higher GDP than every other country on the planet, so only it and a couple of other countries should host the world cup then if we were to follow that logic. The comparison is not fair at all, and it is clear it was never meant to be. The references to Brazil's protests are not relevant, the surveys done clearly show the overwhelming majority of Moroccans support it. The country may not necessarily go into debt, nothing suggests that. The reference to the yearly budget for healthcare is deceitful, it implies all of that 16 billion dollar is going to the stadiums when most of it is going to necessary public infrastructure including hospitals The yearly budget shouldn't be contrasted with the world cup budget.

"When the bid was announced, only a two sentence statement was announced announcing the country's entrance into the competition. With less than six months remaining, Morocco named a chairman for its bid committee and did not have a logo or a website. This was in contrast with the North American bid, which was well ahead in planning at that point."

This paragraph from the "Readiness" topic should be removed, it is not important and it clearly demonstrates again the intentions of the user(s). Which is to favor one bid over the other, by adding any information that could paint Morocco in a bad light.

The "Security/Safety" should be removed, the bias is strong in this one. Painting Morocco as unsafe, when Morocco is safer the US. And Morocco in fact had less terrorist attacks and major incidents that caused a lot of deaths unlike the United States in the past decade. The author is claiming "All proposed fan sites for the North American bid have never experienced a terrorist attack", yet the same could be said about Morocco. There has never been a terrorist attack in the proposed stadiums or nearby areas, if that's what was meant by "fan sites". If the whole city is implied, then this is a clear lie. I will only have to give one example where 50 people died in a terrorist attack in Orlando, which is a proposed city. Also, this whole topic forgets entirely about Mexico. This is just a sad. '''It is imperative that this is removed. Or an equivalent topic and section is created in the North American's bid Wikipedia page. For it to be considered remotely objective, fair and impartial.'''

The other topics should also be edited, but I do not have time to go into them at the moment unfortunately. That (Concerns, criticism & controversy) entire section should be removed. Webtarentula (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Webtarentula (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * All of what you have listed is valid and provided in sources. For ex. the 16 billion is referring to healthcare spending, not health infrastructure. The readiness part is covered in multiple sources. The fan site security is talking about the bombing in Marrakech, a fan site proposed in the bid book. The entire section will not be removed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Sportsfan 1234, whilst you have noted sources for the various issues mentioned, you have completely ignored the point of our issues. This article shows clear bias especially in the "Concerns" section. This is highlighted by your failure to recognize the real issue regarding the mention of the bombing in Marrakech: it gives the impression that Morocco is dangerous and faces a high risk of terror, whilst America and Mexico do not, which relative to Morocco, clearly isn't true. GeorgeWhite8 17:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitegeorge88 (talk • contribs)
 * The point is saying there was a bombing which happened at the fan fest site for Marrakech, this has not happened in any of the other bid's fan fest sites, which is FACT. Not some made up opinion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the validity of this attack at all. It is the context in which it is being mentioned that's my problem. The sentence after, whilst true, serves only to imply relative safety of North America.GeorgeWhite8 18:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed that sentence (and a few others). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whilst I still have concerns about the asymmetry between the comparisons between the bids on the page and the lack of discussion over suitability on the North American bid page, this is much better and has removed the most obvious elements of bias. Thank you User:Sportsfan 1234. GeorgeWhite8 18:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitegeorge88 (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018
Add ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ (Morocco) to languages

Can I add the Berber language for Morocco 2026? It's spoken by over 30% of the population. The word would be ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ (Morocco) 97.94.152.33 (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the language in any of the official bid documents? Are there any sources that support its use? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Source: (Page 98) https://www.scribd.com/document/380798919/2026-Fifa-World-Cup-Bid-Evaluation-Report 97.94.152.33 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Source: http://www.mapnews.ma/am

It's also used by Moroccan News Agencies.

Section titles in the Concerns section
Don't think its necessary to remove the section titles in the concerns part of the article. Considering the length, there should be breaks. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to look at MOS:LAYOUT? It states "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". So sections to block off one-paragraph long content is completely necessary. There is no need for the beaks by using headings as there are already breaks due to the content's organization into paragraphs.
 * Do you have a guideline or manual of style that supports your preference for using headings for breaks? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't like either the single-wall-of-text or the 12-one-paragraph-section approaches. Is there any way to group it into two or three higher-level sections?  ("economic concerns", "political concerns", "logistical concerns" perhaps) power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That would work. Any suggestions for the titles for the sub-sections and which paragraphs they should contain? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)