Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 1

message: Hi,
I am not very exprienced with wikipedia. How can the following centence be completed? 
"[...] whereas the SADR is recognized by several dozen."
This should be copmpleted by the follwing one: 
"However many states froze or cancelled their recognition." (source is in the overview table in the article itself)
Who can help? Thanks.
--> Link to edit found. Thanks
The article states that dozens (70-80) of the states recognised the "sadr" but does not mention that many of them (23 + case of yemen unclear) have cancelled their recognition. This fact is relevant to mention as it concerns the decision of not only one or two states but a share of ca 30% (!!) of those who spoke out their recognition. I think this must be mentioned in the article (and must be taken into consideration as well when replying to other users (s. thread above)).
Regards
Wikima 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources as to when and under what circumstances recognition was withdrawn by 23 countries, and which ones. Thanks. El_C 14:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canlcellations of recognition must be mentioned 

message: All,
This is a fact. polisario is algerian backed. None can deny this. When international media talk about the sahara issue they rarely miss to mention the involvement of algeria in the conflict. The fact that this country denies its involvement is part of its strategy against Morocco and no argument as such. 
Read an example of the BBC here qhich says: "The Algerian-backed Polisario said the latest proposals..." (Source: BBC News World Edition http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2677581.stm).
Leaving polisario as the only actor against Morocco in the conflict shows an unbalanced picture of the situation and reflects a political position rather than the transmission of information onf acts as should be a project liek wikipedia . 
Therefore I would like to make that change and insert the "Algerian-backed Polisario ..." in the follwing paragraph (History):
"A guerrilla war carried by the Algerian-backed Polisario Front contesting Rabat's sovereignty ended in a 19 ..."
How is the change to be done?
===>No one doubts Algerian support Since the 1970's, Polisario has been supported by Cuba, Libya, and other states, most consistently by Algeria. This is not to imply that it is an Algerian movement, though, as it was founded by the indigenous inhabitants (the Sahrawis), and the membership is composed entirely of them. Furthermore, when Morocco consistently refused to have talks with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as they did not recognize them as a state, Algerian diplomats represented their interests.
I don't think anyone is trying to make the conflict out to be simply Morocco versus Polisario (although they are the most prominent parties). Certainly Algeria, Mauritania, France, Spain, the United States, the African Union, and the United Nations are all interested parties to the conflict.
I would object to inserting the phrase "Algerian-backed Polisario Front", as the Polisario Front was seeking independence prior to Morocco's invasion, and the phrasing is so vague that it implies that the Western Sahara conflict is simply a proxy war between Morocco (and Mauritania) and Algeria, which is absolutely not true. To some extent, there are Algerian interests in a proxy war, but that is not the source of the conflict. Justin (koavf) 20:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
===> At the level of language I think that saying "algerian backed" means "algerian backed" and not that the movement is algerian.
You are trying to put algeria just as on the same level as any other country that supports the polisario. This is not true. 
Algeria has from the beginning hosted, financed, supported and did EVERY THING for the polisario. algeria invests a large amount of its monney, puts the own country and people under risk of a potential with Morocco, invests a huge part of its diplomacy in a war against Mrocco in all intrnational instances. 
Do you know that algeria banished ca 50.000 moroccans from its country to Morocco after having dispossed them from all their goods (houses, businesses etc) just because of this sahara issue? Is this supporting or something else??
In fact polsiario is NOTHING without algeria. When the last moroccan prisonors of war were released lately (some of them spent since more than 20 years in the camps of the polisario) their liberation went via algier! The USA almost explicitly thanked the algerian governement for "helping" getting them free. Only the execution of their liberation was done in Tindouf where they were hold under circonstumces that go against every international law.
Lately and in the same context the USA by its representative Mr Lugar almost ignored the polisario and asked Morocco and algeria to talk directly and make further efforts in order to find an issue. Immediately after this algeria sent one of its most important men (Mr Belkheir) as embassador to Rabat. etc. Ths USA did nto ask Mauritania, Spain, the Afircan Union, France or Sweden to find an issue with Morocco.
And you are telling algeria's support is the same as any other country's?
I think it is important to mention the algeria backing of the polsario. 
This is the minimum to do as the examples of the BBC News shows.
I also think it is necessary to provide more information on the role of algeria in the conflict around the sahara.
If we don't do so the topic would look too unbalanced and politically too tendencious.
Wikima 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polisario is algerian backed 

message: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where all points of view must be exposed. I think that the last version of the article is not neutral because it consider WS as a country. I think that it is a conflictual territory or region. If you think that WS is a country so why not Kurdistan, Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque territory and else. I think that you must remove the flag of RASD and all informations about president, prime minister ..etc. Thanks
===>Other entities have this information First off, the article clearly explains the dispute and the fact that the soveriegnty over the territory is not finalized in the international arena. Secondly, other non-state entities (provinces, dependencies, disputed territories, historical states, etc.) have flags, and information about the governments on them. In point of fact, Kurdistan is an excellent example. Why exactly should we take out this information?
You are blatently contradicting yourself by saying that "all points of view must be exposed", and then saying the article is not neutral. You want to take out one point of view (the SADR is already sovereign, or possibly that it should be sovereign), and replace it with one-sided information. Justin (koavf) 01:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
:"Westerne Sahara" is a geographic territory not a country, the title of the page is "Western  Sahara" not "SADR", now this territory is governed by Morocco and not by "SADR", there is a conflict between two sides Morocco and Polisario, if you think that this flag represent the region so you are not neutral, in this case why not put the flag of Morocco?, I repeat this a page about a territory (Western Sahara) and not a proposed country (SADR), Thanks
===>Untrue First off, Morocco does not administer the entire territory. Secondly, if this article claimed that Gaza and the West Bank were part of Israel simply becuase they administer the territory, the same peoeple who are making pro-Moroccan edits would cry foul. Since this is an unresolved dispute, and this conflict is clearly explained at length in the article, there is no justification for deleting the infobox. There are other geo-political entities that have these boxes than states, and I'm willing to assume that Wikipedia readers are smart enough to digest the article themsevles. The flag of Morocco is not here because it is the flag of Morocco. The flag that is on this page is internationally recognized as the flag of Western Sahara. Justin (koavf) 04:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Koavf, don't you use all the time the word movement and organization? Calling it a country is totally innacurate and totally POV. If you can prove to us that it is a country than the article would use that term. Otherwise, we'll be forced to change that. cheers --  Wiki me up™
Koavf, I understand that you are very interrested in indepencence movements. Sure we all sypathyse with separatist movements. But don't forget to be objectif and neutral. There is a conflict between two sides : 1)Morocco who thinks that WS is a part of its territory and 2)Polisario who thinks that this territory must be independant and proclamed a republic in this territory. If you think that "western sahara" is for "SADR" what "france" is for "republic of France" for example, in this case you are defintively no neutral and you are imposing your POV to readers of WP. I think that the aim of WP is to expose facts not POVs. WS is a territory who is subject to a conflict between two sides not a country. the page called "Western Sahara" seems like a page devoted to SADR and expose informations about this entity (flag, president, etc). these informations are refused by the first side of the conflict (Morocco); exposing them in this page is not neutral. I find my self forced to erease this information for the neutrality of this article. thank you for understanding and excuse my English language;-) Daryou 19:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WS is not a country 

message: This page is definitively not neutral in the current version. the text is considerably pro-polisario and anti-Moroccan. I request your attention to change it for a better neutrality. I think that with the cooperation of every one we will obtain a more objectif article. Thanks. Daryou 18:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page is not neutral 

message: ===>This article is a work-in-progress Please stop vandalizing it. Revisions are being made by consensus, according to the Talk page. I have never made my biases a secret, and neither have you, so this glib justification for reversion is unacceptable and hypocritical. I am not manipulating the discussion - I make assertions, backed with facts. There are several opinions regarding the Western Sahara issue (not just two), and I listed them above. If you want to discuss the matter intelligently, please do. Otherwise, don't resort to petty vandalism. The position of Wikipedia is not proscriptive. For Wikipedia to say that the UN should solve the dispute is a point-of-view. You contradict yourself, if you say that all points of view should be exposed and then claim that only one should. Neutrality is itself a position in regards to this dispute, as you just admitted, after claiming that there are only two positions. Show me how I've imposed a POV on the discussion and we can discuss it from there. I've been editing these articles for a year before you ever got here (unless you've been editing anonymously, as I initially did), and I have always been willing to revise. Justin (koavf) 20:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Daryou|Daryou]], Vandalism must stop

message: I think that the best way to resolve the dispute is to stop the edit war and to request a Mediation, what do you think about it? Daryou 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go on answering an out of subject discussion. I must tell you someting very important, especially about your lack of knowledge about Morocco, that I my second language is Spanish and not French. I do speak Spanish at home and not French. Even at work I use Spanish and English, not French or Arabic. You may wonder how and I am not ready to explain this here as it has nothing to do with the topic! Another thing, is that if I got a political agenda than I am no different than you. Cheers. Svest 11:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear 12.145.73.51 , you'll find my response here  Daryou 19:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation 

message: Please refer to User talk:Koavf#WS is not a country. Cheers -- Svest 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A message to all

message: ===>Let's carry on the discussion at Google It will be more systematic and searchable. We can propose particular wordings or topics there, and debate them. Plus, it will take up less server space on Wikipedia. It's been started here. Justin (koavf) 01:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job. I'll help Daryou on the matter. Cheers -- Svest 07:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Group about Western Sahara 

message: * I suggest to keep the infobox without information about SADR (that you can put if you want in the page you created for this autoproclaimed entity), I mean: name of SADR, flag of SADR, president of SADR, prime minister of SADR, coat of arms of SADR, hymne of SADR and national motto of SADR.
* I see that Fayssal, Asterion and Zach were not invited by Koavf to the WS Google Group (I can't do it because Koavf is the administrator of the group). I'm waiting. Daryou 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the the CIA-World Factbook , Is CIA also pro-moroccan?  Dark side 21:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I reverted the vandalism of 208.255.152.227 who deleted sections of this talk page . I don't understand his shameful behavior!!
He/shy also vandalized plenty of pages this 22 September 2005 . Daryou 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of 208.255.152.227 in this Talk page!!!! 

message: According to what was said before, I tried to set up a more neutral version, If there is any problem just revert and discuss. Dark side 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All theses pages was edited by pro-polisario users. And what about the the CIA-World Factbook , Is CIA also pro-moroccan?!!!  Dark side 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral version 

message: Dark side, I see that the discussion with Koavf is not leading anywhere and I bet he is not willing to change this famous infobox ever. It is evident that he's strongly pro-polisario and all his arguments are fake. Putting the flag of SADR is incomprehensible. I put a RfC here  and here . Daryou 22:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ===>Misdirection: You said it your self "The CIA is a government agency, and must present information on politically-sensitive topics according to the U.S. position of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a government mouthpiece, and so it can represent this information", the US have a position of neutrality, so there is no Flag of SADR in the CIA factbook WS page. WP also must have a position of neutrality. The flag of SADR musn't be here, please put it in the page of  SADR not here, it is the best solution, the SADR musn't have two WP pages. I understand that you are sympatizing with polisario (and maybe you are a Sahrawi or an algerian). I beg you to stop using WP as a tool to express your POVs. I see that you are the only user with asterion to be not neutral in this talk page (I didn't count the anons). WP is source of trustfull information and not a field of war. Your behavior gives WP a bad name and make it less reliable. Please, please stop this war. "Legal status of (WS)territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved; territory contested by Morocco and Polisario Front (Popular Front for the Liberation of the Saguia el Hamra and Rio de Oro), which in February 1976 formally proclaimed a government-in-exile of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)", this sentence you'll find it in many web pages. Maybe the WS will be a country recongnized by the UN in the future, but now the conflict is not yet resolved. And WS isn't yet a country. Sure WP is not a government mouthpiece but the world's mouthpiece. Thank you very much. And goodluck for your republic Dark side 22:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: The position of Morocco is known: "western sahara is morocain", and the position of polisario is known: "WS must be independant under the name of SADR". I don't ask you to recognize the position of Morocco. I don't ask you to put the Moroccan flag in this page. I don't ask you to write that the president of WS is the King of Morocco. I just ask you to be 
neutral. Is it so dificult to understand?! until the resolution of the conflict, let's say that WS isn't moroccan yet and isn't SADR yet. That's what I call "neutral", that's the position of the UN, that's the position of CIA, that's the position of 140 countries. there are some discussions that can't lead anywhere, the same kind of conversation that could take place between an Israelien and a palestinian or between a priest and an imam who try to convert each other. You'll never persuade me that WS is SADR and I can't convince you that the WS is Moroccan. Some things can seem evident to me and senseless to you and vice versa. there is no truth in this kind of things. But we can find an agreement. I don't have any thing against you, We all are citizen of the world. Maybe if I was born in Tindouf camps I would think differently, and the same thing could hapen to you if you was born in Marrackech.  This conflict has begun before I was born, and I'm looking forward the day when it will finish and we become all brothers, What did I say? we are already brothers!! Thanks and respect and peace. Daryou 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia way is to report all relevant points of view, but adopt none. The article should cover what Morocco says the status is, what the gov't in exile claims, what the U.N. has said, what the African Union says, what other countries say. (Did I miss any?) Let's start with a neutral description of what the territory is, its physical location, boundries, characteristics, population, etc., and what the facts on the ground are now. Then succeeding paragraphs can cover competing claims. See Gaza Strip and West Bank for how that can be done. Jonathunder 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jonathunder, this page have to report all relevant points of view, but adopt none. Legal status of the territory and issue of sovereignty is unresolved and the territory is contested by Morocco and Polisario Front which in February 1976 formally proclaimed a government-in-exile of the SADR. According to Morocco the flag of WS is the Moroccan one, and according to Polisario the flag of WS is the SADR one. The WP way is to adopt no position and no flag of WS (Or maybe to display the two flags)until the conflict is resolved under the surveillance of the UN. Thanks. Dark side 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message of peace 

message: If you say that Morocco occupies this region then for more neutrality you must also say that the Polisario occupies it, since the status of the Sahara is not yet settled.
--Marmandie (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Morocco occupies WS is undisputed and not mentioning it (to please the nationalist crowd) would be doing a disservice to the readers. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Moroccan-occupied and SADR-controlled are standard international usage. 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality problem

message: I suggest that you delete "(e.g. the Russian annexation of Crimea)" from the last sentence of the introduction.  The new sentence would read, "Overall, the annexation has not garnered as much attention in the international community as many other disputed annexations."  The way it is currently written makes it sound like the author is downplaying or excusing the Russian annexation of Crimea. Sloanm212 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I would say the author is giving an example of a disputed annexation that has garnered far more international attention than the one of the Western Sahara. If you believe the Russian annexation of Crimea did not garner much international attention then please provide a reliable source to support this view and mark your edit request as unanswered. Waddie96 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018 

message: "December, 2018" = "December 2018" Unacceptable date formats (except in external titles and quotes) 2605:E000:9149:8300:2506:42B1:2001:39BA (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2019 

message: This part of the article is not true at all, as the U.N never considered at any point in history the Polisario Front to be the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, please provide a source to support this information or delete it as it goes against Wikipedia standards to spread false and misleading informations or at least add a  citation needed" at the end.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Read A/RES/34/37 from 1979: "the Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y de Río de Oro, the representative of the people of Western Sahara". You are either mistaken or lying. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Note also that you know this and have vandalized articles to remove it in the past. If you continue vandalizing, you will be blocked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:   <<The United Nations considers the Polisario Front to be the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people>> 

message: In the lead there is this part:
, no other member state of the United Nations has ever officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over parts of Western Sahara.
With the following reference:
I looked but didn't find paragraph 37, p. 10 (though the statement itself coincides with the information at the Wikipedia article: Political status of Western Sahara).
Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct document to reference is this. See original insertion here (though that link is now dead). I can't edit the page though because it's semi-protected. 151.194.65.68 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding it now. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Report on Western Sahara 

message: The moroccan sahara not the western sahara please change that Sanaasellami (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: lol what? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020 

message: Due to the recent news about the Trump administration choosing to recognize Morocco's sovereignty over the Western Sahara, I recommend changing the sentence from "As of 2017, no other member state of the United Nations has ever officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over parts of Western Sahara" to "As of 2020, the United States is the only major western country to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara." 
Sourcing can be done with the many news articles which have been published since Thursday, December 10th, 2020, and various tweets from relevant parties. Flubberpuff (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – robertsky (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020 

message: Towards the end of the page it says that "then-President Donald J. Trump" recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara on Dec. 10, 2020. The wording "then-President"... seems kind of odd, and not in keeping with what other articles. I think we should edit it to get rid of the word "then". Also it makes no sense to refer to President Trump as "then-president" while he is still president.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GloriousPede (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Then-president 

message: Tarik.oumazzane (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pointing out that this user and the author of the article in the ref they linked have the same name. fyi - wolf 00:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020 

message: Moroccan sahara 160.177.152.173 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Ferien (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021 

message: I want to edit Travis R. Jaico (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021 

message: There is a link to a missing wiktionary page for "cat's paw". I could go create a wiktionary entry, but there seems to be no reason to use an archaic reference to an old fable that is likely unfamiliar to many readers.. The sentence should be re-written to exclude it. 97.102.30.205 (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cat's Paw" 

message: Similarily to the Cremea page, It should be added in the short description that Morocco is governinh De facto the territory. Maozerhouni (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the whole territory though. 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  De facto and de jure nuances