Talk:Q345204

Dakhla is de facto a city in Morocco

Hello @M.Bitton. Based on many sources, of which I'm sure you are aware, the city is within the control of the Moroccan authorities, and is considered an urban commune, regardless of the recognition status of the region internationally (which is not 100% in favor of either claim). Feel free to add the properties P3680 and P1310 to the claims to ensure that they reflect the content of available sources. Also tagging @Reda benkhadra since he involved in the recent edits. Ideophagous (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on the fact that I'm sure you're aware of, Dakhla is in Western Sahara. Making it look as though it's part of Morocco is not an option. I will tag Koavf and Waran18 who also edited the entries recently. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton. That's not how Wikidata works. As long as both territorial claims exist and are backed by reliable sources, they can both be added to the properties of the item. Adding a reference to each value of each property claim or P3680 or P1310 is the right thing to do here. Ideophagous (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

All the reliable sources state that Dakhla is in Western Sahara (this is an undisputed fact). Also, there is no such thing as "Western Sahara, Morocco" (your change), it simply doesn't exist, nor does it make sense. M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton. "Western Sahara" is also the name of the geographical region, as opposed to the Eastern Sahara. See for example the usage of both terms in this source. And here's a passage from it:

The second critical moment in the evolution of Moroccan–Algerian relations, from Morocco’s perspective, was the summit between King Hassan II and President Boumediene in 1969 in Ifrane, which led to the borders agreement of 1972 in which Morocco recognized the Eastern Sahara as part of Algeria while Algeria supported Morocco’s claim to the Western Sahara (Hegoy 1970). Boumediene’s relatively sudden change of heart regarding the Saharan issue and support for the pro-independence POLISARIO were perceived by Morocco as the second time that Algeria had turned its back on a major bilateral commitment.

Dakhla is certainly part of the geographical region of Western Sahara, but that does not negate that it is part of Morocco, again de facto, as proven by lemonde, BBC, Lefigaro, the 2014 Moroccan census results, etc, etc. Ideophagous (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Everyone (from the scholars to the UN, the UA, etc.) knows what Western Sahara stands for, so your attempt at changing its definition won't work. I can also cite a raft of sources to support what I said, but luckily, this is such a known fact that I don't need to, nor do I need to prove that some of it is illegally occupied by Morocco. The bottom line: Western Sahara is not and has never been part of Morocco. M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What change of definition? The Wikidata item for Western Sahara and the English Wikipedia literally say it's a geographical region, and that's how most sources refer to it. At the top of the English article:

This article is about the geographical area. For the partially recognized state that controls the Free Zone and claims sovereignty over Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

This is not about an ideological dispute. The item should reflect the current situation as described by various sources, until further notice. Ideophagous (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your claims are making about a political ideology (trying to portary it as though it's part of Morocco, when every RS out there says otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"This is not about an ideological dispute. The item should reflect the current situation as described by various sources, until further notice." Claiming that something isn't ideological, is of course, ideological and we can't and don't include every bogus claim, such as garlic cures HIV or that someone has psychic powers or whatever. Unfortunately, we don't have a direct equivalent to w:en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources or the extensive list of acceptable sources that our sister project does (in fact, Wikidata:Verifiability is only a proposal), so we can quickly end up at a loggerheads with trying to figure out whose claims to include and what kind of sourcing requirements there would be for said claims. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, no one refers to the general part of the world as "Western Sahara" for just anywhere in North Africa west of Tripoli or something. Even the source you used explicitly points this out in the language it uses. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to source these claims and also appropriate to mark "Western Sahara" as preferred. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is that all the reliable sources (the government of a occupying power doesn't count as one) describe WS as how everyone knows it. Every part of it, be it a city or a village, cannot be part of Morocco. The claims are separate and are described as such. There is also the fact that Spain is still the De Jure administering power of WS (we can add that somewhere). M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Koavf. In which context exactly? As a country (P17)? But Western Sahara is defined as a territory, not a country. I don't think "Western Sahara" should be preferred regardless, as we do not have any reason to favor one statement or the other. This segment should be of help:

Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge. This means that Wikidata does not state what the population of Germany actually is; it simply provides the information on what the population of Germany is according to a specific source, such as The World Factbook (Q11191).

Ideophagous (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"But Western Sahara is defined as a territory, not a country." It is trivial to find sources that do exactly this. "as we do not have any reason to favor one statement or the other", well, I think we very much do, but to take a step back, surely you don't think we should include every quack claim just because it's been made by someone do you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf As defined in Wikidata. Other sources may certainly use the term more loosely as equivalent to SADR. Dakhla being part of Morocco is certainly not a quack claim, and I'm surprised that you would make such a statement, when the reality on the ground says otherwise, regardless of territorial claims. Again, as I said from the very beginning of this discussion, Wikidata claims for both territorial claims can be added, with proper references and sourcing circumstances. Ideophagous (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Dakhla being part of Morocco is pure nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but the point that you just made was, "If sources define [x] as [y], then we need to include it here". Sources define "Western Sahara" as a "country". Now I'm confused about what your point is. You also didn't answer my question. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of specific sources that confirm what I said. Shall we add every single one of them? M.Bitton (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Whatever we decide should be applied consistently. I'll note that a similar entity that I chose at random, Bakhmut (Q706857) does not have "Russia" with country (P17) or any similar property like part of (P361). That is not an argument in favor or against Morocco being applied here as such, just a statement that rather than litigate every individual occupied city, we should probably have a sensible, site-wide approach applied. Searching past requests for comment, I only find one relevant one and that has been open for a few years with no closure. The most recent development was this proposal: Wikidata:Property proposal/(not) officially recognized by. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Bakhmut and Dakhla are definitely not at the same level of integration into the Russian and Moroccan administrative systems respectively (the latter had been considered a Moroccan commune for much longer). Again we can have multiple values each with appropriate sub properties and with proper sources. Thanks for the links, they certainly show how complex these kind of cases may be. Ideophagous (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how you look at it, there is no way that it will be defined as being part of Morocco. Like I said before, Spain is still the De Jure administering power of Western Sahara (that needs to be accounted for). M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It is physically and administratively part of Morocco, claimed officially as such, stated as such in multiple sources, some of which I've posted above and more can be found online and offline (apart from and unrelated to Moroccan govrenment sources). The statement "there is no way that it will be defined as being part of Morocco" literally makes no sense. Ideophagous (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not administered by Morocco, it's partly illegally occupied by it (the difference speaks for itself). Like I said, Spain is still the De Jure administering power of WS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"illegally occupied" => ideological opinion, which is not what this discussion is about whatsoever.

"It's not administered by Morocco", see:

source 1

Dakhla is a town in Western Sahara under Moroccan control. It is the capital of the Moroccan administrative region of Dakhla Oued AlDahab.

source 2

Twenty-eight other countries – mostly African and Arab – have opened consulates in the Western Saharan cities of Dakhla or Laayoune in what Morocco sees as tangible support for its rule of the territory.

source 3

As you leave Dakhkla airport, don’t be taken in by the long, straight avenues typical of Moroccan urbanism from the 2000s. Because while the city emerges out of the dune ridge, it is the lagoon that makes Dakhla a grandiose site. A vast expanse of salt water located in the extreme south of Morocco

source 4

In July 2004 Moroccan authorities began demolishing parts of the Fort of Villa Cisneros (fort de Dakhla) ... In the meantime ICOMOS Morocco has informed us that the Moroccan Ministry of Culture has a great interest in this building and is planning to initiate the process of listing the fort as a historic monument.

source 5

In Dakhla, an Atlantic seaport town punctuated with military buildings in Morocco-administered Western Sahara, swarms of kitesurfers now sail in the lagoon daily

Ideophagous (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I can cite hundreds of scholarly sourceS' (not Bethlehem mumbo jimbo like yours) that confirm what I said: Western Sahara is partly illegally occupied by Morocco (that's a fact based on international law). I can also cite the same to confirm that Spain is still the De Jure administering power of WS. M.Bitton (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

""illegally occupied" => ideological opinion". But there are many sources that state this. Again, just like above, I'm confused as to when you think "Claim [x] is just a statement backed up by sources, so it's required to include it here" versus "Claim [x] is just an opinion, therefore it has no place here". I'm trying to ask you an epistemic question about how you make the difference and you're not answering it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Koavf. Please read again my replies in this conversation. At no point did I say that you cannot add Western Sahara or SADR to the item. If you have a good source to back up the claim, by all means. @M.Bitton regrettably keeps dragging this into an ideological debate, when it's purely about how to model this item given the available sources, which clearly support several "truths" about the matter, all of which should be, as far as I understand, be reflected in the item. Again, I draw your attention to this segment from this help page:

Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge. This means that Wikidata does not state what the population of Germany actually is; it simply provides the information on what the population of Germany is according to a specific source, such as The World Factbook (Q11191).

And also:

Because statements essentially point to referenceable sources of information and different sources may provide contradicting information, it's possible to represent a plurality of perspectives on Wikidata.

Similarly, using official Moroccan census data (even if this was the only source available, which is far from being the case), we can add Morocco as a country (P17) and "urban commune of Morocco" to P31, while specifying the sourcing circumstances. This also means that this item will always have to have these statements, even if Morocco effectively loses control of the city, and officially recognizes the sovreignty of another state over it. In that case, we'll simply add "end time" to the value of the claim. Ideophagous (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken and I agree that you are saying sensible things. I'm trying to ensure that we're adding these reasonable edits in a consistent way across the database. Venezuela claims Essquibo, some Israelis consider all of Palestine to be part of Israel, Russian forces de facto administer parts of Moldova, etc. The way that we include these kinds of statements are inherently ideological, even if we're trying to be neutral. And, again, I'm trying to drill down here on your perspective: should we include statements like the earth is a disc, just because there are some sources that state that? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Claims that "earth is a disk", or "garlic cures HIV", or "water boils at 100°C", etc, are substantially different from "Dakhla is a city in Morocco", or "Western Sahara is a sovreign country".

The first set of statements are about objective reality, which is, as far as we can tell and assuming we agree on some basic definitions (e.g. what we mean by "earth", "disk", "garlic", etc), independent from conscious observers or their judgments/beliefs thereof, whereas the second set of statements are about fictional reality, which inherently depends on whether conscious observers believe in them or not. I would obviously assume that nobody here subscribes to solipsism as a serious doctrine.

As such, "reflecting reality" in each situation does not mean the same thing, and cannot be handled in the same way. In other words, "belief that earth is a disk" is a real thing, but it is different from the statement that "earth is a disk" which has no basis in reality. There are even items for flat Earth and flat Earth conspiracy theory, and the item for Earth refers to the first one with a deprecated value for P1419, since the prevalent scientifically objective knowledge about the Earth contradicts that statement.

On the other hand, countries and their sovreign claims and intitutions are fictional entities (fiction here obviously not referring to a form of literature), and their "realness" or lack thereof is completely dependent on who makes the statement and what their beliefs are. As such, if a statement like "country X exists" or "region Y is an administrative division in country X" has sufficient notability (e.g. is cited in some official sources, mentioned explicitly by enough news outlets or academic papers, etc), then my understanding is that it should be added to Wikidata, while properly documenting its sourcing circumstances (e.g. disputed by, supported by), since the only distinction we can make between a true and false statement about fictional entities is whether a sufficient number of reliable sources (which is a proxy for conscious observers) believe in them. Note for example that we have items for entities with recognition that is far more limited, such as Northern Cyprus.

Furthermore, in the case of the relationship of Dakhla with Morocco, we have four important elements:

• The city is claimed by the government of Morocco (fictional statement, since it's based on two fictional entities, Morocco as a country and its sovreignty as a state). This statement cannot be disputed, since its sourcing circumstances depend entirely on one entity (Morocco) and its official sources, and even @M.Bitton does not seem to object to adding it to the item.
• The city is an administrative division (urban commune) of Morocco (also a fictional statement, since administrative divisions only exist in people's imagination by the authority of a state, also a fictional entity). I would say that this is also not disputable, since it only requires an official source (Moroccan census) to make it a valid statement, but if there are reliable sources that explicitly dispute this statement, anyone is free to add P1310 and the sources to back it up.
• The city is part of the territory of Morocco (another fictional statement). This is probably the most potentially controversial statement, and would definitely require specifying sourcing circumstances.
• The city is effectively under the control of the Moroccan government (military presence, local institutions of the government, etc). This is the least fictional of all 4 statements, and all it takes is reliable sources confirming it, which I have provided above and I can add more. How to model it though is another issue.

My recommendation is the following:

• Restore the entity to its previous state, with "urban commune of Morocco" in P31, and Morocco in P17.
• Keep the claims neutral. No "preference" or "deprecation" to either claim until the political situation of the region is completely resolved, since there's no overwhelming majority international support for either sovreignty claim.
• Add whatever other claims that support either view with proper references and sourcing circumstances if they are missing.

Ideophagous (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Your wall of text does not address any of the raised concerns about your double standard and the fact that you are making up new rules as you go along. I suggest you start by answering the questions (ideally, succinctly, as most of us have better things to do than rehash what has been said or keep asking the same questions only to see them ignored). M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this thorough response. I agree that states are legal fictions and in that sense, we can talk intelligently about them as different than scientific claims. Now, my concern is that instead of having this kind of conversation piecemeal, hundreds of times, that we have some consistent approach to all such claims. Do you have a proposal for how we can have this conversation once instead of repeatedly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf I would say that expecting to handle all such cases in one conversation, especially a relatively short one, is quite unrealistic. But the pages you provided above (the RFC and the Property proposal) seem to be good places to discuss relevant details of the issue of modelling such entities. The proposal in the RFC page, it seems to me, is going in the right direction, but I don't agree with all of its points (e.g. I don't think P1336 should be deleted). In any case, we can pursue this broader conversation in those two pages, or elsewhere (e.g. in this other Property proposal). Also, the potential directions in that broader discussion will likely become clearer and clearer as we handle each case within its context, provided we later put the cases side by side and compare, which is an approach I don't see in either page. Regardless, this is beyond the scope of this conversation I believe, and I would hope that you can comment on the recommendation I made above, so we can move forward in this discussion. Ideophagous (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The city is claimed by the government of Morocco it's also claimed by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

The city is an administrative division it's a claimed administrative division. In fact, Morocco's claimed administrative divisions not only include the part that Morocco occupies, but they even include the areas that are under SADR's control.

The city is part of the territory of Morocco nope. It's part of the territory of Western Sahara (per the reliable sources and basic common sense). As far as I know and until proven otherwise, SADR has never claimed any part of Morocco.

The city is effectively under the control of the Moroccan government the city, just like parts of Western Sahara, is illegally occupied by Morocco (again, per the reliable sources that are about the subject). M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that your proposal is unreasonable or something, just that this kind of conversation will happen over and over again without clarity and making consensus about these kinds of situations with two or three participants hundreds of times is unfeasible at best. A policy-based approach is definitely arduous or a hi barrier, but it's actually much lower effort than having this kind of conversation repeatedly. I really don't see any other alternative. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Koavf. I fully agree with you that a general policy is needed to avoid repeating the same conversations each time (or at least repeating them with such intensity and length, people will surely always try). However I don't think this specific issue has to remain frozen until such a policy is created and reaches consensus. That's an unreasonable expectation in my opinion, especially since it assumes that we can generalize to all possible cases of territorial contentions from this single case. There's a good reason why the policy proposal you linked earlier has not reached full consensus for more than 4 years now. If you do not have any further comments or amendments to my recommendation, I will proceed to restoring the item to its previous state as I suggested, then making proper adjustments to the claims from the sources that I have. @M.Bitton is welcome to add any additional sourcing circumstances to the claims that he deems appropriate and are backed by reliable sources by Wikidata standard. Ideophagous (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree because you have yet to respond to the questions. This is important because it will allow us to decide what to do next: apart from the cherry picked nonsense to push a POV, if one finds a source (any source) that is clearly insulting to a king, a president or some other famous person, can they add it? If it helps, think "Q22686" and all kind of shit (based on "sources") that can be added to it.

Also, there is no way that it can be described as being part of Morocco (as you claim) because that would mean that SADR is claiming parts of Morocco, which obviously is pure nonsense.

I see no mention of "official sources" (your claim) in reliable sources by Wikidata standard. Where did you get that from? M.Bitton (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is actually the other way around: not that this case is somehow generalizable into some broader rule, but that we make a broad rule and apply it to this case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Koavf. We can make a broader rule (which I'm currently working on) and discuss it (a potentially lengthy process) after we fix the issue here, which is actually a very simple one: there are official sources backing up both claims, so add all of them with sourcing circumstances, as already cited Wikidata guidelines indicate ("Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world", and "it's possible to represent a plurality of perspectives on Wikidata"). Case closed. Ideophagous (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You keep banging on about the so-called "official sources" (the irrelevant POV of an occupying power that is known as such) while ignoring the question: where in reliable sources by Wikidata standard does it mention them?

This is just one of the reasons that make this anything but a "simple fix". M.Bitton (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree about the issues that M. B. raises re: official sources. Why should those count? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No, you are the one who keeps making up things as you go along (as highlighted time and again by Justin). If you really believed in what you're saying then why state ""illegally occupied" => ideological opinion" (these are your words) when you know full well that's fact that can be backed by a raft of reliable sources? Also, why are you inventing rules (about the sources needing to be official)? M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

"Bakhmut and Dakhla are definitely not at the same level of integration into the Russian and Moroccan administrative systems respectively (the latter had been considered a Moroccan commune for much longer)." But why is that relevant? There are sources that state "Bakhmut is part of Russia", no? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

If there are official sources that do, then by all means add them, and specifiy the sourcing circumstances. That's not our subject here anyway. Ideophagous (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Official sources? Is that a new rule that you just invented to justify the fact that you keep contradicting yourself? Frankly, it's becoming blindingly obvious that you're willing to do whatever it takes (from bending the rules to making up new ones) to push a political POV (while pretending that this discussion is about something else). M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The properties statement supported by (P3680) and statement disputed by (P1310) were exactly made available for use in such situations. I'm pinging other admins @Fuzheado, Multichill, Mike Peel: to look into the matter. --Reda benkhadra (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll be interested to know what to do with the hundreds of reliable sources that support a known fact. I might even learn how the flat earth claim is dealt with. M.Bitton (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see that Multichill has added the country Morocco to the item alongside Western Sahara. I think this adequately represents the status quo for now. I considered whether I should start a full policy discussion on this, but I think that these cases are infrequent enough that we should be able to resolve them on a case by case basis. I also think it might be worthwhile adding a "occupied by" or "currently under the control of" property (probably with the latter wording) so we aren't losing accuracy in favour of a particular side in these conflicts. If any uninvolved editors have issues with this, let me know and we can discuss more. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  As an involved editor, I don't have a problem with your assessment, but I will say that I disagree with these being rare: there are actually a lot of cases like this and a policy solution is really needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)