Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives of older discussions may be found here:
Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Also see: infobox vote

Contents

[edit] Map

A "self-published" map being used in this article (anonymous author, uploaded by "IAMTHEEGGMAN" , see File history) is a primary source and cannot legitimately be used as a secondary source in this article according to the Reliable sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. I therefore deleted it.S710 20:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the image used was not even that uploaded by IAMTHEEGGMAN. See Talk:Free Zone (region) for an expalnation of the source. --Robdurbar 09:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been some talk recently about making a new map.. just thought Id point out this excellent map of the region which may be useful. It is old, but it is public domain and very detailed. --Astrokey44 11:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalling of the peace process

  • This is new to me!!, I thought that the result of the referendum would be known only after the counting of the casted ballots, but here Arre is inserting non-sense about the result being decided just according to the voters lists. If you are in Tindouf you will vote for the Polisario, and if you are in Layoune and had been on the spanish sensus you will also be voting for the Polisario. I understand why Morocco decided to drop the option of the referendum altogether, any result other than independence would not have been accepted and eventually those pronostics and future-telling added by Arre would be the proof that Morocco "falsified" the results.
  • There is no mention of the appeal process that allows the persons to appeal the decisions of excluding them from the voters lists, and that right has been used and showed that many have been unfairly excluded.
  • There is no mention that the Polisario has for decades insisted on the Spanish list alone, and refused any addition of any sahrawi not found in it. That excluded the father of Mohammed Abdelaziz who had moved to the north of Morocco decades before 1975, and logically excludes the president of the RASD himself.
  • The Assa paragraph is restored with word "some" instead of "many". It seems that ten out of twenty-five is not many. Salem Tamek was refused and excluded from the registration as a voter on the basis that he is a "Moroccan". Now he is the official spokesman of the Sahrawi human rights activists, and a hailed figure by the Polisario as a true Sahrawi. That is something to think about for Mr. Arre, and is more worth mentionning than the future-telling goofy stuff that Arre added.
  • The position of the parties about who is responsible for the hindring of the referendum are presented neutrally, and all the future-telling does not have a place in an encyclopedia.--A Jalil 15:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If my additions were not sourced, you're welcome to complain. If they are, on the other hand, better to bring another source that you feel is more trustworthy, and juxtapose them for the reader to decide. The Sahrawi independence movement does not consist of 25 persons, and I don't know where you get either the number 10 or 25. There is lots of independence activism in Assa, true, and AST is an important figure (though not "official spokesman" of any sort) who did, ironically, not fit the Spanish Census requirements -- he has commented on that himself on several occasions. But there is plenty more independence activism in El Aaiun, which is also far bigger. Not to mention Tindouf... so to imply that the independence activism is an Assa thing, is clearly wrong. I will however add something about the Spanish census -- I thought that was in there. I distinctly remember writing about it long ago. Arre 23:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Map

OK, I've made a new map, but I'll be the first to confess my ignorance of the area geography so I'd like comments of things I've forgotten, anything I added that doesn't deserve to be, any names I've misspelled, etc. The attempt here is to be politically neutral - that is just to show the current geography of Western Sahara without reference to who is occupying what. I especially had trouble with towns - my sources rarely agreed on place names or even whether places exist or not. Kmusser 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, nice! Maybe the conveyor belt and a couple southern settlements (Lagouira, Guerguerat) would be useful too? Do you have a vector version of this? --Gribeco 19:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I could probably add the conveyor belt. I wasn't sure what to do about Lagouira since it's apparently been abandoned - I'd be tempted to mark it as a ruin but I couldn't find anything to verify it's status other than satellite images. Also it's spelled different on every map I look at. Is Guerguerat a settlement? As far as I could tell it's just a border crossing, and there's no town in that area on the imagery. Kmusser 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
For the format - this was done mostly freehand in Photoshop, so no I don't have a vector version - I can however upload a higher-resolution version without the labels for people to make other language versions or somebody could trace it to make a SVG version.Kmusser 15:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Conveyer belt and a few more towns added. Kmusser 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Photoshop works for me. You're right about Guerguerat, it really is too small; I was actually thinking about Bir Gandouz/Bir Gandus. --Gribeco 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI to those that might be interested - all those maps are quite inaccurate. According to Google Maps' satellite imagery (which I'm sure is also somewhat out of date by now), the boundaries are quite off...particularly the south end of the wall notably goes well into Mauritania. Another interesting tidbit is that Mauritania has their own wall shortly following Morocco's. I may have seen the wall creeping into Algeria, too, but I don't quite remember - the imagery isn't as clear up there, so it's easy to get lost. :p I know Google isn't always that accurate, but it should be easy enough to confirm spatially. ¦ Reisio 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Google imagery was surprisingly detailed and up to date - the wall is pretty easy to follow on the imagery. All the other sources (including the Google map overlay) were pretty sketchy though, and dificult to overlay properly on the imagery. I wouldn't be at all surprised that the wall crosses the border as there is nothing to physically indicate the border along any of it. Kmusser 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This new map is obviously far better than all other previous maps about Western Sahara in Commons. However, I am somewhat disappointed because:

  1. ) it's not a vectorial version
  2. ) the map has been resized too close to the borders of the territory, and therefore, very important features (because Western Sahara is a disputed territory) are out of the map: the north limit of the berm, Tiznit and Sidi Ifni cities, the subkhat near Tindouf, some islands of Canary Islands (Lanzarote, La Palma ...), and the Mauretanian city of Atar.

Other comments:

  • don't use different sizes for city symbols
  • the area is 266,000 km², and there are few location names
  • location names need a complete review
  • add distance, longitude and latitude scales

--Juiced lemon 18:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorporated most of your suggestions:
  • See above on why there isn't a vector version, someone else is welcome to trace it in order to make one. I do have a vector source file in EPS format if someone wants to use it - I tried bringing it into Inkscape but it looked horrible.
  • I zoomed out a bit and added the requested features. I added Guelmim instead of Tiznit because it's bigger.
  • Why not use different sizes for cities? It's a pretty universal map convention to use larger symbols and labels for larger cities. A map showing a city of 200,000 and a place with no permanent buildings with the same symbol is kind of misleading.
  • What's your point with their being few location names? This is a pretty barren place. I think the map already makes it look more populated than it is.
  • I asked you before about location names - you need to be specific if you want me to change them. I tried to follow the wikipedia convention and use whatever is most common, but many of these places have dozens of alternate spellings. If one is more correct than the others I'll be happy to use it. I have a spreadsheet of what names different atlases used if it'll help any.
  • Scale and gridlines added.
Kmusser 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"I do have a vector source file in EPS format if someone wants to use it"
Assembled with what? ¦ Reisio 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exported from ArcGIS. In theory ArcGIS will also export SVG directly, but I tried that and it only included a handful of the map features. I'd be willing to pass that along as well if you (or anyone else) want to try and debug it. Kmusser 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vector version uploaded to Image:Westernsahara.svg if anyone wants to try and fix it. Kmusser 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
EPS would probably be more useful, actually. ¦ Reisio 17:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should the largest city count as the capital?

I have been doing a project involving this country, and upon looking up the capital, found that some websites have proclaimed Ayoun (Officially El-Aioun) and I have also seen it spelled El Ayoun, Laayoun, and several other ways that aren't as common. I was wondering if we should mention this city as a percieved capital, but not an official capital? 72.229.131.3 21:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


  • I would not agree. WS is a region without sovereignty --> No capital. This term, also used as "percieved" will bring confusion.
  • Let it be neutral.
Thanks - wikima 22:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The capital is the capital, that is the administrative headquarters. This need not mean, in English usage, that the territory is independent. Your objection is as such not useful. Capital is obviously Laayoune. collounsbury 20:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
In a non disputed case yes. When the territory is disputed and much noise is done around such words, then no, better avoid. Otherwies we would need tones of footnotes and long polemics to make clear how it is meant (namely merely administrative)
wikima 20:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There are already "polemics" - administrative capital and some other phrase for the "government in exile" strikes me to be not particularly difficult phrasing to arrive at. collounsbury 22:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
The capital is not necessarily the administrative headquarters: e.g. Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands, but the seat of government is located in The Hague. Van der Hoorn 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes explained

  • "Western Sahara is bordered to the north by Morocco proper". Is "proper" a POV in favor or Morocco?. I doubt it, but I remove it anyway.
  • "The Algeria-backed Polisario Front": what is so POV about this?. Algeria is proud of this backing, and so is the Polisario.
  • "independence movement" removed. This is actually a POV for the Polisario. To make it POV free, it could be "independence/separatist movement" depending on from which side you look at it. But, I restore it as it was.
  • "more than 25 states" instead of "25 states". Actually this figure is completely false and does not include many countries in the Persian Gulf alone, that would make it more than 30.
  • "the Polsario was fighting the Spanish since 1973" changed to "that was created in 1973". In all of 1973, 7 polisario members (including Elouali) raided a remote post and captured its 3 guards. Is "was fighting" the right terminology for it?.
  • "350,000 Moroccans" -> "350,000 Moroccan civilians". What is so POV about it?
  • Title "Demands for independence" changed to "End of Spanish rule", because labelling the events of 1975 as demands for independence, is POV in favor of the Polisario. It is like calling that period "Demands for reintegration" which would be a POV in favor of Morocco/Mauritania. So "End of Spanish rule" is quite neutral.
  • The Madrid Accords were not mentioned. They have been added. Is that a POV, or were the Madrid Accords, signed in Madrid, between Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania fictious?.
  • Title "stalling of the independence referendum" changed to "stalling of the settlement plan", because the referendum was not only about independence, but also about integration with Morocco. So focusing on independence is pro-Polisario POV, and on integration is pro-Morocco POV. "stalling of the settlement plan" is thus quite neutral.
  • independence or "inclusion" changed to or independence or integration, because that is was the UN uses. I have never heard of this inclusion term before. Is that a POV?
  • indigenous voter -> elligible voter, because that is what it is. For example, Abdelaziz can't be called indigenous because he was born in Morocco where he grew up and attended primary school, college, and the Mohammed V university as Moroccan as any other Moroccans, till he moved to Algeria.
  • the process stalled because all parties have refused something that the UN has proposed at some point. That is a fact, and not a POV for anyone.
  • The identification process allowed people to appeal the decisions and it has been used by both parties. Most of the appealing voters are from Sahrawi tribes from the Tantan and Tarfaya region that were part of Spanish sahara till 1958. That is a fact.
  • The Polisario front has insisted for two decades (1975-1997) on the Spanish census as a sole reference for holding a referendum. That is a fact.
  • "Morocco would never agree to a referendum it is not sure of winning". This is actually a POV in favor of the Polisario. It is contradicted by Erik Jensen's statement (in the article), who played an administrative role in MINURSO, wrote that "NEITHER side would agree to a voter registration in which they were destined to lose". So, focusing on one party of the conflict is POV.
  • The Baker Plan chapter was a mess, and mixed between Baker Plan I and Baker plan II with numerous errors about dates and parties reactions, as well as the Plans' main objectives. If you see anything wrong in my edits, please do correct, but explain in the talk page.
  • The Algerian proposal to divide the territory was a mjor development in the conflict and is sourced in a refered UN document. why do you oppose it?. It is also a proof that Algeria does decide on behalf of the Sahrawis/Polisario.
  • Khatt chahid, as a dissident group (from WITHIN the Polisario) denouncing human rights abuses and misuse of humanitarian aid is important to notice in the Human Rights section. It is a fact. What is so POV about it?.
  • The most prominent pro-Polisario figures in WS today (Ali Salem Tamek, Al moutawakil, Laarbi Masoud, ...), are from regions in Southern Morocco, that are not situated in WS. They were refused the right register as voters in the referendum, because they were seen then by the Polisario as Moroccans and not sahrawis, and while they were born before the Spanish census, they were not found on its lists. Today, because they are pro-independence, they have been adopted as guenine Sahrawis. This needs to be mentioned, because it is related to the problem of identification.
  • Mentionning that the figures about the Tindouf camps population are not due to a UN/UNHCR, actually, not even a Polisario /Algeria count. Never a population census has been conducted for the Tindouf camps. The MINURSO found less that 40,000 people aged 18+ in 1997. So count for yourself. The rest (120,000) should be children and babies. Given the fact that Abdelaziz and other pro-Polisario organisations, have on numerous occasions raised issues of malnutrition and high child mortality in the camps, you can (with a proper use of reason and letting bias apart) look for yourself, why the UN has decided to lower the number to 90,000.--A Jalil 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Mon dieu, does this squabbling never end?
Okay,well, my neutral sick of the lot of you reactions point by point -
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Thanks Collounsbury. I appreciate your remarks and your firm attachment to NPOV editing.--A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "Western Sahara is bordered to the north by Morocco proper". Is "proper" a POV in favor or Morocco?. I doubt it, but I remove it anyway.
IMO Morocco proper is indeed poor phrasing as it implies WS claims are not valid.
Regardless of whether they are or not, it would be best to have an article that does not take a view. However what phrasing should be adopted, perhaps "Bordered in the north by undisputed Moroccan territory"? It is, I would note, a trivial phrase.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Exactly what I meant. If Morocco starts from the northern border of Saguia Al-hamra province, then Morocco's claim to the territory (without taking stance to its validity) is thrown out of hand. I discarded that change anyway to avoid unnecessary bla-bla. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "The Algeria-backed Polisario Front": what is so POV about this?. Algeria is proud of this backing, and so is the Polisario.
I have no idea if Polisario is "proud" of Algerian backing, but it is a fact. I don't see it as either a positive or negative.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Polisario is indeed proud of that backing. Abdelaziz lets no occasion without mentioning it. Besides that, it is widely used in the press without sensitivities.--A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "independence movement" removed. This is actually a POV for the Polisario. To make it POV free, it could be "independence/separatist movement" depending on from which side you look at it. But, I restore it as it was.
No, Independence movement is an observation. It is a movement for independence. Over-sensitivity on this point is silly.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Agreed. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
* "more than 25 states" instead of "25 states". Actually this figure is completely false and does not include many countries in the Persian Gulf alone, that would make it more than 30.
Although this "more states recog. me" bollocks is tedious and childish, I agree. However, the phrasing overall is awkward. Arab league is cited in a single manner. Phrasing along the lines of 'over (or perhaps more than, or approximately more than) XX number of states recog. Moroccan claims, including the xx members of the Arab League would be clearer.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I totally agree the counting is tedious and childish. I am of the opinion that the number 25 be dropped altogether. Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, ... are not counted in that number. The Arab League is mentionned as an organism. That is why I added "more" before "25". --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "the Polsario was fighting the Spanish since 1973" changed to "that was created in 1973". In all of 1973, 7 polisario members (including Elouali) raided a remote post and captured its 3 guards. Is "was fighting" the right terminology for it?.
Why not? You're playing a agitprop minimizations game.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • One of the back-pain issues for Polisario supporters is the fact that every nation in Africa under colonialism was struggling (politically and/or militarily) to be independent in the 50s. Who was struggling to free Spanish Sahara militarily in the 50s? Morocco in 1958 (Ifni War where the Moroccan Liberation Army of the South, including the father of Abdelaziz almost liberated Spanish Sahara to Morocco). In the 60s, it was Morocco that was leading the political struggle in the UN (listing of the Spanish Sahara on the 4th commission on decolonisation), and getting back Ifni (the capital of Spanish Sahara). To mend to this awkward situation, the Polisario supporters start to magnify some raids by a few Polisario members (after 1973), to fill that missing "struggle". What I meant is simply to put it in its real size. It was not "they were fighting the Spanish". We could rephrase it appropriately. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "350,000 Moroccans" -> "350,000 Moroccan civilians". What is so POV about it?
Well, objectively I can see some questions might be posed as to the 'civilianness' of the total and the like. 350k Moroccans isn't prejudicial.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Agreed. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Title "Demands for independence" changed to "End of Spanish rule", because labelling the events of 1975 as demands for independence, is POV in favor of the Polisario. It is like calling that period "Demands for reintegration" which would be a POV in favor of Morocco/Mauritania. So "End of Spanish rule" is quite neutral.
Again objectively 3rd party histories indicate at least some parties in WS were c. 75 demanding independence w/o joining Morocco. Ergo, "End of Spanish Rule" has a tendency to minimize that in favour of the Moroccan view. Ideally the article would make clear there were both tendencies.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • "End of Spanish rule" IMHO, means simply the Spanish period ends here and another period begins. It does not favor any party nor excludes that anyone was demanding anything. But a better phrasing is welcome. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* The Madrid Accords were not mentioned. They have been added. Is that a POV, or were the Madrid Accords, signed in Madrid, between Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania fictious?.
Afraid I personally don't follow the statement. Can you clarify?
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • In the previous version, Spain just decided to divest itself from the territory and left away, then Morocco/Mauritania proceeded to invade WS. That is wrong. It washs away a very important political happening: the Madrid accords were a political framework, negotiated between Spain on one side and Morocco/Mauritania from the other. It transferes the administration to Morocco and Mauritania in their respective parts. I know that the Polisario supporters don't like the madrid Accords, but so what?. It is a fact and must be mentioned. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Title "stalling of the independence referendum" changed to "stalling of the settlement plan", because the referendum was not only about independence, but also about integration with Morocco. So focusing on independence is pro-Polisario POV, and on integration is pro-Morocco POV. "stalling of the settlement plan" is thus quite neutral.
Agreed. Or stalling of the referendum on settlement of the WS....
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • Agreed. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* independence or "inclusion" changed to or independence or integration, because that is was the UN uses. I have never heard of this inclusion term before. Is that a POV?
I have no idea what you're on about. The objection doesn't make sense to me.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I have never heard of the word "inclusion" in the context of the referendum. so I replaced it with the UN wording. That should not be a problem. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* indigenous voter -> elligible voter, because that is what it is. For example, Abdelaziz can't be called indigenous because he was born in Morocco where he grew up and attended primary school, college, and the Mohammed V university as Moroccan as any other Moroccans, till he moved to Algeria.
Bloody hell. I'll agree that since who qualifies as "indigenous" is a point of political squabbling, that the article should have a neutral description - eligible voter seems a decent choice although perhaps there are arguments against.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • The identification process was about who is eligible to vote not who is indigenous to vote. I gave the example of someone (Abdelaziz above) not indigenous but eligible to vote. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* the process stalled because all parties have refused something that the UN has proposed at some point. That is a fact, and not a POV for anyone.
Fair observation.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The identification process allowed people to appeal the decisions and it has been used by both parties. Most of the appealing voters are from Sahrawi tribes from the Tantan and Tarfaya region that were part of Spanish sahara till 1958. That is a fact.
This seems to be a valid point, although I am not personally obsessed enough with these details to say if the fact is indeed a fact. If it is, it is a fair point.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • It really is a fair point. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* The Polisario front has insisted for two decades (1975-1997) on the Spanish census as a sole reference for holding a referendum. That is a fact.
And?
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • In the messed Baker chapter, there was mentioned that the Polisario was always for a referendum, but there was no mention that they continued to insist on it being organised among the people of the "Spanish Census" only. That is not a clean acceptance of the referendum. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* "Morocco would never agree to a referendum it is not sure of winning". This is actually a POV in favor of the Polisario. It is contradicted by Erik Jensen's statement (in the article), who played an administrative role in MINURSO, wrote that "NEITHER side would agree to a voter registration in which they were destined to lose". So, focusing on one party of the conflict is POV.
Absolutely correct. (both the criticism and of course the citation).
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The Baker Plan chapter was a mess, and mixed between Baker Plan I and Baker plan II with numerous errors about dates and parties reactions, as well as the Plans' main objectives. If you see anything wrong in my edits, please do correct, but explain in the talk page.
Fair request.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
* The Algerian proposal to divide the territory was a mjor development in the conflict and is sourced in a refered UN document. why do you oppose it?. It is also a proof that Algeria does decide on behalf of the Sahrawis/Polisario.
Please explain this for those of us not steeped in the edit wars.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • That is the other back-pain issue for pro-Polisarians. In the article it is written that Algeria does not decide on behalf of the Polisario. In 2001, James Baker, to unlock the stalemate, proposed that a third way be explored: an autonomy large enough to give the Polisario everything they looked for in independence, and because it happens within the territorial integrity of the kingdom of Morocco, Moroccan sovereignty over the territory would be finally recognized by the UN. The plan was supported by the US and France and the UK. The idea of WS being recognized within Moroccan sovereignty is the last thing Algeria would see, and to counter that, Bouteflika of Algeria proposed ( Music on : ta-taaa ...) to divide the territory between the parties. Bye bye the right of peoples for auto-determination,.. etc. The Polisario has to this day not reacted to that proposal. By the way that triggered the return to Morocco of Lehbib Ayoub, the most notorious war hero of the Polisario and minister of interior of the RASD. So Algeria can indeed decide on behalf of the Polisario, and that was added, and is a fact and sourced with the UN document that contains the Algerian proposal. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Khatt chahid, as a dissident group (from WITHIN the Polisario) denouncing human rights abuses and misuse of humanitarian aid is important to notice in the Human Rights section. It is a fact. What is so POV about it?.
Please clarify what was edited, preferably by citing so one doesn't have to hunt.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • To my biggest surprise, Khatt Ach-Chahid does not have an article on Wikipedia. It defines itself as a reformist movement within Polisario. It was formed by a number of Polisario officials and headed by Polisario founder Mahjoub Salek. It is based in Spain. It has criticised the misuse of international help, the dictatorship of Abdelaziz, and the lack of freedom of speech and political activity in the Tindouf camps. It most recently criticised the fact that Abdelaziz warned the world of a humanitarian catastrophe due to shortage of food in the camps, and at the same time organizing costly festivities in Tifariti. Its members have been tortured for their ideas, and that fits well in the Human Rights section. There is a link to an interview of Salek. I will add more. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* The most prominent pro-Polisario figures in WS today (Ali Salem Tamek, Al moutawakil, Laarbi Masoud, ...), are from regions in Southern Morocco, that are not situated in WS. They were refused the right register as voters in the referendum, because they were seen then by the Polisario as Moroccans and not sahrawis, and while they were born before the Spanish census, they were not found on its lists. Today, because they are pro-independence, they have been adopted as guenine Sahrawis. This needs to be mentioned, because it is related to the problem of identification.
See comment supra.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
  • This is relevant to the definition of elligible voters. For decades the Sahrawi tribes that were part of spanish Sahara, and those that left the territory after the Ifni war(1958), to the north, were seen as most likely pro-Moroccan in a referendum and were denied the right to vote by the Polisario, and how they can become in a sudden again real sahrawis as soon as they show independentist/separatist tendencies. Salek is the main figure of the pro-Polisario front inside Morocco (he is from Assa). He tours the world to champion the Polisario cause, and is - without shame - cited as "the sahrawi human rights activist", without mentionning that he was one of the 120,000 Sahrawis refused by the identification commision, because they were ... Moroccans. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Mentionning that the figures about the Tindouf camps population are not due to a UN/UNHCR, actually, not even a Polisario /Algeria count. Never a population census has been conducted for the Tindouf camps. The MINURSO found less that 40,000 people aged 18+ in 1997. So count for yourself. The rest (120,000) should be children and babies. Given the fact that Abdelaziz and other pro-Polisario organisations, have on numerous occasions raised issues of malnutrition and high child mortality in the camps, you can (with a proper use of reason and letting bias apart) look for yourself, why the UN has decided to lower the number to 90,000.
I believe that this comment is re the various figures bandied about, w/o good statistical support, correct?
There should be a easy, neutral way to present various figures asserted by various parties, without deleting.
(collounsbury 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC))
Exact. And please do rephrase it as appropriate taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts. Cheers. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss why your blatant POV should be included, be my guest - I will not waste my time on it ― (for spectators: what he has already presented here are trivial dregs, you'll have to actually look through the entire diff to see what he neglected to mention here). ¦ Reisio 00:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you bloody well will discuss or I will revert all your changes and ask for wiki intervention. Your behaviour is childish at best. Some of Jalil's edits are clearly partisan whingong , some are logical, some are debatable and deserve a convo. And I'll note from looking at your talk page, you seem to have a poor attitude combined with a poor command of English. (collounsbury 13:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
Further to the discussion, I was just taking a look at the version of "Revision as of 17:37, 6 March 2007" and "Revision as of 14:36, 7 March 2007" which was Jalil's.
It strikes me he covered most of his edits but indeed there are key items he did not cite.
That being said, while Jali's objections to certain language are well-taken - the based article areas edited are largely POV with a slant towards Polisario, Jalil flipped to a pro-Morocco POV, e.g. this line " and the Polisario front's refusal to explore any other way that does not lead to independence. " by him is not captured in the changes supra. Changing the article from being pro-Polisario to pro-Makhzen is substituting one sin for another.
The ongoing whankery is tedious, but since the continuing utter childishness irritates, I shall propose an edit. And pox on the lot of partisans. (collounsbury 13:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC))
That Reisio fellow does nothing but reverting in wikipedia. I asked him to paste the "POV edits" I did here to the talk page and show with arguments that they are POV, but he couldn't. Go ahead Collounsburry and change the language as seems neutral to you. I trust your attitude. --A Jalil 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The phrase goes like this "At the heart of the dispute lies the question of who can be registered as an elligible voter, and, since about 2000, Morocco formal refusal to include independence as an option on the referendum ballot, and the Polisario front's refusal to explore any other way that does not lead to independence.". So both are blamed for the stalemate. Morocco refuses the independence as an option, and the Polisario front refuses that the option of independence be dropped from any solution. is it POV? --A Jalil 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I began editing, and got to the Baker plan before running out of steam. Really have to get back to work. I agree Reisio seems to have a habit of aggressively reverting (I notice others on talk page complaining of this in other subject areas). (collounsbury 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

They're your edits, so you should do the work in cleaning them up, not anyone else. I don't have the time or inclination to go through and cut out the half or so of them that are POV, so I revert. To suggest that every time someone makes an article _worse_ everyone else should go through and clean up such an edit is ridiculous ― worse = revert. ¦ Reisio 04:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Your way of doing (not necessarely what you think) is - obviousely - bothering many people.
An you don't seem to be ready to learn even after so many people have warned you.
wikima 15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Try not confuse 'many people' with you and A Jalil and your Moroccan POV pushing. ¦ Reisio 20:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You know mate, you've got a serious attitude problem. While wikima and Jalil certainly have a Moroccan POV and are going to far in reacting to the original material's Polisario POV, your childish reversions and mislabelling are worse. As I told you, I am reverting any and all changes you make w/o proper labelling and w/o discussion. The bloody subject is controversial and changes deserve discussion rather than inane edit wars. At least Jalil and Wiki are listening to critiques, perhaps not always well, but listening. (collounsbury 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

"wikima and Jalil certainly have a Moroccan POV"
Glad you noticed, but it'd be nicer if you weren't helping them out.
"Jalil and Wiki are listening to critiques"
This is (primarily Wikima's) eternal defense. "No, we're discussing this, you can't make it NPOV!" - check around on the various WS-related article Talk pages besides this one and it will become horribly clear.

¦ Reisio 04:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reisio, your bad habit of cheap reverting without discussing is notorious on many articles and against many editors. Maybe you are amused by your cat-and-mouse revert wars, but if you don't have the guts to discuss the topics you don't agree on, either stop reverting or sooner or later some admins will have to do something against your disruptive behavior. --A Jalil 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mate, I don't need you to tell me about the history on these pages. Your approach is, at best, childish edit wars. And as far as I can tell, when I reasonably call on POV, they listen to me. Why? Why very obviously I am entirely neutral on the two bloody positions and am well-enough informed to make intelligent interventions. You're engaged in pure childish whinging on. (collounsbury 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)).

Ha, yes clearly they cower at the sight of your posts! :p ¦ Reisio 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe your response rather clearly sums up your problem. Childish attatchment to utterly pointless confrontation. Cowering doesn't bloody well enter into the question. (collounsbury 17:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Mmmm, accuracy and a NPOV are so very pointless. ¦ Reisio 21:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so Reisio. WP:NPOV and WP:V are the core of Wikipedia editing.
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and, in this thread reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits.
So if you still believe that they are pointless than i suggest you get a break from editing and edit warring. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
→sarcasm ¦ Reisio 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It's been noted. Keep up w/ your sarcasm. Any serious comments by the way? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
↑ ¦ Reisio 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Since we are not discussing the subject of this talkpage, i thought it would be a good idea to discuss the things you prefer. Maybe that would ease our minds:
  • Neither irony or sarcasm is argument. Samuel Butler.
  • Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the devil; for which reason I have long since as good as renounced it. Thomas Carlyle.
  • Sarcasm: the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded. Fyodor Dostoevsky.
  • Man is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play. Heraclitus.
  • It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness which would do credit to any college student, but the monkey is serious because he itches. Robert M. Hutchins.
  • You can't think about how people will perceive you or your character. All you can do is focus on your work. The rest is up to the universe. I've been acting for 16 years. I've done 55 movies and, in all seriousness, there's maybe five that are good and the rest are crap. Robert Patrick.
  • If you can get humor and seriousness at the same time, you've created a special little thing, and that's what I'm looking for, because if you get pompous, you lose everything. Paul Simon.
  • There's a new seriousness, especially amongst college kids; they know that all of these simple old homilies really are not important. Ken Kesey. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What gave you the idea I like quotes? ¦ Reisio 00:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I just guessed that as i said above that i thought it would be a good idea to discuss the things you prefer. I hope it worked. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't especially like quotes, though... ¦ Reisio 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that you believe that accuracy and a NPOV are so very pointless. But i think and believe that quotes serve as a context to all the discussion above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"→sarcasm ¦ Reisio 02:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)" ¦ Reisio 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country code & TLD

Quite simply, Western Sahara != Morocco, and therefore saying Western Sahara's country code is that of Morocco's is completely inaccurate.

Stating that Western Sahara's ccTLD is .ma (Morocco's TLD) is inaccurate for the same reason - Western Sahara != Morocco. What's more, .eh is reserved (or whatever you want to call it), but even if it weren't, .ma would still be inaccurate.

The currency makes sense; for whatever reason, if you want to spend money in most of Western Sahara, I'm thinking you'll probably want some Moroccan money. The calling code also makes sense for the same reason; if you want to make a call to someone in most of Western Sahara, I'm think you'll probably have to use Morocco's phone systems.

Wikima, your statement "If it's irrelevant then simply leave it" elates me. It seems you don't even care anymore to hide the fact that you're pushing a Moroccan POV...which is great, actually, because that mostly just leaves A Jalil. It's irrelevant, and by extension inaccurate to use - it'd be like including the .us ccTLD in Iraq's infobox.

We should probably use 'EH' for the country code and make a note about how it's probably a legacy code at this point, and '.eh' is the only ccTLD that should be listed. Also, of course, the giant footnote about the dispute is still redundant, as it's covered in the article (and you guys seem to insert it everyplace you can, so it's also covered in dozens of other articles).

¦ Reisio 22:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good lord more of this tedium.
Frankly the information should probably be completely omitted as
(i) the .eh is purely theoretical
(ii) in other disputed territories it appears not to be cited at all (no doubt to avoid endless pointless whankery over utter trivialities)
(iii) the defacto reality is .ma is going to be used for almost any site actually housed in the territory. This is a matter of technical infrastructure actually present.
collounsbury 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Western Sahara is not Morocco, Reisio, you are right in this. From a Moroccan perspective, Western Sahara is just a part of Morocco. You may disagree with that. That's completely understandable. But, the DO-FACTO fact is that as Collounsbury already stated it, if you are in WS, the only dialling code people can use to reach you is the Moroccan one. All web sites in the province have .ma as their TLD. This does not mean a recognition of any sovereignty or status quo. The European Union, includes WS in the fishing agreements it signs with Morocco, without actually formally recognizing the sovereignty of Rabat over the province. It is simply stating the facts as they are in the real life. Telling a reader looking at the infobox that there is some .eh for WS, is simply deceiving him/her, for there is no such TLD in use anywhere. The US/Iraq comparision is bizarre. Iraq is a sovereign nation recognized by the US. The footnotes have been there all the time and are used in many other country infoboxes, and there is no reason to remove them. Moreover there is nothing POV about the text in the footnotes. If you would like to remove redundant text, believe me, the articles about WS, will be less that half what they are now. --A Jalil 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Country code:
The ISO 3166-1 code for Western Sahara is EH. This is true even if you regard Western Sahara as part of Morocco (just as HK is the code for Hong Kong, even though Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China). It's not a "legacy code" in any sense - the ISO 3166/MA would withdraw it if they thought it no longer appropriate.

TLD:
It's irrelevant what TLD is used in Western Sahara. What matters is what has been assigned. If you regard Western Sahara as part of Morocco, then it is covered by the TLD .ma. If you don't regard Western Sahara as part of Morocco, then it has no TLD at all: .eh is currently reserved (in the sense that EH is currently the ISO 3166 alpha-2 code), but the political situation has prevented it from being assigned, and consequently no such TLD has ever been created. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, so it should present both viewpoints (.ma and none). .eh is reserved (in the sense given above) regardless of viewpoint, and so could also be mentioned, but is largely irrelevant.

--Zundark 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Reference Point

Given the tedious little djihad over this subject has renewed, I believe it useful to direct all potential editors to the new report on the conflict issued (first report actually) by the internationally respected International Crisis Group, which should be accessible here: http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4892&l=1 The report pokes sticks in just about everyone's eyes, and for my money is perhaps the best reference point for a neutral, encyclopedia article - for this article and the attendant little exagerated universe of articles around it. Something better at least than the ceaseless partisan political editing at least. collounsbury 14:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Useless "categories"

Territories under military occupation doesn't strike me as a particularly useful category - and seems argumentative and needlessly POV while not conveying objective information. Looking at the category it is an incoherent mish mash. I am reverting to Jalil's edit. Our fine moudjahid for Polisario should stop reverting and give me an argument as to what the bloody hell the purpose of the category is if not to assert a POV collounsbury 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Purpose? It serves the same purpose as any other category or list of articles (e.g. List of disputed territories.) I didn't create the category, so I suppose I can't speak for the intentions in the mind of the original author, but the purpose of a category on Wikipedia is:
"...(along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) [to] help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called."
If someone is looking for information on all occupied territories, they can find a repository of the in this category. Why *wouldn't* you include Western Sahara in this category, since it is clearly applicable? As an aside, I've done nothing to maintain this category, other than add this relevant entry, so I can't speak for how well it has been maintained in the past, but I don't see the problem with it presently, other than the fact that it is lacking some entries. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't I put it in this category - because the category is a grab bag and given the mish mash of other cross-referenced content does not seem to serve any coherent purpose at all except to advance the point of view of one party to the conflict. It's argumentative and duplicative of disputed territories (indeed what territory isn't 'militarily occupied' - Spain has military forces in Ceuta and Melilla, Algeria on the Sahara, etc. etc.). Disputed territories is a clearer, more analytically coherent definition, and one that is not argumentative. It also if one looks at the cross referencing usage has more consistency. Of course as a Polisario partisan you want to push that, fine, disputed territories gets the point across (along with the utterly absurd proliferation of your articles on WS) collounsbury 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

It's not like Koavf added the category, Collounsbury. Varag added Category:Territories with military occupation forces, and David Kernow, an admin, shortly swapped it to Category:Territories under military occupation. It then seems to have been left unchallenged for nearly six months until A Jalil removed it, calling it "non-applicable" - an erroneous assertion regardless of the state of the category. I can only guess why you would support such a move, other than taking you at your (above) word, which is reaching, in my opinion. Are you of the mind that removal of data need not be justified? ¦ Reisio 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really care who added the category, taking a look at it, the category strikes me as meaningless, duplicative of the less POV category "Disputed Territories" and frankly undefinable. I ask again, what bloody territory is not under military occupation in the sense of national forces defending the claim - a few perhaps but there are countless that are not. collounsbury 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Occupation? Well, that's not the definition of military occupation; it is not the case that all territories with armies in them are "occupied." If you want to know "what bloody territory is not under military occupation" that list is huge and you know that: Spain, my back yard, Cornwall, Antarctica, Senegal, Tokyo, etc. Most territories are not occupied, hence, it is noteworthy when one is. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

an erroneous assertion regardless of the state of the category: I do not get what this sentence means. WS is a disputed territory. Of course if you are sympathetic, like koavf, with the polisario position, it suits you well to categorize it as an occupied territory. It will help much to keep one's own wishes separate from the facts in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, Reisio. --A Jalil 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To rephrase, it means even if the category is unkempt, this article still fits perfectly into it. The point being that Collounsbury's assertion that this article shouldn't be in the category because it is messy is immaterial. You will have to give good justification to remove information; referring to a category as "non-applicable" when it clearly is (two or three times over) will not suffice (and will probably earn you some sort of reprimand, if acted upon chronically). ¦ Reisio 02:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Define the category I suppose, at present I see this more as a POV argument than a helpful category. To make the argument starker, certainly from a Moroccan perspective it is military defence of own territory rather than occupation, from the Polisario POV, military occuption. Who's right? Depends on perspective. Is it disputed - oh yes, no question at all. Were the distinction between occupation (e.g. France by Germany, Palestinian Territories - leaving aside the ambig. of the annexed plots, etc - unambiguous utterly non-POV characterization). Clear enough? Reverting as "not applicable" is wrong, I would agree - that's POV - rather the incoherence of the category, what it really means and the clear POV implication here making it argumentative (and almost entirely duplicative of disputed territories) drives my objection. Of course the whole bloody dispute is tiresome to begin with, but working at being fair-minded I see the military occup. item as clearly POV collounsbury 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
Moroccan POV Since there are two armies present in Western Sahara, and they are not there on the other's consent, it is necessarily occupied. The UN also considers the area occupied, as does any rational third-party observer. There are right-wing Israelis that don't consider the West Bank occupied; that doesn't mean we have to take away any references to Israeli occupation. That's false balance. If you have a problem with the category per se, feel free to bring it up on its talk. Barring that, mark it for deletion. I don't particularly care. As long as it exists, though, this article should be in it, as it is a relevant example. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There is one army and a set of guerrillas. No objective observer would call the Polisario an "army." As for the UN and rational observers - well, I disagree mate. I am far more rational than the UN. It's disputed - occupied, perhaps depending on the definition, but disputed is clearer. And yes, there are certain Israeli fringeelements outside government that want to get acceptance of "greater Israel" - but Israel has never annexed the Territories nor granted citizenship to the Occupied Territories.
Intellectually, for any non-partisan there is a clear difference. Now, that clear difference does not mean either side is right however, for my money and without being a bloody whinging little party political partisan of a region I know fuck all about, the issue of "Occupation" is disputable given the wider context and given my other comments (which have not been address substantively, ex the weak and rather ill thought out and informed Israeli example). As for the category objection, I have better things to do, given limited time and rather little interest in wiki qua wiki. (collounsbury 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
I have to agree with Justin (Koavf) here. For example in the category also Tibet is present. It depends on your point of view if it is an occupied territory. Actually if you think about it, the category is _always_ a certain POV and always from the one that is occupied (or those who think it is). I also agree that the discussion should be held at the talk page of the category, whether the category is right per se. For now the category is clearly applicable. (Please note from my undo's on this article's page that I do not favour a certain POV.) Van der Hoorn 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair note regarding Tibet - however I disagree that the category is clearly applicable (and disagree regarding Tibet as well, but that's not my area). collounsbury 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
  • I think the category is to be removed until fully discussed and a result is found.
  • Further to your logic you can create or use all kinds of categories, e.g. also genocide here.
  • Western Sahara is clearly under no military occupation. Morocco admisters the territory and sees it as its southern provinces. And there is no final result of the dipsute. Until then we MUST avoid POV and use balanced editing.
  • Military occupation is POV.
  • And it does mean nothing, since every country is on its own military occupation (or control)
  • Please leave the cat out until we decide.
Thanks and regards - wikima 20:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"Western Sahara is clearly under no military occupation."
Ahhh... and why is that so clearly? Now you really showed your true face. Yóu are clearly on the POV of Morocco. Van der Hoorn 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Aha, now you know the truth?! Wow, is the world that easy!
  • If I was on the POV of Morocco my edits and changes would look much different.
  • And if you would show some interest to the Polsiario POV which has devastated the whole topic in wikipedia, that would be rather helpful.
  • Back to the topic: Western Sahara is under Moroccan administration. There is also police, the Moroccan flag, the Moroccan money and everything from the Moroccan administration.
  • If you say military occupation, then you are ignoring all that and you are representing the Polisario POV, which I think you don't want to, do you?
Thanks - wikima 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikima is rather Moroccan POV. As the Indiana kid is Polisario POV. They're both tiresome partisans from time to time. Leaving that aside, and either side's whinging on, I remain unconvinced that the Military Occupation is not POV as such in this type of situation (in contrast to non-annexation issues - one could think about the issue of Alsace perhaps, as a counter). collounsbury 21:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] List of countries by formation dates

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at List of countries by formation dates that concernes Western Sahara. It relates to the fact that some users include former colonies (such as Algeria or Western Sahara) in the columm for the last territorial changes of their respective colonial power, and this because "formely" such colonies were considered "provinces". I believe this discussion and its result may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)