Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 2

message: Hello, I was asked by one of the participants of the current discussion to give a hand some days ago. I was unfortunately away and could not easily access Wikipedia. I see there were no comments in the past 3 days... but we can't leave the page protected for weeks now :-)
Can each party shortly identify each point on which he wishes a modification in the current article ? We could try to take them one by one ? Anthere.
: Hello, 
* In the "Culture" section, there is no information about culture in Moroccan controlled WS. 
* There are no links to pro-moroccan web pages, maybe we can add a link to a moroccan governmental web page like this one http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/sahara.html
* There are so much pro-polisario links, maybe 2 or 3 are sufficient for readers to make their minds.
* The following sentences aren’t neutral or need reformulation or some evidence:
# Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum, but it is obvious that Morocco, as the current de facto power in much of the territory, stood only to lose.
# although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal and exhibiting a stark pro-Moroccan bias in comparison to the agreed-upon 1991 plan
# His resignation followed several months of failed attempts to get Morocco to at least enter into formal negotiations on the plan, but he met with complete rejection.
# After that, it quickly garnered widespread international support, culminating in the UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the plan in the summer of 2003. ==>Give me evidence
# The new king, Mohammed VI of Morocco, opposes the concept of a referendum on independence, and has said Morocco will never agree to one. ==> Give me evidence
# Morocco, resistant to the UN process
Peace Daryou 13:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi,
#  About Morocco's attitude to the referendum, I can't see the controversy. This is factual. One side (Polisario) has consistently demanded that the referendum be implemented, the other (Morocco) has consistently demanded changes in the rules, new voter criterion, delays, etc, etc, until recently changing its stand and proclaiming that it would never agree to a referendum where inpendence was an option. This is stated, written-down, spoken-out Moroccan policy, and you can find it for example in the Moroccan reply to the UN on the Baker plan.
#  That the Baker plan was pro-Moroccan compared to the 1991 plan is clear to anyone who reads it. Its the same old plan but with Morocco's suggestions added (3 way ballot, settler's can vote, autonomy first, policing rights during referendum, etc). This is not to say it is intrinsically pro-Moroccan (since a really pro-Moroccan position wouldn't challenge Rabat's sovereignty at all), but "in comparison with the 1991 plan" it obviously is. And that is important to point out.
#  The UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the Baker plan (B2) came in the form of SCR 1495 in July 2003. Read it yourself: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1495
#  Morocco is clearly uncomfortable with the UN process, and has always pushed for bilateral negotiations with Algeria to avoid having to confront the Polisario via the UN. It has support in this from France and, lately, the US. This is not POV, this is the basics of the conflict. I don't know if "resistant" is the best word (although it is correct), but please suggest a better one to get the point across.
#  Baker tried and failed because Morocco (as stated in its reply to the UN) wouldn't consider a referendum with independence as an option, despite having agreed to that, and despite that being the very core of the Baker Peace plan (and the Settlement Plan of 1991). This must be in the article. But if you're only after minor language changes, I see no problem with that. What would they be?
#  Sahrawi and Moroccan culture in the Moroccan-occupied parts is missing, yes. Since journalists aren't allowed in freely, it is of course hard to report on, and it hasn't helped that Morocco spent most of its occupation denying the existence of a separate Sahrawi culture. But if you have anything on the subject, by all means, write.
#  I'm not sure on the number of links, but of course the Moroccan position should be represented (for example with your suggestion), if it is not already. I suspect you have a pretty wide definition of "pro-Polisario", though... ;-)
salaam,
ARRE.
Salam ARRE :)
* Thank you for your precisions. I think that there is a little problem of wording, We feel (or maybe I feel) that the article was written by an author who doesn't like the moroccan position so much. I'm not against presenting facts. I'm against presenting them in a biased way.
* I propose the folowing sentences: 
# Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum (stop).
# although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal (stop) 
# His resignation followed months of failed attempts to get Morocco to enter into formal negotiations on the plan, and he met with rejection.
# After that, it garnered widespread international support, the UN Security Council's endorsed the plan unanimously in the summer of 2003.
# Morocco, unconfortable with the UN process.
* I'm not so fluent in English, I'll try to write on "culture" or ask the help of someone else.
Thanks and peace (salam) Daryou 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I have reverted the text to a NPOV version. Please DO think twice before starting another edit war. Many thanks Asterion 00:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Spanish as an official language. True it is spoken as a second language as in Northern Morocco but it is not an official language. I also removed the statement that MAD is used in occupied sector which contradicts the map featured in the article. Cheers -- Svest 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Svest, Spanish is listed as an official language in the Spanish, Portuguese and Serbian versions of Wikipedia (there are possibly more). Regarding the MAD issue, it could be rephrased NPOV to "used in Moroccan-controlled areas". Your thoughts? Asterion 12:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is listed on those versions. That's why WP is not 100% accurate. Cheers -- Svest 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Svest, you are right about the official language. See Ch.1 Art.3: "La langue arabe est la langue nationale officielle". Regards, Asterion 16:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries Asterion. When I first saw it I was like confused. As I told you, it is used as a second language, same in the northern cities of Tetouan and Tangier. The official language is Arabic. The actual version states "none" and I don't understand that none. Cheers -- Svest 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The infobox is corrected now. Cheers -- Svest 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: ===>Feel free to add to this list
*Additions to "culture"
*A map that includes the berm
*More information on naming conventions
*Further outside resources (?)
*An archive needs to be made of the Talk page ---> Done
I think we should keep the infobox information a separate article. This way, if conflicts occur with that particular information, the entire page won't need to be protected. Justin (koavf) 04:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea about the infobox. -- Svest 04:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that need to be done in this article 

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

message: I have a question about the argument "It is on dozens of other Wikipedias". Have you checked whether articles on dozen of wikipedias were essentially copies of the current english articles and if not, have you checked if the article on the other wikipedias was the result of the work of only one editor or possibly 50 editors ? I'd say that if articles on other languages are copies of the english, then the argument does not have much strength. If the article on the other wikipedias was the work of only a handful of editors, I'd say as well that it is unlikely to be the result of a carefully crafted and consensual work. I did not check myself :-)
Remember that this issue is a very controversial one, and clearly will take time to solve. You are several with different opinions right now. Remember that opinions by default can't be "right" or "wrong". They just reflect different state of minds. You being several people with various state of minds at the same time here are in the best position to make the best article on the topic. It will possibly take time. Take your time please. Anthere 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Wikipedias

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

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

message: * Western Sahara , a Territory on the north-west coast of Africa bordered by Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria, was administered by Spain until 1976. Both Morocco and Mauritania affirmed their claim to the territory, a claim opposed by the POLISARIO Front. The United Nations has been seeking a settlement in Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the Territory, and the POLISARIO, supported by Algeria. (Mauritania renounced all claims to Western Sahara in 1979.) In 1979, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) also became active in seeking a peaceful solution of the conflict. 79 governments recognized the SADR as a legitimate power in WS; they are all countries of what was called the Third World. SADR was also admitted as a full member in the AU.  In 1985, the United Nations Secretary-General, in cooperation with the OAU, initiated a mission of good offices leading to "the settlement proposals", which were accepted on 30 August 1988 by Morocco and the Front POLISARIO. In 1990, the Security Council approved the Secretary-General's report (S/21360) containing the full text of the settlement proposals and the outline of the Secretary-General's Plan for implementing them. On 29 April 1991, the Security Council, in its resolution 690 (1991), decided to establish the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Since 1989, 24 countries cancelled their recognition of SADR. Neither Morocco nor SADR are recognized by the UN as the legitimate powers in the territory. No country other than Morocco does recognize him as the Legitimate power in WS.
* WP is a free encyclopaedia; everyone can edit, discuss and give his opinions. The articles of WP are in a continuous changing as every day there is dozens of new users who are willing to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. Changes can be applied every day upon topics that was there for months or years, otherwise all WP would be protected. It is true that those changes are more difficult today as actually every change needs a consensus.
* Every WP page is written by some authors who know something upon the topic of the page. WP pages aren't similar as they are written by different authors making each article a unique experience. WP is a heterogenous collection of articles written by different authors.
* A general purpose encyclopaedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopaedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points. 
* The presentation of the flag, president, coat of arms, president, prime minister and national motto of SADR is surely useful for readers who may want to know more about this concerned party of the conflict. But this presentation could be interpreted by some readers as a recognition by WP of the SADR as a legitimate power in the territory and by then no neutral. 
* I think personally that there are two solutions for a better neutrality of this article :
# Presentation of the same kind of useful information about  another concerned party of the conflict (Morocco).
# Or Presentation of an infobox with useful information about the territory without any information about the concerned parties.
Thanks. Daryou 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A disputed territory 

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

message: Response to Koavf: 
Your main argument is that there is a precedent in WP and that other disputed territories have flags in their WP pages. You mentionned the examples of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and Transnistria.
# First of all, I don't know of displaying a flag in those pages is or not neutral.
# Second, you have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one. The case of Taiwan is relevant because the republic of China is partially recognized, have de facto control over the territory, but claims control over the whole China Territory, and you know what?: there is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the Republic of China one. 
# I suggest as a compromize to display the flag of Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) page.
===>Answers to "Answers"
==> Response to ARRE
* We are sure that the flag of Polisario isn't internationally recognized as the flag of the WS territory.
-Untrue. The only flag that anyone in the international community recognizes is this one. That's it.
* I see that we agree that only a referundum can say what Sahrawis self-identify as.
-No it can't. The testimony of Sahrawis and third-party observers can also. Plus, if the Sahrawis identified as Moroccan, they would be happy to live under Moroccan administration, and not have a nationalist movement. Furthermore, if the Sahrawis were Moroccan, Morocco wouldn't propose that their citizens vote in the referendum.
* The debate is about the infobox. There is in fact an article about SADR wich deals about the concept of possible state in WS. The same concept is used with Palestinian territories and State of Palestine pages. The WS article in fact does treat WS as a territory, which is of course in line with the UN opinion and the Minurso reports. 
-The key difference is that "Palestine" refers to a variety of historical regions over 2,000 years, with different ethnic make-ups. "Spanish/Western Sahara" refers to a distinct political entity that has only existed since 1884.
* So you think that I never provided any evidence myself, what about all the internet links that I provided in my previous posts??
-Several of your links are bankrupt, as they are not third-party sources, or they are taken out of context.
* The sentence "Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians" is your POV. I agree with you when you say that the Sahrawis have no recognized government and that they clearly constitute a separate ethnic community, like Berbers, does it mean that Berbers aren't Moroccan?. 
-No, it is not anyone's POV. You simply say that it's POV when it's convenient. Sahrawis are clearly understood to be a separate people with a separate language, history, society, and culture. They are not Moroccan. Furthermore, this is reinforced by the finding of the International Court of Justice.
* I said before that Saharawis are maybe a nation according to your definition. But WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario according to Minurso reports.
-You are changing the subject. See nation and country.
* I indeed have a problem with your maths as given above, under the heading "Natives vs. Settlers", because you provided no evidence.
-See any book on the topic, even the pro-Moroccan Akbarali Thobhani's book "Western Sahara Since 1975 Under Moroccan Administration: Social, Economic, and Political Transformation (North African Studies, 1)".
* Sure, something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone, but some thing upon a conflict is necessarly biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: You do oppose the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and you have the right to think that it's biased. And there's plenty of things that Morocco would like to change in this article. But I see that the actual version of the article "text" is consensual (but feel free to add what you said before in a neutral way).
-Of course the sentence "WS is Moroccan" is biased. This is a clear example of you using "POV" as a double standard.
* I totally agree with you when you say that "Wikipedia aims at providing neutral and factual information, not at letting every side kill the argument of every other side, and leaving us with nothing". I think also that we are doing a great work by writing an article in a such sensible case :-).
-You are not proceeding in a dialectical, like Fayssal has. You have deleted information without a justification or a consensus.
* First of all, I don't know of displaying a flag in those pages is or not neutral.
-Okay. The fact of the matter is, there is a precedent set with those articles. Read them yourself and decide if they are not neutral. It's not my fault that you're ignorant about those articles and disputes.
* Second, you have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one. The case of Taiwan is relevant because the republic of China is partially recognized, have de facto control over the territory, but claims control over the whole China Territory, and you know what?: there is no flag in the Taiwan page but in the Republic of China one.
-Again, this is a misdirection that I've already explained more than one time. Taiwan is an island that has existed for thousands of years - there is no flag of that island. The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are two different governments of China and they define the term "China" in two different ways. The SADR is not a rival government of Morocco, and the territories have had internationally-understood boundaries for decades.
*I suggest as a compromize to display the flag of Polisario in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) page.
-That is not a compromise, and I've explained why that's insufficient earlier tonight on this page. Justin (koavf) 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers

message: I came in through WP:RFC/POLITICS. I admit that i dont feel like reading all the comments, but i think i get the general idea of the problem. 
To the casual reader (being me), two things seems to be confused in this article. On one side, we have the Western Sahara (region) (mind the important hyphenations), which is contested by several parties. On the other hand we have the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is one of the claimants of the area. It seems to me that these should be split up. Admittedly, the Polisario and the SADR should play a large role in that article. However, putting up the flag here would be the same as equating the SADR with the Western Sahara (region), which by any account, is not entirely true.
Would splitting up the article help? The Minister of War 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with The Minister of War, It should be the best solution. This split-up is already done and there is in fact a Western Sahara page about the territory and a page about SADR proclaimed by Polisario, Polisario and the SADR should play a large role in that article and the flag of polisario should be there. Daryou 23:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Hello, I was asked by one of the participants of the current discussion to give a hand some days ago. I was unfortunately away and could not easily access Wikipedia. I see there were no comments in the past 3 days... but we can't leave the page protected for weeks now :-)
Can each party shortly identify each point on which he wishes a modification in the current article ? We could try to take them one by one ? Anthere.
: Hello, 
* In the "Culture" section, there is no information about culture in Moroccan controlled WS. 
* There are no links to pro-moroccan web pages, maybe we can add a link to a moroccan governmental web page like this one http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/sahara.html
* There are so much pro-polisario links, maybe 2 or 3 are sufficient for readers to make their minds.
* The following sentences aren’t neutral or need reformulation or some evidence:
# Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum, but it is obvious that Morocco, as the current de facto power in much of the territory, stood only to lose.
# although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal and exhibiting a stark pro-Moroccan bias in comparison to the agreed-upon 1991 plan
# His resignation followed several months of failed attempts to get Morocco to at least enter into formal negotiations on the plan, but he met with complete rejection.
# After that, it quickly garnered widespread international support, culminating in the UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the plan in the summer of 2003. ==>Give me evidence
# The new king, Mohammed VI of Morocco, opposes the concept of a referendum on independence, and has said Morocco will never agree to one. ==> Give me evidence
# Morocco, resistant to the UN process
Peace Daryou 13:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi,
#  About Morocco's attitude to the referendum, I can't see the controversy. This is factual. One side (Polisario) has consistently demanded that the referendum be implemented, the other (Morocco) has consistently demanded changes in the rules, new voter criterion, delays, etc, etc, until recently changing its stand and proclaiming that it would never agree to a referendum where inpendence was an option. This is stated, written-down, spoken-out Moroccan policy, and you can find it for example in the Moroccan reply to the UN on the Baker plan.
#  That the Baker plan was pro-Moroccan compared to the 1991 plan is clear to anyone who reads it. Its the same old plan but with Morocco's suggestions added (3 way ballot, settler's can vote, autonomy first, policing rights during referendum, etc). This is not to say it is intrinsically pro-Moroccan (since a really pro-Moroccan position wouldn't challenge Rabat's sovereignty at all), but "in comparison with the 1991 plan" it obviously is. And that is important to point out.
#  The UN Security Council's unanimous endorsement of the Baker plan (B2) came in the form of SCR 1495 in July 2003. Read it yourself: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1495
#  Morocco is clearly uncomfortable with the UN process, and has always pushed for bilateral negotiations with Algeria to avoid having to confront the Polisario via the UN. It has support in this from France and, lately, the US. This is not POV, this is the basics of the conflict. I don't know if "resistant" is the best word (although it is correct), but please suggest a better one to get the point across.
#  Baker tried and failed because Morocco (as stated in its reply to the UN) wouldn't consider a referendum with independence as an option, despite having agreed to that, and despite that being the very core of the Baker Peace plan (and the Settlement Plan of 1991). This must be in the article. But if you're only after minor language changes, I see no problem with that. What would they be?
#  Sahrawi and Moroccan culture in the Moroccan-occupied parts is missing, yes. Since journalists aren't allowed in freely, it is of course hard to report on, and it hasn't helped that Morocco spent most of its occupation denying the existence of a separate Sahrawi culture. But if you have anything on the subject, by all means, write.
#  I'm not sure on the number of links, but of course the Moroccan position should be represented (for example with your suggestion), if it is not already. I suspect you have a pretty wide definition of "pro-Polisario", though... ;-)
salaam,
ARRE.
Salam ARRE :)
* Thank you for your precisions. I think that there is a little problem of wording, We feel (or maybe I feel) that the article was written by an author who doesn't like the moroccan position so much. I'm not against presenting facts. I'm against presenting them in a biased way.
* I propose the folowing sentences: 
# Both sides blame each other for the stalling of the referendum (stop).
# although initially spawned from a Moroccan proposal (stop) 
# His resignation followed months of failed attempts to get Morocco to enter into formal negotiations on the plan, and he met with rejection.
# After that, it garnered widespread international support, the UN Security Council's endorsed the plan unanimously in the summer of 2003.
# Morocco, unconfortable with the UN process.
* I'm not so fluent in English, I'll try to write on "culture" or ask the help of someone else.
Thanks and peace (salam) Daryou 16:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I have reverted the text to a NPOV version. Please DO think twice before starting another edit war. Many thanks Asterion 00:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed Spanish as an official language. True it is spoken as a second language as in Northern Morocco but it is not an official language. I also removed the statement that MAD is used in occupied sector which contradicts the map featured in the article. Cheers -- Svest 01:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi Svest, Spanish is listed as an official language in the Spanish, Portuguese and Serbian versions of Wikipedia (there are possibly more). Regarding the MAD issue, it could be rephrased NPOV to "used in Moroccan-controlled areas". Your thoughts? Asterion 12:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is listed on those versions. That's why WP is not 100% accurate. Cheers -- Svest 18:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Svest, you are right about the official language. See Ch.1 Art.3: "La langue arabe est la langue nationale officielle". Regards, Asterion 16:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries Asterion. When I first saw it I was like confused. As I told you, it is used as a second language, same in the northern cities of Tetouan and Tangier. The official language is Arabic. The actual version states "none" and I don't understand that none. Cheers -- Svest 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The infobox is corrected now. Cheers -- Svest 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

message: ===>Feel free to add to this list
*Additions to "culture"
*A map that includes the berm
*More information on naming conventions
*Further outside resources (?)
*An archive needs to be made of the Talk page ---> Done
I think we should keep the infobox information a separate article. This way, if conflicts occur with that particular information, the entire page won't need to be protected. Justin (koavf) 04:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea about the infobox. -- Svest 04:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that need to be done in this article 

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

message: I have a question about the argument "It is on dozens of other Wikipedias". Have you checked whether articles on dozen of wikipedias were essentially copies of the current english articles and if not, have you checked if the article on the other wikipedias was the result of the work of only one editor or possibly 50 editors ? I'd say that if articles on other languages are copies of the english, then the argument does not have much strength. If the article on the other wikipedias was the work of only a handful of editors, I'd say as well that it is unlikely to be the result of a carefully crafted and consensual work. I did not check myself :-)
Remember that this issue is a very controversial one, and clearly will take time to solve. You are several with different opinions right now. Remember that opinions by default can't be "right" or "wrong". They just reflect different state of minds. You being several people with various state of minds at the same time here are in the best position to make the best article on the topic. It will possibly take time. Take your time please. Anthere 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Wikipedias

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

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

message: * Western Sahara , a Territory on the north-west coast of Africa bordered by Morocco, Mauritania and Algeria, was administered by Spain until 1976. Both Morocco and Mauritania affirmed their claim to the territory, a claim opposed by the POLISARIO Front. The United Nations has been seeking a settlement in Western Sahara since the withdrawal of Spain in 1976 and the ensuing fighting between Morocco, which had "reintegrated" the Territory, and the POLISARIO, supported by Algeria. (Mauritania renounced all claims to Western Sahara in 1979.) In 1979, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) also became active in seeking a peaceful solution of the conflict. 79 governments recognized the SADR as a legitimate power in WS; they are all countries of what was called the Third World. SADR was also admitted as a full member in the AU.  In 1985, the United Nations Secretary-General, in cooperation with the OAU, initiated a mission of good offices leading to "the settlement proposals", which were accepted on 30 August 1988 by Morocco and the Front POLISARIO. In 1990, the Security Council approved the Secretary-General's report (S/21360) containing the full text of the settlement proposals and the outline of the Secretary-General's Plan for implementing them. On 29 April 1991, the Security Council, in its resolution 690 (1991), decided to establish the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Since 1989, 24 countries cancelled their recognition of SADR. Neither Morocco nor SADR are recognized by the UN as the legitimate powers in the territory. No country other than Morocco does recognize him as the Legitimate power in WS.
* WP is a free encyclopaedia; everyone can edit, discuss and give his opinions. The articles of WP are in a continuous changing as every day there is dozens of new users who are willing to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. Changes can be applied every day upon topics that was there for months or years, otherwise all WP would be protected. It is true that those changes are more difficult today as actually every change needs a consensus.
* Every WP page is written by some authors who know something upon the topic of the page. WP pages aren't similar as they are written by different authors making each article a unique experience. WP is a heterogenous collection of articles written by different authors.
* A general purpose encyclopaedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopaedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational [sic: reasonable] people who may differ on particular points. 
* The presentation of the flag, president, coat of arms, president, prime minister and national motto of SADR is surely useful for readers who may want to know more about this concerned party of the conflict. But this presentation could be interpreted by some readers as a recognition by WP of the SADR as a legitimate power in the territory and by then no neutral. 
* I think personally that there are two solutions for a better neutrality of this article :
# Presentation of the same kind of useful information about  another concerned party of the conflict (Morocco).
# Or Presentation of an infobox with useful information about the territory without any information about the concerned parties.
Thanks. Daryou 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A disputed territory 

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