Talk:History of Western Sahara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is interesting in that it jumps from the Almoravides to the Spanish claim of 1884 without mentioning the history of the intervening centuries. The Spanish protectorate mentioned was finally established by the Treaty of Algeciras of 1912, which also established the Spanish and French protectorates in Morocco. Since, over a span of eight centuries, it is unlikely that the never had some form of government for the whole period, additional material is obviously necessary. I realise this is a sensitive issue given the opposing views on the sovereignty of the area. However, before being accused of biais I would like to mention that I am neither Moroccan nor Sahrawi - in fact I am not even of Arab nationality.

I would also add that as a POV that the Treaty of Algeciras was a classic example of an "unequal" colonial treaty imposing "protectorates" on a part of the world from which no such request came. The colonial boundaries are by definition artificial since they derived from the results of the negotiating process between the "Great Powers" of the time with no input or acquiescence from the government or people supposedly to be "protected".Wildbe 08:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Major copyedit

I am reverting to the last edition for the simple reason of slowing down and discussing that before it's done. This is why there are talk pages. I have nothing agaisnt the copyedit but major copyedits are to be discussed first before being published. Please you are invited to add little content by little. Cheers -- Svest 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

Okay. But I'm not sure what you mean by copyedit here. I think you should better start the discussion: I would like to add what I wrote, of course, and if you believe some of it should not be in there, please tell me what parts that is. Arre 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
That's my point. Go on. Cheers -- Svest 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
I'm not sure I follow... :-) Should I just put it back there? Arre 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with large additions and copyediting is that other users find it hard to check that all (someone may miss a line, a statement or two). It is not a policy at all but a suggestion for good editing especially in a hot article like this. What I meant is that add little by little so other contributors would follow easily. The positive aspect of that approach is that it makes you avoid any total reverting and edit warring. Cheers -- Svest 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
Understood & agreed. I'll edit in a first part rightaway, and then leave it a few days to see if anyone comments. Okay?. Arre 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cheers -- Svest 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
I now added two more chapters of the original expansion (c:a 1975-90). It looks big, but it includes large chunks from what was there before, so it's not as much new stuff as you would think. I'll leave it like this for a few days more, to see if there are any major objections to proceeding (minor details could perhaps be dealt with without reverting the entire edit?), and then reinsert the final changes I wanted to make (mainly on the peace process, a smaller chapter). Then I'm planning on going to work wikifying the timeline correctly, updating it, and fixing a number of link issues with it. Happy holidays. Arre 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Under 2005 it said earlier that Sudan in December became the first country to "recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Sahara". This is not correct. No country has recognized the Moroccan annexation of Western Sahara. However, some countries support the Moroccan claims to the territory. Hence, the territory is still occupied. Sahara is neither the correct description of the territory, since Sahara goes from the Atlantic to Egypt. /Mbarka

Regarding the comments above.... there are fewer and fewer countries recognizing the polisario entity today. Today there are fewer than 40-some countries who recognizes the polisario entity. Those who still do, do so for poliltical and ideological reasons (socialist countries or those with socialist governments). On the other hand, NONE of the major powers nor does any EUcountry recognize the polisario, hence this means that they do not contest moroccan sovereignty over the western sahara. Izm

[edit] Camels

Camels were introduced in the Sahara the first centuries AD. and maybe earlier. (e.g. In A.D. 363, when the people of Lepcis appealed to the governor of Africa for help against the Austuriani who were ravaging their territory, he replied that he could not come to their aid until they sent him 4,000 camels for transport for his troops) This introduction was not limited to Tunesia or (today's) Lybia. S710 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC) The period of the emergence of the Sanhadja (that what the paragraph is about) is in the 10th century !

Camels Even if that is true, that doesn't mean it's relevant to this passage: who introduced camels into the region of and directly surrounding present-day Western Sahara? And when? And do you have any sources for this? If you're not sure how to properly format them, I'd be happy to assist, but until you provide some evidence, I'm going to leave it as it was. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My sources:

  • M. Gast 1972: "Témoignages nouveaux sur Tin Hinan, ancêtre légendaire des Touareg Ahaggar", Revue de l'Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée, vol. 9, pp. 395-400
  • Unesco general History of Africa Vol II, ch. 20
  • quotation Unesco general History of Africa, vol. III, p.125

"Excavations in Abalessa brought to light a large quantity ot objects suggesting the existence of an old route between the southern Morocco and the Hoggar "from the fourth century of the Christian era" ät "a time when camels were in use". S710 22:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Unesco general History of Africa Vol II, ch. 20, p. 528:

"In -46 Ceasar had already captured in Africa twenty-two camels of the Numidian King Juba I, whose states extended to the Sharan frontiers." "150 years later..must already have been living in the Sahara in considerable numbers" Some more sources:

  • K. Schauenburg, pp. 59-94, Die Cameliden in Altertum, in: Bonner Jahrbücher, Bonn, 1955-6
  • E. Demougeot, pp. 209-47, Le chameau et l'Afrique du Nord romaine, in: Annales, économies, sociétés, civilisations, Paris, 1960
  • H. Lhote, pp. 57-89, Problèmes sahariennes, l'outre, la marmite, le chameau, le d'lou, l'agriculture, le nègre, le palmier, in: Bulletin de l'Académie Malgache, Tananarive, 1967
  • H. Lhote, l'Expedition de C. Balbus au Sahara en 19 av. J.-C d'après le texte de Pline, RA, pp. 41-83 Revue Africaine, Journal des Travaux de la Société Historique Algerienne, Algiers, 1954
  • H. Lhote, 1953, Le cheval et le chameau dans les peintures rupestres du Sahara, in BIFAN XV
  • J. Kolendo, pp. 287-98, Epigraphie et archéologie: le praepositus camellorum dans une inscription d'Ostie, in: Klio, 1970

The statement in the article that the camel was introduced in the area of the Western Sahara by the Sanhadja around 1000 AD is totally incorrect. Ask anyone with some knowledge of the subject.S710 06:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • A recent map of the introduction of the camel in Africa. It estimates the introduction of the camel in Mauritania at 2000 before present: [1]
  • [2]:Sahara: Introduction of the camel (probably in the first century a.d.) led to occupation by nomadic tribes who moved from oasis to oasis in search of water.
  • [3] infoplease or any other online encyclopedia

[edit] Answer

When and by who was the camel introduced in north west africa ? The answer of Bovill in 1956:

The Camel and the Garamantes, by E. W. BOVILL , Antiquity, Volume: 30 Number: 117 Page: 19–21, 1956 p.21 "The introduction of domestic animals is so often associated with the migration of peoples that it is perhaps more than a coincidence that the first appearance of the camel in Roman Africa closely synchronized with the arrival of the Zenata in the same region. These nomadic Berbers, came from the east by way of Cyrene. Whether this migration was inspired or fostered by the Romans we are unable to say, but that the Zenata were responsible for bringing the camel into general use throughout Gaetulia and the steppes of the High Plateaux seems probable. Somewhere between 46 B.C. and A.D. 363 the Roman army started using camels. It is a very wide margin of time with no data to work on except for the evidence of sculptures showing that in Tripolitania the camel was used for tillage in the second or early 3rd century. Nevertheless, that the Legio 111 Augusta took to camel transport during the 1st century A.D. seems highly probable, if only because that would explainso much that is obscure."

E.W. Bovill is the author of "The golden trade of the Moors"

P.S. Camels in Mali

The camel was used in Mali in the second century AD. That makes the the date 1000 AD of the introduction in Western Sahara seem impossible. (information from: Candice Goucher, Charles LeGuin, and Linda Walton, “Trade, Transport, Temples, and Tribute: The Economics of Power,” in In the Balance: Themes in Global History (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998), pp. 231–45 [4] copyright Bridging World History, 1, The Annenberg Foundation copyright © 2004) page 7 S710 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section: The Role of Algeria in the WS conflict

  • Talking about the conflict of Western Sahara without mentioning the role of one of its main actors is telling half of the "reality" only (reality is really far from what is written on Western Sahara in this encyclopedia)
  • Almost every sentence and line is sourced.
  • Feel free to refine the language but please avoid inserting pro-polisarian activist’s POVs
  • Koav/Arre: Thes are facts, facts. So please do not try to eliminate them because they don’t suit your pro-polisarian POV.

Thanks - wikima 19:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry forgot to write a brief summary for the last two changes
  1. Section added
  2. Refrences fixed
Cheers - wikima 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Changes I made One of the changes I made was to delete the constant referencing to the same source. I also de-linked dates and moved the references to the bottom of the page, per the Manual of Style. I have no idea why you would revert that. What was your reasoning? It's impossible to discuss every reaction of every quarter of Moroccan and Algerian diplomacy, so mentioning the detention is irrelevant. Shall we also mention the Sand War? The break-up of the Almoravid empire? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Addendum I also fixed spelling, and typographical errors in addition to fixing a blatant contradiction in the closing two paragraphs. Hopefully this newest edit is to your liking. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Make some effort and explain what you change. e.g. you suggest that Algeria was only suportive and mediator, which is clearly contredicted by the section and the sources. Algeria is more than that. It is a party in the conflict with own interests (which I will certainnly add) although, formally, it is right that the UN only recognises Morocco and Polisario as the official parties. So you try to soften the role of Algeria and this is a huge biase. It does not explain the conflcit and hides a reality.
  • Fixing of spelling, and typographical errors is always welcome.
wikima 21:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Really? "Fixing of spelling, and typographical errors is always welcome?" Then why did you blindly revert and re-insert them? Why did you just ignore the simple questions I asked you? It's like banging my head against a wall sometimes. Algeria is not a party to the conflict; they didn't fight in the war, and they aren't parties to mediation by the United Nations. I could just as easily say that you are trying to "harden" the role of Algeria, and this is a huge "biase," too, is it not? Now, will you please answer the simple questions I asked of you? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Because yo take formattin changes as a pretext to revert.
  • You also make changes on content, relevant changes, and put them as minor to hide.
  • This section is very well documented as I created it in its first version. Every thing is sourced.
  • But this is not enough for you. So you revert and add you POVs, but fix spelling errors in the same time to hide the reverts. You think people are blind.
wikima 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not, and that's bad faith. If you want to change the article, please don't insert more arbitrary formatting and spelling errors. Take two or three extra minutes to compare what I changed with what you had to see if you're re-inserting errors. You also, again, totally ignored the questions I asked of you. And it is not the case that every thing is sourced; there are still plenty of generalizations and assertions that are virtually impossible to source. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
you are, koavf, reverting the changes that are referenced under the pretext of formatting. That is simple reverting.--A Jalil 22:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not I re-worded the text again. Why would you blind revert and reinsert spelling and formatting errors, Jalil? What is the point? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yes it is. If you want to correct spelling an be credible about it so don't touch the content.
  • Also, you make changes on the content but check them as minor.
wikima 19:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
'Jalil Okay, Wikima; Jalil, please feel free to answer my questions. It's not simple reverting because as I said, I reworded the entry to accomodate requests on talk. All my edits are marked minor by default. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense and recent edits

Okay Phrases like "The Algerian media pay a high attention to the conflict" don't make sense. Also, these two sentences directly contradict one another: "...reflect unanimously the positions of the Algerian state propaganda against Morocco’s positions. Parts of the Algerian press protested however when the Algerian authorities recently refused entry visa to a French artist with Moroccan origins for having expressed a pro Moroccan position in the conflict." Please stop reverting. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Still here You still keep on inserting nonsense like the above example, and I'm still trying to write a version of this page that is intelligible. What problems do you have with the more grammatical and factual edit that I've presented? Why did you reinsert spelling errors again? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


These are examples why I don't accept your version and why I reject your attitude as not well-intentioned:

  • You are suggestion - by your example - that Algeria plays a role in the conflict only as a mediator by injecting that Morocco is a country that rejects negotiations. This is simplicistic, false and untrue. And the topic is not the role of Morocco but the role of Algeria. So removed.
  • We are talking about the role of Algeria and you mention the Moroccan media, by deleting examples (when Algerian authorities have refused entry visa to a simple artist because of his alledged opinion on the Sahara). This is an attempt to divert from the subject.
  • This being said, the Moroccan media are currently more open about the subject as the Algerian one, so no comparison as you intend to do. Example,
  1. A part of the Moroccan media (including Layoune TV) present the conflict regularly in a way that does not reflect the position of the government. I can provide you with examples and magazines such as Le Journal Hebdomadaire is regularly quoted in (pro-) polisarian propaganda internet pages and other publications. And parts of the political insitutions and of the civic society have complained about this.
  2. Moroccan media regularly publish interviews with the polisario separatists. The latest examples were interviews with the spokesman of Khat Achahid (Telquel) and with Aminatou Haider (Le Journal hebdo). Mohammed Abdelaziz has already given interviews to Moroccan newspapers.
I don't think that you would find Algerian media letting pro-Morocco or critical voices against the Algerian position in the conflict express themselves. The opposite is true. When people such as Abbasi Madani, the former president Ben Bella or Party chief Louise Hanoun (to mention only the most prominent examples) expressed pro-moroccan or Algeria critical positions they were severely criticised by the Algeria media and were made under pressure to change their position (especially L. Hanoune)
So you can’t just compare both.

You see this shows that your behaviour in this topic is highly problematic. You use every opprotunity to abuse of wikipedia for dissiminating polisarian propaganda.

wikima 18:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Good This is better, since you're actually getting somewhere now. My question remains: why do you keep on reinserting spelling errors and ungrammatical phrases in this article? That makes it a real pain to edit.
  • You are suggestion - by your example - that Algeria plays a role in the conflict only as a mediator by injecting that Morocco is a country that rejects negotiations. This is simplicistic, false and untrue. And the topic is not the role of Morocco but the role of Algeria. So removed.
No, I'm not. And Morocco did reject negotiations for a decade. We can't discuss the role of Algeria without discussing the role of Morocco, hence in your edit to the article, you mention Morocco several times.
  • This being said, the Moroccan media are currently more open about the subject as the Algerian one, so no comparison as you intend to do. Example,
I've re-worded this section to be more even-handed about the complaints you made but saying "the Moroccan media are currently more open about the subject as the Algerian one" is virtually impossible to prove. And, as I'm sure you realize, I'm not going to be persuaded to accept the Moroccan cause by your constant references to "sadr" and calling Polisario separatists; you'll lose credibility with third parties if you insist on using this kind of language. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Negotiations or not with Polisario do not matter. Algeria's role in the conflict is constantly huge, at least as gbig as Morocco's
  • I call "sadr" like this since this is my opinion and this netity has never been recongnised by the UN. POlisario are spearatists, they all have been Moroccans, had Moroccan ID papers, have grown up in Morocco, have visited Moroccan schools and universiteis, their fathers have all been resistants in the Moroccans National Armey of Liberation and in the beginning they didn't even want to be independent.
  • And I do this in talk pages not in edits. If you can't make the difference other peiople do. So don't talk in their places.
  • You last changes are ridiculous ar you are saying the same things slightly changed wording.
  • Remember this is about the role of Algerian. The role of Morocco is explained at length in the article. Or do you want that we add Polisario, Mauritania, the UN etc in this section??
  • and again: if you are concerned about gramma and spelling just make propositions or make those changes separately and not with content changes. Until then you remain incredible.
wikima 20:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Algeria Well, negotiations do matter, as that is one of the roles that Algeria has played: mediation between the monarchy and Polisario. If you want to discuss Algeria's role, that is germane. Look, call them whatever you want for whatever reasons you want; all I'm saying is, it's not convincing to others and it makes you position more radicalized. If you could discuss these issues with more respect to myself and the parties of interest, then it would be easier to accomplish something other than edit warring. What: " And I do this in talk pages not in edits. If you can't make the difference other peiople do. So don't talk in their places?" Of course I am saying the same things; I'm incorporating your text with mine more to find more consensus. Why would I make two separate edits on one article? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Algeria Out of curiosity I looked at the newspapers today concerning the involvement of Algeria's government and media in the Western Sahara conflict: The newspapers Le quotidien and Liberté make headlines of the foreign minsters Bedjaoui declaration : «Le plan marocain est un mirage» The Algeria Press buro makes a completely politicised report of the goings on at he ONU: "L'Onu rejette une nouvelle fois les thèses marocaines sur le Sahara occidental [Aps 1/11/06] Washington - Le Conseil de sécurité de l'Onu a réexaminé mardi la question du Sahara occidental et voté la prorogation du mandat de la Mission des Nations Unies pour le Référendum au Sahara occidental (MINURSO), pour une nouvelle période de six mois, s'étalant jusqu'au 30 avril 2007. Selon une source diplomatique à New York, le Conseil de sécurité a adopté à l'unanimité de ses membres, une résolution dans laquelle il a réaffirmé avec force le droit inaliénable du peuple sahraoui à l'autodétermination, rejetant ainsi une nouvelle fois, les thèses marocaines sur la question du Sahara occidental. Le Conseil rappelle à cet égard sa position qui est celle de la communauté internationale dans son ensemble concernant le règlement de ce conflit, à savoir que la solution du conflit doit "assurer l'autodétermination du peuple du Sahara occidental". En réaffirmant le droit fondamental du peuple sahraoui, cette résolution du Conseil de sécurité vient confirmer le vote intervenu dans le même sens, le 13 octobre dernier, au sein de la quatrième Commission de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies (Commission des questions politiques spéciales et de la décolonisation) et intervient au lendemain de la publication d'un rapport accablant du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les droits de l'homme, qui dénonce les graves violations dont se rendent coupables les forces d'occupation marocaines contre le peuple sahraoui. [Aps 1/11/06] Only the press in a very special kind of countries use this kind of rhetoric.

It would be hard to deny that Algeria indeed is very actively involved in the question of the Western Sahara.S710 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely the part of Annan's communiqué concerning algeria was left out: UNO: "Mr. Annan’s latest report on the region, released earlier this month, recommended the six-month extension for the mission as well as calling for Morocco and the Frente Polisario to drop any preconditions and begin negotiations to try to find a lasting solution to their long-standing conflict in the Western Sahara. His report also said that the neighbouring countries of Algeria and Mauritania should be invited to participate in any peace talks."

Neither was this reported from the UNO in the Algerian press:


The end of "The Colonial Era" section is pure Moroccan propoganda. This page persents the essence of the Moroccan argument as ubiased fact. Regardless of one's political opinion on the issue, the article should not be presenting one side's history as part of an indisputable history section.

[edit] REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, CRIMES, ABUSES AND VARIOUS OTHER IRREGULARITES BROUGHT AGAINST THE POLISARIO FRONT

Denis DUCARME (MP), Farid JEDDI, Pierre LEGROS, Antoine LEROY, ClaudeMONIQUET, Frédéric MOSER

  • Report submitted to the Special Political and Decolonisation Committee

(Fourth Committee) of the United Nations, 4 October 2006 by Denis DUCARME and Claude MONIQUET on behalf of the committee of inquiry Brussels/New York, October 2006 p. 32 and p. 33

[edit] Specific Allegations against Algeria

  • The Commission heard from one witness, Mr. Abdellah AHBIRI, that he

was arrested by the Algerian Military Police (MP) in November 1977 and held until December 1979 in Algerian military establishments (in Bechar and Mers El-Khebir). During the period of his detention, the Algerian Military Police tortured him for 30 days to force him to admit that he was a "Moroccan spy". This ill-treatment caused Mr. AHBIR 41) to lose the use of an eye.

  • The witness, Ahmed CHAABANE AHMED, Sheik of the SALEM tribe, who

is all the more credible because he has no personal complaint of ill-treatment and only cites events that he personally witnessed, refusing to relate facts he gained through hearsay, claims that "the Polisario is only a puppet in Tindouf, with no real power. The real master is Algeria. Everything is decided in Algiers 42)".

  • The witness Ramdan MESSOUD 43) claims that an officer from the

Algerian Military Police was present during his interrogation and torture in March 1982, but adds that he was not physically involved. Many witnesses also confirmed that members of the Algerian MP were present when they were interrogated and that they frequently "whispered questions to the torturers".

  • The witness Gaïd ould Sidi Youssef AGUAÏ, 44) who held high military

posts in the Polisario in 1973-1974 and then again during the eighties, claims that members of the Polisario Front Military Police were trained by the Algerian MP, mainly at the CHERCHELL academy. According to Mr. AGUAÏ it was the Algerian MP "who taught the Polisario MP most of the torture techniques they used".

  • Finally, the Commission wishes to highlight the fact that the Tindouf camps are

located on Algerian soil and as, from a legal point of view, the Polisario Front cannot exercise any extraterritorial rights for these camps, all the abuses and crimes committed there are, ipso facto, committed on Algerian territory. It follows from this that the Algerian police and judiciary are under an obligation to make all efforts to put an end to them as quickly as possible. Not only has this never been done, but the eye-witness reports make it clear that, in the past, and certainly up until the events of May-June 2006, the Algerian security forces collaborated, to some degree or other, in the commission of certain crimes and/or human rights violations by the PF´s security forces.

  • In addition to this, by surrounding the Tindouf camps, as they did for example in

May-June 2006, or in rounding up escapees who were then handed over the PF security services, the Algerian security forces can be considered guilty of complicity in the crimes and human rights violations committed by the PF. At the very least, in failing to intervene to put an end to these crimes, which they were obviously well aware of, as members of the Algerian security forces were regular witnesses to them, and in view of the fact that they were committed on Algerian territory, the Algerian authorities can be deemed to be accomplices to these crimes.

41 Interviewed in Laayoune, on September 8th 2006. 42 Interviewed in Rabat, on July 29th 2006. 43 Interviewed in Rabat, on August 1st 2006. S710 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you S710 for these informations. They are facts and show the implication of Algeria in the conflict is direct is without any doubt.--A Jalil 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabization

None of the sources of the statements in the early history section were indicated. About the Arabization of Maghreb there were two major mistakes, which I corrected. S710 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I know that I'm pretty sketchy on my pre-1880's Saharan history, so I appreciate the heads-up. A quick glance at Hodges supports what you're saying and I'll try to incoporate his and Mercer's text into yours well-sourced sometime. Again, I really appreciate your edits to Sahrawi-related articles. If you want to take a look at the Western Sahara Project, you could do a lot of good there. Very little ever happened in terms of coordination, but the goal is to someday revive it with a renewed purpose. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

the pioner white people on the region were the berber amazig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.76.199 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One last thing

The media passage It directly contradicts itself. You cannot say that they unanimously do X and then sometimes do not X. It's a classical definition of a contradiction. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Can you specify a bit what you are talking about please? wikima 22:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody thinks that unanimously means: without exception, but it means: all of one opinion. S710 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction "The Algerian media ... defend unanimously the positions of the Algerian state ... Parts of the Algerian press protested ..." This is the same as saying "X is always the case, but sometimes not the case." Please re-word the passage, and don't blindly revert it if you have some problem with my edit. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Contradiction again Clearly, they are not all of one mind. That is the point. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
No Contradiction it means the Algerian Press is tuned to the official position, and some of them though always defending the Algerian stance, found it outrageous and counter-productive to deny a visa to Jamal Debbouze, one the most talented arists in Frnace, just because he is pro-Moroccan on the Sahara (he is Moroccan). that's it.--A Jalil 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow I don't know how to put it clearer: the former statement is saying "All members of the population X have property Y." The second statement is saying that "Some members of the population X do not have the property Y." It's an obvious contradiction. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


  • I'll try to explain to you what S710 says, in easy words:
  • The Algerian supports totally, and unanimously the political positions of its governement
  • However - and this is the exception - the denying of the visa to a simple artist (who wanted to visit the country for a film premire) was that bad that even the press (who unanimously ...) was upset. It was sorrt of tooo embarrassing for them.
  • Understood now?
wikima 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope The Algerian media clearly do not support totally, and unanimously the political positions of its government; that is the whole point about the passage you wrote about denying a visa to the French artist. It cannot be total and unanimous support and also dissention. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Koavf, you completely missed it. Le Journal Hebdomadaire and Le Journal Hebdo is the same magazine, and they use the terminology "separatists" for the Polisario. How can they be against the Moroccanity of the Sahara. They are critic to the regime in a way no other magazine or newspaper in the whole arab world, but that does not make them Against the rights of Morocco in its Southern Provinces. If you have a proof of that, please bring it.--A Jalil 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
'Whatever Ask Wikima - they're his sources. The passage does not say they are "[a]gainst the rights of Morocco in its Southern Provinces," so your objection is a non-sequitur. I don't understand why you keep on blind reverting instead of at least amending the self-contradiction. What is going on here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


  • This shows that you don't have a clue but you action instead of trying learning or to discuss
  • If we would deal wiht the Moroccan press we would need a section at least only for this. Then leave it, we are talking about the role of Algeria (and its press) and not Morocco.
Easy to understand I think - wikima 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, whatever I put in the references per your suggestion of them; I was trying to be concilliatory. It's funny that you should write "If we would deal wiht the Moroccan press we would need a section at least only for this," when you were the one that brought them up in the first place... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I never eat meat, but today I ate a sheep. I may not be acting consistently, but I am not contradicting myself. Or am I ?S710 09:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes The defintion of a contradiction is:
  • All X are Y and
  • Some X are not Y
Not only are they inconsistent, but one of those statements must be true and they both cannot be the case. I think Wikima and/or Jalil think that I have a problem with this passage per se; I do not. I'm just trying to make it intelligible. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We are not doing mathematics and keep in mind exceptions confirm the rules.
  • Stop now please your nonsense reverts. Thanks
wikima 19:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links, contradiction

Sigh The contradiction does not cease to be if you simply shuffle around information. Also, some of the links had nothing to do with the history of Western Sahara, so I deleted them (e.g. a Moroccan advocacy group in the United States.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I added this article to Template:Sahara conflict.S710 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid Accords

I don't understand what Arre has against the Madrid Accords!!. They were signed in Madrid, between the formal colonial power, namely Spain, and the countries that have all the time been claiming Spanish Sahara, especially Morocco, and a copy of the treaty has been presented to the UN, and following that treaty Spain handed over WS to Morocco/Mauritania after a joint administration period. All that is being thrown out of hand by Arre who claims simply that Spain decided to withdraw from WS and repariated even its deaths, and Morocco and Mauritania invaded after that. No maratonic diplomatic negotiations and no Madrid Accords. The Madrid Accords have preceeded and allowed for the control taking of WS by Morocco and Mauritania, you like it or not Arre, and will be mentionned in the article. The most amusing is that the Polisario's Abdelaziz has been using it as a valid juridical proof that Spain did only transfer the Administration, not the Sovereignty to Morocco/Mauritania, and thus, he always remembered Spain that it is still the Sovereign state over WS, always refering to the Madrid Accords that Arre - contrarely to the Polisario's president - does not want to aknowledge.--A Jalil 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)