Talk:Legal status 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.
??? 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 supported by WikiProject Western Sahara. See also The Western Sahara Portal.
Assessment comments
Archive
Archives
* Archive 1


Archive
Archives
* Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Mediation

Guys. I've just archived prior discussions. So let's start again. I suggest every single involved editor makes a brief summary of a few lines about h/er concerns. Please avoid responding to eachother for the time being. Any uninvolved editor can participate as well. Thank her disyou. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, a summary about what?!
  • About the fact that Western Sahara and the "sahrawi republic" are two distinct thing?
  • I am honnest, I don't understand this action, especially that the article is looking finer and people are doing effort to edit in a productive/constructive way.
  • We need rather to look at the problem where it comes from: koavf, known as militant for the independence of Western Sahara from Morocco wants to use of wikipedia to push Polisario POV, insisting on confusing Western Sahara with the "sadr".
  • This behaviour had costed him to be baned/blocked from wikipedia on indefinite.
  • And now that he is unblocked, even if he is on parole, he violated the rules again, just to furiousely fight for the same ideology and POV.
  • Koavf is only looking for mediation because he can revert only one time/day.
  • You can mediate as you can, as long as koavf edits in Western Sahara, he will edit-war every single change that does not fit Polisario's view.
  • This is the problem.
  • Honnestly I don't know why you don't see it and why you unblocked him.
  • It's that easy: when he is away there is peace. When he is back there is war.
wikima 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Concerns
  1. The page was moved unilaterally several times, with no discussion, let alone consensus (see also my talk.)
  2. Sourced, scholarly information was added by me and reverted out with no rationale.
  3. There is an associated map; certain editors asked that it be removed until it was updated to be accurate. I updated it and it was reverted.
  4. Part of the article was turned into a POV fork, which was then deleted. This information has also been reverted out of the article.
  5. In addition, several small formatting changes were reverted.
As one might imagine, this is frustrating, and makes for a worse article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Note: Chad also needs to be added -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
wikima 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda MAP is itself propaganda; you have personally added several citations from Moroccan state-run press agencies. You also did not address my above e-mail. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have renamed this article because its previous title, Foreign relations of Western Sahara, was a patent nonsense, since only states establish foreign relations, but not territories.
Notice that most articles about countries deal both with the territory and the state which controls it. However, for a disputed territory, like Western Sahara, we need to clearly distinguish between the territory and the states which claim it, Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
So, I tried to choose the best title, according to the contents of the article. When I asked for another (best) title, I got no alternative suggestion.
User:Koavf want to get back to the previous title, and I think that it's for propaganda reasons, since there was a redirection from Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to this article (there was a lot of such unjustified associations between Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in the English Wikipedia).
The contents of the article must remain in the scope of its subject. Its purpose is to provide informations about the status of the territory. The layout give priority to the current situation: the current status is detailed with 2 similar tables (for neutrality), one for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the other for Morocco. For the history of this status, the reader can consult the following articles: Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Foreign relations of Morocco.
Geopolitic maps are welcomed, as long as they regard both Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, not only one of these states. --Juiced lemon 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay... Nothing is happening here. Fayssal, what do you want to do next? If you don't respond in a few days, I am going to reinsert this sourced information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What "sourced" information? And what sources? Those that says WS must be independant because Morocco is bad?
  • The article is now in good progress to be balanced. You're welcome to cooperate. And cooperating means to edit neutral not to militate for the independance of any entity.
wikima 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, i don't know from where to begin but if the map has already been updated to reflect the "States recognizing the SADR" than i suggest its reinsertion. "Legal status of Western Sahara" is by far more neutral than "Foreign relations of Western Sahara". MAP is not an unbiased source or reference w/o doubt. It is known to be the mouthpiece of the Moroccan govt. This source, as long as WS official sources, have to be used not to make the position of any party look more legitimate.

I'll also put some additional new {unsourced} tags on some other statements. We'll have enough time until September to bring sources otherwise, the statements will be removed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources And what about the fact that my sourced information keeps on getting deleted? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Insert your sources back. But honestly, tell me, do you think having more than 40 references to the same Pazzanita is suitable for a wikipedia article? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I thought it was excessive and ridiculous, but that's what was asked for on talk: every reference to every page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fayssal, I think what you are doing now is no more mediation but discussion of the contents
  • You are welcome to do so, but then please do separe froom your mediation task
  1. I do not think that inserting 36 times one sinlge Pro-Polsiario source is good for accurate contents
  2. We agreed to remove the countries that have once recognised the "sadr" from this page as it is dedicated to Western Sahara and not to the "sahrawi republic". They can appear in this last page as they already do.
  • I have put the disputed tag firts, and I will have a detailed look before possibly reverting to the initial version.
  • If you could make koavf understand that Western Sahara is not "sadr" that would be rather helpful.
Thanks - wikima 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source and Structure of Article

I have brought the article to its intial corrected version, for two main reasons:

The source:
1.- The pazzanita source is a book and can't track the frequent, regular and most recent changes in the recognition of the so-called "sadr".
Here is an example, Cape Verde withdraws recognition of Western Sahara Rep.. This news is from 2007-07-27. Further to Pazzanita's books Cap Verde still recognizes the "sadr".
2.- The pazzanita source is a POV book on Western Sahara, widely used among militants of the independence of Western Saahara such as Koavf.
We need non POV sources that provide most recent information
The structure:
  • This article is on Western Sahara and not on the so-called "sadr".
  • No need to extend the part on the recognitions of the "sadr" to an orgie of details
  • It is already more than enough to list the recognitions, which basically shoudl appear only on the page of the "sadr"
  • No need for further details, like list of those who have droped the recognition, those who almost did, those who once had breakfast with Mohamed Abdelaziz etc.
  • I will go for only putting the number of the recognitions (and theirsupensions/cancellations), leaving the detailed list on the article of teh "sadr" only.
wikima 09:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Sources Wikima, you cannot seriously believe some of the things you are saying; this is sheer intransigence. The Pazzanita book was last updated a year ago, so it's pretty up-to-date; to supplement it, you can refer to news items, which is precisely what is done in the article. You have got to be joking if you think that scholarly sources that are quite literally the best of their kind in their field should be excluded. The Pazzanita book is written from a point-of-view, as are all sources of all information. You have asserted that it is pro-Polisario; where did you get this information? Have you read it? As for your arguments about structure, the article hardly includes an "orgie" [sic] of details. Again, arguing against the insertion of relevant, sourced material has got to be some kind of joke that I just don't understand. If I understand you correctly, you then imply that they should be merged into the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article, which is just as long as this one. Again, that can't be a serious proposal. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Always the same unlogic
  • 1/ I ahve provided you with at least one example of how a book can be out of date
  • 2/ Books are not bibles. You can believe in pazzanita and think it's the best. I don't think so.
  • 3/ The information must be verifiable against facts. Page numbers are not.
  • Bring solid sources that cover most recent happenings and we can talk. Since 2006 lots of things have happened.
wikima 10:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Books Of course books can be out of date; any media can be out of date. What does that have to do with anything? Why are you ignoring my simple and direct questions, Wikima? I have no idea what point three is even supposed to mean. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Foreign relations of the SADR This is really just a re-merge from at worst a POV fork, and at best a redundant article. 00:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is just absurd!
  • All you want to do is to make Western Sahara look like the polisario republic.
  • This is a strong abuse of wikipedia!
wikima 09:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Weird, why not merge it w/ [Foreign relations of Morocco]? Please see section below or the title of this article itself. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Foreign relations For precisely the reason I stated above; that article was simply copied-and-pasted out of this one. The article's title was changed due to a unilateral move (actually, several moves), and was supposed to be part of the mediation going on at this page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
We had already understood that you want an encyclopedic article about the foreign relations of the SADR, but with Western Sahara in its name for propaganda purposes. --Juiced lemon 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Lemon, please it is better to deal w/ one point at a time. We are discussing the sources below for now. We will get back to here later on. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's deal w/ this

  • Sources

In the absence of sources we use the ones available. If there are any other RS which contradicts the former than we mention them both or at least you discuss which ones is more reliable and neutral (non biased).

  • Definitions

Western Sahara is a territory. That should be clear. You could name it Antarctica if you want. It was named Spanish Sahara meaning a territory which belonged to Spain as a colony a time ago. Polisario Front is the main representative of the Saharawi people both militarily and politically. SADR is the government in exile.

So to make this much more clearer hoping we won't get back to it again. Western Sahara is a disputed territory (under negociations) between Morocco represented by its Government representing its ethnic-mixed nation and the RASD represented by the Polisario Front representing the Saharawi people.

  • Merge

Nonsense. As the title means EXPLICITLY, the article should talk more about the territory international legal status. Because you are both very busy edit warring about less meaningful facts (call it WP:LAME), because of that you forget that this legal status is being discussed through Manhasset negociations and it is becoming clear that the question is on the hands of Morocco, Algeria and Polisario. It is also on the hands of the US and some European powers as you know. It is certainly not on the hands of Saudi Arabia or Vanuatu or Sandwich islands. Concentrate on what is encyclopedic and forget about your egos. Help at Manhasset negotiations. I just noticed that nobody cared about that. Just weird. Or maybe i am a fool or mad.

-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

  • "I just noticed that nobody cared about that. Just weird..."
This is absolutely right! There is a whole dynamic related to the topic going and which must be documented and covered, but instead of this there are systematic edit wars again on the topic.
  • Sorry to say again, but in my eyes we could reach compromise or slution with everyone but not with Koavf. Since he is back the situation has extremyl deteriorated.
  • There is not a single tiny change in hsi behaviour since his last block.
  • The damage is obvious.
wikima 19:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikima, i am glad to hear that you think that could reach a compromise. However, you should accept the fact that you have to work together. Saying that Justin has gone mad again and worse indeed means that we are stuck because he thinks the same. As for the sources, try to avoid using pro-Moroccan or pro-Polisario sources. Both are biased. Look for something else. WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerns both of you and that's your problem. If Koavf situation has ext deteriorated it maybe because when he was back found a lot of HEDOESNOTLIKEITs.
So to reach a compromise please avoid dealing w/ more than a point at a time. Concentrate on one, deal w/ it w/ AGF and there you go. I mentioned 2 important "topics" above: sources and definitions. Well, then both of you read our related policies and guidelines. Read it very carefully and forget you are dealing w/ WS. Think that you are writing about "Cobras in New Zealand"! and see what our policies and guidelines would do for you as a helping hand. If you think that your book about Cobras would be selling good then come back here again at ease and try to write about Western Sahara. All what was said about sources is said about NPOV. I am sure none of you is neutral. Neither i am. Nobody is but people in Wikipedia should strive and try to be neutral. I am sure none of you does strive. So this is your chance to strive. Please follow my advice because there no other admin or editor would give you any different advice or view or analysis of what has been going on here for so long. This is Wikipedia. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Manhasset Re: the negotiations article; I actually went to go make that a few days ago, and was pleasantly surprised to see that you had. Thanks. If I get anything to add, I will. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • But please nothing pro-polisario, koavf.
  • Fayssal, thank you for the advice. I am afraid however that what you say is not realistic as you seem to be insisting on ingoring the core of the problem.
Regards - wikima 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ola amigos. Well, this is as edifying as usual. FayssalF has made some very fair points, you're both bloody irritating with the tit for tat and obsessions. This being said, a word on the map - the Tchad reference is wrong, and should be removed. The PM's office denied the recog. Supra there is the argument that all sources have a POV - well no, not in the NPOV sense. Some sources have at least detachment. Frankly the article is full of odd special pleading language (as in the whole non-recog of WS is not non-recog of Polisario... etc.) (collounsbury 19:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Are you ready guys?

Are you ready? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you ready? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ca you remove the merge tag?

  • Fayssal please can you do that? Alos form the page on Foreign Relation...
  • Each time I want to do a bot gets it back.
  • Please do help.
Thanks - wikima 19:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please keep the tag in there. Why everybody is being impatient? We said we are starting discussions again. You and Justin, please stop editing the article for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Fine I'm happy to not edit for now; you said to reinsert the references and I did. Other than the merge proposal, I haven't added or subtracted anything. What do you want to do next, Fayssal? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
in the middle of a discussion trying to sort this out you went reverting! That's impatience. If it happens more often it becomes disruption. Thanks however for being patient now.
Wikima, i don't understand what makes you be hesitant to not to sign above. Does this thread mean that you agree? If you want to work please do so. The merge tag is just a tag. At least it is not a POV tag. The talk page is the most important thing. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • A simple reason: I don't believe in your method.
  • We have more than thousand of facts and justifications that the source fo all this cahos is one: USER KOAVF.
  • You can look for archives or do what you want you won't be able to deny it.
  • So, now we all can show our good will and start discussion etc.
  • But one will not do and will stuck to the very same method for which he has been blocked on indefinite and which he hasn't changed a single bit.
  • You can ignore this if you like, but facts are facts.
  • Once you show me (I mean facts) that he has changed his behaviour, then ask me that sort of questions
  • If you think that he has changed because he runs for your mediation then you are absolutely wrong: he does because he can't revert more than once/day. A rule he broke before calling you for help.
  • I am more than furtstrated to see that one guy has devastatetd a topic, abusing of wikipedia and doing worse than any propaganda official from the whole polisario organisation.
  • And all you are doing is rehabilitating him again and again and asking us for patience, peace etc.
  • No, this will not work. If you are admin then take please your responsibility and act.
  • Now I'll be away for a couple of days and when I am back I will concentrate on this topic again.
  • It should not work that such a beautiful project like Wikiepdia falls in the hands of such people.
wikima 20:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You can believe in that but i believe in WP:DR. If you are not willing to cooperate than it is your choice. You believe that this mediation would serve for nothing. You are wrong. It would serve whether to sort out your issues for once (via here, RfC or the ArbCom) or see one or both of you getting blocked. His position is worse because of his block log but that doesn't mean you are exempt. Refusing to go through DR is not cool. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


  • 1/ Please do not misquote or misinterprete what I am saying. I haven't spoken about the WP:DR but about the very case of koavf. What I am saying is the following: "Look at the roots of this problem: the behaviour of koavf. As long as you ignore it you will not resolve anything here". And it looks like this not only my opinion but facts that you ignore (koavf did 9 reverts only on sep 03rd, edit warring Jalil. Despite of all warnings).
  • 2/ Please no lessons and no threatening language, even if you are admin. The rules are not there to be used in that kind of communication. I know that they exist.
Thanks - wikima 17:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Fayssal, I wonder if this is not a waste of time. We have already had fruitless discussions about this before. We are not discussing theories. Recognitions are something that can be proven by direct links to the recognising countries' official media or to the address of the SADR embassy if there is such in the concerned country. What we have been told by koavf since eternity is that if it is in Pazzanita and Hodges, then it is true. Pazzanita states that Syria not only recognized the SADR, but still continues to recognize it, a stupid lie that has no foundations. When we talk about references, we don't mean pro-Polisario pens like those of Pazzanita and Hodges.--A Jalil 10:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

and that's a good restart. You are now discussing between eachother instead of edit warring. We are after verifiability. If Pazzanita is wrong in saying that Chad recognizes SADR when it is not as of 2007 than his facts are outdated and new sources w/ new facts should be mentioned and not Pazzanita. If Pazzanita says that Algeria is still recognizing SADR and it is true then it should be kept. I already mentioned above somehow that relying on one single source is inappropriate but that doesn't mean Pazzanita would not be used as a source when what he says turns out to be true after verification. Verify what he says and but don't wholesale revert. Koavf, pls do not use that map again until all sources referring to Pazzanita are verified because as i could see it is not 100% accurate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Right Needless to say, I'm not going to get mired down in the silliness that Juiced lemon, Jalil, and Wikima are throwing around; it's counter-productive. You'll notice that Wikima is consistently ignoring my direct questions, he's formed some ad hoc opinion about the book (pro-Polisario?) that he's apparently never read, the book is completely verifiable as a source - it cites another scholarly work that contains the same information, and has been revised twice at an academic publisher, and he's actually reverted back to a version of the page that cites it as a source anyway. Honestly, Fayssal, this is just ridiculous. He's making the claim that we can't use (scholarly, regularly-revised) books in Wikipedia articles as sources? Does that make any sense at all to you? This source is not only completely legitimate, it is the kind of source that should be on all Wikipedia articles precisely because of the reputation of its publisher and authors as scholars. If Wikima or Jalil actually had any sources to contradict anything in the book (other than unverifiable stories about what Syrian ministers said a quarter of a century ago), they would have offered them long ago, but they haven't. The idea that this is even being debated is preposterous. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
koavf wrote: the book is completely verifiable as a source. I think this should be enough a testimony to discard it. The Syrian example given above represent the most obvious bug of Pazzanita and Co. It is thus not verifiable as a source, and not regularly-revised. It does not fit the criteria of scholarship, and is not legitimate as a source. The author must surely very reputable among Polisario circles, no doubt. Again, an information needs to be supported by a credible, accurate, and verifiable source, not the that you insert trash and ask us to bring sources that contradict it. Pazzanita and Hodges are the two feet om which koavf stands, and I understand the trouble he has when people start to see they are pro-Polisario sympathizers in the service of its propaganda. --A Jalil 08:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, it's hard to credit good faith editing when you have the kid's rubbish re Chad, the utterly irrational round-and-round re MENA a few months back, etc.; the bit supra about not having read being a bit rich given the Chad item in particular.
Now, it is entirely clear that wikima is a partisan editor, and not always entirely reasonable. However, I don't recall single-sourced edits on his part, nor the others, nor an irrational (or hyper-partisan insistence) on partisan factoids of either dubious relevance or provenance, although a partisan insistence on casting aspersion on Polisario claims is evident.
I disagree, however, with Jalil supra re the book "not being a source." Even a partisan source can indeed be a source - however for the purposes of encyclo edits, to the extent there are reasonable and substantiated objections to the (current) quality and reliability of the source (as in this instance it would appear or at least I am not inclined to trust the kid's representations given the MENA and Chad experience), its incumbent on the user of said source to back it up or withdraw.
Now, as to the standards on say "what is appropriate to SADR / W. Sahara wasteland" re gov't in exile, an item I enquired about earlier - I believe to wikima re constant objections over naming whatever godforsaken hole in the ground either the Moroccans or the Polisario are pretending is a city as a capital - on what standards have been adopted elsewhere in reference to government in exile claims and representing them. Rather clearly SADR is a legal fiction aspiring to political reality, that's fine. It can be presented I am sure in a neutral, non-partisan manner without casting aspersion on Polisario claims (nor engaging in absurd special pleading on either side). So, I'd like to reiterate as a point of departure that a good neutral third party benchmark for style would be useful and preferable to this endless bickering. collounsbury 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. But all of you guys. Honestly, this is insane. What are the countries you believe they never recognized SADR or dropped it? Syria? Then don't mention it and therefore you won't use Panzitta as a source. What are the countries you believe they recognized SADR? X? Then mention it and it doesn't matter if Panzitta is biased as long as we are talking about formal recognitions. We are not citing his views. Any problems w/ that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Fayssal mate, frankly I think the entire numbers game is going to be one partisan pissing match after another. I would suggest that given (i) diplo recognitions are (a) oft amibiguous, (b) ever changing and (ii) it is impossible to be definitive, that the best resolution is to have an article emphasize numbers are approximative, and second, to not have the bloody chart. If the chart is such a necessity, label is non-authoritative and approximative as X date and perhaps establish an understanding that as of X date, changes going forward should be double sourced. collounsbury 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes This speaks volumes: Wikima doesn't believe in mediation or that books are valid sources and Jalil thinks that claiming a source is verifiable makes it lack credibility. Again, it also appears that the two have never even read the books in question and have nothing to actually refute its claims other than slander and hearsay. As far as Collounsbury's suggestion, it seems just silly to include a chart and immediately cast doubts on its validity. The only actual objection to the information presented is by Jalil and Wikima, who have no rationale for it. That doesn't make it legitimately contested or disputed; they are contesting it as a matter of principle. This isn't actually a controversial set of assertions; it is only "controversial" to the extent that these two editors refuse to believe in a vacuum of evidence. This kind of "controversy" doesn't happen on articles like Foreign relations of the Republic of China (for instance), because there are more editors involved and if you reject sources for flimsy reasons like "they are books" or you insert your own view of the author's biases without reading it, you'll get laughed off of talk. These two only have the relatively esoteric nature of the topic on their side, rather than any credible source. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I already gave my opinion about the chart Justin. It just doesn't make sense having a chart where sources are being questioned. So please leave it aside. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside our Indianan's martyrish whinging on, (i) "casting doubts" on the chart is hardly the suggestion, rather given the unclear nature of the subject in question, merely giving proper situation - although I am aware our dear Indianan would love to pretend to more clarity than actually obtains, (ii) our young Indianan's evidence itself is problematic across several domains - and I would submit that his unreasonableness on this point (Chad, MENA e.g.) make editing rather harder. That is not to say the pro-Morocco partisans are materially better, on these accounts, but at least dialogue slightly better, (iii) evidently the issue is in fact controversial and our Indian youngsters' points have been substantively challenged (in the case of Chad with prejudice), arguing ergo otherwise merely reflects mulishness or illiteracy - on the other hand both parties - Jalil, Wikima from the Moroccan side, KOAVF from the Polisario side show little inclination to engage in rational sourcing of claims or balanced sourcing. As an example, on one hand wikima and Jalil reject out of hand our Indianan Lad's sourcing [although I have a certain sympathy on one level given his uncritical acceptance of cites to his POV, etc; however I am not convinced better behaviour would induce Jalil and wikima to engage better given their non response to my reasonable challenges to their edits]; (iv) the edit war is clearly not going to end without imposing either bans all around or some genuinely comparable reference points as suggested (and bloody Taiwan which is a real country with actual territory ain't one).
Of course, one can continue to have these idiotic exchanges with gross misrepresentations endlessly. Frankly, there's not much good faith going on (although at least not clear looniness. (collounsbury 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Pazzanita & sources in general

I'm not very involved in editing Wikipedia anymore, but it's heartening to see that the Sahara nastiness will never end. Reminds me why I quit.

While scrolling through this debate, I noticed that Pazzanita's WS dictionary is discarded as a "partisan" source. I don't know how many here have actually read it, but I have. I think Pazzanita personally probably comes down mostly on the Polisario side, but not by very much, and there is nothing inherently partial with his dictionary. The older editions were less well-balanced, but still extremely valuable as resources, because virtually unique in any language. The present edition is even better (w more coverage of the tribal dynamic, for example), and better balanced. No one who has read the book could consider it Polisario agitprop: it dutifully lists several pages of human rights violations by Polisario, just to mention one thing that's rarely heard from the SPS. Pazzanita, to the best of my knowledge, is among the world's top scholars on the subject, and has published lots of very interesting articles on Mauritania and Western Sahara. His works should be considered mandatory reading for anyone seriously interested in the issue, whether one does or does not agree with all his conclusions -- and I'm absolutely sure they can be as useful for Wikipedia sourcing as an Arabicnews.com link.

As someone said above, if there's an error with some entry on Syria*, well -- then there's an error with that entry on Syria. There are lots of (hopefully) minor errors in all dictionaries, and when found, they should be corrected. Just put up another source that sets the matter straight, instead of trying to discard the whole text. It's like tossing a book on the French revolution out the window, because it misprinted the birth date of Saint-Just.

-- Now, I will not stick around to debate this, for reasons made brutally obvious on the page above, but good hunt to you all, Arre 02:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

(*) which did recognize the RASD once upon a time. There used to be a public Polisario office (or even embassy?) in Damascus, probably opened in the era of Syrian-Algerian romance that grew out of a common hatred of Egypt, mid/late 70s (to this day, Anwar Sadat remains the great uniter of the Arab world). There still exists some sort of office, but I don't know what their formal status is there; probably ambiguous, depending on who the government is talking to. But given the Baath gov's famously low tolerance for non-authorized political organizations, I would be surprised if they don't hold at least some level of political recognition. Anyway, the recently created official RASD page lists a Damascus phone number for their Syria-Lebanon rep, so whoever cares can call him up and ask.

The Sahara nastiness was created by you Arre and your partner koavf. It was created by the stupid thinking that Wikipedia was a battle to "free Western Sahara" as koavf has declared.
  • As to Pazzanita, good that you aknowledge, though in a shy manner, that in the end he is pro-Polisario. It is not a novelty. Pazzanita and Hodges are known to be pro-Polisario. What has changed is the style of writing. It is the style change between koavf's and Arre's. Before, Pazzanita and Co. used terminology only found in the Algeria and other pro-Polisario circles (occupation,...) (koavf's style till today). Now they have learned to try to give the impression of being neutral, by shooting a couple of bullets on the Polisario's, but then emptying their magazines on Morocco (Arre's style). Some may be fooled by that, but not all.
  • As to the Syrian case, I have said and would say it again a thousend times if needed. It has NEVER recognised the SADR. If you (Arre), as you claim, have some knowledge of Syrian Politics, you should not have difficulty verifying that. The Camp David Accords were started in Morocco, if you don't know it, by a meeting between Moshe Dayan and Egyptian officials. In response to the Camp David Accords, Syria, Algeria, Libya, South Yemen, and the PLO created the Front of Steadfastness and Refusal. Among other things, Algeria and Lybia poured their Petro-Dollars on Syrian arming, and in exchange, Syria allowed the Polisario Front (I repeat, the Polisario Front) to open an office in Damascus. It is that that Pazzanita, intentionally, tries to interpret as a recognition of the SADR. Later, the Syrian officials assured Abderrahman Youssoufi that they never recognised the SADR, and that there is no Polisario/SADR representation in Syria.
  • In the link you provide, there are phone numbers for "diplomatic relations" in Germany, Switzerland, Portugal, Russia, Austria, ... etc. I wonder if you would call those numbers to find out if the concerned countries do recognise the SADR or even the Polisario. By the way, the domain name ".ws" is reserved for Western Samua, where has ".eh" gone??? as if there is not enough confusion ... --A Jalil 08:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Mate, chill. Arre's commentary is not inherently unreasonable, and frankly his input re the book seems quite reasonable - rather more so than your response which is sheer over the top reaction. That being said, the problem here is partisan editing off of perhaps slightly partisan or fully partisan sources. I personally distrust Koavf's inputs and edits given his demonstrated partisan biases, unreasonableness (again see Chad and MENA issue) and highly skewed reading (as well as tendency to edit to push a partisan view alone). Your objections re, for example, the data box are only slightly better.
Regarding the diplomatic relations to do, as I noted above this is an area where rational state actors, whatever their sympathies are going to often maintain a level of ambiguity. Further, recognitions are not terribly meaningful in the present state (early on perhaps but not now), and ever changing. I believe the best thing to do is present either no chart, or perhaps preferably, the chart as a historical snapshot (and agree that edits and updates to it should be double sourced (i.e. no more Koavf running into to make changes because Polisario issued a press release - actually in general that would be a fine standard, same goes re edits off of MAP only sources although they seem rarer.) (collounsbury 12:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
Sources again/still As Arre so deftly pointed out, Pazzanita and Hodges are acknowledged experts on the region. Again, Jalil cannot contradict that with any source but an unverifiable alternative history. Also, you resort to these outlandish claims that it is "well-known" that they are pro-Polisario. Where, pray tell, did you get that information? Have you ever even read one of their books? I have no idea what your question about CCTLDs is, but .eh has always been reserved and never been assigned; .ws has open registration. Collounsbury, I agree that the more sources the better. For instance, in the case of Syrian recognition, I have five: three editions of the Historical Dictionary, Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War, and the SADR site. There is simply no disputing this. As for recognitions that occur from this point on, again, several sources would be ideal, but also not particularly likely, considering the obscure nature of the subject. There is no good reason to apply or enforce a standard that applies only on this article/subject matter. <collounsbury-talk>As for your constant martyrish whinging on about the MENA article, it's bloody tedious, mate, and I discussed it on talk clear as day there. No need to cry about it constantly, old man. And "Indianan" is not a word, but Hoosier is - stop talking about subjects where you clearly have no bloody clue what you're terminology even is and get a clue, Englandian.</collounsbury-talk> -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh bloody hell. I don't give a bloody fuck about the SADR site, my dear Indianian kiddie. Now the sourcing on books, well, there, that's better - although your judgement in particular I have no use for as you're not trustworthy (as well as truly unimaginative in your whinging on). Arre, well, that's another matter. Now, the issue at hand is the sourcing - ex political agitprop sites for those too dim to differentiate on their own.
This round and round irrational pissing match is not terribly edifying, but what do we have? Well, we have a frankly idiotic chart - I don't see anything of the sort in other contexts - that is going to be constantly dated regardless (as well as, due to the deliberate ambiguity many states prefer to keep under such circumstances, highly debatable even when clarity in sourcing exists). As such, a short discussion of evolving recognition - from an NPOV encyclopedic stance of merely acknowledging the fact of diplomatic ambiguities, evoluation over time etc. would be far more rational and useful. The Indianian kiddie clearly wants a chart because he sees it serving The Cause (his little intefada as he likes to call small riots and the like). Jalil and wikima want to minimise any such thing for near photo negative reasons. And what does the average reader get from this? Absolute bollocks as information. The value add is near zero, and frankly neither set of partisans are going to provide anything remotely like a reasonable summary. collounsbury 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC).
Collounsbury on a roll! Bloody, whinge, tedious, Englandianer, etc. Whatever. If you have nothing to add, add nothing. Simple. If you don't see anything similar on any other articles, you've never seen Foreign relations of the Republic of China. The most cogent and actually germane thing that you've written is the end-user's experience. Good point - what serves them better: a version of the article riddled with asinine {{fact}} tags, or one that actually has sourced information from scholarly sources? The choice is clear, and Wikima (and now Jalil) are simply being intransigent at this point. They have no arguments or refutations, only outrageous complaints aboud domain names and simply inaccurate claims about books they've never read and presumably refuse to read. It's time to stop acting like they have a point to make. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
My dear child, leaving aside your childish whinging on, the addition is the observation that your little djihad is tiresome and that the list is problematic. Of course since you're a political partisan of the most irrational sort, your perceptions are rather distorted. collounsbury 10:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
Whinge, partisan Whatever, Collier. What am I supposed to do with a post like that? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
koavf has five sources: Hodges&Pazzanita and Hodges&Pazzanita and Hodges&Pazzanita and Hodges(without Pazzanita) and last but not least, the SADR site. To remind everybody of what the problem is: there is a list that contains many countries that either never recognized or have cancelled their recognitions or no proof at all of their supposed recognitions. The main and for some time ago, the only source was H&P. Arre and koavf want us to believe that if it is in H&P, then it is true. No, what we are demanding is verifiability, that's all. Because as a clear case, Syria listed in H&P as recognizing and hosting an embassy of the SADR. That is simply untrue. It shows the book is not verifiable. I don't understand when they say we have to read the book first, as if I read that Syria has not only recognised but still recognises the SADR, I will believe it. Embassies and representations have premises and diplomatic activities. We want to be directed to official sites of the concerned countries where such info is found or any other verifiable proof. The SADR site lists 15 diplomatic embassies and the rest as hosting a representative of the SADR. That is simply false, because the USA, France, Germany, Austria, Sweden, ... are listed as having representations of the SADR, but that is wrong. None of these countries recognizes neither the SADR nor even the Polisario. Syria is not listed at all. There is an entry for the Mashreq Alarabi (the Middle East), but that should include Saudi Arabia and Jordan, ..etc in the list. Libya is by the way not hosting any embassy, and listed on the same level as the USA and France. So, taking the SADR official state site as a source is not good for koavf and Arre. Many countries listed in the articles would be dropped away. In addition to that, and that is what koavf did not apparently understand, the SADR state official site has the URL "www.rasd-state.ws/relaciones_dib.htm". the TLD ".ws" is for and used by the government of Western Samoa. koavf has been edit-warring about ".eh" as that of the SADR and even of WS. Now the SADR is laying claim also to Western Samoa's TLD, and proceeded to steal it. I hope we will not see another edit-war by koavf about .ws as that of Western Sahara.--A Jalil 09:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Allright, "Arre [...] want[s] us to believe that if it is in H&P, then it is true." - No, that's very much not the case. I'm just saying that if it's in the Pazzanita dictionary (or any other respected book on the matter, certainly including Hodges, and also a correspondingly pro-Moroccan scholar like Thobhani [who himself uses both H & P extensively]), then it has a source. If it is, despite this, demonstrably false (as the Syria thing may be), then go ahead and demonstrate it. That's it: treat sources as sources, which can be right or wrong, not as holy books that need to be burned if there's a wrong letter. And stop the charade about H & P being well-known Polisario propagandists or somesuch; they're not. Whatever their more subtle leanings, which can be discussed, they're standard literature for ANYONE who studies the area in English. I would say exactly the same about John Damis's slightly more hard-to-get book, whose editors' foreword explicitly says that Morocco should be armed and supplied by the US in order to defeat Polisario. That's as partisan as gets, but the book itself is generally scholarly, all facts well attributed to primary sources, and a great source of information. Arre 12:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Very good. (collounsbury 18:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
Right Obviously, there is nothing much to say about this latest rant from Jalil, but I would like to point out that the SADR is not trying to steal (Western) Samoa's TLD. As I mentioned above, but he apparently didn't understand, .ws has open registration; anyone can register a .ws domain name if they have the money. If you don't understand what that means, you really, really, really need to stop complaining about the domain name of the SADR. If you don understand what that means, you really, really, really need to stop complaining about the domain name of the SADR. This is the most childish of several juvenile arguments that you've brought up here and it's completely irrelevant to anything at all. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Wrong obviously koavf has a problem understanding what we write. YOU have been edit-warring about EH as the TLD for not only the SADR by also for WS, but now, and without any shame, you call ".ws" as the domain name of the SADR. Where has EH gone? why would they opt for ".ws" when they already have ".eh"??. This is a direct question for you to answer or keep quiet. They apparently have the money to pay for ".ws" but not for ".eh", in contrast to the appeal for international help to feed Abdelaziz and his follows. The official site of the govt of West Samoa is http://www.govt.ws/ . No other country in the world that can be called a country, has used ".ws" as its TLD, simply because every country has its own. As to Arre's last edit, I join Collounsbury and say "very good indeed". I find Arre's comment "treat sources as sources, which can be right or wrong, not as holy books" as exactly what I look for koavf and Arre to understand. Just because it is in H&P, does not mean it is true. Syria and South Yemen, never recognised the SADR. The SADR site says nothing about a syrian embassy, let alone a representation. The demonstration that syria does not recognize the SADR or even the POLSARIO is that there is no such delegation in damascus. If you think differently, prove it by pasting the address of that embassy/representation here. a simple question that we asked before, but got no answer. --A Jalil 11:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, trivialities step by step. I understand that
(i) .ws is in fact the domain name for W. Samoa. (e.g. http://www.asiaregistry.com/domains/domains_ws.html?gclid=CNaw04Wmp44CFQOHlAod8VQsTQ)
(ii) At some point something about .ws and SADR came up.....
(iii) Now we have this round and round over what? Is there any current claim re .ws being a domain name for W. Sah?
Insofar as I can not see a dispute, what's the issue? (collounsbury 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Sheer lies Never once have I ever said that .eh was the top-level domain of the SADR. That doesn't even make sense. Especially since it is the domain of Western Sahara, which is not a matter of dispute. You're wasting time and writing utter nonsense, Jalil. If you would like more information on .eh, see this article. "Just because it is in H&P, does not mean it is true." Yes, I know. I know all this. What are you even talking about? What does that have to do with anything? Never once have I ever said that since something was in H&P it must be true. Never. That is an asinine assertion. What I have said is things liked "sourced and verifiable information from scholarly sources that has no actual source to contradict it should be accepted to be accurate." Is that actually a controversial opinion? Are you kidding me? I don't know the address of any embassy in Damascus, SADR or otherwise. Arre directed you to the information for which you are asking, so again, your question is utter nonsense. It has nothing to do with anything. As an aside, you are wrong about the successive editors of the Historical Dictionaries of Western Sahara, again proving that you have never even looked at these books. What reason do you have for doubting their authenticity again? And, what pray tell, is the source of your allegations about Syria and South Yemen? I can't seem to recall you ever providing any reason for trusting your conspiratorial alternative histories over scholarship. Please provide one if it's not too much trouble. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside the diatribe, can someone clearly and concisely state what the bloody fuck the domain name issue is? Besides an inane triviality?
As for trusting sources, no one (editing these articles) seems particularly trustworthy from where I am sitting. As for the Syrian issue, well, what is the current sourcing on position. I am afraid Jalil has not been terribly clear. Is there an official delegation in Syria? If so, as Arre noted, then that implies some level of recognition at least for Polisario (although not ipso fact for a SADR state, but then we get back to the same issue re "recognitions" at this stage decades on not being that meaningful. (collounsbury 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

It seems that some progress is being made. However, some name calling (i.e Collousburry and Koavf) should stop. I've already warned both of you re this issue. Please don't comment on this as it would be a waste of space and time. Just go on guys. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reboot W. Sahara Legal & Diplo Status Mediation Conversation

Fayssal mate, I am not sure actual progress is being made, so let's try this:

Primo, Arre made a quite valid observation regarding the sourcing. So the book(s) cited have some current facticity issues. That's understandable, and as such I have to conclude blanket objections to the sources are overdrawn, but at the same time on the specific issue of current diplomatic status, one must have second sourcing to make a statement on current (rather than historical) status. Not throwing babies out with the bathwater, I return to my observation supra: (i) Diplomatic stances for disputed territories are by design often ambiguous, ergo for many countries stances re Western Sahara there may not be a clear "recognition" or not, by design; (ii) A long and confusing laundry list of "frozen, withdrawn, recognising" countries is neither terribly informative nor evidently self-evident in creating, in large part due to (i); (iii) As Fayssal has already opined the list is out, if I am not mistaken, would it not be more reasonable to present a brief analytical discussion of the evolution of recognition, the various factors and a summary of present status. With the exception of the partisans on both sides, most readers I would opine will not be terribly interested in the inane detail of the list, but in a useful summary of the history, evolution and brief comment on potential future directions. This would be possible to achieve with a NPOV text, would eliminate the senseless and futile squabbling, and provide some reference materials of utility beyond tedious partisan promotion or demotion This strikes me as the only path to having something at once stable and agreeable to all parties. collounsbury 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe but there is a simple way to achieve that. You can add a note at each disputed recognition, "Some diplomatic stances are ambiguous and cannot be fully verified", etc... I don't know but we got to move on. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for neutral resolutions. Will the partisans accept? collounsbury 16:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC).
NB - I removed the incorrect information re the US FTA from this page, legacy of past edits I suppose. (collounsbury 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
Collounsbury, Fayssal Col: I believe that your suggestions are made in good faith and have some merit, but I have some reservations. As to i.) Sure, that makes sense - some kind of wording noting the obscurity of the conflict, the nature of recognition, etc. would be helpful to the reader. As for ii.) I have no idea what the phrase "evidently self-evident" even means, but I also see no reason to delete useful information, again for the benefit of the reader. See for instance, Foreign relations of the Republic of China or even Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Regarding iii.) I suppose that you are right about a brief summary being useful, but I think the article (prior to gutting by you-know-who) had just that. If you have some kind of a draft, I would be happy to look at it or comment on it, but I still don't see what's so confusing about the text as-is. Faysaal, here is my main point, and I suppose I haven't made this clear somehow: there is no dispute. There are scholarly source by internationally-recognized experts who have published on the topic for decades on the one hand, and Jalil and Wikima, two anonymous Moroccan Wikipedians on the other. If I wanted to, I could go to every source in every article in Wikipedia and do the exact same thing they are doing: provide baseless accusations against every single source. Their disputes have no grounding in reality or evidence to support their positions. Do you see what I am saying? They never provide any reasons for actually thinking that the sources are in any way unreliable. All they say is "X never happened" and provide neither a source nor even a line of reasoning for that position, and then they say "Everyone knows that Y is pro-Polisario," which is, again, baseless political slander. They have no rational objection to the sources or material presented, do they? And they have had all the time and opportunity in the world to offer them. They have failed. It's time to stop pretending like this information is in any way controversial. It's not. See also Holocaust denial. Someone can refute any source on any topic for any reason. That does not make the matter "controversial." There is no reason to pretend like this one topic in this one field deserves some kind of special treatment for sourcing than every other article on Wikipedia. It doesn't. One (let alone five) reliable, scholarly academic source written by an expert is plenty. Also, I would still like the promised mediation on the unilateral move. This page was moved with no rationale or explanation. Lastly, Collier, you're pulling the same ridiculousness (to a less extent, since this paper is not a scholarly source by an expert) by deleting relevant, sourced information with the justification "it's not true." If it's not true, how do you know it? What is your source? Why do you think this way? These are completely reasonable questions to ask. It's totally ridiculous to delete sourced information from a reliable source (again, Qantara is less reliable than scholarship), and extra ridiculous to delete it with no rationale/apology/contradictory source, and completely ludicrous to do so when we've all agreed to not edit the article for the time being. Honestly, you know better. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[Changed slightly as I changed my mind] Regarding your long assertion that wikima and Jalil's objections are illusory, frankly I don't trust your reading of sources alone in the least bit, the Chad issue having been amply illustrative of your partisan djihad. Not that Jalil or wikima are less partisan, but they are sometimes more willing to compromise. At least when I have suggested non-partisan edits and phrasing (as recently on Arab World page). In present circumstances I see both sides engaging in the same old maximalism.
I also note I consider your presentations unreliable with a unrelenting tendency to edit to push the narrow POV agenda, I'm afraid I'm inclined to dismiss until there is a 3rd party read of the sourcing. Arre's observation regarding confirmation was rather more reasonable than your hand waving away objections.
Now, as for your last objection, primo I did not consider myself party to the edit war, but leaving that aside, the edit was based on what we already went through in Morocco-US FTA page and unconnected to the issue at hand. I see no reason to leave in items [e.g. as in the Chad item] where there is a clear factual error (at least as presented). There is no reason for me to apologise at all. Indeed, rather your continuous yapping on and closed mind rather leads me to expect some retraction or apology (in that alternative universe where you show some capacity to pull yourself out of pure partisanship). As we last left it, there is nothing in the Treaty Text or any direct enabling legislation that I am aware of defining out Western Sahara. Zero, none, nada. There is, it appears, a single declaration of the negotiator as to intent or political back-covering. Intent is great. However law is law. Now as to actual law, you are invited to reference the American State Department financed site http://www.moroccousafta.com/index_ang.htm and in particular the actual treaty text http://www.moroccousafta.com/ftafulltext.htm and tell me where the Treaty excludes any particular territory under Moroccan administration, as a matter of law. You will note in the treaty text, initial provisions there is the opportunity given under definition of territory to do so. As I pointed out to you in the past, this was not done. The non-binding statement reported in the press means fuck all, if there is not treaty text. Less probatively, but amusing nevertheless, the American government financed guide to the FTA, promotes the US Guv. supported Trade & Investment Guide of which the infrastructure portion amusingly includes (pages 130-131) http://www.moroccousafta.com/downloads/TIG07p3i-lPharmInfraFranchCinMajProj.pdf the W. Sahara. On a more practical and useful level, since me business is finance, and that includes indirectly trade finance, and covers the whole bloody Maghreb, I can report directly I aware of no function or effort on the part of the Americans to indicate they have attempted to insert Treaty text restricting exports, that is excluding as part of FTA. Now if you want to propose text that is in keeping with clear objective textual fact well, that's great.
So, lovely maps really. Perhaps they should be featured on the Morocco and Western Sahara pages as illustrative, eh? You know, more information is better and all that. collounsbury 11:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
However, I should add that the citation to the Taiwan / China pages is useful. The Taiwan China approach appears to me at a quick read to be more evenly balanced, summary (leaving out the inane level of detail this little circus features - this and the two related pages).
Finally, I do not see clear resolution on this, and as I think a clear non-partisan, I see only one resolution re declaration of statuses: for countries where there is substantive lack of clarity / dispute over their position [and here there is a clear difference btw the Sahara circus and Taiwan, Taiwan controls real territory and is a functioning state government for that territory, not merely aspirational, ergo generically other states will adopt clear-cut diplomatic recognitions] there should be clear flagging of ambiguity and/or an ambiguous position status category. As a matter of objective fact, reality suggests most states will maintain deliberate ambiguity, having nothing much to gain if they are not ideologically invested in the issue, to having clarity. Pretending the issue of recognition is clear cut where it will not be is a form of partisan dishonesty (which both sides are engaging in I may add). collounsbury 11:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sources again/still You don't "trust me reading of sources?" I copied the text word-for-word. If you want a third-party reading, you could, for instance, actually read the book. Simple. As an aside, I cannot believe that you whinge on about the Chad issue constantly. That having been said, if you doubt my credibility that gives you all the reason in the world to read the book in question. I've essentially taken it on faith that Jalil and Wikima never will and if they do, they will assume it is all lies for some reason. You, on the other hand, claim to be a third party and by and large you are, so why don't you read it?
Regarding your assertion of a POV, which exactly is the POV that I am trying to assert on this page? I am trying to have the most representative and informative article. It is Wikima that wants POV forks and to reduce the amount of relevant content.
I agree that false information should not be included in any article. No false information was in this article. There was a quote from someone knowledgeable about the topic with a source. You, who are not as knowledgeable (i.e. you did not negotiate this treaty), with no source, deleted his claim. This is irresponsible. If you have some source to contradict the substance of his claim, and show that his claim is not true in law or practice, then please provide one. If you do not, then what is the point?
How on earth you think the ROC/PRC pages are less detailed is beyond me. The simple fact that you keep on calling it "Taiwan" and misrepresenting simple facts shows that you are either pretty ignorant of the situation or you are conveniently ignoring things that you know are true. Or both. For instance, the ROC (not Taiwan; Taiwan is an island) controls a far smaller percentage of its claimed population and territory than does the SADR. Also, the SADR is recognized by more states than the ROC. I won't argue that the ROC has better infrastructure and government institutions than the SADR. It also has better infrastructure and institutions than, say, Mauritania. That has no bearing on its legal identification as a state, nor its role in administering the territory and population it does control. Also, in the ROC/PRC case, as in many other political disputes, policies of deliberate ambiguity abound. I agree that the same occurs with this dispute as well, but I fail to see how I have engaged in any kind of exploitation of that ambiguity. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Good bloody fucking lord. First with respect to the motherfucking US FTA responding to the goddamned fucking facts. I am a fucking financier and economist mate, I am pretty fucking knowledgeable and indeed have real world actual fucking experience using FTAs, etc. I reiterate, show me where the goddamned relevant treaty text - not political spin, ACTUAL FUCKING LEGAL MOTHERFUCKING TEXT and respond to the fucking issue, not hand wave about who negotiated what.
As for the Taiwan goddamned article, it's fucking easy - compare fucking like to like. The recognitions text is far more summary (of course as a blind partisan rational comparisons escape you). Only year - e.g.(1987, 1999) - and without special pleading.
This idiotic round robin and wilful distortion is exactly why I have no confidence in your quotations nor your characterisations. Chad, the MENA page items are merely illustrations of the utter impossibility of reasoning with you. (collounsbury 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
Right I'm the unreasonable one? Read what you wrote. I'll ask for the 84th time: please stop acting like a petulant child. Please. Thanks. Does anyone rational want to discuss things? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes you are being unreasonable and frankly dishonest. Instead of responding to substance, you play games. Petulant child indeed. collounsbury 18:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
My further observation: What is POV in your editing is a consistent attempt to inflate Polisario / SADR recognition and status, insert their particular take on events, and inflate said issues (e.g. the ridiculous intefada blather). In this instance, rather than reasonably allowing for ambiguity, you wish to disguise flagging interest in the issue (as well as flagging support) by maximising the clutter, and moving for counting the maximum checks on your side of the equation. This is not informative to persons newly coming to the subject, but rather dezinformatsia, or obscuring reality. Now, I am focusing on your POV pushing as wikima charmingly puts as you're the more egregiously unreasonable thick-headed actor at the moment - I want to be explicit in recognising Jalil and wikima's own counter game of trying to nitpick and minimalise.
As for your absurd pretension regarding Taiwan and territory, my dear little Indianian, "For instance, the ROC (not Taiwan; Taiwan is an island) controls a far smaller percentage of its claimed population and territory than does the SADR I can only say this illustrates your positively unambiguous extreme partisanship that you can make such a silly statement. In any event, I have to agree with Moroccan partisans that you are completely incapable of being reasoned with. No wonder you got banned. (collounsbury 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
Dishonest? Show me one example of being dishonest. One. If you can't, then you're a liar. I also defy you to show how the statement "For instance, the ROC (not Taiwan; Taiwan is an island) controls a far smaller percentage of its claimed population and territory than does the SADR" is in any way silly. You can't. It's factual and relevant. And, my dear Englandianierian, your asinine name-calling and deliberate stupidity prove you to be a hypocrite. You are being unreasonable by ranting and raving on the Internet. You don't need to scream to get my attention. Instead, you could act like a grown-up, which you do on occasion, but typically after resorting to swearing and your impenetrable slang ("bloody wanker whinge.") You are the one constantly playing games by talking about "re: primo the MENA/Chad djihad" over and over again, relevant to nothing at all. I still defend those edits because, again, they were sourced and relevant. And if you think I'm going to endlessly debate you over and over again about those edits, you're wrong. I am not trying to push a POV on this page other than representing facts as they exist. I have sourced my edits from the eminent scholars on the issue and I don't have to justify it more than that, but if you want further justification, I can simply say that the page as it existed prior to all of these ridiculous {{fact}} tags being inserted was not confusing nor obscuring. How on earth could anyone be confused by it? It was straight-forward, balanced, and informative. I am trying to maximize information, and it is the case that the information that I have at my disposal and which I find interesting is different than Wikima's (for instance.) He added several references about Moroccan "territorial integrity" from several sources far less reliable than mine, and I had no problem with that; I never objected out of hand to the presentation of relevant, sourced material. I was happy to have all of the sides' information present in a readable, factual manner. These POV allegations are bogus. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, dishonest. Your stealth reversions, and editing I consider dishonest. Going silent and then popping up with the same claims - never having responded to substance as in the US FTA I consider dishonest. The alternative is you're stupid or deluded.
Regardless, that is neither here nor there. I see no point in any sort of discussions with you since you're a complete and irrational partisan constantly whinging on. That you don't see your edits as POV merely speaks to your blindness and sheer partisanship. (collounsbury 10:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
Right You ignored the majority of what I had to say; I'll reciprocate. I would like to point out one ridiculous notion within your constant whinging (and this seems to keep on coming up in spite of the fact that I have made it crystal clear): I have never claimed that I don't write from a POV. Of course I do. Everyone does. That is a very different thing that pushing a POV on a page. The same thing is true of the absurdist argument that Wikima makes about sources: all sources have a POV; that does not disqualify them as sources due to the NPOV policy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: Put recognitions on "Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic"

  • Hi folks. I am back and see that the polemic is ongoing.
  • I want to suggest to move the whole section on recognitions to the "Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" page
  • This article is about Western Sahara and a link to that page is more than enough.
  • Putting the information and related discussion on that page will allow a potentially more accurate and easy to maintain single source of information. While we are discussing the topic here there is an other longer and compexer list of recognitions on that page as well.
Thanks for listening - wikima 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest not This has been suggested before and rejected; I see no reason why we should do this now. The whole point was to balance the article by including foreign relations of all sides/perspectives/etc. Why on earth would we split it? Explain to me please how a separate article would or could be more accurate? By that line of reasoning, there would be a separate article for every atom of information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a huuuge reason to do this step: Western Sahara is simply not the Sahrawi Republic and the article talks about the legal status of this territory.
  • It should be ok to mention the number of countreis that recognize the so-called repblic but there is no reaon to go in that level of details.
  • What we do have now is completely asymetric and unbalanced:
  1. We do have two versions of these countries list, one here and one on the article re the foreign relations of the so-called "sadr"
  2. We do have an article with a huge section on a topic which is not in its core.
  • If we want to be objectzive and encyclopaedic then we must move this section as stated above.
wikima 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Asymmetry? There are two articles precisely because it was copied and pasted from this page in the first place. It was a redundant article in violation of Wikipedia guidelines from the start. Saying that the page is asymmetrical because of detail is not apparently true to me, but even if that is true, all you would have to do is add more detail. I don't know that detail is a necessary condition of NPOV, though (see false balance.) Again, I don't see your argument holding any water. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A lst time, please read carefully and understand what others tell you:
  • The focus of this article is not the recognitions to the so-called sahrawi republic, right?
  • The details of this topic must be moved their where the it has its place: "foreign relations ..."
  • And nothing would prevent us to mention, in a summarised form, these recognitions.
  • Is it that difficult to understand?
wikima 22:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Condescending Please don't be so pedantic. The recognitions are summarized; there are hardly any details about them at all. And, as you well know, the article was moved several times without consensus or even discussion. It should be moved back to its original title anyway, so your argument really doesn't hold any water now. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikima: The article is going to stand as per your earlier convo w Fayssal, so rather than being merely intransigent about the Historical Dicco, work on something more productive, like a reasonable compromise on the issue of recognitions and presentation. Arre made very reasonable observations to which both you and Jalil reacted unreasonably. Edit warring over trivialities hardly achieves anything. collounsbury 12:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC).
  • Col, once for all: I don't like people who give lessons. We are all equal and I could write you a list of things you should do or not.
  • What I write here are my thoughts and opinions, so please say what you have to say and do let me express myself.
Thanks a lot - wikima 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't be such a pissy little prig. I really don't give a fuck what anyone here "likes" - I was giving you a bit of considered advice mate, an opinion of what might be better than merely running around in circles with the Saharan Djihadi. You're perfectly able to say whatever you bloody well want, my observation it's a waste of bloody time is merely that, an observation. (collounsbury 10:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
  • I could respond to you in worse language but my education does not permit (and I think wikipedia neither). I'll leave it.
  • Now, thanks for your advice, so, express your opinion on the subject or do whatever you like to do and let me do and say what I think is right and not what you think is right. Not difficult hopefully...
wikima 19:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About that time

Finally Since it has been two months since I was told to "Insert your sources back" I'm going to go ahead and do that. What has happened on this page is atrocious, and I'm planning on fixing it and getting about to expanding, creating, improving articles through WP:WSP. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about?. the sources so dear to you are already listed, and strangely, the only ones listed in the article. For other changes, you will want to use the talk page first, to avoid any edit war. When you do post (if you do), you will want to wait for input from others.--A Jalil 09:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You know exactly what I'm talking about; the source might be listed (although it is not the up-to-date edition), but the content of that source is deleted, which is sheer nonsense. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing US FTA

I changed the highly distorted referencing to the US FTA with Morocco, as the news citation incorrectly quotes a Trade Commissioner letter (of unclear legal value in the end, given the FTA text) as being from the treaty text and then incorrectly cited the Zoellick letter as a Presidential Letter (although it is clearly signed by Zoellick) and as an Executive Order. It is not clear to me where the conclusion of the Executive Order comes from, but unless I badly misunderstand the American system, a Trade Commissioner letter responding to Congressional questions is not an Order. The phrasing in that section was, it seems to me, deliberately misrepresenting. (collounsbury (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Improvement

I have put flags next to the countries that recognise the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I have also made a map to go with the table. Hopefully nobody disagrees with what i have done. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map

The map of countries recognizing SADR is way too complex. I have a much simpler idea:

Western Sahara - black, Countries recognizing SADR - green, Countries not recognizing SADR - grey 141.166.227.101 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you change it? I don't know how to edit maps on wikipedia. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've contacted the guy who made the map; basically he refuses to budge because he thinks the issue is too complex. I fail to see how it is any more complex than Kosovo or Taiwan, which use the three color format (black for the country, green for recognizing countries, grey for non-recognizing countries). 141.166.224.83 (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)