Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 4

message: now that the infobox conflict is solved (thank god), wouldn't it be possible to remove the disputed-tag? i'm sure there will be more arguments on the content of it, but I don't think that the article is fundamentally disputed anymore, by anyone. or is it? Arre 12:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Tag

message: Daryou, you have made a number of edits saying there is no source.
* Deletion of the UN/Corell verdict on the oil debate. I agreed to withdraw an earlier piece on this, since back then I could not find the original document to quote from. Now I have found the entire UN document. That is a source. Indeed, I can't imagine a better source than the UN verdict in extenso. What is your problem here?
* Deletion of demographics and settlers. I made extensive mathematics on the settler situation in an earlier version of the talk page. You declined to comment. I am sure you can still find it, should you want to enter into debate on it this time. As for extensive descriptions of the settlement process, I direct you to any book on the subject of Western Sahara, especially Jensen, Thobhani or Shelley. I am not clear on what you are disputing, since I am only generally describing the existence of the settlement programs. Are you disputing that..?
* Deletion of all references to decolonization. Being on the UN's list of non-decolonized territories means the territory is, in the UN's opinion, non-decolonized. What exactly in this statement is it you want sourced? The list itself (and the meaning of "decolonization" in a UN context) can be found at www.un.org. The "decolonization committee" is the GA 4th committee.
* Deletion of statement that Moroccan allegations of aid embezzlement have not been supported by the international agencies responsible for the aid. You are asking me to prove a negative. If you want documentation that the UN (or other agencies) has found evidence of theft from refugee aid, which I stress that they have not, you should be the one digging up sources. Also, its interesting you didn't ask for a source for the fact that Morocco makes these accusations... isn't that just as "unsourced"?
* If nothing more is said I will reinsert these paragraphs, but please comment. Arre 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Daryou/"not sourced"

message: The article "Southern Provinces" should be integrated into this page. "Southern Provinces" should thenceforth redirect to "Western Sahara."
:::Note: I took the liberty of removing the complete text of the article "Southern Provinces" from the above anonymous user's message, and replacing it with a link. Arre 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily think so. There's an advantage to keeping Morocco's and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's administrations (SADR is covered in "Free Zone (region)") separate, both because of political sensitivity and for clarity. They are linked to from this article anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem. Arre 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integrate Southern Provinces article 

message: ===>This article is about the disputed region of "Western Sahara". But he keeps on insisting on putting in comments about the Algerian refugee camps. It's irrelevant to the discussion. It seems pretty obvious to me that this is a politicized attempt to discredit the Polisario, and/or somehow imply that they are as egregious human rights offenders as Morocco, which they are not. Regardless of his motivation, it doesn't belong here. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This information would be better on the Human rights in Polisario controlled camps in Algeria or Polisario Front. There should probably a see also in the human rights section here though. - FrancisTyers 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Daryou|Daryou]]'s up to his wacky tricks again. 

message: Koavf doesn't have any respect for WP principles. He resorts all the time to personal attacks. His strategy is to refuse and revert at sight all other party's edits with fake reasons. This last blind edit war is about a passage that I copy-edited from the Human rights in Western Sahara article. To respect neutrality in WP, Polisario's human rights abuses have also to be cited, it's nothing but the truth. Since Koavf is very interested in an article without any mention to the Tindouf camps, will it be fair to delete all the information about those camps in the culture section as well?! Daryou 22:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypocrite and pissy are personal attacks. I will discuss with you when you'll act like a civil human being. Daryou 22:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koavf pushing the Polisario's POV again 

message: Will you please stop making personal attacks, and will you both please try and be civil. Justin, personal attacks aren't going to get us anywhere. Daryou, being aggressive isn't helping the situation. Please try and avoid inflaming and escalating the situation. If you continue I may resort to removing personal attacks on sight, I would prefer that you both exhibit restraint though. This is a very personal issue for both of you and I think you both might benefit from taking some time to think before you post. - FrancisTyers 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks and civility

message: ===>Changes I made Morocco does not administer Western Sahara. It administers part of Western Sahara. Another part is administered by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. This isn't a matter of dispute, and I don't see why Daryou reverted my more precise and accurate wording. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: I also removed this "corresponding to the ahl al-sahel (people of the coast)." as it was unclear in reference and does not seem to be accurate. (collounsbury 06:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know we've been in disagreement over some things, but that was for the most part an excellent edit. I've built further on it, to expand some parts, but also changed some of your edits. I don't think that would be very controversial, but if you have issues with what I've written, I think it would be best if we could solve this through negotiating our differences point-by-point. Instead of reverting the whole material, I mean. Either way, I think we should both go look for sources for the article, also for things we both agree is true. It's long and generally quite good, but undersourced. Arre 23:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improved Article Style, Removed Political Framing of Historical & Ethnic Issues 

message: It stated that there are 25 and 48 states respectively, but which are those (and what is the source)? -EnSamulili 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which countries recognize Moroccan/SADR sovereignty 

message: According to Article 3 of the Sahrawi constitution, "Arabic is the official language" - this implicitly excludes Spanish. This agrees with Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.  And Morocco's sole official language is Arabic anyway. - Mustafaa 00:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official language

message: Okay come on, this page has some links that just dont belong.  I cleaned it up and now they all are back again?  What good do all of these links serve?  They don't.  3-4 of them are good, but the rest either are duplicates of the article, duplicate of the good links, or they spout a view point that is anything but neutral.  So...I know its killing certain people, but lets try and keep the spam off of this page, ok?  --Ownlyanangel 08:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing External Links 

message: The shortage of citations makes this hard to pass, especially in light of rancorous talk page debate.  The dispute appears to have lost steam without any of the parties actually agreeing on the topic.  Since this part of the world has disputed sovereignty, I'd like to see firm evidence of editorial agreement and heavy citations before giving it the GA. Durova 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA nomination 

message: That's what tags are for So, I've given a credible source. Instead of deleting it, how about you discuss it? Instead of creating false and unintelligible sentences by rapidly editing, how about you take a moment to come up with a propsed alternate text? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rapid, unintelligible edits 

message: Why? Why would you put a blatant inaccuracy (lie?) on the template (the ISO code)? Why do you insist on inserting the line about the ITU code? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are you doing, Jalil?