Jump to content

Talk:Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.71.213.249 (talk) at 08:30, 2 July 2009 (→‎Current ministers: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

sentence explanation

Perhaps I'm just not reading well today, but I cannot parse this sentence:

"No state has recognized the annexation of Western Sahara by Morocco and Mauritania from Spain."

I do not see how the last four words fit in. Possibly it should be rephrased by someone who knows what meaning the author was trying to get across.

Don't know how to rephrase it, but he means that Western Sahara was a Spanish territory, and then annexed by Morocco and Mauritania just as it was to be released into independence by Spain. Nightstallion 07:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Errors of fact and bias

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which recognize SADR on November 28in in 1984, ceased to exist in 1992. "Cancellation" of recognition by Serbia and Montenegro in October 28, 2004, is due to international low inadmissible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubav (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro implies that SADR does govern a certain territory - even though apparently it is rather Morocco which governs. Better to say that it's a government in exile which claims to rule the entire territory - as the ROC claims (claimed?) to rule all of China. Uncle Ed 14:55, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

===>How is this unclear? It states that the territory governed is east and south of the berm, and that is true. I don't see where the errors of fact and/or bias arise. The SADR does claim the entirety of Western Sahara, and administers a third of it, just like the ROC claims Mainland China (including Tibet), Mongolia, Tuva, and Taiwan, while administering Taiwan. I'm either entirely confused or slightly offended at you claiming this is an error in fact or a bias - where is the bias? Justin (koavf) 16:49, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Er, how about I'm entirely confused and you're slightly offended? ;-)
Perhaps the article should clarify (with a map) what parts of the region are controlled by each of the rival governments. Uncle Ed 21:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

===>Fair enough. I'm not the one to make a map, though. Justin (koavf) 02:16, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

there is one here: http://www.wsahara.net/morberm.html

Have attempted to repharse the morroco/mauritania bits to clarify them; and I see no bias or confusion in the section about this government controlling the south eastern portion of the territory though Robdurbar 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me also that the rephrasing is clear, so I'm tenatively taking down the disputed tag. If I'm failing to understand part of the problem, though, feel free to toss it back up. --Dvyost 02:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daryou: State recognitions etc

  • There are 15 Sahrawi embassies. East Timor allowed the SADR to open the first embassy ever there after independence in 2002 (which is not included in the list you provided), and Tanzania upgraded relations with Western Sahara to include the opening of embassies in the summer of 2005 (not included), on the heels of the Kenyan recognition (not included either). 13 + 2 = 15. I don't mind having the link there, even if it's not 100% correct, but I do believe there is a similar, more recently updated list on Wikipedia.
  • "Nearly 44 states" - what does this mean, and why do you insist on putting the "nearly" back in there? Either its 44 or its not. Anyway, probably its 45, counting Kenya.
  • Western Sahara is occupied in every sense of the word, regardless of who you believe should gain ultimate control. Military personnel control the territory, which was seized by force, and has not been recognized as annexed by anyone anywhere. This is occupation, in a neutrally descriptive sense. Consistently changing this into "administered" or "controlled" etc is political.
  • The SADR was proclaimed on February 27. There's no controversy on that, so leave it.
  • Stop putting random quotation marks around sentences which are not quotes. I suppose you have some political motive for this too, but I can't figure out what :-)

salaam, Arre 23:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Salaam you too
  • The sentence "the need for a new entity to fill the political void left by the departing Spainsh colonizers" reflect the Polisario POV. Are you trying to convince me that there was no presence of Morocco and Mauritania in the WS in 1976? This sentence should be deleted or described clearly as the POV of Polisario.
  • If you provide me a Minurso report using the word "occupation" to describe the presence of Moroccan Army in WS, feel free to use it. Daryou 23:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ANSWERS
  • first - the SADR claims western sahara. that's a fact. why are you changing this into it being an exiled government "over the western sahara territory"? does the king of morocco rule "over the morocco territory" or does he rule "morocco"?
  • second - even if that sentence WAS biased, you still can't change it into a quote. because, as i've now said several times, it is not a quote.
  • third - is it biased? no. it is a description of polisario's motives ("polisario declared") for proclaiming SADR as an exile government: they wanted to fill the legal void after the spanish withdrawal, since they did not recognise the moroccan and mauritanian claims (no one did). in the same way, morocco proclaimed that WS had been annexed, and it is not POV to say this just because polisario doesn't agree.
  • fourth - this is from the United Nations news service IRIN. took me one minute to google it out, try it yourself next time:
DAKAR, 14 Jun 2004 (IRIN) - Former US Secretary of State James Baker has
resigned as the UN special envoy to the Western Sahara after trying without
success for seven years to broker a political settlement for the desert
territory which has been occupied by Morocco since 1976.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=41664&SelectRegion=West_Africa&SelectCountry=WESTERN_SAHARA
Arre 00:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't any political void in WS at all after the spanish withrawal. There was the Moroccans and Mauritanians: that's a fact. They are political entities and they was in WS in 1976. The sentence is a Polisario POV.
  • (") and italic aren't used only for quotes. (unless you give me evidence ;-) )
  • In the link you provided there is a sentence in the begining who says "[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]". This sentence is never never never used in SG and Minurso reports because they do reflect UN POVs.

Daryou 00:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • There WAS a political void if you didn't accept the Mor/Mau annexations. And the Polisario didn't (well, no one did). The sentence reflects this. However, I now tried to change it to better explain that this was the Polisario's reasoning, not Wikipedias. Hope you like it.
  • Actually, there still is a political void in the area, since the conflict is not resolved and there is no recognized sovereign. That is why WS is on the UN's list of non-decolonized territories. This is not important for the text though.
  • Italics: well, you put quotation marks there as well, didn't you? And whether it's intended as a quote or not, I don't see how a different text style would make the meaning more acceptable to you if you insist its POV... :-) Which I by the way hope you do not, at least not after my changes.
  • Ah, okay, that WAS a bad link. Entirely my fault. I'll back to you on this subject.

Arre 01:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

recognition versus support

I am a bit confused by the statement on the SADR page about that "Moroccan sovereignty over the territory is explicitly recognized by the Arab League and by 25 states".

As far as I know, no member state of the United nation has recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, be it the part that Morocco controlles or the part that is controlled by Polisario. My source for this "non-recognition" is Secretary General Kofi Annan. He says in his report to the security council:

"The Security Council would not be able to invite parties to negotiate about Western Saharan autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, for such wording would imply recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was out of the question as long as no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty"

I would therefore suggest a change of the current reading about Moroccan sovereignity:

No state has recognized the sovereignty of Morocco over Western Sahara, which the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan also stressed in his second last report on Western Sahara to the Security Council:

"The Security Council would not be able to invite parties to negotiate about Western Saharan autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, for such wording would imply recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which was out of the question as long as no States Member of the United Nations had recognized that sovereignty".

Annan repeated more or less the same in his last report.

Some UN member states have expressed support of "Morocco's territorial integrity", which can be interpreted as support of its claims over Western Sahara. However, this can also be an expression against separatism within the internationally-recognized borders of Morocco. In any case it is not a recognition of sovereignity.

Best regards, Laroussi 19:12, 1 November 2006 (GMT)

Too true This probably comes from a spate of edits months back. I'll fix it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.png Arabic text?

I've got a nice SVG remake of this image just about done, but I need the Arabic to copy & paste into it. Anybody got it handy? :) ¦ Reisio 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

attention

PLEASE YOUR ATTENTION

"SADR" is not a nation state! It does not have the requirements of a true country in the world. The UNITED NATION does not not recognize the existence of this country.

PLEASE, be NEUTRAL !!

Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia. So Try to not take part of this conflit!

Thank you

Oh, so the United Nations decides who is and isn't a sovereign state, eh? :p ¦ Reisio 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the UN decides many things I think. Maybe the UN, the Arab league and 80% of the countries of this world don't decide who is and isn't a sovereign state. Should we by then give this right to 46 countries? Daryou 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Misconceptions about the UN The UN is not a government, and has no rights as an independent body - it's a forum of willing members. A state can be sovereign without the UN - for instance, states were sovereign before its creation, Switzerland wasn't a member for decades, and the Holy See still isn't. -Justin (koavf), talk 19:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about 147 states (80% of the world countires) especially 45 states which cancelled or froze their former recognition of this entity? Daryou 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>What about them? What do you want to know??? -Justin (koavf), talk 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the SADR isn't recognised by 147 states (80% of the world countires) especially 45 states which cancelled or froze their former recognition of this entity? Daryou 17:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>It's impossible to say I don't know why something doesn't occur, in fact, it is virtually impossible to prove or conclude anything from a lack of information. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some thing did occur since 45 states cancelled or froze their former recognition of this entity. There is a difference between "don't know" and "don't want to know". Daryou 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Okay, you tell me What happened? And there is a difference, because you don't want to read the sources at arso or wsahara.net. You also don't want to admit the atrocities that Morocco committed against civilians. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, I really don't want to read your pro polisario propaganda. You don't want to admit the atrocities that polisario committed against the captives and POWs in the Tindouf camps of shame. SADR was and will always be a ghost entity without any legitimate status, 47 countries don't have the right to decide who is or isn't a sovereign state. Daryou 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Like what? What atrocities? Can you give me some sources for this? I'll read them. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can check Amnesty international and other HR organizations reports. SADR was and will always be an Algerian backed ghost entity without any legitimate status, 47 countries don't have the right to decide who is or isn't a sovereign state. Daryou 23:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Whatever. If it's so easy to find this inforamtion, give me a link. I have no idea what "ghost entity" means, but it's simply a historical fact that Polisario existed for years without Algerian support and even some hostility, so I have no idea where you are going with your argument about the SADR. If states don't have the "right to decide," who does? -Justin (koavf), talk 00:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, where in the article does it describe them as a sovereign state anyway? Robdurbar 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Here It explains the points of view of various actors. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesnt say they are sovereign, jsut that 45 nations recognise them as such, Robdurbar 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what exactly are you asking for? The article does not say that this government possesses sovereign territorial control over Western Sahara, because it does not. It has sovereign control over some parts, but not over the whole territory, and it is mainly based in exile. And that's precisely why it's a government in exile. That does not preclude it from being recognized as the sovereign government, in the sense that it is the only government capable of making a legitimate decision on behalf of the territory and its people, or from being internally sovereign with respect to its own decisions. Arre 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "That does not preclude it from being recognized as the sovereign government, in the sense that it is the only government capable of making a legitimate decision on behalf of the territory and its people" is completely untrue, stop this polisario propaganda. Daryou 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>How so? Do you care to explain? -Justin (koavf), talk 16:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm exasperated by your stupid petulant jackass bullshit! Do you care to explain what and why you don't understand? 17:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for also being a stupid petulant jackass, Daryou, but I can't understand you either. How is it "Polisario propaganda" to state that 48 governments (as of today Ecuador was added to the list) have explicitly recognized Western Sahara as a sovereign, independent, legitimate etc state? That is simply relating their words and opinions, as we should, and it doesn't mean that the encyclopedia endorses their point of view. Do you believe information on this should be removed from Wikipedia, or what's the issue? (Also, stop abusing people.) Arre 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that the article appears to say at the moment that the SADR is a government that controls a small area of the Western Sahara territory. It also states -accurately - that a minority of the world's states (45) currently recognise it as the sovereign government of Western Sahara. The term 'government-in-exile' is possibly slightly POV but is accurate, based on the above. Which of these things do you feel are inaccurate? Robdurbar 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually there is no inaccuracies in what you say. In other words a majority of the world's states currently don't recognise it as a sovereign state. Daryou 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If 'claims to be a government-in-exile' was included would this make it more neutral. Or perhaps something slightly longer such as : 'The SADR is a government which controls part of the territory of Western Sahara, and claims the remainder' Robdurbar 19:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second option is correct, although a little bit confusing. But "claims to be a government-in-exile" looks odd to me. I mean, no one disputes that it is one, even if they deny its legitimacy as such. You don't say that someone "claims to be" a pretender to the throne, you say he is one, even if you deny his legitimacy as king. Arre 23:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now its been changed back to read that the SADR is a state coinciding with Western Sahra. Now this, I do think, is POV as firstly - Western Sahara is the state, not the SADR, and secondly - well, all of the above talk really. The article doesnt describe the state - with the exception of that info box which does, I agree, contradict the article qutie a lot and I have been wondering how this could be altered Robdurbar 11:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In refernce to User:Reisio's last edit sumamry; I see your logic on this one, but the stiuation is not so simple. However, I think that the statement 'The SADR is a state' is misleading and not neutral. I also understand how the statement 'The SADR is a government' can also be considered a bit odd, hwoever, it reflects the relatively unsual situation of the SADR. 'Your' version could well be incopreted, if it was written in a less definitive manner. In the intro we need to encapsulate the following factors:
  • The SADR is a 'proclaimed' state over the territory that is currently usually called 'Western Shara'
  • It's rulers currently control a small part of this territory
  • But they are based mainly outside of it in refugee camps
  • You can't be a state without territory
  • The SADR is not recognised as a state by the majority of the world's governemnts

At the moment I think i'll isnert the 'procliamed' into your version, but I do feel that this could read better. Robdurbar 13:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

self-proclaimed

This text is redundant - most states are self-proclaimed. In 24 hours (just to be sure to avoid all interpretations of WP:3RR), I will remove this text. ¦ Reisio 14:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The majority of the world's states are states as they are recognised as such by other states. Abkhazia is not a state as it is not recognised as one, even though it has far more state-like features than the SADR. The fact is that SADR is done so by about 40 or so. I really feel that the sentence 'The SADR is a state' is simply misleading and will be seen by others as offenisve and pov. In using this word I have simply tried to an alternative that reflects the contested nature of the SADR, which is needed (I think) in the intro perhaps 'disputed' would be a more acceptable caveat? Robdurbar 16:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or even, based upon the amalgamation of recent changes:

'The Saharawi (or Sahrawi) Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) (Arabic: الجمهورية العربية الصحراوية الدمقرطية, Spanish: República Árabe Saharaui Democrática) is a proposed state that does not currently control the majority of its claimed territory - the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara - and thus acts as a government in exile. It was proclaimed on February 27, 1976 by the Polisario Front. Currently, Morocco administers the majority of the territory as its Southern Provinces, the rest is controlled by the Polisario as the Free Zone.'

? Robdurbar 17:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good option, anyway the introduction looks less controversial now. Best regards. Daryou 17:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

state, not government

It's not a government, it's a state. I'm not sure what is going on in your head - it's like I say "Cows go 'moo!'", and then you say "No, Cows go 'yip!'".

After another twenty hours pass, it's going back to "is a state". ¦ Reisio 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is: its not a state cos most states dont recognise it as one. Its not a government cos its kind of a state. Quite simply, its a wanabee state that can't be described as one at the moment. If you don't give a reason as to why you disagree with attempted compromises, then I see no reason to respect your edits. Where there are conflcits you discuss them on tlak pages. Simple as. Please try and be flexible, as it otherwise leads to pointless conflicts. You can see from above that many people would have problems with calling it a state. Robdurbar 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rodurbar: SADR isn't a state or isn't yet. The SADR don't control the territory and we aren't sure that a majority of Sahrawis want independence (the referendum isn't held yet). It's a self-proclaimed government which isn't unanimously internationally recognized as the legitimate government of WS. This entity isn't recognized by the UN neither by 80% of the world countries. This entity is a state according to 46 countries only, and WP isn't the mouthpiece of those states. Naming it "a state" is inaccurate, biased and misleading considering the sensibility of this conflict. Daryou 00:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Responses Rob: The Palestinian National Authority is undoubtably a state, even if you don't formally recognize the State of Palestine. Also, there is no denying that the Republic of China administers Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, etc. even if they are not the legitimate government of China. Daryou: The classic definition of a state is from the Montevideo Convention, and requires four criteria:

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

The SADR has a population in the Tindouf camps, the territory is Western Sahara, although only the Free Zone is actually administered, it has a functioning government structure with a written constitution and separate branches of government, and it has entered into relations with other states, such as having and receiving ambassadors. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I accept it is a state under that definition then but I don't know... I just feel uneasy - not enough to revert it though - with that introductory statement that it is a state Robdurbar 09:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that you mentionned this convention. The Montevideo Convention was a treaty signed at Montevideo, Uruguay on 26 December 1933, at the Seventh International Conference of American States. The convention was signed by 19 states (only), 3 with reservations. What do this convention have to do in our this discussion and what is its real value since the USA which signed this convention didn't and don't recognise the State of Palestine which was proclaimed in 1988?! Daryou 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>It's a classic example of international law That's why I mention it. At the time, there were only about 50 states, anyway, and why the U.S. doesn't recognize Palestine is because Palestine doesn't recognize (and has generally wanted to destroy) Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. That's well known. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the international law isn't written by 19 American States over 190 or ever 50 of the world countries. Plus, this convention isn't relevant since the USA don't apply it. And you know what? the PLO does recognise Israel. Daryou 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, Iran wants to destroy Israel, does it mean that Iran isn't a state or that USA doesn't recognise Iran?!! Daryou 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Okay, whatever. Look, international law is written by individual states, since there is no world government. The Convention is relevant, because it is constantly cited as what is a state. The PLO recognizes Israel now, but didn't for several years, and Hamas is still dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state. Plus, even while Arafat "recognized" Israsel, he still ordered terrorist attacks, and the U.S. knew that. Iran does want to destroy Israel, but Iran was also a sovereign state/empire for thousands of years, and the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, ever since they took over our embassy and took some of our people hostage. Palestine, on the other hand, has never been a state. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even with interpretations of "state" aside, this entire article is about a state, not a government. If you've got an article on a state, don't call it a government. ¦ Reisio 21:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the international law is written by individual states, it should be written at least by a majority, it's not the case of this convention signed only by 19 states of America. You say that Palestine was never a state even if it fulfils all Montevideo conditions, isn't it a contradiction?! Daryou 21:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>No?! Because it doesn't fulfill requirement (c) government. The Palestinian National Authority is an interim government created by Israel through devolution. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you forget that the State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988. Daryou 22:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>You have to be kidding me You don't need to act so condescending to me. I gave you an honest, respectful answer, and you're acting like a jerk. I remember that the State of Palestine was declared in November of 1988, but do you recall that at the time, it did not control its territory, hence it was not a state. Also, the SADR was proclaimed in 1976, and actually does control some of its territory - are you tacitly saying that it is a state? -Justin (koavf), talk 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you can't discuss without resorting to personal attacks (you are acting like a jerk), what a pity. There was a territory even if it wasn't controlled by the SP (the Montevideo convention doesn't say that the territory have to be controlled). By the same way SADR didn't control the territory in 1976, did it? Daryou 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Please You're the one who started acting condescending. Don't pretend like this is some grand revelation that I can't discuss without resorting to personal attacks. I tried to be civil, and you wouldn't. The territory must, of course, be controlled by the government in question. I could declare a "Republic of Justinia," claim the entire world, and only control my bedroom, but I wouldn't be a state. The PNA has never controlled their territory, and there has never been a Palestinian state. On the other hand, the SADR has always controlled some portion of its territory, including immediately after Spanish withdrawl, and prior to Moroccan/Mauritanian annexation. If you want to ignore the simple questions that I asked you, or answer them with questions, go ahead, but bear in mind that it only makes your argument weaker. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't act condescending unless you prove it. You said: "I could declare a "Republic of Justinia," claim the entire world, and only control my bedroom, but I wouldn't be a state". Polisario declare the SADR, claim the entire territory of WS, and only controls the so-called free zone, SADR isn't a state. Daryou 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Okay. Proof:

I see that you forget...

Okay, Morocco claims all the Sahara, doesn't control it, and therefore isn't a state, too. It works both ways, Daryou. See, now we've gone nowhere. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the SADR controlled most (I could probably argue for 'all', but I won't bother) of Western Sahara - it took Morocco quite a while and many different wallings to get what they have now. This is irrelevant, however...
According to our "state" article...
"A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty."
...and also according to our "Montevideo Convention" article...
"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."
The SADR satisfies all of these criteria. ¦ Reisio 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the SADR has never controlled most or all of Western Sahara. And SADR isn't occupying the definite territory of WS. If SADR was a state then its territory is only the so-called free zone. Daryou 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You agree it's a state, then? That's good. Now we can all move on to more interesting things. ¦ Reisio 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree because the SADR doesn't fulfil the conditions that you mentionned above. Daryou 23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which condition does it not fulfil? ¦ Reisio 23:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the Monteveido convention isn't relevant since it was signed in 1933 by only 19 Americain states. Second, SADR doesn't controll the territory (WS), it doesn't fulfil the condition: territory. Daryou 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've already acknowledged "the so-called free zone". ¦ Reisio 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the SADR isn't a state because it does not controll ALL the territory it claims, then I can't help wondering what Morocco is. An NGO? Arre 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Here are two blatant examples of how you contradict yourself

  1. "The SADR isn't a state, since it doesn't control all of its stated territory." Well, Morocco doesn't either; is it a state or not?
  2. "The Montevideo Convention doesn't get to decide who is and isn't a state." But you do? By what authority do you determine who is and isn't a state? That's absurd. The Montevideo Convention is crucial for international law, and you're disregarding it for no apparent reason.

Also, this is simply untrue: "Well, the SADR has never controlled most or all of Western Sahara." Prior to annexation, they were the only legitimate government in the territory, and if you look at the article on Moroccan Wall, there was a time around 1982 when they controlled 5/6 of the territory. You're either lying or ignorant. I dare you to defend these contradictions. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, stop lying about history, prior to annexation, SADR wasn't the only legitimate government in the territory, it's completely untrue, the territory was controlled by Spain. I said that SADR isn't a state according to Montevideo convention because it doesn't control the territory and doesn't fulfil all its conditions. Anyway this convention is irrelevant since it was signed only by 19 states from America. You said that international law is written by individual states, great, but it should be at least written by a majority. If this convention is "international law", why isn't it adopted by the UN or some thing like this? It happens exactly that a majority of the world states doesn't recognise the SADR as a state. If SADR was a state, why it isn't recognised as by the UN and by 80% of the world states? Daryou 17:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Lies? What are you talking about? I never said that they were the only government ever in the Sahara, I said that they were the one (directly) prior to annexation. If you're going to call me a liar, you should probably stop complaining about personal attacks yourself. It does conform to the Montevideo Convention - how does it not? Why should international law be written by a majority? Because you say so? That's funny coming from someone who lives under a monarch. The UN didn't exist at the time, by the way. Why isn't Palestine recognized by a majority of the world's states? -Justin (koavf), talk 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you International Law has to be written by a minority of the world states and applied to all the others?!! And what does the Moroccan monarchy have to do in this discussion? You say that Palestine isn't recognized by a majority of the world's states, and you already said that Palestine isn't a state, why don't you apply the same reasoning to SADR? Daryou 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Again Bear in mind that you explicitly ignored my direct questions, and I'm answering yours. I didn't say that it should be written by a majority or a minority. It simply exists as states engage one another, since there is no world government to enforce it. You are defending the Moroccan monarchy's irredentist annexation, and then saying that international law should be written by consensus. That seems contradictory to me. Palestine isn't recognized by a majority of the world's states, and it also has no territory which is not the case with the SADR. I've explained this so many times already. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All the states aren't forced to apply a convention signed by 19 Americain states only.
  • It's a fact that 80% of the world states don't apply this convention.
  • Are you saying that Palestine has no territory?! What about Gaza?
Daryou 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>I know I'm not saying anyone is forced to do anything, since, as I've stated, there is no world government. Many states do apply this convention, even if they don't apply it all the time and consistently. The Palestinian National Authority has devolved authority from the State of Israel. There has still not been a Palestinian state established. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I agree with you, no one is forced to do anything since there is no world government. A majority of the states of the world don't apply this convention in the case of SADR. In other words, SADR isn't a state according to a majority of the world countries.
  • The Palestinian National Authority possesses the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states: By then it's a state accordig to the MC.
Daryou 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Daryou, I'm still very interested in knowing what Morocco is. I always figured it was a state, but according to your line of reasoning, it can't be - since it obviously doesn't control all of its claimed national territory. Arre 23:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Palestine and the Sahara Look, the State of Palestine is not a state according to the Convention, because even though it claims a territory, it does not administer it. Do you understand the difference here? The PNA exists as a political compromise by Israel and the PLO, it is not a sovereign entity. The simple fact that most states don't enter into relations with the SADR is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that some do. See also Republic of China, an excellent, democratic, non-corrupt government that has virtually no diplomatic ties. Also, as both Arre and I have asked, is Morocco a state, or not? -Justin (koavf), talk 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, Palestine administer the territory, it's a fact. plus, it have a population, a government and foreign relations: so it's a state according to the MC. Anyway this convention doesn't mean anything since it wasn't ratified by the rest of the world states, so the fact that Morocco controls a part or all of its territory doesn't matter since Morocco is unanimously internationally recognised as a state.
  • 80% of the world countries don't recognise this entity, so SADR isn't a state.
  • Daryou 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting the impression that you're operating under the assumption that Wikipedia should present the POV of the world's majority. That is, in fact, wrong. Wikipedia should present a NPOV, and that means that Western Sahara is a de facto state. —Nightstallion (?) 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not technically true. What (fundamentally) makes a state a state is recognition from other states, as much as any other conditions. So Somalia (and arguably Iraq now) are states without any real government, full control over territory or anything else - but as they are recognised by a majority, they are states. I don't want to weigh in too much on this state/not a state debate - its a unique and highly contestable debate with no clear answer - but had to point that error out (sorry ! :)) Robdurbar 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've still got Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh and others presented as "unrecognized de facto states", even though they are not recognized by UN member states... And to boot, Western Sahara is not even "unrecognized", but "partially recognized". Either all of them, or none. I'm in favour of "all of them", since they do govern themselves. —Nightstallion (?) 12:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the moment the article does describe it as a 'largely unrecgonized state' - which is what I would say it is. I think 'de facto state' isnt actually a state - but this isn't really important here Robdurbar 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Nightstallion's point: first of all WS isn't a de facto state but a disputed territory. I agree with you, WP doesn't have to present the POV of the majority but only NPOV. Well Morocco says that WS is an integral part of its territory, and considers the problem of the Sahara as a struggle for the territorial integrity of the kingdom. Polisario says that this territory should be independant and governed by the SADR. The Moroccan POV is accepted by 2 dozens states. The Polisario's POV is accepted by 47 countries. I agree with you; WP is a source of neutral and reliable information. I will ask you a question and I wish that you will respond me honestly: Do WP have to take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict? IF your answer is Yes, will you explain me why? Daryou 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the situation to Abkhazia: Georgia claims Abkhazia as portion of its own territory, Abkhazia claims to have the right to independence and to join the UN as a sovereign nation, and the Wikipedia article presents the factual NPOV that it's currently an unrecognized, but de facto self-governing state. Why can't we follow the same path in this case, which very closely mirrors the Abkhazian example? —Nightstallion (?) 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference: Abkhazia has the de facto control of the territory. SADR has the control of a minor portion which is almost inhabited. By the way, should WP become the mouthpiece of independance movements? Dosen't the voice of countries struggeling for their territorial integrity have the right to be heard? It's a fact that we generally sympathize with independance movements, should we by then convert WP into a court of moral jugement and a tool to promote the POV of those movements? Neutrality is the key word in WP, so let's be objectif and neutral.Daryou 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Morocco, and ROC Morocco and the Republic of China don't control all of their territory, but they are still states, right? You know that WP is not nor will it ever be a "mouthpiece of independance (sic) movements;" there's no need to be bombastic. You're obfuscating the issue at hand. As Nightstallion pointed out, accepting that X is true simply because a majority of world governments accept it also is POV. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "accepting that X is true simply because a majority of world governments accept it also is POV": by then should we accept that X is true when a minority of world governments accept it?!!!! Daryou 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>No What I'm saying is, what a majority of world governments accept to be true is not the ultimate barometer of truth. By the way, are you still ignoring what Arre and I asked? Just wondering. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I responded already to your question. Anyway this discussion is leading no where, we can't convince each other, it's a real waste of time. Peace. Daryou 07:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms text?

I've got a nice SVG remake of Image:Coat of arms of Western Sahara.png just about done, but I need the Arabic to copy & paste into it. Anybody got it handy? :) ¦ Reisio 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with that but I need to read the text to reproduce it. Angrynight 06:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, the problem seems to be finding a readable copy of the text at all. :p Someone's got to know. ¦ Reisio 18:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text says "Hurriyya, dīmuqrātiyya, wiHda", or "Freedom, Democracy, Unity". Arre 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to write any form of Arabic - can you post the Arabic characters? ¦ Reisio 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, that's the problem. My computer, which isn't really mine, is screwed-up somehow. Don't ask me exactly how, but it has something to do with missing software. If I get it fixed, I'll do it myself, but now I can't. It seemed like Angrynight could do it if given the text, though. Arre 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(addendum) Point of whining being: I can't write in Arabic characters. Arre 00:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's correct. "حرية ديمقراطية وحدة". --MK 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try and get it properly worked into the SVG soon. ¦ Reisio 02:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Hi Justin and everyone. This article has greatly improved since I stopped contributing to wikipedia for personal reasons last year. Reading from "fresh", it almost sounds as a featured article candidate to me. Keep up the good work! Asterion 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE MAP AGAIN

Hi,

Sorry to raise this topic again but the map in the article suggest the "sadr" would be already sovereign on the whole of the western saharan territory. It is NOT.

I think the map should be taken away here or it should be added to Morocco as well. Both dispute the territory and Morocco even won the war, controls effictvely most of territory etc.

So please react. Otherwise i would edit accordingly or put a neutrality banner on the article.

Thanks & cheers. wikima 19:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Map issues If you want to make a map, that would be great. You could make one like at the Republic of China page that shows where they administer territory (Tindouf and the Free Zone), and their claimed territory. No one won the war; it is a ceasefire. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tindouf? It's part of Algeria and outside the Sahara. Free Zone? The page linked is disputed so I guess the whole topic.

I don't know the China example in detail, but will have a look, also at other examples and ideas.

I understand you agree that the current state of the article is misleading. I would suggest to either remove the map or put a neutrality banner until a solution is found.

PS: Re the war won by Morocco this what I referred to: "Morocco has won the war. She's in possession." James Baker. Ithought he knows about the question. wikima 21:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the problem. The map shows the whole territory of Western Sahara, which is what the SADR claims, but also clearly delineates exactly which parts is under its control as of now, and which are not. How is that not correct and NPOV? Or do you mean the template map? If so, that should probably be discussed at the template talk page, since it can't be edited from here. Arre 03:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But I do see a problem with it:
  • There are two maps: The big colourful one in the text (under the "history" section) and the small one in the info box, which you apparently refer to as the template one.
  • I would like to discuss first the use of the first one, here, in this article. We can then discuss the second one which I think is highly problematic, especially its interpretation. So:
1/ The map as used in the box right suggests the Sahara territory belongs to the "SADR" which is evidently wrong and represents the separatist point of view. I would like to declare this article as non neutral. I suggest we either remove the map immediatly until discussed or we set a "neutrality-disputed" banner on the article.
2/ The use of the map is problematic in first instance.
3/ Are you meaning this map is used because the "SADR" claims that territory? If not for what reason is it used?
wikima 19:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Huh? Granted, Tindouf is part of Algeria and outside the Sahara, but the SADR administer the territory. As for the Free Zone being disputed, that's irrelevant, as the SADR also administer that territory. Baker was making an exaggeration to prove a point about Morocco's practical control of the majority of the Sahara; neither side ever sued for peace.

  • Saying that "...the Sahara territory belongs to the 'SADR' which is evidently wrong and represents the separatist point of view..." is itself a biased statement that no one is going to accept in this discussion. It is not "evidently wrong," as several dozen states disagree with you. Calling them separatists assumes that they were ever part of Morocco, which is also not the opinion of the international committee or simple common sense. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the map on the top right is a fairly standard one, used accross all wikipedia pages on states / sub-national entitites / autonomous areas / disputed zones etc. Because of this, its likely regular users havn't even batted an eyelid about it; however, I do agree that it could be slightly misleading. For consistency, I think it should be included, bu twe could put a footnote or something by it? --Robdurbar 07:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin,

I said what I think above and, in this section, I don't want to go deeper in the discussion about the separatists, the limits of the "adminstration" of "sadr", james baker etc. Re the latter write him a letter if you disagree. He hasn't been just a romantic activist in the Sahara and I quote him saying what the reality is.
Lets stuck to the map matter in this section please. And I would like to begin with the template map.
I think the template map is biased and abusive in this article. Assigning the map of Western Sahara to the "sadr" suggests it owns it. This is of course wrong (if you don't like the word evidently) as the conflict is not resolved yet and Morocco effectively controls most of its parts including all relevant regions and towns, the whole cost etc. and administers it like a sovereign country.

Robdurbar,

  • What ever you decide in the article on the "sadr" must aply/affect the one on Morocco.
  • If you assign the map of Western Sahara to the "sadr" with or without a comment, then you must do exactly the same with Morocco: assign the same map to the country with/without a comment. Morocco also claims the Sahara as integral part of its territory
  • Additionally, Morocco really governs the majority of the Sahara, including all relevant towns, regions, the whole cost, running economic and political projects etc., just like a sovereign country. You can book now a nice holiday in Dakhla if you like and you will be impressed. The last 5-days visit of the King to the Sahara on the 25. March showed to which extent Morocco has control of the region.
  • Currently the article on Morocco shows its map excluding the territory of WS but this one on the "sadr" shows the territory. The message delivered through Wikipedia is: The territory of WS does not belong to Morocco but it belongs to the "sadr". This is not neutral and damages more the reputation of such a project like Wikipedia.
==> Result: either we assign the map to both (with or without comments), or we exclude it for both.
Cheers wikima 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
=> Any reaction please? wikima 19:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest, I don't edit the Morocco page; like I say, those maps are the international standard used by everyone else; you would struggle to find a (non-Moroccoan) map that shows Western Sahara as part of Morocco [1]; (A search for 'morocco map' in google' - [2]) . Just because Morcco controls the area, does not make it part of its internationally recognised territory; as discussed elsewhere, recognition of the territory is mixed, but most states refuse to go either way. I think the best compromise shows Morocco as not including the territory - as is an international standard - and include it here with a note. Robdurbar 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree, we could ask for a Request for Comment - this goes into the wider community and asks people to come and give their opinion on the issue. Robdurbar 08:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robdurbar,
  • What you are suggesting is not a compromise but to leave things as are. You will not be surprised that I disagree.
  • In reaction to your answer here are some examples of other presentation of Morocco's map: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 etc. And, The Arab Ligue withdraws maps "harming Morocco's territorial integrity" source.
  • Unfortunately quite often Western Sahara which is a disputed territory (not a country and not a state) is confused with "sadr" which is a widely internationally non recognised entity. It is an error that has spread through the world and this article reinforces this wrong impression by using the map inaccurately (to not to say in an abusive way).
Anyway my point and I would like that we come to a decision soon:
  • The article shows the map because it indicates the territory that is claimed by the "sadr". So it is simple, there are two choices and no need to call a world congress to discuss this:
A/ Morocco claims the territory as well. So I suggest to include the map to Morocco and to add a note that indicates the claim, exactly as done here for the "sadr". And I am not talking about two maps.
B/ If you do not agree then we must remove the map from here and from every other article but the one on the territory Western Sahara which must be absolutely neutral.
Every thing else would be unjust, unfair, biased, inaccurate, unbalanced etc. and at the end clearly against all basic principles of Wikipedia.
Cheers wikima 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Every thing else would be unjust, unfair, biased, inaccurate, unbalanced etc. and at the end clearly against all basic principles of Wikipedia' - and I thought you wanted a compromise ;)! Your sources all appear to be in French and, I would argue, are probably Moroccan and thus politically biased on this issue. How about if we were to try and create a simplified version of the other map which shows the current controlled and current claimed territory of the SADR? --Robdurbar 08:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I propose including this map -

File:SADR Location.gif

Although I could perhaps add to the key that grey = claimed territory. --Robdurbar 08:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robdurbar,
  • My sources are non moroccan and diverse. To be honnest I do not know them but selected them randomly (I also did a time ago in a similar discussion).
  • Sources are not bad or good because they are french or english.
  • I disagree with your new proposal because:
1/ It is an other topic (about control of the territory) which is related to the second map which we will certainly discuss.
2/ I very much contest the idea that polisario or the "sadr" would control this famous strip they call the "free zone". It is just polisario propaganda we do not want to have on wikipedia.
  • So: I woul like to avoid eternal discussion. If no reaction I will delete the template map here and everywhere else except the article on western sahara. The only other option would be to add it to Morocco as well. wikima 10:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
==> An other example of the Moroccan map. It's ai and its english: ai wikima 19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm afraid that I'm not convinced that its necessary. As there appears to be a lack of other commentators here, im gonna put an RfC on this. Robdurbar 10:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fully logic though. And we are having a clear discussion, almost like mathematics.
  • But you do not want to accept the result just because you do not like it.
  • And by that way, you are rejecting the discussion, which is a main part of Wikipedia's work and spirit.
  • I do not think this is the most fair and productive way. wikima 12:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my response was a bit brief, I was in a rush. Firstly, I don't see how control of the territory is an external/different factor to what we were discussing; your objection to the map is surely because it gives the impression that the SADR controls the territory of the Western Sahara, which we both agree it doesnt. So the control of the territory, in my impression, is the key issue here. Secondly, on what basis do you contest that they control the 'free zone'? I am not rejecting the discussion, I merely disagree - an important difference!
I feel the second map is a reasonal compromise, but also think that putting a footnote on the maps of both the Morcco and SADR pages will work too. Because of that, I'll make a proposal on the Morocco talk page to see what the feeling about a footnote is. Robdurbar 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template map refers to the Western Sahara territory as a whole and to the question of sovreignty/claim.
  • The second map refers the current/actual control.
  • My objection to the first one is that it suggests this territory should belong to the "sadr".
  • My objection to the second one is that I believe that polisario or the "sadr" are in Algeria and do not control any parts of the Sahara. The "free zone" is just a propaganda thing.
  • All this means these are two different topics. I am discussing the first map. And I will discuss the second map as well.
  • My point is highly clear: The conflict is not resolved yet. If, in this article, we "assign" the map of the Western Sahara territory to the "sadr" because it claims it, so we must do the same with Morocco because it claims it as well. And we would need to do the same with every other state or entity that may claim the territory as well.
  • This is easy, simple, clear, logic, what you want. I say above, if you refuse this, you refuse the discussion and the results of the discussion. wikima 12:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big map: Rob's proposed map is fine by me, although it should (as he suggested) make clear that (a) the SADR considers itself the legitimate government for the whole of the territory, not just the presently Polisario-held parts, and (b) this is not recognized internationally, and (c), Morocco presently holds and similarly claims the grey parts.
  • Little map: Wikima's arguments are lost on me, I'm afraid - I can't see how it would be POV to report in the map what territory the SADR is about? The article makes perfectly clear that they neither fully control it or are universally recognized as its legitimate government.
  • Existence of Polisario-held territory: Having visited Polisario-held territory in WS (the yellow area), I can assure you that it is most definitely under Polisario control. Also, there are literally thousands of politicians and journalists and travellers who have also visited the territory. Anyone interested can find tons of photographs, news clippings, films, etc on these areas via www.arso.org. (Some, I believe, are linked to on the Free Zone (region) talk page.) . If that's not enough, I refer you to the United Nations, which is running a cease-fire monitoring operation (MINURSO) since 15 years, separating the forces controlling these two territories. Their reports make it fully clear that the Polisario is permanently stationed and in control of the territory.
  • So, If Wikima has any sources to the contrary, I'd be happy to see them, and they'd better be many to balance the above. Right now, his/her "I believe" assertion is about as credible as if I would "believe" that Morocco is not in effective control of the remainder of the territory. Arre 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Having visited Polisario-held territory in WS (the yellow area), I can assure you that it is most definitely under Polisario control' - unfortunately we can't really accept that as evidence, it comes under original research; however, it is supported by the sources that you mention. --Robdurbar 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Proceedure:

  • Lets separate the topics in order to avoid a cahotic exchange. The topic here is about the little map.
  • If you wish to talk about the big map, then create a section. If you don't do I plan to do when I have time.
  • I do not believe in the free zone thing. So lets discuss in an other section (e.g. with big map)
  • Whether you have been in Tindouf or not, is totally irrelevant to me and in this discussion.

B. Back to the topic:

  • I am repeating myself and all I am saying is: If you consider it is not a POV to insert the map (little one) in this article, so I will consider it is not a POV to show the territory on the Moroccan map, e.g. in the article on Morocco.
  • Otherwise we have - globally - these options and you are free to decide:
1/ Map is shown on the "sadr" article. Without comments <--> It is shown on article on Morocco. Without comments
2/ Map is shown on the "sadr" article. With comments <--> It is shown on article on Morocco. With comments
3/ Map is deleted from "sadr" article. <--> It is deleted in article on Morocco.
4/ Map is deleted from "sadr" article but any comments still refer to it (description etc.) <--> It is deleted in article on Morocco but comments still refer to it (e.g. description)
  • This is easy, clear, just, fair, symetric etc.
wikima 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I feel the best option is to have the small map, with a note here, and the current map on the Morocco page, with a note that it also has de facto control over parts of Western Sahara. Furthermore, we can't make decisions about the Morcco page without proposing things there, something that you havn't done yet.
The second map was proposed because it is possible that people on the Morocco page may not accept the alterations. The second map - which would replace the small one in my new proposal - would show the area controlled by the current SADR - as shown by many sources including those from the UN and the BBC - and the area claimed by the SADR. I don't know about the full details of the big map, but I feel that we need to disucss all proposals and that is mine (which has been supported by User:Arre).
So, I ask you two qeustions:

1. Do you object to using the second map instead of the first one? If your only reason is 'I do not believe in the Free Zone' then I suggest you read Wikipedia:Original research.

2. Do you object to retaining the small map with a note here, and adding a note - but not the map - to the page on Morocco? --Robdurbar 21:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rob but Disagree.

  • The article on Morocco and these here have been developped in an asymmetric way, without taking into account the interactive/shared parts (re the Sahara question). I would never ever compare Morocco with the "rasd" (which is in my personal view just a fictive undemocratic entity) but I would say that we are like talking about two faces of the same coin.
  • I plan to do the change on the Morocco page once a result is reached here.
  • I did not do this because I wanted to avoid multiple discussion.
  • Often people who object (and their arguments) are the same.

To answer your questions: 1/ This map has an other purpose. We are talking about the one we insert in the right column as we do for all countries in Wikipedia. => I have to disagree. We can discuss it use in the content, however I think, it is biased and does not refelct the facts 2/ Yes, I definitively object to this. wikima 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you object? OK, I've changed the morroco template map (or am about to) --Robdurbar 23:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Rob & Wm:

  • Small or large, I believe there's room and reason for both a territorial control map and a regional location map.
  • The first one, the one showing the present areas of control, should be the one proposed by Robdurbar (grey/yellow, inserted above), which is simple, clear and NPOV. Arguments to the effect that it is not NPOV, or that the borders are drawn wrong, or whatever, should be handled on Free Zone (region), Southern Provinces, Moroccan Wall or some other talk page. Or even better, at the map's own talk page.
  • Now, the regional location map -- the small map -- shows nothing except what territory the SADR is about, namely the non-decolonized territory designated "Western Sahara" by the United Nations. Where's the bias? The article very well explains any details on (lack of) legality and (lack of) present control. If not this map, then which one should we use to point out where the territory is? We can't very well leave the area blank, can we?
  • I object in the strongest possible terms to the inclusion of Western Sahara, however striped or greyed, in Morocco's location map. There is no "symmetry" between (a) marking Morocco's recognized borders and adding a neighbouring territory and (b) marking where the recognized borders of a proposed state would be. Imagine the outcry if Iraq's location map on Wikipedia included Kuwait; Israel's included the West Bank? That debate has been done over and over on the Morocco talk page, and it looks as if we're in for another round. But -- let's do it there, not here.

Arre 05:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, to be honest I can see the arguments for both. Morocco's control of WS is not recognised by the majority (any?) of the international community and, though most states recognise no control of WS, more recognise the SADR than Morcco's control. On the other hand, Morocco do claim the territory and do exercise control over it. I'm stumped, I don't feel there's anythnig else I can add to this one; I don't know which is right. --Robdurbar 07:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there is a footnote on the Morocco page, I think Wikipedia is going more than out of its way to indicate the situation, without crossing internationally accepted standards. In the end, pro-Sharawis are never gonna be happy with a hint that Morocco might control WS; and pro-Moroccans are never gonna be happy with the suggestion that they do not control the territory. Can we please remove the neutrality tag or is it gonna have to stay on this article forever over some dispute that we cannot soleve? --Robdurbar 07:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arre,

  • If you want to use the regional location map to show which territory the "sadr" claims, then you MUST allow this for Morocco as well. Morocco claims the territory as an integral part. It is that simple.
  • To leave the map area blank in this article is absolutely possible! We can refer with a link to the article on Western Sahara where the map and all information on the territory are shown. This we do already with Morocco.
  • If you think explanation and details "on (lack of) legality and (lack of) present control" are enough to balance the use of the map, no problem, let’s do for Morocco as well: add the WS-Territory map and explain in the text that the territory is disputed and that Morocco's sovereignty lacks international recognition etc. A dotted line can help separate both parts of Morocco.
  • If you "object in the strongest possible terms to the inclusion of Western Sahara, however striped or greyed, in Morocco's location map", so do I with its inclusion in the "sadr"
  • Your problem is that you want to allow yourself what you deny to others. I hope you see now the contradiction of what you propose and the current distortions with the topic in this article and in general.

Rob,

  • It is not about counting how many countries do recognise which part. The conflict is not resolved. A neutral point of view would not shift to one or the other part as the case now, but stay in the middle. Using a map for one part (the so called "sadr") and denying it for the other (Morocco) is definitively non neutral. If there has been any decision that WS belongs to one of the parts let me know. All I know is a/ that the international community now has dropped the Baker plan and is calling for direct talks between Morocco and polisario with the participation of algeria and mauritania and b/ Morocco will propose a large autonomy for the territory.
  • As long as the article is non neutral the banner must stay.
Cheerswikima 11:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well ignoring the second map for a mo, if we were to have just the stiped map in the infobox i.e. as on the current morocco page but without morocco (clearly) with a note? --Robdurbar 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The striped map in the current Morocco page is related to an other context: The governance of Morocco in WS, a fact. Since the sovereignty is not recognised internationally, the map is merely striped.
  • Now let's come to a concrete result: A link to Western Sahara would be absolutely enough in this article. No map - I suggest to removed it. "rasd" does not govern WS, nor does it control any of its parts. And all details, including the map are in the article on WS. And tha's fine. Cheers wikima 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that it does not control any part is highly disputed to say the least. You cannot claim that the Morocco map relates to a different circumstance when you have repeatedly insisted that the two be changed together. --Robdurbar 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob,

  • Neither "sadr" nor polisario do control any parts of Western Sahara. Their casual presence, mostly for propaganda ends is tolerated, ignored or, when it reaches certain limits, condemned. "sadr" and polisario are in Tindouf, under full control of the Algerian government.
  • Morocco not only controls most parts of the Sahara but it governs it just like its other regions. You cannot just draw a line and ignore this fact in a map. This is why the guys have suggested the striped map (which I supported) and this is why it is an other - neighbouring - context.
  • Since there is a resistance to add the map of WS to Morocco, I do not see a reason why it appears here.
  • If it should show the terriory the so called sadr claims, a link to Western Sahara (which includs all details on the territory) is absolutely enough. This also complies with the way many articles are edited.

Cheers wikima 18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Propaganda

  • "'sadr' and polisario are in Tindouf, under full control of the Algerian government." This is completely untrue and a lie propagated by the Moroccan government. Algeria does not control the SADR.
  • "[This] also complies with the way many articles are edited." No it doesn't. It's the opposite of what is done at Republic of China. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, algeria does control "sadr" and polisario. Both are not free to do decide any thing major without Algier.
  • This is not propagated by the Moroccan governement by stated by people and institutions that were deeply involved in the conflict (James Baker, France libertés to mention just these two).
  • This a reason why anyone suggesting any solution calls for negotiations between Morocco and Algeria, and this why all the world sees the conflict as basically between Morocco and Algeria. If Algeria wants, the conflict can be ended. Now that it does not want, the conflict continues. Polsiario and “sadr” are just nothing without algeria. In reality, Algeria is the main part facing Morocco in the conflict.
  • I meant this complies with the way articles on the topic of WS are edited. If you disagree then we should delete the template box on the so called "sahrawi republic" and insert evry thing in sections instead of spreading articles.

wikima 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify something: It's agreed upon internationally that the conflict over Western Sahara is a matter of self-determination for the Sahrawis. Whether you choose to accept that or not is of no concern; however, we will not let Wikipedia become a soapbox for your distorted views, Wikima. —Nightstallion (?) 13:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstallion

  • We are discussing the use of tha map in this article. Please do follow the discussion.
  • Please avoid simplistic accusations and intimidation against other members. Thanks wikima 08:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re the other map, btw, I'm gonna put the new version (As currenlty at Free Zone (region) in this article. --Robdurbar 10:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: THE MAP

I finally found a map. I posted it and included it in the article. It is in French but it is the best available on the Internet. And the only one! --Geoffrey Marsan 11:43AM, 26 March 2007 (MT)

Hi. The article is about the SADR not Western Sahara. The SADR is an auto-proclaimed government in exile headquartered in Tindouf, Algeria. The map you inserted does unfortunately not fit the topic.--A Jalil 20:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

auto-proclaimed :p ¦ Reisio 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a decision

  • The template map as used in the article in unacceptable
  • It must be removed as it suggests Western Sahara is a "sadr" territory

wikima 22:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree, as I said above. The map points to the only territory relevant to SADR, the one it claims to represent, namely Western Sahara -- it has to point somewhere, so that readers know what part of the globe we're talking about.
And since the article makes clear from the beginning that they don't control all or even most of it, what's the issue? Why does everything that even mentions Polisario or the SADR have to be interpreted as a mortal threat to the honour of Morocco? Who in their right mind would think that colouring the territory claimed by the SADR on a map, to indicate where it is, would make a reader go, "Gee, I guess that means we should all support Polisario"?
I haven't written anything new on Western Sahara for several months now, since I spend all my (limited) time on Wikipedia in these hairsplitting talk page quarrels. Can't see how this benefits the project. Arre 23:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly if someone bases their political views on a map at the top of a page and doesn't read a footnote or the article then I wouldn't want them supporting my cause anyway. --Robdurbar 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no talk here for a few days. As I hate leaving a page tagged 'npov' without active discussion, I'll remove the tag if there's no more talk within the next 24hours. --Robdurbar 09:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and Neutrality of the Template and the Presentation of the Article Disputed

All discussion above taken into consideration and seen as still open I put a banner to dispute the neutrality and accuracy of this article with the following explanation:

  • With the template this article suggests the "sahrawi republic" is an existing country or state, with a flag and a territory
  • The "sahrawi republic" is however non present in the territory of Western Sahara
  • It does not control it and does not administrate it; it claims however the control of an arid unpopulated strip which it calls "Free Zone". Even this, is strongly disputed (s. discussion above)
  • The "sahrawi republic" is merely an exiled government that exists without a territory
  • It is based in Algeria and not in Western Sahara
  • Its members are (at least) partly identic with the members of Polisario
  • Although the map includes a footnote on the claim on this territory it suggests that the "sahrawi republic" owns it.
  • The "sahrawi republic" is a largely non recognised entity
  • It is not recongnised by the UN and all other significant international geopolitical insitutions
  • It has a seat in the African Union, but on the other a large number of african countries do not recognise it.
  • The creators of the "sahrawi republic" want it to be an arab republic (a in "sadr"), but the Arabe League does not recognise it.
  • Despite of these facts and others the "sahrawi republic" is presented in an identical way like France, Germany, Italy or any other idependent and sovereign state.
  • This is strongly misleading
  • And it goes against the neutral and objective spirit and principle of an encyclopaedia.
  • The whole article must be presented in a completely different way and must underline the differences and present things as they are and not as some ideologies wish them to be.
  • For these and other facts I dispute the neutrality and accuracy of the article
  • And againt my special message to Justin: please accept discussions and do not revert.
wikima 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  • With the template this article suggests the "sahrawi republic" is an existing country or state, with a flag and a territory
It is a state - it has a territory, permanent population, government, international recognition, and the symbols of state such as a flag, minted currency, coat of arms, constitution, etc.
  • The "sahrawi republic" is however non present in the territory of Western Sahara
This is not true. It is the case that the SADR does not administer the entirety of Western Sahara, but it is also true that the Republic of China administers a smaller percentage of its claimed territory of China, and is still a state.
  • It does not control it and does not administrate it; it claims however the control of an arid unpopulated strip which it calls "Free Zone". Even this, is strongly disputed (s. discussion above)
The Free Zone includes villages, settlements, and a Bedouin population (Bir Gandus, Bir Lehlou, Tifariti, etc.) Furthermore, it administers the refugee camps in Tindouf, with something short of 200,000 persons.
  • The "sahrawi republic" is merely an exiled government that exists without a territory
It does have territory, as explained above.
  • It is based in Algeria and not in Western Sahara
It holds elections in the Free Zone and its temporary capital is Bir Lehlou, a village in Western Sahara.
  • Its members are (at least) partly identic with the members of Polisario
So? There are several one-party states. Is Burma not a state? Libya? Even Japan was a one-party state for several decades while being a democracy. How is this statement relevant to anything?
  • Although the map includes a footnote on the claim on this territory it suggests that the "sahrawi republic" owns it.
How does it suggest that the SADR owns the entire Sahara?
  • The "sahrawi republic" is a largely non recognised entity
The SADR recognized by several dozen governments and is a full member of the African Union. Among those states that have a position on the dispute, all of them have sided with the SADR (cf. Kofi Annan's recent statement that no state has recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara.)
  • It is not recongnised by the UN and all other significant international geopolitical insitutions
That's not true; as I just wrote, it is a full member of the African Union, an intergovernmental bloc that represents 800 million Africans and is currently the peace-keeping force in Darfur.
  • It has a seat in the African Union, but on the other a large number of african countries do not recognise it.
There are 54 African states (including the SADR) and the following 37 (a majority) have recognized the SADR:
  • The SADR itself
  • Madagascar
  • Burundi
  • Algeria
  • Angola
  • Benin
  • Mozambique
  • Guinea-Bissau
  • Togo
  • Rwanda
  • Seychelles
  • Republic of Congo
  • São Tomé and Príncipe
  • Equatorial Guinea
  • Tanzania
  • Ethiopia
  • Cape Verde
  • Ghana
  • Uganda
  • Lesotho
  • Zambia
  • Sierra Leone
  • Libya
  • Swaziland
  • Botswana
  • Zimbabwe
  • Chad
  • Mali
  • Mauritius
  • Mauritania
  • Burkina Faso
  • Nigeria
  • Liberia
  • Namibia
  • Malawi
  • South Africa
  • Kenya

This includes presently-functioning embassies in the most populous African state (Nigeria), the capital of the AU (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), and the most technologically and economically advanced African state (South Africa.)

  • The creators of the "sahrawi republic" want it to be an arab republic (a in "sadr"), but the Arabe League does not recognise it.
So? The SADR is necessarily an Arab republic, as its population is entirely Arab and its official language is Arabic.
  • Despite of these facts and others the "sahrawi republic" is presented in an identical way like France, Germany, Italy or any other idependent and sovereign state.
How so?
  • This is strongly misleading
How so? The dispute is discussed at length in this and several other articles.
  • And it goes against the neutral and objective spirit and principle of an encyclopaedia.
How so?
  • The whole article must be presented in a completely different way and must underline the differences and present things as they are and not as some ideologies wish them to be.
How so?
  • For these and other facts I dispute the neutrality and accuracy of the article
So far, your claims are baseless. Do you have an alternative proposal? If so, you may want to create it at User:Wikima/SADR or somesuch.
  • And againt my special message to Justin: please accept discussions and do not revert.
Okay. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for not reverting and accepting the discussion (Ouf! I thought this should be normal in this world)
  • I will respond to all your reactions as they are based on phantasy
  • You could have mentionned the number of the african states that recognise the socalled "sadr" instead of making the page soo long.
  • I will send the right number as ou can already delete Madagascar, Burundi and Chad for instance.
  • I had already begunn with an alternative proposal thta I will show when finished
  • It uses the same components but avoids to mislead people by presenting the "sahrawi republic" like sovereign states.
  • Certain absurdities will need to be deleted e.g. how can the "sadr" be claimes a state but use the Moroccan dirham or caling code?!?!?!?
  • If you want to visit Abdelaziz you need to organise yourself algerian dinars and if you want to call him use algerian tel. code!
Cheers - wikima 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  • I will send the right number as ou can already delete Madagascar, Burundi and Chad for instance.
I'm not deleting anyone. Why would I? All those states have recognized the SADR.
  • Ok you are including the states that have cancelled or frozen their recognitions? And you wonder why I call your reactions "phantasy" and the whole "sadr" thing just "fictive"??
"Fictive" is not a word; at least not in English. As I wrote, that following states have recognized the SADR, and that's true.
  • Certain absurdities will need to be deleted e.g. how can the "sadr" be claimes a state but use the Moroccan dirham or caling code?!?!?!?
East Timor is a state and uses the American dollar. Which is more important to statehood: a calling code or international recognition? Honestly...
  • I don't know that about East Timor, but honnestly, how and where does "sadr" use Moroccan Dirham?? And how does it want to fight against Morocco in the same time?? These are absurdities and show how unlogic the pro-polisarian thinking is!
Just go to the page on East Timor; I provided you a link for that very reason. How does it use the dirham? People exchange goods and services for money that represents labor. Where? In the Sahara and Algeria. How does it want to fight Morocco? It doesn't want a foreign military on its land. "Unlogic" is also not a word in English.
  • If you want to visit Abdelaziz you need to organise yourself algerian dinars and if you want to call him use algerian tel. code!
Right. He's in Algeria. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I am saying. He is not in Western Sahara. He goes rarely to Tifariti for symbolic dates and gets a slap in the face from the UN for himself, for polisario and for the so called "sadr". Cheers - wikima 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? He can go to Tifariti whenever he wants, there are just voluntary restrictions on troop movements per the ceasefire (which both sides have routinely broken.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one of the absurdities of pro-polisarian phantasies
  • A president can go to a region he claims it his territory "when he wants" but he is not allow to take troops!
  • He should try to go there just for fun and just trust the nomads and black market people for his security
  • Is this the kind of control the "sadr" has on the region?? Every move there causes a slap in the face by the UN?
wikima 18:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, again You deliberately misconstrued what I wrote: Abdelaziz can take troops, only a limited amount. Just like how the Moroccans can only take a limited amount of troops to the Sahara, or Ethiopia can only put a limited amount of troops on its borders with Eritrea and Somalia, or a thousand other examples. It is not the case that every more there causes a slap in the face by the UN, only troop movements are regulated by MINURSO. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Morocco has more than 120,000 soldiers in the Southern provinces, and new security forces (GUS) were created allover Morocco including the Sahara. Comparing Moroccan action with Polisario/SADR movements in the Sahara is non-sense.
  • the presence of Polisario on fixed locations (Tifariti or Bir lehlou) dates anly to 1991 after the cease-fire. Before that they never stayed in a fixed place more than a few hours, otherwise the Moroccan Air-force would carpet-bomb them.
  • Oh yeah, and Polisario does not exist on the strip between Morocco and Algeria, and between Morocco and Mauritania to the south. Because I see that some maps suggest that Polisario gentelmen have their feet in the Atlantic at Laguera.
  • Another point I remarked is the presence of Syria as one of the countries recognizing the SADR. That needs to be verified. I remember Prime minister Youssoufi affirming after a visit to Syria that Syria does not recognize any such country named the SADR.--A Jalil 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No what? It's not nonsense; that's what a ceasefire is: both parties voluntarily agree to give up militarization. Yes, Morocco is limited by the terms of the ceasefire, regardless of how often they break it or to what extent.
Prior to 1991, Polisario were all over the Sahara and parts of Mauritania and Algeria. Morocco did carpet bomb Polisario troops, Sahrawi civilians and third-party hostages.
Yes, they do. Here's some first-hand video. Here's MINURSO's page saying so. Here are news reports from that territory. They do.
The source for this list is the same as Foreign relations of Western Sahara; namely, Tony Hodges' Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War (ISBN 0882081519) and the Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara, in three editions from Scarecrow Press, the most recent from earlier this year (ISBN 0810855402). -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, Do you agree with me Koavf that the SADR/Polisario does not "administer" all the "free zone"?. If they can't reach the Atlantic (Laguera is a strategic place)and can't be in the strip along theAlgeran border, can you honestly say it administers the rest?--A Jalil 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't agree. They clearly do administer territory, as I showed in the above links. If they didn't administer territory, there would be no ceasefire in the Free Zone. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you maintain that Polisario/SADR controls the southern strip along the Mauritanian border to the Atlantic ?. --A Jalil 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure As far as I'm aware, and that's after having spoken with the U.S. State Department's office in Morocco, an ambassador from the SADR, and two UN officials; I asked each one if the SADR controls the Free Zone, and they all said yes. The Free Zone includes Lagourea, so I would have to conclude they do. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for a Corrected Version of the Article

  • The current version of this article is not acceptable
  • Some main reasons are listed above
  • At the centre of the problematic are the following:
  • The country template used on the right including the flag, the coat of arms, the map etc. is similar to the one used for materially/effectively existing sovereign independent states such as France or Italy. The number of recognitions of the so called "sadr" cannot change the fact that it is merely an exiled government which is unrecognised by the UN and largely unrecognised by the world.
  • Many elements used or mentioned in this template/column are either strong biase, wrongly placed or absurd:
  • The map is a highly problematic and strong biase. It is not acceptable to be used in this way. There are ways to present which territory the "sadr" is claiming. But inserting WS like in a country template just as done for sovereign independent countries such as France or Italy is biase, wrong and misleading.
  • All information on population, geography etc are to be placed in the article on Western Sahara since the "sadr" has no control of it but claims control of a strip (even this is disputed).
  • Information on currency, calling code etc is absurd just absurd. These are Moroccan and this underlines and shows that Morocco effectively governs WS, using its currency, stamps etc.
  • Taking the Moroccan currency as the currency of the so called "sahrawi republic" is absurd
  • For this reason I started developing a correction to this article which I would like to finalise with you
  • Please do not pay attention to the formatting but help to set it up
  • All confusions between Western Sahara (the territory) and the so called "sadr" I have tried to clarify by separating and redirecting
  • Some of the redirects need discussion (article on flag must not lead to "sadr" but to both, flag of Morocco as well)
  • I think it is time to sort out all the confusion, for the sake of Wikipedia (and... the truth)
  • You can see the progress at this place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic2
  • I would beg Justin to cooperate and to avoid contra-productive reflexes

Thanks - wikima 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse

  • The country template used on the right including the flag, the coat of arms, the map etc. is similar to the one used for materially/effectively existing sovereign independent states such as France or Italy. The number of recognitions of the so called "sadr" cannot change the fact that it is merely an exiled government which is unrecognised by the UN and largely unrecognised by the world.
It is also used on fully or mostly-unrecognized entities like Somaliland or the Republic of China. This usage is consistent with similar pages.
  • The map is a highly problematic and strong biase. It is not acceptable to be used in this way. There are ways to present which territory the "sadr" is claiming. But inserting WS like in a country template just as done for sovereign independent countries such as France or Italy is biase, wrong and misleading.
As I've said several times, I'd be happy with a compromise map that is similar to the one at the Republic of China page.
  • All information on population, geography etc are to be placed in the article on Western Sahara since the "sadr" has no control of it but claims control of a strip (even this is disputed).
I'm not going to play this game with you; SADR are in the Free Zone. And they have a population (over 160,000 in the refugee camps alone.)
  • Information on currency, calling code etc is absurd just absurd. These are Moroccan and this underlines and shows that Morocco effectively governs WS, using its currency, stamps etc.
The SADR have minted their own coins and pressed their own stamps. As I've brought up before, some states use foreign currency, and that does not stop them from being states (e.g. Liechtenstein uses the euro, and East Timor uses the American dollar.)
  • Please do not pay attention to the formatting but help to set it up
I don't think I have anything to add there, and it should probably go in the user: namespace like I said before; tests don't go in main.
  • I would beg Justin to cooperate and to avoid contra-productive reflexes
I would beg the same of you, too, Wikima. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am quite sure Somaliland is edited by non Somalian. The whole section on politics is dipsuted. In the talk you read things like: "There is no Independent for Somaliland, they are part of somalia , and somalia can not be divided in to a groups or a regions". etc. So bad example.
  • I have already rejected the China example as a too complexe for comparison. And to be honnest the map does not tell any thing. There is a blue thing that says Taiwan, the rest is empty gray. If I was involved in that discussion I am sure I will discuss that map.
  • "sadr" is a widely unrecognised government in exile. The so called "sadr" is listed among them. Most of the articles have no formatting of recognised states and countries.
  • The refugees live in Tindouf. If this is the population of the "sadr" then I am more than happy to draw the map of Tindouf for this entity.
  • Currency: you try but you simply don't convince. "sadr" does everything to separate from Morocco. It is the last entity in the world that would accpet to use Moroccan currency. "sadr" is in Tindouf and in Tindouf people use the Algerian dinar. The "currency" and "stamps" that this entity has produced is at most interesting for some science fiction collectors .
  • Same for the tel code. If you dial +212 this means that you are calling Morocco and no other entity. What stands in the infobox is totally absurd.
  • My proposal stands and I think it is a start to inform about this entity by presenting all its differents aspects (flag, claimed territory etc.) but wihtout misleading visitors in wikipedia with propaganda and disinformation.
  • Of course the contents must be adjusted as they are full of biase like all other articles re WS.
  • If koav is the only who protests (what a surprise!) I would like to go forward with this. It would be great if the others get involved in the discussion. I feel like repeating myself against this absurdity of elevating this exiled entity to a state
Thanks - wikima 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"If koav is the only who protests (what a surprise!) I would like to go forward with this."
Go forward with what? If you want to improve the article go ahead, just remember we're watching. :p
"absurdity of elevating this exiled entity to a state"
It's a state because it fits the definition of 'a state'. Deal with it.
¦ Reisio 02:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
state No, it is not enough to proclaim a state to become one. Where is this state?, where is the government seated?, where are the institutions?. Chetchnya fits well the definition of a state with an exiled government. Northern Cyprus fits even better, but they are not considered as states.--A Jalil 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like your main gripe is that where the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has the geographic area of "northern Cyprus" and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has the geographic area of "Chechnya", the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic has the geographic area of "western sahara", which doesn't match up. I doubt they're going to change the name of their state from Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic of Western Sahara just to satisfy a couple people that aren't willing to acknowledge definitions of 'state' that are supported by huge, vast, gigantic majorities the world over. ¦ Reisio 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when the "sadr" is a state?
  • And since when it is a state just like France or Germany to be presented like them in wikipedia???
  1. "sadr" is non recognized by the UN nor by more than 3/4 of the states in the world. This means the world does not believe you and you have to deal with this.
  2. It has no sovereignty on the the territory that it claims and it is not present there. The territory is largely under effective Moroccan administration.
  3. It means to control an arid and unpopulated strip but is based in Tindouf in Algeria and not in this strip.
  4. It goes there rarely and only for symbolic propaganda shoutings. And even this it does under extremely limited conditions and pays it with severe slaps in the face from the UN because of the military moves.
  5. It's "population" is devided. One part live in Western Sahara under Moroccan administration, like Moroccan citizenships (have Moroccan passeports etc). The other parts are refugees in the camps in Tindouf who don't have identity papeers that are recognized worldwide.
  6. It has no currency, no tel code, no postage stamps, nothing that can indicate the sovereignty of a state. The flag does only show in few ambassies in the world but not in more than 80% of them.
  • "sadr" fits more with the descriptions of an exiled self-proclamed governement. And it is listed there.
  • If we would count all these sort of entities as existing states like the Netherlands or Canada, the world would have 250 states.
  • What I mean with going forward with this is that I don't want to discuss this fiction eternally.
  • The presentation of the article is wrong and I created an alternative for a compromise.
  • It shows all aspects of the "sadr" (flag etc., that can be further discussed) but without presenting it like France, Italy or Spain.
  • I have moved (per redirect) the page to a new one: User:Wikima/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic2 - Hope this is ok so.
Thanks - wikima 10:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The state issue has been argued to nausea above: #state.2C_not_government. The redirect should still be deleted, but I don't care to pursue it further at this time. ¦ Reisio 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that discussion and you're re-opening it. Plus, there is no reason in the world to stop discussions and some debates have taken centuries and filled thousend of pages in the world. The bit of dialog above won't prevent us from opening the topic again.
  • Most of that arguments above base on fiction and phanatasy, e.g. 1/ A territory that is not controlled, 2/ a part only of the "population" that does not live on the territory and is merely a group of refugees 3/ an eciled governement that lives in an other country (Algeria) is in exile etc.
  • And, this entity is simply not recognised by the UN 3/4 of the world.
  • If you still think it is just like France or Spain to be formatted as such in wikipedia, then you ingore a huge reality.
  • Do what you want with that page. I redirect it for information to the others but can always remind the new link. I had no intention with it.
Cheers - wikima 18:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point

  • I am quite sure Somaliland is edited by non Somalian...
I don't see how that's relevant; I'm not Sahrawi. The point I was making is that even non-state actors have this template, so your argument is baseless.
  • Currency: you try but you simply don't convince. "sadr" does everything to separate from Morocco. It is the last entity in the world that would accpet to use Moroccan currency. "sadr" is in Tindouf and in Tindouf people use the Algerian dinar. The "currency" and "stamps" that this entity has produced is at most interesting for some science fiction collectors.
What are you talking about here? I don't even know what to say to this.

As for Jalil and Wikima asking since when they were a state: February 27, 1976.

  • Most of that arguments above base on fiction and phanatasy, e.g. 1/ A territory that is not controlled, 2/ a part only of the "population" that does not live on the territory and is merely a group of refugees 3/ an eciled governement that lives in an other country (Algeria) is in exile etc.
I don't know why you insist on going around and around with these untruths; the SADR does control territory. Kofi Annan's newest report calls the Free Zone the region controlled by the Polisario Front. It can't be more plain than that. It's also really rude of you to call them "merely a group of refugees;" that doesn't stop them from being a population. They're still human beings. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this last reaction you don't convince, really not.
  • The so called free zone is phantasy. Annan's reports are the one that severely condemns miltary moves of Plisario in that area. So how can this entity claim to control a territory in which it can't even move troups? And since when is "remote control" (this is an invention of you and "sadr") of an empty unpopulated strip of a territory and rare symbolic presence in to be compared with sovereign control such as does France or Portugal on tehir territories?!? Wake up!
wikima 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay If I don't convince you, that's hardly surprising. If you think the Free Zone is phantasy, tell it to Kofi Annan. As I've explained to you before, and is clear if you read the terms of the ceasefire, there are troops in the Free Zone, but they are voluntarily limited by the terms of the agreement. I don't know how many more times I'll have to tell you this. The strip is also not unpopulated, as I've mentioned before, because it has villages (Bir Gandus, Bir Lehlou, etc.), Beduoins, and international aid workers and IGO's (e.g. MINURSO) there. You know this, and to keep on contradicting it is a bald-faced lie. They are also there on a consistent basis, as they are the only law-keeping agency. Wake up! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that all you have to say now?
wikima 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're asking... Is all I just said all that I just said? Yes. Reputable sources - more authoritative than your assertions - contradict you, so I'm taking what they say to be true over your claims. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ridiculous edits

Currency issues Look at East Timor; they use the American dollar; and they're 10,000 miles away from the US. I've been through this several times before. Please stop blindly reverting. Thanks. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your argument is rather strange to say the minimum.
  • If such a republic like Timor uses dollars or what ever, this does not mean automtically that "sadr" uses DH and that the people on Mars use the currency of the moon. You should stop this phantasy.
  • If you want to have this information inserted then you'll need to source reliably - and no such exotic amigos del sahra please - that:
  1. The "sadr" has declared the Moroccan DH to its official currency.
  2. Where it does use this currency, in Tindouf?!? Or in Algier?!?
  3. And how, or for what? Do the sahrawis in the camps under Polisario control use the Moroccan DH, I mean officially not in any black market? Or does the so-called "sadr" use it in external trade which it does not have?
  • If you succeed to source this (remember, credibles cources please) and I will take it as proven that the "sadr" is not even capable of using an own currency and as a demonstration on how these people still see Morocco as their superior.
  • Meanwhile the currency remains removed.
Cheers - wikima 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of strange arguments... My argument is not "East Timor uses the dollar, therefore the SADR uses the dirham." If you've payed any attention to what I've said, my argument is "States can use the currency of other states. For istance, East Timor uses the (American) dollar." I honestly have no idea what your moon reference is even supposed to mean. I also don't know what "such exotic amigos del sahra [sic?]" is supposed to mean, or why you don't want it to be a source. The Countries WikiProject defines this section as the local currency. That is, the monetary units used by the local population. Among the Sahrawis that have money and to the extent that this money represents labor and is used in exchange for goods and services, they circulate Moroccan dirhams. The SADR has minted pesetas, also, but they've never circulated. The SADR also does engage in external trade; it receives foreign aid, and sells oil prospecting contracts for instance. This statement "...I will take it as proven that the 'sadr' is not even capable of using [its] own currency and as a demonstration [of] how these people still see Morocco as their superior," is 1.) ludicrous, 2.) intellectuall dishonest, and 3.) mildly racist. I know I'm personally offended, but you probably don't care. This is inflammatory garbage, and you can take it elsewhere, Wikima. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You accusation of racism is rubbish! I am talking about the "sadr" and the people who run it. If you always make confusion between this republic of clowns and the rest of Sahrawis this is your problem.
  • Stop blackmailing the language. Last time you also mentioned Auschwitz and Holocaust. Just forget this as it's not going to work.
wikima 10:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great So, I've got your back against a wall and you just write "forget this." What a waste. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reisio Don't remove the disputed tag!

  • Don't remove the tag without discussion.
  • The article is totally disputed and I do dispute it strongly.
  • The discussion is not finished and no consensus has been reached nor expressed.

Thanks wikima 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had plenty of discussion (scroll up); it consists of everyone else saying you're delusional. :p Also, 'consensus' means "majority agreement", not "wikima is happy". Sorry. ¦ Reisio 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reisio While it is true you had lengthy discussions about the article long ago, it is also true that the article has changed many times since then and the "consensus" you refer to does not make this article free from POV. Remember that removing the disputed tag while people are discussing is Vandalism "Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled"
Koavf You have not ansewerd Wikima's simple questions. I'll make them simpler for you to understand:
  • If the Moroccan Dirham is the currency of the SADR, that means it is used in the "free Zone" and in the premises of the SADR in the Tindouf camps. Is not that right? Do you confirm it?.
  • Do you know that the Moroccan Dirham has the symbols of the Moroccan sovereignty (The Kingdom of Morocco, the picture of the Moroccan King Mohamed VI, and the coat of arms of the kingdom)?. Can you confirm this is used by the SADR?
  • If Timor uses the US Dollar, it is because the Dollar is an international currency, and that it facilitates foreign trade transactions. What are the reasons for using the Moroccan Dirham then by the SADR?

--A Jalil 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you say that I actually have answered his question. Yes, the Moroccan dirham is used in Tindouf and the Free Zone; this is exactly what I said above. I would assume that the dirham has the picture of Kings Hassan and Mohammed on their various denominations, since that is pretty typical of currency. Note, for instance, that the American dollar has the portraits of several former American heads of state. Timor uses the dollar because they have a destitute economy and don't have the strength to support their own currency (cf. with the Argentine financial crisis of 2001-2002, when they stopped pegging their currency to the dollar.) The dollar is an "international currency?" What does that mean? The reason the Moroccan dirham is used by the SADR is because it is accepted as having value that represents labor in the exchange of goods and services; this is the function of money in a post-mercantile economy. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funniest Yes this is one of the funniest things I have ever heard: The Polisario uses Moroccan currency south of Tindouf (on Algerian soil), and in what they term as the Liberated Zone!!!!. Where do they get their reserve of Moroccan money? from smuggling or are they printing fake bills? You confirm -without paying attention to it- the illegal traffic of everything the Polisario is accused of. This shows your very weak arguments on WS. These, added to your ridiculous confirmation that Polisario controls Laguera are obvious proofs of your ignorance of the realities in Western Sahara, away from Indiana and your biased books of Hodges and Co.--A Jalil 23:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not funny ha-ha It's ironic, but not comical; the use of the dirham is a consequence of Moroccan occupation. They got Moroccan money from remittances, aid, and banks. This does not require smuggling or printing fake bills, as you fallaciously imply above. Your comment above was unnecessarily rude and if you keep on making them and pointlessly reverting, I'll report this behavior to the Administrator's Notice Board; I suggest you take a more diplomatic tone and stop trying to instigate an edit war. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism koavf, if you continue inserting non-sense about the Moroccan Dirham being used in Algeria and the so-called free zone, after these warnings, it will be seen as intentional vandalism.
  • I defy you to take it to the administrator's Notice Board: I have a small compilation of some of the rude wording you have been using against people in different articles. This added to your record of revert-warring and blocking, it will not be difficult for Administrators to who know who you really are, and why simply you are in wikipedia for.--A Jalil 11:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Koavf, you don't answer my questions.
  • You'r not a soruce yourself and any other member can write that it is rather the Algerian Dinar that is used in Tindouf.
  • Deliver credible sources in aswering the questions above. Until then all what you say remain your own personal speculation (you'r living thausends of km far from the place) and the currency item is removed as non sourced.
wikima 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism, etc. Call whatever you want vandalism, that doesn't mean it fits the definition. I will certainly go to AN/I if you keep on being so belligerent. Fine, I'll find some source somewhere. Now, any time you make any claim on Wikipedia, I expect you'll give a source for it too? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag

It's been here a while with no editing/talk - can it be removed? If not what objections stand? --Robdurbar 19:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob,

  • I am objecting the fact that this republic is represented as an effectively existing state/country.
  • I have told above why this is not the case and I have done a suggestion on what could be an alternative for this article.
  • However I don't have the feeling that this is taken seriousely; i fell rather that people who oppose this just want to represent this so-called republic because this would fit their ideological POV.
  • This is why the POV tag must remain.
Thanks for reminding this and rgds - wikima 20:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection isn't taken seriously because it's groundless. I'm with Rob; there's no good reason for the disputed tag. ¦ Reisio 21:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ah-ah, I never said that per se; all I meant was that I am against the existence of these tags for a long period with nothing being done about it. I'll re-read the talk above but if you could summerise that would be great too... I've not really been following the debates here closely, but I think this is something we should try and get sorted once and for all; this disputes around these SADR articles have been going on too long --Robdurbar 21:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob, simple, this so called republic is not recognised by the UN nor 160 countries of the world.
  • It does not exist as a sovereign state or independent coutry
  • All stuff in the template bix is claimed stuff.
  • In the same time this entity is presented just like any other sovereign state/country in the world, with an extensive template box etc.
  • This is to be changed. The "SADR" is an exiled governement and there are examples how to present
Kind regds. - wikima 18:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will second Wikima's objection. Presenting SADR as a "defacto" state is absurd on its face. He is right, it's a government in exile with some tenuous control over marginal border areas. There are ways to present this, in a non-political manner. The entire body of writing here on the Polisario/Western Sahara tends to party political rather than neutral. collounsbury 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital and largest City

  • Both are merely claims. Fact is: the so called "sadr" sits in Tindouf, in Algeria.
  • The fact to patrole from time to time with few guerrilleros to abandonned adesertic locations such as Bir Lehlou does not make of it a de facto capital.
  • Largest city is simply wrong. It is in the Moroccan administred part.
  • Capital as well.
  • Using the "de jure" expression means there is a juridical basis. There is none. Especially since the so called "sadr" sadr is not recognised by the international community.
  • Juridically, the "sadr" does not exist.
Cheers - wikima 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, these edits tend to the prejudicial. Now that your Polisario backer is gone, I should hate to have to agree with critics re nationalist editing.
With respect the state existing, legally (not juridically, that's Francism and has another meaning in English), well I'd say SADR claims to exist and is recognised by some states, and not others. As such, it's in an ambiguous state. Making the sweeping claim that SADR is "not recognised by the international community" overdoes things.
It has limited recognition.
As to the statistics, rather than engaging in slapping claimed and other waffling everywhere, a concise statement that stats may or typically include areas both under Moroccan and Polisario administrations, and their citation does not indicate favouring either claim.
That is the way to approach being neutral. Not as your comment supra.
Again, I would hate to have to start agreeing with the whanking little mid-Western American in his complaints. collounsbury 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • collounsbury, I, honnestly, don't understand well what you mean with "...your Polisario backer is gone...". Hopping and assuming this has nothing to do with contents I'll ignore it first.
  • If you have any suggestion on how to make this version most neutral and reflecting the facts this is more than welcome for me.
  • I have protested along all the discussions here as I think that "sadr" is presented in a way that is close to Polisario propaganda rather.
  • As you rightly say it is more a sort of an ambiguous state, or better, a governement in exile and should be represented as such.
  • I think Jalil is doing a good proposition for a compromise which I invite you and others to discuss.
  • As re the recognitions, sorry, the "sadr" is recognised by few states in the world only (some 45), nothing more. As long as it is not recognised by the UN and the major powers and organisations of the world, its legitimacy is extremly limited, for me non existant.
Thanks - wikima 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to content, mate, while would not disagree that the present document is too POV, your instistence with respect to recognition and legitimacy however is going in the other direction. It is enough to present the cold facts, which are (i) limited recognition -UN recognises achieved states, so that's pointless; Taiwan exists, but is not member of UN, is it not legit? If you're PRC, maybe. (ii) Insisting on going further than noting the facts is not necessary for an encyclopedia. collounsbury 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • collounsbury, it's not about me going in the one or in the other direction, but about facts, and only facts.
  • I'm not familiar with the case of Taiwan but am always careful with comparisons.
  • So without dealing in detail with this case I guess very much that Taiwan doesn't have a gov. in exile, for instance, which is far from the territory, the people and all the things it claims to rule.
  • I am not aware about the nr of states, international powers (such as USA, European countries etc.) and organisations of huge wight (such as the EU) etc. that recognise Taiwan, but guess they may be many. For "sadr" none, zero.
  • So, I always said, each case is individual in this beautiful complex world.
  • And the case of the so called "sadr" is closer to an exlied governement rather than to an existing (de facto?) state such as Taiwan.
  • If the "sadr" was present in WS and if was ruling it (not only controling it military) as do Taiwan with its country, than we can see whether there is space for comparison and further talk. But the fact is that it does not.
  • In this sense, in my eyes it is fictive and all it has are some 40 (?) recognitions, most of them from Africa, going against the recognition of the African Union.
  • If you want to apply your logic with Taiwan, so, Morocco, is present in that territory and rules it as does Taiwan with its own. The flag that is fluttering there in this very moment is the Moroccan one...
Cheers - wikima 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictive is prejudicial language. Marginal, yes, fictive, no. SADR has some marginal control of part of WS, and can claim -largely in my opinion through Moroccan official incompetence, as the Gov never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity with their langue de bois des annees 70- some effective support. Facts on the ground can as such speak for themselves. The clear position of the EU and US is "settle this ridiculous situation." Despite Moroccan (and Polisario) delusions that the Powers care about this, no one really does, except insofar as it ends up being a spoiler in more interesting areas (such as, for example, pan-Maghrebine deals that fall-apart because of this utterly childish, utterly pointless waste of time of a dispute). Overreading the EU and US positions (ex Spain which has political interests) is a grave error that both sides tend to do, from my observation, on their absurd emotional attachment to this bunch of absurd bollocks. In any case, I personally am tired of everytime I am in Rabat on business to talk investment and JV deals, some drooling relic of the Makhzen buttonholes me, whinging on about how you Anglo Saxons aren't showing enough support for our Sahara (as I represent the government, which is bloody crazy as I am in private sector, although to the Makhzen evidently living in the1970s, they can't tell the bloody difference), when US, UK and others have been clear, we just want the two sets of whinging little children to stop fighting over a wasteland and get down to adult business. The point of this is to emphasize that the parties terribly over read outside interest in and positions on, and as such much of the whanking on about who "recognises" the WS or not is navel-gazing idiocy on both sides part. I'll close by adding out of pure pragmatism, I am favourably disposed to Moroccan claims since I'm sure WS would end up a shitty little nasty coup-prone corrupt rentier dictatorship a la Mauretania on its own, while the Moroccan government has started to reform in ways that are moderately encouraging. But if Polisario won, eh, no big deal. This noted again so my position on this whole issue is transparent. collounsbury 12:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thank you for telling your positions francly. Some times I had to laugh while reading your comments in the office today.
  • I am happy that this question is ignored by that big and powerful children, seen the way they "resolve(d)" things in ex-Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Irak (and probably now Iran) etc. I do greatly appreciate that Morocco is now making initiatives and showing that at least one member of this region wants to actively end this story.
  • I will not insist on whether fictive is prejudicial or not, but will simply get back to the facts.
  1. A part from a very limited number of recognitions the "sadr" does not enjoy international recognition.
  2. And, a part from an extremly weared sort of control on a tiny, arid and empty strip this entity does not conrol nor own any of the items of sovereignty.
  • Tragically, when one looks at the article one gets the impression (and visual presentation) of an existing, well established, fully functioning and universally recognised state.
  • Of course you will say it is specified in the text and in footnotes that this is not the case. Well, this is not enough. Format is part of the information and the format is completly wrong here.
  • In this sense I would like to invite you to discuss below my proposal further to Jalil's compromise idea.
  • Now, I am insisting on vesion two: remove all the sovereignty stuff from the sovereignty box as they are 1) totally disputed, and 2) non controlled by the so called "sadr". And put them in the article body/sections, where they can be explained as objectivity and neutrality require.
  • Lets get concret and move on. The current version has been developed by pro-polisario militants and it is simply ridiculous and a shame for wikipedia.
Thanks & Regards - Yours wikima 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Jalil' compromise

Jalil, thanks for your compromise idea.

all,

  • I think you compromise version needs to be more developped in order to be more neutral.
  • I would suggest to:
  1. Put every thing that is disputed (map, territory, demographics, capital etc.) under a spearate section/box entiteled disputed
  2. Make clear that all these things are under Moroccan control.
  3. Make clear that the "sadr" is mainly in exile, lives in Tindouf, and only goes to some arid empty parts of WS that it claims to control for ceremonial and propaganda reasons.
  • If you don't see what I mean I can try to develop an example in a test page.
Thanks - wikima 19:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An even better alternative:
  • Take all the sovereignty items from the box (because they are dipsuted and the "sadr" has no control/use of them) and put them in a section in the main article. This way we can have more space to comment and to precise where things stand "excatly". E.g. population: 1) A part only is under control of the "sadr" and 2) they live neither in Laayoune nor in Bir lahlou but in Tindouf in Algeria. The box however shows the total approx. number of all sahrawis with a footnoe that none reads.
  • You can think the same for the territory etc.
  • I think this is the best way to edit towards a neutral and explanatory article.
Cheers - wikima 07:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All,

  • Ok, it's the same again. We start a discussion, then no further reaction/interest
  • The POV is there since a loong time for this reason.
  • I will wait until next thursday (01 of March). If no reaction I will start re-editing the article
  • If you're intersted, decisions need the be done after discussion.
wikima 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish is no longer an Official Language

I have a question ?, why does people keep adding the Spanish language as an official languge of the country, when in fact Spanish has declined as an official language. The current census no longer mentions the Spanish language as an official. The current official language of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is Arabic. Arabic is the national language; 'not' Spanish. If you guys want to add the Spanish language, put it in the 'Language' section, not in the Info-box, because it sounds and looks as if you people are really desperate to mention the language. --Ramírez 11;13 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Arabic Speaking Country

Substantive question: what is the general standard for inclusion of disputed territories in "X speaking countries lists"? I don't see particular prejudice in including WS in the Arabic speaking list if generically disputed territories are included in such lists. (The question arises re Palestinian Territories, although this is structurally moderately different given non-annexation / "re-integration." It would be nice to have an objective survey of general practice. (collounsbury 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • The "sadr" is not a country. It is a governement in exile.
  • The arab world and the arab speaking world and their institutions & related (Arab League, Islamic Conference etc..) don't include "sadr", and don't recognize it.
  • If you include this entity, you should be ready to include also any other militant organisation into the srab speaking countries list. And this would look absurd and bizarre.
Thanks - wikima
Listen, I am well aware of its status. The question of substance is how are similar situations treated in this hodge podge of silliness that is wikipedia.
As for the Arab League recognising it, well who bloody cares? It's not as if the Arab league is the end all.
However, indeed on your last point, yes, if ever militant organisation that has a toe-hold here and there gets included, then one does reach the point of ridiculousness.
ERGO: my question of substance, in the interest of fair mindedness - How are similar situations treated here (ex Palestine as different situ re non-Annexation? We answer that, we answer then whether there is fair reason to include or exclude.
collounsbury 10:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Tighter Editing - Removal of Trivia

I have attempted to introduce tighter editing and less of a contesting mish-mash of competing partisan commentary. I remain displeased with the ending, a bunch of special pleadings "oh SADR's been invited to X, Y & Z meaningless mtgs." An extensive meeting by meeting laundry list is special pleading on the part pro-Polisario members, and is langue de bois. It suffices to have a phrase such as "SADR continues to militate for effective and wider recognition, and retains support in XXX bodies, being invited and attending international fora such as (briefly list a few, no need for partisan "oh Morocco objected" - at most conclude with "often/sometimes/usually over Moroccan objections." collounsbury 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Capital

The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic have no particular legitimacy over Western Sahara, therefore no part of Western Sahara belongs to the SADR 'de jure'. That's include the main city, El-Aaiun, which cannot be the capital of the SADR, since the city is controlled by Morocco.

The SADR could claim that its capital is Moscow as well. --Juiced lemon 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Claiming that the SADR have no legitimacy over Western Sahara is POV, as it is a matter of dispute and there are claimant states that contradict that assertion. Whether or not Western Sahara belongs to the SADR de jure is a matter of law, by its very definition, and the law of the SADR is that El Auin is the capital. See also Peking (Beijing) as the de jure capital of the Republic of China, even though it is controlled by the People's Republic of China. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The law of the "sadr" does not matter to Wikipedia.
  • They can write in their "constitution" or in the sand that they own the moon, de jure or de facto, this does not matter
  • But you can report that they do such claims (to own the moon).
  • This is how it should be presented with all their claims.
  • But you, you want to build a virtual republic for them in Wikpedia.
  • And this, is not ok!
wikima 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What? Does the law of the Republic of China matter? Are you going to address what I actually wrote instead of your cartoonish bombasticism? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are talking about the fictive republic "sadr"
  • And you devert to China as usual.
  • I don't know the case of China, I don't think its is comparable (China has terriotry and is a diff story) and I don't want to study 199 countries of the world just to understand this Tindoufian entitiy!
  • Please stuck to the topic.
Thanks - wikima 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy It's funny you should say "stuck [sic] to the topic" when you inserted yourself into the conversation and added nothing to it. It's also funny that you would admit your own ignorance on a topic and then immediately declare that you think it's irrelevant. Wikima, your post doesn't actually get us anywhere in the discussion of this article's content. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
koavf, please do everyone a favor and listen to what was told to you by many editors: Spare all of us all the comparisions between WS and completely different situations: ROC, Palestine, ...etc. The SADR is a self-declared gvt in exile for the Polisario Front. it has self-declared Elaiun as its capital and has self-declared .... many other things. This is an encyclopedia which tells the readers what is factual and encyclopedic. No one cares about what they self-declare in what you called the Law of the SADR. So please keep the facts and the self-declarations separate.--A Jalil 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure What is the point of that? Do you honestly think that I'm going to stop making analogies? Jalil, you're wasting your time and mine. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think neither the long block nor the short blocks had any effect on you. I honestly think you enjoy having rows with people and that you can not edit in a different cooperative and POV free manner. You can continue to give the comparisions you make. They simply make no point. Remember it when you make them again. --A Jalil 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow This is not the first time I've written this, hopefully it won't be the last: if you have some kind of beef with me, please take it to my talk page. This is the talk page about the article "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic." You've added nothing to discussion about this article, Jalil. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That's include the main city, El-Aaiun, which cannot be the capital of the SADR, since the city is controlled by Morocco."

By this logic, you would have no articles mentioning the SADR at all (it wouldn't surprise me if this is actually what many of you want). We should merely state the facts - if the SADR says its capital (uncontrolled or not) is El-Aaiun, then that's what the article should state. If you want to qualify it (as it was, IIRC) with some note that the SADR does not control it, that seems entirely fair. ¦ Reisio 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this logic, if the "sadr" says it controls the whole world, we will ignore the facts and do what "sadr" says.
  • This is the absurdity of this thinking.
  • The "sadr" is not even recognized by the UN, so it can say what it wants (or what the Algerian generals wants is to says), it will remain a self-declared gov. in exile which is hosted in Tindouf by Algeria. For geopolitcal interests of course.
  • In that sense, Laayoune, in a POV free version, is no capital of any thing.
  • And "sadr" has no capital because it has none. Laayoune is simply under Moroccan control, sorry for Polisario and their sympathisants.
  • These are basically the facts, if you are open minded.
  • If not you will continue fighting the reality and trying to build a virtual republicin Wikipedia.
wikima 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating isn't doing. I suggest a visit to wiktionary.org. ...and the rest of your bullets are even more nonsensical than usual. Y'know, nobody else really reads this stuff except our little group, so please don't feel you have to type up this gibberish on my account - I can just assume you did and we can skip it entirely. ¦ Reisio 03:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • reisio, do you have any thing to add to the exchange/discussion/debate/dispute?
  • If not please be kind and save us from your comments. They're always the same.
Thanks very much in advance - wikima 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly - my initial statements were logically sound. Cancer just shouldn't be ignored. ¦ Reisio 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Moutains and molehills. I am going to side with the people who wish to note that Layoune is considered by the entity to be its legal capital, which it's defacto capital is the desert camp. Wikima, let it bloody well go, this is terribly tedious. collounsbury 11:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Further point: the present phrasing on the de facto does strike me as POV. Symbolic and temporary. Leave it at de facto without the editorial commentary. collounsbury 12:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Info Box and Content

Taking my comment of 14 July supra as point of departure, let's stop the idiotic edit warring and get down to nuts and bolts. I don't see the harm in the fuller info box as such (although phrasing on many points strikes me as special pleading and can and should be made neutral). For the anti-Polisario crowd, merely yelling that XYZ is inapplicable to a gov in exile doesn't quite convince me. What is the standard? How does this compare with other situations / usages? The Indiana kid may be fundamentally unreasonable in editing, but in this instance I do not see fair play. (collounsbury 16:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm here to stop a potential edit war here. I see that this edit war results in out of NPOV. Justin, I know you want the POLISARIO to get the Western Sahara independant. I'm also like you, giving moral support to the POLISARIO. But please, this is an encyclopedia, so please make this neutral and put our opinions aside. Putting the previous map is showing support to the POLISARIO. But on the other hand, you people like Abdul Jalil also don't seem to be neutral too! Abd Jalil keeps saying that SADR is a government-in-exile. Well, I think this is just PARTIALLY true, even though the government to situated in Tindouf of Algeria. At least they claim control to the Free Zone! In order to reach the NPOV, I've marked yellow in the Western Sahara map for the Free Zone and uploaded it to the Commons, so that I use it here. Hope that my map is the MOST　NEUTRAL one. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 09:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad map, I suppose to addresses several issues. I don't see the issue re government-in-exile, the area controlled is ... well bloody wasteland. Effectively, Polisario is in exile. That's not really POV as it doesn't say anything re being legit or not, merely they don't effectively occupy the claimed country. In any case mate, glad to see a rational and even-handed input. collounsbury 11:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Second, since no one seems to want to do comparatives, I took a look at what Tamil Elaam, Kosovo and Kurdistan pages are like. It appears things are all over the map with respect to practice here - surprise surprise partisans are editors. In the near term it would seem reasonable to keep the larger info box, but with respect to information to dial back on, Jalil et al can certainly and should certainly raise issue on POV wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collounsbury (talk • contribs) 11:37, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Could someone please correct the flag, someone got a little overzealous and changed it/deleted the correct flag. -- Al™ 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please tell me if an encyclopedia means propaganda because Wikipedia seems to recognize the so-called SADR more than the UN and any other state. The so-called SADR couldn't dream of a better electronic lawyer/protector. Many thanks Wikipedia for your hard commitment ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is SADR government based in Algeria?

The article indicates that the SADR government controls some of the country...but also says the SADR government is based in Algeria. Its President and PM live there. If the SADR government controls some of the country, why is it not based in that part of the country? I have not researched this question. I think some one with knowldege on the topic should explain the reasons in the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SADR and Algeria The SADR is based in Algeria as a product of the humanitarian crisis instigated by Mauritania and Morocco's invasion of Western Sahara. The temporary capital is in Bir Lehlou and the SADR regularly holds it congresses there. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. The article may need to bring this out more. Essentially, my understanding from your response is that that the Office-holders are based outside the Free Zone because most of the Sahawari people are based in Algeria. I might add this to the article. Redking7 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
of course for the record the response by Kaovf is partisan and skewed. More neutrally characterised, Polisario effectively lost the armed conflict with Morocco, and has taken refuge in its back-bases in neighbouring Algeria, which has backed Polisario for a variety of reasons at once ideological and state interest. The controlled perimeter is something of a no-man's land of unviable desert. As a practical matter, Polisario sympathisers and tribal allies have little choice but to live in Algeria given the limited terrain in the Sahara, the security situation and their effective dependence on Algeria physical support for maintenance. (collounsbury (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for that too User: Collonsburu. It would be preferable for this too to be brought out in the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, trivialities like whether .ma is used for "Western Sahara" websites generates edit wars. I personally don't have the stomach for editing that and then seeing the partisans on both sides haggle back and forth endlessly. (collounsbury (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is for special protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.32.249 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Lehlou and Tifariti

The Bir Lehlou article starts with "The Bir Lehlou... is a small town in north-eastern". Similarly, Tifariti also starts with "Tifariti is a small town or village located".

What are their populations? Do either actually have permanent populations?

Ideally, some description of economic and social conditions in these places would also be provided.

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent populations Accurate census data in Western Sahara is basically non-existent. Bir Lehlou and Tifariti both have permanent populations and infrastructure (e.g. the UN has a base in the former.) I do not know more than that off-hand. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply User:Koavf even if it adds no new information or sources. As for the base being evidence that Bir Lehlou has a "permanent poulation and insfrastructure", the base is not supposed to be permanent! I suspect there is information out there. It seems likely the UN has counted how many people live in the village or perhaps the Sahrawi goverhment has. Still, I don't know so if any one does, please post a reply. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language

I've deleted the name of SADR in Spanish because it is not in any way an official language. The Sahrawi constitution is clear on that: "Article 3 : La langue arabe est la langue nationale officielle." That's the French text but I doubt it needs transaltion. Just in case!: It says Arab is the offical language. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC) And some people from ancient tuareg hassaniya Mauritania before coup d'etat spoke berber languages Th spanish is only the traditional main diplomatic lingua franca. Also is spoken a bit French like elite cultural Language,and more than French English like International Language.[reply]

sadr irq rasd

el clerigo muqtada al sadr da lugar to avoid any confusion

Former Spanish colony

Per the policy section Wikipedia:V#Burden of evidence:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Waiting for the above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby challenge whether you are in fact User:FayssalF—please provide a reliable, published source using an inline citation which supports this information as it is presented in the article. ¦ Reisio (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reisio, I am really wondering if you are addressing my concern seriously.

The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) (Arabic: 'الجمهورية العربية الصحراوية الديمقراطية‎) is a partially recognised state which claims sovereignty over the entire territory of Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony.

Could you see my point? The former Spanish colony is Western Sahara (see Spanish Sahara). Note that both articles are already under Category:Former Spanish colonies. I am wondering if you could say that the Palestinian Authority is a former Ottoman and British colony instead of Palestine (the territory).
The burden of evidence lies with who adds or restores material. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed addressing your concern seriously… by reverting you. There is no consensus as to whether the area in question is merely "Western Sahara", "Morocco", or "the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", & the word "former" is imprecise. Consider Category:Former British colonies—was the "United States" a British colony? Did it occupy the same space as the equivalent of British colonies? What was the area between being British colonies and the United Staties? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem very helpful. While I can see an argument, merely reverting is not addressing the the concern. (collounsbury (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lucky for you there's a discussion over here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) there's a discussion reisio but one still has to wonder why it takes a few reverts to get to it. Anyway, I am not interested in discussing something lame that would take more than a few days. Thanks for all anyway. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're as responsible for that as I—but if you didn't care, why'd you bother? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am busy Reisio with other important stuff and have no time for this and I believe reverting is not in my books. I don't remember the time I edit warred. But sincerely, try to improve your edits summaries at least. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…you don't remember last week when you reverted the same edit four times in a row, prompting this talk page section? ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current ministers

I've removed a section that listed some two dozen current ministers. If you want to put it back into the article, please do so and justify its inclusion here. 98.71.213.249 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic&oldid=299851281"