Talk:Economy of Western Sahara

Untitled

No more time ago some person erase the table with; the dirham, de facto and others dates. Please CRC or some person put this away.

Mass deletions

Why? Why would you delete sourced, relevant info? Why would you put this as a main article in a Morocco category? Why would you revert to redirect links? This is nonsense. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why, would you continue to insert the term "occupation" when you know WS is not occupied, but disputed?. Why would you insert completely wrong propaganda stuff from Polisario sites to Wikipedia and calim it as "relevant info"? Why would you contradict yourself when you know Morocco has international treaties (The EU fishing Accords) involving WS, and exports fosfats to European countries (Spain), and elsewhere from WS, and exports many other goods from WS to Mauritania and the Canary islands (Spain)?. Why inspite of all that you claim this is not related to Moroccan economy?. This is nonsense.--A Jalil 07:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupation again Western Sahara is, in fact, occupied, which you know as a matter of fact. Name something that I have inserted that is wrong, and I'll amend it. How did I contradict myself? I never claimed that it is not related to the Moroccan economy; you're either lying or a fool. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The version you revert to is full of contradictions and inaccurate POV.

• First, you describe the moroccan held part as occupied while the rest as administered by the SADR. There term administration refers to the local government of the population. This applies to the Moroccan rule in the Southern provinces but not to the Polisario in what you term as the free zone. There is not a single sign of administration of the SADR on the east of the wall. Administration does not mean having some guerilleros here and there.
• the effective Moroccan contracts of oil prospection are not to be compared with the more media-oriented shows done by the Polisario.
• It is ridiculously contradictory to say that the Moroccan government gives tax breaks and other incentives for people to move to the Southern Provinces and at the same time saying that incomes and the standard of living in these same provinces are below the Moroccan level.
• Sahrawis peddling in markets selling handicrafts is not found even in the most virulent Polisario sites, but unfortunately found in Wikipedia.
• So, these absurdities are cristal clear POV, and are cleaned from the article. As to name calling (liar, fool), it is a sign of having nothing substantial to say.--A Jalil 11:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions and POV?

• This is neither a contradiction, nor a POV statement. To have an article about the economy of, say, the West Bank and not mentioned that it is occupied territory is lunacy.
• Why not? Why would you delete any reference to them? Why do you not want readers to see this information?
• No it's not; what makes you say that?
• I don't understand this point.

I still have a big problem with the deliberate deletion of sourced, relevant material. If you care to explain how this makes the article better, I'm willing to read it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Western Sahara is not the Weste bank. No room for comparision. the contradiction stands.
• The SADR "contracts" are mentioned. I did not delete them contrarely to what you alledge. This is a proof that you blindly revert without even bothering to read others edits. It reads "The government-in-exile of the Polisario front has signed oil contracts of its own[1], but there is no practical exploration." and "SADR Oil and Gas exploration, Licence offering" in the external links.
• It is a contradiction just open your eyes well and read it again.
• If you don't understand it yourself, why on earth do you insist on inserting it in the article.
• Well, do read first the article and say what you don't like about it, and I will address the issues you raise.--A Jalil 08:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

West Bank, etc. I cannot believe we are going through this again/still.

• That's nonsense. Here's a perfect comparison: they are both Arab territories. Here's another: they are both occupied.
• You are correct; I did not see that you retained this information because, for some reason, you moved its placement in the article. I suppose the real question is why you would move it and delete the controversial nature of the Morocco-EU fishing contracts. (That is to say nothing of the fact that you are linking to a redirect and have some bizarre capitalization in your draft.)
• Again, it's not a contradiction: they get incentives to move there (e.g. sugar costs 1/5 of what it costs in Morocco), and they are pretty poor (e.g. the unemployment rate is much higher than in Morocco.) I don't think you understand what a "contradiction" is, because this is not an example of one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Non Encyclopedic Trivia

The Activist PR type listing of very Scandinavian grocery store that ostentasiously indicates it's not buying X, Y or Z from Western Saharan territories is not encyclopedic. Nor are unverified emails cited by activist websites. It's trivia. A paragraph discussing cessation of business deals where W. Saharan products are suspected to be involved is encyclopedic. The present text is Agit-Prop. (collounsbury (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

WSRW

This article has multiple issue, primarily its not WP:NPOV and the sourcing is to one site Western Sahara Resource Watch[1] which describes as an activist group to campaing against corporations working for Moroccan interests. Gnangarra 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Energy sources

Why would an area where solar energy could be developed profitably continue to produce ALL its electricity from fossil fuels?

However, in the article, we read:

Desertec is an energy project launched in Munich in 2009, consisting on the use of solar and wind technology in the Sahara desert, with the aim to provide that energy generated to African and European countries.

In April 2010, a Desertec spokesperson confirmed to the English newspaper The Guardian that the project will not be placed in disputed Western Sahara, saying: "We want to confirm… officially that our reference projects will not be located in the West Sahara. When looking for project sites, Desertec Industrial Initiative will also take political, ecological or cultural issues into consideration. This procedure is in line with the funding policies of international development banks."

Now if any other new electricity generator contributes from renewables at least 1% of the electricity that is consumed in Western Sahara, the electricity consumed there is no longer completely (100%) drawn from fossil fuels. Hasn't that happened yet, in the face of the SDGs? I suggest that this article should be updated. MaynardClark (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can resolve all the above, but I inserted new statistics from the CIA's World Factbook, which was the best I could find for that part. And I removed the associated warning atop the article . FloridaSammi (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

References

COI warning

I read through the above, and I'm still not sure about the precise COI concern--is the worry that someone who posted here was a member of the activist group cited several times in the references? I'm going to try to remove some of the activist citations and replace them with news, but in any case it seems a little redundant with the neutrality warning. So I moved the latter up to the top and removed the former for now. I will work a bit more to try to improve this issue, too. FloridaSammi (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I removed some of the stuff without a 3rd-party, newsy source. I also cited stuff to news wherever possible, like the battles over offshore oil and fishing. I rearranged a bit as well. But I definitely don't think I've solved the neutrality problem, which is a bit above my paygrade. Hopefully an expert will someday address this one, who's familiar with the tangle of issues and prepared to represent both sides. It seems fairly involved. FloridaSammi (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)