Talk:History of Western Sahara

message: This article is interesting in that it jumps from the Almoravides to the Spanish claim of 1884 without mentioning the history of the intervening centuries. The Spanish protectorate mentioned was finally established by the Treaty of Algeciras of 1912, which also established the Spanish and French protectorates in Morocco. Since, over a span of eight centuries, it is unlikely that the never had some form of government for the whole period, additional material is obviously necessary. I realise this is a sensitive issue given the opposing views on the sovereignty of the area. However, before being accused of biais I would like to mention that I am neither Moroccan nor Sahrawi - in fact I am not even of Arab nationality. 
I would also add that as a POV that the Treaty of Algeciras was a classic example of an "unequal" colonial treaty imposing "protectorates" on a part of the world from which no such request came. The colonial boundaries are by definition artificial since they derived from the results of the negotiating process between the "Great Powers" of the time with no input or acquiescence from the government or people supposedly to be "protected".Wildbe 08:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: I am reverting to the last edition for the simple reason of slowing down and discussing that before it's done. This is why there are talk pages. I have nothing agaisnt the copyedit but major copyedits are to be discussed first before being published. Please you are invited to add little content by little. Cheers -- Svest 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. But I'm not sure what you mean by copyedit here. I think you should better start the discussion: I would like to add what I wrote, of course, and if you believe some of it should not be in there, please tell me what parts that is. Arre 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point. Go on. Cheers -- Svest 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow... :-) Should I just put it back there? Arre 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with large additions and copyediting is that other users find it hard to check that all (someone may miss a line, a statement or two). It is not a policy at all but a suggestion for good editing especially in a hot article like this. What I meant is that add little by little so other contributors would follow easily. The positive aspect of that approach is that it makes you avoid any total reverting and edit warring. Cheers -- Svest 20:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood & agreed. I'll edit in a first part rightaway, and then leave it a few days to see if anyone comments. Okay?. Arre 20:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Cheers -- Svest 21:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I now added two more chapters of the original expansion (c:a 1975-90). It looks big, but it includes large chunks from what was there before, so it's not as much new stuff as you would think. I'll leave it like this for a few days more, to see if there are any major objections to proceeding (minor details could perhaps be dealt with without reverting the entire edit?), and then reinsert the final changes I wanted to make (mainly on the peace process, a smaller chapter). Then I'm planning on going to work wikifying the timeline correctly, updating it, and fixing a number of link issues with it. Happy holidays. Arre 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major copyedit

message: Camels were introduced in the Sahara the first centuries AD. and maybe earlier.
(e.g.  In A.D. 363, when the people of Lepcis appealed to the governor of Africa for help against the Austuriani who were ravaging their territory, he replied that he could not come to their aid until they sent him 4,000 camels for transport for his troops)
This introduction was not limited to Tunesia or (today's) Lybia. S710 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Camels Even if that is true, that doesn't mean it's relevant to this passage: who introduced camels into the region of and directly surrounding present-day Western Sahara? And when? And do you have any sources for this? If you're not sure how to properly format them, I'd be happy to assist, but until you provide some evidence, I'm going to leave it as it was. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Camels

message: When and by who was the camel introduced in north west africa ? The answer of Bovill in 1956:
The Camel and the Garamantes, by E. W. BOVILL , Antiquity, Volume: 30  Number: 117  Page: 19–21, 1956
p.21
"The introduction of domestic animals is so often associated with the migration of
peoples that it is perhaps more than a coincidence that the first appearance of the camel
in Roman Africa closely synchronized with the arrival of the Zenata in the same region.
These nomadic Berbers, came from the east by way of Cyrene. Whether this migration was inspired
or fostered by the Romans we are unable to say, but that the Zenata were responsible for
bringing the camel into general use throughout Gaetulia and the steppes of the High
Plateaux seems probable.
Somewhere between 46 B.C. and A.D. 363 the Roman army started using camels.
It is a very wide margin of time with no data to work on except for the evidence of
sculptures showing that in Tripolitania the camel was used for tillage in the second or
early 3rd century. Nevertheless, that the Legio 111 Augusta took to camel transport during the 1st century A.D.
seems highly probable, if only because that would explainso much that is obscure."
E.W. Bovill is the author of "The golden trade of the Moors"
P.S. Camels in Mali
The camel was used in Mali in the second century AD. That makes the the date 1000 AD of the introduction in Western Sahara seem impossible.
(information from: Candice Goucher, Charles LeGuin, and Linda Walton, “Trade, Transport,
Temples, and Tribute: The Economics of Power,” in In the Balance: Themes in
Global History (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998), pp. 231–45  copyright Bridging World History,
1, The Annenberg Foundation copyright © 2004) page 7
S710 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer

message: *The Commission heard from one witness, Mr. Abdellah AHBIRI, that he
was arrested by the Algerian Military Police (MP) in November 1977 and held
until December 1979 in Algerian military establishments (in Bechar and Mers
El-Khebir). During the period of his detention, the Algerian Military
Police tortured him for 30 days to force him to admit that he was a
"Moroccan spy". This ill-treatment caused Mr. AHBIR 41) to lose the use of an
eye.
*The witness, Ahmed CHAABANE AHMED, Sheik of the SALEM tribe, who
is all the more credible because he has no personal complaint of ill-treatment
and only cites events that he personally witnessed, refusing to relate facts he
gained through hearsay, claims that "the Polisario is only a puppet in
Tindouf, with no real power. The real master is Algeria.
Everything is decided in Algiers 42)".
*The witness Ramdan MESSOUD 43) claims that an officer from the
Algerian Military Police was present during his interrogation and
torture in March 1982, but adds that he was not physically involved.
Many witnesses also confirmed that members of the Algerian MP were
present when they were interrogated and that they frequently 
"whispered questions to the torturers".
*The witness Gaïd ould Sidi Youssef AGUAÏ, 44) who held high military
posts in the Polisario in 1973-1974 and then again during the eighties, claims
that members of the Polisario Front Military Police were trained by the
Algerian MP, mainly at the CHERCHELL academy. According to Mr. AGUAÏ
it was the Algerian MP "who taught the Polisario MP most of the
torture techniques they used".
*Finally, the Commission wishes to highlight the fact that the Tindouf camps are
located on Algerian soil and as, from a legal point of view, the Polisario Front cannot
exercise any extraterritorial rights for these camps, all the abuses and crimes
committed there are, ipso facto, committed on Algerian territory. It follows from this
that the Algerian police and judiciary are under an obligation to make all efforts to
put an end to them as quickly as possible. Not only has this never been done, but the
eye-witness reports make it clear that, in the past, and certainly up until the events of
May-June 2006, the Algerian security forces collaborated, to some degree or other, in
the commission of certain crimes and/or human rights violations by the PF´s security
forces.
*In addition to this, by surrounding the Tindouf camps, as they did for example in
May-June 2006, or in rounding up escapees who were then handed over the PF
security services, the Algerian security forces can be considered guilty of complicity in
the crimes and human rights violations committed by the PF.
At the very least, in failing to intervene to put an end to these crimes, which they were
obviously well aware of, as members of the Algerian security forces were regular
witnesses to them, and in view of the fact that they were committed on Algerian
territory, the Algerian authorities can be deemed to be accomplices to these crimes.
41 Interviewed in Laayoune, on September 8th 2006.
42 Interviewed in Rabat, on July 29th 2006.
43 Interviewed in Rabat, on August 1st 2006.
S710 16:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you S710 for these informations. They are facts and show the implication of Algeria in the conflict is direct is without any doubt.--A Jalil 20:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Allegations against Algeria

message: None of the sources of the statements in the early history section were indicated. About the Arabization of Maghreb there were two major mistakes, which I corrected. S710 15:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I know that I'm pretty sketchy on my pre-1880's Saharan history, so I appreciate the heads-up. A quick glance at Hodges supports what you're saying and I'll try to incoporate his and Mercer's text into yours well-sourced sometime. Again, I really appreciate your edits to Sahrawi-related articles. If you want to take a look at the Western Sahara Project, you could do a lot of good there. Very little ever happened in terms of coordination, but the goal is to someday revive it with a renewed purpose. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabization

message: Sigh The contradiction does not cease to be if you simply shuffle around information. Also, some of the links had nothing to do with the history of Western Sahara, so I deleted them (e.g. a Moroccan advocacy group in the United States.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links, contradiction 

message: I added this article to Template:Sahara conflict.S710 17:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template 

message: I don't understand what Arre has against the Madrid Accords!!. They were signed in Madrid, between the formal colonial power, namely Spain, and the countries that have all the time been claiming Spanish Sahara, especially Morocco, and a copy of the treaty has been presented to the UN, and following that treaty Spain handed over WS to Morocco/Mauritania after a joint administration period. All that is being thrown out of hand by Arre who claims simply that Spain decided to withdraw from WS and repariated even its deaths, and Morocco and Mauritania invaded after that. No maratonic diplomatic negotiations and no Madrid Accords.
The Madrid Accords have preceeded and allowed for the control taking of WS by Morocco and Mauritania, you like it or not Arre, and will be mentionned in the article. The most amusing is that the Polisario's Abdelaziz has been using it as a valid juridical proof that Spain did only transfer the Administration, not the Sovereignty to Morocco/Mauritania, and thus, he always remembered Spain that it is still the Sovereign state over WS, always refering to the Madrid Accords that Arre - contrarely to the Polisario's president - does not want to aknowledge.--A Jalil 15:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Madrid Accords

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/westernsahara.html
*:Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215134055/http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN255858.html to http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN255858.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007202021/http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1956/index.htm to http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/iberia/1956/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified