Talk:Moroccan Wall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Phrasing

"Since the barrier is in multiple sections a double barrier with a substantive distance its parts, many Sahrawis are captured in between the walls." -- This is incredibly poorly phrased.

Is it trying to say -- "Since, at many places, the barrier is a double barrier with a significant distance between the two halves, many Sahrawis are captured (arrested?) in the middle."

Or is it trying to say -- "Since, at many places, the barrier is a double barrier with a significant distance between the two halves, many Sahrawis are forced to live in this no-mans-land."

Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to edit as you understand the text. Best regards, Gidonb 17:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If I understood the text I would edit it. As I don't understand it, I can't and someone who knows about this topic needs to. --- sgb
In the meantime, I edited the texts with some help from your comments. Thanks and keep up the good work, Gidonb 07:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Just one thing: Bedouins that are living between the walls are permitted to cross at specified checkpoints, provided that they are unarmed. Morocco claims that the wall is not being used as a regular personnel stopping border, but as a military means to stop armed fighters. --213.146.115.42 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Material

Nice article on a fascinating subject everyone. I remember reading somewhere that it's the phosphate mines that the wall protects and that the money from these has paid for some very high tech monitoring techniques along the wall. Although I don't want to detract from the huge human cost, has anyone got any more details or pictures on the structure of the Wall itself? adamsan 20:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello Adamsan, I only found a map in a linked article. Unfortunately it is protected by copyright. No pictures. Gidonb 22:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed Statement

"Effectively, Polisario controls all areas to the east of the barrier; however, these areas are mostly uninhabited." This sentence is disputed by Morocco, which claims that its army and police forces regularly patrol the complete Western Sahara (the territory claimed by Morocco) on both sides of the Wall. They claim this by airing documentaries on TV and showing satellite pictures. Wether it is true or not, is difficult to assess. Since it's disputed, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? --213.146.115.42 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===>Sure. That's certainly fair. I'm all for including the relevant information. Justin (koavf) 18:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection against including Moroco's claim. gidonb 18:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I do, since it is plainly absurd. Morocco could not possibly patrol the whole of Western Sahara, since it is barred from this by UN peace keeping forces since 1991 (the mission is called MINURSO. I believe maps can be found at www.un.org). Only a few, limited breaches of this has ever been reported. Conversely, the Polisario is not allowed to approach the Moroccan positions (i.e. the wall). I have been to the Polisario held parts of Westenr Sahara, and while there are plenty of Polisario guerillas and bedouins, Moroccan soldiers or policemen would be shot on sight. -ARRE.

I do not doubt any of that. But since Marocco is a major actor in the dispute over the Western Sahara, its claims are important information to the reader. gidonb 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. If you can find a quote where the Moroccan king or some other high-ranking representative of the country says that its army controls all of WS, then it should be in the article. Along with an explanation that this is false (for reasons stated above, such as UN monitoring). The same procedure would be appropriate if Polisario claimed to control the royal palace in Rabat. Thing is, I've never seen any such statements from Morocco (although I don't doubt they could exist). Arre 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Zunes

Marsden, here's the information you requested:

  • "For most of the war, the Moroccans attempted to depict the Polisario as essentially an Algerian creation. Many strategic analysts in the United States have also depicted the conflict as something of a proxy war between the two most powerful Maghrebi states. However, Algeria supported another independence movement for a period in 1973, rebuffing requests for assistance from the Polisario. Following the launching of the armed struggle in Algeria gave some limited support to the Polisario,(12) not throwing their full support to the movement until 1975 and then, only reluctantly."
[...]
"The Algerians claim that their support for the Polisario is simply a matter of principle, of helping a neighboring country in need. Algerian support was crucial in the initial humanitarian relief efforts and in assisting the Polisario in its formation of the SADR, though Algeria has remained a respectful distance from the activities in the Polisario-controlled refugee camps, which - while located within Algerian territory - are given effective autonomy and the SADR flag flies alone. The Algerian approach to supporting the Polisario was a two-pronged military and diplomatic strategy: Keeping Morocco bogged down and embarrassed on the battlefield while winning a series of victories in the international arena. They were largely successful in this regard. Algerian President Houari Boumedienne refused to talk to Morocco on principle and had a strong ideological commitment to the Polisario. His successor, Chadli Benjedid, was more pragmatic and moderate than his predecessor, both in foreign and domestic policy, engaging in domestic liberalization and pursuing friendlier relations with the United States, France, and Morocco, but he continued Algeria's support for the Polisario. Far from being an Algerian puppet, the Polisario has always maintained a distinct identity in terms of its desire for independence, its own agenda distinct from Algeria's and its own autonomous political organization and decision-making. However, it is highly dependent on Algeria for food, supplies, arms, and sanctuary. Therefore, it has long been recognized that a major reduction or elimination of Algerian support would have serious consequences to the Sahrawi independence movement."
- Zunes, Stephen. (1995). "Algeria, the Maghreb Union, and the Western Sahara stalemate". Arab Studies Quarterly. Summer. v17 n3 p23(14).

I don't see any reference to the 1963 attack -- is there more? And it sounds like the characterization of Algeria's support for the Polisario as being part of a proxy war against Morocco is denied by Algeria -- shouldn't the article at the very least phrase this characterization as opinion rather than fact? Marsden 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Map

Great job for the article and maps, I just had a little comment with regards to the map you (Astrokey44) made. The western sahara was annexed to Morocco in 1975 after Spain transfered its administrative power to Morocco. After being handled administrative power by Spain, Morocco was meant to split the lower 1/3 of the western sahara with Mauritania. However, in the mid 80's, Mauritania renounced its claim over that region and thus the western sahara was fully annexed to Morocco. There were are few battles fought against the polisario and algeria in the late 1970's and 1980's and then in 1991 a ceasefire treaty was signed. With regards to your map with the different parts of the western sahara being annexed by morocco in different dates where did you get your information from? It is the first time I see this dates and the different parts of the western sahara being annexed to Morocco.

From what I know Morocco occupies most of the western sahara and even from the MINURSO MAP you used to make this map, the frontier behind the wall is in fact a demilitarized zone. So it is NOT under control of the polisario. The proof to this is that recently (summer 2006) the UN secretary general Kofi Annan condemned the polisario for entering into the demilitarized zone and had it filmed as propaganda to say that they occupy these uninhabited areas. SO in other words, the area you pointed out in yellow should be labeled "demilitarized zone".

Also, it is important to keep in mind that all this area is a desert so the borders are very pourous and very difficult to control. The wall built by Morocco is as a strategic defensive line and not as border line separating moroccan and polisario occupied territories.

Besides, great job ;).

izm

Hi izm!
  • First, the territory was annexed at two dates only: first the north in 75, then the south in 79. I don't think the maps say otherwise, but they do/did however show the different stages at which the walls were built -- a big project like that took many years to complete. That has nothing to do with annexation dates though.
  • Second, there is a demilitarized zone in the area, but it is very small. It extends just 5 kilometers eastwards from the barrier, plus 30 km of restricted access-areas on both sides of the wall, where troop movements are tightly monitored. The rest of the territory to the east of the berm is under Polisario control, and the Settlement Agreement's (1991) ceasefire terms specifies cantonization and containment of Polisario (ALPS) forces in these areas, just as it specifies the arrangement of Moroccan forces on the western side of the wall; but generally both parties move about as they please, away from the berm. The Polisario parades you refer to, that were condemned by Annan's report, took place in violation of the cantonization rules -- i.e, they grouped to many troops at one place in one time, without demanding clearance from Minurso. It was not because they entered into the Tifariti area -- Polisario forces have been stationed permanently there for decades, but in smaller numbers -- but because they breached the troop number rules. Similar rules apply to Morocco, and both Morocco and Polisario have been repeatedly reprimanded by different UN Secretary Generals since the start of the cease-fire for different violations of these terms, though, to date, nothing really serious has happened. However, and that's what tends to confuse people: it is a staple of official Moroccan government propaganda to refer to the whole area east of the wall as a "demilitarized zone" (just as Polisario calls it "liberated"), to give the impression that Polisario is there illegally -- while in fact Polisario forces are there on the same terms as the Moroccan forces in the rest of the territory, under the same (1991) cease-fire agreement. You can get the details of the cease-fire agreement in the UN reports (I suggest you read Annan's remarks first-hand in his report), and for example from this MINURSO page.
  • Third, the article is very clear that this is not a border line, but a military arrangement, and that both Morocco and Polisario claims the entire territory. So there should be no confusion there.
- Best regards, Arre 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I just want to say Astrokey44 did a terrific job with the map. This page just got so much better. Arre 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks alot! I hope it was alright - I was a little confused about one thing - area under Moroccan control. I think that Morocco controlled most of the country since 1975 or whenever it was, and its been the wall thats expanding (territorial expansion has not gone with the wall - they controlled most of the territory even though it wasnt all behind the wall). So I put it on the map as territory behind the wall by *year*, I hope thats right. I mean, they controlled most of the territory in 1982 but only part of it was behind the wall? I'm repeating myself here cause its confusing to explain, does that make any sense? Astrokey44 04:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
No, no, I understand what you mean. The answer is, of course, yes and no. The Moroccans did control more of the country than what was inside the wall, since they kept military bases along major roads and in some towns, too. Also they occasionally made offensives out of the walled areas, at which point the Polisario of course retreated away, but generally everybody just stayed put. Any position that was too far from the main force was sure to come under attack, and convoys in unsecured territory were frequently harrassed So the desert countryside was more or less Polisario territory until the wall got in place, and everything outside of it still is. In the early phases of the war, Polisario clearly controlled larger expanses of land than Morocco, although that land was of course economically worthless; the wall(s) changed all that. There is nothing wrong with your map, though, quite the contrary. It's excellent. Arre 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article has come a long way

As the original author of the article in English, I would like to compliment all participants, map makers, contributors and editors on the terrific progress made in this article from its humble beginnings. Keep up the good work, this article is an important venture from a human rights perspective! P.S. As a non-Sahrawi or Moroccan I am willing to assist occasionally in consensus building around texts or concepts, when necessary. gidonb 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Where on earth did the phrase "Moroccan Wall" come from? I have seen "Moroccan Sand Berm" / Barrier etc but never "Moroccan Wall." (Collounsbury 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I wrote this article first on the Dutch Wikipedia, after someone dumped a plagiarized text from an external website. Having done some webresearch on the issue, I later translated my article to English. From here it evolved into a much completer entry. Now to the alternatives: Moroccan Wall get 12,000 hits. [1], "Moroccan Sand Berm" 1 and "Moroccan berm" 17. "Moroccan barrier" gets 31 hits. These are huge differences. Of course there are other considerations than rating, but you would have to try to persuade the community to change it. gidonb 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am professional analyst and specialist in Middle Eastern and North African affaires. How's this: "I've never seen Moroccan Wall" in professional writing on the issue. I would rename this article "Moroccan Sand Wall." or "Moroccan Sand Berm." You can find both phrasing in international organisation writing (UN, ICBL.org). Moroccan Wall is simply poor usage and I only see it on the political activist pages.(collounsbury 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

===>Berm I've mostly seen it referred to as the berm, for what it's worth. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I also ran "Moroccan Sand Wall", which was not in your previous posting. It gets 3 hits. [2] gidonb 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If already barrier makes more sense, since it is second most common after Moroccan Wall. I think what you really need to do in order to get your case through is to establish why Moroccan Wall would be POV with respect to the actual structure. The fact that political activist pages also use this name does not make it POV. It only reinforces that this name is extremely wide used. It better be a good case, because 12,000 hits for Moroccan Wall against 31 hits for Moroccan barrier is a huge difference. I am listening. gidonb 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV has all to do with my complaint, which I cite "[it] is simply poor usage" What is this "I ran a google" search as "research"? Those google searches and counting hits are not research, not matter what some may think. Good lord, running a search on "Moroccan Wall" is useless , as it includes anything mentioning "Moroccan Wall" in any context. The proper way to judge the matter is to look at what professional usage is, as in what terminology is being used in international organisations writing (and not by blindly googling terms in quotes). I recall again for you that what I said it is poor usage and not something I have seen in my professional life. Incidentally, it only seems to show up on activist sites, which is merely noted in the context of poor quality writing. Next time you reply, at least spare me the use of google. (collounsbury 06:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

===>Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies? Here are three that are pretty important:

  1. Names - we use commmon names of persons and things. Ergo, searching Google is more valuable than looking in technical writing, as people who are not experts will be more likely to look up the former name than the latter.
  2. We're expected to be civil - talk like a respectful adult, even if you really aren't one.
  3. Be nice - don't use profanity and imply (or especially explicitly state) that the people with whom you are discussing are sub-literate. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my pious little friend. As to the substance, a google search is bloody useless, above all as structured in the link as it captures utterly irrelevant citations. In order to properly even use google like a literate, one has to structure a search to exclude irrelevancies. Use of NOT terms, inclusion of terms like "Western Sahara" as a quote limiter including variations. "Morocco Wall" by itself is worse than useless, it's deceptive. Thus depending on the writing of international organisations, especially PR type releases intended for a broad audience is best if one desires to find common usage without getting GIGO glurge. This is Basic Research Skills, something we professionals have an understanding of, kid. I'm bloody sick of seeing "I google X and got Z^10 results" as if that proved anything other than the person in question has zero understanding of search logic. (collounsbury 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
Do you actually expect to convince someone of your point through bottomless arrogance and extensive use of caps and bolding? How could an educated professional superhuman like your self not understand that it is hopeless? --Bjarki 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


  • I've read what collounsbury is saying and I aboslutely agrre with him
  • Moroccan wall is nonsense.
  • Google is indeed no argument
  • Activits pages are no arguments neither
  • I suggest to rename the title to Moroccan Sand Berm

Cheers wikima 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wall Comparison Not Valid

The comprarison of the Moroccan Wall with the walls in Israel and in Berlin is non valid.

  • Both walls were meant to separate urban areas and civilians. The Moroccan wall does not.
  • Morocco rather appeals to Algeria and Polisario to let the refugees in Tindouf leave the camps and join Morocco.
  • Both walls are political in first instance.
  • The Moroccan wall has no political relevance and pure military self-defense construction
  • Therefore it can be compared with other constructions fo this kind to protect soliders and territories such as ... in the wold wars, although the dimesions...
  • This is especially relevant as prop-polisario propaganda uses the contexte of the Israel-Palestina conflict in an attempt to gain the sympathy of the arab public opinion (Wall of shame, Intifada etc.)
  • Please discuss this topic instead of reverting without arguments. Thanks

Cheers wikima 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion here. In fact all three barriers, that inside Western Sahara and those along the boundaries Israel/inside the West Bank and between the Berlins all had a security purpose. The comparison is an important illustration for the Western reader, as these walls are so much more known to us. I hope you will now seize your one-sided deletions until after we reach some consensus and that you will stop making accusations of propaganda. Surely I have nothing in common with Polisario and just happened to take interest in the Moroccan Wall. In fact, I am the original author of the article. gidonb 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not convinced because you don't deliver answers to my reaction, especially that the wall is radically different from your comparisons.
  • Security is common to all walls, even to the ones of my kitchen.
  • This comparison is not necessary
  • This comparison is totally misleading as people get the picture the wall is an urban one that separates urban areas. This false.
  • I believe you have nothing to do with polisario. These propaganda nomenclature is used by polisarian propaganda though.
  • I suggest you find other comparisons with walls and berms that have been used in wars.
  • You can "google" as you seem to be liking to find.
  • Meanwhile this comparison must be removed.

Cheers wikima 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, the war between Polisario and Morocco is a low key war, especially the last few years. I believe there even is or was a formal ceasefire. Likewise the Israeli West Bank barrier was erected as a response to the Second Intifada. The Berlin Wall was erected in the framework of the Cold War and was one of its symbols. These comparisons are extremely helpful for Westerners, as we know the objects of comparison so much better. Please do not remove again without consensus. I do not think it is very relevant to this discussion what Polisario claims or does not claim. See the article Polisario if you are very interested in this organization. This article is about a structure that was erected by the Morrocan government, mostly in the Western Sahara. gidonb 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Sorry, you are talking fo a consensus but you are ignoring my arguments - I have put a dispute banner on the article.
  • The most important one is the this wall is a purely military berm.
  • And it is not even a physical wall as it is not that high.
  • If is like a firewall used in case of war for defence.
  • The other walls are purely urbain and political
  • The wall in the sahara is just like any defence line that countries would grab and charge with mine and other stuff to prevent the ennemy from crossing over.
  • You comparison is totally misleading!
  • If you have cases of such walls that have been built during wars (WW1 and WW2, Vietnam, Irak etc.) then bring them.
  • Since you like google, I suggest then search berm using the image option and you'll see the images you get.

wikima 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


  • If no reaction I will remove the banner and the line of comparison.
Cheers wikima 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, since all three structures are categorized in the same Category:Separation barriers there is no basis for your claims and for your pov warning. I have the utmost respect for your personal convictions, but this is not the place to advocate them. Regards, gidonb 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I am delivering arguments and logic for what I say. You cannot reduce this just to my "personal convictions"!
  • I would invite you to do the same and to respond to what other say. Thanks
wikima 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If you still believe the comparison is pov, please explain how this is possible while these better known structures are classified under exactly the same Wikipedia category. If you will not explain why the comparison nevertheless would be pov, the warning will be lifted. gidonb 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I was accidentally logged out, so I would like to clarify beyond doubt that it was me who lifted the warning in line with the above discussion and the edit summaries. gidonb 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The comparision between a military line of defence to keep armed guerilla from attacking towns as they did in the late 70s, and other walls or barriers separating parts of the same city is nonesense. What I have remarked in these articles is that objectivity is a big absent. Some are turning Wikipedia into a propaganda machine for one side in the Western Sahara conflict. It is better we agree on either removing the POVs, or putting both stances in, or unfortunately an edit-war will wage on the wikipedia pages. --SteveLo 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

===>They're similar, not same They are all separation barriers, so they are similar. Regardless of the materials used to compose it, or who is being kept where, they are similar. Also, the glib remarks about guerillas is not going to get people on your side. You forgot to mention the war of aggression waged by Moroccan occupiers and illegal settlers that created one of the 10 biggest refugee situations in the world, by the way. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and factual accuracy

===>Why? From which POV is this article written? Which facts are being called into question? If these questions can't be answered, then the banners need to be removed. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

=====> The Moroccan wall (berm) is a military defence wall erected in time of war on the battle field. It can be compared to other defence walls like the Siegfried line or the Maginot, or Bar-Lev walls. Comparing it to political walls which have nothing to do with military operations and are rather political and go even through the same city (Berlin) or through cities and villages and even run inside schools (Israeli separation barrier) is wrong, and full of bias. No similariy or analogy at all can be drawn, not even physicaly: the moroccan wall is a set of trenches, whereas the Berlin and Israeli walls are actually walls of concrete, several meters high. So the comparision with the Berlin and Israeli walls should be removed, and I don't mind replacing it with the Siegfried, Maginot, Bar-Lev comparision. --SteveLo 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay You neither addressed nor answered the questions I presented. The Israeli wall is a military defence wall erected in time of war on the battle field. I certainly have no objection to comparing it with other separation barriers, but you're still not answering *why* comparing it to others is illegitimate. You say that it's full of bias, but you don't explain where the bias lies - to or against whom is this comparison biased? The separation barriers that will likely be most familiar to readers are the Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, and the Israeli Wall, so they are convenient measurements. The Moroccan Wall is not a set of trenches; it is built up from the ground out of sand, it has guard towers with armed troops (pre-ceasefire at least), and is in the middle of one of the world's largest minefields. Clearly, it is a military defense wall, or else it wouldn't have soldiers and mines surrounding it. Again, you never actually answered the two questions I posed above. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


====>Okay. Here you are:

  • The article is written from the POV of Polisario. The Polisario-minded editors who inserted the comparision with the Berlin Wall and the Israeli Barrier simply want to transmit the bad reputation these two walls have to the Moroccan defensive wall. Every person free of bias, would not find it difficult to see that from every aspect (physical, rational behind its construction etc.), it cannot be compared to them but rather to other military walls. Honestly, what is the point in saying that the berm is longer than the Berlin Wall?. Who would expect the Berlin Wall, running through Berlin to even remotely be close to a berm running from nearly the Anti-Atlas to the Atlantic ocean?. ===> In my opinion, this sentence should be removed: "The barrier is longer than the Israeli West Bank barrier and the Berlin Wall."
  • "Because the barrier is doubled in many places, with a significant distance between the two halves, many Sahrawis live in this no man's land with profound constraints on mobility and accessibility.". This is quite ridiculous. The writer of this sentence was surely looking at the map in the article, that shows the different phases of building the wall, and thought that they are all existing today with minefields in between them. The reality is that when the outer berm was completed all the inner walls were removed and troops and mines were moved to the outer one. So behind the outer Wall there are no walls, no minefields, and no restriction on movement of the Sahrawis. ===> the quoted sentence is wrong ad should not be in the article.
  • The paragraph about "human rights" activists staging a show every year in front of the wall is useless rethoric. 50 persons or so have a paragraph for them in Wikipedia. That's fantastic. That does not need to be removed.
  • "Simlar but not the same", well why don't you compare it to the walls of fences separating the US from Mexico for example?. Or the walls built around Ceuta and Melilla. --SteveLo 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV?

  • If you can think of other separation barriers, feel free to add them. Again, these are the ones most familiar to people reading the article, so it gives context. If you want to mention the separation barrier with Mexico or between Ceuta and Melilla and Morocco, go ahead. I don't see why anyone would object.
  • This may be true. If you are correct, go ahead and take out this line.
  • How many persons are there at the demonstrations? How do you know this? How many makes a quorum for what should be mentioned? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I would object, strongly.
  • The wall in the Sahara can not be compared to the political border stuff between countries.
  • Again it is for military purpose only.
wikima 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not helpful Wikima, I asked you several simple, direct questions, and you took two and a half months to ignore them. Are you interested in discussion or not?
  • Why do you object? You gave no reasons.
  • Clearly it can; it is being compared right now. Why can't it be compared? You gave no reasons.
  • This is a non sequitur; it doesn't answer my questions, and you're not providing anything new to the discussion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

===> POV

  • On the contrary, that comparision means to take the subject out of context. The problem is not removed by me listing other walls, but in the removal of the false comparision to political walls in the existing text. --SteveLo 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Context Okay, how much context do we need? What is a "false comparison?" -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion not finished, why remove the POV?

  • I don't understand this. I don't have the feeling that there is an issue to the discussion.
  • I have a strong objection against this comparison.
  • The berm of the Sahara is a defense berm. It has nothing but NOTHING to do with walls such as in Berlin or Israel
  • Please leav the POV until this has been clarified! Thanks
wikima 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing the tag This is the first discussion in a month. I'm not going to leave on the tag indefinitely. We've been through this before. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think we are through.
  • I don't see any evidence for the comparison of a technical war defence line with political walls.
  • The remarks that I wrote and that are very similar to what Steve Lo says are simply not ansewered.
wikima 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removing the tag

Again If you don't want to discuss or provide any new information, there is no dispute. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

The image hanging out at the See Also section looks nice, but I can't see the wall − it could use a caption to explain where it is! Deuar 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

A "self-published" map being used in this article (homemade by "Astrokey44" (pseudonym), see File history, 3 November 2005) is a primary source and cannot legitimately be used as a secondary source in this article according to the Reliable sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. I therefore deleted it.S710 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) The Map was also published on: [ http://www.wsahara.net/morberm.html ], a partisan pro-Polisario website (bottom of the page).S710 11:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it appears to be a primary source, it was also very useful! − it shows the location of the wall in some detail, and is apparently not a copyright violation. For example, I found it a very useful aid to find the wall on Google maps satellite photos. It turned out to be largely quite accurate.
Currently, with it gone, the article is strongly lacking a diagram that shows the location of the structure. While a possible alternative might be the UN map from the external links, it suffers from two disabilities in comparison:
  1. I'm not sure whether including it would be a copyright violation
  2. The UN map does not show the internal barriers running from the outer "wall" to the coast.
In light of this, I think we should re-introduce the map (or some modified version of it) into the article for information purposes, but make it very clear that it is of dubious accuracy. For example like this:
Purported approximate location and construction dates of the walls
Purported approximate location and construction dates of the walls
  • It remains unsourced and unreliable. S710 12:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

  • [ http://countrystudies.us/algeria/157.htm ] Algeria. A Country Study, edited by Harold D. Nelson, chapter: National Security, section: Security Problems with Neighboring States (Country Studies/Area Handbook Series) ed. Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, 1985. (retrieved May 1, 2006)
  • Williams, Ian and Zunes, Stephen, [ http://www.fpif.org/papers/sahara2003.html ] "Self Determination Struggle in the Western Sahara Continues to Challenge the UN"], Foreign Policy in Focus Policy Report, September 2003. (retrieved May 1, 2006)

These footnotes did not refer to the quotation in the text or the "International reaction" to the wall. Therefore I deleted them.S710 10:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

I deleted the external link *Footage of the berm, courtesy YouTube It is not footage of the "berm" (fortified wall), but footage of a demonstration (author unknown, May 2005, place unknown).S710 11:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)