Talk:Southern Provinces

message: Where is this going? First, koavf's edits are rather partisan (Algerian backed is not an issue in question), but counter edits are hardly terribly better. Before we start a reprise of the past, perhaps a discussion. (collounsbury 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are thousands of references on the web for the "Algeria-backed" Polisario front. He does not want it mentionned. Why? Nobody knows.--A Jalil 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, what I would like is a proper convo. Eh? Now and again he has a point, and if he'd learn to be less partisan (but then wikima could learn to be so as well, although he's rather better), whatever the ridiculous over-exposure of W. Sahara, at least the arties would be quality. collounsbury 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fire away I'd be happy to talk; I post on talk far more often than does Jalil in our little disputes. Jalil, saying that "X is mentioned everywhere thousands of times" and "no one knows about X" certainly seem contradictory. I would be opposed to you constantly mentioning that Polisario is "Algeria-backed" just like you would be opposed to me constantly mentioning how the Sahara is occupied; it's a pleonasm that is often irrelevant to the substance of the article in order to push a POV. It is not necessary to mention in every instance that Polisario are "Algeria-backed" (whatever that means), nor is it necessary in every instance to mention that the Sahara is occupied. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the issue of constant insertion is a very fair point and I think Jalil should have to grant it - Algeria backed however is clear, Polisario is clearly a creature of Algeria in most respects. That's what happens when you're stuck on another nation's soil and it's a dictatorship. The volte-face on Baker II amply illustrates. Nevertheless, I agree, inserting the reference everywhere is abusive. collounsbury 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lehbib Ayoub, the hero of the war during 17 years, when he heard that Abdelaziz Bouteflika has proposed a divisuion of the territory in response to the Baker II plan, he (Ayoub) went to Mohammed Abdelaziz and asked explanations of what he heard. He expected anger and refusal from Abdelaziz to Algeria's proposal, but to his surprise, Mohammed Abdelaziz replied that he can't protest anything Algeria does or says. That was enough for the hero to go back to Morocco. By the way, "The Algeria-backed" is not inserted everytime the Polisario is mentioned.--A Jalil 13:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Leaving aside the Algeria issue, I edited the arty, and frankly in this instance mention of Algeria makes much sense, as objectively Polisario needed Algerian backing to maintain itself. I rephrased however to work towards more editorially neutral lang. collounsbury 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Your edits here and at the SADR article make a lot of sense and are a good middle-of-the-road effort. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presuming you're not being facetious, I merely note that having a fairly deep familiarity with the area due to business, my greatest concern is to have balanced and rational articles. Party political partisan rubbish isn't useful to me. collounsbury 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all No, I was being completely sincere; I have no reason to think that you have a particular agenda, and I generally trust the claims you make about your business background and familiarity with the region. I was stating an honest opinion about the quality of the edit and I don't see any need for edit-warring on this page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough mate, and very sporting as well. collounsbury 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring Again 

message: Are the Southern Provinces all of Western Sahara, or just the part west of the Moroccan Berm.
*The first paragraph says all of WS "These two official Moroccan denominations explicitly include all the parts of Western Sahara, that lie either to the west or to the east of the Moroccan military berm in the area."
*The immige says the western part "The Southern Provinces are the land west of the red line, which indicates the Moroccan Berm."
*The hatnote says the western part: "This article is about areas of Western Sahara ruled by Morocco"
Which is it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it's just a dejure/defacto distinction. Under Moroccan law it includes all of it, but the reality is it's just west of the berm. Restricting this article to just the de facto area (although of course mentioning the Moroccan position is useful) makes sense due to the larger Western Sahara article. CMD (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So the Southern Provinces is all of WS, but the article wants to focuses on the Moroccan-controlled part of the the Southern Provinces, that makes sense. I edited the article to reflect that, previously it implied that the Free Zone was excluded from the Southern Provinces. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  All of Western Sahara, or just the part west of the Moroccan Berm 

message: I'm starting this discussion to give you a chance to explain your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2023