This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Coats of arms of Western Sahara is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Western Sahara The calling code issue revolves around a third party (the ITU) assigning calling codes to a geographic entity. This is about a symbol created not by any objective authority to grant symbols nor an industry standard, but what has gained currency in a discussion of what constitutes a coat of arms for the region of Western Sahara. That is to say, the difference is, there is a regulative body that gives out calling codes; there is not one for coats of arms. Western Sahara has had a coat of arms since February 27, 1976. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You are conradicting yourself.
I am not talking about the currency or calling code as such but about the fact that you admitted that WS is not "sadr" and is not the Kingdom of Morocco.
No matter if currency, coat or arms, or wather, WS is not "sadr"
And if WS is not "sadr" then coat of arms of "sadr" is not coat of arms of WS !
This is the basic of of logics that you are rejecting and refusing to admit.
WS is a disputed territory. And as such it has no coat of arms.
WS The scope of the article entitled Western Sahara, by a vote on Wikipedia, is to discuss the geographic entity, not a political state that administers or claims it. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is not a region, it is a government in exile. The Kingdom of Morocco is also not a region, but a semi-constitutional monarchy; both of them are legal persons. The coat of arms presented here is the only coat of arms created to represent that territory, hence, it is the coat of arms of Western Sahara. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
My (admittedly vague) recollection is that Polisario created this for "Western Sahara" before the SADR was declared. That makes it nice and even more complicated, doesn't it? :p ¦ Reisio 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a big contradiction in the article itself: It is titled: coat of arms of WESTERN SAHARA, but the body of article starts with: The coat of arms of THE SAHRAWI ARAB DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.... A change is needed either to the title or inside the article to be consistent, unless one can say and sign that WS is SADR, which is known to be false.--A Jalil 22:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, whoever did the silly move changed that. ¦ Reisio 01:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If Reisio's comment is correct, that the Polisario cretaed that coat of arms way before the RASD existed, then this should definitely be renamed to the coat of arms of the Polisario front. WS is a territory and does not mean a country, so it does not have a coat of arms, otherwise we can call the coa of arms of Morocco to be also that of the WS. So this is either the COA of the Polisario Front or the COA of the SADR.--A Jalil 17:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
My understanding was that it was made pre-SADR, but for "Western Sahara" - meaning they were still thinking of just take over governing "Western Sahara" from the Spanish. It was for a country, just not the SADR. ¦ Reisio 20:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay You clearly don't know what you're talking about: "In political geography and international politics a country is a geographical territory." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, which makes the SADR not a country, because it is on Algerian soil. And you forgot that the opposite is not true: that a geographical territory (which WS is) is not necessarily a country. I guess you should think before writing, because you are contradicting yourself over and over again.--A Jalil 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You seem to never understand what others are talking about.
If the so called "sadr" is a state then this must be a strange kind of state, without territory, without people (a part from refugees that are kept in camps), wihtout capital, actually only with a piece od clothes that they use as flag.
It is - at best - an exiled government, under full control of Algeria, busy with the same people at the power since 30 years, and whom the Sahraoui refugees really don't like. And nothing more!
Once again I cannot believe that I have told you this at least a half-dozen times before: the SADR does have territory, it does have a population, it does have a capital, and all flags are made of cloth. The fact that you repeat these untruths as fact shows a real lack of good faith on your part; you're blatantly lying. It is an exiled government, just like the Republic of China; that doesn't stop it from being a state. See also Flag of Tibet, instead of Flag of the Central Tibet Administration. This government-in-exile governs no territory and is completely unrecognized. To move this page to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic would be 1.) inaccurate, 2.) inconsistent, and 3.) out of step with naming conventions. If you keep on repeating untenable assertions like "Sahraoui refugess really don't like [the SADR]," you're going to have to provide some kind of evidence to be persuasive at all. All the Sahrawis I've met like them, and the international community recognizes Polisario as the genuine representative of the Sahrawi people. And, again, you already know all this, if for no other reason than the fact that I've told you several times before. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Tibet is the name of a former country. Therefore Flag of Tibet is the flag of that former country (like flag of the Soviet Union). Western Sahara is not a country and has never been a recognized country with that coat of arms. --Juiced lemon 12:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? That a coat of arms can't be named after/for a state that hasn't been as well-realized as some others? I hope you realize how many flags of current states are derived from flags used by revolutionary movements. ¦ Reisio 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope you realize how many flags used by losing revolutionary movements have been forgotten. --Juiced lemon 18:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but how many of those flags had to suffer you misnaming them? :p ¦ Reisio 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Compromise How about we avoid the entire political scenario about who-controls-what-and-where and we just discuss the coat of arms itself in its own article? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved.Miniapolis 17:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose to a simple "move" : The current form resulted from a RfC + describing the CoA of the SADR as the sole ones for Western Sahara is highly PoV since Western Sahara is a disputed territory.
Edit: However, I would support the merging but only if it gives the same weight to both coats of arms of the SADR and Morocco, per WP:NPOV (the previous version being clearly POV).--Omar-toons (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)edited --Omar-toons (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This article (or rather the old Coat of arms of Western Sahara article which was merged into this one) has allays followed the precedent of the Flag of Western Sahara article, there is no reason to treat the articles differently. That's why the result of the original RFC on the Flag article also applied to this article, and that's why I'm revering the unilateral split per LOCALCONSENSUS. We came to a consensus on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara about a mouth ago that there isn't enough content to justify separate WS and SADR articles.
The proposed title clearly far better matches the scope of the article, and with the split undone it no longer describes "the CoA of the SADR as the sole ones for Western Sahara", and clearly acknowledges the Moroccan claim to WS. In the absence of any reason for the current title other then to preform a LOCALCONSENSUS unilateral split, this page should be moved. I'll invite the participants of the merge deduction and Omar's after-merge deduction th this RM.
Omar, your unilateral split has been reverted by two people (including me), and you have not explained your neutrality concern with these articles. Please go back to Talk:Flag of Western Sahara and explain your neutrality concern, so that I or someone else might be able to address it. Telling us "The merge made it POV" tells us nothing, we need to understand how you think think the merge made it POV if we are to have any hope of addressing your concern. Like NickCT said "Can you help me understand what the issue is by putting in really simple term what you feel is wrong with the article as it currently stands?" Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
The move was undone by the admin that proceeded to it (and who launched this discussion), because it was presented as uncontroversial, while it is clearly not.
I just noticed your post and that you re-did your unilateral split. As you can see from my post bellow I was going to try to edit the article to partly address you concern, but I can't do that because your split, there's nothing to edit. It was the move, not the merge, that was undone by the admin, and that was on on procedural grounds because you objected to the move. As for there's "NO CONSENSUS" there's, myself, User:Charles Essie, User:koavf (Talk:Flag of Western Sahara); User:Dzlinker who reverted your unilateral split. As for the RFC see Talk:Flag of Western Sahara#UNMERGING ARTICLES, both User:Noleander and User:NickCT have said that they don't see how merge was contrary the RFC, and anyway your RFC concern is moot because you invited everyone in the original RFC to your after-merge discussion 20 days ago. You started an ANI over this, started Talk:Flag of Western Sahara#UNMERGING ARTICLES, it's been 1 month 5 days, sense the Flag merge (a few days less for the CoA merge), yet you're the only one who objected to the merge (aside from one person at the ANI who's objection was purely procedural and now moot). It's 4-1, we have consensus. I'm glad your discussing and explaining your concerns, but you can't go around unilaterally insisting on your version despite the opposition of 4 people, especially after being reverted twice by two different people. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Question - @Emmette Hernandez Coleman - As I see it, the "the precedent of the Flag of Western Sahara article" was that all flags used to represent Western Sahara should be presented in the article. Is that your understanding? So I take it if we apply the same presendent then, the Coat of arms of Western Sahara should be an article that includes all coat of arms used for Western Sahara. Is that your understanding? If it is, I'm not sure I understand why you'd do this. Doesn't deviate from the precedent? NickCT (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty much my understanding. I did that because this is the article about all the WS CoA's. It's simply poorly named because Omar objected to the original move so that he could preform his split. The split was reverted by Dzlinker and me, hence the poor title of this article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Qualified Support - I agree this article should probably be moved to Coat of arms of Western Sahara, but at the same time the article to should be rewritten to give more equal weight to the two coat of arms presented. NickCT (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I would also support it only if it gives the same weight to both coats of arms, which wasn't the case as the article was written after the "move" --Omar-toons (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
@Omar-toons - That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I think you say that to Emmette Hernandez Coleman in a positive and cooperative way, we can probably work together to make the appropriate changes, rather than treating WP like a battle ground. NickCT (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment This article should give as much weight and coverage to the Morocco CoA as the Flag of Western Sahara does to the Morocco flag. When I merged the articles (per the precedent of Flag of Western Sahara) we ended up with the big SADR CoA in the SADR infobox, but among the tinny auqaredly placed Morocco CoA from the old Coat of arms of Western Sahara presto-disambig. This seemed like a bit of a POV problem to me, but I didn't know what to do about it, everything I thought of would have caused as many problems as it would have fixed.
I think I have an idea now. I think I can rewite (or partly rewite) the lead, model it after the lead of Flag of Western Sahara, and at least bring the Morocco CoA's weight up to the level of the Morocco flag on Flag of Western Sahara. This probably wouldn't completely address Omar's concern, but it should at least mitigate it. Then maybe go from there, perhaps make a few more tweaks that might help.
We have consensus that the SADR flag (and by extension SADR CoA) articles are better as sections of the corresponding WS articles. As for major clean up, and perhaps giving more weight to the Morocco flag/CoA, that's really a different (albeit related) issue. This article really should continue to follow the president of "Flag of Western Sahara", which right now doesn't give that much converge of the Morocco flag, but that can centenary change. Get that article to have substantially more or equal weight for the Morocco flag, and this article should definitely follow suit. I do have some concerns about that, primarily organizational, but secondary regarding undue weight, but that's something we can discuss at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
@Emmette Hernandez Coleman - re "I think I have an idea now. I think I can rewite (or partly rewite) the lead, model it after the lead of Flag of Western Sahara, and at least bring the Morocco CoA's weight up to the level of the Morocco flag on Flag of Western Sahara. This probably wouldn't completely address Omar's concern, but it should at least mitigate it" - Yes. I think that's exactly right. Omar-toons probably won't thank you for being considerate and trying to address his concerns, so let me. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't forgot to follow WP:CWW if you import content form the flag article, an easy way to do that would be to put "some content copied content from [[Flag of Western Sahara]]" in your edit summery. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but the article Flag of Western Sahara is still POV. I think that we should discuss how to make the CoA article neutral instead of duplicating the (bad) Flag example. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok Omar-toons. Why don't you start that discussion by telling us in clear language how you think we can work to make the CoA article neutral. NickCT (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
So in other words you admit that you don't like what happened at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, so you want to WP:FOURMSHOP (in addition to the ANI) and form a separate WP:LOCALCONCENCESS at this article, because it is your personal option that Flag of Western Sahara is a "(bad) Flag example". Not acceptable, I'm reverting. I don't recall someone such as User:Reisio coming in here before the merge deduction and redirecting "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" to "Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" on the baces that Flag of Western Sahara was a "(bad) Flag example". I'm sure plenty of people thought that the flag article at the time was a "(bad) Flag example", but this article has always followed the prescient of (or as you put it duplicated) Flag of Western Sahara, "(bad) Flag example" (in some people's opinion) or not. If there are problems with the flag/CoA articles we can discuss and fix them, but that doesn't mean you get to unilaterally ignore the opposition of four other people. Also none of the 6 people (other then yourself) who participated in the merge of after-merge deduction saw a POV problem, so it (and this article) are not "clearly POV". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Another ridiculous proposition, there is simply no "Coat of arms of Western Sahara", as there was no "Flag of Western Sahara" (Article in wich consensus has not been reached, although some users claim that). Also, as part of a series of articles about coat of arms, it had to have the same structure as the rest of coat of arms articles, logically to avoid double standards (or perhaps are you going to made a "Coat of arms of Palestine" article with the Palestinian and Israeli flag? I dont think so, but that's what you should do if you want to be neutral and consequent.). And to Emmette Hernandez Coleman, please stop lying talking about a fake consensus that had never been reached, neither here (2 oppose, 2 support), neither in the "Flag of Western Sahara" article (with several POV, unbalanced, etc...tags). Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
PD: I just have seen that apart from the article Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, there is also a different article named Coat of arms of Western Sahara. That shows clearly that some users here have politically-driven intentions and bad faith, although they claim to be neutral. If they were neutral, logically they would work on the "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" article, intead of trying to merge the two articles and messing it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The time to contest the merge would have been a mouth ago, not to wait a mouth and then contest it. As for consensus, see Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Merger_proposal, and the subscuent sections, along with the dusictions Omor has started, hes the only objector (aside for a purely procedural, now moot objection at the ANI). Coat of arms of Western Sahara is just a POV fork of this (mis-titled) article. This merged article did have a WS title till Omor had that move revered on the procedural grounds that he objected to it, that started "Coat of arms of Western Sahara" as a POV fork of this one. At this point it would be easyer to split this, and the flag article, article into two. If you want to do that I suggest you go to talk:Flag of Western Sahara and make a proposal that these articles be split.
As for see Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara#Request_for_comment:_Article_content. The result was 3 The page should be an article detailing all the flags used to represent Western Sahara with the relevant information (i.e. Flag of Morocco, Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Regional flags of Western Sahara, Historical flags used in Western Sahara)" and that's what this article does. Flag of Kosovo does the same thing, tough it doesn't worry about giving the Serbian flag equal weight. And lastly, if Israel had assigned a CoA to the Palestinian taratories, or even separate CoA's for the west bank and Gaza strip, I would say that they should be sown on the Coat of arms of Palestine article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
That other article was deleted as a POV fork, this is the WS CoA article. The result of the RFC was 3, and there is no concession to change that. You made this post about 10 days after the merges, you could have contested them then. Why wait until now, almost two mouth after the merges, to contest them? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was move to pluralized form of current name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Coat of arms of Western Sahara → Coat of arms of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic – The title doesn't seem to be in line with the conventional assumption that states have heraldry, while territories do not. The current article is clearly aiming to describe the SADR heraldry, but it exists under a different name due to some political argument. Furthermore, the SADR naming of this article had existed for 7 years (!) before it was proposed to be renamed in 2013 by a user, no longer active on wikipedia, and gaining only tiny majority in favor by 3 against 2 votes. --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC) GreyShark (dibra) 20:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: nominator does not appear to have looked at the content of the article. The introduction to the article clearly states that the Western Sahara is disputed between the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Morocco. The article itself has a section for the COA used by the SADR and a section the regional COA used by the Moroccan regions of the Western Sahara. A better move might be to change the title to something like 'Coat of arms used in Western Sahara' which would recognise the contested status, however I wouldn't be surprised if that would also receive significant objections. Ebonelm (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
oppose To start, whether the proposer of a past move is active or not is irrelevant to the content of the move. The conclusion of that discussion was to move the article, a conclusion that went unchallenged. So, that argument is consequently invalid. The subject area lead is Western Sahara so I don't see why that should change. All sorts of stated and non states have heraldry so I question whether the move is familiar with this topic area. The intent of the article is clearly to show the heraldry of Western Sahara. I would like to note that the article deals with both the SADR and general heraldry of this area so the move is not appropriate under the current content conditions.Labattblueboy (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.