Talk:Sahrawi

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class 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

Contents

[edit] Neutrality

I think a lot of the neutrality issues can be cleared up by proper sourcing and referencing. I am adding the {{verify}} tag to this effect. Below are the list of differences in each version, there are problems with both. Daryou's problems will seem like less because he has been removing text from the article instead of adding it.

[edit] Issues with Koavf's version

  • Sahrawis' human rights are largely repressed in the Moroccan-controlled territories of Western Sahara, according to human rights reports
largely repressed smells of weasel words. What human rights are repressed? Specify, don't try and quantify.
-Done. Specific examples - political rights according to Freedom House, and due process and organized labor according to the U.S. State Department.
  • the liberalization which then transformed Moroccan political life has not generally reached Western Sahara, particularly for the Sahrawis' political expression
This needs a source. Not a livejournal source either. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch or even the UNPO should have loads on this. If you can't find a source, remove it.
-Done. Linked to the actual Freedom House article, not the LiveJournal post.
  • In 2005, mass graves of dead political dissidents, overwhelmingly Sahrawi, were uncovered and prisoners of conscience are kept in squalid conditions
Source, see above.
-Done. Linked from BBC.
  • In late 2005, Freedom House called Morocco one of the world's most repressive societies due to their treatment of the Sahrawis and occupation of the Sahara
Quote this, don't paraphrase it, hopefully this will avoid it being seen as contentious.
-Done. Explicit quotes have been placed within the text of the article.
  • While Polisario has faced some criticism for its treatment of prisoners of war in the 1980s, there have been few independent complaints of human rights violations against the civilian population; the camps are indeed often presented as a model for running refugee camps
Quantify, these complaints should be listed. This allows us to get around the problem of people replacing "some" with "much" or "a bit".
-Partially done. Some vague language deleted.
  • However, freedom of expression, association and movement are allegedly restricted in the Tindouf refugee camps [1], which points to possible democratic deficiencies.
What is the problem with this?
-The problem is that the Polisario claims that it is democratic. I have no problem with the wording as it is.
  • There are no current prisoners of war held by the Polisario, all of them having been released under international supervision in 2005.
Source, see above.
-Done. Link from BBC.
Seems colloquial, rephrase it.
-Done. Precise wording.

===>Fine I'll be happy to source/fix all of these. If I don't do it today, I'll do it once I get back from Christmas. Justin (koavf) 21:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you could do it today it would make it easier for all of us, otherwise I might as well revert to Daryou's version until you get back. - FrancisTyers 21:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with Daryou's version

  • The existence of legal ties of allegiance was the Moroccan main argument to annex Western Sahara.
No source, see above.
  • there was legal ties of allegiance between some tribes of the region and the sultan of Morocco, and also the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara.
What? Source this, hardly makes sense.
  • While Polisario has faced criticism for its treatment of prisoners of war since the 1980s, there has been some independent complaints of human rights violations against the civilian population; however the camps are sometimes presented as a model for running refugee camps
Agree with removal of "some", but you should specify what criticism.

I'm going to revert back to Koavf's version, add the verify tag. Daryou, please edit it instead of blind reverting. How about working on adding information regarding the human rights violations that occured in the refugee camps? If Koavf can't find sources then by all means remove the unsourced material. - FrancisTyers 21:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,
  • The existance of legal ties of allegiance are in fact the main argument of Morocco to annex WS, for example here is a quote from a speech of Mohamed IV "...thereby reaffirming the Beia (allegiance) which has always bound them to the glorious Alaouite Throne..."[2]
  • I copy-edited the sentence about ties with Morocco and Mauritania from the ICJ site
  • Critisism of treatment of prisoners of war: for example the reprot of Freedom house visiting mission in 1995 [3]

==> I sourced my edits as requested, there are still some unsourced or biased sourced edits by Koavf. Daryou 23:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Vague Can you give me something specific? What in the world are you talking about? Justin (koavf) 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Having a biased source is not an issue for now. It may turn out to be an issue, but the first thing that should be done is find sources. Then we can decide if they are sufficient or not. - FrancisTyers 00:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Hi, you'll note I've adjusted the ICJ ruling to Wikipedia:Footnotes, I think this will help us resolve the dispute if we list of references at the bottom of the article. This makes it easier to see where the source is coming from and reduce reliance on unreliable sources. If you agree, feel free to join in adjusting the article :) - FrancisTyers 23:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also added {{fact}} to sections that I think require references. Please provide references and then remove the tags. It may seem like a chore for something that is "obvious", but really I think it will help us iron out the dispute. - FrancisTyers 00:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

The talk page could use archiving, anyone object? - FrancisTyers 23:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No objection Daryou 14:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted some repeated information and copy-edited text directly from the ICJ verdict to avoid any misinterpretation, the subject is very sensible and this verdict was interpreted differently by the two sides of the conflict, so let's WP reader make his own opinion. Daryou 18:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daryou pushing Moroccan POV again

===>There is no room for "interpretation" If you read the ICJ's Advisory Opinion, they explicitly state that Morocco had no legitimate claim to sovereignty in the Sahara. It's not just "the Polisario's interpretation".

"On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity."

This is a simple, obvious fact that is not open to interpretation. Please stop pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda on this page. Justin (koavf) 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three versions

  • According to the Polisario Front these ties of allegiance never implied Moroccan soveriegnty and was denied by Moroccan authorities in the 1767 Marrakesh Treaty [4], the 1799 Meknes Treaty [5] and the 1895 Anglo-Moroccan Agreement [6]. However, these same treaties were used by the Moroccan party as evidence to prove their sovereignty over the territory before the [7] International Court of Justice.
  • These ties of allegiance never implied Moroccan soveriegnty, though, and it was explicitly denied by Moroccan authorities for centuries in the 1767 Marrakesh Treaty [8], the 1799 Meknes Treaty [9] and the 1895 Anglo-Moroccan Agreement [10]. However, these same treaties were used by the Moroccan party as evidence to prove their sovereignty over the territory before the [11] International Court of Justice.
  • These ties of allegiance were judged by the International Court of Justice to have never implied Moroccan soveriegnty. Soveriengty was also was explicitly denied by Moroccan authorities for centuries in the 1767 Marrakesh Treaty [12], the 1799 Meknes Treaty [13] and the 1895 Anglo-Moroccan Agreement [14]. However, these same treaties were used by the Moroccan party as evidence to prove their sovereignty over the territory before the [15] International Court of Justice.

I've re-worded it slightly and I hope you both agree that the current wording is more neutral as it explicitly states who is making the judgement. I think the article would benefit from a section explaining why the Moroccan government thinks it has rights over this territory. If I've got something wrong, please don't hesitate to change it, but I would appreciate being informed here also. - FrancisTyers 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The ties of allegiance was juged by the ICJ to have not implied Moroccan souvreinty when it judged the issue I mean in 1975, saying that allegiance never implied Moroccan souvreinty is completely untrue, at least Morocco controlled the area in the time of Almoravides and Almohades. In the other hand, the links to Meknes, Marrackesh and Anglo Moroccan treaties don't work, plus the site wsahara.net is completely biased to polisario's POV and don't report the whole treaties but an interpretation of them, it's among the polisario's propaganda. The whole paragraph is a pro-polisario interpretation of facts and don't add any new information. Thanks. Daryou 19:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you find better links to the full wordings of these treaties? It should be possible no? They are in the public domain. Erm, the links work for me, use the main page not the talk page as the references won't work on the talk page. I agree the source espouses a pro-Polisario point of view, but its more important to have a source than have none. I note there are still citation neededs outstanding. It would be helpful to concentrate on these before we get into a debate about the quality of the sources. Please consider adding more sourced information representing the Morrocon states point of view. - FrancisTyers 20:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I will reword the part These ties of allegiance were judged by the International Court of Justice to have not implied Moroccan soveriegnty. - FrancisTyers 20:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What about "According to Polisario, soveriengty was also was explicitly denied by Moroccan ...", as the sourses are pro-polisario? By the way should I use this page as a source? I think that Koavf will never accept.Daryou 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

No, your wording suggests that only Polisario thinks this and this is clearly not the case. It might be worded, According to the partial texts of the following treaties...? You can use whatever sources you like for now, in order to provide a well sourced article. Personally I think its better to use less obviously biased sources (e.g. I would scrap any source from wsahara.net or the Moroccan government - unless it was explicitly being quotes, and just use sources from Amnesty, the UN, HRW, ICJ etc.). However for now a source is better than no source. - FrancisTyers 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I must admit that it is tempting to remove this from the article until reliable links to the full text of the treaties is found. - FrancisTyers 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Let's be consistent If you look at the links on any controversial page, you will see pro- and anti-X material. For instance, abortion. I have no problem with mentioning the Moroccan position, or linking to the Moroccan government's site, but the content of the article should make it clear that the ICJ, and all states in the world deny the validity of Moroccan sovereignty in the region. Furthermore, the article is "Sahrawi", not "Moroccan government propaganda", so the interests, positions, and experiences of Sahrawis take precedence over what the Moroccan government has to say. If you can intelligibly and relevantly mention the Moroccan position, that's great. Justin (koavf) 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make is that in the question of sovereignty there should be so many fairly neutral sources (UN, ICJ etc.) that it really is unnecessary to have explicitly pro-Sahrawi sources. After all, the Moroccan government is pretty alone in its point of view. - FrancisTyers 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I beleive in your good faith but I see that you used the word "pro-Sahrawi", that's the problem, there is a confusion between Western Sahara and the SADR-Polisario, the conflict isn't between Morocco and Saharawis but between Morocco and Polisario. I agree with Koavf in one thing; the article is "Sahrawi" not "Polisario Propaganda". Morocco basees his claim upon the territory on the legal ties of allegiance which linked WS to Morocco during centuries, the ICJ said that there was no Moroccan souvreinty simply because WS was occupied by Spain when the ICJ juged the issue. This page is neutrally sourced (you can check it). WP is first of all an organ of information not of moral jugement, WP must report facts not POVs. In this conflict there is two versions of the history, the Moroccan one and the Polisario one. Let's write a facts article. I agree with Francis, only fairly neutral sources should be used. I never refused to use supposed neutral soureced information ever the HRW report. wsahara.net and similar sites shouldn't be used as sources in this article. Daryou 23:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a rewording as suggested above by Francis, I think it's OK now. Daryou 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tribal independence

Seems there has been something of an edit blitzkrieg here... I've been away for only a few days, and there's already an archived talk page :-) I'm not sure I follow what has happened so far, but I'll try to read up. Since I wrote most of this article, I would like to make one point about the last paragraph, on tribal allegiances etc.

I intentionally tried to steer this paragraph away from the sovereignty debate, for four reasons:

  • 1. The article is about the whole Sahrawi people, not about the modern territory of Western Sahara. Sahrawi history is not confined to this area, and the Sahrawis are not only the people in/from modern Western Sahara, as both Polisario and Morocco will agree. The ICJ debate, however, exclusively focuses on this limited section of Sahrawis, since they were the inhabiting indigenous people and held a possible right to self-determination.
  • 2. Several pages already detail the question of Western Sahara's independence, and are better suited to continue that debate. Most or all of them are referred to from this page.
  • 3. The point I really wanted to make with this paragraph, which I believe is incredibly important to understanding Sahrawi history and society, is that the Sahrawis were traditionally fully tribal. They lived in a tribal system, and this shaped their society and culture, as there was no central government, and everything was related to the tribe. This does not imply anything for the sovereignty debate, but it is tremendously important for the article. It would be a shame if this was drowned out or edited to pieces by yet another debate on the ICJ ruling. I hope everyone is aware that there is a special page on that verdict, and that any conflicting interpretations of it could be described there, instead of ballooning all over this page.
  • 4. Fear of edit wars that would damage the content and style of the article. QED.

Arre 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Feel free to split out that argument or use {{details|<pagename>}} to cut down the section and provide a link. Western Sahara soveriegnty debate might be a possible page name?
2. They should be referred to very clearly.
3. I understand.
4. Regarding edit wars, you could edit the section to how you want it in your userspace or on a subpage of this article and then we could look at it on the talk page to try and reach consensus. - FrancisTyers 17:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations

I'd like to make the following recommendations: What do people think? - FrancisTyers 18:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty

1. All discussion of soveriegnty should be kept in a separate article. I'm sure the Sahrawi people have a long history and this is only a fraction of it. ===>My two cents 1. All discussion of sovereignty? That seems excessive. You can't discuss Palestinians without discussing their political situation...

This article is not about the Palestinians. Sovereignty is not the be all and end all of the political situation, but it is a large issue -- at least judging from this talk page, which (imho) deserves it's own article.

===>There are several articles about the sovereignty issue

But I'm certainly not opposed to another article, as long as it doesn't simply regurgitate the plain facts of the others. I simply mentioned the Palestinians, since they are in a largely parallel situation, being militarily occupied refugees. Justin (koavf) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The sensible thing (imho) is having one article to discuss the sovereignty issue rather than many. Would you agree? - FrancisTyers 22:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perspectives

2. There should be a short one paragraph explaining both sides of the issue -- one from the Moroccan side, one from the SADR side and a {{details|<pagename>}} pointing to the main article.

2. That assumes that there are simply two positions. See Foreign relations of Western Sahara.

Ok, you got me, fine, a sentence each describing the major positions (not one per country). :)

[edit] Naming

3. This page should possibly be moved to Sahrawi people.

3. That would be inconsisnent with other people groups, as far as I'm aware... see Arab or Mongols as two examples I just came up with out of nowhere. Justin (koavf) 20:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking where Kurds and Turks point to, and French people, English people etc. I can see this isn't standardised. I wonder if there is a guideline anywhere... - FrancisTyers 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Some of those make sense For instance, "English" is a language, as well as a people. Moreover, I can understand what you're saying though, as there is apparently no standard (at least not one to which everyone is adhering.) Justin (koavf) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Francis. Daryou 20:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Why? Do you care to explain your reasoning? Justin (koavf) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I said that I completely agree with Francis, that means that my reasoning is similar to his one. Daryou 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, the manual of style recommends *people, at least for article text, although it doesn't specify article titles. [16] - FrancisTyers 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to human rights article

The article is so long ("This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see Wikipedia:Article size"). Maybe it would be better to copy-edit the human rights section into the specific article. What do you think? Daryou 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Wikipedia has many other Human_rights_in_X articles. - FrancisTyers 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Daryou 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to Remove POV and Ahistorical text

I edited the article down to a more concise, historically focused and neutral article on Sahraoua Hassaniya tribes. While this may be expanded and built on for clarity, it removes the ahistorical orientation of the original text. (collounsbury 04:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

===>Wha? You haven't edited this article at all. Are you confusing this with something else? -Justin (koavf), talk 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Patience child, I am have not saved it as of yet. Had second thoughts. (collounsbury 05:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
I note for the inevitable "wha" that I removed a block of argumentative and uncited text that merely spoke to "polisario going good secular things" as well as repitious text re tribes, etc. (collounsbury 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
I also note I tried to merge with Arre edits interveing while I was editing but may have fucked up.
a) Behave. Koavf has done nothing to deserve your harassment. Whatever political differences you may have with him (or me), he's the reason most of the material on Western Sahara exists at all.
b) Your latest edit brings loads of valuable info to the page but deletes even more (again: we are not constrained by lack of space. If you disagree with something, edit in the opposite view or contradicting sources instead of deleting sourced info). Also, it removes fact markers and stuff like that, which are on the page because of a drawn out editing war, and shouldn't be touched. In addition to that, as it stands now it needs a massive cleanup. There are broken links, jumbled sentences and misspellings all over the page. This is the problem with the kinds of massive edits you've made; I want to keep a lot of it, remove some of it, restore a lot of what was there before, and merge other parts. But there's just too much to handle in a single reedit.
c) So, my suggestion is that you revert it yourself, save it somewhere, and start dropping it in a couple of paragraphs at the time (after a spelling check). Otherwise we'll just end up with a revert war, mediation, vote and a page that looks and reads like shit. None the happier. Arre 06:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I have hardly harassed [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)], his interjection came, I responded. As for removing large amounts of text, I removed text that had fuck all to do with the ethnic/cultural issues and was merely special pleading for the political issue, as in e.g. the Sov. issue (which I boiled down to something relevant to ethnicity and the history at the very least). (collounsbury 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Purpose of page

Oh, and also, we have to decide what perspective to use. This article was about, and I think should be about, Sahrawis. There's another page on Moors. I agree that the distinction is hard to make, and the reasons for that should be very clear from what we write in both articles. Your edit seems to be going in the direction of an article on Hassaniya speaking tribes in general, which is fine, but then the Sahrawi and Moorish pages should go. That has its merits, but it would be immensely confusing for someone trying to figure out who lives in Western Sahara (or Mauritania) today.

I think that, since there's a lot of political attention to the Western Saharan Sahrawis (as opposed to Mauritanian Moors), one solution could be to create a three-way split, to get to keep all relevant information in one easily accessible page:

  • 1. Sahrawi people. A page on the political concept of a Sahrawi people as defined by the different sides in modern time, on the controversies surrounding this concept, and the differing views of its history, demographics etc. Does not extensively deal with culture, pre-modern historical background, etc, and also clearly states the difficulties in distinguishing Sahrawis from Moors, and how they are historically parts of the same community. Used as the nationality article for Western Sahara.
  • 2. Moorish people. As above, but for the Mauritanian Moorish community. Used as the nationality article for Mauritania.
  • 3. Hassaniya-speaking tribes (or Sahrawi-Moorish tribes, etc, whatever name is best). This deals with the whole ethnic community, its background, history, culture, religion, etc, but leaves modern history and political controversies largely for the two subpages. Used as a main background article and point of reference for both Sahrawi people and Moorish people.

Its a lot of work, but better than us demolishing Sahrawi and Moors because of different understandings of the terms. (That we'll demolish them anyway because of political conflict is another matter entirely.)

What say ye? Arre 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My edit, and I was getting tired at the end, was trying to walk a neutral line on the issue of the politics ( nationalism). The proposed three way split bothers me as it assumes a POV. I would think covering the Hassaniya Arabic speaking Saharan tribes can be done in one spot, with a note on political aspirations of some sub grouping. If you look at the original article you see a whole set of paragraphs of "special pleading" of why the Sahrawi are not to be confused with the "Moors" (itself a term that is less used than Beidan etc., the sub div) - a distinction simply is a modern political boot-strapping of an ethnic argument for indepedence (and not needed as quite simply the political argument stands on its, while the ethnic argument needs ahistorical and illogical hand waving). That being said, one could split out. (collounsbury 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
I should note that I tried to deliberately integrate into the existing information (which was higher quality, non-politically driven) on the Hassaniya Arabic speakers (as in the language, the Haratine which I personally upgraded, etc.), rather than have a stand-alone political article. (collounsbury 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC))


To expand on my note re inappropriate "special pleading" let me cite this paragraph
Post-colonial concept of "people" The difficulties in separating the Moorish and Sahrawi communities by ethnic, cultural or linguistic criteria does not necessarily negate the Sahrawi claims of being a people. Shared cross-border ethnicity is in fact very common in Africa, and indeed the entire post-colonial world. For example: the Arabness of both Egypt and Libya does not imply that the concept of an Egyptian and a Libyan people are invalid; nor does the Germanness of both Germans and Austrians (and some Swiss!) deny the modern existence of the German and Austrian peoples, in a social, cultural, political and legal meaning."
The paragraph is effectively special pleading for the Polisario POV, is explicetely phrased as a POV argument and frankly was just plopped down in the midst of the collection of text (I hesitate to call it an article, as articles should have a logical flow, thus my hostility to para by para edits - that's bad authoring). I am not hostile to the information contained therin (as such, although in fact each of the examples are highly debatable, and many Egyptians and Libyans would indeed argue that their Arabness does deny a specific people - the identity situ is complex to say the least), mind you, only to its poorly written and special pleading for a POV. In my edit I integrated the thought behind this by simply mentioning that colonial rule had led to distinguishing of the populations. Thus conveying in a neutral manner similar information. (collounsbury 18:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC))


I think I once wrote that, or much of it, and I agree it wasn't very well put. My motivation for having something of the kind in the article is that I felt (back then) that I had just gone on and on about how Moors and Sahrawis are the same people really, and how this is just a modern and political distinction. Which of course raises two issues: why and how would people still talk about a Sahrawi people as opposed too Moors (answer: because that's the way Africa is, and because of politics), and why there should be two separate articles for Moors and Sahrawis at all. Which is what I raised above: should there really?
Assuming there should be two articles, they should focus on what separates these two groups or peoples (i.e. politics, modern history, group demographics & their roles in Mauritania & WS/Morocco/Algeria respectively), and stick their similarities and common history on a third page to emphasize their common heritage. That was my suggestion above. I think this position is best. The issue of nationality and/or peoplehood is as political, as historical, as non-genetical and precisely as sensitive as it is with the Palestinian people - also a product of modern colonial history.
(I further don't agree that this distinction is a Polisario POV, even though I do agree it is largely an ideological or historico-political construction: Morocco also talks about Sahrawis (as in Moroccan Sahrawis, sequestered Sahrawis, poor kidnapped Sahrawis, ungrateful demonstrating Sahrawis, fake Sahrawis - really Malian-Touareg-Algerian mercenaries - etc), so does Mauritania (as in Sahrawi refugees in Mauritania), so does a sizable chunk of citizens of northern Mauritania (WS refugees & non-refugees who self-identify as Sahrawis), so does the UN, and so does blah blah. My point is that even if they were one and the same once, and they more or less were, "Sahrawi" and "Moor" are established as separate national identities today - because of the political dispute. This concept of "peoples" may not hold much weight scientifically (distinguishing DNA strands etc, or even culture and history), but then again, neither does Palestinian, or Syrian as opposed to being Levantine Arab.)
But if we still decide we shouldn't have two/three different articles, even then do we need a new name (who looks for "Moor" under "Sahrawi"?). The present situation, with you editing this page towards a general treatment of Hassaniya tribes when it's supposed to deal only with the Sahrawi part of that population, doesn't hold. Either you start focusing on Sahrawis, starting by us defining in the article what that is, or we move it all to Hassaniya tribes. Arre 11:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I wished to add returning to this after almost a year that the article is vastly improved. collounsbury 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Mauretania / Mauritania

Let me link to an issue that needs to be fixed with respect to Mauretania, link to the Mauritania talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mauritania#Spelling_in_Romanisation Our [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 11:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)] has gone and "corrected" to American spelling Mauritania with the arch if ignorant comment re ancient province versus Modern state. Discussion of disamb. page at the Mauretania site so an end can be put to this nonsense. (collounsbury 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

I don't care which spelling is used, but we shouldn't use two spellings for the same thing on one page. Arre 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where there is Sahara, there are Sahrawi

The word Sahrawi just means "person of the Sahara", just like Marrakshi is "a person from Marrakesh" and Ifrani "a person from Ifran". The word is not restricted to a specific part of the Sahara. It does not refer exclusively to nomads or Arab speaking people either. S710 09:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Have you ever seen the word "Sah(a)rawi" used in English for anyone other than the ethnic group of Moorish Berber-Arabs that speak Hassaniya? Are you going somewhere with this? "Arab" means someone who speaks Arabic, so if a Chinese national or a Canadian citizen born in India speak Arabic that doesn't make the Semitic people group of Arabs cease to exist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the meaning of ethnic here ? of the same race ? of the same gene pool ? All Sahrawi are white/black/in between ? S710 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The Early History - Part is not based on authorative sources. The two footnotes refer to anonymous texts. It is full of inaccuracies.S710 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sahrawi not exclusively apllied to nomads

The word Sahrawi is not especially reserved for the nomad population of the Sahara.S710 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you would have a hard time arguing this point with the Nomads who call themselves Sahrawi. I have just returned from spending a few weeks traveling with them and they do consider ONLY nomads as Sahrawi. They make a very strong point that Berbers, mountain tribes etc. are NOT Sahrawi. Only nomads. Jwphil 9 Feb 2007

What the nomadic Sahraouine consider to be proper usage is not necessarily general, I'd advise mere travellers to not to lap up everything partisan parties tell you. That being said, general usage in the Maghreb applies Sahraoui largely to Hassaniyah speaking tribes who are generally desert (Sahara) nomads. Wikipedia, whatever its low standards, should phrase it along those lines. collounsbury 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section Social and ethnic hierarchy

This section describes a situation that was only current in some parts of Mauretania in the 19th century. It cannot be used as a description of the current society of Western Sahara.S710 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually wonder if you have ever spent time with the Saharawi, or are you just referencing a text of some sort. I can tell you that at least most of what is said regarding the two main distinctions of Nomad / Black man is accurate. And they do draw distinctions between tribal types. There probably could be some more refined editing for this portion but to outright say it is a 19th century phenomenon is to overstate the issue. Jwphil 8 Feb 2007

Nomad-Black Man? You mean Noble-Servile if you wish to translate. But indeed, the divisions described continue to exist, especially in rural populations. collounsbury 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various Inaccuracies: Hassan II deciding in 2000, Berber language, etc

Although vastly improved over past versions, there are a number of queer factual errors. (i) Most queerly on the issue of Moroccan Sahraoui, the claim is made that Hassan II in 2000 refused to hold a referendum. This would be an odd occurance, insofar has Hassan II died in 1999. The cite does not appear to work. (ii)In the Demography / Ethnic section reference is made to the Tamazight berber language. The prevalent Berber dialect/language in the southern region is Chleuh (Tachelhit) or Shleuh to use anglophone transliteration. (iii) I see no basis for the dispute as to the social and ethnic hierarchy, which seems phrased in accurate and neutral terms (iv) Although not an inaccuracy as such, it would be good to conform the transliterations, which are a queer mix of English and French usages - e.g. Chorfa versus sheikh. While useful to give French and even Spanish alternatives, giving them alone for English langauge readers is likely to cause confusion. collounsbury 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • (i) - right, that would be m6 or his ministers. will change if the error remains.
  • (ii) - true, though "tamazight" is often used to mean "berber languages" in general. will change.
  • (iii) - i agree with this. i'll remove it, but if someone insists on there being a problem, please put the tag back and explain.
  • (iv) - i agree with this too. also, capitalization is very random. don't have the energy to do it myself right now, but perhaps later.
Arre 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black African?

I propose that black African be removed, it is not an ethnic label, merely a racial demography indigenous to the African continent. Sahrawis are in large part descendents of Saharan Berber tribes (whether belonging to Sanhaja or Masmuda is debateable as both took turns invading Moroccan Sahara). Today most Sahrawis speak a form of Darija similar to the Moroccan Arabic spoken in the south (regional dialect is conditional - the Berkani dialect correlates in part with Algerian Arabic for example). Actually, I propose a revision as well as a clean up, as the article contains certain inaccuracies.

As for black African ethnic groups indigenous to the Sahara and the Sahel, you may want to look up Fulani, the Fur, Wolof, and the Mandé (groups such as the Bambara, Mandinka, and Soninke).

I am not favourable to this because
(1) Racial demography can indeed be an ethnic label as well.
(2) Listing the specific groups present will be lengthy and not the main focus of this article - I am well aware of the Wolof, Peul, and others, thank you very much (not that the Fur have anything at all to do with this, being literally tens of thousands of kilos away).
(3) As for descent, it is rather obvious that the population is rather mixed in descent, Saharan Berbers themselves not being anything remotely like a 'racial' grouping.
(4) With respect to Sahraoui dialect, it's largely Hassani. While one can get into nit-picking differentiation (as you do), that hardly seems to have a place in a general encyclopedia article intended for non-specialist readers. (collounsbury 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC))
(1) Only in America, Africa has for a long time seen regional conflicts birthed from ethnic differences, I don't think I need to remind people of the Biafran war (a conflict between Sudanics and Bantoids, both of the same racial origin?).
(2) I was merely suggesting a premiss - something individuals could build on? And the Fur are a western Sudanic group, most likely, with historic origins in the Chad. They share similitudes to other western Sudanic speakers (that's why I included them).
(3) What do you mean by mixed? Are we talking along ethnic or racial lines? In any case most North Africans are a case of both anyway.
(4) I wasn't nit-picking, I'm trying to be politically correct. Something westerners haven't tried to be for quite some time now. Mainly why most of everyone don't consider North Africans, African, despite their status prior to Arabization. (Recently, I've even met people who didn't consider Ethiopians African, because they weren't black looking enough - whatever that means?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Primo: What the bloody fuck does Biafra have to do with the Sahraouine? Ethnic differences within Africa have fuck all to do with the issue of ethnic description in an English language encyclopedia (never mind the idiocy of the reference to "Sudanics" and "Bantoids" in re Biafra).
Secundo: The Fur have nothing whatsoever to do with the bloody populations of Mauretania and the Western Sahara. Sudanic is a regional appelation and not linguistic.
Further you are indeed nit-picking over issues utterly without connexion to the Western Sahara. Whatever bloody issues you have had re "Westerners" and nonesense with respect to Ethiopians, has nothing to do with this.
As to Sahraouine and Africanness, or Maghrebines and Africanness, well it all really depends on what one means by being African. If one means racially (using the term with full knowl. of the problematic of race), then obviously not.
I am reverting to the prior entry, this is knee jerking unlearned bollocks. (collounsbury 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC))
Did you read? I'll sum it for you, it basically means, that unlike in the U.S., where Black-American can be viewed as a seperate ethnic group from other types of American, Africa doesn't conscern itself with race to divide itself ethnically. All it takes are linguistic elements as well as cultural practices, to seperate people. The Biafran war was merely a contextual referrence, I could of mentioned Rwanda or any number of "Black African" countries where ethnic conflicts have risen, to prove that black in Africa is just what it is, a color designation (and by no means an ethnic marker).
Sudanic refers to both a regional territory and linguistic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family. It originally encompassed both the Eastern Sudanic and Western Sudanic subphylums, sequentially replaced by the 'Nilo-Saharan' and 'Niger-Congo' subphylums (respectively).
Over the years, several linguists have suggested a link between Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan, probably starting with Westermann's comparative work on the 'Sudanic' family in which 'Eastern Sudanic' (now classified as Nilo-Saharan) and 'Western Sudanic (now classified as Niger-Congo) were united.
It can't be nit-picking, when clearly no frigin' sane anthropologist would ever use ethnic groups and racial categories in the same context. It's like marking Biology and Sociology as the same shit, sure they're both sciences, but other than that, they have nothing in common.
What people consider African is there problem, I concern myself with what anthropologists state, and the fact is, no anthropologist would ever use the term "African" to denote race. At least not in this day and age. Quit gripin mayne, I didn't even attack you, all I stated was that Black African is an erroneous category to relate Sahrawis to on a cultural/ethnic level. The Songhai might sit better, they're actually a Berber/Mandé mix, and there was contact between their state and Western Sahara. (66.194.104.5) 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
I read perfectly well my snotty little kid, however your ranting does not convince. US blah blah is of no concern in this instance. The issue would be what ethnic categories are relavant to Western Sahara. Your trotting out unrelated examples - Biafra, Rwanda, etc - might impress someone else, but I am not in the least impressed. While not having written the original text, the ethnic marker there seems perfectly appropriate. Black African being the reference point for the Maghrebin & Saharans. Your overly precious trotting out of your new learning aside.
As for Sudanic usage, whatever. Again, stop trotting out terminology you clearly don't master to try to impress. The Fur remain having nothing whatsoever to do with the Western Sahara, and your hand-waving collapse the entire band of the Sahel - Sudan if you prefer archaic reference - has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of this particular article.
As for your strange little rant about "anthropologists" and the like, I fail to see what youve gotten yourself in a lather about, other than trying once again to pretend to more profound knowledge than you actually have. The question is not race or Anthropological usage (this not being I would add a specialist article for anthropologists), but ethnic categories in the context of one (rather ill-defined) ethnic group. Most certainly Black African seems a useful reference point - above all as the Sahrouaine of the Western Sahara are well above any direct contact with the Sahel populations (unlike their Mauretania cousins). Songhai also have fuck all to do with the subject. Peul, Wolof, but only in the Mauretanian context.
If you want something different, try Black African or Sub-Saharan ethnicities, pluralize. Throwing around Songhai, Mande and other such rot is mere ill-informed posturing. (collounsbury 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
I will add that the more I read the article, the less I like it. Listing Berber and Arab as related ethnic groups is as a sensible (or non-sensical) as Black Africa. Listing "Moor" as a seperate ethnic group is utterly non-sensical, and merely politics. Obsessing in this context over "Black Africa," which I presume the author inserted to acknowledge the undifferentiated sub-Saharan ancestry in the population which can't clearly be drawn to a particular neighbouring sub-Saharan ethnic group, is silly. (collounsbury 14:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC))
Lol, you seem to know me from somewhere? Where is that (I don't doubt it though, it's all good, your secret is safe with me)? In any case, little kid doesn't sit well, even if you are older. But enough regarding your attempt to ridicule, I simply stated "Black African" is a term inappropriate to refer as an ethnic group, as no ethnic group has ever been deemed "Black African". And what the hell does recent knowledge aquisition have to with this? I've been hearing Rwanda, Congo, Nigeria,... (insert country with any past civil wars) all my frigin' life. This hardly constitutes as recently aquired knowledge. Nigeria and Rwanda are old news muchacho.
Ah, whatever. The Fur in any case weren't even meant to be used in a serious pretext, if you read my original post, you'll notice me mentioning examples (that's all they were meant to be) of "Black African" ethnic groups indigenous to the Sahara and to the Sahel. All of which happen to have a "coincidental" connection linguistically and regionally. I didn't suggest for any of them to be used unless anyone could accurately prove a connection between them and the people of Western Sahara. I mean the Bambara? Yeh, I can really see it now.
My strange little rant just claims Black African can't be used to denote an ethnic group, as there is no such thing. "Black African" to allude to "Black African ethnic groups" shouldn't be used either, due to the confusing implication of its nature. And I wouldn't rule out Songhai/Sahrouine relations, they seem more likely (evidentally moreso) than Fur/Sahrouine relations. And once again, you're twisting my words, I never implied direct relation, as in Songhai influence was strong, but clearly there was contact (to an extent), and Songhai itself was influenced (to an extent), by Berber (with Manding being the base). In any case, there is no postulating, Manding influences were present in Western Sahara and the rest of NW Africa.
You make too many assumptions, I can assure you that my knowledge is neither recently aquired or made to impress, since I've already made it clear I give a shit about what others think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).