Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

No flags option

Hi, I restored the no flags infobox according to the Infobox/Vote results, Best regards. Daryou 21:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I haven't counted the votes, but I'm sure you're right. However, I want to explain the change I just made, which you reverted. It should be clear that "independence declared" is the same thing as the Polisario/SADR claim. As it is now, you get the feeling that the country is simultaneously a) independent, b) claimed by Morocco and c) claimed by SADR.
I don't see how correcting that could be conceived as a political edit, or, if it could be, it would rather be pro-Moroccan, since the 27th of February (SADR proclamation) is no longer considered as an actual date of independence under my edit (but rather as a declared date of independence for the Sahrawi side). Agree? I don't want to start fighting over the infobox again... Arre 11:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Tag

now that the infobox conflict is solved (thank god), wouldn't it be possible to remove the disputed-tag? i'm sure there will be more arguments on the content of it, but I don't think that the article is fundamentally disputed anymore, by anyone. or is it? Arre 12:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, best regards. Daryou 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Daryou/"not sourced"

Daryou, you have made a number of edits saying there is no source.

  • Deletion of the UN/Corell verdict on the oil debate. I agreed to withdraw an earlier piece on this, since back then I could not find the original document to quote from. Now I have found the entire UN document. That is a source. Indeed, I can't imagine a better source than the UN verdict in extenso. What is your problem here?
  • Deletion of demographics and settlers. I made extensive mathematics on the settler situation in an earlier version of the talk page. You declined to comment. I am sure you can still find it, should you want to enter into debate on it this time. As for extensive descriptions of the settlement process, I direct you to any book on the subject of Western Sahara, especially Jensen, Thobhani or Shelley. I am not clear on what you are disputing, since I am only generally describing the existence of the settlement programs. Are you disputing that..?
  • Deletion of all references to decolonization. Being on the UN's list of non-decolonized territories means the territory is, in the UN's opinion, non-decolonized. What exactly in this statement is it you want sourced? The list itself (and the meaning of "decolonization" in a UN context) can be found at www.un.org. The "decolonization committee" is the GA 4th committee.
  • Deletion of statement that Moroccan allegations of aid embezzlement have not been supported by the international agencies responsible for the aid. You are asking me to prove a negative. If you want documentation that the UN (or other agencies) has found evidence of theft from refugee aid, which I stress that they have not, you should be the one digging up sources. Also, its interesting you didn't ask for a source for the fact that Morocco makes these accusations... isn't that just as "unsourced"?
  • If nothing more is said I will reinsert these paragraphs, but please comment. Arre 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Spanish census and MINURSO

"By eligible voter the UN referred to any Sahrawi over 18 years of age that was part of the Spanish census or could prove his descent from someone who was..."

This could be read to imply that only men could vote. Is this so? Clarification needed.--LukeSurl 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not so. Should be changed into his/her. Arre 01:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
In English, "his" is the generic/neuter pronoun. Usage of his does not imply that only men can vote.

Integrate Southern Provinces article

The article "Southern Provinces" should be integrated into this page. "Southern Provinces" should thenceforth redirect to "Western Sahara."

Note: I took the liberty of removing the complete text of the article "Southern Provinces" from the above anonymous user's message, and replacing it with a link. Arre 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think so. There's an advantage to keeping Morocco's and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's administrations (SADR is covered in "Free Zone (region)") separate, both because of political sensitivity and for clarity. They are linked to from this article anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem. Arre 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Hey guys, I protected the page. - FrancisTyers 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. This article is about the region "Western Sahara." For the self-proclaimed government in exile that controls part of this territory and that may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
  2. This article is about the region "Western Sahara." For the disputed state claiming it, which may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Daryou, can you find any sources that dispute the existence of the state of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. - FrancisTyers 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Koavf changed the wording, the burden of proof is on him, he has to provide sources saying that SADR is a state. Daryou 21:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Read his version: For the self-proclaimed government in exile. This means that they call themselves a government in exile. This is not disputed, there are many many many sources that say that the SADR consider and call themselves a government in exile. He is not the one calling it a state, you are the one calling it a state. Read the page on government in exile if you are confused about the wording. - FrancisTyers 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? He is calling it a state, not me! Daryou 21:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
What the hell, sorry man. I thought that you had changed it to disputed state. I think the former wording is much better. As a note he has been blocked for violating the WP:3RR for one hour in light of the fact that his version appears to be the consensus version, although why I don't know. Could someone enlighten me as to why this was changed? - FrancisTyers 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
If the consensus says that it should be referred to as a state perhaps we could improve this by labelling it a self-declared state? - FrancisTyers 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
So there is no need for any sources now?!!!! Daryou 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, they call themselves a state.
The SADR defined itself in terms of a State as a free, independent, sovereign State governed by a national democratic system, of a unionist orientation, progressive and of Islamic faith, on the base of the free popular will founded at the beginnings of the democratic option. [1]
So self-declared would be no problem. - FrancisTyers 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose this version: This article is about the region "Western Sahara." For the largely unrecognised proposed state claiming it, which may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. What do you think? Daryou 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah, largely unrecognised is POV, quantify largely. Are there any places that call it a proposed state? I think self-declared is much better. - FrancisTyers 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The wording "largely unrecognized" was proposed by Reisio and company in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article. Daryou 22:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick suggestions:

  1. This article is about the region "Western Sahara" partly under the military control of Morocco as the Southern Provinces. For the self-proclaimed government in exile that controls part of this territory and that may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
  2. This article is about the region "Western Sahara". For the self-declared state that controls part of this territory and that may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.


Yes, let's put an entire article in the dablink.</sarcasm> It is a state & saying it's self-declared is redundant. Last time I checked it was five against one (Daryou) at Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic#state, not government. Saying it's "disputed" is more than enough - the text that is there as of right now is good. ¦ Reisio 22:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, please try to avoid sarcasm. I'm reading through the discussion now. - FrancisTyers 22:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was 4 against 2 :). Anyway the discussion isn't over yet. Reisio proposed the term "largely unrecognized", and the term "self-declared" is accurate and not redundant since this wording is usally used to identify states/governments not recognized unanimously. Daryou 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No...I did not propose "largely unrecognized". As of right now, it's (still) five against you. ¦ Reisio 22:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, it was Robdurbar. Maybe it's 5 against 1 or 4 against 2, to follow the same reasoning it's 145 countries against 45. Daryou 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How about - showing some NPOV:

SADR isn't a state: this entity isn't recognised by 80% of the world countries, it's a proposed, self-declared, disputed, largely unrecognised entity. this have to be included. Saying that SADR is a state is POV. Daryou 22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

International recognition does not a state make. There are plenty of other unrecognised states on the List of unrecognised countries. From the page Several geo-political entities in the world have no general international recognition, but they are de facto sovereign states. If you have an alternative criteria for describing states, please make them here. - FrancisTyers 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose to read the article State especially the introduction and the International point of view section; International recognition has its importance. Daryou 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The lack of international recognition should be noted, but I don't think that it is of the highest importance when considering the definition of a "state". Transnistria, Abkhazia, Somaliland etc. are all states, but all unrecognised. - FrancisTyers 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure your suggestion is accurate - for the same reason the SADR is a state coinciding with the territory of Western Sahara, the Southern Provinces may be provinces coinciding with the territory of Western Sahara (not just the part that Morocco actually controls) - not sure. I'd have no problem with this:
"This article is about the disputed region of "Western Sahara". For the state claiming it, which may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. For the provincial claim by Morocco, see Southern Provinces."
¦ Reisio 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we're getting somewhere, how about making a note of the lack of international recognition at the UN? - FrancisTyers 23:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Eh... I don't think we want to give the appearance that the UN decides what is and isn't a state. Also (AIUI), we're just trying to disambig enough so people know what they're looking at and where to go - the separate articles can discuss what organizations recognize what (though this article actually goes into it in the second/third paragraph anyways). ¦ Reisio 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe not the UN, but some way of showing that the SADR is not widely internationally recognised. This one is more tricky than other unrecognised states as it isn't entirely unrecognised, I wouldn't be comfortable having largely unrecognised though as largely it isn't particularly quantifiable. How about For the state claiming it, which may be identified with Western Sahara and is unrecognised by a majority of countries, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Its a hell of a long way from perfect, but it gets in all the pertinent information. Open to further suggestions... - FrancisTyers 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well the problem as I see it is that they're both disputed in different ways. I'm thinking we want to (1) mention both and (2) keep them relatively equal while (3) not making the dablink enormous. Maybe one of these....
  1. "This article is about the disputed region of "Western Sahara". For the controversial claims to this region as a state or provinces, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Southern Provinces, respectively."
  2. "This article is about the disputed region of "Western Sahara". For the controversial claims to this region as an independent state or Moroccan provinces, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or Southern Provinces, respectively."
? ¦ Reisio 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Anyone of them will fit, maybe the first one is better. Best regards. Daryou 23:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

===>My two cents If there was a dab that had links to the SADR, Southern Provinces, Morocco, Foreign relations of Western Sahara, and Free Zone (region), I'd likely be fine with it. Something like this:

"This article is about the disputed region of "Western Sahara". For the government in exile that controls part of this territory and that may be identified with Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. For the remainder that is under the control of Morocco see Southern Provinces. See also foreign relations of Western Sahara.

Also, may I make this point for possibly the 100th and hopefully the final time: a lack of recognition is not the same as illigitemacy. So, there are not 140-some states against the SADR; many of them are simply not involved in the conflict at all, so they cannot be against any party. And, I imagine this is going to come up somehow, it is not POV to say that the Sahara is occupied. That is a fact, and it certainly must be mentioned in the scope of the article. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

A dab page for Western Sahara would be fine by me, but thats a whole other kettle of fish. I'm going to change the dab link to Reisio's suggestion number 1. - FrancisTyers 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Daryou's up to his wacky tricks again.

===>This article is about the disputed region of "Western Sahara". But he keeps on insisting on putting in comments about the Algerian refugee camps. It's irrelevant to the discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is a politicized attempt to discredit the Polisario, and/or somehow imply that they are as egregious human rights offenders as Morocco, which they are not. Regardless of his motivation, it doesn't belong here. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This information would be better on the Human rights in Polisario controlled camps in Algeria or Polisario Front. There should probably a see also in the human rights section here though. - FrancisTyers 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Sure Human rights in Algeria makes sense to me. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Koavf pushing the Polisario's POV again

Koavf doesn't have any respect for WP principles. He resorts all the time to personal attacks. His strategy is to refuse and revert at sight all other party's edits with fake reasons. This last blind edit war is about a passage that I copy-edited from the Human rights in Western Sahara article. To respect neutrality in WP, Polisario's human rights abuses have also to be cited, it's nothing but the truth. Since Koavf is very interested in an article without any mention to the Tindouf camps, will it be fair to delete all the information about those camps in the culture section as well?! Daryou 22:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

===>What a hypocrite It was your idea for this article to be about the geographic region of Western Sahara in the first place! Now you're pissy because you aren't allowed to put anti-Polisario edits in as many pages as possible? Are you kidding me? -Justin (koavf), talk 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrite and pissy are personal attacks. I will discuss with you when you'll act like a civil human being. Daryou 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and civility

Will you please stop making personal attacks, and will you both please try and be civil. Justin, personal attacks aren't going to get us anywhere. Daryou, being aggressive isn't helping the situation. Please try and avoid inflaming and escalating the situation. If you continue I may resort to removing personal attacks on sight, I would prefer that you both exhibit restraint though. This is a very personal issue for both of you and I think you both might benefit from taking some time to think before you post. - FrancisTyers 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Frequency and strength of criticism

The article claims that Morocco has been "heavily" criticised for its behaviour in the occupied parts of Western Sahara. This is not a POV, but a description. Moroccan abuses in the WS are a subject of numerous human rights reports (many are linked to in the HR main page), who invariably describe oppression as very severe. The abuses in WS are the main source of criticism against Morocco in the field of human rights.

The article also states that criticism of Polisario has been "less frequent". I think we can all agree on that. There has generally been very little criticism of Polisario or the Sahrawi side at large from major human rights organizations; I believe that is because they have found relatively little to criticise; Daryou is free to believe they are all biased or pro-Polisario. It doesn't change the point in fact: that the distribution of blame for HR abuses has been very unequal.

Now, this is only a general summary of the state of the debate, whether you agree with the proportions of it or not. I cited the HRW report (which is the most extensive HR report on WS I've found so far), to point out how little of it is spent at criticising Polisario, despite an exhaustive search mission to the camps; also, the criticism is far less severe than that directed against Morocco. The same case could be made using any reputable HR organization, or indeed all of them as a collective. But I can't very well cite every human rights report in existence for this sentence, so I just want to point out that this is about the general state of the debate, and a widely accepted fact.

It's like, sure, some Israeli wingnuts criticise Palestinians for "occupying" Israeli land - but it would not be incorrect to claim in a Wikipedia article that complaints of occupation center on Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory. The opposite claim is an extreme minority POV that really only exists in the internal debate of one of the parties. Still, I would be hard pressed to find a link that says explicitly that "Claims of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, are generally given more attention than claims of Palestinian occupation of Israeli land". Get my point?

As an aside to this, I may add that the main HR article devotes much more time to alleged Polisario abuses and the "terrorism debate" (which only exists in Morocco), than any human rights organization I'm aware of. That discrepancy may constitute a POV problem in itself. I don't believe being fair and balanced means giving equal space to controversial minority POV:s and generally accepted pillars of the debate.

Thanks, Arre 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your point, however I have some comments:
  • The term "heavily" is a biased quantification, it should be replaced by a word more apropriate and neutral.
  • The HRW report dates from 1995 (ten years), the situation has completely changed since then.
  • There is no comparizon between Israel and Morocco, Morocco claims that WS is historically an integral part of its territory, and it isn't sure that a majority of Sahrawis want independance.
Daryou 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Heavily, strongly, i don't really care which word is used. But the text should make clear that there's a lot of criticism, that it's not just some marginal thing.
  • You're free to dig up a couple of more recent reports that devote equal space to Polisario and Moroccan HR violations. I agree that the situation has changed in some respects, but the disappeared are still disappeared, and the refugees are still refugees, and the Moroccan repression still massively outweighs anything the Polisario possibly can have done. And there are still no human rights report of any importance that doesn't make 90% of their criticism about Morocco. So if you want another source, fine, find one. But the description stays correct.
  • There is plenty of comparison, but that wasn't what I said above. I was comparing the coverage Wikipedia gives to extreme minority POVs.
Thanks for using the talk page. Let's solve this here. Arre 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Two points to consider

  • I certainly don't see how the situation has changed much in ten years. That's really the problem, is that it hasn't changed.
  • Israel does claim that at least part of the Palestinian territories are theirs; they annexed East Jerusalem. I'm not entirely sure how that's a relevant difference, though. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Arre, a NPOV article have to report just facts without any POV interpretation. You think that Morocco was heavily criticised, I don't think so since similar reports are made about all countries especially in the third world. Even GB has faced critisism in HRW reports. There also is something cited in the latest HR reports and not accuratelly highlighted: the situation has imroved since the 1990's, and HR was repressed also in north Morocco itself. Daryou 08:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No, similarly worded reports are not made about many other countries; and when they are, that means those countries are also "heavily criticised". The Moroccan government has faced extremely strong criticism over its human rights record in Western Sahara, and moderate criticism for its interior human rights abuse. Great Britain faces nowhere near the same kind of criticism as does Morocco, and never did since modern human rights appeared at the political radar. Not even over Northern Ireland, which I suppose is the closest comparison. That the situation has improved IS made clear in the article, but the relevant fact is that while it HAS improved, it HASN'T improved to the same extent as in Morocco (where the change is considerable). About your last point: human rights in Morocco should be covered in "Human Rights in Morocco", "Politics of Morocco" or a similar article. Certainly not here, and certainly not under the name of "north" and "south Morocco". Arre 03:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Administration

===>Changes I made Morocco does not administer Western Sahara. It administers part of Western Sahara. Another part is administered by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This isn't a matter of dispute, and I don't see why Daryou reverted my more precise and accurate wording. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. Daryou 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Improved Article Style, Removed Political Framing of Historical & Ethnic Issues

I also removed this "corresponding to the ahl al-sahel (people of the coast)." as it was unclear in reference and does not seem to be accurate. (collounsbury 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

I know we've been in disagreement over some things, but that was for the most part an excellent edit. I've built further on it, to expand some parts, but also changed some of your edits. I don't think that would be very controversial, but if you have issues with what I've written, I think it would be best if we could solve this through negotiating our differences point-by-point. Instead of reverting the whole material, I mean. Either way, I think we should both go look for sources for the article, also for things we both agree is true. It's long and generally quite good, but undersourced. Arre 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Which countries recognize Moroccan/SADR sovereignty

It stated that there are 25 and 48 states respectively, but which are those (and what is the source)? -EnSamulili 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


===>Foreign relations of Western Sahara No state has formally recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I think it is a shame for WP the biased statements on this issue. Equals countries with formal recognition of SADR with "some comments" (published only by Moroccan media) favoring the Moroccan claims (and not clearly). The reality is that NO country has recognized the sovereignty of Morocco over Western Sahara. If you show a list of states that have expressed support of "Morocco's territorial integrity", which can be interpreted as support of its claims over Western Sahara (or cannot), you should do the same with states that made the same with SADR, and DO NOT EQUAL state recognition with support. For example, Australia (see http://www.afrol.com/articles/19690 ) I think this page is very biased towards the political desires of one user.

Official language

According to Article 3 of the Sahrawi constitution, "Arabic is the official language" - this implicitly excludes Spanish. This agrees with Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. And Morocco's sole official language is Arabic anyway. - Mustafaa 00:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC) We are not talking about Morocco, we are talking about Western Sahara

Removing External Links

Okay come on, this page has some links that just dont belong. I cleaned it up and now they all are back again? What good do all of these links serve? They don't. 3-4 of them are good, but the rest either are duplicates of the article, duplicate of the good links, or they spout a view point that is anything but neutral. So...I know its killing certain people, but lets try and keep the spam off of this page, ok? --Ownlyanangel 08:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Re: User talk:Ownlyanangel Why delete the official web sites of Moroccan and Sahrawi governments regarding the Sahara? Furthermore, how are any of these links were added only to promote a website, product, or service. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Spam The template says that there are three categories of spam, and none of these fit into any of those. You're deleting them because you don't like them for some reason. See the Manual of Style, and an example link is *[http://www.aidsnews.org/ AIDS treatment news]. Now, why would you delete Western Sahara news links? Also, why would you delete and not mention your reasoning on this talk page so others may see it? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


If these links were not spam (I.e promoting ideas that have no business on this page)....then Wiki wouldnt have the SpamWatch on this page. I realize you think every link is precious. But its not. And hey, I compromised with you....I kept that freaking Moroccan govt site up, despite the fact that it doesnt belong....yet you still werent happy....so I will make sure that every single WikiSpammer visits her to show you that there are standards for this page...just because its your page doesnt give you free reign. --Ownlyanangel 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===>You don't scare me This is absurd. None of these links are spam - they don't fit the definition provided. Why do these links have no business on this page? This reasoning is completely fallacious "If these links were not spam [...] then Wiki wouldnt have the SpamWatch on this page." If he didn't rob me, then why am I saying he did? If I'm cheating, why am I winning? If he's so smart, why is he dead? Your proof of spam is the simple allegation of spam. Make all the threats you want about WikiSpammers visiting her [sic], maybe they will actually show me what the standards are. And it's not my page. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude...got news for you, this isnt your page. Okay? Ownership complex much? And as long as you want to fight, Im up for it. Just because you think everybody and their mother should be linked to this dreaded page, doesnt mean that is how it must be. You dont need to have a freaking Yahoo group as a link? Are you shitting me? lol you crack me up. --Ownlyanangel 10:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

===>LOL? You're the one that claimed it's my page. To quote: "just because its [sic] your page doesnt [sic] give you free reign." --Ownlyanangel 05:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC) What in the world is wrong with you? lol -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

The shortage of citations makes this hard to pass, especially in light of rancorous talk page debate. The dispute appears to have lost steam without any of the parties actually agreeing on the topic. Since this part of the world has disputed sovereignty, I'd like to see firm evidence of editorial agreement and heavy citations before giving it the GA. Durova 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Napalm

wikima 19:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What? What are you talking about? This is credibly sourced. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No it's not. The section had been removed on the human rights page in the discussion with Arre and your self. Follow the link and read first. wikima 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • And this is the whole discussion if you don't like to click.
  • No source is valid as such
  • All known so far just mention napalm, without evidence or sources.
wikima 19:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is I've given a credible source that you can check yourself. If you don't like it, tough. You've no place removing it. This is a source, so it doesn't need to mention a source. Unless you have some reason to claim the source is itself not credible, then you're only removing it because of some personal agenda. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Napalm, koavf, when someone alledges that Morocco was bombing thousands of "refugees" on their way to Algeria with Napalm, he should have pictures of the thousands or just hundreds of bodies (civilians) of the attacks. There should be mass graves. Or did they bomb, but missed their targets?. If elswhere someone writes that Morocco used Napalm against civilians without any proof, it can't be used as a source. So either proof it- look in Polisario sources and propaganda material, there should surely be footage of the "carnage" if it really happened - or it the mention to Napalm will be removed or phrased in the correct way.--A Jalil 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The source does not give any evidence on use of napalm. It only mentions it.
  • Many of such information circulate unverified and I strongly context this way of (mis) using sources!
  • There is no information on international condemnation. This is your interpertation and The source is irrelevant in this point.

wikima 17:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


The UN source is, itself, evidence. They are a credible third party and have no vested interest in lying about Moroccan use of napalm against civilians. You may not like this, but it's not a matter of dispute.

-Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


A:

  • The report only says, fairly vagly, says "the camps had been bombarded with napalm".
  • The report does not deliver any evidence on that
  • The report seems to be on nutrition and not on napalm
  • The report seems to have taken/translated this information from a French text, only as a secondary information, in an attempt to explain the context.
  • However the French text, the real source, is itself not sourced.
  • It is vague, does not deliver any evidence, so it is impossible to verify/falscify the information.
  • It can well be from a pro-Algerian source.
  • As mentioned above this source does not express any condemnation against Morocco. In the article it was written though:

B:

  • If napalm was truley thrown then by whom? How? What were these camps exactly?
  • The vagueness of the report lets the door open for other interpretations:
1/ One possibility - Napalm was thrown by Algeria: It is known that Algeria's president Boumedienne was mad to see that the Hassan II came with the idea of the Green March which was a great succes of Morocco, and that Morocco signed agreements with Spain and enterred effectively the Sahara. Boumedienne's Algeria felt he lost and he had only an old socialist/communiste reflexe left: use the people. In order to confine as many of them as possible to use later use as political capital in form of "refugees", it had to *convince* them of the danger. This way Algeria could have bombarded the assumed camps with napalm.
a/ Does the above report contredict this? I do not think so.
b/ Among the sahrawis who have stayed there are no reports, nor any tracks of napalm or such things.
2/ Mauritania was an active actor in the conflict as well. Why not Mauritania? The reports claims the camps were in the east. Who is in the east? Mauritania.

C:

  • The source of all this is RNIS - Refugee Nutrition Information System which is currently called Nutrition Information in Crisis Situations. It is a report free report, a sort of bulletin of the Standing Committee on Nutrition
  • I am not aware to what extent it is meant to be belonging to the UN official documents and to what exetent its articles, footnotes and second degree remarks are meant to be official statements of the UN.
  • If you want/think this source must be beleave and cannot not be discussed just because the title includes "UN", then we can use the bible in Wikipedia as well.

wikima 17:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Some factual stuff first:
  • There is plenty of evidence of napalm & white phosphorous having been used against the refugees. They have even stocked the shells and bomb cases used to deliver it, and show it to journalists at every chance they get, since it is of course good PR for them.
  • All reports of this point to the same thing: the Sahrawis say they were bombed and strafed by Moroccan jets in places like Tifariti and Umm Dreiga, which forced them to move on towards Algeria. They also had plenty of burned people & bombs to show at arrival, which caused quite a stir in the press. Mauritania, in passing, hardly had an air force at the time (they got access to French Jaguars only after the front with Polisario began to crumble in 1976); and if you're trying to pin it on Algeria (allies of Polisario at the time, and not accused of this even by Morocco), then, why, it could also be Belize or Peru out on a sneak raid...
And so the point:
  • It doesn't matter whether you believe it's true or not. The accusation has been made, an Internet-available source has been presented, and that's it. That's what should be said in the article. Here's a couple of more sources for your enjoyment, which should be included with whatever was deleted (see below as to why I don't want to touch the article right now): Spanish human rights group, New Internationalist Magazine Arre 19:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Your first two points are irrelevant to me. These are your statements. I have others.
  • Your first source says in the title already "the absolutist-archaic Monarchy of Morocco". I don't think an opjective work. Re napalm it merely mentions it
  • The second one does the same, although it refers to a confirmation of the Red Cross but without citing any source (relevant) source.
  • If you have a minimum sense for scientific work and methodology (and I am sure you have) you would reject these works immmediately.
  • Now we have three sources that are non relevant, including the one used as UN document.
  • If you want to edit in an encyclopedia then you should avoid politics and stop following accusations that have been made by non objective articles but try to enlighten the world with objective, neutral information.
  • Belize or Peru are not involved parties in the conflict. They are not the godfathers of Polisario.

Cheers wikima 21:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Sheer hypocrisy First you reject a source that is objective and reliable, and then you reject a source since it isn't objective? For some reason, a lot of people on Wikipedia think that sources need to be NPOV; they don't. Sources simply need to be true. We've presented evidence that napalm was dropped on the Sahrawis, and you haven't refuted it except with any credible evidence, just pure hypotheticals. Even if these sources were themselves sourced, you would go to those sources and claim that they are unsourced. At some point, you have to trust the reliability of an original source. Plus, in case you weren't aware, we can use the Bible as a source. In point of fact, there are scores of articles exclusively about the Bible on Wikipedia. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Whom are accusin of hypocrisy? Are you now using personal attacks as arguments? I think I don't need to explain to you that this in not acceptable, especially that you are the one who systematically reminds the rules. So please refrain.
  • As I explain above, these sources are NO evidence. They only reproduce other non sourced vague "sources".
  • If we proceed this way Wikipedia becomes a bin of all kind of propaganda.
  • The allegation that Morocco was internationally condemned because of the use of napalm is not sourced. Such an allegation must be ligically removed.
  • We have brain to deal with sources and to make diference between evidence and talked at large allegations.
wikima 11:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you care to explain the difference between source and evidence? What makes one thing a source and another evidence? It's apparently an arbitrary difference based on your political biases. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try. The article mentionning napalm was a source, as such. It was the source of an information. However this information had no evidence character as it was not based on any verifiable facts, facts, logics or information. It was just quoting an anonymous other source that sayed: Napalm was thrown on camps. No more specification. In science and research (I used to be a researcher) this kind od information is directly "put in the bin" because it is completly irrelevant. wikima 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

To Justin - Please discuss and refrain from reverting

Justin,

  • You are ignoring the discussion, although article only must contain information and facts that are agreed as such
  • I clearly invited you to discuss and even copied for you the whole discussion in which you have been involved yourself
  • Your are reverting something that had been deleted in the article of Human Right in WS for a long time and you were aware of this
  • Your attitude is not comprehensible and clearly bothers the rules in Wikipedia
  • Your actionism is felt as problematic by many members already
  • If you continue reverting I will clearly undertsand that you want to start an edit war
  • And if you continue this ideological militantist actionism in Wikipedia, this will need to be resolved at an other level in Wikipedia but then in a definitive manner
  • I have the feeling that I am ont the only one who is tired of this and wishes to continue developing articles in a co-operative manner
  • Hope you aware of this.
wikima 11:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Right Look, Wikima, it's got a credible source. That's it. There's nothing more to be said. What exactly do you want to discuss? The human rights in Western Sahara article is still a mess and the conversation never came to any kind of closure because you disappeared for several months. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a whole discussion on it that I even copied above.
  • Read though
  • You cannot ignore it and keep reverting.
Thanks - wikima 14:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay Wikima, the last thing you wrote was "[t]his information had no evidence character as it was not based on any verifiable facts, facts, logics or information." That is unintelligible and meaningless. I gave you a credible source; until you can find a more credible source contradicting it, or undermine the source's credibility, it stays. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Further source I've added a scholarly source. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please give others a chance to have a look at the source.
  • You can see from the discussion above that this inforamtion have circulated in many sources but is baseless
  • Do not revert immediately
Thanks - wikima 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Look at the source Look at it all you want, but it's staying in the page now. Imagine if every time anyone added any information to Wikipedia some other editor took it out and wanted to verify the source first. That's impossible. I found several scholarly sources referencing napalm on Google Scholar. This was just one of dozens. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is wa the line clearly says: "Morocco has been internationally condemned for employing napalm against refugee columns in 1975"
  • Where, how, when, by whom did this international comdemnation happen? And what does mean international? Some propaganda agents of the algerian governements??
  • No source has delivered any evidence on the use of napalm: do you have a source with detailled reports? With images? with Witnesses? Mentionning for example people who escaped and suffered the bombing?
  • This is the kind of sources I deliver when I talk about war crimes and crimes against humanity doen by polisario and algerian officers
  • All I have seen above sources focus rather on other topics such as health or whatver in WS
  • They just mention the topic at the marge, from an other source etc.
  • I can't see from your last source that Morocco had been 1) internationally condmened for 2) having used napalm on 3) civilians and refugees.
  • Until this state it looks for me like an urban legend that is mentionned uncommented in different sources
  • And noone seems to have analysed this in a critical manner like here.
  • Finally, let us clear this topic, then make the change.
wikima 16:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


  • And BTW, the summary of your last source says "the Saharawi national identity that emerged during the 1970s".
  • This means that before the 1970s the Saharawi national identity was inexitent.
  • In other words, this confirms the Moroccan position that says this conflict is just artificial
  • And shows that the history on polisario before that date is one of this kind of urban legends.
  • But I conced this is an other topic. Just wanted to make you aware
Cheers - wikima 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point That last part is not relevant to this discussion, so feel free to bring it up somewhere else. There are clear logical fallacies in what you presented, and I'd be happy to discuss them elsewhere in an appropriate forum. The condemnation is on the UN system page; Algeria is an international player (in asmuch as it is neither Western Sahara nor Morocco), ergo that is international condemnation. The UN system link comes from witness testimony. The Google Scholar results show that there is consensus among scholarly opinion that napalm was dropped on fleeing refugees; it's obvious. The burden of proof is now on you to show this is not the case since several experts in the conflict agree. I can't understand this sentence: "Finally, let us clear this topic, then make the change." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Proof This is something new: The burden of bringing the proof is not on the one who inserts the allegation but on others to prove it is not false. Well, It goes the other way, buddy. You don't seem (or don't want to) understand what is the point here. I hope my English is quite clear for you to understand: dropping Napalm on civilians who have no Air-Defences will lead to hundreds if not thousands of deaths, actually to a massacre. There must be pictures/videos of the casualities or the mass graves. That is the proof. What a pro-Polisario "scholar" writes is irrelevant as long as it is not supported with evidence. Do not redirect us to links where the sentence "morocco used napalm", but to links where the evidence of the carnage is displayed.--A Jalil 17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Jalil This is not something new. The academic consensus is on one side, and it is Wikima who is contradicting them. It is always the case that the minority position must provide evidence once there is an established set of facts (cf. Holocaust revision or Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide.) So, buddy, if everyone is aware that Morocco dropped napalm on innocent refugees, and Wikima claims that it is a matter of dispute, he has to bring to bear some reason why this is a matter of dispute other than his own ignorance and unwillingness to accept Moroccan atrocities. Dropping napalm on civilians will lead to hundreds if not thousands of deaths if you drop it on at least hundreds if not thousands of persons. If you drop it on 178 persons, it will not cause hundreds if not thousands of deaths. Why must there be video of this? Is there video of DDT being dropped on Viet Namese? And that's a much larger military conflict involving several hundred thousand more persons and international journalists. Is there video footage of anyone going to the gas chamber in Auschwitz? Is there video footage of the gassing of Kurds in Iraq? As far as I'm aware, there were no international journalists even present in the Sahara during this period, so I would be shocked if there was any video footage. If you personally do not want to believe scholarship, that's no concern to me. Think that that earth is flat for all I care, just don't insert "the Earth is flat" on the Earth article, or demand video footage of the Earth being a spheroid on Talk:Earth. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok - I have the feeling that we are repeating the discussion that we had and in which you were involved
  • No problem to explain to you - Just do not revert until we clarify this (sorry for "clear" - English is not my mother tong)
  • If a condemnation from algerias propaganda is to be taken as interantional, fine, then I can bomb wikipedia with international comdemnation against polisario for all kind of crimes using Moroccan sources and official political positions of Morocco since it is an "international player" as well.
  • The link of US sytem does not come from witness testimony
  • It does not deal with the question of "use of napalm" in any way. It only mentions it, without provding any source nor methodology nor evidence.
  • One can believe it or not. But this is the way we deal with holly books nbt with information, on encyclopaedias.
  • The topic of this report is: "Nutrition Information in Crisis Situations - Algeria"
  • All it says is the following - without any source:
"By late 1975, thousands of people had fled annexed territories to camps in the east of the region. After the camps had been bombarded with napalm, people moved further to south-west Algeria, near the oasis town of Tindouf."
  • The only reference it seems to have is a text box at the end of the report
  • This text is a secondary information, a sort of a mini background on the WS. It does not have any source is not dedicated to explain the use or not use of napalm
  • All it says on napalm is the following:
"Il s'en est suivi une fuite de la population, d'abord vers des camps à l'est du pays, puis vers le sud-ouest de l'Algérie, après que les camps aient été bombardés au napalm."
  • This shows that the english line above is just a translation of this french one.
  • So no source, no evidence, no photograph, no witness, no concrete details, no verifiable information, nothing = Urban Legend

Cheers - wikima 17:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

International condemnation Algeria is a third party to the conflict, and so is an international player. Morocco is not. What about the journal link? Are you saying that this scholarly journal isn't credible? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Ok, I take the information from the UN Systems as irrelevant.
  • If you mind, give a solid answer why
  • In your reaction above to Jalil you confirm that there were no journalists nor videos on napalm
  • You forgett that in cases of shoah there are lots of reports, interviews, witnesses, traces and tracks, rests of concentration camps etc. etc. that confirm every thing
  • The ones who take such marginal tiny notes on use of napalm in static reports on health for "academic" work and just believe in things because they are academic are liekly to believ that teh earth is flat.
  • Algeria is not just a third party, it is a main actor in the conflict. Do not ommit facts.
  • If you mean by "scholarly journal" your second source then I can't see it yet and don't know what it says.
  • I only reported you the first contrediciton in its summary
  • If you have online what it says let me know.

Cheers - wikima 18:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Third party
  • Ok, I take the information from the UN Systems as irrelevant.
If you think the UN is irrelevant to the Western Sahara conflict, you've lost touch with reality.
  • If you mind, give a solid answer why
To what question?
  • In your reaction above to Jalil you confirm that there were no journalists nor videos on napalm
No, I didn't confirm that. You're lying.
  • You forgett that in cases of shoah there are lots of reports, interviews, witnesses, traces and tracks, rests of concentration camps etc. etc. that confirm every thing
Right, and this was also a much bigger conflict, just like the example of DDT in Viet Nam. In such an obscure conflict, it would be extraordinary if, in the middle of a war zone, in the most inhospitable place on the face of the earth, someone got video footage thirty years ago. That would be impressive to say the least.
  • The ones who take such marginal tiny notes on use of napalm in static reports on health for "academic" work and just believe in things because they are academic are liekly to believ that teh earth is flat.
So you think that journals aren't academic? What are you saying?
  • Algeria is not just a third party, it is a main actor in the conflict. Do not ommit facts.
Every time the parties to the conflict have been defined by the UN, they have been Morocco and the Polisario Front. Do not ommit [sic] facts.
  • If you mean by "scholarly journal" your second source then I can't see it yet and don't know what it says.
That's too bad if you can't see it, but you have a citation and abstract. If you can't get a copy of the Journal for North African Studies, that's not my fault.
  • I only reported you the first contrediciton in its summary
I don't understand this sentence.
  • If you have online what it says let me know.
I gave you the source as I found it.

-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok - I explained every thing about the one sentence in the UN Systems text, for the second time that everyone who had done some studies, research or may be even journalism would understand.
  • I will only add that this report does not say that Morocco used napalm but "the camps had been bombarded with napalm" - By whom? Why not by the algerian armee who was highly interested in filling the camps with refugee in order to use them as it is the case now?
  • But instead of reacting to that you stuck to margins accusing me of ingoring the UN and losing touch with reality
  • I invite you to read again, please more carefully if you're interested.
  • Meanwhile I will continue with what you say yourself:
  • You confirm there were no journalists in that place during that period of the conflict
  • Referring indirectly to a past periode (30 years ago)
  • You also confirm the small size of the event giving an example of 178 people
  • You don't provide evidence that there is any photograph, witness testimonies, research etc.
  • You provide sources of "scholarship" without showing the contents nor citing exactly what is said there, which methodology etc.
  • Knowing that much of this scholarship on the topic is politically and ideologically motivated
  • You want us to turn off our minds and believe, blindly, this "scholarship
  • Sorry this was the middle-age. Science progresses by methodology, verification and falscification.
  • Result:
=> There is no evidence (yet) on napalm having been used
=> There is no evidence that the napalm was used by Morocco and nobody else
=> There is no evidence (yet) on napalm having been used against civilians and refugees
=> There is no evidence (yet) on international condemnation against Morocco*
  • Furthermore
=> There are no information and no details on all this, e.g. who used exactly what, which parties were involved, who should be condemened who not etc.
  • Any one want to keep the line on napalm in this article will need to resolve this
  • And to present the information as a whole and not to pick only Morocco and condemn it in such a one-sided way.
  • And again, is is about metholody and not believe.

Cheers - wikima 10:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC) (* I explained to you the role and invlovement of Algeria in the Morocco talk.)

Okay I quoted from a scholarly contemporary source who himself cited a reputable news agency quoting a first-hand medical source from a third-party non-governmental organization. That should assuage all of your issues with this line. Morocco used napalm on civilians, so says someone that can be trusted; end of story. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


  • There is no end of story.
  • One source is the same as we discuss above. You just ignore all remarks about it and are angry that I do not believe it like a bible.
  • Your new one show one pager to me (???). I couldn't read any thing about napalm or the Red Cross
  1. You see that this information about napalm is heavily disputed
  2. You also see that I an Jalil presnt to you remarks and criticims that one should not just ignore
  • So why are trying to bypass any discussion?
  • Kee it here until you convince and we decide.
  • This is the way you want it isn't it?
wikima 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay I took out the UN systems source. If you can't read the new source, it's probably because you don't have access to JSTOR. You should get a hard copy of the journal or get access through a university system. It is not heavily disputed, as academic opinion is entirely on one side of the issue. Give me a credible source that disputes this claim. I'm doing what I can to try to accomodate the concerns you raise on the talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Your foonote looks messy
  • I aked you discuss first and then make the change, is this too much for you?
wikima 20:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you doing? You deleted the middle of one sentence and combined it with another to make the page far more unintelligible than I did. I did discuss my change first. What problems do you have with it now? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

To koav,

  • I am totally disapointed
  • You always speak of good faith etc.
  • You reported me to the 2RR admins wihtout daring to inform me.
  • I would have expected an other way to deal with each other
  • But I take this as a desperate way to face a discussion in which you are unable to deliver arguments and evidence.

wikima 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR You know the 3RR, and you borke it. The page does not list a mandatory notice, and since you are not a new user, I did not post one on your talk. I've offered arguments and evidence; you saying that I haven't is a mendacious distortion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As Jalil shows you have broken the rule one more time (5) - You will accept to be blocked, again.
  • I would have warned you before taking such a step.
  • You just confirm that you only talk about good faith
  • It's sad form somone who fight for the truth to behave like this.
  • This is my last word on this
wikima 18:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No I added material during the editing, so I did not revert to the same version of the page. As you note, Jalil either did not understand or strategically refused to follow the protocls by showing which old version of the page I reverted to, because it is two different versions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Now you have blocked yourself for 48 hours.
  • Do you think this was smart?
  • May be you'll take this as lesson to face discussions and talk less about "good faith"
  • Hope you enjoy the rest at least.
Cheers - wikima 10:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay So, did you learn anything? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Rapid, unintelligible edits

That's what tags are for So, I've given a credible source. Instead of deleting it, how about you discuss it? Instead of creating false and unintelligible sentences by rapidly editing, how about you take a moment to come up with a propsed alternate text? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP

Koavf, A Jalil and Wikima, please stop reverting each other. There is a dispute about the napalm reference (whether it is verifiable and whether it does not result on unfair weight). I will place a request for comments about this, as the first step on the dispute resolution process. This way, uninvolved editors can step in and express their views. Unless this silly edit war stops, someone else will get blocked again (and that is *not* the way forward). Regards, --Asteriontalk 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks asterion for this
  • My point is that this information about naplam is disputed
  • I do dispute it
  • It should be removed until we clarify
  • The alternative is to put a POV on the article.
  • Unless you accept clearly disputed and discused information to display on wikipedia pages... Which I assume you don't
Cheers wikima 21:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Wikima, as the locus of the dispute is about napalm (as far as I can see), I would suggest adding {{Disputed-section}} to the relevant section. Thanks, Asteriontalk 21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point Asterion, I appreciate your cool head and charity. Thanks. I'm not sure that I'm clear on the format that you want below. Should we re-articulate our arguments on successive bullet points? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Basically, it is meant to be a short statement listing each side's arguments against and for. This way, any uninvolved editor may get an idea without the need to work his way back the archive. Ideally, each bullet would represent one person's view but it may make more sense to add subheaders for clearer reading. Thanks, Asteriontalk 21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Western Sahara

There is an ongoing dispute related to the mention of napalm in the article, verifiability of sources and/or undue weight. Listed here. --Asteriontalk 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • The article can and should include the reliable citation from scholarly sources that napalm was dropped on refugees in the Saharan war. I have provided several links from credible sources, including the UN and two academic journals (one of which was published shortly after the incident in question.) There is no compelling rationale for keeping out this information and several for keeping it in; it is germane and verified by credible sources. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments
  • I can see no real objection to the minimal reference in the article being allowed to stay. It does seem creditable and reliable. However, treating the claims of the other side so briefly seems potentially biased. Perhaps an indication of what those claims are, and who supports them, is called for. That is, provided that any outside group indicates that they are valid. The article as it is says nothing about the accusations other than that they are widely discredited. Badbilltucker 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have made a small edit in accordance with Badbilltucker's request for more info on human rights abuse allegations. On napalm, of course it should stay there, especially since it is phrased as an "according to"-statement. If there are sources that prove that these experts have claimed that Morocco dropped napalm on Sahrawi refugees, then it is true that they have made such an allegation, whether they are right or wrong: a fact relevant to the subject. I might also add that there are numerous other written sources that claim the same thing, several of them listed in the further reading section. Of course, if there are any Moroccan investigations that intends to prove the opposite, they should also be quoted. (To the best of my knowledge, there are not.) Arre 12:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


I thought this was rather a request for comments which I didnot really understand as many things are clear in the discussion but well, it's sad, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, but looks rather like a place of blind beliefe. Lets "discuss" again.

  • I note that we now have a different version form the first one ("Morocco has been internationally condemned for employing napalm against refugee columns in 1975" NOW: only one actor accuses "the country of employing napalm against civilian refugee columns in 1975"). So why? Are you now admitting the the initial allegation was not covered by the sources?
  • I have checked both sources used [2][3]:
  1. The first one, again, mentions napalm, like in a banal footnote, taken to be taken, out of context. No evidence, no analysis nothing. It says one line on napalm just because others say it. The focus if this source is health and nutricion and not human rights and napalm. And, it does not confirm neither whether a/ Morocco was the one who throw napalm and b/whether it had been indeed condemend for this and by c/ b whom. Mainly it says vagly "napalm was used against refugees".
  2. The second source is, for me, inaccessible. What does it say exactly on the use of napalm? Who can copy or quote for us the relevant lines if there are any?
  • What is happening here is that people write something as they like it to be from their pro-polisarian POV, and put a source next to it. Then a source becomes like the holly bible, if you discuss it or reject it you commit a sacrilege. But these things happened before the 17 century and are not supposed to happen in our time.
  • Morocco has not reacted to thes allegations because they are off-topic and because they never made a debate.
  • They refer to the very beginning of the conflict when thing were confused and unclear. So from my point of view I would not be surprised to learn that, if napalm was used, Algeria has thrown it to make people fear the Moroccan armee and leave WS towards Tindouf, where they become a huge political asset as we are seeing since 3 decades (keep in mind: if Tindouf goes, everything goes for Algeria and POlisario).
  • There is no evidence known on the use of napalm in the WS conflict and that it was used by Morocco
  • No photgraphs, no witness testimonies, no survirors, no injured people who report.
  • We all know that such cases can be tracked even if there were only three people attacked. This case is like a mistery for someones: tehy talk about it but none has seen it.
  • Further readings are no sources. If they are, quote them.
  • I would like to see sources used as such, in the sense that they cover what they are used for. But you can of course choose to ingore the discussion and refuse to use your mind. Then we will be calling for comments, mediations etc...
Cheers wikima 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Blind beliefe [sic]? Wikima, the evidence is presented by a reputable source. If you don't want to believe it, fine, but don't expect us to reject it out of hand when you offer no counterargument or evidence in opposition. A preposterous claim like Algeria dropping napalm on the refugees running to them is like saying that the pictures from Auschwitz were Germans being starved by the Jews; it's baseless, contradicts all evidence and common sense, and is completely implausible. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok - I am questionning these sources. I chekc them, their content, their methodology, what they say etc. and check whether they cover the content they are use for or not. And I dare to do so. I have staretd a whole discussion about them. Your reference to Holocaust and Auschwitz is just a helpless attempt to censor by to blackmailing the language.
  • If you want to discuss, welcome, this is why talk pages exist. If you choose to believe them just because they are sources, this will be your choice to go back to times when the bible was read in latinum to prevent people from understanding and using their brains.
- wikima 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So rude I've never in my life discussed something serious with someone so pedantic. The accusation that Algeria dropped napalm on the refugees is still, as I said, baseless, and a cheap ploy, just as baseless as alleged Jewish instigation of the Holocaust. Notice also that on concurrent discussions, you trust the ESISC without question, in spite of them having virtually no public record, and you chastize me here for trusting academic journals and the Red Cross. I've never read the [B]ible in latinum (Latin?), but if you're trying to make some religiously bigoted statement, I suggest you stop it now. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry to say it but you are simply wrong
  1. I don't trust any source, even not ESISC. I have read their reports and they quote other sources such as France Libertés who delivered clear and funded evidence. Their methodology is right and thier reports can be discussed and debated from all rational points of view.
  2. I am not stating that Algeria did, but why not asking the question if the one source only says napalm has been thorwon? Tell why not? Because algeria is "good" and don't do such things? Or because you have been there?? Or because I don't have the right to ask such questions??
wikima 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay You don't trust any source? That's not possible. I believe that you have the right to say any implausible conjecture you want; all I'm saying is that no one will buy it, if for no other reason than the dearth of evidence you've provided. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop calling significant changes minor!

  • Why do you remove the calling code from WS?
  • This is not a minor change as it is content related.
  • Always keep in mind please: WS is NOT the so-called "sadr".
  • WS is the diputed territory and it is currently mostly under the administration of Morocco.
  • If you want to call there you'll need to dial the Moroccan code first.
  • Here is the definition of a minor change:
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."Help:Minor_edit
  • Again, respect the rules please.
Thanks wikima 10:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
See List of country calling codes Why do you keep on reinserting it? The calling code is not assigned to the Sahara, but to the "Kingdom of Morocco," so this is not the calling code of Western Sahara, it is the calling code of Morocco. Always keep in mind please: WS is NOT the so-called "kingdom of morocco". -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, now you're discovering that WS is something else but not Kingdom of Morocco. Why was it so difficult to cinvince you that WS is not "sadr"??? This reflects the biased way you edit along all the articles.
  • The problem is that if you want to call WS you need to use the calling code of Morocco. This is so, it's reality, deal with it.
  • And you can't just ignore the source I provided and replace it by Wikipedia whic is mostly disputed in such cases.
  • And keep in mind, Western Sahara is not the so-colled Sahrawi Republic.
- Cheers wikima 06:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
What? I never said WS was the Kingdom of Morocco. I also didn't say anything about the SADR. What are you talking about? The calling code is not assigned to Western Sahara; it is assigned to Morocco, therefore it should not be on this page; the source I used was not just Wikipedia, but the actual documentation by the ITU itself. Did you even click on the link? And keep in mind, Western Sahara is not hte so-colled [sic] Moroccan Kingdom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Please stop playing the innocent and stop thinking that people are stupid here. You love to confuse the so called "sadr" with Western Sahara in almost all your edits. The discussion about it, especially with regard to the templates etc. has not ended yet and I will bring it back.
  • Now that you have no argument to use the calling code for this fictive entity, you try to remove elswhere. How cheap!
  • If you want to reach WS you need to dial the Moroccan code. This source[4] confirms it - E.g. for Laâyoune, Smara, Dakhla +212(0)28, Boujdour +212(0)25 etc. You can try sourself and dial any nice peaceful hotel or service of tourisme in the region. You'de be impressed
  • By deleting this you suggest WS has no telephone, whic is absurd. People who will call there to book nice holiday with surfing programm, all in the peaceful Dakhla, will immediately contradict you.
  • Your wikipedia source bases on this one http://www.itu.int and this document does not include Western Sahara (s. alphabetical order for instance).
  • Also, the relevant section in the same wikipedia source is called "locations without calling codes" but confirms that Western Sahara uses the same code as Morocco. And this is absolutely concordant with how we present the information by putting the remark "(same code as Morocco)" next the calling code.
  • Although you knew all that as you clearly were involved in editing that page you never reacted about it. But now that we have rejected the absurdity from the "sadr" page, you are reacting by rejecting it also here?
  • So what do you want? Deny facts? What is you intention with Wikipedia? Or what???
wikima 19:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Calling codes Calling codes are assigned to geographic regions by the ITU, and the ITU has assigned "212" to Morocco, not to Western Sahara. Consequently, saying that 212 is the code for Western Sahara is not true, even if actual persons do dial 212 before making phone calls to other actual persons within the territory of Western Sahara. Deleting it is not the same as saying that "Western Sahara has no telephone," it is saying that the region has no telephone code assigned to it, which is true. My intentions on Wikipedia are spelled out at length on my userpage. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think now you lost control
  • You are contradicting the source which you brought yourself
  • You are rejecting the source others bring
  • You are denying facts that everyone can verify (e.g. by calling in the region)
  • And you are showing bad intentions because you now suddenly reject something that you had accpeted for a long time
  • This is no good
wikima 21:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Again I have no idea what you're talking about. How am I contradicting the source? Do you care to even acknowledge the argument I presented? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Really?
  • This is the 1st source[5], it lists all codes for the Sahara.
  • This is the second source, brought by sourself[6] and it says clearly: "Western Sahara (Moroccan-controlled locations use 212)"
  • The third source[7] does not mention WS at all, which means it views it as - technically - part of Morocco, otherwise it wouls have listed it seprarately if it had a sperate code.
  • The fourth source is reality: everyone can dial the codes of the Sahara.
  • The fifth soure is the absurdity of your attitude and your bad faith: You never complained about this before and you had thausends of edits on WS!
  • Deal with this now.
wikima 21:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sources I thought you were referring to the ITU source that I provided, which is the only one that matters. Tourism boards do not assing calling codes; they are mandated by external standards. The assumption that "[the ITU] views it as - technically - part of Morocco" is neither logically necessary nor well-founded; what would lead you to believe that? I complained about it now only because I realized it now. Allegations of bad faith are often bad faith themselves, Wikima. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You... simply fail to convince. So does anyone who wants to run against sources and pretty verifiable facts - wikima 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, yeah Of course I fail to convince you; that's hardly surprising. You've got a hardline agenda to push and you refuse to listen to the cogent reasoning I offered above. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


  • The ITU information does not say anything on Western Sahara and so this can be interpreted that the insititution simply does not aknowledge WS as separate region, but - at a technical level - as managed by Morocco. Which is FACT!
  • You are clearly editing against sources which you partly delivered yourself and which I accepted.
  • And you are editing against facts which everyone can verify!
  • You are also editing against version that you always accpeted but now reject because of an obvious ideological position.
  • This is all well ligible. What you are doing now is really not good!
wikima 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please Would you stop inserting random inaccuracies (for instance, the ISO has nothing to do with country code top-level domain names), and throwing around accusations of vandalism? The ITU has assigned 212 to Morocco - not Western Sahara - so that code belongs on the page for Morocco - not Western Sahara. They make no mention of the Sahara at all, therefore, have assigned no code, therefore, 212 is not the code for Western Sahara. What do you mean by "ligible?" -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok although things are clear you pretend that you don't understand
  • You mentionned the Wikipedia source, so why are you rejecting it now?
  • The information as was ther is in concordance with it. It does not say the code is WS but WS uses the same code as Morocco, what is the problem with this?
wikima 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
koavf the ITU has assigned 212 to Morocco and nothing to WS, simply because WS is not a country, and the SADR is not a state. If they were, WS/SADR would have the right to get an international access code. the same thing applies to the top level domain. EH is unassigned to anyone, and is inexistant. Things can't be more clear. So stop reverting and inserting inaccurate data.--A Jalil 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The source The ITU links to the United Nations Statistics Division- Standard Country and Area Codes Classifications (M49), which clearly delimits Western Sahara as a separate country. The line about the top-level country code domain names is irrelevant as the ISO does not assign ccTLD's. Please stop inserting random non-sequiturs and inaccuracies into the table. Also, note that there is no governing body assigned to .kp, North Korea's ccTLD, and they remain a country and a state; that is not a discriminating factor on what makes something a state, nor is it relevant to the ISO standards, which are created by a different body for a different purpose. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing, Jalil?

Why? Why would you put a blatant inaccuracy (lie?) on the template (the ISO code)? Why do you insist on inserting the line about the ITU code? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you doing, Koavf?

Because if you call someone in Layoune, Smara, Dakhla, Boujdour, etc. you use the moroccan access code 212. InBir lehlu and tifariti, you can't call anyone, because there is nor Access code. As to EH,there is no domain on the WWWwith such a TLD. How do you insist on iserting a fictious TLD??--A Jalil 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a top-level domain for Western Sahara [8]. However, there is currently no domain registrar and is unused. --Polaron | Talk 18:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
And do you know this? How do you know that there are no phones in Bir Lehlu? Don't MINURSO have phones? As you can clearly see if you read the article, there is a .eh domain, but that is irrelevant as ccTLD's are not assigned by the ISO; this is at least the third time I've told you this. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • .eh is a fictive one. The web services in Ws use the Moroccan domain name. I a hotel in Dakhla creates a website this would be names www.xyzname.ma . Relaxe and try to see facts as facts. YOu are living in fiction with the "sadr". More than 2/3 of stuff related to it either does not exist or is sort of strange (like this .eh that exists buit does not exist).
wikima 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Anything follows In logic, anything follows a contradiction: ".eh that exists buit does not exist" is a meaningless sentence. You also totally ignored what I had to say, so in addition to not actually contributing anything, you distracted from a legitimate conversation with someone else. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Claim vs. Administration of Western Sahara

The Polisario front/SADR claims the whole of the disputed territory of WS. This is a fact.

  • When it comes to Administration, The UN considers Morocco as the Administrative Power [[9]] of all Western Sahara.
  • The terminology free zone by the Polisario came into use after the cease-fire accord, describing the region that was left outside the moroccan berm for purely military reasons.
  • The administration means many forms of sovereignty in addition to functionning state/organisational bodies and institutions on the supposed free zone. There is nothing of that.
  • There are some symbolic celebrations held in Tifariti or Bir Lehlu for a few days, but there is no official of the polisario living in the so-called free zone. There are no population centres/towns as all the population is in Tindouf camps.
  • There are places not within the Moroccan berm, so to say, and can thus be claimed by the Polisario as free zone, yet the Polisario can't have any presence on them. These include:
  • The strip along the Algerian border.
  • The area east of the Moroccan wall (around 5-10 Kms wide) by a 2400 Kms length.
  • The strip to the south along the border with Mauritania (more than 300 kms long by 15 kms wide)
  • 75 kms of coast on the Atlantic including the town of Laguera.

So it very clear that the use of the word free-zone is purely Polisario and independence supporters' coinage. The definition of administration does not apply to the Polisario presence on it, and there are large areas of it that are not and can not be said that Polisario has any presence on them let alone "administer them". In conclusion, it can't be said that SADR/Polisario administers the so-called free zone.--A Jalil 15:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Polisario front/SADR claims the whole of the disputed territory of WS. This is a fact."
The misrepresentation of this fact is the reason for my reverts.
"When it comes to Administration, The UN considers Morocco as the Administrative Power [[10]] of all Western Sahara."
I do not see that claim put forth there. What I do see at the UN site is that at present the UN, via MINURSO, is assisting in deciding who shall control the territory. I have not performed an in-depth examination, but as I understand it MINURSO is stalled primarily because it would likely result in a non-Moroccan government, and Morocco isn't interested in that.
"The definition of administration does not apply to the Polisario presence on it, and there are large areas of it that are not and can not be said that Polisario has any presence on them let alone "administer them"."
Our Free Zone article seems to have sources indicating otherwise.
¦ Reisio 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Some unrelated trivia, but some that might interest you: I'm fairly certain the south end of the wall extends well into Mauritania. ¦ Reisio 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reisio I think you're mixing up the claims and the de-facto administration.
  • Polisario claims to control the so-called "Free Zone" but the facts show that it does not.
  • The sources you are referring to only re-use the claims of Polisario and don't deliver evidence on whether Polisario admisters the strip or not.
wikima 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Polisario claims to control the so-called "Free Zone" but the facts show that it does not."
Where're these facts?
"The sources you are referring to only re-use the claims of Polisario and don't deliver evidence on whether Polisario admisters the strip or not.
While I'm not seeing you demonstrating otherwise, I have just read some more UN documents, and for now I wouldn't oppose phrasing something like '...mostly administered by Morocco, except for the "Free Zone", consisting of areas near the eastern and southern borders.'
¦ Reisio 22:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Facts such as:
  1. that the "SADR" itself is not recognised by the the UN, so it can not be seen as a state administering a territory,
  2. or facts like when Polisario moves troups in that area it is severely condmended by the UN,
  3. or let say that both Polisario and its "republic" are not present in the area they claim as "Free Zone",
  4. respectively that area is basically simply unpopulated since the sahrawis that are "adminstered" by Polisario are in Tindouf and that strip does not include any relevant urban area, so nothing to administer.
  5. Etc.
-- wikima 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


OK Reisio, we are getting close.

  • The misrepresentation of this fact is the reason for my reverts
The SADR claims all the territory of Western Sahara. This is OK and doesn't represent any misepresentation. On the other hand, "the rest is administred by the SADR as the free zone" is not correct, as I explained to you above, there are large areas not included within the Moroccan berm, but are not "free zone", and the Polisario does not have a foot on them. Please check for yourself that Moroccan customs control post is at guergarat, and that nearly 75 kms of seashore is outside the wall, including Laguera on cabo blanco peninsula. This alone is enough a reason to refute the claim that all areas outside the wall are "free zone".
  • The UN set up MINURSO to prepare for a referendum and see that a cease-fire is respected. If the referendum is not organised it is because the Polisario wanted it to be according to the 1974 spanish census. Of course now they have changed their mind as many of the independence activists like Ali Salem Tamek are Sahrawis from pre-1975 Morocco, and Mohamed Abdelaziz talks now about "our people in the occupied territories and Southern Morocco", the same people he refused to be allowed to vote have now suddenly become part of the "Sahrawi people". Now they admit that the Sahrawi people was much more than the 74,000 of the spanish census. Unfortunately too late, for the referendum that was called for by the late king Hassan II with all sahrawis participating is no more on the table.
  • If you did not read the link, here I can paste to you what the UN says:
"37. At the conclusion of those consultations, my Personal Envoy was of the view, which I shared, that further meetings of the parties to seek a political solution could not succeed, and indeed could be counterproductive, unless the Government of Morocco as administrative power in Western Sahara was prepared to offer or support some devolution of governmental authority, for all inhabitants and former inhabitants of the Territory, that would be genuine, substantial and in keeping with international norms."
  • what I said about the Administration still holds and refutes the claim that the Polisario/SADR administers it. Colombian drug cartels do control certain regions of Colombia where the Colombian army can't set foot, but I don't think one can say they administer them.
  • The Moroccan wall does not go into the Mauritanian border. It is easy for you to check, for example, from the link you actually provided [[11]], or this [[12]].

--A Jalil 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

""37. At the..."
This is some guy stating what his envoy said (and how old is this document?). Also, why would the UN have MINURSO if everyone already assumed Morocco controls the entire territory without question?
"The Moroccan wall does not go into the Mauritanian border"
See for yourself: [13]
¦ Reisio 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the easiest way to solve this is to: keep on using the term 'free zone' (if nothing else, its probably the shortest way to describe the area) but to emphasise that the Polisario 'claim' to run this (rather than stating definately that they do). --Robdurbar 23:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Rob, that is fine with me and is more realistic and neutral.--A Jalil 23:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to the use of the word 'claim', only using it in a way that makes it seem the SADR doesn't claim the entire territory. ¦ Reisio 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reisio i think that this is probably a misunderstanding. There are two claims of Polisario and "SADR"
  1. They claim to have liberated and therefore to control/administer (already) the so called "free zone"
  2. And (the 2nd) they claim the whole territory of Western Sahara to be theirs
  • We are discussing the 1st claim
  • In this sense, in principle I am also fine with Rob's sugestion as I think it is important to make clear that though Polisario/"SADR" make the 1st claim in their communication and for their politcial aims, facts and/or the position of the international instances (as guidance for a nPOV) might be totally different.
Rgds - wikima 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)