Jump to content

Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Map

A "self-published" map being used in this article (anonymous author, uploaded by "IAMTHEEGGMAN" , see File history) is a primary source and cannot legitimately be used as a secondary source in this article according to the Reliable sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. I therefore deleted it.S710 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the image used was not even that uploaded by IAMTHEEGGMAN. See Talk:Free Zone (region) for an expalnation of the source. --Robdurbar 09:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
File:Mauritanie 1958.jpg

There has been some talk recently about making a new map.. just thought Id point out this excellent map of the region which may be useful. It is old, but it is public domain and very detailed. --Astrokey44 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalling of the peace process

  • This is new to me!!, I thought that the result of the referendum would be known only after the counting of the casted ballots, but here Arre is inserting non-sense about the result being decided just according to the voters lists. If you are in Tindouf you will vote for the Polisario, and if you are in Layoune and had been on the spanish sensus you will also be voting for the Polisario. I understand why Morocco decided to drop the option of the referendum altogether, any result other than independence would not have been accepted and eventually those pronostics and future-telling added by Arre would be the proof that Morocco "falsified" the results.
  • There is no mention of the appeal process that allows the persons to appeal the decisions of excluding them from the voters lists, and that right has been used and showed that many have been unfairly excluded.
  • There is no mention that the Polisario has for decades insisted on the Spanish list alone, and refused any addition of any sahrawi not found in it. That excluded the father of Mohammed Abdelaziz who had moved to the north of Morocco decades before 1975, and logically excludes the president of the RASD himself.
  • The Assa paragraph is restored with word "some" instead of "many". It seems that ten out of twenty-five is not many. Salem Tamek was refused and excluded from the registration as a voter on the basis that he is a "Moroccan". Now he is the official spokesman of the Sahrawi human rights activists, and a hailed figure by the Polisario as a true Sahrawi. That is something to think about for Mr. Arre, and is more worth mentionning than the future-telling goofy stuff that Arre added.
  • The position of the parties about who is responsible for the hindring of the referendum are presented neutrally, and all the future-telling does not have a place in an encyclopedia.--A Jalil 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If my additions were not sourced, you're welcome to complain. If they are, on the other hand, better to bring another source that you feel is more trustworthy, and juxtapose them for the reader to decide. The Sahrawi independence movement does not consist of 25 persons, and I don't know where you get either the number 10 or 25. There is lots of independence activism in Assa, true, and AST is an important figure (though not "official spokesman" of any sort) who did, ironically, not fit the Spanish Census requirements -- he has commented on that himself on several occasions. But there is plenty more independence activism in El Aaiun, which is also far bigger. Not to mention Tindouf... so to imply that the independence activism is an Assa thing, is clearly wrong. I will however add something about the Spanish census -- I thought that was in there. I distinctly remember writing about it long ago. Arre 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New Map

OK, I've made a new map, but I'll be the first to confess my ignorance of the area geography so I'd like comments of things I've forgotten, anything I added that doesn't deserve to be, any names I've misspelled, etc. The attempt here is to be politically neutral - that is just to show the current geography of Western Sahara without reference to who is occupying what. I especially had trouble with towns - my sources rarely agreed on place names or even whether places exist or not. Kmusser 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, nice! Maybe the conveyor belt and a couple southern settlements (Lagouira, Guerguerat) would be useful too? Do you have a vector version of this? --Gribeco 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I could probably add the conveyor belt. I wasn't sure what to do about Lagouira since it's apparently been abandoned - I'd be tempted to mark it as a ruin but I couldn't find anything to verify it's status other than satellite images. Also it's spelled different on every map I look at. Is Guerguerat a settlement? As far as I could tell it's just a border crossing, and there's no town in that area on the imagery. Kmusser 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
For the format - this was done mostly freehand in Photoshop, so no I don't have a vector version - I can however upload a higher-resolution version without the labels for people to make other language versions or somebody could trace it to make a SVG version.Kmusser 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Conveyer belt and a few more towns added. Kmusser 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Photoshop works for me. You're right about Guerguerat, it really is too small; I was actually thinking about Bir Gandouz/Bir Gandus. --Gribeco 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI to those that might be interested - all those maps are quite inaccurate. According to Google Maps' satellite imagery (which I'm sure is also somewhat out of date by now), the boundaries are quite off...particularly the south end of the wall notably goes well into Mauritania. Another interesting tidbit is that Mauritania has their own wall shortly following Morocco's. I may have seen the wall creeping into Algeria, too, but I don't quite remember - the imagery isn't as clear up there, so it's easy to get lost. :p I know Google isn't always that accurate, but it should be easy enough to confirm spatially. ¦ Reisio 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Google imagery was surprisingly detailed and up to date - the wall is pretty easy to follow on the imagery. All the other sources (including the Google map overlay) were pretty sketchy though, and dificult to overlay properly on the imagery. I wouldn't be at all surprised that the wall crosses the border as there is nothing to physically indicate the border along any of it. Kmusser 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This new map is obviously far better than all other previous maps about Western Sahara in Commons. However, I am somewhat disappointed because:

  1. ) it's not a vectorial version
  2. ) the map has been resized too close to the borders of the territory, and therefore, very important features (because Western Sahara is a disputed territory) are out of the map: the north limit of the berm, Tiznit and Sidi Ifni cities, the subkhat near Tindouf, some islands of Canary Islands (Lanzarote, La Palma ...), and the Mauretanian city of Atar.

Other comments:

  • don't use different sizes for city symbols
  • the area is 266,000 km², and there are few location names
  • location names need a complete review
  • add distance, longitude and latitude scales

--Juiced lemon 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorporated most of your suggestions:
  • See above on why there isn't a vector version, someone else is welcome to trace it in order to make one. I do have a vector source file in EPS format if someone wants to use it - I tried bringing it into Inkscape but it looked horrible.
  • I zoomed out a bit and added the requested features. I added Guelmim instead of Tiznit because it's bigger.
  • Why not use different sizes for cities? It's a pretty universal map convention to use larger symbols and labels for larger cities. A map showing a city of 200,000 and a place with no permanent buildings with the same symbol is kind of misleading.
  • What's your point with their being few location names? This is a pretty barren place. I think the map already makes it look more populated than it is.
  • I asked you before about location names - you need to be specific if you want me to change them. I tried to follow the wikipedia convention and use whatever is most common, but many of these places have dozens of alternate spellings. If one is more correct than the others I'll be happy to use it. I have a spreadsheet of what names different atlases used if it'll help any.
  • Scale and gridlines added.
Kmusser 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"I do have a vector source file in EPS format if someone wants to use it"
Assembled with what? ¦ Reisio 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exported from ArcGIS. In theory ArcGIS will also export SVG directly, but I tried that and it only included a handful of the map features. I'd be willing to pass that along as well if you (or anyone else) want to try and debug it. Kmusser 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vector version uploaded to Image:Westernsahara.svg if anyone wants to try and fix it. Kmusser 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
EPS would probably be more useful, actually. ¦ Reisio 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Should the largest city count as the capital?

I have been doing a project involving this country, and upon looking up the capital, found that some websites have proclaimed Ayoun (Officially El-Aioun) and I have also seen it spelled El Ayoun, Laayoun, and several other ways that aren't as common. I was wondering if we should mention this city as a percieved capital, but not an official capital? 72.229.131.3 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


  • I would not agree. WS is a region without sovereignty --> No capital. This term, also used as "percieved" will bring confusion.
  • Let it be neutral.
Thanks - wikima 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The capital is the capital, that is the administrative headquarters. This need not mean, in English usage, that the territory is independent. Your objection is as such not useful. Capital is obviously Laayoune. collounsbury 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
In a non disputed case yes. When the territory is disputed and much noise is done around such words, then no, better avoid. Otherwies we would need tones of footnotes and long polemics to make clear how it is meant (namely merely administrative)
wikima 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There are already "polemics" - administrative capital and some other phrase for the "government in exile" strikes me to be not particularly difficult phrasing to arrive at. collounsbury 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
The capital is not necessarily the administrative headquarters: e.g. Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands, but the seat of government is located in The Hague. Van der Hoorn 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes explained

  • "Western Sahara is bordered to the north by Morocco proper". Is "proper" a POV in favor or Morocco?. I doubt it, but I remove it anyway.
  • "The Algeria-backed Polisario Front": what is so POV about this?. Algeria is proud of this backing, and so is the Polisario.
  • "independence movement" removed. This is actually a POV for the Polisario. To make it POV free, it could be "independence/separatist movement" depending on from which side you look at it. But, I restore it as it was.
  • "more than 25 states" instead of "25 states". Actually this figure is completely false and does not include many countries in the Persian Gulf alone, that would make it more than 30.
  • "the Polsario was fighting the Spanish since 1973" changed to "that was created in 1973". In all of 1973, 7 polisario members (including Elouali) raided a remote post and captured its 3 guards. Is "was fighting" the right terminology for it?.
  • "350,000 Moroccans" -> "350,000 Moroccan civilians". What is so POV about it?
  • Title "Demands for independence" changed to "End of Spanish rule", because labelling the events of 1975 as demands for independence, is POV in favor of the Polisario. It is like calling that period "Demands for reintegration" which would be a POV in favor of Morocco/Mauritania. So "End of Spanish rule" is quite neutral.
  • The Madrid Accords were not mentioned. They have been added. Is that a POV, or were the Madrid Accords, signed in Madrid, between Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania fictious?.
  • Title "stalling of the independence referendum" changed to "stalling of the settlement plan", because the referendum was not only about independence, but also about integration with Morocco. So focusing on independence is pro-Polisario POV, and on integration is pro-Morocco POV. "stalling of the settlement plan" is thus quite neutral.
  • independence or "inclusion" changed to or independence or integration, because that is was the UN uses. I have never heard of this inclusion term before. Is that a POV?
  • indigenous voter -> elligible voter, because that is what it is. For example, Abdelaziz can't be called indigenous because he was born in Morocco where he grew up and attended primary school, college, and the Mohammed V university as Moroccan as any other Moroccans, till he moved to Algeria.
  • the process stalled because all parties have refused something that the UN has proposed at some point. That is a fact, and not a POV for anyone.
  • The identification process allowed people to appeal the decisions and it has been used by both parties. Most of the appealing voters are from Sahrawi tribes from the Tantan and Tarfaya region that were part of Spanish sahara till 1958. That is a fact.
  • The Polisario front has insisted for two decades (1975-1997) on the Spanish census as a sole reference for holding a referendum. That is a fact.
  • "Morocco would never agree to a referendum it is not sure of winning". This is actually a POV in favor of the Polisario. It is contradicted by Erik Jensen's statement (in the article), who played an administrative role in MINURSO, wrote that "NEITHER side would agree to a voter registration in which they were destined to lose". So, focusing on one party of the conflict is POV.
  • The Baker Plan chapter was a mess, and mixed between Baker Plan I and Baker plan II with numerous errors about dates and parties reactions, as well as the Plans' main objectives. If you see anything wrong in my edits, please do correct, but explain in the talk page.
  • The Algerian proposal to divide the territory was a mjor development in the conflict and is sourced in a refered UN document. why do you oppose it?. It is also a proof that Algeria does decide on behalf of the Sahrawis/Polisario.
  • Khatt chahid, as a dissident group (from WITHIN the Polisario) denouncing human rights abuses and misuse of humanitarian aid is important to notice in the Human Rights section. It is a fact. What is so POV about it?.
  • The most prominent pro-Polisario figures in WS today (Ali Salem Tamek, Al moutawakil, Laarbi Masoud, ...), are from regions in Southern Morocco, that are not situated in WS. They were refused the right register as voters in the referendum, because they were seen then by the Polisario as Moroccans and not sahrawis, and while they were born before the Spanish census, they were not found on its lists. Today, because they are pro-independence, they have been adopted as guenine Sahrawis. This needs to be mentioned, because it is related to the problem of identification.
  • Mentionning that the figures about the Tindouf camps population are not due to a UN/UNHCR, actually, not even a Polisario /Algeria count. Never a population census has been conducted for the Tindouf camps. The MINURSO found less that 40,000 people aged 18+ in 1997. So count for yourself. The rest (120,000) should be children and babies. Given the fact that Abdelaziz and other pro-Polisario organisations, have on numerous occasions raised issues of malnutrition and high child mortality in the camps, you can (with a proper use of reason and letting bias apart) look for yourself, why the UN has decided to lower the number to 90,000.--A Jalil 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Mon dieu, does this squabbling never end?
Okay,well, my neutral sick of the lot of you reactions point by point -
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* "Western Sahara is bordered to the north by Morocco proper". Is "proper" a POV in favor or Morocco?. I doubt it, but I remove it anyway.
IMO Morocco proper is indeed poor phrasing as it implies WS claims are not valid.
Regardless of whether they are or not, it would be best to have an article that does not take a view. However what phrasing should be adopted, perhaps "Bordered in the north by undisputed Moroccan territory"? It is, I would note, a trivial phrase.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Exactly what I meant. If Morocco starts from the northern border of Saguia Al-hamra province, then Morocco's claim to the territory (without taking stance to its validity) is thrown out of hand. I discarded that change anyway to avoid unnecessary bla-bla. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "The Algeria-backed Polisario Front": what is so POV about this?. Algeria is proud of this backing, and so is the Polisario.
I have no idea if Polisario is "proud" of Algerian backing, but it is a fact. I don't see it as either a positive or negative.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Polisario is indeed proud of that backing. Abdelaziz lets no occasion without mentioning it. Besides that, it is widely used in the press without sensitivities.--A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "independence movement" removed. This is actually a POV for the Polisario. To make it POV free, it could be "independence/separatist movement" depending on from which side you look at it. But, I restore it as it was.
No, Independence movement is an observation. It is a movement for independence. Over-sensitivity on this point is silly.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* "more than 25 states" instead of "25 states". Actually this figure is completely false and does not include many countries in the Persian Gulf alone, that would make it more than 30.
Although this "more states recog. me" bollocks is tedious and childish, I agree. However, the phrasing overall is awkward. Arab league is cited in a single manner. Phrasing along the lines of 'over (or perhaps more than, or approximately more than) XX number of states recog. Moroccan claims, including the xx members of the Arab League would be clearer.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I totally agree the counting is tedious and childish. I am of the opinion that the number 25 be dropped altogether. Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, ... are not counted in that number. The Arab League is mentionned as an organism. That is why I added "more" before "25". --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "the Polsario was fighting the Spanish since 1973" changed to "that was created in 1973". In all of 1973, 7 polisario members (including Elouali) raided a remote post and captured its 3 guards. Is "was fighting" the right terminology for it?.
Why not? You're playing a agitprop minimizations game.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • One of the back-pain issues for Polisario supporters is the fact that every nation in Africa under colonialism was struggling (politically and/or militarily) to be independent in the 50s. Who was struggling to free Spanish Sahara militarily in the 50s? Morocco in 1958 (Ifni War where the Moroccan Liberation Army of the South, including the father of Abdelaziz almost liberated Spanish Sahara to Morocco). In the 60s, it was Morocco that was leading the political struggle in the UN (listing of the Spanish Sahara on the 4th commission on decolonisation), and getting back Ifni (the capital of Spanish Sahara). To mend to this awkward situation, the Polisario supporters start to magnify some raids by a few Polisario members (after 1973), to fill that missing "struggle". What I meant is simply to put it in its real size. It was not "they were fighting the Spanish". We could rephrase it appropriately. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "350,000 Moroccans" -> "350,000 Moroccan civilians". What is so POV about it?
Well, objectively I can see some questions might be posed as to the 'civilianness' of the total and the like. 350k Moroccans isn't prejudicial.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* Title "Demands for independence" changed to "End of Spanish rule", because labelling the events of 1975 as demands for independence, is POV in favor of the Polisario. It is like calling that period "Demands for reintegration" which would be a POV in favor of Morocco/Mauritania. So "End of Spanish rule" is quite neutral.
Again objectively 3rd party histories indicate at least some parties in WS were c. 75 demanding independence w/o joining Morocco. Ergo, "End of Spanish Rule" has a tendency to minimize that in favour of the Moroccan view. Ideally the article would make clear there were both tendencies.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • "End of Spanish rule" IMHO, means simply the Spanish period ends here and another period begins. It does not favor any party nor excludes that anyone was demanding anything. But a better phrasing is welcome. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* The Madrid Accords were not mentioned. They have been added. Is that a POV, or were the Madrid Accords, signed in Madrid, between Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania fictious?.
Afraid I personally don't follow the statement. Can you clarify?
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • In the previous version, Spain just decided to divest itself from the territory and left away, then Morocco/Mauritania proceeded to invade WS. That is wrong. It washs away a very important political happening: the Madrid accords were a political framework, negotiated between Spain on one side and Morocco/Mauritania from the other. It transferes the administration to Morocco and Mauritania in their respective parts. I know that the Polisario supporters don't like the madrid Accords, but so what?. It is a fact and must be mentioned. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Title "stalling of the independence referendum" changed to "stalling of the settlement plan", because the referendum was not only about independence, but also about integration with Morocco. So focusing on independence is pro-Polisario POV, and on integration is pro-Morocco POV. "stalling of the settlement plan" is thus quite neutral.
Agreed. Or stalling of the referendum on settlement of the WS....
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* independence or "inclusion" changed to or independence or integration, because that is was the UN uses. I have never heard of this inclusion term before. Is that a POV?
I have no idea what you're on about. The objection doesn't make sense to me.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I have never heard of the word "inclusion" in the context of the referendum. so I replaced it with the UN wording. That should not be a problem. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* indigenous voter -> elligible voter, because that is what it is. For example, Abdelaziz can't be called indigenous because he was born in Morocco where he grew up and attended primary school, college, and the Mohammed V university as Moroccan as any other Moroccans, till he moved to Algeria.
Bloody hell. I'll agree that since who qualifies as "indigenous" is a point of political squabbling, that the article should have a neutral description - eligible voter seems a decent choice although perhaps there are arguments against.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • The identification process was about who is eligible to vote not who is indigenous to vote. I gave the example of someone (Abdelaziz above) not indigenous but eligible to vote. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* the process stalled because all parties have refused something that the UN has proposed at some point. That is a fact, and not a POV for anyone.
Fair observation.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The identification process allowed people to appeal the decisions and it has been used by both parties. Most of the appealing voters are from Sahrawi tribes from the Tantan and Tarfaya region that were part of Spanish sahara till 1958. That is a fact.
This seems to be a valid point, although I am not personally obsessed enough with these details to say if the fact is indeed a fact. If it is, it is a fair point.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The Polisario front has insisted for two decades (1975-1997) on the Spanish census as a sole reference for holding a referendum. That is a fact.
And?
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • In the messed Baker chapter, there was mentioned that the Polisario was always for a referendum, but there was no mention that they continued to insist on it being organised among the people of the "Spanish Census" only. That is not a clean acceptance of the referendum. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "Morocco would never agree to a referendum it is not sure of winning". This is actually a POV in favor of the Polisario. It is contradicted by Erik Jensen's statement (in the article), who played an administrative role in MINURSO, wrote that "NEITHER side would agree to a voter registration in which they were destined to lose". So, focusing on one party of the conflict is POV.
Absolutely correct. (both the criticism and of course the citation).
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The Baker Plan chapter was a mess, and mixed between Baker Plan I and Baker plan II with numerous errors about dates and parties reactions, as well as the Plans' main objectives. If you see anything wrong in my edits, please do correct, but explain in the talk page.
Fair request.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The Algerian proposal to divide the territory was a mjor development in the conflict and is sourced in a refered UN document. why do you oppose it?. It is also a proof that Algeria does decide on behalf of the Sahrawis/Polisario.
Please explain this for those of us not steeped in the edit wars.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • That is the other back-pain issue for pro-Polisarians. In the article it is written that Algeria does not decide on behalf of the Polisario. In 2001, James Baker, to unlock the stalemate, proposed that a third way be explored: an autonomy large enough to give the Polisario everything they looked for in independence, and because it happens within the territorial integrity of the kingdom of Morocco, Moroccan sovereignty over the territory would be finally recognized by the UN. The plan was supported by the US and France and the UK. The idea of WS being recognized within Moroccan sovereignty is the last thing Algeria would see, and to counter that, Bouteflika of Algeria proposed ( Music on : ta-taaa ...) to divide the territory between the parties. Bye bye the right of peoples for auto-determination,.. etc. The Polisario has to this day not reacted to that proposal. By the way that triggered the return to Morocco of Lehbib Ayoub, the most notorious war hero of the Polisario and minister of interior of the RASD. So Algeria can indeed decide on behalf of the Polisario, and that was added, and is a fact and sourced with the UN document that contains the Algerian proposal. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Khatt chahid, as a dissident group (from WITHIN the Polisario) denouncing human rights abuses and misuse of humanitarian aid is important to notice in the Human Rights section. It is a fact. What is so POV about it?.
Please clarify what was edited, preferably by citing so one doesn't have to hunt.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • To my biggest surprise, Khatt Ach-Chahid does not have an article on Wikipedia. It defines itself as a reformist movement within Polisario. It was formed by a number of Polisario officials and headed by Polisario founder Mahjoub Salek. It is based in Spain. It has criticised the misuse of international help, the dictatorship of Abdelaziz, and the lack of freedom of speech and political activity in the Tindouf camps. It most recently criticised the fact that Abdelaziz warned the world of a humanitarian catastrophe due to shortage of food in the camps, and at the same time organizing costly festivities in Tifariti. Its members have been tortured for their ideas, and that fits well in the Human Rights section. There is a link to an interview of Salek. I will add more. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* The most prominent pro-Polisario figures in WS today (Ali Salem Tamek, Al moutawakil, Laarbi Masoud, ...), are from regions in Southern Morocco, that are not situated in WS. They were refused the right register as voters in the referendum, because they were seen then by the Polisario as Moroccans and not sahrawis, and while they were born before the Spanish census, they were not found on its lists. Today, because they are pro-independence, they have been adopted as guenine Sahrawis. This needs to be mentioned, because it is related to the problem of identification.
See comment supra.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • This is relevant to the definition of elligible voters. For decades the Sahrawi tribes that were part of spanish Sahara, and those that left the territory after the Ifni war(1958), to the north, were seen as most likely pro-Moroccan in a referendum and were denied the right to vote by the Polisario, and how they can become in a sudden again real sahrawis as soon as they show independentist/separatist tendencies. Salek is the main figure of the pro-Polisario front inside Morocco (he is from Assa). He tours the world to champion the Polisario cause, and is - without shame - cited as "the sahrawi human rights activist", without mentionning that he was one of the 120,000 Sahrawis refused by the identification commision, because they were ... Moroccans. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Mentionning that the figures about the Tindouf camps population are not due to a UN/UNHCR, actually, not even a Polisario /Algeria count. Never a population census has been conducted for the Tindouf camps. The MINURSO found less that 40,000 people aged 18+ in 1997. So count for yourself. The rest (120,000) should be children and babies. Given the fact that Abdelaziz and other pro-Polisario organisations, have on numerous occasions raised issues of malnutrition and high child mortality in the camps, you can (with a proper use of reason and letting bias apart) look for yourself, why the UN has decided to lower the number to 90,000.
I believe that this comment is re the various figures bandied about, w/o good statistical support, correct?
There should be a easy, neutral way to present various figures asserted by various parties, without deleting.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
Exact. And please do rephrase it as appropriate taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts. Cheers. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss why your blatant POV should be included, be my guest - I will not waste my time on it ― (for spectators: what he has already presented here are trivial dregs, you'll have to actually look through the entire diff to see what he neglected to mention here). ¦ Reisio 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you bloody well will discuss or I will revert all your changes and ask for wiki intervention. Your behaviour is childish at best. Some of Jalil's edits are clearly partisan whingong , some are logical, some are debatable and deserve a convo. And I'll note from looking at your talk page, you seem to have a poor attitude combined with a poor command of English. (collounsbury 13:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
Further to the discussion, I was just taking a look at the version of "Revision as of 17:37, 6 March 2007" and "Revision as of 14:36, 7 March 2007" which was Jalil's.
It strikes me he covered most of his edits but indeed there are key items he did not cite.
That being said, while Jali's objections to certain language are well-taken - the based article areas edited are largely POV with a slant towards Polisario, Jalil flipped to a pro-Morocco POV, e.g. this line " and the Polisario front's refusal to explore any other way that does not lead to independence. " by him is not captured in the changes supra. Changing the article from being pro-Polisario to pro-Makhzen is substituting one sin for another.
The ongoing whankery is tedious, but since the continuing utter childishness irritates, I shall propose an edit. And pox on the lot of partisans. (collounsbury 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
That Reisio fellow does nothing but reverting in wikipedia. I asked him to paste the "POV edits" I did here to the talk page and show with arguments that they are POV, but he couldn't. Go ahead Collounsburry and change the language as seems neutral to you. I trust your attitude. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrase goes like this "At the heart of the dispute lies the question of who can be registered as an elligible voter, and, since about 2000, Morocco formal refusal to include independence as an option on the referendum ballot, and the Polisario front's refusal to explore any other way that does not lead to independence.". So both are blamed for the stalemate. Morocco refuses the independence as an option, and the Polisario front refuses that the option of independence be dropped from any solution. is it POV? --A Jalil 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I began editing, and got to the Baker plan before running out of steam. Really have to get back to work. I agree Reisio seems to have a habit of aggressively reverting (I notice others on talk page complaining of this in other subject areas). (collounsbury 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

They're your edits, so you should do the work in cleaning them up, not anyone else. I don't have the time or inclination to go through and cut out the half or so of them that are POV, so I revert. To suggest that every time someone makes an article _worse_ everyone else should go through and clean up such an edit is ridiculous ― worse = revert. ¦ Reisio 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your way of doing (not necessarely what you think) is - obviousely - bothering many people.
An you don't seem to be ready to learn even after so many people have warned you.
wikima 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Try not confuse 'many people' with you and A Jalil and your Moroccan POV pushing. ¦ Reisio 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You know mate, you've got a serious attitude problem. While wikima and Jalil certainly have a Moroccan POV and are going to far in reacting to the original material's Polisario POV, your childish reversions and mislabelling are worse. As I told you, I am reverting any and all changes you make w/o proper labelling and w/o discussion. The bloody subject is controversial and changes deserve discussion rather than inane edit wars. At least Jalil and Wiki are listening to critiques, perhaps not always well, but listening. (collounsbury 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

"wikima and Jalil certainly have a Moroccan POV"
Glad you noticed, but it'd be nicer if you weren't helping them out.
"Jalil and Wiki are listening to critiques"
This is (primarily Wikima's) eternal defense. "No, we're discussing this, you can't make it NPOV!" - check around on the various WS-related article Talk pages besides this one and it will become horribly clear.

¦ Reisio 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reisio, your bad habit of cheap reverting without discussing is notorious on many articles and against many editors. Maybe you are amused by your cat-and-mouse revert wars, but if you don't have the guts to discuss the topics you don't agree on, either stop reverting or sooner or later some admins will have to do something against your disruptive behavior. --A Jalil 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate, I don't need you to tell me about the history on these pages. Your approach is, at best, childish edit wars. And as far as I can tell, when I reasonably call on POV, they listen to me. Why? Why very obviously I am entirely neutral on the two bloody positions and am well-enough informed to make intelligent interventions. You're engaged in pure childish whinging on. (collounsbury 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)).

Ha, yes clearly they cower at the sight of your posts! :p ¦ Reisio 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe your response rather clearly sums up your problem. Childish attatchment to utterly pointless confrontation. Cowering doesn't bloody well enter into the question. (collounsbury 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Mmmm, accuracy and a NPOV are so very pointless. ¦ Reisio 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so Reisio. WP:NPOV and WP:V are the core of Wikipedia editing.
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and, in this thread reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.
So if you still believe that they are pointless than i suggest you get a break from editing and edit warring. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
→sarcasm ¦ Reisio 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It's been noted. Keep up w/ your sarcasm. Any serious comments by the way? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
↑ ¦ Reisio 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Since we are not discussing the subject of this talkpage, i thought it would be a good idea to discuss the things you prefer. Maybe that would ease our minds:
  • Neither irony or sarcasm is argument. Samuel Butler.
  • Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it. Thomas Carlyle.
  • Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded. Fyodor Dostoevsky.
  • Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play. Heraclitus.
  • It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness which would do credit to any college student, but the monkey is serious because he itches. Robert M. Hutchins.
  • You can't think about how people will perceive you or your character. All you can do is focus on your work. The rest is up to the universe. I've been acting for 16 years. I've done 55 movies and, in all seriousness, there's maybe five that are good and the rest are crap. Robert Patrick.
  • If you can get humor and seriousness at the same time, you've created a special little thing, and that's what I'm looking for, because if you get pompous, you lose everything. Paul Simon.
  • There's a new seriousness, especially amongst college kids; they know that all of these simple old homilies really are not important. Ken Kesey. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What gave you the idea I like quotes? ¦ Reisio 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I just guessed that as i said above that i thought it would be a good idea to discuss the things you prefer. I hope it worked. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't especially like quotes, though... ¦ Reisio 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that you believe that accuracy and a NPOV are so very pointless. But i think and believe that quotes serve as a context to all the discussion above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"→sarcasm ¦ Reisio 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)" ¦ Reisio 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Country code & TLD

Quite simply, Western Sahara != Morocco, and therefore saying Western Sahara's country code is that of Morocco's is completely inaccurate.

Stating that Western Sahara's ccTLD is .ma (Morocco's TLD) is inaccurate for the same reason - Western Sahara != Morocco. What's more, .eh is reserved (or whatever you want to call it), but even if it weren't, .ma would still be inaccurate.

The currency makes sense; for whatever reason, if you want to spend money in most of Western Sahara, I'm thinking you'll probably want some Moroccan money. The calling code also makes sense for the same reason; if you want to make a call to someone in most of Western Sahara, I'm think you'll probably have to use Morocco's phone systems.

Wikima, your statement "If it's irrelevant then simply leave it" elates me. It seems you don't even care anymore to hide the fact that you're pushing a Moroccan POV...which is great, actually, because that mostly just leaves A Jalil. It's irrelevant, and by extension inaccurate to use - it'd be like including the .us ccTLD in Iraq's infobox.

We should probably use 'EH' for the country code and make a note about how it's probably a legacy code at this point, and '.eh' is the only ccTLD that should be listed. Also, of course, the giant footnote about the dispute is still redundant, as it's covered in the article (and you guys seem to insert it everyplace you can, so it's also covered in dozens of other articles).

¦ Reisio 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord more of this tedium.
Frankly the information should probably be completely omitted as
(i) the .eh is purely theoretical
(ii) in other disputed territories it appears not to be cited at all (no doubt to avoid endless pointless whankery over utter trivialities)
(iii) the defacto reality is .ma is going to be used for almost any site actually housed in the territory. This is a matter of technical infrastructure actually present.
collounsbury 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Western Sahara is not Morocco, Reisio, you are right in this. From a Moroccan perspective, Western Sahara is just a part of Morocco. You may disagree with that. That's completely understandable. But, the DO-FACTO fact is that as Collounsbury already stated it, if you are in WS, the only dialling code people can use to reach you is the Moroccan one. All web sites in the province have .ma as their TLD. This does not mean a recognition of any sovereignty or status quo. The European Union, includes WS in the fishing agreements it signs with Morocco, without actually formally recognizing the sovereignty of Rabat over the province. It is simply stating the facts as they are in the real life. Telling a reader looking at the infobox that there is some .eh for WS, is simply deceiving him/her, for there is no such TLD in use anywhere. The US/Iraq comparision is bizarre. Iraq is a sovereign nation recognized by the US. The footnotes have been there all the time and are used in many other country infoboxes, and there is no reason to remove them. Moreover there is nothing POV about the text in the footnotes. If you would like to remove redundant text, believe me, the articles about WS, will be less that half what they are now. --A Jalil 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Country code:
The ISO 3166-1 code for Western Sahara is EH. This is true even if you regard Western Sahara as part of Morocco (just as HK is the code for Hong Kong, even though Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China). It's not a "legacy code" in any sense - the ISO 3166/MA would withdraw it if they thought it no longer appropriate.

TLD:
It's irrelevant what TLD is used in Western Sahara. What matters is what has been assigned. If you regard Western Sahara as part of Morocco, then it is covered by the TLD .ma. If you don't regard Western Sahara as part of Morocco, then it has no TLD at all: .eh is currently reserved (in the sense that EH is currently the ISO 3166 alpha-2 code), but the political situation has prevented it from being assigned, and consequently no such TLD has ever been created. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so it should present both viewpoints (.ma and none). .eh is reserved (in the sense given above) regardless of viewpoint, and so could also be mentioned, but is largely irrelevant.

--Zundark 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

New Reference Point

Given the tedious little djihad over this subject has renewed, I believe it useful to direct all potential editors to the new report on the conflict issued (first report actually) by the internationally respected International Crisis Group, which should be accessible here: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4892&l=1 The report pokes sticks in just about everyone's eyes, and for my money is perhaps the best reference point for a neutral, encyclopedia article - for this article and the attendant little exagerated universe of articles around it. Something better at least than the ceaseless partisan political editing at least. collounsbury 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

Useless "categories"

Territories under military occupation doesn't strike me as a particularly useful category - and seems argumentative and needlessly POV while not conveying objective information. Looking at the category it is an incoherent mish mash. I am reverting to Jalil's edit. Our fine moudjahid for Polisario should stop reverting and give me an argument as to what the bloody hell the purpose of the category is if not to assert a POV collounsbury 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Purpose? It serves the same purpose as any other category or list of articles (e.g. List of disputed territories.) I didn't create the category, so I suppose I can't speak for the intentions in the mind of the original author, but the purpose of a category on Wikipedia is:
"...(along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) [to] help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called."
If someone is looking for information on all occupied territories, they can find a repository of the in this category. Why *wouldn't* you include Western Sahara in this category, since it is clearly applicable? As an aside, I've done nothing to maintain this category, other than add this relevant entry, so I can't speak for how well it has been maintained in the past, but I don't see the problem with it presently, other than the fact that it is lacking some entries. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I put it in this category - because the category is a grab bag and given the mish mash of other cross-referenced content does not seem to serve any coherent purpose at all except to advance the point of view of one party to the conflict. It's argumentative and duplicative of disputed territories (indeed what territory isn't 'militarily occupied' - Spain has military forces in Ceuta and Melilla, Algeria on the Sahara, etc. etc.). Disputed territories is a clearer, more analytically coherent definition, and one that is not argumentative. It also if one looks at the cross referencing usage has more consistency. Of course as a Polisario partisan you want to push that, fine, disputed territories gets the point across (along with the utterly absurd proliferation of your articles on WS) collounsbury 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

It's not like Koavf added the category, Collounsbury. Varag added Category:Territories with military occupation forces, and David Kernow, an admin, shortly swapped it to Category:Territories under military occupation. It then seems to have been left unchallenged for nearly six months until A Jalil removed it, calling it "non-applicable" - an erroneous assertion regardless of the state of the category. I can only guess why you would support such a move, other than taking you at your (above) word, which is reaching, in my opinion. Are you of the mind that removal of data need not be justified? ¦ Reisio 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care who added the category, taking a look at it, the category strikes me as meaningless, duplicative of the less POV category "Disputed Territories" and frankly undefinable. I ask again, what bloody territory is not under military occupation in the sense of national forces defending the claim - a few perhaps but there are countless that are not. collounsbury 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Occupation? Well, that's not the definition of military occupation; it is not the case that all territories with armies in them are "occupied." If you want to know "what bloody territory is not under military occupation" that list is huge and you know that: Spain, my back yard, Cornwall, Antarctica, Senegal, Tokyo, etc. Most territories are not occupied, hence, it is noteworthy when one is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

an erroneous assertion regardless of the state of the category: I do not get what this sentence means. WS is a disputed territory. Of course if you are sympathetic, like koavf, with the polisario position, it suits you well to categorize it as an occupied territory. It will help much to keep one's own wishes separate from the facts in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, Reisio. --A Jalil 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To rephrase, it means even if the category is unkempt, this article still fits perfectly into it. The point being that Collounsbury's assertion that this article shouldn't be in the category because it is messy is immaterial. You will have to give good justification to remove information; referring to a category as "non-applicable" when it clearly is (two or three times over) will not suffice (and will probably earn you some sort of reprimand, if acted upon chronically). ¦ Reisio 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Define the category I suppose, at present I see this more as a POV argument than a helpful category. To make the argument starker, certainly from a Moroccan perspective it is military defence of own territory rather than occupation, from the Polisario POV, military occuption. Who's right? Depends on perspective. Is it disputed - oh yes, no question at all. Were the distinction between occupation (e.g. France by Germany, Palestinian Territories - leaving aside the ambig. of the annexed plots, etc - unambiguous utterly non-POV characterization). Clear enough? Reverting as "not applicable" is wrong, I would agree - that's POV - rather the incoherence of the category, what it really means and the clear POV implication here making it argumentative (and almost entirely duplicative of disputed territories) drives my objection. Of course the whole bloody dispute is tiresome to begin with, but working at being fair-minded I see the military occup. item as clearly POV collounsbury 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Moroccan POV Since there are two armies present in Western Sahara, and they are not there on the other's consent, it is necessarily occupied. The UN also considers the area occupied, as does any rational third-party observer. There are right-wing Israelis that don't consider the West Bank occupied; that doesn't mean we have to take away any references to Israeli occupation. That's false balance. If you have a problem with the category per se, feel free to bring it up on its talk. Barring that, mark it for deletion. I don't particularly care. As long as it exists, though, this article should be in it, as it is a relevant example. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one army and a set of guerrillas. No objective observer would call the Polisario an "army." As for the UN and rational observers - well, I disagree mate. I am far more rational than the UN. It's disputed - occupied, perhaps depending on the definition, but disputed is clearer. And yes, there are certain Israeli fringeelements outside government that want to get acceptance of "greater Israel" - but Israel has never annexed the Territories nor granted citizenship to the Occupied Territories.
Intellectually, for any non-partisan there is a clear difference. Now, that clear difference does not mean either side is right however, for my money and without being a bloody whinging little party political partisan of a region I know fuck all about, the issue of "Occupation" is disputable given the wider context and given my other comments (which have not been address substantively, ex the weak and rather ill thought out and informed Israeli example). As for the category objection, I have better things to do, given limited time and rather little interest in wiki qua wiki. (collounsbury 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
I have to agree with Justin (Koavf) here. For example in the category also Tibet is present. It depends on your point of view if it is an occupied territory. Actually if you think about it, the category is _always_ a certain POV and always from the one that is occupied (or those who think it is). I also agree that the discussion should be held at the talk page of the category, whether the category is right per se. For now the category is clearly applicable. (Please note from my undo's on this article's page that I do not favour a certain POV.) Van der Hoorn 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair note regarding Tibet - however I disagree that the category is clearly applicable (and disagree regarding Tibet as well, but that's not my area). collounsbury 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
  • I think the category is to be removed until fully discussed and a result is found.
  • Further to your logic you can create or use all kinds of categories, e.g. also genocide here.
  • Western Sahara is clearly under no military occupation. Morocco admisters the territory and sees it as its southern provinces. And there is no final result of the dipsute. Until then we MUST avoid POV and use balanced editing.
  • Military occupation is POV.
  • And it does mean nothing, since every country is on its own military occupation (or control)
  • Please leave the cat out until we decide.
Thanks and regards - wikima 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"Western Sahara is clearly under no military occupation."
Ahhh... and why is that so clearly? Now you really showed your true face. Yóu are clearly on the POV of Morocco. Van der Hoorn 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, now you know the truth?! Wow, is the world that easy!
  • If I was on the POV of Morocco my edits and changes would look much different.
  • And if you would show some interest to the Polsiario POV which has devastated the whole topic in wikipedia, that would be rather helpful.
  • Back to the topic: Western Sahara is under Moroccan administration. There is also police, the Moroccan flag, the Moroccan money and everything from the Moroccan administration.
  • If you say military occupation, then you are ignoring all that and you are representing the Polisario POV, which I think you don't want to, do you?
Thanks - wikima 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikima is rather Moroccan POV. As the Indiana kid is Polisario POV. They're both tiresome partisans from time to time. Leaving that aside, and either side's whinging on, I remain unconvinced that the Military Occupation is not POV as such in this type of situation (in contrast to non-annexation issues - one could think about the issue of Alsace perhaps, as a counter). collounsbury 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


List of countries by formation dates

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at List of countries by formation dates that concernes Western Sahara. It relates to the fact that some users include former colonies (such as Algeria or Western Sahara) in the columm for the last territorial changes of their respective colonial power, and this because "formely" such colonies were considered "provinces". I believe this discussion and its result may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's us have it, we got nothing else, every other arab country got oil we don't..i say we split it with algeria (That's what they want anyway)...don't make me claim the andalous too...lolCasawi82 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Also see: infobox vote

Codes and "minor" state

Please stop Since there is no definition of a "minor" state, there is no need to put it there. Is Algeria "minor?" Iran? It's a nonsense phrase, so it should be deleted. As for making "MA" a country code for Western Sahara, it's not. MA is a code for Morocco, and so it is in Morocco's infobox. EH was created for Western Sahara, so that is its country code. As far as the territory being occupied, this is a clear fact and the position of the United Nations; it is also mentioned in the article in other places. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not need a definition to be in the article. A minor state is used as opposed to super-power states, permanent members of the security council, ... etc. As to the EH domain, it clearly states the .eh tld is intended for WS but it is not assigned, ".MA" being the one used in the territory. The same thing applies for the currency, the MAD is the currency of Morocco, but that is also the currency you will find in use in the territory. The same thing goes for the IAC 212, the Time zone +0 UTC, etc. They are the ones used in the territory. These things have been a matter of hotted debate before and they settled on the way they have been before you started tempering with them. As to your ridiculous claim of the UN considering the territory as occupied, I already explained to you the difference between a UN position through the security council that is reiterated again and again, and a voting poll in 1979 of the Algerian-Cuban drafted document, that has no obligation on the UN. The "Zionism=Racism" example is the brightest one for you to understand it. I will revert to the version that was in use before the anon IP started this mess.--A Jalil (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It does Since "minor states" doesn't mean anything, you can't use it in this article; it's nonsense. What states that ".ma" is being used in the territory? Do you have any evidence of this at all? The same thing does not apply to currency, since there is no administrative body that assigns currencies to regions. To ask which currency is used in a region is different than to ask which top-level domain name has been assigned to the region; the former is defined entirely by usage, the latter is defined entirely by standards. Western Sahara is clearly occupied, as the article itself still states; I'm not going through this with you again. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah we're back to having fun again arguing about trivialities. Minor states is indeed a value judgement - although arguably the states recognizing are largely minor on the global arena (Algeria is not a big newsmaker per se). But in the interest of neutrality, merely noting "African, Asian, and Latin American" states seems reasonable. At the same time, if Koavf gets to bleat on about minor, it seems reasonable that controlled be used rather than occupied. Same standards on language. (collounsbury (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
Evidence on .ma usage would be found with sites for entities ostensibly domiciled in Western Sahara provinces using .ma. It is trivially easy to find that. Koavf's immature partisanship notwithstanding. (collounsbury (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
What is an example of a website with an .ma domain name which has the server in Western Sahara? « D. Trebbien (talk) 23:40 2008 May 5 (UTC)
Good question. Since effectively all internet service to the Western Sahara is via Maroc Telecom or other Moroccan operators, one would expect that most servers would be located in Moroccan territory (ex-WS provinces), largely in the Casa-Rabat area. Technically I am unaware of any way to determine where the physical server is actually located (versus the service). Presumably the Regional Investment Office of Laayoune (http://www.laayouneinvest.ma/fr/index.asp) may have its server physically in Laayoune. Other similar offices may also. It strikes me as useful for the article to indicate like country code, most sites use the Moroccan address (.ma). Polisario partisans may not like that, but its effective reality. (collounsbury (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC))
Country codes I find it reasonable that there are .ma sites hosted in Western Sahara, but I also do not know of any. That having been said, it is still the case that the country code for Western Sahara is .eh, and not .ma. Cf. East Timor for instance; where a code has been assigned, but another is used (in addition to the new one.) -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor Citation

I would like to see a more credible citation than what is used as a justification for listing Spanish as one of Western Sahara's "Recognised regional languages". By the way, you have a typo; it should be "Recognized". The citation is "Instituto Cervantes" http://hispanismo.cervantes.es/faq.asp#105 which is a somewhat sketchy web page with several grammatical errors itself and barely mentions Western Sahara as a Spanish speaking country. The CIA World Factbook on the other hand doesn't mention Spanish as a language in Western Sahara (even though the Spanish did attempt a colony), so I have to think that the Spanish speaking population is quite minimal. The Factbook lists Hassaniya Arabic and Moroccan Arabic as the countries two languages https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/wi.html. Please find a more suitable reference that gives an idea about the size of the Spanish speaking population or consider removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.250.7 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that recognised is an acceptable spelling, it's the non-American spelling (ie British and elsewhere in the world influenced by British English) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.194.185 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish should be deleted. Morocco doesn't assign any specific legislation to Western Sahara, so the only officially recognized language there is the one recognized in Morocco, and that is Arabic (note that although French is treated as a co-official language in every way, it does not have legal status as such, and Spanish, however respected and sometimes considered the fourth language of the country, after Arabic, French and Berber, hasn't either). The Polisario may or may not consider Spanish as a co-official language, but that would only refer to the Polisario-controlled zones and has no effect on the territory depicted on the map. Unless, of course, you consider that, since the political status is not resolved, Spanish colonial law still applies legally, but that has no practical effect. So much for the official status; for the language in use, wether recognized or not, I can tell that many older sahrawis still speak fluently Spanish, but of course they have no opportunity to use it anywhere unless they meet a Spanish tourist. We should put better "Arabic and Hassaniya", the latter is an Arabic dialect/language which is the mother tongue of all Sahrawis and is recognized more or less in the same way as the Maghrebi Arabic in (the rest of) Morocco, i.e. it can be used in oral official instances, however it is almost never written. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Severely misplaced icon in google earth

The icon for this article is way out of place in Google Earth. It is in the middle of a zoo in Madrid, Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.253.180.125 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Language

hello, after some months of no answer to the Language question, I've made the changes myself - deleting Spanish as a recognised language in Western Sahara and putting Arabic and Hassaniya instead. My reasoning: Arabic is the only official language in both Morocco and for the Polisario Front, so whatever the outcome of the dispute, it would be considered the official language of the territory. For Hassaniya, I would suggest to delete the word "Recognised", but that word somehow doesn't show up when editing, maybe I'm just somewhat unhandy. Anyhow, although Hassaniya has never been recognised (nor standarized as far as I'm aware) for writing, it is commonly spoken among officials of the Polisario Front, and also among the CORCAS members, who are ethnic sahrawis recognised by Morocco as representants of the territory. So regardless of who has sovereignty over the territory, Hassaniya is used among the local authorities of either side.

Spanish, on the other hand, was the official language until 1975, but it can't considered no longer as such, because Spain relinquished the territory and does not recognise its residents as Spanish citizens (except for those who had this status before 1975). So, if Spanish law does not apply there, not even from the Spanish point of view, Spanish cannot be considered an official language there.

I apologize beforehand if anybody thinks that these changes are politically sensitive and shouldn't have been made, I have no intention to interfere in the discussion of sovereignty. Thanks for any comment.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly correct in removing Spanish (which while still present has no particular legal status). However, calling Hassaniyah a "recognized language" is incorrect. It is certainly the dominant actual spoken language / dialect, but it also has no particular legal status (but of course is evidently vastly more prevalent than Spanish). (collounsbury (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
I agree. Hassaniya is not recognized. It is not common policy to put in the infobox terms as "spoken languages", right? As far as I can see, only languages with legal status are shown in these infoboxes. So I'll delete Hassaniya. --Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
(I posted here the following message written on my talkpage, because I consider it interesting for the debate - I hope this is no violation of rules.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
Hello, I just want to state that I consider removing Spanish as an official language is a mistake. Spanish is still in used in Republica Arabe Saharawi, and the Frente Polisario uses Spanish in all its communications. By the way, Frente Polisario is an anacronym from Spanish. I wonder why they prefer to use Spanish and not Arabic, English or French. Based in the following from you "... My reasoning: Arabic is the only official language in both Morocco and for the Polisario Front, so whatever the outcome of the dispute, it would be considered the official language of the territory", shows to me that there is a lack of research and therefore this information is not accurate and does not reflect the reality of language use in RASD. On the other hand, Spanish is still taught in schools by volunteers and Spanish-speaking saharawies who want to preserve it.RASD looks for recognition in Latin America and they have sent representatives who speak and communicate in Spanish only. I think this is a very important fact that add some value to the language topic in RASD.
It is true that you asked for feedback and nobody replied back with information. Then, I understand you had to take the decision yourself.
I want to request a change about language status, and ask you to add Spanish at least as a second language spoken in the RASD.
Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niconinis (talk • contribs) 09:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Niconini, thanks for the comment. I agree that the Frente Polisario bears a Spanish name and that many of its officials speak perfectly Spanish - but that it inself does not mean that Spanish is a language of the Sahrawi Republic (RASD). The Constitution is very clear about that: "Arabic language is the national official language" (art. 3). The widespread use of an European language is very common in many countries which do not recognise this language as official (nearly every official document in Morocco can be found in French and there is absotutely no civil servant who does not speak fluently French, but French is not an official language). So much for the official consideration of Spanish in the RASD. As for the "reality of language use in RASD", which you refer to, you might have noticed, if you ever visited the refugee camps, that the big majority of the population does not speak any Spanish - only the Polisario officials do, and translators must accompany the visitors as to allow communication. Of course Spanish is taught in schools there, just as English would be taught in Spain or France. So Spanish can be considered the second language of the refugee population, as it might be in the United States, but the Second Language is normally NOT shown in the infobox.
If you have any sources which say otherwise, please tell me, you might prove right after all, but sources are needed. Cheers.--Ilyacadiz (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Coords

{{editsemiprotected}} Remove {{coord missing}} and add {{coord|25|N|13|W|display=title|type:country}} 79.64.154.181 (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected. Please make the edit yourself. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
it is vital as both Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales have send a letter for volunteers to come up with new ideas and possibly new strategie in order to make Wikipedia a reliable and accurate source of information, having said that i have followed the discussion related to the Sahara conflict , although i can see different views , for instance about the language that should be used in the Western sahara region, although we have to take into account that Sahraouis speak , in general, classical Arabic , and they have their own dialect called Hassania , which is ot not far awawy from Arabic but possibly a bit hard to understand because of the strong accent of Sahrahouis as to French or Spanish languages , it is worth mentioning that these two languages became a fait accompli in the area because of the presence of French protoctorate in the south of Morocco and Spanish colonization in the nothern part of Morocco up to the borders with Mauritania , so obviously the main language was and should remain arabic , in addition to the hassania which is a local slung .
Now this isssue should not be a matter of discussion at all, but equally we would like to see Wikipedia as accurate and credible in its outlook and the way it does reflect facts and the reality of events , from this point of view it seems inappropriate to put the flag of such coutry that does not exist in practice the Sahraouis are besed either in the Shara region within the Moroccan borders , or those who are living in the refugee camps in Tindouf in Algeria , it is perfectly true that an organisation called the "Polisario front" is in conflict with Morocco about the future of W sahara , but in practical terms there is no state ; first of all according to international law a state is defined by two main factors ie: people and territory, secondly a recognition by the international community , up to now the polisario front is still based in Algeria and Sahraouis in the camps in the eyes of interrnational law are refugees , in addition to that there is no territory which is the main factor for any nation or people to claim an independant entity.

finally the United natons organization does not recognize the so -called RASD and most of the capitals of the world , in its resolution the UNSC talks about the polisario front.

Now it is obvious , and according to the argument above , in addition that Wikipedia is willing to maintain its credibility in terms of giving the right information, it will be wise to get rid of the flag until the conflict is over , if the Sahrouis managed to convince the international community and establish their own state in the W Sahara region then it will be appropriate to put the flag simply because we will witness the creation of a new state , otherwise i believe that the flag in question should be removed for the sake of credibilty that we all are trying hard to maintain it . Terry Batcher::::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.121.205 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Almoravids and Almohads

"In the Middle Ages, the Almohads and Almoravids movements and dynasties both originated in the Saharan regions and were able to control the area." The Almohad region of origin was in the Atlas Mountains, The Almoravid came from the region round Wadi Noun (near Goulimin). That's not Western Sahara.S711 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say Western Sahara, it says "in the Saharan regions". I think the point was to mention two dynasties which controlled the area, regardless of their origin. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The statement is a) unsourced and b) incorrect. Atlas mountains is the the origin of the Almohads not "Saharan regions". That the reason why I reverted your revert. S711 (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Atlas mountains are sort of part of the Sahara… part of the range even being explicitly called the "Saharan Atlas". Not sure what you're thinking. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Another revert. No, the Almohads did not come from the Saharan Atlas. That's the Eastern Atlas in Algeria. The High Atlas (the Almohads come from Tin Mal) is not part of the Saharan region. Completely different climate, completely different landscape, in Central Morocco, but if you think it is Saharan, please cite a source.S711 (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they came from the Saharan Atlas. Find someone else who thinks the area doesn't qualify as "Saharan", or change "originated in" to "originated near" — no need to delete it all (not for any reason on the whole you've stated thus far, anyways). ¦ Reisio (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that S711 that lumping the Atlas Mtns. in with the Sahara is pretty misleading. Especially in the context of Western Sahara - they're opposite directions, Almohads would've reached the area from the north while Almoravids would've come from the south. If you're trying to keep it to one sentence you could just describe them both as berber dynasties that conquered the region and leave their origins out of it, anyone interested can follow the links. Kmusser (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, change a word or two and it's all over with. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You write "Find someone else who thinks the area doesn't qualify as "Saharan"". It is the other way araound. If you write that the High Atlas is a Saharan region, you will have to find a reliable source that it is. You cannot, bacause it is not.S711 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Never said it was. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Western Sahara

Again and for the nth time, I mention that this flag isn't associated to the Western Sahara region. This flag is the one of the SADR, the autoproclamed republic of the separatist faction Polisario Front backed in Tindouf south Algeria. Actually, there is no official flag of the Western Sahara region except the moroccan one as Morocco is the admnistrative authority of the Western Sahara region. Please read the last statement of the President Sarkozy which is similar to those made by M. Zapatero, Ms Clinton and M. Ban K-moon. Please there is a real will to mislead people and as a wikipedia reader and as an unionist western saharoui (as all the unionist sahraouis in the Western Sahara region), I disagree on this allegation. It's simply about misinformation. The Western Sahara region has no flag as it's not a sovereign country !--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If anything is clear is that the Moroccan flag AIN'T the flag of the Western Sahara territory. Is it the Israeli flag the flag of the Palestinian territories?. This is the same thing.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if a flag must be associated to the Western Sahara region it should be the moroccan one as Morocco is the declared authority of the region. If you maintain the official statute of the Western Sahara i.e non-self-governing territory, no flag should be associated to the territory.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, read what I write up. If we put the Moroccan flag here, why dont we put the Israeli flag on the Palestine page?. Israel is the declared authority on the region. What's the difference with the Sahara situation?. Religion, perhaps?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
What I am saying is under condition: IF A FLAG IS TO BE ASSOCIATED... It was stated after the end of Aminatou' hunger strike that Morocco remains the administrative authority till the end of the running conflict. Besides comparing the Western Sahara issue to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is definitely wrong. The first one is about separatism facing two kind of sahraouis, the unionists and the separatists. Both of them are relatives. They are from the same families and the same tribes. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is all about except separatism.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Comparing the Western Sahara issue to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is definitely wrong???

Similarities between Israel & Morocco:

  • Both occupy a territory ilegally, according to international law.
  • Both invaded military a territory.
  • Both use forbidden weapons (Napalm, Wite phosphorus, Fragmentation bombs...) against civilians.
  • Both made that civilian population go out their country, and stay in refugee camps on neighbour countries (Algeria, Lebanon...).
  • Both made a wall to consolidate their occupation.
  • Both violate UN resolutions.

Should I continue? What is totally wrong & bizarre is to compare the Western Sahara "issue" to North Ireland "issue", for example.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no similarities between Morocco and Israel
Morocco recovered its Western Sahara region following an agreement signed with Spain and Mauritania which also was submitted to the UN. This agreement was the first step before recovering the whole Western Sahara region. Morocco was united in 1912 before colonization. The decolonization process started in 1956 and ended in 1975 with the recovering of the Western Sahara region. Well, Melilia and Ceuta in the North of Morocco are still Spanish colonies.
350.000 moroccans recovered the Western Sahara region by foot and peacefully. The moroccan militaries were in the region as a logistic support to face Algerian military and Polisario Front milices maneuvers.
The Algerian militaries used civilians as cannon fodder in the desert. The Algerians tried to stop the decolonization process initiated by Morocco using weapons. Morocco merely reacted.
Morocco has never rejected any sahraoui. On the contrary, more than 6000 sahraouis fled Tindouf camps to return to Morocco since 1976. FYI, the innocent Sahraouis were conducted by force to Tindouf camps using Algerian trucks. Please read the history conflict History conflict narrated by the unionist sahraouis.
Morocco made this wall in a WAR context when Polisario Front militaries had the most sophisticated weapons made in USSR and sponsored by Lybia and Algeria. Morocco was in the American block. Algeria and Lybia were in the Soviet Union block. The war between Morocco and Algeria/Lybia through Polisario Front was a sort of a political agenda in North Africa as all arab countries were in the Soviet Union block at that time. Remember Nassirism and its effects in the arab world. Morocco made the wall to protect the interests of the unionist sahraouis neither more nor less.
Morocco has never violate UN resolutions. There is no resolutions from the UN regarding the Western Sahara issue where there is mention of decolonization! Please show me one resolution where the term decolonization is mentionned.
Israel/Palestine problem is a religious problem and a colonization issue. Polisario Front leaders and CORCAS members (official body of the unionist sahraouis) are relatives. They have the same religion. There are from the same tribes, the same families. They have the same culture, the same dialect, the same past, present and future. FYI, the actuel Secretary General of CORCAS is one of the founders of Polisario Front in 1973. He is representing Morocco in NYC in the running negotiations with Polisario Front, Algeria and Mauritania. In the seventee's, some of them believed in a new communist/socialist world to make revolution in Morocco. They were wrong!
Morocco is not killing people everyday. Morocco is not expelling people to build colonies. The Western Sahara affairs are managed by sahraouis originally from the Western Sahara region.
Last but not least, I advise all the people who have no ideas on the reality on the ground to stop reading their mailbox and some biased web links and come to see what is really going on in the Western Sahara region.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of similarities, see above & below.

  • Madrid agreemets are ILLEGAL according to the UN. The Madrid agreement did not transfer sovereignty over the territory or confer any of the signatories the administering power, status that Spain alone could not have unilaterally transferred. The transfer of administrative authority over the territory to Morocco and Mauritania in 1975 did not affect the international status of Western Sahara as not autonomous territory.. See the Legal Counsel letter to the President of the Security Council.

What you want to be seen as Morocco (in reality Greater Morocco) was not united in 1912. The Sultan has little or no authority south of the Oued Draa. See international treaties.

  • The Moroccan Army were in the region earlier than the Green March to smash the Polisario units and expel the Sahrawi people, so it was not peaceful. There is no military intervention of Algeria until 1976 (Amgala battle), it was Morocco who uses its own CIVIL POPULATION as HUMAN SHIELDS, so the Spanish Army had to demine a strip of the land to avoid civil injuries in the Green march. Also, there were Moroccan soldiers dressed as civilians, who cut the barb wires, and guide the people. Even Hassan II finally recognized calling the Green march "a horrible blackmail".
  • There are many civilian testimonies of the air raids on the desert on early 1976. The Sahrawi Red Crescent & the Algerian Red Crescent had to aid Sahrawi refugees who fled from Moroccan bombings. ARC sent 100 ambulancies to help the refugees, only 16 returned, the rest have been bombed by Moroccan Air Force (like the ambulances bombed by Israeli Army).
  • The Sahrawi-Moroccan conflict is not a Cold War affair, proof is that nearly 20 years before the URSS fall, the conflict continues. Morocco started to made the wall on 1981 because it was loosing the war, they only controlled the El Aaiun-Smara-Bu Craa triangle. It was made by AMERICAN & ISRAELI engineers with SAUDI ARABIA funds. It only serves as a fence to avoid the use of the natural resources by the native population, & to force the Moroccan presence, like the Israeli wall.
  • I think almost every UN resolution on Western Sahara calls on "the right of self-determination of the Sahrawi population". That right was always applied on decolonization processes. Also, the Western Sahara case was debated on the Decolonization Committee on several times.
  • Yes, there's a small part of the Sahrawi people who betray their brothers and join Morocco, but curiously there's no Sahrawi who passes from defend Morocco's position to Polisario. That showns that the ones who join Morocco do it for economical or political interests.

Neither the President or the Secretary General of the Corcas were Polisario founders, Jalihenna Uld Rachid was placed by the Spanish government as leader of the PUNS, a puppet political party (curiously the only one allowed in Franco's dictatorship) to oppose Polisario & Morocco's interest in the territory. In late 1975, viewing the Polisario unstoppable growing, he defected to Morocco with the money of the PUNS. Then, in paying of his services, he was placed by the Moroccan government as leader of the Corcas. In my country that's what we call a traitor, to his people (Sahrawis) and to who feed him (Spain). In Palestine, there are also Israeli collaborators, like there are Moroccan collaborators in Western Sahara. Also, I repeat, Sahrawis have the same culture, the same dialect, are from the same tribes than the population of SOUTHERN MOROCCO, WESTERN ALGERIA & NORTHERN MAURITANIA, because culturally & historically that were Sahrawi lands. Although they are fake, for peace & security in the region, all the countries of the region (including SADR) have accepted the colonial frontiers. Morocco is the only exception, as Mauritania withdrew their claims on Western Sahara in 1979, and Algeria has NEVER made claims on Western Sahara.

  • Morocco has sent hundreds of thousands (200.000?) of MOROCCAN SETTLERS to Western Sahara, violating the international laws against settlements on a disputed territory (as Israel do the same in Palestine). Also, has forced Sahrawis under their occupation to go to work or study outside Western Sahara, to Rabat, Casablanca, Fez... trying to assimilate the Sahrawi population of the occupied territories. The occupied part of the Western Sahara affairs are managed by Mohamed VI & the Majhzen, dont fool the people, Corcas is only a supposedly "consultive" organ, the real decisions are made in Rabat...

Morocco is violating the human rights on occupied Western Sahara every day.

  • I can also give a lot of links of pro-Polisario view, as you can give pro-Morocco ones. The reality is very clear, ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW, WESTERN SAHARA IS A NON-AUTONOMOUS TERRITORY ON THE LIST OF NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES OF THE UN. SPAIN IS STILL THE ADMINISTRATIVE POWER. THE UN HAS INQUIRED FROM 1960 UNTIL TODAY FOR THE DECOLONIZATION OF THE TERRITORY, AND HAS NEVER ACCEPTED MOROCCAN OCCUPATION. There are detentions & tortures of even woman & children who protest peacefully on the occupied territories, according to testimonies & evidences of Sahrawi people living there & international human rights organizations.

--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments are biased and are not neutral for the reasons I mention below
The Madrid agreement was established to let the owner of the land recover his land. It was signed between the colonizer and the colonised.
The ICJ advisory opinion stipuled that there were ties between the tribes of the Western Sahara region and the Sultan of the kingdom of Morocco. There are many official documents preserved by the Western Saharan tribes proofing these ties. Regarding the Greater Morocco, the Saadi dynasty was ruling in the sub-Saharan area including the Western Sahara region. This is about history. It’s mentioned black on white in many books of history in all over the world (libraries in Madird, Paris, London…).
The Moroccan army faced the rebels militarized by Lybia and Algeria. The military intervention of Algeria started from the beginning of the unofficial war in 1974 between the Moroccan Army and Algerian/Polisario militaries. The decolonization process and negotiation was between Morocco and Spain.
The Algerian Red Crescent didn’t mention those who were conducted by force using military trucks. The ARC asked Doctors Without Borders to push up the figures of people conducted to Tindouf camps to 500.000 people while they were about 10.000. Your knowledge of the issue is definitely based on the ARC figures. So, you can’t be neutral. Then, does the Moroccan Army bomb Tindouf camps everyday? Is that what you mean. How can you compare Morocco to Israel on that matter? You can’t be serious.
The conflict continues because it fits the Algerian agenda. A simple strike on Tan-Tan became a separatism issue sponsored by Lybia and Algeria. The USSR bloc is down but Cuba, Venezuela and the FARC are still alive. The wall was made to protect the interests of the unionist sahraoui and to stop the incursions of Polisario Front militaries backed by the Algerian forces. There were no will to avoid the use of the natural resources by the native population. Again, your arguments are not neutral.
Self-determination doesn’t mean independence at the UN level. Many self-determination processes were ended by integration or autonomy and that’s what Morocco is proposing. The Western Sahara case is discussed in the Decolonization committee since the end of 60’. Morocco was the first one to ask the UN to consider the Western Sahara region as a region to decolonize. At that time, there were no Polisario Front !!
Let me remind you Khat Chahid movement and many others. There are many dissidents who were killed. Others disappeared overnight. Polisario Front militaries are oppressing each one claiming more democracy or more food.
Dr. Maouelainin Ben Khalihenna Maouelainin, the Secretary General of CORCAS was one of the founders of Polisario Front. This is an established fact which can’t be confirmed by the other party you are supporting. Regarding M. Khalihenna Ould Errachid, he made peacefully the choice of unionism after being under the Spanish control: a very normal process. HE WAS 23 YEARS OLD. He is the chairman of Corcas since 2006. From 1975 to 2006, he made a lot of things to improve the daily life of the unionist sahraouis. What about the Polisario Front? I believe as a sahraoui the real traitors are those who conducted by force part of our families and retained them military to legitimate a state claim.
Dr. Maouelainin Ben Khalihenna Maouelainin, the Secretary General of CORCAS was one of the founders of Polisario Front. This is an established fact which can’t be confirmed by the other party you are supporting. Regarding M. Khalihenna Ould Errachid, he made peacefully the choice of unionism after being under the Spanish control: a very normal process. HE WAS 23 YEARS OLD. He is the chairman of Corcas since 2006. From 1975 to 2006, he made a lot of things to improve the daily life of the unionist sahraouis. What about the Polisario Front? I believe as a sahraoui the real traitors are those who conducted by force part of our families and retained them military to legitimate a state claim.
SADR isn’t a sovereign country as you may know. The sahraoui culture is spread on these borders. That’s why there is no way for a self-determination process based on identification. Algeria is trying to make down Morocco by sponsoring Polisario Front but in vain. The Moroccans working in the Western Sahara region come from everywhere in Morocco as the region has been developing since 1975 look at this website.
There were no policies to settle. People came spontaneously in the region because the region has many potentialities. The Sahraouis are Moroccans and all Moroccan feel sahraouis. People like you are brewing wind while there is a reality on the ground. Again, nothing compares separatism in the Western Sahara issue and colonization in Palestine. Polisario Front and sponsors tried to associate both of them to get support in the Arab world BUT THEY DIDN’T SUCCEED. Young sahraouis do their studies wherever they want according to the school career of their choice. They have access to work in all over the country as any other Moroccan. CORCAS is doing a very good job in the region. CORCAS initiated many economic and social projects. The sahraouis are proud of the existence of CORCAS.
It’s completely biased to say that Morocco is violating the human rights in the Western Sahara region. That’s the propaganda of Polisario Front and co. I believe this page isn’t about information but it’s about propaganda and that’s not the aim of WIKIPEDIA. A NPO is expected to correct some wrong and incomplete information.
The Western Sahara region is considered as a non self-governing territory since the 60’ when Morocco asked Spain as well to get out from the region. There was no Polisario Front at that time. Regarding tortures, I believe you have to look after other sources of information as you are blind by what you receive on your mailbox. --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments are biased and are not neutral because you dont give any references about the issues, you only give the version that your government, the king & the majhzen give to you.
The Madrid agreement was established because the difficult situation in Spain (Franco was dying, his government was divided about the Western Sahara issue -read the memories of Jaime De Piniés, who was then the Spanish representative at the UN-). "Signed between the colonizers & the colonized"?????? When was Morocco invested as the representative of the Sahrawi people??????. Please don't falsify history!!!.
The ICJ advisory opinion stipuled that there were ties between some Sahrawis & Morocco, but ALSO between Sahrawis & Mauritania, and above all they say that THERE ARE NOT SOVEREIGNITY LINKS between Sahrawis & Morocco or Mauritania. Please, read carefully the opinion, it was clear that Hassan II ignored & manipulated it saying that the ICJ have given Morocco the right. Also is interesting he doesn't mention Mauritania...

There are lots of official treaties, letters, etc... from several centuries in wich Morocco sultans recognized that they don't have authority on the lands south of Oued Draa, or even on the north shore of the Draa. It's not a personal opinion, it's history. You can see them on archives in Madrid, Lisbon, Paris...

"The Moroccan army faced the rebels militarized by Lybia and Algeria". That's your point. Mine could be: "The invasor Moroccan forces militarized by France & USA were faced by the indigenous Sahrawis militarized by Lybia & Algeria". That's more fair. "beginning of the unofficial war in 1974 between the Moroccan Army and Algerian/Polisario militaries." Are you serious???. How is that? You recognize that Moroccan forces entered Western Sahara in 1974, before Spanish retreat? Interesting... Also if Algerian forces were there in that date, why the FIRSTS & ONLY Algerian soldiers dead & captured in the conflict were in Amgala 1976?. The only unofficial war (apart from the Polisario uprising) in Western Sahara in that date was between the Spanish army & the Moroccan army through the F.L.U. (Front of Liberation & Unity), a Morocco's puppet terrorist group who put land mines, throw bombs to barracks & killed such soldiers & CIVILIANS. See the confidential documents revealed in Tomás Barbulo's book "The forbidden history of Spanish Sahara".

"The decolonization process and negotiation was between Morocco and Spain." That could be true, the attemp of decolonization was between that two countries, because of that (they didn't consult the Sahrawi population) the process was totally nule, as UN, AU, EU & many other international organizations have declared.

So you are accusing the Algerian Red Crescent (thus, the International Red Cross also) of being partial on a conflict. That's a very serious charge, like if I said that Moroccan doctors on occupied W. Sahara refuse to attend Sahrawi injuries (there are actual testimonies about that, do you have testimonies about your accusations?)... The only reason of Morocco for not bombing Tinduf is the fear of an Algerian response. Hassan II threatened twice to pursue Sahrawi refugees on Algeria (they build subterranean shelters on the 80's in Tinduf), but finally quailed because of Algerian & Sahrawi threats.
"The USSR bloc is down but Cuba, Venezuela and the FARC are still alive.". By parts, that shows that FARC was not a Soviet puppet (well, Cuba has been in the past -Cuban missiles crisis-). & Venezuela??? What does Chavez or Venezuela has to do with USSR??? Nothing!!!. You are only repeating the old Moroccan propaganda about Polisario & Sahrawis (communists, terrorists, slave traders or any other stupidity they invent.) so you are again not neutral.

The benefits of the exploitation of natural resources on W. Sahara doesn't impact on profit of the Sahrawi indigenous people, only on a few families who support Morocco's occupation for that, and of course on the king Mohamed VI. See the legal opinions of the UN (2002) & EU (2009).

"Many self-determination processes were ended by integration or autonomy". Give me examples of that, of course on a decolonization frame.

"Morocco was the first one to ask the UN to consider the Western Sahara region as a region to decolonize.". Again, any reference about that, please.?

Yep, I know a little about Khat Chahid movement. I remember you that although critical with Polisario leaders, they recognized themselves as part of Polisario Front as a national liberation movement. Dissidents killed by Polisario??? Again, I suppose that you have referencies about that. I only know about dissidents killed by Moroccan terror regime (Ben Barka, Dlimi, etc...).
Again, Khalihenna Uld Rachid was NEVER a Polisario founder, neither a member. You must be joking, even Moroccans admit it. And also, if he was a Polisario founder, he believes in the independence of the territory, so why he turned to be the head of the PUNS, the pro-spanish political party? and then of the CORCAS, pro-moroccan?? that's ridiculous!!.

A question, why the Moroccan regime imprisons & judge MILITARY Sahrawi CIVILIANS whose only crime is visiting their relatives on Tinduf?. Yep, that's so democratic...

Ok, Sahrawi culture spreads the borders of the RASD. But the problem is that Morocco wants people of Sahrawi culture on Morocco to be included in the census. Why them and not the ones in Mauritania? and the ones on Algeria (not the refugees of Tinduf, but the ones who live in other parts of Algeria)? and the diaspora (Spain, France, Italy, Lybia, USA...)??.

"People came spontaneously in the region because the region has many potentialities". So, I have to believe that the "Green march" was spontaneous??? Come on, no one believes that, I repeat that even Hassan II recognized it as a "horrible blackmail". If they come spontaneously, why most of them live in slums?. Please, don't talk about reality on the ground. For that same reason, that could be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The position of most of the Arab countries is very hypocritical on the Moroccan-Sahrawi conflict, but same happens with the Palestinians (remember Jordan 1970, Lebanon 1982...). The repression of Sahrawi population on both Morocco & occupied territories is in sight. Again, CORCAS a puppet, when they contradict the government opinion as happens in democracies, I would start to consider them.

"It’s completely biased to say that Morocco is violating the human rights in the Western Sahara region". I suppose that Ammesty International, International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, etc... are Polisario propagandists...

So, finally, I suggest you don't believe the biased propaganda given by your government. Read references from different countries, not only the ones from the Majhzen.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Culture of the Western Sahara region

I am a bit confused when I read the section about culture. I have the impression that the unionist sahraouis are not sahraouis and that those living in Tindouf camps south Algeria are more sahraouis than those living in the Western Sahara region. The sahraouis living in Tindouf camps are relatives to the sahraouis living in the Western Sahara region. They are broders, sisters, cousins, uncles and aunts. Well, this page is biased and the owner of this page knows that both the communities are from the same families and the same tribes. The aim from this page is definitely to make wikipedia readers confused on the situation of the western sahara region. In such case, I would really appreciate to mention that the unionist sahraouis are promoting the culture of the region on the web at the following url http://www.sahara-culture.com. I believe it's the unique reference of the hassanie culture on the Web.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Sahrawi refugees of Tindouf have relatives on the occupied Western Sahara, but also have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, aunts...in Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria or Spain. There is hassanie culture in Mauritania too, ¿does it makes that land also Moroccan?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

In such case, you should change the text to mention that the hassani culture also concerns the unionist sahraouis in the Western Sahara region. FYI, the term OCCUPIED Western Sahara is used by the supporters of Polisario Front. There is no mention to occupation in UN resolutions or SG reports on the Western Sahara region.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
What I propose is to put an external link in this page to SADR page where this flag is. SADR is the Polisario Front republic backed in Algeria. Doing this will keep the Western Sahara without flag as it's not a sovereign country but keep the flag associated to the republic. In the list of sovereign countries page, this flag is associated to SADR and not to Western Sahara.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Who is saying that hassanie culture is exclusive to Tindouf refugees??? Me not.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
To make it balanced, the last sentence should refer to "Southern Provinces" page as well otherwise to "Saharawi" page exclusively.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Autonomy intitative

I propose to mention some words about the autonomy initiative proposed by the kingdom of Morocco to ensure the great reconciliation between the unionist and separatist sahraouis. This proposal was considered by the international community credible and serious to be the basis of negotiations between Morocco and the separatist faction Polisario Front. I believe it makes sense to be mentioned.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Currency and TLD (.eh)

I am sorry to say to the owner of this page that there is no pesetas in the Western Sahara region. As Morocco is the administrative authority, Moroccan Dirham is the unique currency in the region. '.eh' is the Top Level Domain of the Western Sahara region. It's not assigned actually. Polisario Front made a delegation request to the ICANN in 2005. Morocco made a parallel request for '.eh' delegation. The ICANN policy is clear in that matter. The '.eh' will never be delegated as much as the parties are on political conflict. Having said that, '.eh' comes from ISO-3166. ISO-3166 exists since 1974 when the region was under the Spanish protectorate. ICANN refers to ISO-3166 to attribute TLDs to countries and territories. There was no update of this norme regarding the administrative statute of Morocco in the region.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that MOROCCO AIN'T THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, IT'S SPAIN (see international legislation & ONU resolutions). Equally, as Morocco DOESN'T CONTROL MILITARY ALL THE WESTERN SAHARA, in the liberated territories the official currency is the Sahrawi peseta (in theory, for practical reasons -the majority of the Sahrawi refugees are in Algeria- Sahrawis use Algerian dinar or Euros).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

False, the so-called liberated territories are under the MINURSO control. Control means administration. There is no Polisario Front administration in this part of the Western Sahara region. It's definitely a no man's land. Again, there is no mention to LIBERATED TERRITORIES or FREE ZONE in UN resolutions or SG reports.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha, ha, how is that?. The MINURSO is located in different towns in Western Sahara, in the Moroccan-occupied part (El Aaiun, Smara...)& the R.A.S.D. part (Tifariti, Bir Lehlou...). So, if what you say is true, there's also NO Moroccan administration in their part. There's also NO mention to Western Sahara as part of Morocco in UN resolutions or SG reports.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
May I ask please to avoid Ha Ha and similar (that remind me someone elsewhere on Internet but anyway!). We are discussing here a very serious issue. I respect your "wrong or incomplete" information without laughing. You have to do the same. thanks. Regarding the Moroccan administration, let me remind you the last statement made by the UN, the US, France and Spain after the return of the Sahraoui separatist Aminatou Haidar to the Western Sahaar region : the local administration remains Moroccan till the end of the conflict. In the administrative zoning of Morocco, the whole Western Sahara is under the moroccan administration. I have never heard about a SADR/RASD nationality for example. I have never heard about SADR/RASD ID cards. The leaders of Polisario Front are retaining people in Tindouf camps south Algeria so far from the Western Sahara. They are called refugees even if they have no refugee cards from the UNHCR (another contradiction of this conflict). In such case, how could Polisario Front leaders autoproclame a state where they are supposed to be refugees? It's totally aberrant.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside that susceptibility, the last statements about the Sahrawi Human Rights activist Aminetu Haidar made by France & Spain (the US statement by Hillary Clinton says nothing about Moroccan administration, so does the UN statement, read them if you want.) only "take note" on the situation of Moroccan administration of occupied W.S. "Take note" is NOT "recognize". So, please don't make "false assertions" about that. There were SADR ID cards in the 90's, and the [1] new ones have being made with the support of the Basque government. Not to mention the Spanish Sahara ID's. Polisario Front is NOT retaining anyone, there are thousands of Sahrawis living on Spain or Mauritania, for example, for studying or working, and their families are in Tinduf, and they can visit them with no restrictions. Neither the UN, AU, International Red Cross, Amnesty International support that vile accusations. Also, when I started to know about the Sahrawi people I was missed by the fact of the refugees living in the Hamada (another "wrong or incomplete" information given by you, there are not far from W.S., they are on the nearest to the Western Sahara-Algeria border human settlement, that is Tinduf), that is probably the worst part of the Sahara desert, when they could be on other parts of the inmense Algerian part of the Sahara desert. So, they decided to settle there because it's the first safe place nearest to the border, and also part of the Sahrawi people & culture zones of influence (as Southern Morocco & Northern Mauritania.).

I don't know if they have refugee cards or not, I doubt, ¿do you know if the Rwanda refugees have cards?, ¿The Southern Sudanese perhaps?; what I know is that UNHCR help the refugees from the 80's 'till today, and the IRC and other international organizations from the late 70's. Also, don't manipulate please, when the SADR was proclaimed (27 February 1976, so tomorrow ¡¡¡Happy 34th SADR proclamation anniversary!!!) it was proclaimed BY SAHRAWIS ON SAHRAWI LAND, on Bir Lehlu, so then they weren't refugees. The distance that separates truth from lie is only four fingers.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Western sahara and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Hello, i m sorry, i have some problems to speak english. I noticed that in Wikipédia people mixing between Western sahara (a territory) and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic‎ (proclaimed by the Polisario) which is an entity. But in the encyclopedia, is used both as if they were the same. According to the UN, In 1990, the General Assembly reaffirmed that the question of Western Sahara was under the decolonization process that the people of Western Sahara had not yet completed. And SADR is an entity not recognized by the UN and only by a number of countries that vary from year to year. The encyclopedia do the flag of the SADR in articles concerning the Western Sahara, which isn't neutral position.--Kafka1 (d) 13:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Unfortunately I am not familiar with the issues. Do we need to have two separate articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
We already have two articles. But the Western sahara is a territory disputed between Morocco and a group called Polisario since 1976. This area is under control of morocco (the control of this area by morocco are not reconized by UN). This group (polisario), proclaims a new country, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (unreconized by UN) (with their flags )in the territory of Western sahara. My point is somme peoples take a position for the rebel group and forget one of the principles of the encyclopedia, Neutral point of view.--Kafka1 (d) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I do agree that this page is confused and not balanced.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's ironic to see Kafka1 preaching for a neutral point of view, why dont do that ALSO in French Wikipedia?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe the NPO is definitely justified to differenciate between the Western Sahara region and the SADR republic. The Western Sahara is a territory/region. SADR is an autoproclamed republic taking place in refugee camps south Algeria (far from the Western Sahara territory).--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The external links do not relate unionism in Western Sahara while unionism is a reality in the region. It also should refer to CORCAS page or CORCAS websites : www.corcas.com, www.sahara-online.net, www.sahara-culture.com (Western Sahara culture), www.sahara-villes.com (main cities of Western Sahara), www.sahara-developpement.com (Economic developement of Western Sahara), www.sahara-social.com (Social developement of Western Sahara).--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no feedback from you about my remarks on the external links. All the external links are related to websites supporting the Polisario Front independence claim. This page is supposed to talk about the Western Sahara region. These external links should be in Polisario Front page and not in the Western Sahara page. Where are the unionists sahraouis' websites or websites supporting the moroccan thesis on the Western Sahara. This section is not neutral.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, there is no reason to not mention websites supporting the moroccan thesis on the Western Sahara region. There are separatists living south Algeria claiming independence but there are also unionists living in the Western Sahara region and supporting autonomy as the ultimate solution to this absurd cold war conflict. I believe a NPO is expected.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Capital

I removed El Aaiún as capital from the infobox, since that is an endorsement of the SADR POV. According to Morocco, Western Sahara is part of three provinces, and has no capital. --gribeco (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Coordinated action from Moroccan propaganda agents on wikipedia

An article was published a few weeks ago in the Moroccan newspaper "La Vie économique" about the "war of internet" between Morocco and "the Polisario" (Maroc-Polisario : la guerre de l'Internet). Wikipedia is mentioned as one of these battlefields: "l’encyclopédie online, qui avait connu une véritable bataille des définitions dans la page consacrée à l’affaire du Sahara, présente aujourd’hui des articles nettement plus équilibrés qu’il y a quelques mois, malgré la persistance de quelques différences entre une version française neutre, une version hispanophone encore influencée par la version séparatiste des faits, et une version anglophone quelque part entre les deux. Aujourd’hui, dans sa version francophone, on parle davantage du plan d’autonomie tandis que dans la version hispanophone l’on insiste davantage sur l’échec du deuxième plan Baker.". The (pro-Rabat) article makes it clear that there are a lot of institutional propaganda agents from the Moroccan Foreign Affairs and the Corcas who act in this war. This should be kept in mind when dealing with some modifications on the Western Sahara related articles as well as with some "contributors" on these articles (or their talk pages). To be clear, some of them are paid by the Moroccan State to "contribute" on wikipedia. --Pylambert (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't say it with better words, that's so true, the hacking of the old S.A.D.R. web, the internet campaign against Aminetu Haidar in her hunger strike... that's mostly a coordinated action of the Moroccan security forces & secret services, even Moroccan newspapers recognize it...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(talk) You're misenterpreting the moroccan article Vie économique which says that spanish version of wikipedia is not neutral and it's not mentionning anything about autonomy, French wikipedia is more neutral according to the same article, please Stop misenterpreting articles infavour to your positions about a conflict. --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Laayoune / El Aaiun

While recognizing the Spanish users are very attached to their old colonial spellings, the more common spelling used in English is the transliteration Laayoune (see for example Encyclopedia Brittanica.. Replacing that by the Spanish based orthography is tedious and should stop. This is an English language site. collounsbury (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Economic Text, Free Trade Agreements

I removed inaccurate characterisations relative to the Free Trade agreements, and replaced it with more accurate language. Taking the US FTA as an example, whatever the political statements, the actual treaty text is silent as to territorial coverage nor are there any side letters with respect to rules of origin or the like. As such, the oral statements by the former US trade minister are of ambiguous value. As noted in another page, the EFTA statements are from SOME members, and are of unclear policy value relative to the trade bloc as a whole (or even the national customs service application of said statements). Baldly asserting the trade agreements do not apply is POV - and basically political Agitprop. The proper encyclopedic text approach should note the ambiguity and not make sweeping assertions. This was already dealt with over 2 years ago. (collounsbury (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Are your changes supported by the sources currently being used ? I haven't checked. In other words, do we need better sources in that section. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Support? Yes in the sense they reflect actual statements, although no in the sense they do not directly say the situation is ambiguous (as the journalist writing was merely reporting political posturing in public). Unless one reads the actual legal text or finds an actual legal and policy analysis of the situation (which I am not aware exists in a citable form). As it happens, my real life job is investment and the like in this very region and I have in fact read the texts, as in the case of the American FTA with Morocco which lacks any textual treatment of geography or rules of origin touching on internal geographies. This treaty text is online and I went over this with editors on this subject over three years ago (and unless some ignoramus activist has edited the FTA pages, this is what is reflected on the specific page here). However, not to be based on persona knowledge (which tells me), the edits reflect that there are the statements reported in the press, but otherwise unsupported by policy or treaty text. Ambiguous, as I phrased it. An accurate and encyclopedic approach.(collounsbury (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

Inconsistency

The lead paragraph in this article states that the population is about 500,000, and over half live in El Aaiún. But El Aaiún has a population of 194,668 according to its article. Unless I am missing something, this should be changed. Anoldtreeok (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello, The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MauriManya has deleted an information based in an article of UN to replace it by false information from a spanish non-neutral institute, see this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&action=historysubmit&diff=414827288&oldid=414826858 Thanks to admins to prevent this user from vandalizing articles and deleting informations based on UN articles. Admins : This user is also vandalizing articles in spanish wikipedia, so make attention to him please. --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello,
"inserting false information" and "this user is also vandalizing articles in spanish wikipedia" are a very serious accusation.
See my contributions in both wikis and realize that I am not vandalizing any items. I think that accusing someone of vandalism with no basis whatsoever, that is vandalism.
Regards. MauriManya (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, delete sentences based in UN references is Vandalism, insert false information based in non-neutral references is also Vandalism.

Regards --41.248.46.110 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Also unfounded accusations of committing vandalism using an anonymous IP, so if it's vandalism.
Regards. MauriManya (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yusuf_ibn_Tashfin has deleted an accepted information in this article, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&action=historysubmit&diff=414813314&oldid=414809699
Thanks to admins to prevent this user from vandalizing articles and deleting accepted informations.
Admins : This user is also vandalizing articles in spanish wikipedia whit this user: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Texufin, which was blocked several times. Moreover, he accuses me of vandalism without a justified reason. And uses an anonymous (41.248.46.110) IP to accuse, and a user with a different name to commit vandalism in the Wikipedia in English. So make attention to him please.
Regards. MauriManya (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Maurimanya user is vandalizing the article

This user is replacing an UN source : Whitfield, Teresa. Friends Indeed?: The United Nations, Groups of Friends, and the Resolution of Conflict. 2007, page 191 by a study of an spanish non neutral institute. UN sources must not be deleted !!

Also this user is adding Saharawi peseta as a currency in the territoriy which is false, because only moroccan Dirhams are used, the sahrawi Peseta is a future projet of future currency and it will be only used if the territory gets it's independence.

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yusuf ibn Tashfin user is vandalizing the article

This user is replacing an UN source : http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/153/16/IMG/NR015316.pdf?OpenElement.

UN sources must not be deleted!!!

MauriManya (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Enough of the edit warring and immaturity shown above. It's time to start discussing all changes on the talk page. I've increased the protection to help achieve this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How come the goldlock doesn't appear at the top of the page...just curious. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Because I hadn't added the protection template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Useful information

Extended content

Firstable : Maurimanya is deleting a useful information referenced by an publication of United States institute of peace press Whitfield, Teresa. Friends Indeed?: The United Nations, Groups of Friends, and the Resolution of Conflict. 2007, page 191, this reference stipulate that Western Sahara has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since 1963 after a Moroccan demand, when it was a Spanish colony.

Secondly : Maurimania is inserting the UN resolution 1542 [2] which has no connection with the conflict of western sahara, moreover it doesn't mention the word "western sahara" anytime.

Thirdly : The currency which is used in the territory is "Moroccan Dirhams", the part of western sahara controled by polisario is inhabited, moreover the "peseta sahrawi" is only a future project of local currency if territory gets it's independence, this currency is not used actually. Like you can see here in a CIA document [3], only the moroccan Dirhams are used.

Best regards.

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means discuss the issues here and work together with other editors, but depersonalize it. Comment on the content not on the contributor and you will make some progress. I've collapsed your post above - please repost without criticising other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

UN 1963 Western Sahara

The claim of Western Sahara put on the decolonization list by Moroccan demand must be removed. I've read the source and in no part of the text talked about the Moroccan demand. Clearly, it a "not in citation given" that should be removed inmediatly, as we must remove non sourced content. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the source and it's clearly mentionned that the territoriy of western sahara and Ifni were introduced in that list after a moroccan demand, so why it should be removed ?? do you have opposite sources?

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Which page of Whitfield's book says that ? It isn't the page cited, page 191. That page simply says that it's been on the list since the 1960s. Page 165 says the same thing. I can't find anything about a Moroccan demand. Can you cite the page please ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
You should buy the book because the information is clearly mentionned --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
the information is clearly mentioned on page <fill in blank> Sean.hoyland - talk 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is available in Google Books. As you can see, page 191 is devoted to East Timor. Section on Western Sahara starts in page 165 and the mention to the inclusion of the territory in the list of non-autonomous territories only says, in a generic way, that it was placed on the United Nations' list of "non self-governing territories" in the early 1960s. The first mention to Morocco is in the same pages and states that the decolonization of the territory was aborted in the mid-1970s when it fell prey to the [..] territorial ambition by Morocco.

Page 167 talks about the ICJ sentence on the issue and states that it didn’t found any evidence of any legal tie of territorial sovereignty” between Morocco and Western Sahara. Although it recognizes that there had been “indication of a legal tie of allegiance between the [Moroccan] Sultan and some, although only some, of the tribes in the territory it concluded that these ties did not affect the decolonization of Western Sahara or the principle of self-determination.

So, Yusuf, could you please explain why wikipedia should state something that the alleged reference does not say? Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

According to available sources, the disputed paragraph should be written in the following way:

A Spanish colony since the late 1800s, the Western Sahara has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since 1963.[1][2] In 1965, the UN General Assembly adopted its first resolution on Western Sahara, asking Spain to decolonise the territory (resolution 2072 (XX)). One year later, a new resolution was passed by the General Assembly requesting Spain to organise a referendum on self-determination.[1] In 1975, Spain relinquished the administrative control of the territory to a joint administration by Morocco, which formally claimed the territory since 1957,[3] and Mauritania.[1] A war erupted between those countries and the Sahrawi national liberation movement Polisario Front, which proclaimed the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) (exiled government in Tindouf, Algeria). After the withdraw of Mauritania in 1979, Morocco eventually got the effective control of most of the territory, including all the major cities and natural resources.

Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ecemaml, I'm sorry, you're right, I've confused Whitfield's book which I've already read with another publication of a European strategic intelligence and security center (ESISC), the context was similar and I've confused both articles. You can find the information which mention that western sahara has been introoduced in the list of territories after moroccan demand in a paragraph of page 13 of the following document : [[4]], it says :

During the second part of the twentieth century, thousands of Saharawis took part in Morocco’s struggle –in particular within the southern wing of Jaïch At-Tahrir, the National Liberation Army, (below NLA-South) to recover its independence and, as soon as this was acquired, on 03 March 1956, the King of Morocco, Mohammed V, availed himself of his historical rights and claimed the return of the territories under Spanish control in the Makhzen. In 1963, it was therefore at the request of Morocco that the UN’s Special Decolonization Committee was to include the Spanish Sahara in the list of territories to be decolonized. But in 1958, the NLA-South, which was harassing the Spanish forces, especially around Tarfaya, had been destroyed by a combined Franco-Spanish offensive, the Clean Sweep Operation. The crushing of the NLA-South provoked a new Saharawi exodus to the North. Kind regards --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)--Yusuf ibn Tashfin

The problem with ESISC, as Le Journal hebdomadaire showed, is that is not a neutral part and therefore cannot be taken as a neutral source, but as a source close to Morocco. I've done some extensive research in google books and there is no mention in any of them to the "exclusive" request by Morocco for the Western Sahara to be included in the list of non-self-governing territories. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


Ecemaml, ESISC is not an moroccan institute or moroccan organization but an european centre having it's head office in Brussels (Belgium) not in Morocco, there's no moroccan employees in this center, do you have proofs that this centre is connected to Morocco? It's pulication about western sahara was criticized only by polisario and some spanish propolisario associations , in the whole arab world only one news paper (lejournalhebdo) has criticized this study, so in your opinion should we discredit a study if only 1 arab newspaper from several thousands newspapers from more than 20 countries has criticized it? morevoer the newspaper lejournalhebdo criticized the manner of work not a content of article. In google if you tape "after a moroccan demand" you'll find many websites which indicate that morocco is a country which demanded to include western sahara in the list of non autonomous territories.

kind regards. --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

We're rehashing old ground here. ESISC is three people. ESISC "studies" have not been acknowledged by any reliable sources. ESISC "studies" might be useful as illustrations of particular points of view, but they should not be confused with independent academic studies. --gribeco (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Gribeco, ESISC is more than 30 people, not 3 people, see this [[5]] what make you think that ESISC's studies must not be taken as an academic reliable studies?--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected on staffing. I still don't see ESISC studies being referred to in any major publications. --gribeco (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

we should delet the map of the so-called Western Sahara

Western sahara is just an area which belong to Morocco, so we have to delet the map cause it does not tell the truth. wastern sahara is not a state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.141.59.234 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Read WP:NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The ESISC report on Polisario

Actually, the European strategic intelligence and security center (ESISC) is not at all a "research center" but a commercial firm (sprl), officially registered as such in Belgium (see the article in the wikipedia in French. It produces only what it is paid for, its "reports" are indeed not considered as having the least scientific value among academics (its chairman is Claude Moniquet, a former (?) agent of the French secret service who masqueraded for 20 years as a journalist, as he explained himself in the Belgian newspaper La Capitale) and it has presently as a client the Moroccan embassy in Brussels for which it designs and sends an electronic bulletin. As to its "staff", besides Moniquet there is only Dimitri Dombret, former director of the lobby "European Friends of Israel". And according to its own official report to the National Bank of Belgium it has no paid employee. --Pylambert (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done Playambert...If only all Editors paid as much attention as you do to the quality of sources. 84.203.71.0 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The expulsion of Moroccans from Algeria

There is a claim that "tens of thousands of Moroccan civilians by the Algerian government from Algeria", backed up by 8(!) sources, all of which are either unreliable or dead. Tens of thousands is quite a number, and if it is true, there should be some reliable source backing it up. Otherwise, I read this as an attempt to put the parts in the conflict on equal footing in case of suffering. – Danmichaelo (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This should rather be discussed on the article Algeria–Morocco relations. In summary, tens of thousands Moroccans migrated to Algeria during the French colonization and stayed after independence. Some migrated to Europe afterwards (Belgium, Germany, France) as they had an option for the French citizenship. Others stayed in Algeria. On the other hand, there were tens of thousands of Algerians living in Morocco, before and after Algeria's independence. Of course, each time there is a tension (or a war) between Algeria and Morocco the situation of these foreign residents of an enemy country (like the Japanese-Americains, German-Americans etc. during WWII) is not easy, and both governments proceed to expulsions (like Saddam Hussein expelled tens of thousands Iraqis of ethnic Iranian origin in the 1990s). Keep in mind that neither Morocco nor Algeria are West European-type democracies with respect for human rights or migrant rights (including the right to take the citizenship of their residence country) and detestation of ethnic cleansing... --Pylambert (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes there was an expulsion of tens of thousands of Moroccan in 1975 as a response to the green march. Houari Boumediene was quite like the average third-world socialist "revolutionary" of his time and such stuff is only casual routine for them. And it has nothing to do with immigration to Europe or French Algeria. Tachfin (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments requested at Flag of Western Sahara

Your comment is requested over at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara; there is an RfC underway there to help decide what the article contents should be. (There are a few different options, such as redirection, disambiguation, etc.) If you can take some time to share your opinion on the matter, it would be very much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c "Milestones in the Western Sahara Conflict".
  2. ^ United Nations Security Council (12 February 2002). "Letter dated 29 January 2002 from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Legal Counsel, addressed to the president of the Security Council".
  3. ^ González Campo, Julio. "Documento de Trabajo núm. 15 DT-2004. Las pretensiones de Marruecos sobre los territorios españoles en el norte de África (1956-2002)" (PDF) (in Spanish). Real Instituto Elcano. p. 6.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Sahara/Archive_5&oldid=1137315364"