Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Mediation 2 Reverting to NPOV version 3 Things that need to be done in this article 4 That's what we can call a consenssus! 5 Other Wikipedias 6 Western Sahara and other similar cases 7 History 8 A disputed territory 9 Restoration of the "no flags" version of the infobox 10 Settlers vs. natives 11 Infobox 12 Response 13 Answers 14 RfC 15 Mediation 16 Reverting to NPOV version 17 Things that need to be done in this article 18 That's what we can call a consenssus! 19 Other Wikipedias 20 Western Sahara and other similar cases 21 History 22 A disputed territory 23 Restoration of the "no flags" version of the infobox 24 Settlers vs. natives 25 Infobox 26 Response

Mediation

Hello, I was asked by one of the participants of the current discussion to give a hand some days ago. I was unfortunately away and could not easily access Wikipedia. I see there were no comments in the past 3 days... but we can't leave the page protected for weeks now :-)

Can each party shortly identify each point on which he wishes a modification in the current article ? We could try to take them one by one ? Anthere.

Hello,

• In the "Culture" section, there is no information about culture in Moroccan controlled WS.
• There are no links to pro-moroccan web pages, maybe we can add a link to a moroccan governmental web page like this one http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/sahara.html
• There are so much pro-polisario links, maybe 2 or 3 are sufficient for readers to make their minds.
• The following sentences aren’t neutral or need reformulation or some evidence:

1. Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum, but it is obvious that Morocco, as the current de facto power in much of the territory, stood only to lose.
2. although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal and exhibiting a stark pro-Moroccan bias in comparison to the agreed-upon 1991 plan
3. His resignation followed several months of failed attempts to get Morocco to at least enter into formal negotiations on the plan, but he met with complete rejection.
4. After that, it quickly garnered widespread international support, culminating in the UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the plan in the summer of 2003. ==>Give me evidence
5. The new king, Mohammed VI of Morocco, opposes the concept of a referendum on independence, and has said Morocco will never agree to one. ==> Give me evidence
6. Morocco, resistant to the UN process

Peace Daryou 13:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

1. About Morocco's attitude to the referendum, I can't see the controversy. This is factual. One side (Polisario) has consistently demanded that the referendum be implemented, the other (Morocco) has consistently demanded changes in the rules, new voter criterion, delays, etc, etc, until recently changing its stand and proclaiming that it would never agree to a referendum where inpendence was an option. This is stated, written-down, spoken-out Moroccan policy, and you can find it for example in the Moroccan reply to the UN on the Baker plan.
2. That the Baker plan was pro-Moroccan compared to the 1991 plan is clear to anyone who reads it. Its the same old plan but with Morocco's suggestions added (3 way ballot, settler's can vote, autonomy first, policing rights during referendum, etc). This is not to say it is intrinsically pro-Moroccan (since a really pro-Moroccan position wouldn't challenge Rabat's sovereignty at all), but "in comparison with the 1991 plan" it obviously is. And that is important to point out.
3. The UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the Baker plan (B2) came in the form of SCR 1495 in July 2003. Read it yourself: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1495
4. Morocco is clearly uncomfortable with the UN process, and has always pushed for bilateral negotiations with Algeria to avoid having to confront the Polisario via the UN. It has support in this from France and, lately, the US. This is not POV, this is the basics of the conflict. I don't know if "resistant" is the best word (although it is correct), but please suggest a better one to get the point across.
5. Baker tried and failed because Morocco (as stated in its reply to the UN) wouldn't consider a referendum with independence as an option, despite having agreed to that, and despite that being the very core of the Baker Peace plan (and the Settlement Plan of 1991). This must be in the article. But if you're only after minor language changes, I see no problem with that. What would they be?
6. Sahrawi and Moroccan culture in the Moroccan-occupied parts is missing, yes. Since journalists aren't allowed in freely, it is of course hard to report on, and it hasn't helped that Morocco spent most of its occupation denying the existence of a separate Sahrawi culture. But if you have anything on the subject, by all means, write.
7. I'm not sure on the number of links, but of course the Moroccan position should be represented (for example with your suggestion), if it is not already. I suspect you have a pretty wide definition of "pro-Polisario", though... ;-)

salaam, ARRE.

Salam ARRE :)

• Thank you for your precisions. I think that there is a little problem of wording, We feel (or maybe I feel) that the article was written by an author who doesn't like the moroccan position so much. I'm not against presenting facts. I'm against presenting them in a biased way.
• I propose the folowing sentences:

1. Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum (stop).
2. although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal (stop)
3. His resignation followed months of failed attempts to get Morocco to enter into formal negotiations on the plan, and he met with rejection.
4. After that, it garnered widespread international support, the UN Security Council's endorsed the plan unanimously in the summer of 2003.
5. Morocco, unconfortable with the UN process.

• I'm not so fluent in English, I'll try to write on "culture" or ask the help of someone else.

Thanks and peace (salam) Daryou 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

===>A few points

• A link to the Moroccan government's page would be appropriate and desirable, if adequately described.
• Morocco has clearly blocked UN efforts to implement a referendum. You can read Erik Jensen's book if you'd like to learn more. In point of fact, this week, Morocco suggested a plan for autonomy, completely circumventing the referendum process. The problem with Moroccan resistance needs to be mentioned in order to write a factual and fair article, and is not "pro-Polisario", but rather pro-factual. There have also been difficulties posed by the Polsario, especially in voter identification, and that should be given fair treatment, also. Justin (koavf) 18:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello

It seems you are in agreement that information is missing on culture. However, though unfortunate, the first way to improve this... is to simply add content on the topic. Can any of you provide a bit of flesh on this issue ?

Could you possibly all together propose here a new set of external links so as to best represent both sides and provide various sources of information meant to best inform the readers ?

Daryou listed a collection of sentences which he thinks are unsuitable. Can you together work on each to propose a new version ? Maybe some of those will be very tough to agree on, but maybe others could be quickly fixed with a consensus ? Generally, the best way is to cite sources, facts, polls, studies, laws etc... For example, in the sentence "The new king, Mohammed VI of Morocco, opposes the concept of a referendum on independence, and has said Morocco will never agree to one.", if Mohammed VI said such a thing, it should be easy to cite a speech or an interview. If no public record can be used, then it can't be written he "said" such a thing.

Greetings

Anthere 20:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Daryou:

I'll go through your suggestions one by one.

1. The "both sides blamed each other"-thing. I don't think that's fair treatment or giving enough information. Both sides certainly blame each other (what would you expect?). But Morocco is fundamentally blocking the referendum from taking place by saying that it will implement neither the Settlement Plan nor the Baker Plan ... while the Polisario is asking practically every day for someone to force Morocco to hold the referendum, as previously agreed. I.e., one side really wants a quick vote, the other really doesn't. This has been the pattern since the early 90s, and hiding that behind "both sides blame each other" would be to make nonsense out of 15 years of diplomatic battles.

2. Well, we need to specify what the changes were as compared with the Settlement Plan (1991), but the wording could well be changed. Something like "and seemingly favourable to the Moroccan side in comparison with"-etc. I really don't care either way, but it needs to be in there that the plan had these very specific changes from 1991, and that they had all been requested by Morocco, not Polisario.

3. Erasing the "at least"-part is fine with me.

4. I really cannot see the difference between what you propose and what you complained about. Would you clarify the problem, please?

5. Uncomfortable replacing resistant? Okay, it actually sounds better.

And good luck with getting something on Sahrawi culture in the Moroccan-occupied parts, as you said, it should be in there.

ARRE

I see that we agree upon many points.

1 I agree with Koavf when he said : "There have also been difficulties posed by the Polsario, especially in voter identification, and that should be given fair treatment, also".

4 I think that what I propsed sounds better. If you don't see any problem we can use my wording.

I propose to add the following sentence as a begining: "The Moroccan government considerably invested in the social and economic development of the Moroccan controlled Western Sahara with special emphasis on education, modernisation and infrastructure. Several thousands Sahrawis study in Moroccan universities" in the culture section, my reference is here [1], It's actully a page written in french, sorry.

and remember that "To date, there have been few thorough studies of the culture due in part to the political situation. Some language and culture studies, mainly by French researchers, have been performed on Sahrawi communities in northern Mauritania"

Wikilove! Daryou 15:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What about I unprotect the page for you to make at least the changes you agree upon ? But I would suggest you only make the changes agreed before hand in the talk page. Please think well over the other ones before ? How about that ? Anthere

OK If every one agree, and what about the sentence that I want to add in "culture" section. What do Arre, Basiri, Asterion, Dark side, Fayssal and Koavf think about it? Daryou 00:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being busy lately. After reading your conversations here and in Google, I think that I have no problems with that. Thanks Anthere for your help. Cheers -- Svest 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to NPOV version

I have reverted the text to a NPOV version. Please DO think twice before starting another edit war. Many thanks Asterion 00:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Spanish as an official language. True it is spoken as a second language as in Northern Morocco but it is not an official language. I also removed the statement that MAD is used in occupied sector which contradicts the map featured in the article. Cheers -- Svest 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Svest, Spanish is listed as an official language in the Spanish, Portuguese and Serbian versions of Wikipedia (there are possibly more). Regarding the MAD issue, it could be rephrased NPOV to "used in Moroccan-controlled areas". Your thoughts? Asterion 12:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is listed on those versions. That's why WP is not 100% accurate. Cheers -- Svest 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

===>I read the constitution of the SADR and I couldn't find anything about an official language, but they call themselves an "Arab Republic", and by definition, Arabs are people that speak Arabic...

Svest, you are right about the official language. See Ch.1 Art.3: "La langue arabe est la langue nationale officielle". Regards, Asterion 16:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries Asterion. When I first saw it I was like confused. As I told you, it is used as a second language, same in the northern cities of Tetouan and Tangier. The official language is Arabic. The actual version states "none" and I don't understand that none. Cheers -- Svest 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

The infobox is corrected now. Cheers -- Svest 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

===>::Hi Svest, to make things a little more complicated, I just learned that the RASD-issued ID cards are in both Hassania Arabic and Spanish. They are also called 'DNI' as for the Spanish ones (Documento Nacional de Identidad) Asterion 16:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A comment to Asterion.
Please avoid using terms which could be misinterpretated. When several people are disagreeing on a version of an article, it is not a good idea to write "reverting to a NPOV version" as it implies that your preferred version is NPOV... while the other version is not. This in itself is a POV comment :-) So, please avoid inflaming. I saw much efforts from others to come to a consensus, so please try to be careful, it would really be appreciated. Thanks Anthere 17:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit it. You are right about just saying "reverting to NPOV" being "POV" in itself. Apologies to anyone offended. Asterion 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Things that need to be done in this article

===>Feel free to add to this list

• Additions to "culture"
• A map that includes the berm
• More information on naming conventions
• Further outside resources (?)
• An archive needs to be made of the Talk page ---> Done

I think we should keep the infobox information a separate article. This way, if conflicts occur with that particular information, the entire page won't need to be protected. Justin (koavf) 04:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea about the infobox. -- Svest 04:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what we can call a consenssus!

Anthere said before "What about I unprotect the page for you to make at least the changes you agree upon ? But I would suggest you only make the changes agreed before hand in the talk page. Please think well over the other ones before ? How about that ?" I see that you made a lot of changes in this page [2] without concenssus in contradiction with the principles of the Mediation. I see that you were waiting only for unproction and you haven't anything to do with a concenssus or a dialectical process. Really very smart. Daryou 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's so sad! Dark side 08:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>You're incorrect First off, you two grossly edited this article without any consensus. Second of all, I didn't change much in the article after it was unprotected (many of the wikifying links aren't even mine). In fact, I put in a pro-neutrality phrase. Third, I am using the dialectical process, by inviting people to list things that must be done to the article. Lastly, I imagine, although I couldn't prove it, that consensus just means agreeing with you. Plus, there's no need for personal attacks; that's just not very smart. Justin (koavf) 14:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===> First of all, thank you for your invitation.

Before unprotection, It was supposed that the only agreed before changes will be made,you did participate in the mediation process. It's true that you didn't make a lot of changes in the text. In the other hand you changed the infobox addind the flag of SADR in a page supposed neutral. Why didn't you say during the mediation process that you didn't agree on the previous infobox? And what does mean "consensus" after all, isn't it an agreement between the participants in a discussion? Maybe you think I'm not one? And what about the POV template?Daryou 15:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Certainly, you should have your say But, you still haven't justified leaving out the flag. I have provided evidence that it should stay:

• It is on dozens of other Wikipedias
• This same information is presented on other disputed territories
• Unlike those other territories, this one is actually recognized by dozens of states

You still need to justify removing it. Consensus does mean agreement, but it doesn't need to be unanimous. If you are the only person who disagrees, and we've discussed the issue at length, it is still okay to leave it in, especially considering that the information has been there for months prior to your edits. The burden remains on you to convince others. Justin (koavf) 17:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>POV template was removed and I just noticed that now. Cheers -- Svest 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

===>Misdirection: The infobox without flag was there when the page was protected and when Anthere proposed his mediation. You participated in the mediation process and you didn't say that you didn't agree about this infobox. Now the page is unprotected and you restored your version of the infobox (with informaton about SADR that has nothing to the here in the page WS). Sure this information was there for months, Saddam was also the president of Irak for YEARS, does it mean that he was rightful? For me the burden remains on you to convince others as you didn't suggest the modification of the infobox during the Mediation. Daryou 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Excuse me? I presented extensive evidence for keeping the infobox as it was. Feel free to see it on the archive. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was or was not rightful as a ruler, but the simple fact that his rule was the status quo for so long demands that you must have a reason to change it. The burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim. The page got locked shortly after Dark Side's edit as an accident of circumstance, and I had already presented my arguments for the infobox several times prior to that. Justin (koavf) 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Oops. I didn't realize it wasn't okay to change stuff yet, so I just added a sentence on the SADR constitution before reading this. It should be uncontroversial, since its just stating what is written in the constitution, and it's not related to anything that has been discussed here. If anyone takes offense, though, it can wait.

I think the article looks great now, and Daryou should make the wording changes he proposed so we can see how it looks then. About the flag and infobox, Justin is obviously right: it had been there for ages and it was removed just before the article was frozen. Its removal just before freezing of the article was completely random, and definitely without any kind of consensus (rather, under heavy protests).

Personally I also agree it should stay there: I can't see why Western Sahara should be a special case among occupied and disputed countries, who as Justin also pointed out, all have their flags&info present. And of all these nations, Western Sahara is also by far the more widely recognized and state-like. Additionally, the text makes perfectly clear what is the opinion of all sides, so it's not a question on hiding anything. But in any case, while we're discussing, status quo MUST be WITH the flag, since that's how it's been up until very, very recently.

About other Wikipedias (below), the Swedish wikipedia at least has the Western Sahara infobox. I've edited some stuff there, but it was present long before I came, and it's an original text.

Also, about the infobox: if you look up a collection of flags in any Swedish and I think most English dictionaries, you will find Western Sahara's flag there, under the heading "Western Sahara" (albeit with some kind of comment to point out it is disputed by Morocco). Not Morocco's flag and not a blank space.

ARRE

Other Wikipedias

I have a question about the argument "It is on dozens of other Wikipedias". Have you checked whether articles on dozen of wikipedias were essentially copies of the current english articles and if not, have you checked if the article on the other wikipedias was the result of the work of only one editor or possibly 50 editors ? I'd say that if articles on other languages are copies of the english, then the argument does not have much strength. If the article on the other wikipedias was the work of only a handful of editors, I'd say as well that it is unlikely to be the result of a carefully crafted and consensual work. I did not check myself :-)

Remember that this issue is a very controversial one, and clearly will take time to solve. You are several with different opinions right now. Remember that opinions by default can't be "right" or "wrong". They just reflect different state of minds. You being several people with various state of minds at the same time here are in the best position to make the best article on the topic. It will possibly take time. Take your time please. Anthere 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara and other similar cases

==>Response to Koavf: The example of Taiwan is relevant. The government of Republic of China isn't a government in exile, it does govern the whole territory and is recognized by 2 dozen nations. There is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the page of Republic of China. I propose to do the same with WS. The flag and other information about SADR can be used in the page SADR. I believe that's the best solution for a better neutrality. Cheers Dark side 19:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Taiwan/ROC versus Western Sahara/SADR I'm glad you mention the Taiwan/ROC issue, because it is similar is some respects and fundamentally different in others. Similarities:

• The area is disputed
• Different states recognize different governments as legitimate powers
• Neither (currently) has a seat at the UN.

Differences:

• Taiwan is a geographic entity that has existed for thousands of years, by necessity of being an island, whereas the area of Western Sahara has only existed since the treaties between French and Spanish colonizers between 1902 and 1914.
• The ROC and the PRC are competing governments of China. To recognize one, you must say that the other is illegitimate (per the PRC's laws on recognition). The Kingdom of Morocco seeks to annex the territory of the SADR, and not the other way around. Furthermore, the definition of "China" is not the same for the ROC and PRC.
• The ROC and PRC exist in a status quo that one party agrees can be perpetuated (the ROC). The conflict in Western Sahara must reach a resolution, according to the stated positions of the Kindom of Morocco and the SADR. Justin (koavf) 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Misdirection I really don't understand what is the relevance of the differencies you mentioned. ALL conflicts aren't similar in all points, it's impossible. I evoked the example of Taiwan mainly because of the points of similarity between those two conflicts. Remember that you use those points (recognition by other countries being one) as arguments in the Google Group [[3]] Dark side 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>The difference "Taiwan" is the name of an island. "Republic of China" is the name of a government that claims to be the rightful power over Mainland China, Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, and surrounding islands. The term "China" can refer to either the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China, or a purely historical entity. "Western Sahara" refers to a particular geographic entity, and the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is the government that claims to administer it. The difference would be like having separate articles for France and French Republic - there is no "France" outside of the French Republic. "Taiwan" has existed for thousands of years prior to a "Republic of China." Justin (koavf) 01:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

History

It looks like the history of the region only started when Spain occupied the territory. I added a chunck of info from the main article History of Western Sahara. Feel free to add relevant info if needed. Cheers -- Svest 20:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

A disputed territory

• Western Sahara [4], a Territory on the north-west coast of Africa bordered by Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria, was administered by Spain until 1976. Both Morocco and Mauritania affirmed their claim to the territory, a claim opposed by the POLISARIO Front. The United Nations has been seeking a settlement in Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the Territory, and the POLISARIO, supported by Algeria. (Mauritania renounced all claims to Western Sahara in 1979.) In 1979, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) also became active in seeking a peaceful solution of the conflict. 79 governments recognized the SADR as a legitimate power in WS; they are all countries of what was called the Third World. SADR was also admitted as a full member in the AU. In 1985, the United Nations Secretary-General, in cooperation with the OAU, initiated a mission of good offices leading to "the settlement proposals", which were accepted on 30 August 1988 by Morocco and the Front POLISARIO. In 1990, the Security Council approved the Secretary-General's report (S/21360) containing the full text of the settlement proposals and the outline of the Secretary-General's Plan for implementing them. On 29 April 1991, the Security Council, in its resolution 690 (1991), decided to establish the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Since 1989, 24 countries cancelled their recognition of SADR. Neither Morocco nor SADR are recognized by the UN as the legitimate powers in the territory. No country other than Morocco does recognize him as the Legitimate power in WS.
• WP is a free encyclopaedia; everyone can edit, discuss and give his opinions. The articles of WP are in a continuous changing as every day there is dozens of new users who are willing to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. Changes can be applied every day upon topics that was there for months or years, otherwise all WP would be protected. It is true that those changes are more difficult today as actually every change needs a consensus.
• Every WP page is written by some authors who know something upon the topic of the page. WP pages aren't similar as they are written by different authors making each article a unique experience. WP is a heterogenous collection of articles written by different authors.
• A general purpose encyclopaedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopaedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points. [5]
• The presentation of the flag, president, coat of arms, president, prime minister and national motto of SADR is surely useful for readers who may want to know more about this concerned party of the conflict. But this presentation could be interpreted by some readers as a recognition by WP of the SADR as a legitimate power in the territory and by then no neutral.
• I think personally that there are two solutions for a better neutrality of this article [6]:

1. Presentation of the same kind of useful information about another concerned party of the conflict (Morocco).
2. Or Presentation of an infobox with useful information about the territory without any information about the concerned parties.

Thanks. Daryou 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Why should we overturn precedent? Although it is possible that a user will be ill-informed enough to not read the article and assume a pro-Polisario stance, we cannot acquiesce to those readers. If you read the article, you will understand that it is a disputed territory. Even reading the infobox, you will understand that there is a government-in-exile. Keeping the infobox the way it is will keep it in line with similar situations such as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and Transnistria. This information is also present on other territories that are not declared independent, and it is used in almost every other Wikipedia's Western Sahara article where this information is presented. Justin (koavf) 01:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• As you said before While we are discussing the Western Sahara page, it is useful to confer with other pages that are similar. Those pages discuss similar geo-political entities in similar situations, and the decisions made on those pages are guidance for the decisions made on this one. I agree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. WP isn't written by the same author. I don't know anything about the conflicts that you mentioned but I do know many things about the WS conflict. I can assume that some authors of the article Abkhazia don't know many things about WS that I do know. Dark Side mentioned the example of Taiwan who looks at the first sight as similar to the WS' but you established a list of differences. I can mention the Palestinian territories; in this page there is no Palestinian flag, this flag you'll find it in the State of Palestine page. The state of Palestine is recognized by 94 countries and does have an Observer status in the UN General Assembly (SADR have no seat in the UN). The 2 conflicts have many similarities. But I'm sure that you'll find easily a lot of differences. I can assume that every conflict is unique; there are always differences dues to political, geographical and historical features. We are here in this moment to write the English page of WS.
• "This information is used in almost every other Wikipedia's Western Sahara article where this information is presented". I think that Anthere responded already to this argument. I will add just one thing, We are all here to write the WS English page as we all speak English (I confess that my English is very weak, and that doesn't help me so much). I speak fluently French. The French page of WS was for months like the English one now [7] until 26 August 2005, that day I personally launched the discussion upon the Infobox topic. A dialectical process begun and led to an infobox without flags. I confess that the discussion is a "little bit" more difficult in the English version. First, my English is rudimentary. Second, I found in the other side a political science major in a great American university who hopes to possibly become a social studies teacher, teach English in Taiwan or become a social worker; and who believes so much on the independance movements struggle for liberty, I named Justin (koavf). I really respect him. Now I'm waiting for his response ;)Daryou 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Thank you I appreciate your kind comments and diplomatic tone, Daryou. I honestly don't have much to say right now, as I'm heading off to the UN. I'm going to be presenting before the IV Committee on the "question of Western Sahara". I'll post how it went on my user page. Try to get along without me for a few days. Justin (koavf) 01:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What do Arre, Basiri and Asterion think about what I said above? And Ramadan moubarak said (Happy Ramadan) :)Daryou 15:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I'm completely with Justin here. He has presented a number of cases which match Western Sahara, and they all have flags. Palestine is a different case in many ways (the dispute there is mainly about the future borders, for one thing, in Western Sahara it is over existence or non-existence). But I do believe there should be a flag there too, since this claim-of-state is immensely relevant to the article, and is what sets the area apart from the rest of Palestine/Israel. I don't think I have the energy to fight that battle though... but if you do, good luck.

To make my case clearer: this article deals with Western Sahara as a separate territory. Morocco's opinion is that it is NOT a special territory, but rather part of the Southern Provinces. A Moroccan POV would therefore be to put the whole article under the main Morocco heading, and treat it as no more special than for example the Rif. Indeed this is the view seen in the Morocco article, as you can find for example El-Aaiun as a city under Moroccan rule -- along with the information that this is very much in dispute.

Your worry that a one-glance reader might interpret this infobox as signs of a pro-Polisario article... well, they might. In the same way as a viewer looking up Tibet might think we're all with the Dalai Lama (I am of course, but that's a different story). But we're not doing all this debating just to cater to people who won't read more than the first lines of our articles, are we? Anyone who reads the introduction of the article even casually will have enough information to know there are two sides of the story, and to understand what the flag-and-infobox relates to.

As a compromise I suggest we keep the present infobox and put this sentence below it: "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco".

But please do not remove it until we are all agreed.

ARRE

Restoration of the "no flags" version of the infobox

I will restore the "no flags" version of the infobox, OK? Daryou 21:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I restored the "no flags" version of the infobox, and applied the modifications that I suggested above in the Mediation section. If there is any problem, feel free to revert and discuss. Thanks :). Daryou 12:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that Koaf reverted without any explaination. I wonder why? I hope that he's all right! Daryou 18:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, there's been a lot of changes made...

The Baker chapter was damaged by editing, and I started straightening it out. Then I got into fixing some language stuff elswhere, and then added info on the oil debate, the human rights-situation etc. Some of that might be contested by others (I hope not & I think not), but since there was no info on this before I added it, I felt this must be better despite us fighting over older texts.

Daryou: I changed two things I believe you're responsible for.

1. Where is Western Sahara? South of Morocco's internationally recognized borders, of course, as anyone with an international map can see. Why are you changing this? They ARE Morocco's internationally recognized borders, and even if you believe WS should be part of Morocco, as a territory it is south of Morocco. Writing "internationally recognized" is actually a favor to the Moroccan side, since just stating that its "the border of Morocco" would imply there's no controversy to it. So for your own sake, leave it :-)

2. Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum. We talked about this, and I believe the basic motivation for both sides must be noted. That is important information, and also relevant to the rest of the text. Besides that, the chapter was screwed-up by editing, with uncompleted sentences and stuff.

And I would change the flag-stuff back, if I wasn't too scared of computers to try.

ARRE

Dear Arre

I reverted some of your additions mainly because of pro-polisario stance and lack of evidence. The human rights link doesn't work. Please stop making changes in the article without consensus or at least provide "neutral" and authentic ressources. Thanks. Daryou 16:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Settlers vs. natives

Fayssal keeps erasing the point I inserted about the settlers outnumbering the native Sahrawis, saying there's no way of knowing. Let's do the maths and find out.

In 1991, Morocco brought in some 170,000 settlers and stated that they were eligible voters, to smash the referendum planned for next year. In 1998 (after the '97 Houston accords once again made a referendum likely), they entered another batch of 50,000 people. That makes 220,000 settlers in only the eight years between 1991-98. Then we have the settlers who immigrated in 1975 to 1991, and all the settlers who have come in 1998-2005. Plus the fact that settlers have babies, too. And, sure, some may have gone back, and some have died, but there's no way we will find ourselves below 200,000 settlers today.

The article states that the present population in the whole occupied territory, including settlers, is circa 270,000 people. This leaves a maximum of somewhere around 70,000 for the native Sahrawis. Probably less.

And, I remind you, the indigenous Sahrawis according to the 1975 Spanish census were only 75,000 people. And even if its notoriously hard to head-count nomads, they would not have been significantly more than that. Of these, the bulk live in the Tindouf camps, but many have died and others have migrated away from the area. Natural population increase have been stumped by the camp conditions and by war.

In December 1999 the UN MINURSO mission published its final list of eligible voters. From the occupied territories population and the camp population combined, they found 86,425 eligible voters, i.e. proven 1975 Sahrawis and adult direct offspring. Morocco immediately launched a re-identification demand for 130,000 of its rejected candidates (i.e. adult settlers). Polisario also had quite a few people in their camps who did not qualify (because they had not been included in the Spanish census for various reasons, or because they could not prove their heritage with documents or through relatives), but made no similar demand for a recount, bowing to the Security Council's request to stop the appeals procedure.

Morocco has also indicated at times that some of its army personnel should be given the vote, and it is likely this demand will return now that the Baker II Plan states that the voter qualification criterion is long-term residence, not being ethnically/politically Sahrawi. Many officers and other military personnel have been stationed for a long time in the area.

(How absurdly unjust, by the way, since the referendum is supposed to be about Sahrawi self-determination. It's like having the Israeli army and settlers vote on a Palestinian state...)

But anyway. What I wrote in the article was the following. You removed the bold part:

"The precise size of the population is not known due to political controversy, but it clear that the Moroccan settlers and soldiers now outnumber native Sahrawis."

I repeat:

86,425 documented, over-18 Sahrawis in THE WHOLE population, the largest number in the camps. In the territory there were AT LEAST 130,000 additional Moroccan settlers over 18 years of age, namely the people Morocco appealed for.

If you add the troops (often given as 160,000), there is no question what so ever that the settlers + army outnumber the Sahrawis in the occupied territories. It even seems pretty clear that the settlers themselves heavily outnumber the Sahrawis, without counting the army, but I didn't even write that.

I will now, though. Please leave it in there.

ARRE

Infobox

Dear ARRE You said that the case of Palestine is about borders and not about existence. Maybe you don’t know that the State of Palstine isn’t recognized by Israel and 100 countries, and the question of existence is still put forth. I agree that the case of Palestine is different; I’ve already said that every conflict has particular historical, geographical and political features. In the articles of Abkhazia and the others you’ll find many differences. We are here to write and discuss the article "WS", this article deals with Western Sahara as a disputed territory and is supposed to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that the concerned parties of the conflict can agree, according to the principles of neutrality of WP. You said that a reader who reads only the infobox might interpret it as a sign of pro-polisario stance and he have to read more lines to understand that there is two sides of the story. And you suggested adding the sentence "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco" below the infobox!!! I see that you finally agree that this infobox reflects a pro-polisario stance and that its information is disputed by the other concerned party of the conflict. If both of us agree that this infobox isn’t neutral, are we forced to keep it?! Surly no!! Daryou 15:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Not an admission of anything He's not saying the infobox is pro-Polisario - he's saying someone might get that impression from merely glancing at it. (Of course, if someone merely glanced at the infobox, and didn't read the article, they probably wouldn't even know what "Polisario" meant...) You could get the impression that the Abkhazia infobox is pro-separatist, but I would like to give the Wikipedia readership more credit than the assumption they're only going to skim the infobox. Justin (koavf) 15:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===> Misdirection: What about his suggestion of adding the sentence "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco" below the infobox ?! Isn't it a recognition of an anti-Moroccan and pro polisario stance?!! I would like to give the Wikipedia readership more credit by writing a neutral article with a neutral infobox. Daryou 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Precedent No. That information is not present on any other infobox of any other disputed region, so it doesn't belong here. Clearly, you don't want to give the editors credit, or else you wouldn't continue reverting and fighting with them. The infobox is neutral, and identical to many others on other Wikipedias, and similar to articles that are similar on this Wikipedia. Justin (koavf) 16:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===> you didn't answer the question: What about his suggestion of adding the sentence "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco" below the infobox ?! Isn't it a recognition of an anti-Moroccan and pro polisario stance?!! Daryou 17:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>I did answer the question: No. Justin (koavf) 18:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Would you provide us some explanations please? Daryou 18:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Alright, you two, this is what I meant: The Infobox has to be there, to conform to the established standard etc (arguments above). Anything else would not be neutral, but rather treating Western Sahara as a special case due to the objections of one side. Adding the line about Morocco was meant as a compromise to stop you and others from deleting it and generally wrecking the article.

Whichever way... Daryou: I think your latest, major overhaul of the article is blatantly political, and an example of sabotage rather than normal editing. I agree some of the stuff I had added needed re-phrasing (the stuff on literacy was rhetorical and POV, and you were quite right to change it; the parts on Spanish ID cards -- which I didn't write -- was probably relevant, but badly placed in the article... etc).

But how can you justify removing ALL information on human rights under the political heading? That is THE major controversy right now & Freedom House is as far as I know one of the most respected democracy monitors in existence. And http://www.freedomhouse.org works just fine; I'm using it right now. If its supposed to be written some other way in Wikipedia (I'm no good at this), then help me out instead of deleting it.

How can you justify removing ALL information on the settlement process under demography? Especially since I spent loads of text explaining (above) how the settlers comprise the majority of the population? Is this not relevant to an article on the demography of Western Sahara?!

How can you justify removing ALL information on the oil exploration debate under economy? The possible presence of oil is the major economic question facing Western Sahara today, and the UN decision was ground-breaking in determining the future economic prospects of the area and the conflict.

Why would you delete that the MINURSO found that the largest single portion of native Sahrawis are living in the camps? That's at the core of the whole voter eligibility debate.

And, finally, why is the article not supposed to mention the explicit Moroccan refusal to negotiate on a referendum of independence (as opposed to autonomy), despite previously signing contracts on that principle? This was the kingdom's prime objection to the Baker II plan!

If you feel information is left out, please add it yourself; I am very interested to read it. I'm eagerly expecting something on Sahrawi culture under Moroccan rule, for example, since you complained that was missing. But do not remove non-disputed information that is highly relevant to the conflict and the article, just because you don't like the implications of it (such as the fact that the UN says Western Sahara cannot be exploited economically, under the headline "Economy").

Arre 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

• First, there is no need to resort to persoal attacks and to use words like "wrecking" and "sabotage", I never accused you, so stop accusing me.

These were not intended as attacks on you, but rather as criticism of your last edit, which I think was damaging. But I didn't mean to offend you personally. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I already said that I reverted some of your additions because of pro-polisario stance and mainly because of lack of evidence. I already asked you to stop changing the text without consensus and without providing authentic and neutral evidence, for example really working internet links. There is also speculations about repression of human rights in Tindouf Camps but I never added such information in the article.

What you said: Yes, you I know you said you deleted some additions, but you have not even tried to explain why. How is it "pro-Polisario" to mention that the UN has banned economic exploitation of Western Sahara, with a quote, under the heading "economy"? I asked you point-by-point about the deletions I could not understand or accept, and I believe you should respond to that. Anyway, I was not changing stuff we didn't agree about, but adding topics that were clearly missing from the article. I think there's a huge difference; and, you know, its not like you haven't done the same.

The link freedomhouse.org: As I said above, the Internet link works fine. If you can't access it, something's wrong with your computer.

The need for more hr-information: About alleged Polisario abuse in the refugee camps, feel free to add or suggest such information under the Western Sahara, Polisario or Tindouf headings. I know very little about it (and what I know is mostly really corny propaganda stuff like "Polisario is not a Sahrawi movement, but a front for Fidel Castro's child-slave-labor-trafficking mafia"). I do agree though that there is probably some legitimate criticism on treatment of former POW:s, and when we expand to have a broad human rights treatment, this could be mentioned, although it is and should be kept to a minor part of the bigger picture. Your deleting of all information on human rights is not helpful in that respect, though.Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• You say that there is a precedent, I've responded to this argument in the "A disputed territory" section [8], I see that no one responded point by point to my argumentation there.

Justin has argued extensively for this, and while I've basically agreed with him, I also had some comments on this. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• The current version of the infobox isn't neutral because of anti-Moroccan and Pro-polisario stance, I request to restore the "no flags infobox" who provides useful information about the disputed territory without any pro-moroccan or pro-polisario stance.

I don't agree this information is pro-Polisario (since the article is both about the geographic territory of Western Sahara, and the non-self-governing country/nation Western Sahara). But I do agree we should try to resolve this issue as soon as possible, whatever the outcome (note: this doesn't mean you can delete it right away ;-). If possible, I think we should compromise. I suggested having a "this is disputed by Morocco"-line under it, what is your take on that? Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I understand that it is difficult for users who believes so much in the struggle of Polisario to delete the flag of SADR as it is their symbol. I would like you to remember that WP is a free and neutral encyclopedia who belongs to every one. So stop using it as a weapon in your struggle.

This is the same point as above. I don't agree with your interpretation, of course, and I am not doing this out of support for Polisario: the same info could be moved to the SADR or whereever, and Western Sahara would be no more or less occupied. Rather, I genuinely believe it is supposed to be in the article, for reasons stated above. The Western Sahara flag is used extensively by non-supporters of the SADR, to signify the territory of Western Sahara, disputed or not. I guess not in Morocco, but its evident in loads of Swedish, English and other dictionaries and geographic material that I've checked. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like you to respond point by point to my reasoning. Thanks.

Daryou 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Done, and no hard feelings for disagreeing, okay? I'm sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive before. Now, though, I would like you to answer to my points made above about settlement/demographics, exploitation/economy etc, and explain what can and can't stay, and why. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse-me!!! where do you find in this article that it is about the "non-self-governing country/nation Western Sahara"?????!!!!, It seems to me that you are a little bit confused. Maybe you should re-read the article. A little tip: Search in the article (including previous versions) the words "territory", "state", "nation" and "country" using the serach tool of your internet explorer (and please don't feel offended, it's not personal).
• I was personally offended when you said that my last edits were damaging.
• "Justin has argued extensively for this": ==>The only response that I find is this one: "Thank you I appreciate your kind comments and diplomatic tone, Daryou. I honestly don't have much to say right now, as I'm heading off to the UN. I'm going to be presenting before the IV Committee on the "question of Western Sahara". I'll post how it went on my user page. Try to get along without me for a few days"
• I guess that the Swedish, English and other dictionaries and geographic material that you've checked are a little bit ill informed about the conflict. I’m sure that you can find if you want plenty of dictionaries that don’t do the same thing.
• Here are your suggested additions with my responses:

1. "The practice of treating Western Sahara as a "normal" part of Morocco is however contradicted by numerous human rights reports that point out that there is a sharp difference in the way the authorities act in the occupied territories and in Morocco proper":==>Anti-Moroccan stance and lack of evidence.
2. "Western Sahara remains one of the most politically repressed territories in the world according to the democracy monitoring organization Freedom House":==> Give me a link to the Freedom house page who speaks about WS (not the main page of the organization). According to the US department of state "The Polisario reportedly restricts freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and movement in its camps near Tindouf in southwestern Algeria" [9]. According to Amnesty international:"Polisario camps: Freedom of expression, association and movement continued to be restricted in the camps controlled by the Polisario Front near Tindouf in southwestern Algeria. Those responsible for human rights abuses in the camps in previous years continued to enjoy impunity. The Polisario authorities failed to hand over perpetrators still resident in the camps to the Algerian authorities to be brought to justice and the Moroccan authorities failed to bring to justice the perpetrators of abuses in the Polisario camps present on its territory"[10]
3. "In practice, settlement activities and anti-independence policing has taken precedence over normalizing the situation in the "southern provinces":==>It’s your POV.
4. "This initiated a debate on the legality of exploiting occupied territory. In 2002 the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs through its Under-Secretary General Hans Corell ruled such exploitation illegal, stating that...the exploitation and plundering of the marine and other natural resources of colonial and Non-Self-Governing Territories by Foreign economic interests, in violation of the relevant resolution of the United Nations, is a threat to the integrity and prosperity of these territories": ==>Give me an internet link.
5. "These 86,425 Sahrawis were dispersed between occupied Western Sahara and the refugee camps in Algeria, as well as smaller numbers in Morocco, Mauritania and other places of exile, with the largest number found in the camps": ==>According to the Minurso: "In 2002 the total population for the region was recorded at 461,000 with aprox 150,000 of those currently residing in refugee camps"[11]

Thanks Daryou 22:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What the...? I wrote a really long answer to all this, but now its not here? But I can't find it in the History thread either, so I must have messed it up myself somehow. Quick answers, maybe I'll get back in more detail later:

• Justin's written a lot, but maybe its in the archived part of the talk page. I agree with him. The point I added (better explained in the lost version) was that the article deals with WS not only as a geographic territory, but as a nation and a conflict (but that doesn't mean it's an independent state). Leaving out its political characteristics as a nation (including its recognized representatives etc) would be the same kind of error as pretending that East Timor was just plain old Indonesia during the occupation years. It was not. The correct thing in that case (too) was to present full information on the quasi-country and nation of Western Sahara, coupled with full information on the political status of the actual territory (incl. its non-independence), but also add explicitly that the occupiers' standpoint is that its just a normal, integrated part of Indonesia/Morocco without any need for political debate at all.

• References to credible Tindouf abuse information (such as the one you give from Amnesty) should be present in one or several articles if we have human rights info at all. Presently we don't, since you deleted it.

• The Freedom House link works fine. Navigate it or search it, for the "Map of Freedom" (Morocco proper is colored yellow for "partly free", Western Sahara is dark purple for "not free") and the Country Reports. In the case of Moroccan-controlled WS (as opposed to Morocco; they get radically different scores. with WS having the worst possible grade for political freedom along with North Korea and Libya and some other political meltdowns), look for the disputed/occupied/associated/something territories heading. This was intended as backing for my claim that human rights org's say there's a major difference in the way the two are governed; Amnesty, HRW and others also makes this very clear in their reports. You will also frequently find it in whatever news media writes on the subject. Other hints on the differences in political climate are:

1. The expulsion of some ten journalists in the last year from WS, and none from Morocco.

2. The fact that out of 50 victims in the recently dug-up mass graves in former Moroccan prison camps (check NYT and other newspapers), 41 were Sahrawi. If that's anything to go by, and assuming I've done my maths correctly -- you will, if you compare population sizes, find that you were 82 times more likely to get murdered for political reasons if you were Sahrawi than if you were Moroccan. Go figure!

• The oil thing -- just google part of the quote. I took it from Global Policy-something, but I've seen this and other parts of Corell's statement quoted in all kinds of places.

• The 86K Sahrawis are the documented native WS Sahrawis, and the largest single group of them live in the camps. Your 461,000 are the total population, as stated, including settlers. This is again proof that we are right to say that the settlers outnumber original Sahrawi inhabitants, since over 250-300,000 people (i.e. the total pop. minus the camps) is definitely more than whatever portion of the 86,000 resides in WS. If you don't understand what the differences between the categories are, please read my Settlers vs. Natives text again. For more info on the 86,000, check UNSG reports of 1999.

• A last point about the Infobox. I am not supporting Justin's (and others') case because "I love the Polisario" or anything like it. With or without a flag in the Infobox on Wikipedia, Western Sahara will be equally occupied. But I do honestly believe he's right on this one, for reasons stated by him, me and others above.

Arre 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll repeat again: The legal status and souvreinty of WS isn't resolved yet, WS is a territory disputed by Morocco and Polisario (who proclaimed the SADR). The United Nations has been seeking a settlement in Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the Territory, and the POLISARIO, supported by Algeria. On 29 April 1991, the Security Council, in its resolution 690 (1991), decided to establish the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Saying that WS is part of Morocco is a pro-moroccan stance. Saying that WS is a nation governed by polisario is a pro-polisario stance. I'm glad that you mentionned the example of East Tumor who became a country with a UN seat due to the referundum held under the surveillence of the UN. Maybe in the future it would be the case of WS (who knows?), But actually the WS is still a disputed territory. WP is here to represent facts in a neutral way (not dreams of independance movements). WP isn't here to arbitrate in any conflict.

No one is disputing this. What we are disputing is if it is biased to put the flag of the nation that wants to break out from Moroccan rule, on display in its own article (that is, not under the Morocco-heading), and VERY CLEARLY stating that there's opposition to this, and that the question is not resolved. My point in mentioning East Timor was that no-one (well, some Indonesians maybe) would have accepted an article that claimed that the article of "East Timor" was just a non-political geographic territory, and that info on the East Timorese nation and its independence struggle was not relevant to it. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• The article of WS has always been about a territory (not a country), you can look in the history of the article and its talk page (mainly the first posts in the archives).

You're wrong. It's always been about "Western Sahara". That is a territory and a nation, and kind-of-a-country, but NOT a state (that is clear from the article). It is about Western Sahara the same way an article about Sweden is about Sweden as a country and a nation with a common history, and just not about "the eastern part of the Scandinavian peninsula". Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to add comments on human rights in the Moroccan-controlled parts and in Tindouf camps in a neutral way.

When you allow me to put back the human rights info (although you can suggest modifications) I think we should include the information you showed me. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the case of Moroccan-controlled WS (as opposed to Morocco); they get radically different scores according to Freedom house. with WS having the worst possible grade for political freedom along with North Korea, Libya and some other political meltdowns like Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia.. etc [12].

I guess that Tindouf camps are in Algeria :).

The map doesn't show the full range of scores, it has just three colors. For that you have to see the country reports. With 1 for a free country and 7 for total tyranny, I think Algeria gets 6 in "political rights", Morocco 4 or 5 and Western Sahara 7. There's no report on the Tindouf camps. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I googled around your sentence "50 victims in the recently dug-up mass graves in former Moroccan prison camps (check NYT and other newspapers), 41 were Sahrawi", Honestly I didn't find what you are talking about. I've also made a search in NYT [13] with no results.

I don't think I said that exact sentence was there. For what NYT reported: open nytimes.com, international, middle east (or if its "africa"). Then scroll down and look for Morocco. (The article also links to another text that treats democracy in Morocco, with nothing on the Western Sahara issue, which I found interesting. Just a tip.).

This version here is from Reuters: http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/10/08/morocco_unveils_secret_mass_graves_of_prisoners/

The first communiques on the mass graves were released by the Moroccan Equity and Reconciliation Commission, by the way. Here's what I found after just a brief look at their homepage:

http://www.ier.ma/_fr_article.php?id_article=1332

Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've made a search about the oil affair in UN and I didn't find what you are talking about[14].

Uhm. I have no idea how to find it in the UN either. But here's the page I took the quote from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/wsahara/2002/0205oil.htm

If you google the way I told you, you'll find more. With or without quote we can't just strike out the whole oil debate, though. Just today the Polisario said they wouldn't guarantee the safety of KerrMcGee's staff if they carry through with a recent decision to drill for oil. If fighting were to erupt over that, and there's NOTHING in Wikipedia on it, we've done something wrong... Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I re-read your Settlers vs. Natives text again, Honestly I didn't find any dependable evidence. You'll convince me if you give me one link to a minurso page with the numbers you reported.

I told you. Check the UN Secretary General's reports on Western Sahara from the winter of 1999, specifically I think it's from December. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• A last point about the infobox, If I was defending enough my country, I would like an infobox with the Moroccan flag. But I think that WP isn't a field of war. WP is first of all a reliable and neutral source of information. For God sake, Please be neutral and provide WP readers an infobox without any pro-polisario or pro-moroccan stance. Thanks Daryou 21:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is not about which country you support. Do you honestly think a Moroccan flag in the Wikipedia Infobox would make ANY difference? It is about my belief that occupied and/or separatist nations should be given recognition as such in Wikipedia, as opposed to recognition as sovereign states or normal, non-political territories.

Okay, whatever we do, I can't spend this much time debating it... we'd better decide soon. I guess Justin will have something to say when he's back, he's done this far longer than any of us. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Response

• "It is about my belief that occupied and/or separatist nations should be given recognition as such in Wikipedia, as opposed to recognition as sovereign states or normal, non-political territories": ==>I agree with you when you say that "it is your belief". Maybe we should create a "country page" for every separatist movement, for example North Ireland, Basque territories, Kurdistan, Corsica, there was also a separatist movement in north Italia I think..
• "What we are disputing is if it is biased to put the flag of the nation that wants to break out from Moroccan rule"==> Yes it is biased because the question of sovereignty in WS isn’t resolved yet. By the same way I can put the question "Is it biased to put the flag of the nation (Morocco) that wants to preserve its territorial integrity?"
• "My point in mentioning East Timor was that no-one would have accepted an article that claimed that the article of "East Timor" was just a non-political geographic territory, and that info on the East Timorese nation and its independence struggle was not relevant to it"==> Who gives you the right to say "No one (well, some Indonesians maybe)", did you make a survey in WP?
• "You're wrong. It's always been about "Western Sahara". That is a territory and a nation, and kind-of-a-country, but NOT a state"==> That’s the problem; I see that you are confusing facts and POVs. According to Morocco WS is the southern provinces. According to Polisario WS is a nation. According to UN WS is a territory which the question of sovereignty isn’t resolved yet. You see that your sentence is completely an anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance and by then not neutral.
• Give me please one sentence in the article (including maybe previous versions) which defines WS as a nation or a "kind-of-a-country"
• I Checked the UN Secretary General's reports on Western Sahara from the winter of 1999, and I didn’t find what you say, please help me.
• Feel free to add neutral comments on HR in WS and Tindouf camps. You know that my English isn’t very strong, so do it for me please.
• I wonder why a comment made by a UN representative on oil exploitation isn’t in the UN site?
• About the Mass grave thing, According to your links it’s about history (1970's), HR has considerably improved after [15], and there is no precision about the number of sahrawis killed in this affair.
• Here are the scores given by Freedom House in 2005 to different countries[16]. WS is in the table of disputed territories [17], I wonder why Tindouf camps aren't quoted? Freedom house didn't visit the Tindouf camps or what?
• I repeat: The current version of the infobox isn't neutral because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance, Please restore a neutral version without flags. Thanks. Daryou 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers to Daryou

* Don't confuse Western Sahara with "northern Italy", where separatism is a minor sect. The Western Sahara Sahrawis clearly constitute a nation, a separate people, in the same way Moroccans and Algerians are separate peoples (althought both are Arab and Berber). Kurdistan is a good example: another territory with the same name as the nation, and a history of separatism/anti-occupation struggle. If you look up Kurdistan you will accordingly find a great big Kurdistan flag at the top of the page. And Kurdistan is even less well-defined as an independence-seeking entity, since it has no recognized borders (Western Sahara does, although Morocco disputes the existence of the northern one).

* Well, just briefly... here's one of the UNSG reports, although I don't think its the final one on the subject. The number fluctuated up and down a little bit, with the inclusion of a minor number of appealers.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/301/87/IMG/N0030187.pdf?OpenElement

• The Tindouf refugee camps were not examined by Freedom House because they're camps, and not supposed to be managed as countries. They didn't visit the Kurdish, Sudanese, Tibetan or Palestinian refugee camps either.

• I will add stuff on human rights later, when I have time, based on what I wrote before. I will include what you brought up from Amnesty. I will also re-enter something on the oil debate, although as long as I can't find a better original source for the quote, I won't use that. And, of course, I will rewrite the stuff on the settlement process, because that has is a major part of the whole conflict. I will try, however, to rephrase it in a more neutral tone, since you felt it was biased. But I can't accept that it is just removed like that.

• And, you know what, Daryou? There's nothing wrong with your English :-)

Arre 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC) the

===> Dear Arre, Thank you very much for your support about my English, I confess that this debate helps me to improve it :-)

• I mentionned Kurdistan as an example, there is indeed a flag in the WP page, I don't know if displaying a flag in this page is or not neutral and if all the Kurdes agree upon this one. What about Northern Irland, Corsica and Basque territories?
• And don't forget that the flag of polisario isn't adopted by all Sahrawis. That's the heart of the conflict, Morocco says that most of Sahrawis self-identify as Moroccans, Polisario says the opposite. We are sure about one thing: Only a referundum can confirm how much Sahrawis self-identify as moroccans or SADRians; that's a fact; saying anything else is a POV.
• Excuse me but your link doesn't work, I think that you have serious problems about copy-editing links in the adress bar. Just give me the exact date of the report.
• I'm sure that Freedom house visited the Tindouf camps. All trustful Human Rights organizations did. Maybe they are quoted as a part of WS.
• Feel free to add what you said in a neutral way :).
• Excuse me but you didn't respond to the folowing points:

1. "You're wrong. It's always been about "Western Sahara". That is a territory and a nation, and kind-of-a-country, but NOT a state"==> That’s the problem; I see that you are confusing facts and POVs. According to Morocco WS is the southern provinces. According to Polisario WS is a nation. According to UN WS is a territory which the question of sovereignty isn’t resolved yet. You see that your sentence is completely an anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance and by then not neutral.
2. Give me please one sentence in the article (including maybe previous versions) which defines WS as a nation or a "kind-of-a-country"
3. I repeat: The current version of the infobox (with the flag of Polisario) isn't neutral because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance, Please restore a neutral version without flags.

Friendly yours ;-) Daryou 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• The point is that even Kurds that don't want independence would agree that this is the internationally known flag of Kurdistan (not "the flag of PKK" or anything like that).
• The Western Sahara flag is used by non-Polisario Sahrawis, such as the Khat al-Shahid breakaway faction. It is not considered "the Polisario flag" just as the Palestinian flag was not considered "the PLO flag" despite the fact that Israeli officials used to refer to it that way.
• Freedom House limits its investigations to countries and dependencies, disputed and occupied areas, and other special cases, such as Western Sahara, the parts of the Palestinian territories under Israeli rule, the parts under Palestinian rule, Chechnya, Iraq, etc. They have not visited the Tindouf camps, since that is not within the scope of their objectives. Amnesty, HRW and a number of UN organizations have, and they have about the same criticisms as you mentioned above, the most serious being that perpetrators of abuse in the past are not being punished. (But they also point out that the same goes for accused who defected to Morocco, and have been given government positions there.) Freedom House refers to the Moroccan-occupied areas of Western Sahara, probably since those are the only ones with any significant population (otherwise the Polisario-controlled areas would be worth investigating, but still not the refugee camps).
• As for what Sahrawis self-identify as, I would say Sahrawis. However, this is not about the Sahrawis as a whole, but about the Sahrawis of Western Sahara, i.e. the people of Western Sahara which has a right to self-determination. Morocco has consistently tried to block a referendum involving only that people (the 86,000 voters, remember?), wanting to broaden it to include settlers brought in from Morocco proper. You go figure what the Moroccan authorities believe... Anyway, this does not affect my point made above.
• Western Sahara is a nation, and its people a people, under any reasonable definition of the words -- the same way that Palestine is a nation even though there are different POV's on how and where that nation should be set up as a state. The WS Sahrawis will remain a distinct national or ethic identity even if Morocco were to be granted sovereignty over the area. I think you confuse "nation" with "nation state" here. And the article is named - "Western Sahara". If you want to start a Morocco-related article on "The Southern Provinces", go ahead. The same way, there is a Kurdistan flag under "Kurdistan", but there would not be under a heading called "eastern Turkey" or under the Kurdish city of "Diarbakir" in present-day Turkey.
• The report is from the winter of 1999 or possibly very early 2000. They're easy to find, just search for the figure "86" within the document or something. Or, even better, read the section on voter registration. I'm not exactly sure what you are disputing, though. That the MINURSO gathered voters' names? The number they gathered? Or what?
• I'm ready to end this debate, or at least my participation in it: I don't have time for this. But I would like to hear what Justin says first. Then let's find some compromise. (Still haven't heard a reaction to my suggestion on having a "this is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco"-line in the infobox).

Cheers, Arre 16:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• We are not sure that even Kurds that don't want independence would agree that this is the internationally known flag of Kurdistan. But we are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.

• Come on.... anyone who knows anything about Kurdistan would agree that it is the internationally known flag of Kurdistan. Even Turkey, however much they might oppose the creation of a state to match the flag. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as, that's a fact.
• Maybe Sahrawis (self identifing as moroccans or SADRians) are a nation, but Western Sahara is a territory, the WS page is about this territory.

• That is the debate, isn't it? Just as a page on Palestine or Kurdistan must be on both the geographic area and on the concept of Palestine or Kurdistan as a nation and possible state, so must Western Sahara. You insist that it must only treat the geographic area, which is of course in line with the Moroccan government's opinion that Western Sahara is part of southern Morocco, nothing more. I don't agree: whether you support or oppose the Moroccan or Sahrawi claims, you should recognize that there is politically a lot more to it than this. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Give me please one sentence in the article (including maybe previous versions) which defines WS as a nation or a "kind-of-a-country"

• I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to go through every edit of this page. You keep asking me for sources and more information for just about everything I say, but seldom or never provide anything yourself.
• Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians. While they have no recognized government, they clearly constitute a separate historical, political and (despite there being some cross-border Sahrawi populations) ethnic community. This is the meaning of "nation", and its all very clear from the article. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree with you about the the number of sahrawis living in Moroccan controlled WS and in the Tindouf camps. Remember that you said: "Freedom House refers to the Moroccan-occupied areas of Western Sahara, probably since those are the only ones with any significant population (otherwise the Polisario-controlled areas would be worth investigating, but still not the refugee camps)".

• What do you mean you don't agree? If you have a problem with my maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", please say what it is.
• Freedom House reports on countries and the likes. If there were people living in the Polisario held ("liberated" as they say) areas of Western Sahara, they would probably report on that. But there's not, just a minuscule, fluctuating population of nomads and guerillas. They do not report on how refugee camps are run, neither in Algeria or Sudan or anywhere else. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• About your suggestion on having a "this is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco"-line in the infobox): Adding this sentence is a recognition of the no-neutrality of information included in the infobox because it recognizes that it's disputed by a concerned party in the conflict (Morocco).

• Something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone. There's plenty of things I think the Polisario would like to change in this article, but that doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with -- nothing. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I repeat: The current version of the infobox (with the flag of Polisario) isn't neutral because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance, Please restore a neutral version without flags.

• Gee, I wish I could, but you apparently did it yourself... again. End of debate, or what? Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Daryou 17:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I feel that we are not really making progress on certain fronts, and to be fair, I currently have neither the time nor the energy to help you much or to try to follow each argument. I asked help to others. Please do not enter in a cycle of reversion over that box as we would have to protect the article again. It would be unfortunate as other things as improved since last protection (other things could be improved still ?) Anthere

• We are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.
• I see that we agree that only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as.
• The debate is about the infobox. There is in fact an article about SADR wich deals about the concept of possible state in WS. The same concept is used with Palestinian territories and State of Palestine pages. The WS article in fact does treat WS as a territory, which is of course in line with the UN opinion and the Minurso reports.
• So you think that I never provided any evidence myself, what about all the internet links that I provided in my previous posts??
• The sentence "Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians" is your POV. I agree with you when you say that the Sahrawis have no recognized government and that they clearly constitute a separate ethnic community, like Berbers, does it mean that Berbers aren't Moroccan?.
• I said before that Saharawis are maybe a nation according to your definition. But WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario according to Minurso reports.
• I indeed have a problem with your maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", because you provided no evidence.
• Sure, something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone, but some thing upon a conflict is necessarly biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: You do oppose the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and you have the right to think that it's biased. And there's plenty of things that Morocco would like to change in this article. But I see that the actual version of the article "text" is consensual (but feel free to add what you said before in a neutral way).
• I totally agree with you when you say that "Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with nothing". I think also that we are doing a great work by writing an article in a such sensible case :-).

Friendly. Daryou 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers

Response to Koavf:

Your main argument is that there is a precedent in WP and that other disputed territories have flags in their WP pages. You mentionned the examples of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and Transnistria.

1. First of all, I don't know of displaying a flag in those pages is or not neutral.
2. Second, you have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one. The case of Taiwan is relevant because the republic of China is partially recognized, have de facto control over the territory, but claims control over the whole China Territory, and you know what?: there is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the Republic of China one.
3. I suggest as a compromize to display the flag of Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) page.

===>Answers to "Answers"

==> Response to ARRE

• We are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.

-Untrue. The only flag that anyone in the international community recognizes is this one. That's it.

• I see that we agree that only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as.

-No it can't. The testimony of Sahrawis and third-party observers can also. Plus, if the Sahrawis identified as Moroccan, they would be happy to live under Moroccan administration, and not have a nationalist movement. Furthermore, if the Sahrawis were Moroccan, Morocco wouldn't propose that their citizens vote in the referendum.

• The debate is about the infobox. There is in fact an article about SADR wich deals about the concept of possible state in WS. The same concept is used with Palestinian territories and State of Palestine pages. The WS article in fact does treat WS as a territory, which is of course in line with the UN opinion and the Minurso reports.

-The key difference is that "Palestine" refers to a variety of historical regions over 2,000 years, with different ethnic make-ups. "Spanish/Western Sahara" refers to a distinct political entity that has only existed since 1884.

• So you think that I never provided any evidence myself, what about all the internet links that I provided in my previous posts??

-Several of your links are bankrupt, as they are not third-party sources, or they are taken out of context.

• The sentence "Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians" is your POV. I agree with you when you say that the Sahrawis have no recognized government and that they clearly constitute a separate ethnic community, like Berbers, does it mean that Berbers aren't Moroccan?.

-No, it is not anyone's POV. You simply say that it's POV when it's convenient. Sahrawis are clearly understood to be a separate people with a separate language, history, society, and culture. They are not Moroccan. Furthermore, this is reinforced by the finding of the International Court of Justice.

• I said before that Saharawis are maybe a nation according to your definition. But WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario according to Minurso reports.

-You are changing the subject. See nation and country.

• I indeed have a problem with your maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", because you provided no evidence.

-See any book on the topic, even the pro-Moroccan Akbarali Thobhani's book "Western Sahara Since 1975 Under Moroccan Administration: Social, Economic, and Political Transformation (North African Studies, 1)".

• Sure, something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone, but some thing upon a conflict is necessarly biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: You do oppose the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and you have the right to think that it's biased. And there's plenty of things that Morocco would like to change in this article. But I see that the actual version of the article "text" is consensual (but feel free to add what you said before in a neutral way).

-Of course the sentence "WS is Moroccan" is biased. This is a clear example of you using "POV" as a double standard.

• I totally agree with you when you say that "Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with nothing". I think also that we are doing a great work by writing an article in a such sensible case :-).

-You are not proceeding in a dialectical, like Fayssal has. You have deleted information without a justification or a consensus.

• First of all, I don't know of displaying a flag in those pages is or not neutral.

-Okay. The fact of the matter is, there is a precedent set with those articles. Read them yourself and decide if they are not neutral. It's not my fault that you're ignorant about those articles and disputes.

• Second, you have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one. The case of Taiwan is relevant because the republic of China is partially recognized, have de facto control over the territory, but claims control over the whole China Territory, and you know what?: there is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the Republic of China one.

-Again, this is a misdirection that I've already explained more than one time. Taiwan is an island that has existed for thousands of years - there is no flag of that island. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are two different governments of China and they define the term "China" in two different ways. The SADR is not a rival government of Morocco, and the territories have had internationally-understood boundaries for decades.

• I suggest as a compromize to display the flag of Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) page.

-That is not a compromise, and I've explained why that's insufficient earlier tonight on this page. Justin (koavf) 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I came in through WP:RFC/POLITICS. I admit that i dont feel like reading all the comments, but i think i get the general idea of the problem.

To the casual reader (being me), two things seems to be confused in this article. On one side, we have the Western Sahara (region) (mind the important hyphenations), which is contested by several parties. On the other hand we have the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is one of the claimants of the area. It seems to me that these should be split up. Admittedly, the Polisario and the SADR should play a large role in that article. However, putting up the flag here would be the same as equating the SADR with the Western Sahara (region), which by any account, is not entirely true.

Would splitting up the article help? The Minister of War 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with The Minister of War, It should be the best solution. This split-up is already done and there is in fact a Western Sahara page about the territory and a page about SADR proclaimed by Polisario, Polisario and the SADR should play a large role in that article and the flag of polisario should be there. Daryou 23:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Unsatisfactory and unprecedented I object to this solution on a variety of grounds:

1. This information has been present for months without objection.
2. Daryou joined merely to delete what he (as a Moroccan) perceives to be pro-Polisario/anti-Moroccan bias.
3. Other disputed territories have this exact same information without any outcry (see: Abkahzia, Transnistria, Northern Cypruss, Somaliland, Chechnya, and South Ossetia, for instance).
4. All other Wikipedias that have an infobox have this exact same graphic, except the French one, which recently took it off. The French are also the most pro-Moroccan society.
5. This flag is the only one recognized by any state as the flag of Western Sahara. If you went to anyone knowleadgeable about the topic and asked them "What is the flag of Western Sahara?" they would explain that it is this.
6. There are sovereign states that recognize the legitimacy of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and no state recognizes the claims of Morocco over the territory. This is the exact opposite as the breakaway republics that I mentioned above, and still they have these flags on their pages.
7. This flag is not simply the flag of the Polisario, as Daryou would have you believe, but is the national flag of the Sahrawi people, and the state flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

There is simply no justification for removing it, and a multiplicty of reasons for keeping it. Justin (koavf) 01:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

• Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 1

Mediation

Hello, I was asked by one of the participants of the current discussion to give a hand some days ago. I was unfortunately away and could not easily access Wikipedia. I see there were no comments in the past 3 days... but we can't leave the page protected for weeks now :-)

Can each party shortly identify each point on which he wishes a modification in the current article ? We could try to take them one by one ? Anthere.

Hello,

• In the "Culture" section, there is no information about culture in Moroccan controlled WS.
• There are no links to pro-moroccan web pages, maybe we can add a link to a moroccan governmental web page like this one http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/sahara.html
• There are so much pro-polisario links, maybe 2 or 3 are sufficient for readers to make their minds.
• The following sentences aren’t neutral or need reformulation or some evidence:

1. Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum, but it is obvious that Morocco, as the current de facto power in much of the territory, stood only to lose.
2. although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal and exhibiting a stark pro-Moroccan bias in comparison to the agreed-upon 1991 plan
3. His resignation followed several months of failed attempts to get Morocco to at least enter into formal negotiations on the plan, but he met with complete rejection.
4. After that, it quickly garnered widespread international support, culminating in the UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the plan in the summer of 2003. ==>Give me evidence
5. The new king, Mohammed VI of Morocco, opposes the concept of a referendum on independence, and has said Morocco will never agree to one. ==> Give me evidence
6. Morocco, resistant to the UN process

Peace Daryou 13:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

1. About Morocco's attitude to the referendum, I can't see the controversy. This is factual. One side (Polisario) has consistently demanded that the referendum be implemented, the other (Morocco) has consistently demanded changes in the rules, new voter criterion, delays, etc, etc, until recently changing its stand and proclaiming that it would never agree to a referendum where inpendence was an option. This is stated, written-down, spoken-out Moroccan policy, and you can find it for example in the Moroccan reply to the UN on the Baker plan.
2. That the Baker plan was pro-Moroccan compared to the 1991 plan is clear to anyone who reads it. Its the same old plan but with Morocco's suggestions added (3 way ballot, settler's can vote, autonomy first, policing rights during referendum, etc). This is not to say it is intrinsically pro-Moroccan (since a really pro-Moroccan position wouldn't challenge Rabat's sovereignty at all), but "in comparison with the 1991 plan" it obviously is. And that is important to point out.
3. The UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the Baker plan (B2) came in the form of SCR 1495 in July 2003. Read it yourself: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1495
4. Morocco is clearly uncomfortable with the UN process, and has always pushed for bilateral negotiations with Algeria to avoid having to confront the Polisario via the UN. It has support in this from France and, lately, the US. This is not POV, this is the basics of the conflict. I don't know if "resistant" is the best word (although it is correct), but please suggest a better one to get the point across.
5. Baker tried and failed because Morocco (as stated in its reply to the UN) wouldn't consider a referendum with independence as an option, despite having agreed to that, and despite that being the very core of the Baker Peace plan (and the Settlement Plan of 1991). This must be in the article. But if you're only after minor language changes, I see no problem with that. What would they be?
6. Sahrawi and Moroccan culture in the Moroccan-occupied parts is missing, yes. Since journalists aren't allowed in freely, it is of course hard to report on, and it hasn't helped that Morocco spent most of its occupation denying the existence of a separate Sahrawi culture. But if you have anything on the subject, by all means, write.
7. I'm not sure on the number of links, but of course the Moroccan position should be represented (for example with your suggestion), if it is not already. I suspect you have a pretty wide definition of "pro-Polisario", though... ;-)

salaam, ARRE.

Salam ARRE :)

• Thank you for your precisions. I think that there is a little problem of wording, We feel (or maybe I feel) that the article was written by an author who doesn't like the moroccan position so much. I'm not against presenting facts. I'm against presenting them in a biased way.
• I propose the folowing sentences:

1. Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum (stop).
2. although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal (stop)
3. His resignation followed months of failed attempts to get Morocco to enter into formal negotiations on the plan, and he met with rejection.
4. After that, it garnered widespread international support, the UN Security Council's endorsed the plan unanimously in the summer of 2003.
5. Morocco, unconfortable with the UN process.

• I'm not so fluent in English, I'll try to write on "culture" or ask the help of someone else.

Thanks and peace (salam) Daryou 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

===>A few points

• A link to the Moroccan government's page would be appropriate and desirable, if adequately described.
• Morocco has clearly blocked UN efforts to implement a referendum. You can read Erik Jensen's book if you'd like to learn more. In point of fact, this week, Morocco suggested a plan for autonomy, completely circumventing the referendum process. The problem with Moroccan resistance needs to be mentioned in order to write a factual and fair article, and is not "pro-Polisario", but rather pro-factual. There have also been difficulties posed by the Polsario, especially in voter identification, and that should be given fair treatment, also. Justin (koavf) 18:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello

It seems you are in agreement that information is missing on culture. However, though unfortunate, the first way to improve this... is to simply add content on the topic. Can any of you provide a bit of flesh on this issue ?

Could you possibly all together propose here a new set of external links so as to best represent both sides and provide various sources of information meant to best inform the readers ?

Daryou listed a collection of sentences which he thinks are unsuitable. Can you together work on each to propose a new version ? Maybe some of those will be very tough to agree on, but maybe others could be quickly fixed with a consensus ? Generally, the best way is to cite sources, facts, polls, studies, laws etc... For example, in the sentence "The new king, Mohammed VI of Morocco, opposes the concept of a referendum on independence, and has said Morocco will never agree to one.", if Mohammed VI said such a thing, it should be easy to cite a speech or an interview. If no public record can be used, then it can't be written he "said" such a thing.

Greetings

Anthere 20:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Daryou:

I'll go through your suggestions one by one.

1. The "both sides blamed each other"-thing. I don't think that's fair treatment or giving enough information. Both sides certainly blame each other (what would you expect?). But Morocco is fundamentally blocking the referendum from taking place by saying that it will implement neither the Settlement Plan nor the Baker Plan ... while the Polisario is asking practically every day for someone to force Morocco to hold the referendum, as previously agreed. I.e., one side really wants a quick vote, the other really doesn't. This has been the pattern since the early 90s, and hiding that behind "both sides blame each other" would be to make nonsense out of 15 years of diplomatic battles.

2. Well, we need to specify what the changes were as compared with the Settlement Plan (1991), but the wording could well be changed. Something like "and seemingly favourable to the Moroccan side in comparison with"-etc. I really don't care either way, but it needs to be in there that the plan had these very specific changes from 1991, and that they had all been requested by Morocco, not Polisario.

3. Erasing the "at least"-part is fine with me.

4. I really cannot see the difference between what you propose and what you complained about. Would you clarify the problem, please?

5. Uncomfortable replacing resistant? Okay, it actually sounds better.

And good luck with getting something on Sahrawi culture in the Moroccan-occupied parts, as you said, it should be in there.

ARRE

I see that we agree upon many points.

1 I agree with Koavf when he said : "There have also been difficulties posed by the Polsario, especially in voter identification, and that should be given fair treatment, also".

4 I think that what I propsed sounds better. If you don't see any problem we can use my wording.

I propose to add the following sentence as a begining: "The Moroccan government considerably invested in the social and economic development of the Moroccan controlled Western Sahara with special emphasis on education, modernisation and infrastructure. Several thousands Sahrawis study in Moroccan universities" in the culture section, my reference is here [18], It's actully a page written in french, sorry.

and remember that "To date, there have been few thorough studies of the culture due in part to the political situation. Some language and culture studies, mainly by French researchers, have been performed on Sahrawi communities in northern Mauritania"

Wikilove! Daryou 15:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

What about I unprotect the page for you to make at least the changes you agree upon ? But I would suggest you only make the changes agreed before hand in the talk page. Please think well over the other ones before ? How about that ? Anthere

OK If every one agree, and what about the sentence that I want to add in "culture" section. What do Arre, Basiri, Asterion, Dark side, Fayssal and Koavf think about it? Daryou 00:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for being busy lately. After reading your conversations here and in Google, I think that I have no problems with that. Thanks Anthere for your help. Cheers -- Svest 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to NPOV version

I have reverted the text to a NPOV version. Please DO think twice before starting another edit war. Many thanks Asterion 00:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed Spanish as an official language. True it is spoken as a second language as in Northern Morocco but it is not an official language. I also removed the statement that MAD is used in occupied sector which contradicts the map featured in the article. Cheers -- Svest 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Svest, Spanish is listed as an official language in the Spanish, Portuguese and Serbian versions of Wikipedia (there are possibly more). Regarding the MAD issue, it could be rephrased NPOV to "used in Moroccan-controlled areas". Your thoughts? Asterion 12:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is listed on those versions. That's why WP is not 100% accurate. Cheers -- Svest 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

===>I read the constitution of the SADR and I couldn't find anything about an official language, but they call themselves an "Arab Republic", and by definition, Arabs are people that speak Arabic...

Svest, you are right about the official language. See Ch.1 Art.3: "La langue arabe est la langue nationale officielle". Regards, Asterion 16:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

No worries Asterion. When I first saw it I was like confused. As I told you, it is used as a second language, same in the northern cities of Tetouan and Tangier. The official language is Arabic. The actual version states "none" and I don't understand that none. Cheers -- Svest 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

The infobox is corrected now. Cheers -- Svest 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

===>::Hi Svest, to make things a little more complicated, I just learned that the RASD-issued ID cards are in both Hassania Arabic and Spanish. They are also called 'DNI' as for the Spanish ones (Documento Nacional de Identidad) Asterion 16:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A comment to Asterion.
Please avoid using terms which could be misinterpretated. When several people are disagreeing on a version of an article, it is not a good idea to write "reverting to a NPOV version" as it implies that your preferred version is NPOV... while the other version is not. This in itself is a POV comment :-) So, please avoid inflaming. I saw much efforts from others to come to a consensus, so please try to be careful, it would really be appreciated. Thanks Anthere 17:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I admit it. You are right about just saying "reverting to NPOV" being "POV" in itself. Apologies to anyone offended. Asterion 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Things that need to be done in this article

===>Feel free to add to this list

• Additions to "culture"
• A map that includes the berm
• More information on naming conventions
• Further outside resources (?)
• An archive needs to be made of the Talk page ---> Done

I think we should keep the infobox information a separate article. This way, if conflicts occur with that particular information, the entire page won't need to be protected. Justin (koavf) 04:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea about the infobox. -- Svest 04:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what we can call a consenssus!

Anthere said before "What about I unprotect the page for you to make at least the changes you agree upon ? But I would suggest you only make the changes agreed before hand in the talk page. Please think well over the other ones before ? How about that ?" I see that you made a lot of changes in this page [19] without concenssus in contradiction with the principles of the Mediation. I see that you were waiting only for unproction and you haven't anything to do with a concenssus or a dialectical process. Really very smart. Daryou 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's so sad! Dark side 08:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>You're incorrect First off, you two grossly edited this article without any consensus. Second of all, I didn't change much in the article after it was unprotected (many of the wikifying links aren't even mine). In fact, I put in a pro-neutrality phrase. Third, I am using the dialectical process, by inviting people to list things that must be done to the article. Lastly, I imagine, although I couldn't prove it, that consensus just means agreeing with you. Plus, there's no need for personal attacks; that's just not very smart. Justin (koavf) 14:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===> First of all, thank you for your invitation.

Before unprotection, It was supposed that the only agreed before changes will be made,you did participate in the mediation process. It's true that you didn't make a lot of changes in the text. In the other hand you changed the infobox addind the flag of SADR in a page supposed neutral. Why didn't you say during the mediation process that you didn't agree on the previous infobox? And what does mean "consensus" after all, isn't it an agreement between the participants in a discussion? Maybe you think I'm not one? And what about the POV template?Daryou 15:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Certainly, you should have your say But, you still haven't justified leaving out the flag. I have provided evidence that it should stay:

• It is on dozens of other Wikipedias
• This same information is presented on other disputed territories
• Unlike those other territories, this one is actually recognized by dozens of states

You still need to justify removing it. Consensus does mean agreement, but it doesn't need to be unanimous. If you are the only person who disagrees, and we've discussed the issue at length, it is still okay to leave it in, especially considering that the information has been there for months prior to your edits. The burden remains on you to convince others. Justin (koavf) 17:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>POV template was removed and I just noticed that now. Cheers -- Svest 17:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

===>Misdirection: The infobox without flag was there when the page was protected and when Anthere proposed his mediation. You participated in the mediation process and you didn't say that you didn't agree about this infobox. Now the page is unprotected and you restored your version of the infobox (with informaton about SADR that has nothing to the here in the page WS). Sure this information was there for months, Saddam was also the president of Irak for YEARS, does it mean that he was rightful? For me the burden remains on you to convince others as you didn't suggest the modification of the infobox during the Mediation. Daryou 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Excuse me? I presented extensive evidence for keeping the infobox as it was. Feel free to see it on the archive. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was or was not rightful as a ruler, but the simple fact that his rule was the status quo for so long demands that you must have a reason to change it. The burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim. The page got locked shortly after Dark Side's edit as an accident of circumstance, and I had already presented my arguments for the infobox several times prior to that. Justin (koavf) 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Oops. I didn't realize it wasn't okay to change stuff yet, so I just added a sentence on the SADR constitution before reading this. It should be uncontroversial, since its just stating what is written in the constitution, and it's not related to anything that has been discussed here. If anyone takes offense, though, it can wait.

I think the article looks great now, and Daryou should make the wording changes he proposed so we can see how it looks then. About the flag and infobox, Justin is obviously right: it had been there for ages and it was removed just before the article was frozen. Its removal just before freezing of the article was completely random, and definitely without any kind of consensus (rather, under heavy protests).

Personally I also agree it should stay there: I can't see why Western Sahara should be a special case among occupied and disputed countries, who as Justin also pointed out, all have their flags&info present. And of all these nations, Western Sahara is also by far the more widely recognized and state-like. Additionally, the text makes perfectly clear what is the opinion of all sides, so it's not a question on hiding anything. But in any case, while we're discussing, status quo MUST be WITH the flag, since that's how it's been up until very, very recently.

About other Wikipedias (below), the Swedish wikipedia at least has the Western Sahara infobox. I've edited some stuff there, but it was present long before I came, and it's an original text.

Also, about the infobox: if you look up a collection of flags in any Swedish and I think most English dictionaries, you will find Western Sahara's flag there, under the heading "Western Sahara" (albeit with some kind of comment to point out it is disputed by Morocco). Not Morocco's flag and not a blank space.

ARRE

Other Wikipedias

I have a question about the argument "It is on dozens of other Wikipedias". Have you checked whether articles on dozen of wikipedias were essentially copies of the current english articles and if not, have you checked if the article on the other wikipedias was the result of the work of only one editor or possibly 50 editors ? I'd say that if articles on other languages are copies of the english, then the argument does not have much strength. If the article on the other wikipedias was the work of only a handful of editors, I'd say as well that it is unlikely to be the result of a carefully crafted and consensual work. I did not check myself :-)

Remember that this issue is a very controversial one, and clearly will take time to solve. You are several with different opinions right now. Remember that opinions by default can't be "right" or "wrong". They just reflect different state of minds. You being several people with various state of minds at the same time here are in the best position to make the best article on the topic. It will possibly take time. Take your time please. Anthere 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Western Sahara and other similar cases

==>Response to Koavf: The example of Taiwan is relevant. The government of Republic of China isn't a government in exile, it does govern the whole territory and is recognized by 2 dozen nations. There is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the page of Republic of China. I propose to do the same with WS. The flag and other information about SADR can be used in the page SADR. I believe that's the best solution for a better neutrality. Cheers Dark side 19:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Taiwan/ROC versus Western Sahara/SADR I'm glad you mention the Taiwan/ROC issue, because it is similar is some respects and fundamentally different in others. Similarities:

• The area is disputed
• Different states recognize different governments as legitimate powers
• Neither (currently) has a seat at the UN.

Differences:

• Taiwan is a geographic entity that has existed for thousands of years, by necessity of being an island, whereas the area of Western Sahara has only existed since the treaties between French and Spanish colonizers between 1902 and 1914.
• The ROC and the PRC are competing governments of China. To recognize one, you must say that the other is illegitimate (per the PRC's laws on recognition). The Kingdom of Morocco seeks to annex the territory of the SADR, and not the other way around. Furthermore, the definition of "China" is not the same for the ROC and PRC.
• The ROC and PRC exist in a status quo that one party agrees can be perpetuated (the ROC). The conflict in Western Sahara must reach a resolution, according to the stated positions of the Kindom of Morocco and the SADR. Justin (koavf) 20:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Misdirection I really don't understand what is the relevance of the differencies you mentioned. ALL conflicts aren't similar in all points, it's impossible. I evoked the example of Taiwan mainly because of the points of similarity between those two conflicts. Remember that you use those points (recognition by other countries being one) as arguments in the Google Group [[20]] Dark side 21:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===>The difference "Taiwan" is the name of an island. "Republic of China" is the name of a government that claims to be the rightful power over Mainland China, Tibet, Mongolia, Taiwan, and surrounding islands. The term "China" can refer to either the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China, or a purely historical entity. "Western Sahara" refers to a particular geographic entity, and the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is the government that claims to administer it. The difference would be like having separate articles for France and French Republic - there is no "France" outside of the French Republic. "Taiwan" has existed for thousands of years prior to a "Republic of China." Justin (koavf) 01:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

History

It looks like the history of the region only started when Spain occupied the territory. I added a chunck of info from the main article History of Western Sahara. Feel free to add relevant info if needed. Cheers -- Svest 20:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

A disputed territory

• Western Sahara [21], a Territory on the north-west coast of Africa bordered by Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria, was administered by Spain until 1976. Both Morocco and Mauritania affirmed their claim to the territory, a claim opposed by the POLISARIO Front. The United Nations has been seeking a settlement in Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the Territory, and the POLISARIO, supported by Algeria. (Mauritania renounced all claims to Western Sahara in 1979.) In 1979, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) also became active in seeking a peaceful solution of the conflict. 79 governments recognized the SADR as a legitimate power in WS; they are all countries of what was called the Third World. SADR was also admitted as a full member in the AU. In 1985, the United Nations Secretary-General, in cooperation with the OAU, initiated a mission of good offices leading to "the settlement proposals", which were accepted on 30 August 1988 by Morocco and the Front POLISARIO. In 1990, the Security Council approved the Secretary-General's report (S/21360) containing the full text of the settlement proposals and the outline of the Secretary-General's Plan for implementing them. On 29 April 1991, the Security Council, in its resolution 690 (1991), decided to establish the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Since 1989, 24 countries cancelled their recognition of SADR. Neither Morocco nor SADR are recognized by the UN as the legitimate powers in the territory. No country other than Morocco does recognize him as the Legitimate power in WS.
• WP is a free encyclopaedia; everyone can edit, discuss and give his opinions. The articles of WP are in a continuous changing as every day there is dozens of new users who are willing to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. Changes can be applied every day upon topics that was there for months or years, otherwise all WP would be protected. It is true that those changes are more difficult today as actually every change needs a consensus.
• Every WP page is written by some authors who know something upon the topic of the page. WP pages aren't similar as they are written by different authors making each article a unique experience. WP is a heterogenous collection of articles written by different authors.
• A general purpose encyclopaedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopaedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points. [22]
• The presentation of the flag, president, coat of arms, president, prime minister and national motto of SADR is surely useful for readers who may want to know more about this concerned party of the conflict. But this presentation could be interpreted by some readers as a recognition by WP of the SADR as a legitimate power in the territory and by then no neutral.
• I think personally that there are two solutions for a better neutrality of this article [23]:

1. Presentation of the same kind of useful information about another concerned party of the conflict (Morocco).
2. Or Presentation of an infobox with useful information about the territory without any information about the concerned parties.

Thanks. Daryou 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Why should we overturn precedent? Although it is possible that a user will be ill-informed enough to not read the article and assume a pro-Polisario stance, we cannot acquiesce to those readers. If you read the article, you will understand that it is a disputed territory. Even reading the infobox, you will understand that there is a government-in-exile. Keeping the infobox the way it is will keep it in line with similar situations such as Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and Transnistria. This information is also present on other territories that are not declared independent, and it is used in almost every other Wikipedia's Western Sahara article where this information is presented. Justin (koavf) 01:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• As you said before While we are discussing the Western Sahara page, it is useful to confer with other pages that are similar. Those pages discuss similar geo-political entities in similar situations, and the decisions made on those pages are guidance for the decisions made on this one. I agree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia written collaboratively by many of its readers. WP isn't written by the same author. I don't know anything about the conflicts that you mentioned but I do know many things about the WS conflict. I can assume that some authors of the article Abkhazia don't know many things about WS that I do know. Dark Side mentioned the example of Taiwan who looks at the first sight as similar to the WS' but you established a list of differences. I can mention the Palestinian territories; in this page there is no Palestinian flag, this flag you'll find it in the State of Palestine page. The state of Palestine is recognized by 94 countries and does have an Observer status in the UN General Assembly (SADR have no seat in the UN). The 2 conflicts have many similarities. But I'm sure that you'll find easily a lot of differences. I can assume that every conflict is unique; there are always differences dues to political, geographical and historical features. We are here in this moment to write the English page of WS.
• "This information is used in almost every other Wikipedia's Western Sahara article where this information is presented". I think that Anthere responded already to this argument. I will add just one thing, We are all here to write the WS English page as we all speak English (I confess that my English is very weak, and that doesn't help me so much). I speak fluently French. The French page of WS was for months like the English one now [24] until 26 August 2005, that day I personally launched the discussion upon the Infobox topic. A dialectical process begun and led to an infobox without flags. I confess that the discussion is a "little bit" more difficult in the English version. First, my English is rudimentary. Second, I found in the other side a political science major in a great American university who hopes to possibly become a social studies teacher, teach English in Taiwan or become a social worker; and who believes so much on the independance movements struggle for liberty, I named Justin (koavf). I really respect him. Now I'm waiting for his response ;)Daryou 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Thank you I appreciate your kind comments and diplomatic tone, Daryou. I honestly don't have much to say right now, as I'm heading off to the UN. I'm going to be presenting before the IV Committee on the "question of Western Sahara". I'll post how it went on my user page. Try to get along without me for a few days. Justin (koavf) 01:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What do Arre, Basiri and Asterion think about what I said above? And Ramadan moubarak said (Happy Ramadan) :)Daryou 15:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to say I'm completely with Justin here. He has presented a number of cases which match Western Sahara, and they all have flags. Palestine is a different case in many ways (the dispute there is mainly about the future borders, for one thing, in Western Sahara it is over existence or non-existence). But I do believe there should be a flag there too, since this claim-of-state is immensely relevant to the article, and is what sets the area apart from the rest of Palestine/Israel. I don't think I have the energy to fight that battle though... but if you do, good luck.

To make my case clearer: this article deals with Western Sahara as a separate territory. Morocco's opinion is that it is NOT a special territory, but rather part of the Southern Provinces. A Moroccan POV would therefore be to put the whole article under the main Morocco heading, and treat it as no more special than for example the Rif. Indeed this is the view seen in the Morocco article, as you can find for example El-Aaiun as a city under Moroccan rule -- along with the information that this is very much in dispute.

Your worry that a one-glance reader might interpret this infobox as signs of a pro-Polisario article... well, they might. In the same way as a viewer looking up Tibet might think we're all with the Dalai Lama (I am of course, but that's a different story). But we're not doing all this debating just to cater to people who won't read more than the first lines of our articles, are we? Anyone who reads the introduction of the article even casually will have enough information to know there are two sides of the story, and to understand what the flag-and-infobox relates to.

As a compromise I suggest we keep the present infobox and put this sentence below it: "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco".

But please do not remove it until we are all agreed.

ARRE

Restoration of the "no flags" version of the infobox

I will restore the "no flags" version of the infobox, OK? Daryou 21:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I restored the "no flags" version of the infobox, and applied the modifications that I suggested above in the Mediation section. If there is any problem, feel free to revert and discuss. Thanks :). Daryou 12:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that Koaf reverted without any explaination. I wonder why? I hope that he's all right! Daryou 18:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, there's been a lot of changes made...

The Baker chapter was damaged by editing, and I started straightening it out. Then I got into fixing some language stuff elswhere, and then added info on the oil debate, the human rights-situation etc. Some of that might be contested by others (I hope not & I think not), but since there was no info on this before I added it, I felt this must be better despite us fighting over older texts.

Daryou: I changed two things I believe you're responsible for.

1. Where is Western Sahara? South of Morocco's internationally recognized borders, of course, as anyone with an international map can see. Why are you changing this? They ARE Morocco's internationally recognized borders, and even if you believe WS should be part of Morocco, as a territory it is south of Morocco. Writing "internationally recognized" is actually a favor to the Moroccan side, since just stating that its "the border of Morocco" would imply there's no controversy to it. So for your own sake, leave it :-)

2. Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum. We talked about this, and I believe the basic motivation for both sides must be noted. That is important information, and also relevant to the rest of the text. Besides that, the chapter was screwed-up by editing, with uncompleted sentences and stuff.

And I would change the flag-stuff back, if I wasn't too scared of computers to try.

ARRE

Dear Arre

I reverted some of your additions mainly because of pro-polisario stance and lack of evidence. The human rights link doesn't work. Please stop making changes in the article without consensus or at least provide "neutral" and authentic ressources. Thanks. Daryou 16:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Settlers vs. natives

Fayssal keeps erasing the point I inserted about the settlers outnumbering the native Sahrawis, saying there's no way of knowing. Let's do the maths and find out.

In 1991, Morocco brought in some 170,000 settlers and stated that they were eligible voters, to smash the referendum planned for next year. In 1998 (after the '97 Houston accords once again made a referendum likely), they entered another batch of 50,000 people. That makes 220,000 settlers in only the eight years between 1991-98. Then we have the settlers who immigrated in 1975 to 1991, and all the settlers who have come in 1998-2005. Plus the fact that settlers have babies, too. And, sure, some may have gone back, and some have died, but there's no way we will find ourselves below 200,000 settlers today.

The article states that the present population in the whole occupied territory, including settlers, is circa 270,000 people. This leaves a maximum of somewhere around 70,000 for the native Sahrawis. Probably less.

And, I remind you, the indigenous Sahrawis according to the 1975 Spanish census were only 75,000 people. And even if its notoriously hard to head-count nomads, they would not have been significantly more than that. Of these, the bulk live in the Tindouf camps, but many have died and others have migrated away from the area. Natural population increase have been stumped by the camp conditions and by war.

In December 1999 the UN MINURSO mission published its final list of eligible voters. From the occupied territories population and the camp population combined, they found 86,425 eligible voters, i.e. proven 1975 Sahrawis and adult direct offspring. Morocco immediately launched a re-identification demand for 130,000 of its rejected candidates (i.e. adult settlers). Polisario also had quite a few people in their camps who did not qualify (because they had not been included in the Spanish census for various reasons, or because they could not prove their heritage with documents or through relatives), but made no similar demand for a recount, bowing to the Security Council's request to stop the appeals procedure.

Morocco has also indicated at times that some of its army personnel should be given the vote, and it is likely this demand will return now that the Baker II Plan states that the voter qualification criterion is long-term residence, not being ethnically/politically Sahrawi. Many officers and other military personnel have been stationed for a long time in the area.

(How absurdly unjust, by the way, since the referendum is supposed to be about Sahrawi self-determination. It's like having the Israeli army and settlers vote on a Palestinian state...)

But anyway. What I wrote in the article was the following. You removed the bold part:

"The precise size of the population is not known due to political controversy, but it clear that the Moroccan settlers and soldiers now outnumber native Sahrawis."

I repeat:

86,425 documented, over-18 Sahrawis in THE WHOLE population, the largest number in the camps. In the territory there were AT LEAST 130,000 additional Moroccan settlers over 18 years of age, namely the people Morocco appealed for.

If you add the troops (often given as 160,000), there is no question what so ever that the settlers + army outnumber the Sahrawis in the occupied territories. It even seems pretty clear that the settlers themselves heavily outnumber the Sahrawis, without counting the army, but I didn't even write that.

I will now, though. Please leave it in there.

ARRE

Infobox

Dear ARRE You said that the case of Palestine is about borders and not about existence. Maybe you don’t know that the State of Palstine isn’t recognized by Israel and 100 countries, and the question of existence is still put forth. I agree that the case of Palestine is different; I’ve already said that every conflict has particular historical, geographical and political features. In the articles of Abkhazia and the others you’ll find many differences. We are here to write and discuss the article "WS", this article deals with Western Sahara as a disputed territory and is supposed to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that the concerned parties of the conflict can agree, according to the principles of neutrality of WP. You said that a reader who reads only the infobox might interpret it as a sign of pro-polisario stance and he have to read more lines to understand that there is two sides of the story. And you suggested adding the sentence "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco" below the infobox!!! I see that you finally agree that this infobox reflects a pro-polisario stance and that its information is disputed by the other concerned party of the conflict. If both of us agree that this infobox isn’t neutral, are we forced to keep it?! Surly no!! Daryou 15:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Not an admission of anything He's not saying the infobox is pro-Polisario - he's saying someone might get that impression from merely glancing at it. (Of course, if someone merely glanced at the infobox, and didn't read the article, they probably wouldn't even know what "Polisario" meant...) You could get the impression that the Abkhazia infobox is pro-separatist, but I would like to give the Wikipedia readership more credit than the assumption they're only going to skim the infobox. Justin (koavf) 15:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===> Misdirection: What about his suggestion of adding the sentence "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco" below the infobox ?! Isn't it a recognition of an anti-Moroccan and pro polisario stance?!! I would like to give the Wikipedia readership more credit by writing a neutral article with a neutral infobox. Daryou 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Precedent No. That information is not present on any other infobox of any other disputed region, so it doesn't belong here. Clearly, you don't want to give the editors credit, or else you wouldn't continue reverting and fighting with them. The infobox is neutral, and identical to many others on other Wikipedias, and similar to articles that are similar on this Wikipedia. Justin (koavf) 16:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===> you didn't answer the question: What about his suggestion of adding the sentence "This information is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco" below the infobox ?! Isn't it a recognition of an anti-Moroccan and pro polisario stance?!! Daryou 17:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>I did answer the question: No. Justin (koavf) 18:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Would you provide us some explanations please? Daryou 18:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Alright, you two, this is what I meant: The Infobox has to be there, to conform to the established standard etc (arguments above). Anything else would not be neutral, but rather treating Western Sahara as a special case due to the objections of one side. Adding the line about Morocco was meant as a compromise to stop you and others from deleting it and generally wrecking the article.

Whichever way... Daryou: I think your latest, major overhaul of the article is blatantly political, and an example of sabotage rather than normal editing. I agree some of the stuff I had added needed re-phrasing (the stuff on literacy was rhetorical and POV, and you were quite right to change it; the parts on Spanish ID cards -- which I didn't write -- was probably relevant, but badly placed in the article... etc).

But how can you justify removing ALL information on human rights under the political heading? That is THE major controversy right now & Freedom House is as far as I know one of the most respected democracy monitors in existence. And http://www.freedomhouse.org works just fine; I'm using it right now. If its supposed to be written some other way in Wikipedia (I'm no good at this), then help me out instead of deleting it.

How can you justify removing ALL information on the settlement process under demography? Especially since I spent loads of text explaining (above) how the settlers comprise the majority of the population? Is this not relevant to an article on the demography of Western Sahara?!

How can you justify removing ALL information on the oil exploration debate under economy? The possible presence of oil is the major economic question facing Western Sahara today, and the UN decision was ground-breaking in determining the future economic prospects of the area and the conflict.

Why would you delete that the MINURSO found that the largest single portion of native Sahrawis are living in the camps? That's at the core of the whole voter eligibility debate.

And, finally, why is the article not supposed to mention the explicit Moroccan refusal to negotiate on a referendum of independence (as opposed to autonomy), despite previously signing contracts on that principle? This was the kingdom's prime objection to the Baker II plan!

If you feel information is left out, please add it yourself; I am very interested to read it. I'm eagerly expecting something on Sahrawi culture under Moroccan rule, for example, since you complained that was missing. But do not remove non-disputed information that is highly relevant to the conflict and the article, just because you don't like the implications of it (such as the fact that the UN says Western Sahara cannot be exploited economically, under the headline "Economy").

Arre 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

• First, there is no need to resort to persoal attacks and to use words like "wrecking" and "sabotage", I never accused you, so stop accusing me.

These were not intended as attacks on you, but rather as criticism of your last edit, which I think was damaging. But I didn't mean to offend you personally. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I already said that I reverted some of your additions because of pro-polisario stance and mainly because of lack of evidence. I already asked you to stop changing the text without consensus and without providing authentic and neutral evidence, for example really working internet links. There is also speculations about repression of human rights in Tindouf Camps but I never added such information in the article.

What you said: Yes, you I know you said you deleted some additions, but you have not even tried to explain why. How is it "pro-Polisario" to mention that the UN has banned economic exploitation of Western Sahara, with a quote, under the heading "economy"? I asked you point-by-point about the deletions I could not understand or accept, and I believe you should respond to that. Anyway, I was not changing stuff we didn't agree about, but adding topics that were clearly missing from the article. I think there's a huge difference; and, you know, its not like you haven't done the same.

The link freedomhouse.org: As I said above, the Internet link works fine. If you can't access it, something's wrong with your computer.

The need for more hr-information: About alleged Polisario abuse in the refugee camps, feel free to add or suggest such information under the Western Sahara, Polisario or Tindouf headings. I know very little about it (and what I know is mostly really corny propaganda stuff like "Polisario is not a Sahrawi movement, but a front for Fidel Castro's child-slave-labor-trafficking mafia"). I do agree though that there is probably some legitimate criticism on treatment of former POW:s, and when we expand to have a broad human rights treatment, this could be mentioned, although it is and should be kept to a minor part of the bigger picture. Your deleting of all information on human rights is not helpful in that respect, though.Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• You say that there is a precedent, I've responded to this argument in the "A disputed territory" section [25], I see that no one responded point by point to my argumentation there.

Justin has argued extensively for this, and while I've basically agreed with him, I also had some comments on this. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• The current version of the infobox isn't neutral because of anti-Moroccan and Pro-polisario stance, I request to restore the "no flags infobox" who provides useful information about the disputed territory without any pro-moroccan or pro-polisario stance.

I don't agree this information is pro-Polisario (since the article is both about the geographic territory of Western Sahara, and the non-self-governing country/nation Western Sahara). But I do agree we should try to resolve this issue as soon as possible, whatever the outcome (note: this doesn't mean you can delete it right away ;-). If possible, I think we should compromise. I suggested having a "this is disputed by Morocco"-line under it, what is your take on that? Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I understand that it is difficult for users who believes so much in the struggle of Polisario to delete the flag of SADR as it is their symbol. I would like you to remember that WP is a free and neutral encyclopedia who belongs to every one. So stop using it as a weapon in your struggle.

This is the same point as above. I don't agree with your interpretation, of course, and I am not doing this out of support for Polisario: the same info could be moved to the SADR or whereever, and Western Sahara would be no more or less occupied. Rather, I genuinely believe it is supposed to be in the article, for reasons stated above. The Western Sahara flag is used extensively by non-supporters of the SADR, to signify the territory of Western Sahara, disputed or not. I guess not in Morocco, but its evident in loads of Swedish, English and other dictionaries and geographic material that I've checked. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would like you to respond point by point to my reasoning. Thanks.

Daryou 16:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Done, and no hard feelings for disagreeing, okay? I'm sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive before. Now, though, I would like you to answer to my points made above about settlement/demographics, exploitation/economy etc, and explain what can and can't stay, and why. Arre 17:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Excuse-me!!! where do you find in this article that it is about the "non-self-governing country/nation Western Sahara"?????!!!!, It seems to me that you are a little bit confused. Maybe you should re-read the article. A little tip: Search in the article (including previous versions) the words "territory", "state", "nation" and "country" using the serach tool of your internet explorer (and please don't feel offended, it's not personal).
• I was personally offended when you said that my last edits were damaging.
• "Justin has argued extensively for this": ==>The only response that I find is this one: "Thank you I appreciate your kind comments and diplomatic tone, Daryou. I honestly don't have much to say right now, as I'm heading off to the UN. I'm going to be presenting before the IV Committee on the "question of Western Sahara". I'll post how it went on my user page. Try to get along without me for a few days"
• I guess that the Swedish, English and other dictionaries and geographic material that you've checked are a little bit ill informed about the conflict. I’m sure that you can find if you want plenty of dictionaries that don’t do the same thing.
• Here are your suggested additions with my responses:

1. "The practice of treating Western Sahara as a "normal" part of Morocco is however contradicted by numerous human rights reports that point out that there is a sharp difference in the way the authorities act in the occupied territories and in Morocco proper":==>Anti-Moroccan stance and lack of evidence.
2. "Western Sahara remains one of the most politically repressed territories in the world according to the democracy monitoring organization Freedom House":==> Give me a link to the Freedom house page who speaks about WS (not the main page of the organization). According to the US department of state "The Polisario reportedly restricts freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, association, and movement in its camps near Tindouf in southwestern Algeria" [26]. According to Amnesty international:"Polisario camps: Freedom of expression, association and movement continued to be restricted in the camps controlled by the Polisario Front near Tindouf in southwestern Algeria. Those responsible for human rights abuses in the camps in previous years continued to enjoy impunity. The Polisario authorities failed to hand over perpetrators still resident in the camps to the Algerian authorities to be brought to justice and the Moroccan authorities failed to bring to justice the perpetrators of abuses in the Polisario camps present on its territory"[27]
3. "In practice, settlement activities and anti-independence policing has taken precedence over normalizing the situation in the "southern provinces":==>It’s your POV.
4. "This initiated a debate on the legality of exploiting occupied territory. In 2002 the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs through its Under-Secretary General Hans Corell ruled such exploitation illegal, stating that...the exploitation and plundering of the marine and other natural resources of colonial and Non-Self-Governing Territories by Foreign economic interests, in violation of the relevant resolution of the United Nations, is a threat to the integrity and prosperity of these territories": ==>Give me an internet link.
5. "These 86,425 Sahrawis were dispersed between occupied Western Sahara and the refugee camps in Algeria, as well as smaller numbers in Morocco, Mauritania and other places of exile, with the largest number found in the camps": ==>According to the Minurso: "In 2002 the total population for the region was recorded at 461,000 with aprox 150,000 of those currently residing in refugee camps"[28]

Thanks Daryou 22:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What the...? I wrote a really long answer to all this, but now its not here? But I can't find it in the History thread either, so I must have messed it up myself somehow. Quick answers, maybe I'll get back in more detail later:

• Justin's written a lot, but maybe its in the archived part of the talk page. I agree with him. The point I added (better explained in the lost version) was that the article deals with WS not only as a geographic territory, but as a nation and a conflict (but that doesn't mean it's an independent state). Leaving out its political characteristics as a nation (including its recognized representatives etc) would be the same kind of error as pretending that East Timor was just plain old Indonesia during the occupation years. It was not. The correct thing in that case (too) was to present full information on the quasi-country and nation of Western Sahara, coupled with full information on the political status of the actual territory (incl. its non-independence), but also add explicitly that the occupiers' standpoint is that its just a normal, integrated part of Indonesia/Morocco without any need for political debate at all.

• References to credible Tindouf abuse information (such as the one you give from Amnesty) should be present in one or several articles if we have human rights info at all. Presently we don't, since you deleted it.

• The Freedom House link works fine. Navigate it or search it, for the "Map of Freedom" (Morocco proper is colored yellow for "partly free", Western Sahara is dark purple for "not free") and the Country Reports. In the case of Moroccan-controlled WS (as opposed to Morocco; they get radically different scores. with WS having the worst possible grade for political freedom along with North Korea and Libya and some other political meltdowns), look for the disputed/occupied/associated/something territories heading. This was intended as backing for my claim that human rights org's say there's a major difference in the way the two are governed; Amnesty, HRW and others also makes this very clear in their reports. You will also frequently find it in whatever news media writes on the subject. Other hints on the differences in political climate are:

1. The expulsion of some ten journalists in the last year from WS, and none from Morocco.

2. The fact that out of 50 victims in the recently dug-up mass graves in former Moroccan prison camps (check NYT and other newspapers), 41 were Sahrawi. If that's anything to go by, and assuming I've done my maths correctly -- you will, if you compare population sizes, find that you were 82 times more likely to get murdered for political reasons if you were Sahrawi than if you were Moroccan. Go figure!

• The oil thing -- just google part of the quote. I took it from Global Policy-something, but I've seen this and other parts of Corell's statement quoted in all kinds of places.

• The 86K Sahrawis are the documented native WS Sahrawis, and the largest single group of them live in the camps. Your 461,000 are the total population, as stated, including settlers. This is again proof that we are right to say that the settlers outnumber original Sahrawi inhabitants, since over 250-300,000 people (i.e. the total pop. minus the camps) is definitely more than whatever portion of the 86,000 resides in WS. If you don't understand what the differences between the categories are, please read my Settlers vs. Natives text again. For more info on the 86,000, check UNSG reports of 1999.

• A last point about the Infobox. I am not supporting Justin's (and others') case because "I love the Polisario" or anything like it. With or without a flag in the Infobox on Wikipedia, Western Sahara will be equally occupied. But I do honestly believe he's right on this one, for reasons stated by him, me and others above.

Arre 04:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll repeat again: The legal status and souvreinty of WS isn't resolved yet, WS is a territory disputed by Morocco and Polisario (who proclaimed the SADR). The United Nations has been seeking a settlement in Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the Territory, and the POLISARIO, supported by Algeria. On 29 April 1991, the Security Council, in its resolution 690 (1991), decided to establish the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Saying that WS is part of Morocco is a pro-moroccan stance. Saying that WS is a nation governed by polisario is a pro-polisario stance. I'm glad that you mentionned the example of East Tumor who became a country with a UN seat due to the referundum held under the surveillence of the UN. Maybe in the future it would be the case of WS (who knows?), But actually the WS is still a disputed territory. WP is here to represent facts in a neutral way (not dreams of independance movements). WP isn't here to arbitrate in any conflict.

No one is disputing this. What we are disputing is if it is biased to put the flag of the nation that wants to break out from Moroccan rule, on display in its own article (that is, not under the Morocco-heading), and VERY CLEARLY stating that there's opposition to this, and that the question is not resolved. My point in mentioning East Timor was that no-one (well, some Indonesians maybe) would have accepted an article that claimed that the article of "East Timor" was just a non-political geographic territory, and that info on the East Timorese nation and its independence struggle was not relevant to it. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• The article of WS has always been about a territory (not a country), you can look in the history of the article and its talk page (mainly the first posts in the archives).

You're wrong. It's always been about "Western Sahara". That is a territory and a nation, and kind-of-a-country, but NOT a state (that is clear from the article). It is about Western Sahara the same way an article about Sweden is about Sweden as a country and a nation with a common history, and just not about "the eastern part of the Scandinavian peninsula". Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to add comments on human rights in the Moroccan-controlled parts and in Tindouf camps in a neutral way.

When you allow me to put back the human rights info (although you can suggest modifications) I think we should include the information you showed me. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• In the case of Moroccan-controlled WS (as opposed to Morocco); they get radically different scores according to Freedom house. with WS having the worst possible grade for political freedom along with North Korea, Libya and some other political meltdowns like Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia.. etc [29].

I guess that Tindouf camps are in Algeria :).

The map doesn't show the full range of scores, it has just three colors. For that you have to see the country reports. With 1 for a free country and 7 for total tyranny, I think Algeria gets 6 in "political rights", Morocco 4 or 5 and Western Sahara 7. There's no report on the Tindouf camps. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I googled around your sentence "50 victims in the recently dug-up mass graves in former Moroccan prison camps (check NYT and other newspapers), 41 were Sahrawi", Honestly I didn't find what you are talking about. I've also made a search in NYT [30] with no results.

I don't think I said that exact sentence was there. For what NYT reported: open nytimes.com, international, middle east (or if its "africa"). Then scroll down and look for Morocco. (The article also links to another text that treats democracy in Morocco, with nothing on the Western Sahara issue, which I found interesting. Just a tip.).

This version here is from Reuters: http://www.boston.com/news/world/africa/articles/2005/10/08/morocco_unveils_secret_mass_graves_of_prisoners/

The first communiques on the mass graves were released by the Moroccan Equity and Reconciliation Commission, by the way. Here's what I found after just a brief look at their homepage:

http://www.ier.ma/_fr_article.php?id_article=1332

Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I've made a search about the oil affair in UN and I didn't find what you are talking about[31].

Uhm. I have no idea how to find it in the UN either. But here's the page I took the quote from: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/wsahara/2002/0205oil.htm

If you google the way I told you, you'll find more. With or without quote we can't just strike out the whole oil debate, though. Just today the Polisario said they wouldn't guarantee the safety of KerrMcGee's staff if they carry through with a recent decision to drill for oil. If fighting were to erupt over that, and there's NOTHING in Wikipedia on it, we've done something wrong... Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I re-read your Settlers vs. Natives text again, Honestly I didn't find any dependable evidence. You'll convince me if you give me one link to a minurso page with the numbers you reported.

I told you. Check the UN Secretary General's reports on Western Sahara from the winter of 1999, specifically I think it's from December. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• A last point about the infobox, If I was defending enough my country, I would like an infobox with the Moroccan flag. But I think that WP isn't a field of war. WP is first of all a reliable and neutral source of information. For God sake, Please be neutral and provide WP readers an infobox without any pro-polisario or pro-moroccan stance. Thanks Daryou 21:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is not about which country you support. Do you honestly think a Moroccan flag in the Wikipedia Infobox would make ANY difference? It is about my belief that occupied and/or separatist nations should be given recognition as such in Wikipedia, as opposed to recognition as sovereign states or normal, non-political territories.

Okay, whatever we do, I can't spend this much time debating it... we'd better decide soon. I guess Justin will have something to say when he's back, he's done this far longer than any of us. Arre 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Response

• "It is about my belief that occupied and/or separatist nations should be given recognition as such in Wikipedia, as opposed to recognition as sovereign states or normal, non-political territories": ==>I agree with you when you say that "it is your belief". Maybe we should create a "country page" for every separatist movement, for example North Ireland, Basque territories, Kurdistan, Corsica, there was also a separatist movement in north Italia I think..
• "What we are disputing is if it is biased to put the flag of the nation that wants to break out from Moroccan rule"==> Yes it is biased because the question of sovereignty in WS isn’t resolved yet. By the same way I can put the question "Is it biased to put the flag of the nation (Morocco) that wants to preserve its territorial integrity?"
• "My point in mentioning East Timor was that no-one would have accepted an article that claimed that the article of "East Timor" was just a non-political geographic territory, and that info on the East Timorese nation and its independence struggle was not relevant to it"==> Who gives you the right to say "No one (well, some Indonesians maybe)", did you make a survey in WP?
• "You're wrong. It's always been about "Western Sahara". That is a territory and a nation, and kind-of-a-country, but NOT a state"==> That’s the problem; I see that you are confusing facts and POVs. According to Morocco WS is the southern provinces. According to Polisario WS is a nation. According to UN WS is a territory which the question of sovereignty isn’t resolved yet. You see that your sentence is completely an anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance and by then not neutral.
• Give me please one sentence in the article (including maybe previous versions) which defines WS as a nation or a "kind-of-a-country"
• I Checked the UN Secretary General's reports on Western Sahara from the winter of 1999, and I didn’t find what you say, please help me.
• Feel free to add neutral comments on HR in WS and Tindouf camps. You know that my English isn’t very strong, so do it for me please.
• I wonder why a comment made by a UN representative on oil exploitation isn’t in the UN site?
• About the Mass grave thing, According to your links it’s about history (1970's), HR has considerably improved after [32], and there is no precision about the number of sahrawis killed in this affair.
• Here are the scores given by Freedom House in 2005 to different countries[33]. WS is in the table of disputed territories [34], I wonder why Tindouf camps aren't quoted? Freedom house didn't visit the Tindouf camps or what?
• I repeat: The current version of the infobox isn't neutral because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance, Please restore a neutral version without flags. Thanks. Daryou 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers to Daryou

* Don't confuse Western Sahara with "northern Italy", where separatism is a minor sect. The Western Sahara Sahrawis clearly constitute a nation, a separate people, in the same way Moroccans and Algerians are separate peoples (althought both are Arab and Berber). Kurdistan is a good example: another territory with the same name as the nation, and a history of separatism/anti-occupation struggle. If you look up Kurdistan you will accordingly find a great big Kurdistan flag at the top of the page. And Kurdistan is even less well-defined as an independence-seeking entity, since it has no recognized borders (Western Sahara does, although Morocco disputes the existence of the northern one).

* Well, just briefly... here's one of the UNSG reports, although I don't think its the final one on the subject. The number fluctuated up and down a little bit, with the inclusion of a minor number of appealers.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/301/87/IMG/N0030187.pdf?OpenElement

• The Tindouf refugee camps were not examined by Freedom House because they're camps, and not supposed to be managed as countries. They didn't visit the Kurdish, Sudanese, Tibetan or Palestinian refugee camps either.

• I will add stuff on human rights later, when I have time, based on what I wrote before. I will include what you brought up from Amnesty. I will also re-enter something on the oil debate, although as long as I can't find a better original source for the quote, I won't use that. And, of course, I will rewrite the stuff on the settlement process, because that has is a major part of the whole conflict. I will try, however, to rephrase it in a more neutral tone, since you felt it was biased. But I can't accept that it is just removed like that.

• And, you know what, Daryou? There's nothing wrong with your English :-)

Arre 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC) the

===> Dear Arre, Thank you very much for your support about my English, I confess that this debate helps me to improve it :-)

• I mentionned Kurdistan as an example, there is indeed a flag in the WP page, I don't know if displaying a flag in this page is or not neutral and if all the Kurdes agree upon this one. What about Northern Irland, Corsica and Basque territories?
• And don't forget that the flag of polisario isn't adopted by all Sahrawis. That's the heart of the conflict, Morocco says that most of Sahrawis self-identify as Moroccans, Polisario says the opposite. We are sure about one thing: Only a referundum can confirm how much Sahrawis self-identify as moroccans or SADRians; that's a fact; saying anything else is a POV.
• Excuse me but your link doesn't work, I think that you have serious problems about copy-editing links in the adress bar. Just give me the exact date of the report.
• I'm sure that Freedom house visited the Tindouf camps. All trustful Human Rights organizations did. Maybe they are quoted as a part of WS.
• Feel free to add what you said in a neutral way :).
• Excuse me but you didn't respond to the folowing points:

1. "You're wrong. It's always been about "Western Sahara". That is a territory and a nation, and kind-of-a-country, but NOT a state"==> That’s the problem; I see that you are confusing facts and POVs. According to Morocco WS is the southern provinces. According to Polisario WS is a nation. According to UN WS is a territory which the question of sovereignty isn’t resolved yet. You see that your sentence is completely an anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance and by then not neutral.
2. Give me please one sentence in the article (including maybe previous versions) which defines WS as a nation or a "kind-of-a-country"
3. I repeat: The current version of the infobox (with the flag of Polisario) isn't neutral because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance, Please restore a neutral version without flags.

Friendly yours ;-) Daryou 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• The point is that even Kurds that don't want independence would agree that this is the internationally known flag of Kurdistan (not "the flag of PKK" or anything like that).
• The Western Sahara flag is used by non-Polisario Sahrawis, such as the Khat al-Shahid breakaway faction. It is not considered "the Polisario flag" just as the Palestinian flag was not considered "the PLO flag" despite the fact that Israeli officials used to refer to it that way.
• Freedom House limits its investigations to countries and dependencies, disputed and occupied areas, and other special cases, such as Western Sahara, the parts of the Palestinian territories under Israeli rule, the parts under Palestinian rule, Chechnya, Iraq, etc. They have not visited the Tindouf camps, since that is not within the scope of their objectives. Amnesty, HRW and a number of UN organizations have, and they have about the same criticisms as you mentioned above, the most serious being that perpetrators of abuse in the past are not being punished. (But they also point out that the same goes for accused who defected to Morocco, and have been given government positions there.) Freedom House refers to the Moroccan-occupied areas of Western Sahara, probably since those are the only ones with any significant population (otherwise the Polisario-controlled areas would be worth investigating, but still not the refugee camps).
• As for what Sahrawis self-identify as, I would say Sahrawis. However, this is not about the Sahrawis as a whole, but about the Sahrawis of Western Sahara, i.e. the people of Western Sahara which has a right to self-determination. Morocco has consistently tried to block a referendum involving only that people (the 86,000 voters, remember?), wanting to broaden it to include settlers brought in from Morocco proper. You go figure what the Moroccan authorities believe... Anyway, this does not affect my point made above.
• Western Sahara is a nation, and its people a people, under any reasonable definition of the words -- the same way that Palestine is a nation even though there are different POV's on how and where that nation should be set up as a state. The WS Sahrawis will remain a distinct national or ethic identity even if Morocco were to be granted sovereignty over the area. I think you confuse "nation" with "nation state" here. And the article is named - "Western Sahara". If you want to start a Morocco-related article on "The Southern Provinces", go ahead. The same way, there is a Kurdistan flag under "Kurdistan", but there would not be under a heading called "eastern Turkey" or under the Kurdish city of "Diarbakir" in present-day Turkey.
• The report is from the winter of 1999 or possibly very early 2000. They're easy to find, just search for the figure "86" within the document or something. Or, even better, read the section on voter registration. I'm not exactly sure what you are disputing, though. That the MINURSO gathered voters' names? The number they gathered? Or what?
• I'm ready to end this debate, or at least my participation in it: I don't have time for this. But I would like to hear what Justin says first. Then let's find some compromise. (Still haven't heard a reaction to my suggestion on having a "this is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco"-line in the infobox).

Cheers, Arre 16:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• We are not sure that even Kurds that don't want independence would agree that this is the internationally known flag of Kurdistan. But we are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.

• Come on.... anyone who knows anything about Kurdistan would agree that it is the internationally known flag of Kurdistan. Even Turkey, however much they might oppose the creation of a state to match the flag. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as, that's a fact.
• Maybe Sahrawis (self identifing as moroccans or SADRians) are a nation, but Western Sahara is a territory, the WS page is about this territory.

• That is the debate, isn't it? Just as a page on Palestine or Kurdistan must be on both the geographic area and on the concept of Palestine or Kurdistan as a nation and possible state, so must Western Sahara. You insist that it must only treat the geographic area, which is of course in line with the Moroccan government's opinion that Western Sahara is part of southern Morocco, nothing more. I don't agree: whether you support or oppose the Moroccan or Sahrawi claims, you should recognize that there is politically a lot more to it than this. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Give me please one sentence in the article (including maybe previous versions) which defines WS as a nation or a "kind-of-a-country"

• I'm sorry, but I just don't have the time to go through every edit of this page. You keep asking me for sources and more information for just about everything I say, but seldom or never provide anything yourself.
• Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians. While they have no recognized government, they clearly constitute a separate historical, political and (despite there being some cross-border Sahrawi populations) ethnic community. This is the meaning of "nation", and its all very clear from the article. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree with you about the the number of sahrawis living in Moroccan controlled WS and in the Tindouf camps. Remember that you said: "Freedom House refers to the Moroccan-occupied areas of Western Sahara, probably since those are the only ones with any significant population (otherwise the Polisario-controlled areas would be worth investigating, but still not the refugee camps)".

• What do you mean you don't agree? If you have a problem with my maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", please say what it is.
• Freedom House reports on countries and the likes. If there were people living in the Polisario held ("liberated" as they say) areas of Western Sahara, they would probably report on that. But there's not, just a minuscule, fluctuating population of nomads and guerillas. They do not report on how refugee camps are run, neither in Algeria or Sudan or anywhere else. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• About your suggestion on having a "this is disputed by the Kingdom of Morocco"-line in the infobox): Adding this sentence is a recognition of the no-neutrality of information included in the infobox because it recognizes that it's disputed by a concerned party in the conflict (Morocco).

• Something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone. There's plenty of things I think the Polisario would like to change in this article, but that doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with -- nothing. Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• I repeat: The current version of the infobox (with the flag of Polisario) isn't neutral because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance, Please restore a neutral version without flags.

• Gee, I wish I could, but you apparently did it yourself... again. End of debate, or what? Arre 17:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheers. Daryou 17:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I feel that we are not really making progress on certain fronts, and to be fair, I currently have neither the time nor the energy to help you much or to try to follow each argument. I asked help to others. Please do not enter in a cycle of reversion over that box as we would have to protect the article again. It would be unfortunate as other things as improved since last protection (other things could be improved still ?) Anthere

• We are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.
• I see that we agree that only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as.
• The debate is about the infobox. There is in fact an article about SADR wich deals about the concept of possible state in WS. The same concept is used with Palestinian territories and State of Palestine pages. The WS article in fact does treat WS as a territory, which is of course in line with the UN opinion and the Minurso reports.
• So you think that I never provided any evidence myself, what about all the internet links that I provided in my previous posts??
• The sentence "Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians" is your POV. I agree with you when you say that the Sahrawis have no recognized government and that they clearly constitute a separate ethnic community, like Berbers, does it mean that Berbers aren't Moroccan?.
• I said before that Saharawis are maybe a nation according to your definition. But WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario according to Minurso reports.
• I indeed have a problem with your maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", because you provided no evidence.
• Sure, something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone, but some thing upon a conflict is necessarly biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: You do oppose the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and you have the right to think that it's biased. And there's plenty of things that Morocco would like to change in this article. But I see that the actual version of the article "text" is consensual (but feel free to add what you said before in a neutral way).
• I totally agree with you when you say that "Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with nothing". I think also that we are doing a great work by writing an article in a such sensible case :-).

Friendly. Daryou 19:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Koavf:

Your main argument is that there is a precedent in WP and that other disputed territories have flags in their WP pages. You mentionned the examples of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and Transnistria.

1. First of all, I don't know of displaying a flag in those pages is or not neutral.
2. Second, you have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one. The case of Taiwan is relevant because the republic of China is partially recognized, have de facto control over the territory, but claims control over the whole China Territory, and you know what?: there is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the Republic of China one.
3. I suggest as a compromize to display the flag of Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) page.

===>Answers to "Answers"

==> Response to ARRE

• We are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.

-Untrue. The only flag that anyone in the international community recognizes is this one. That's it.

• I see that we agree that only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as.

-No it can't. The testimony of Sahrawis and third-party observers can also. Plus, if the Sahrawis identified as Moroccan, they would be happy to live under Moroccan administration, and not have a nationalist movement. Furthermore, if the Sahrawis were Moroccan, Morocco wouldn't propose that their citizens vote in the referendum.

• The debate is about the infobox. There is in fact an article about SADR wich deals about the concept of possible state in WS. The same concept is used with Palestinian territories and State of Palestine pages. The WS article in fact does treat WS as a territory, which is of course in line with the UN opinion and the Minurso reports.

-The key difference is that "Palestine" refers to a variety of historical regions over 2,000 years, with different ethnic make-ups. "Spanish/Western Sahara" refers to a distinct political entity that has only existed since 1884.

• So you think that I never provided any evidence myself, what about all the internet links that I provided in my previous posts??

-Several of your links are bankrupt, as they are not third-party sources, or they are taken out of context.

• The sentence "Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians" is your POV. I agree with you when you say that the Sahrawis have no recognized government and that they clearly constitute a separate ethnic community, like Berbers, does it mean that Berbers aren't Moroccan?.

-No, it is not anyone's POV. You simply say that it's POV when it's convenient. Sahrawis are clearly understood to be a separate people with a separate language, history, society, and culture. They are not Moroccan. Furthermore, this is reinforced by the finding of the International Court of Justice.

• I said before that Saharawis are maybe a nation according to your definition. But WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario according to Minurso reports.

-You are changing the subject. See nation and country.

• I indeed have a problem with your maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", because you provided no evidence.

-See any book on the topic, even the pro-Moroccan Akbarali Thobhani's book "Western Sahara Since 1975 Under Moroccan Administration: Social, Economic, and Political Transformation (North African Studies, 1)".

• Sure, something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone, but some thing upon a conflict is necessarly biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: You do oppose the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and you have the right to think that it's biased. And there's plenty of things that Morocco would like to change in this article. But I see that the actual version of the article "text" is consensual (but feel free to add what you said before in a neutral way).

-Of course the sentence "WS is Moroccan" is biased. This is a clear example of you using "POV" as a double standard.

• I totally agree with you when you say that "Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with nothing". I think also that we are doing a great work by writing an article in a such sensible case :-).

-You are not proceeding in a dialectical, like Fayssal has. You have deleted information without a justification or a consensus.

• First of all, I don't know of displaying a flag in those pages is or not neutral.

-Okay. The fact of the matter is, there is a precedent set with those articles. Read them yourself and decide if they are not neutral. It's not my fault that you're ignorant about those articles and disputes.

• Second, you have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one. The case of Taiwan is relevant because the republic of China is partially recognized, have de facto control over the territory, but claims control over the whole China Territory, and you know what?: there is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the Republic of China one.

-Again, this is a misdirection that I've already explained more than one time. Taiwan is an island that has existed for thousands of years - there is no flag of that island. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are two different governments of China and they define the term "China" in two different ways. The SADR is not a rival government of Morocco, and the territories have had internationally-understood boundaries for decades.

• I suggest as a compromize to display the flag of Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) page.

-That is not a compromise, and I've explained why that's insufficient earlier tonight on this page. Justin (koavf) 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)