Talk:Former members of Polisario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tone This reads like propaganda. Shall we also make List of everyone that's not supported the Moroccan king? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, and make such a list. If you don't have another reason, the NPOV should be removed. --A Jalil 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reason The list starts off with a quote from a disreputable NGO, and links to several pieces of state-run propaganda, and offers no counter-balance to the view provided by the Kingdom of Morocco; that makes it POV. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is that all?
• The NGO is an NGO. It is registred, legal and active. Its reports are public, the whole world can read them on the internet, they use a methodoogy and have results that everyone can discuss and debate. Their sources are well documented and clear, in the one report most of the sources are Algerian newspapers. They have their contact on their website, you can write to them and tell them they are "disreputable" if you like; lets see what they will tell you. Result: this is your own opinion which you will certainnly share with those who feel that their interests are disturbed by this NGO.

BTW the fact that Polisario is undemocratic is just evident as their so called president and a bunch of Algerian servers are at the power since 30 years! Only Cuba and North Corea could do more.

• The other source [1] is an often quoted online news service. May be you want to censor this as well?
• The other sources are msotly not state-run. But this does not matter as they are not use at all to express or to underline any opinion. They are like the sources used to count the recognitions of the so-called "sadr". And one can find other sources such as the UN where thes people regularly denounce the Polisario and the conditions in Tindouf (which they know much better than people like yourself or Arre for instance).
• I am afraid you expressed a dead reason for you POV and you must now remove it.

- wikima 19:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Right Ask the NGO if they're reputable. If they say they are, they must be telling the truth. Now, why is this going on parallel to your debate about credible sources on Talk:Western Sahara? The ESISC - whom I've never heard of outside of this report - are more credible than the Red Cross and several dozen academic journals? There are single-party democracies (Japan, Singapore, etc.) Who said I wanted to censor anything? If you think news media of any kind run by anyone are not "use[d] at all to express or to underline any opinion," you should probably read some in-depth analyses of media. I'd recommend starting with Jacques Ellul's Propaganda and Marshall McLuhan's The Medium Is the Message. Also, it's funny that you say we should "consult sources such as the UN where [there are] people [who] regularly denounce the Polisario," when those same people are just representatives of Morocco's propaganda machine. That is also not very convincing. I did not express a dead reason (what is that?), and my argument still stands: this article is written from one point of view (the ESISC and Morocco), which is consequently not neutral. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? Here is the site of ESISC http://www.esisc.org
• This article simply lists high level people (ministers, founder memebrs etc.) who left Polisario. If this is a POV then you have a problem not the article.
• If any thing is not right with the intro just say what exactly and I will source every thing.
• Your argument are dead, and so your reason fdor puttins the POV. Sorry.

wikima 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What am I talking about? I told you exactly what I meant; I've never heard of the ESISC prior to this report. Had you? You're also not telling the truth when you say that this article simply lists high level people who left Polisario; some of them are listed as "former Polisario member" (not high-ranking), some of them have no reference to who they are, one was a secretary, and at least one has no direct association with Polisario, but, apparently a journalist. "Your argument[s] are dead" doesn't mean anything in English, so I don't know what you want me to say. I told you my reasons for putting on the tags, and you ignored them. Furthermore, this is purely speculative, but I don't think you are sorry. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I gave you the link of ESISC. You can check if you never knew about it. The fact that you ignore the existence of a center or "never heard" about it is irrelevant to Wikipedia
• The list is about all relevant people who left Polisario. Do you want to stop it because you don't like it?

What else do you have to say? I don't think that your reason stands now.

wikima 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardly surprising So you ignored my very simple question and then expect me to answer yours? Par for the course, I suppose. You also ignored what I wrote to ask some non-sequitur. What I want is for the article to be written in a professional manner and not from a point of view other than a neutral one. My reason stands just as much as it did before this post. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Huugh? I responded to all your questions. What elese do want to know?
• And this article merely lists the defections of relevant people from Polisario
• The reason for your POV does not stand, sorry.

- wikima 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't To quote:

"...I've never heard of the ESISC prior to this report. Had you? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"

My reason does stand, and you still ignored it. This article is written from the point of view of one party which is not neutral. Am I wrong? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is the talk now about when I have heard of which NGO????? Are you serious?
• If you say this written from one point of view so which one? Any why?
• If any thing written in the article is not sourced and needs a source just let me know.
• If you want to deny or hide that there were defections of important people from polisario, the I don't think you will be able to do so.
• The sources tell you that their defections have been reported in the media, individually, but there is no place where they are listed. Wikipedia can provide this knowledge. An I think is it highly relevant to understand one of the international conflicts. Or do you want to block knowledge???
• I simply don't undertsand your action!?

wikima 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The talk The talk is about exactly what I said - I know what you're doing, and it's not going to trick me into getting de-railed. The ESISC is an obscure NGO, that's what I'm saying. I also already told you the point of view of the article. I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum. I don't know what you mean when you ask if I want to block knowledge. Of course some should be blocked and some shouldn't. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• This remains your own opinion about ESISC and I know some of the people share it as well. But this is clearly irrelevant to wikipedia
• The topic is not ESISC as I don't quote it here. The intro may be inspired by their report as I just used somewhere else but it an be replaced by an other one.
• What you wnat is: I will replace the current intro by an other one quoting how these people listed here see Polisario meanwhile and (always quoting) for what reasons they left the organisation.
• I think this will resolve the ESISC issue in this article and give the article more coherence. Thanks for bringing me to that idea. Just give me a chance to present something soon, very soon.

wikima 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinion and fact Whether or not they are obscure is not my opinion; it's an aggregate of how well-known they are. Feel free to bring more credible sources to the fore; in particular first-hand quotes, of course. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 yes 2 POV 3 Hitlist? 3.1 Name 4 Question re Visible URLs 5 Transparency

[edit] yes

i agree that this article is exceptionally corny, and obvious propaganda, but at least its better than wikima/jalil trying to cram their lists into normal articles. either way, the intro quote is obviously POV and should be amended. the list, further, is most of all pointless, since most of these people have only been known in morocco since AFTER they defected and were presented as stars by the regime media, and are not known at all outside of it. (with a few exceptions, as i have mentioned: hadrami, ayoub etc.). also it is flawed. for example, baba sayed to the best of my knowledge lives in canada, not mauritania. who came up with that? and he is extremely active not on behalf of morocco, but as a pro-independence activist, even if he is active outside of polisario. Arre 19:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• What a surprise Arre! Let me laugh. You don't say such things when the list of recognitions of the so-called "sadr" is "cramed" with all details into the foreign relations of a territory that has no foreign relations.
• The intro is not POV, but is underlined but testimonies. I am about to rewrite it and to quote - directly or indirectly - why these people Polisario. With sources of course.
• It's not about them being stars. Wikipedia is not to list only celebrities and famous stuf. This is absurd!
• This information presents an important aspect of the conflict. When many (not 2 or 3) founder members, people with senior positions, minister, ambassadors, etc. and women like Kalthoum Khayat or Guejmoula Min Ebbi who had a long experience (since they very youth) and high positions leave the organisation, then this is pretty much relevant as information.
• No surprise that you as pro-polisarian acitivist want to hide this.

wikima 20:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Arre and koavf Let's cut this short:

• What is exactly the POV in the article?.
• and what do you propose as a solution?.

Bear in mind that the subject is very important for the WS topic, and I fully understand your concern about such a list, because it brings the picture closer to the reader: No independence movement has known such a bleeding. There must be something wrong in the basic claim of the Polisario that its founders and high ranking officials return to Morocco and start defending the Moroccan identity of the Sahara.--A Jalil 20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

POV The POV of the article, as I already told you earlier on this page, is that of the Moroccan government and ESISC; it quotes from them as though they were established fact and frames the issue in terms of objective knowledge rather than the controversial opinions of a minority. I've amended the intro (in addition to fixing numerous errors.) If you have some problem with this, do me a favor; don't blindly revert and insert all of the obvious errors I deleted. Needless to say, I'm not going to justify the rest of your screed with a direct response. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am ok with the current version as a start. Further emprovements and fine tuning will come
• and will remove the POV etc.

- wikima 09:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitlist?

All this article seems to be is a hit list for SADR extremists. There is no reason to publish this, as it puts at risk the lives of independent individuals who made a choice. RideABicycle 03:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can you explain what "SADR extremists" are?
• All the information is taken form the media and some of the defectors give long interview about their experience (the latest one is Guejmoula Ebbi who told her experience in 7 parts to Albayane, here part 6 only [2]. I would recommend to read.), particpate in presse conferences or are active as petitioners against Algeria and Polisario the UN. Just have a look at the sources in the article.

wikima 09:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I propose to rename "List of Polisario defectors" and move it to "Former members of Polisario". The expression "defector" is not neutral, but has negative connotations. Whether changing parties in this instance is positive or negative depends on your Point of View. The name of the article, therefore, is not correct.S710 20:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi S710,

• I have moved the template to this talk page as it says that it is misplaced when it appears on the article.
• In my view Defection and defector are non POVs as they describe a political action: to "give[s] up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another"(ebd.).
• Defections of several senior officials and thousends of sahrawis are part of Polisario's history and also current situation.
• They inform on one significant aspect of the conflict that makes ist singular in the world.
• "Former Polisario members" would not cover all that information.

Happy to learn more from your point of view.

wikima 21:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Support I agree with S710. You can go ahead and move it from my part.--A Jalil 21:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Would anyone associate defection with a positive emotion ?
• There would not be any restrictions on the information about the history of Polisario you would like to include.S710 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at some online dictionaries: To defect:

• abandoning a cause
• desert (a cause, a country or an army)
• to leave a country, political party, etc.

defector:

• A person who has defected: apostate , deserter , recreant , renegade , runagate , tergiversator , turncoat.
• [noun] a person who abandons their duty (as on a military post)
• Synonyms: deserter

All a very negative pov. S710 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

S710 / Jalil,

• Agree - Thanks for this
• Go ahead and make the move.
• This should be updated on the template of the WS conflict as well
• Let me know if you need any help.

Rgds - wikima 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question re Visible URLs

• S710, thanks for all you changes and updates. Much appreciated.
• Please can you tell the rational behind the visible URLs, so why you put them this way? I usually see sources linked the other way.

Thanks - wikima 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transparency

Wikipedia: "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why." That's why it is relevant to see which newsmedia are providing the information. (visible url's) It's also important to present all relevant information about the context. That's also the reason why I added the concluding paragraph. Transparency is important.S710 10:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for this. I didn't see the last change was yours as you apparently weren't loged in (?). My remarks are:

• Do we need to change the formatting of all URLs for the sake of transparency? This seems to be non realistic especially that Wikipedia allows the linking as usual.
• What sources are lacking or are not reliable?
• The aim of all sources for the list (not the intro) is just to give an indication that the person mentionned has indeed left Polisario.

Rgds - wikima 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article could use some articles from abroad. Also: There are some notes from mincom which is the Moroccan ministry of communication. That should be made clear to the reader. Maybe also include see also list of Moroccan newspapers? Good luck. S710 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)