Talk:Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic/Archive 1

Confusion
There is a general confusion between WS (a disputed territory) and SADR (a self proclaimed exile government over this territory), this government and its flag are not unanumously internationally recognized as the ligitimate government and flag of the territory. Daryou 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

===>This is irrational Not only did you move the page without consensus, but you moved it to an ungrammatical name. Stop it. Justin (koavf) 22:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that consensus in that case means simply YOU??!! and what ungrammatical name are you talking about???!!!!

===>No It means discuss it before you move it, and see if people agree with you; of course. It would be "Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" if anything. See Flag of Republic of China and Flag of the Republic of China. Justin (koavf) 23:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Move wars
Is this the discussion everybody's referring to? In that case, here's my argument for keeping the page:
 * This name is common usage, everywhere outside of Morocco (where it's probably not referred to as the "Flag of the SADR" but the "Flag of the pseudo-RASD" or something like it).
 * This is the official name of the flag.
 * This flag is used to signify WS as a nation also by non-Polisario-members. (Khat al-Shahid, Baba Sayed, Sahrawis in the Occupied Territories, lots of foreigners, map books, vexillological pages and literature, etc.)
 * There's a perfectly fine redirect that covers the possibility of someone writing "Flag of the SADR" instead.
 * I'm growing sick and tired of fighting over this nonsense. I won't point my finger at anyone, but I would appreciate it if everyone could please just try to constructively edit and expand the pages instead of devoting their time to witchhunts to eliminate the name of the "enemy" from every conceivable page. Justin's WikiProject is a great opportunity to do this, and we should use it as best we can to fill in blank links. Arre 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This name is common usage, the official name and used to signify WS as a nation by polisario and its supporters, this usgae isn't approved by the UN neither by 80% of the world countries. And I completely agree with you in the last point. Daryou 23:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * you're not responding, or you're not understanding me. "The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is NOT common usage. that is the formal title for the government that the polisario has established for western sahara. the polisario and their supporters tend to say "western sahara", just as you would say "morocco" and not "the kingdom of morocco". and so does everybody else, both supporters and detractors - outside of morocco - without necessarily intending it as a political statement. Arre 23:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You say : "...so does everybody else, both supporters and detractors (!!!!) - outside of morocco - without necessarily intending it as a political statement". I say that the sources using this term WS to refer to SADR are ill-informed or pro-polisario biased. There is a fact: the UN, the Arab league and 80% of the world countries don't recognise the SADR and its flag. Daryou 23:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Daryou


 * You may think they are ill-informed, but you will not find many references to the "Struggle for independence of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", but many to "Struggle for independence of the Western Sahara". I would also advise you to google (or better, image-google) the phrase "Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" compared to "Flag of the Western Sahara", etc. Feel free to try any variations (SADR, RASD, removing "the", etc). You will invariably find that this flag is most commonly referred to as the flag of Western Sahara.


 * Your point that the flag is not universally as a state flag recognized is irrelevant. Neither is the flag of Palestine, as the flag of a sovereign state - but it is universally known as the flag of Palestine (yet to become the State of Palestine). Many Israelis still refer to it as the "PLO flag", but that is a minority opinion of one of the parties involved, just as is the Moroccan government POV in this case.


 * As for the increasingly unpleasant edit summaries, the meaning of the word "consensus" is that everybody agrees on or at least accepts an opinion, not that one side gets the last word. That means you can't have consensus without reasoning with Koavf, and he can't have it without reasoning with you. Or me.

Thank you, Arre 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The wide use of a term doesn't mean it is correct, especially for an encyclopedia. We discussed the matter many times, we had to carry on a survey about a similar conflict, remember: It's first of all about the neutraliy of WP. WS is a disputed territory, this flag is the flag used by one party, and 'completely refused by the other, saying that this flag is the flag of WS is a pro-polisario stance.
 * There is a major difference with the palestinian caes, Israel doesn't claim officially Palestinian territories as a part of its territory.
 * I completely agree with you about your last point. It is clear that the 3 of as are somehow biased to a party or an other. You know that under the Moroccan POV this republic doesn't ever exist neither its flag and this page shouldn't exist at all. You see that I'm not pushing Moroccan POV, I always try to make neutral edits. However I'll be happy if we have third party comments in this affair.
 * Best regards. Daryou 08:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Common usage is important to an encyclopedia. About the survey, it was not similar (this is about naming something we agree on what it is, that was about fundamental disagreement on what we were discussing) - and, as you may recall, I didn't agree with the majority opinion.
 * No, but this is - I repeat - about the flag. Until 1993, Israel recognized no national rights for Palestinians, and only referred to the flag as the "PLO flag". It is still fairly common there. The Palestinian flag was even banned as a symbol of a illegal organization in Israel, the same way that it is punishable by long jail sentences to display the Sahrawi flag in Morocco or Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara. However, English Wikipedia is not under Moroccan jurisdiction, and should conform to the established use of language in the English-speaking world. Where - and I again repeat - the flag is normally called the flag of Western Sahara. (And this is just one of the reasons I listed above.)
 * Pushing the Moroccan POV is the only thing you do on Wikipedia. Arre 09:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Best regrads. Daryou 12:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that correct and neutral are more important to an encyclopedia. And you see that you didn't agree with the majority opinion, since you are always pushing the Polisario POV.
 * WP isn't under polisario's jurisdiction either and should conform with neutrality principles in this conflict. WP isn't polisario.wikipedia.org.
 * Here is the Moroccan POV: "Western Sahara (Moroccan Sahara) is an integral part of Morocco". Did I say it in any of my edits?


 * Yeah, that must be it.
 * No, it isn't.
 * No, you didn't.

I think that's as far as we'll get until you respond to my arguments. I described my case for why calling the flag of Western Sahara "Flag of Western Sahara" is both correct and neutral, and, since you challenged that, also common usage. Arre 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This flag can't be neutral since it is refused by one party of the conflict.
 * The use of this flag as the flag of WS can't be correct since the UN, the Arab league and 80% of the world countries don't recognise the SADR, and since 50% of the countries that recognised this entity cancelled of froze this recognition.
 * This flag is common usage in pro-polisario and ill-informed sources. I checked reliable and neutral sources (UN, Minurso, BBC, CIA fact book, ...), and you know what? they don't use it.
 * Best regrads. Daryou 12:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the flag is a flag for national independence (as the SADR or something else). But the article can be neutral, by describing the flag as the Flag of Western Sahara. That's its name, and it doesn't imply anything politically. Morocco doesn't even recognize the name "Western Sahara" (it's "Moroccan Sahara", the "Southern Provinces", "The Sahara" etc), so I can't see how it would be offended..
 * Okay, so you don't think the Palestinian flag is a Palestinian flag either?
 * Of course they don't use it. But the question is, what do they call it?
 * About "reliable and neutral sources", I recommend you check out Flags of the World or similar vexillological pages. They seem to know their flags. But what do I know, maybe they're also part of the all-encompassing Polisario-Algerian conspiracy that seems to have conquered the web. Arre 13:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Best regards Daryou 14:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, the article can be neutral, by describing the flag as the flag of SADR. And who said that Morocco doesn't recognize the name "Western Sahara"?
 * I think that state of palestine is recognized by more than 50% of the world countries, by the arab league and have an observer seat in the UN. Plus, I said before that Israel don't claim now the palestinian territories as a part of its territory and doesn't contest the use of this flag. The situation is completely different.
 * They don't use it, so they don't have to name it.
 * About "reliable and neutral sources": the BBC and CIA fact book for example don't use the flag in the WS pages, but they do use flags in the France page for example.


 * 1. Well, Morocco does not use the name Western Sahara, and pro-Moroccan commentators often brackets it. The government consistently uses one of the names I suggested. Do you have any other information? (If I'm right, I guess you're going to try to move the Western Sahara page also... since common usage doesn't matter, but getting eccentric Moroccan naming conventions onto the pages apparently does.)
 * 2. No, the situation of the flags is exactly the same. Palestine is not recognized by a majority of the world's governments; if it was, it would be a state now. What Israel claims about the territory is completely irrelevant. The point is that Israel did and many people still do, claim that there is no flag of the Palestinians. Do you think Wikipedia should have cared about that in 1992, or that it should now? And I ask again: what do YOU think -- is it the Palestinian flag or not? If you yourself use the expression "the Palestinian flag", which I suspect you do, then I suggest extending the same kindness to the Sahrawi flag -- however little you agree with the right to self-determination of the Sahrawis.
 * 3. Then why do you bring up these pages? What are you trying to prove on how to name the flag, by bringing up pages that do not name the flag, because they don't use the flag?
 * 4. See 3. And also, please see the page I referred to, which specializes in flags. And, please, any other such page you can find. They both use and name it. Arre 14:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to prove with that?! I live in Morocco, the term WS is accepted to refer to the territory, but the flag isn't; You are completely wrong. And I didn't and I have no reason to move the WS page so I don't know what you are talking about.
 * The state of Palestine is recognized by a majority (more than 50%) of the world's governments. WP didn't exist in 1992 so your question is irrelevant. And even if it existed ,remember that WP is first of all a source of information not of moral jugement. The palestinian flag flow now over palestine because Israel accepted it. The flag of SADR doesn't flow over WS because Morocco claims the WS as an integral part of its territory.
 * The neutral and reliable sources don't use this flag because they don't recognise it, do you understand that? If they recognised it they would use it since they use the flags of all the world countries (France, Sweden, ...etc) in their special countries pages.
 * Daryou 15:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * reply to daryou:


 * 1. You can't deny that the standard Moroccan expression is not "Western Sahara". The WS page on WP has been attacked several times by Moroccan nationalists who replace the words "Sahra al-Gharbiyya" (Western Sahara) with "Sahra al-Maghrebiya" (Moroccan Sahara), so there's clearly a meaning to that.
 * Standard expression officially or in usage? Western Sahara is used in Morocco, that is not particuraly an issue. (Collounsbury 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC))


 * 2. Stop it. If the state of Palestine was recognized by a world majority, it would be a state now, since it would win a vote in the General Assembly. It is accepted by precisely 94 states (including, amusingly, Morocco), and there are 191 states in the world total. And the reason the Sahrawi flag doesn't fly over Western Sahara is not because of what Morocco THINKS, but what Morocco DOES, i.e. jail any Sahrawi who displays his flag. More importantly, I see that you are completely unable to answer the question. That says a lot about the genuineness of your position on this. I'll just put it again, to rub that in: Do you believe that this is the Palestinian flag - or not?
 * 3. It is not relevant who USES the flag. This article WILL use the flag, since it is ABOUT the flag. We are trying to figure out what to CALL it. Please find a web page which backs up your claim about what the flag is normally and factually CALLED, not who USES it. I gave you the world's largest Internet vexillology page, and you're strongly advised to find something similar.
 * (FYI, the Flag of Sweden is known as the Flag of Sweden, not the Flag of the Kingdom of Sweden)
 * Now please respond to what I'm saying. So far we've been talking about different things (status of the flag/name of the flag), and that's not moving the debate forward. Arre 02:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Flag of SADR
Daryou 11:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey!! the standard moroccan expression is "Moroccan Sahara", it's true, however the term Western Sahara is ACCEPTED, is it so hard to understand??!!! The term "Western Sahara" is accepted by the parties of the conflict and is used in the Minurso and UN reports, by then using this term to name the territory is neutral according to WP definition of neutrality.
 * You should read my comments, you'll see that I named it the palestinian flag. I said also that Morocco claims WS as an integral part of its territory so the situation is completely different. WS is a disputed territory and the question of souvereignty isn't resolved.
 * OK, so you don't accept my reliable neutral sources. I took a look to your sources here, and here and you know what? they never use the term "flag of WS" but the terms "flag of SADR" and "flag of Polisario", You should also read the editorial note in that page. I also visited the subnational Moroccan flags page and I found this: "Editorial note: Since the Moroccan government considers Western Sahara as a part of its own territory, it has included it on its administrative divisions structure, wich we reflect on this page and on those linked to it. This does not necessarily imply any partiality on the territorial issue in question, as also doesn't the existence of our page about the flags of sahrawi independentists and RASD". The term "flag of SADR" is also used by Amnesty international, but not the term "flag of WS".
 * I agree with you, the flag of Sweden isn't called the Flag of Sweden Kingdom. However WS isn't for SADR what Sweden is for Kingdom of Sweden, because WS is a disputed territory and the question of souvereignty isn't resolved.
 * Do you remember our dispute about the WS politics template? You accepted without any discussion to add the sentence "The issue of Western Sahara's sovereignty is unresolved. The flag above is the flag of the: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". I wonder why you contradict yourself. I always respected your opinions so let's be consistent, let's stop this discussion and let's move forward.


 * 1. Okay. Some Moroccan commentators evidently feel otherwise, since they constantly put quotation marks around the name, the same way Polisario is often written "Polisario" or even pseudo-"Polisario" - as if that wasn't their name, whether you agree with them or not. I find this tendency to deny obvious realities very annoying, but most of all pointless. Anyway, I don't even remember what I was trying to prove with this...
 * 2. Oh, and Palestine is not disputed, and has a resolved question of sovereignty? Someone please tell the Palestinians! ;-) My point is, that if you agree that one of these nonsovereign nations can have an internationally known (but not formally recognized) flag, why not the other? It is not a question of agreeing with its independence or not, but about agreeing on that it is a flag of Western Sahara.
 * 3. a) I have no problem with those sources, it's just that there are no flags on them. And we are -- peculiarly -- discussing the name of the flag, not where to put it.
 * 3. b) What are you talking about? You can not have failed to see that the page is headed by the big, bold words "WESTERN SAHARA"? The editorial note on the WS page I think is excellent, and we should have something similar on this page. As for Amnesty, they're nice, but not necessarily flag experts. If we want to pick sources at random, I could easily find hundreds of pages that says this is a flag of Western Sahara (again, I challenge you to image google).
 * 4. Giving this flag its proper name on Wikipedia, as "Flag of Western Sahara", would not liberate Western Sahara. However much I wish it were so. In fact, it doesn't imply anything for the question of sovereignty. It is a question of naming practices only.
 * 5. Because the disambiguation we were trying to make would be completely incomprehensible if the page said "Western Sahara's sovereignty is not resolved. Both these flags represent Western Sahara" (it wouldn't be true either, since Morocco doesn't claim their flag represents WS, it claims there is no separate WS).
 * Look, it is all very simple. I agree with you that this is the flag used by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (but not only by it), but that does not mean that that is its name. It's the flag of Western Sahara, as a separate nation or political constituency (not necessarily state). There is no competing Moroccan flag, since Morocco does not recognize the existence of a separate Sahrawi nation, and so there is no relation to the sovereignty debate here. All we say is that this is the flag of Western Sahara, a non-sovereign nation, and Morocco says: it's not valid. Fine! We didn't say it was, we just said it exists. The problem is that the Moroccan government strategy has been, for decades, to deny even the existence of a Western Sahara issue, and all of its manifestations: there was no Polisario, no war, no SADR, no prisoners, no dissidents, no nothing! Lately they've begun reversing this, and deal with the problem, challenging Polisario to a debate -- which is of course the only sensible strategy, if you believe Morocco's claims are valid. This flag debate, and the erasing of the name "Western Sahara" throughout Wikipedia, seems awfully similar. As if closing your eyes could make it all go away. Arre 12:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Naming this flag "flag of WS" can't be neutral since this is not accepted by a party of the conflict.
 * I said many times that the situation is completely different with palestinians. Morocco claims WS as an integral part of its territory, Israel doesn't claim PT.
 * I see. Do they in any time name the flag "the flag of WS"???!!! I think that they named it the flag of SADR or polisario many times. I provided 2 sources naming this flag by its correct name: the flag of SADR, I see that you don't acccept even the Amnesty International evidence!!! I wonder how we can continue this discussion if you don't accept neutral and reliable evidence. It's very simplist to say that they don't know flags!!!!! If you don't trust Amnesty International how do dare to ask me to trust your supposed sources ???!!!
 * This flag isn't the proper flag of WS, it's the proper flag of SADR, Polisario and khat ashahid.
 * I really don't understand what you are talking about. May you explain please? I think that there was one flag (the SADR one) in your last edition of the Politics template!!!
 * I'll be very simple, I agree with you, this flag is the flag of SADR. unfortunally "Western Sahara" is the name of a diputed region, WS isn't for SADR what Spain is for Kingdom of Spain. Saying that this flag is the flag of WS, while this territory is claimed, administred and considered as an integral part by Morocco is a pro-polisario stance.
 * Daryou 18:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Morocco has no say in how non-Moroccan flags are named. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic isn't considered by Morocco to be either Sahrawi, Democratic or a Republic (and possibly not Arab, since they used to refer to Polisario as Touareg bandits :-), but that does not make us change the name of the article.
 * 2. True, but irrelevant. Both are nonsovereign and nonrecognized. Read the question again.
 * 3a. Flag pages: Yes they do, and they named the page "Western Sahara"; i.e. it shows the flag of "Western Sahara". To avoid giving an impression of taking sides against Morocco, they also leave us an editorial note, which I think is good: we should too.
 * 3b. Come on, I said I have no problem with Amnesty. But if we are to use sources that are not in any way experts on flags, but just happen to have the flag on their pages, then my position will score an overwhelming victory in numbers. Just google and find out.
 * 4. And a large number of Sahrawis who are members of none of these groups/states, and sympathizers of all these people. And (this is the important part) a LOT of people who are completely unconnected to the conflict, and only know it as the flag of Western Sahara - a non-sovereign nation. Compare with Flag of Palestine, Flag of Tibet, etc: they are not listed as "Flag of PLO", "Flag of Dalai Lama's Exile Government" or anything like it.
 * 5. Hm. I guess I don't understand you either. Then what templates are you talking about? Not that this is in any way relevant to what we're discussing... but still.
 * 6. I've answered this at least three times now.
 * Arre 11:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Daryou 19:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course Morocco has his word to say since it is a party of the conflict, what are you talking about???!!!
 * No, I think it's relevant. In the WS case, it's about Morocco's struggle for its own territorial integrity.
 * 1) They named the page WS, it's true. What did they name the flag?
 * 2) Do you have a source more notorious and reliable than Amnesty?
 * 3) Sources naming this flag as the WS one are either biased or ill-informed because there is a general confusion between WS (territory) and SADR (self proclaimed entity)
 * 4) I repeat: You have already accepted (there is a link under the word accepted) without problems to add the sentence "The issue of Western Sahara's sovereignty is unresolved. The flag above is the flag of the: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" to the WS politics template. I wonder why you contradict yourself now. You see that it's relevant to our disccussion, because you accepted to name it the SADR flag to comply with WP neutrality principles.
 * 5) Unfortunatly your answers didn't convince me.

This discussion shouldn't even be taking place. Apply WP:NC and use common sense. It doesn't matter whether every single user on WP is convinced, what matters is that it's a.) correct and b.) NPOV. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 20:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I've move-protected the page until the issue has been resolved; if you can't come to a consensual conclusion, request a move and vote on it. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This page should either be moved to Flags of Western Sahara, which shows the flags of the Moroccan provinces as well - see Southern Provinces flags:, , .. or it should be moved to something like Flag of the Sahrawi republic of Western Sahara -- Astrokey44 |talk 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, so here goes: In summary, I can see why some people would choose Flag of SADR over Flag of WS, and vice versa, but I think the problems with either one are so minor that I can't see why it's such a big issue. Flag of SADR is (marginally) "safer" in terms of avoiding POV, and Flag of WS is simpler and consistent with similar articles - I can't decide which is more important in this case. The important thing is that who does or doesn't use or recognise the flag is spelt out in the text, and if that's ok, I don't think the title should matter that much. I guess that means I lean towards Flag of WS. JPD (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is about a flag, not a territory.
 * 2) The flag is definitely the Flag of the SADR, who claim the territory known as Western Sahara, and hence claim that it is the flag of Western Sahara.
 * 3) It is not usual to use full names such as SADR in these situations. The SADR, when treated like a sovereign entity, is often referred to as Western Sahara, as this is the territory they claim. However, this is arguably not NPOV.
 * 4) However, the flag is intended to represent the territory known as Western Sahara, and it used to represent it.
 * 5) The flag is therefore definitely a flag of Western Sahara.
 * 6) Whether or not the flag is officially the Flag of WS (the territory) depends on recognition of the SADR and its claims, which we must be neutral on. In particular, one relevant POV is that the flag is not an official flag of WS.
 * 7) The Flag of Christmas Island and Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are not official either, so does that matter?
 * 8) Morocco rejects the existence of a flag used to represent WS, rather than contesting this particular flag. In other words, there isn't an alternative flag, so in some sense, this is the Flag of WS, and the dispute is simply over whether it needs to exist.


 * Thank you for your opinion, I see that we all agree that "flag of SADR" is correct and safer to avoid POV. You mentioned that the name of a page should be consistant with similar pages; I have the example of Flag of the Republic of China. And to respond to your question, I think that neutrality of WP is more important. Best regards. Daryou 15:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As counter-examples we have the widespread use of Flag of Western Sahara all over the web, and Flag of Sweden, Flag of France, Flag of Morocco - and more to the point, Flag of Palestine, Flag of Tibet, Flag of West Papua, etc; all of them mainly used by non-sovereign, non-recognized exile governments.


 * There is, as I see it, no conflict with that name, since the flag's name is not the reason Morocco rejects it -- it rejects any flag of WS. There is simply no competing WS flag, as I said above, and so this is -- as JPD puts it -- the flag of Western Sahara. However, I also agree with him, and others, that this is an utterly ridiculous issue for us to fight over like this. The main reason I'm doing it anyway, is because a) you're obviously wrong and I can't help responding :-) and b) I'm tired of what I think is a campaign by you to erase even the NAME of Western Sahara from Wikipedia; since that is seemingly your only activity on WP, I know that it won't stop here, whatever the outcome.


 * I won't vote on this, I'd rather let you have your way -- although I would consider it poor style to make an edit like that without any consensus. Before deciding on that, please let Koavf comment too, if he wants to. He's been just as involved as I have with this. Arre 03:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arre. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Answers to Arre
Best regards. Daryou 21:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give me some reliable and neutral sources, more reliable than AMnesty international for example?
 * I presented the example of Flag of the Republic of China to prove that there is precedent in WP and that the title "flag of SADR" can be used to comply with WP principles of neutrality.
 * This page should either be named Flags of Western Sahara, which shows the flags of the Moroccan provinces as well - see Southern Provinces flags:, , .. or it should be moved to something like Flag of the Sahrawi republic of Western Sahara as requested above by Astrokey44
 * You said that I'm obviously wrong, to be honest I think that you are completely wrong and biased.
 * You said that I have a campaign to erase even the NAME of Western Sahara !!!!!??????, I don't know what you are talking about, can you prove that I want to erease the name of WS?
 * You begun personal attacks, I just defended my self.


 * Daryou, give me a break now. Do what you wish with the page. Just let Koavf and anyone else who is interested say what they think first. It is obvious I can't convince you if you think that your single China reference is enough to overturn just about every other flag-naming precedent on Wikpedia, including the flags of corresponding exiled or non-recognized governments. As for the "Southern Provinces" flags, they do not only cover Western Sahara. They reach a long way into South Morocco as well, so that would be totally inappropriate. And anyway, we need a name for THIS flag, and that isn't solved by grouping it with others. I again point you to FOTW, and if you're interested also to the Google exercise I described above. About the "campaign" of stalking me and Koavf from article to article, deleting and erasing, but never making an addition of your own - well, if you're not aware of what you are doing on Wikipedia, I recommend you take a look at your own edit history. Arre 22:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to overturn all other flag pages, I just want to make the SADR flag page more neutral.
 * So you don't accept any of my propositions, I see that's simply your strategy to refuse all my edits and propositions.
 * We've already adressed the FOTW issue. I've done the Google exercise and I didn't find any neutral and reliable source naming it "the WS flag".
 * Are you kidding on me? YOU and Koavf are stalking and reverting all my edits without any exception, and you are completely pro-polisario biased. And saying that I don't make any addition of my own is wrong, you should yourself take a look to my contributions. Daryou 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just file a RfC and let the rest of the community have their say... &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 21:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to, feel free. I'm just going to leave it up to Daryou. Arre 22:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll post it. Daryou 23:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The status quo: Three people in favour of the current name, one in favour of "Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democrat Republic", and one in favour of either that or "Flags of Western Sahara", which is the same as "Flag of Western Sahara". I agree that we could add the Moroccan flags for the territory, but as regards the name, there's definitely no consensus for moving it, and the current title is definitely NPOV (since Morocco doesn't even acknowledge "Western Sahara" as a name). &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The current title is definitely not neutral since Morocco does acknowledge "Western Sahara" as a name, I think that there is a little mis-information :), the term WS is used in Minurso and UN SG reports which are accepted by both sides of the conflict. Daryou 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV marker
Can this be removed now, if I have understood correctly that there will be no move? Arre 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This flag isn't the flag of WS, there is a problem of neutrality and occuracy of this article. Daryou 17:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Another RFC & suggestion for more permanent solution
Such a shame. At least four editors with a strong interest and much knowledge on a small but important part of the world. Yet for some reason it has continued to be infighting rather than cooperation. The big question you need to decide is simply whether to use the name "Western Sahara" and "SADR" interchangably, or whether they constitute seperate entities. Although voting is evil, this might be worth to put up for a vote, and put the vote up in RfC. Because without this decision, any and all progress on the topic is bound to be reverted by somebody else. The Minist  e   r of War   (Peace) 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Input appreciated. We all agree that they are not interchangeable terms, although sometimes they can be. But in this case, Flag of Western Sahara is the name of the flag, and the most reasonable name of the article - the same way Tibet and the Tibetan exile government are not politically interchangeable, but Flag of Tibet is a perfectly acceptable name. Arre 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends. Tibet is quite a bit larger than the Tibet Autonomous Region. Then again, Flag of Chechnya is the official Russian flag, and not the flag of the resistance. Still, i think i have an idea as to what a fair criterium might be. Indulge me for a sec with some additional questions.
 * 1) Was the flag designed by Polisario, or has it been used before for the region (perhaps vying for independence under Spain)?
 * 2) What is the Moroccan official term for the part of WS Morocco currently controls (Moroccan Sahara? El Aaiún? Southern Provinces?)?
 * 3) What is the Moroccan official term for the part of WS Morocco doesnt currently control (if there is one)?
 * 4) Does Morocca claim all of WS or part of it?
 * - The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC response
This is one of those rare Wikipedia places where the talk page is more interesting than the article. There's certainly room for expansion at the article and most of the points of contention among the editors would make good material in a suitably encyclopedic presentation. Even if this overlaps somewhat with the main Western Sahara article, the unofficial status of this flag and the government it represents is relevant here. So is the Moroccan government's position on the matter and the degree to which this flag and the government it represents receive international attention. Where is this flag flown? Has it been flown continuously or with interruptions? Have any newsworthy events arisen from its use (violence, diplomatic action, demonstrations)? Wikipedia readers are curious people. Rather than debating here on the talk page, bring the information onto the article. Regards, Durova 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Answers Minister of War: Durova:
 * 1) I don't know if the flag was used prior by the Harakat Tahrir.
 * 2) Morocco has split the territory into five provinces, two of which are entirely in the region, and three other which are partly in Morocco.
 * 3) Don't know.
 * 4) All of it.
 * 1) In Tindouf, the Free Zone (region), and occasionally in Moroccan-controlled territory, but it's punishable by law.
 * 2) Continuously since the establishment of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Feb. 27, 1976)
 * 3) Someone was arrested yesterday for it, as a matter of fact. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Answers/comments to Koavfs answers


 * MoW:
 * 1. It was designed by Polisario or at least first used in an organized fashion by Polisario, when fighting Spain (sometime 1971-73).
 * 2. Moroccan Sahara, Saharan Provinces or Southern Provinces are all used. Not Western Sahara, since this doesn't signal Moroccan ownership. That is one reason why Flag of Western Sahara and Flags of the Southern Provinces (as a sub-category to Moroccan provincial flags?) are both viable, but should be kept separate.
 * 3. Don't think there is one, and there are few if any mentions of the area at all due to restrictions on debate.


 * Durova:
 * 1. And in numerous other places and circumstances, including in all countries who recognize the SADR.
 * 2. Earlier than Koavf says: without interruptions or changes to the flag since invented (i.e. before 76); but continuously as the flag of SADR since its proclamation of independence (760227).
 * Arre 18:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some comments
 * The term Western Sahara is also largely used in Morocco even if the official name is "Moroccan Sahara", using the term Western Sahara isn't punished by law :).
 * The Moroccan flag flows contiously in Moroccan controlled parts, over every school, every court and every office. I agree with Arre and Koaf, the use of SADR's flag is punished by the law in Morocco. Daryou 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the term Western Sahara isnt officially used by the Moroccan government, and there is no single flag being used for Moroccan Sahara, then why would this name be POV? Certainly i dont see any reasons to include Moroccan flags here, because that wouldnt be their name would it; it would be Flags of Moroccan Sahara. If they would have one single Flag of Moroccan Sahara then it might be different.

If you look at Flag of Chechnya, it show the official flag, along with several old ones (including the ones used by the rebels). They link to the (still non-existent) Flag of Ichkeria for the rebel flag, and as Ichkeria is a non-offical term, it is not POV to use it.

Of course, the same reasoning could apply to the article on Western Sahara as well (is the flagbox argument still raging?), but it really doesnt. There, Western Sahara refers to the region as a whole, and the region is simply subdivided (much like Tibet doesnt use the Flag of Tibet on the article).

Writing an article about a certain POV does not necessarily mean the article cannot be NPOV. This article could be named Flag of Wonkaville and it would still be controversial. But this doesnt mean the term Wonkaville itself is (except in the vicinity of Chocolate Factories i daresay).

Just out of curiosity: what is the penalty for brandishing the flag? The Minist  e   r of War   (Peace) 10:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a fixed penalty. You're sentenced for insulting the state or something like that, or just taken by the security agencies. Up until the late 1980s, you simply died, no fuss about it (or "disappeared"). Later, up until the 1990's, people were sentenced to up to 15-20 years for it, but nowadays its more likely months or years. And since the demonstrations and riots of May 2005 began, there's been too much flag-waving for the authorities to control anyway. Check out Aminatou Haidar's liberation or the burial of Lembarki. Arre 11:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

===>It's arbitrary It's contingent on who you are, how many NGO's are around, what else you were doing at the time, and who arrested you. -Justin (koavf), talk 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, the term Western Sahara is accepted and used by the two parties of the conflict to refer to the territory, this term is used in UN SG and Minurso reports which are accepted by the 2 parties. The term WS is perfectly neutral.
 * Arre provided this link, as you see this page provides us different historical flags of the WS territory: Spanish, Moroccan and the SADRian which is called "flag of SADR". Amnesty international call it similarly
 * The flag that I see in this page is the flag proposed by one party of the conflict and completely refused by the other. Referring to this flag as the "flag of WS" instead of the "flag of SADR" is definitely not neutral since it is an acceptance of polisraio's POV and a refusal of the Moroccan one. The question is should WP take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict just because there is no specific Moroccan flag for the territory other than the Moroccan flag itself? Daryou 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * WP doesnt take any side. Flag of Tibet does not imply that WP actually endorses a free Tibet; it's just the most reasonable place for the flag to be.
 * Likewise, the absence of a flag for Western Sahara (and even renaming it to Moroccan Sahara, does kind of forfeit the Moroccan claim to this name. For instance, Belgium could choose not to recognise Flag of the Netherlands; however, as the Netherlands still use the flag, it would still be found in the same place. Alternatively, if Belgium had a region within its borders called "the Netherlands", there would certainly be a disambiguation page necessary somewhere.
 * My personal preference would be to expand this page somewhat, to include the controversy (like the other RFC said, lets include all the disagreement on the actual page), and to make a disambiguation link to a new article on Flags of Moroccan Sahara. Perhaps you could make that page Daryou? It would certainly contribute to making this page less controversial as well imho. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 09:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However, under the Moroccan POV : Morocco has a region within its borders called "Wastern Sahara", this sovereignty is recognized by 2 dozens countries. Daryou 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, as i have understood it up until now, they dont have a region called "Western Sahara". They have Ad Dakhla (Oued Eddahab), Boujdour, and Es Smara as well as parts of Tan-Tan and Laayoune, but they dont have Western Sahara.
 * Still, I agree with you that info on those flags should be added. Would you be willing to help in such an article? The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 20:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I meant that the territory is an integral part of Morocco according to this one. There is a very big problem of neutrality and accuracy as for the title of the page. This flag isn't the own flag of WS but a flag proposed and designed by Polisario and completely refused by Morocco. This flag is recognised as the flag of WS by only 47 countries. The UN, the Arab league and 80% of the world countries don't recognise SADR neither its flag. This title is nothing but a pro-polisario stance, and don't comply in anyway with WP principles of neutrality. If you want to maintain the title "flag of WS", the Moroccan flag should be included or at least the Moroccan regional flags. Otherwise, a specific page under the title "flag of WS" and devoted only to the flag of one party of the conflict:SADR/Polisario (which don't control the whole territory) is completely biased and inaccurate. Cheers.Daryou 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Precedent by Flag of Tibet pretty much says that your take on this is moot. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think that the title Flag of Tibet isn't neutral, the title Flag of the Republic of China surely is. We all know that there is a "neutrality" policy in WP. We all know that WP is written by different authors making every article different from the others. I just have one question: Is there any "precedent" policy in Wikipedia? If there is such a policy I'd like to read the WP related page. Cheers. Daryou 16:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Ooh, bad example The Republic of China doesn't exist according to the People's Republic of China. They are rival governments of the same (similar) political entity (namely, China.) So, your example actually doesn't support your assertion, and in fact contradicts it. -Justin (koavf), talk 19:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. Daryou 20:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I repeat my question: is there any "precedent" policy in Wikipedia? If there is such a policy, show me the WP related page. Cheers. Daryou 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

===>I'm glad you asked There is a precedent, and Minister of War described it above. There is no policy, as far as I'm aware other than the relevant Most Common Names policy. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I have some questions and comments:
 * What do you mean by common name in this case? Since reliable sources like Amnesty international call it the flag of SADR.
 * Is the Naming conventions (common names) more important than Neutral point of view policy?
 * Should WP take a pro Polisario stance in this conflict just because you think that "flag of WS" is the "most common name"?
 * "Flag of Taiwan" is the common name of the Flag of the Republic of China. Why this title isn't used?
 * The convention says: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". Actually there is a conflict since there is many other flags of the region: the Moroccan flag, and regional flags of Morocco.
 * Daryou 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Answers
 * It is a common name becuase if you do a Google search, you'll get thousands more hits on "Flag of Western Sahara" than you will "Flag of (the) Sah(a)rawi Arab Democratic Republic."
 * Neither is more important than the other; they are both policies. All Wikipedia articles are to be written from the NPOV, and all articles are to be named according to certain conventions.
 * This is an asinine question.
 * The flag of the Republic of China is a flag of China, not Taiwan, so it is inaccurate to call it the flag of Taiwan. Furthermore, there are proposed flags of Taiwan.
 * Those flags are not flags of Western Sahara, they are flags of parts of territories that make up and overlap Western Sahara. There is no other flag of this region. -Justin (koavf), talk 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While the Google search "flag of Western Sahara" gave me only 872 (less than your thousands more hits), the key word "flag of Taiwan" gave me 20200 hits. Apparently the term "flag of Taiwan" is more commonly used than flag of WS however the title is still Flag of the Republic of China.
 * The title of this article is completely biased and inaccurate. It's a pro-polisario and anti Moroccan stance.
 * Your answer was asinine, I see that you refuse to answer my question.
 * See above.
 * The Moroccan flag is one.
 * Daryou 21:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Who's ignoring who?
 * The flag of the Republic of China is a flag of China, not Taiwan. Do you understand what I'm saying here? I gave you a little search exercise and you completely ignored it. What you actually did was irrelevant to what I suggested. You didn't actually prove anything.
 * How is the article biased? The consensus is that it isn't.
 * Okay.
 * Okay.
 * The Moroccan flag is not the flag of the region Western Sahara. It is the flag of the region the Kingdom of Morocco. Hence, it is the Moroccan flag. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The term "flag of Taiwan" is largely more commonly used than the term "flag of WS", however You recognize that the title "flag of Taiwan" isn't accurate, by then you recognize that the "most common name" argument isn't strong enough to vindicate your claim to maintain the title "flag of WS".
 * How the title isn't biased? It uses the title "flag of WS" to refer to the flag of one party of the conflict only. This title is a pro-polisario and anti Moroccan stance. Are you trying to convince us that this title is accepted by the other party of the conflict?
 * I repeat my question: Should WP take a pro polisario and anti Moroccan stance in this conflict?
 * Actually the Moroccan flag flows continuously over most of the territory, it's the flag used by the other party of the conflict. To comply with WP neutrality principles the Moroccan flag of WS must be displayed in this page.
 * Daryou 23:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Read carefully The so-called "flag of Taiwan" is not intended to be a flag for the island of Taiwan. It existed before Taiwan was ruled by the Republic of China, as their flag over China. The flag on this page is intended to be the flag of the geopolitical entity of "Western Sahara" and there is no other flag that is intended to represent it. Do you understand how these are inherently different? There is no such thing as "the Moroccan flag of WS," since the flag of Morocco is not a flag of Western Sahara, but a flag of the Kingdom of Morocco. I'm not going to continue to argue in circles indefinitely, and I'm not going to play into some kind of semantic tricks about whether or not Wikipedia should be biased. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read carefully: I completely agree with you, this isn't the flag of Taiwan, it's a flag of China, it's true. However the common name of this flag is "flag of Taiwan". According to your "common name" argument the title should be "flag of Taiwan", though this title is inaccurate: you see that the "common name argument" isn't strong enough and you don't accept to use it in the "flag of ROC" page. To follow the same reasoning the "title of WS" is inaccurate and pro-polisario biased, this title contradicts with WP principles of neutrality since it's a pro polisario and anti- Moroccan stance: this title mustn't be used even if you believe that it's commonly used. Daryou 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

===>There are several policies and conventions, actually I only bring up that one because it's germane. This is the flag of Western Sahara. There is no other flag which is a flag of this territory. Consequently, this is the appropriate title for this article. I'm still not buying this bias argument, as the title simply refers to a vernacular, colloquial understanding of the naming, just like all of the other (non-technical) articles. The bias argument is especially weak considering the fact that there is a disclaimer at the beginning of the article, and I don't know of any other flag-related articles with such an introduction. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen!! Surely you must both see you are moving in circles. We have all read the same arguments all over again. Having posted an RFC, it would be nice if you would actually listen to the sound advice Durova has given. What point is an RFC if you dont take the comments seriously? There are two ways out of this: either we try to gauge what direction the consensus is going, or you ask for a Request for Mediation. If you cant agree upona name for the artcile, then try to agree on this decision. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 07:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC follow-up
The editors here seem to be quite knowledgeable about the subject. Trouble is, the talk page is expanding instead of the article. The point here is not to agree on some absolute truth but to write an informative article based on mainstream verifiable sources. Toward that goal I recommend the following:
 * Draw up a list of important points and major controversies regarding this flag.
 * Organize the article around these points.
 * Agree upon a neutral introduction for each subtopic.
 * Each side present its own position with references.

Try this? Regards, Durova 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your intervention. I understand your point. Actually there is a disagreement about the article's title. There is a region called "Western Sahara", this territory is disputed between Morocco and Polisario which proclaimed the SADR. Morocco thinks that this territory is Moroccan, Polisario thinks that it should be independent and governed by the SADR, the UN don't recognise neither the Moroccan sovereignty nor the SADR, the UN are now mediating this conflict and are trying to solve it through a referendum. The flag that I see in this page is the flag proposed by one party of the conflict (Polisario) and completely refused by the other party (Morocco). I suggest to change the title of the page into "flag of SADR" to comply with WP neutrality principles. Koavf claims that the title "flag of WS" should be maintained advancing that there is no other specific flag of the region and that the name "flag of WS" is commonly used. I demonstrated that the "common name" argument isn't relevant since this argument isn't accepted by Koavf himself to name the "flag of ROC/Taiwan" page. The question is: should the title be pro-polisario and anti-Moroccan biased just because this title is believed to be commonly used and that there is no specific Moroccan flag for the whole territory?!. Cheers. Daryou 16:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

===>The flag of SADR is an arbitrary name that contradicts convention This is also the flag of the political party Polisario Front and a breakaway nationalist group, so it is in actuality supposed to represent at least four distinct things: a territory, a government in exile, a political party, and a social movement. Calling it any one of these is arbitrary, and all things being equal, we should choose the name that is most common, according to a common-sense Wikipedia convention. The ROC/Taiwan naming is totally irrelevant to our discussion since the flag is the flag of a government of China, and furthermore, there are flags that are proposed or have been used over Taiwan. These conditions are not the case here. In addition to that, see Flag of Tibet, or Flag of Palestine, or Flag of West Papua, etc. You would be contradicting common sense, convention, and precedent (and even an apparent consensus on this talk page) for the demands of a single editor. Incidentally, this editor's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to simply edit articles to present the Moroccan point-of-view on this conflict. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself -- I concur with what Justin said. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 22:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Me too. I may add that all the four entities Koavf refers to as using the flag (and I believe there may be more than four) calls it the "Flag of Western Sahara", nothing else. Arre 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The RfC didn't express this as a title controversy. What name does the United Nations use in its mediation? One solution would be to go with that. Another solution would be to use the Polisario name (since this is the side that uses it) and state in the introduction that this is the flag used by one side in a disputed territory. The article about the Spratly Islands is a pretty good example of a NPOV examination of a territorial dispute. Durova 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you and others for commenting. I believe this silly flag fight is basically a continuation through other means, of older Western Sahara-related disputes, mainly involving me, Koavf and Daryou. There is a fundamental disagreement on what Western Sahara is, and how the subject can be dealt with. Daryou argues that since the territory of Western Sahara is not yet a sovereign state, there can be no such a thing as a distinct Western Saharan identity or separate politics (and consequently, no flag). He believes that any acknowledgement of this on Wikipedia would be to promote an independentist viewpoint. I on the other hand am very interested in these same Western Saharan politics -- which certainly exist, and include, without being identical to, the politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. It is similar to how Palestinian politics encompasses the politics of the PLO, and both are closely related to the politics of Israel -- but all three remain separate and separable subjects. Daryou's position would thus equal (in my opinion and analogy) deleting any information on national Palestinian politics, and instead categorizing all information under either "Israel" or "PLO", with this as the "Flag of the PLO" instead of "Flag of Palestine". (No other similarities between the conflicts implied.) I'm sorry if this is a long answer for a short question, but it's been going on for some time now. Any new input that might break the deadlock is greatly appreciated.
 * The UN has no name for this flag, as far as I know (and it has no relation to the flag whatsoever).
 * Your second solution is what Koavf and others, including me, propose, in line with how similar flags are treated on WP. It is also the way the article is now, and how it was created way back when.
 * Arre 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Daryou 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are facts:
 * 1) Western Sahara, is a territory disputed between Morocco and polisario.
 * 2) polisario is an independentist movement arguing that this territory should be independent.
 * 3) SADR is an exile government self proclaimed by the Polisario, it's recognised by 47 countries only.there is 45 countries which cancelled or froze their earlier recognition of this entity.
 * 4) Morocco controls most of the territory and claims that it is and was historically an integral part of its territory.
 * 5) UN don't recognise neither the Moroccan sovereignty, nor the SADR, nor its flag. The UN uses the term "western Sahara" to refer to "a disputed territory"
 * There is no comparison between WS and Palestine because there is a very important difference: Morocco claims WS as an integral historical part of its territory.
 * The UN have no name for this flag since they don't recognise the SADR.

Would an analogy with China and Tibet be more appropriate? I suggest surveying international territorial disputes and modeling this article after the closest analogies. Also, try a Google search for how major news organizations referred to Namibia and Eritrea before they gained full independence. Best wishes. Durova 05:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I understand your point, however there is no closest analogy since all territorial disputes aren't similar. Plus, there is no "precedent" policy in WP (unless someone shows me the related page).We all know that there is indeed a "neutrality" principle and the still unanswered question is: is this title pro-Moroccan, pro-polisario or neutral?. And what do you mean by the Namibia and Eritrea examples? Is WP a source of reliable and neutral information; or is it instead an organ of moral judgement and a tool to promote the cause of separatist/independence movements?! Daryou 17:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Differences, similarities vis-a-vis Tibet and Western Sahara. Similarities: Differences: So, Tibet is applicable in some instances, contradictory in others. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have been/are under military occupation.
 * Feature large settler populations.
 * Have a government in exile.
 * Had some suzerain relationship with the occupying power prior to the current status.
 * The SADR is recognized as a legitimate government.
 * The SADR actually administers territory.
 * The Sahrawis had no uniform ethnic identity prior to colonization, nor a central authority (outside of the Hassaniya dialect, bedouin lifestyle and similar dress.) Tibetans have looked to the Dalai Lama as a religious and temporal authority for centuries.
 * WS was colonized, in Africa, and is a member of the African Union, one of whos primary values is the inviolability of inherited borders. Tibet was never colonized (prior to 1950.)
 * Tibet existed as a kingdom with different borders throughout different periods of time, and the term "Tibet" can apply to several overlapping geographic entities. Western Sahara, as a product of colonialism, has precisely-defined borders.
 * I realize there's no exact analogy. My hope is that a survey of the best similarities could lead to compromise here.  Best wishes, Durova 03:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Daryou 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "precedent" policy in WP, I mean that all WP articles don't have to be written similarly.
 * Actually there is a "neutrality" policy (see Five pillars)
 * Considering the fact that WS is a disputed territory, isn't the title "flag of Western Sahara" an adoption of Polisario's POV since the flag presented in this page is in fact the flag used by this party of the conflict and refused by the other (Morocco)?
 * Should WP take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict? YES or NO?

===>This is going nowhere
 * There is a precedent, as I've just illustrated. If you want me to change my opinion, you need to present evidence, rather than assertions.
 * No one is disputing that.
 * No, since this flag is the only flag in the world that is supposed to represent this territory.
 * This is still an asinine question; you can't seriously expect us to answer provocations like this. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * IS THERE ANY PRECEDENT POLICY IN WIKIPEDIA? YES OR NO?. Is there any WP policy saying that all WP articles should be similar? If yes, then show me the related page!
 * Is this flag adopted by Morocco to represent this territory? Is this flag used by the UN to represent this territory? Is this flag used by 147 countries of this world to represent this territory?
 * Your answer was asinine (I used your own word, "asinine" means: adj. stupid; resembling an ass, I'm not a natif English speaker but I guess that it was a personal attack, wasn't it?). Can you seriously answer this question? What are you affraid from? Why don't you just say YES or NO??!!!!
 * Daryou 18:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine. If you insist on refusing to discuss or compromise, we can simply call a WP:RM and see what the result is. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Come on You know full well why I won't answer a question like that: you're provoking me, and it's not a legitimate question. I'm not going to be bullyed or coerced by you, and the fact that you continue asking me this over and over again is purely asinine. If you ask if there is a precendet policy, you are asking two separate questions: Is there a precedent (yes), and is there a policy (yes - most common name). I've already told you this several times. You're talking in circles, you're not presenting any new information, and you aren't supporting your position with an argument based on evidence. You're being asinine. -Justin (koavf), talk 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know why you don't want to answer my question. How can this question be a provocation?! Why isn't it a legitimate question to ask if WP should take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict?!!!
 * If I ask if there is a "precedent policy", then I'm asking just one question, and I'm waiting for your response.
 * I don't know what do you mean by "common name", you refuse to apply this principle to the flag of Taiwan page.
 * You didn't answer the question: Is this flag adopted by Morocco to represent this territory? Is this flag used by the UN to represent this territory? Is this flag used by 147 countries of this world to represent this territory?
 * Why don't you just answer my questions without resorting to personal attacks?! Why aren't you able to discuss like a civil human being?! Really odd!!! Your behaviour gives WP a bad name.
 * Daryou 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

===>What in the world are you talking about? I guess I simply don't understand what the phrase "precedent policy" means to you. I've explained that there is a precedent, and I've explained that there is a relevant policy. I honestly have no idea what you want from me. I'm still not going to be coerced by you to answer questions regarding bias - you have no authority over me.
 * I already told you about the Taiwan thing. The flag of the Republic of China is not a flag of Taiwan, it is a flag of China. Of course, there are exceptions to the naming convention, that is why it is a convention rather than an inflexible rule. No one is disputing that.
 * The answer to your question (which I have answered at length) is no. There is no flag proposed or used by Morocco to represent Western Sahara. There is one for the Kingdom of Morocco, there are ones for individual provinces, but there is not one for these provinces together in this geopolitical entity. None. The UN doesn't use this flag to represent this territory. This flag is not used by several dozen states to represent the Sahara. So what? See also flag of Palestine and flag of Tibet, again.
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. I try and I try to discuss these issues with you, and you routinely ignore my questions and arguments, using obfuscation and misdirection. Bear in mind, that as you are criticizing me for some "personal attacks," you yourself make personal attacks at me. You are being a hypocrite, are you not? -Justin (koavf), talk 21:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest mediation
I've done my best to lead this discussion in the direction of compromise and resolution. It isn't headed in a fruitful direction and the courtesy level is beginning to drop. I really recommend against name calling. Perhaps mediation can help. Regards, Durova 02:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * However I think that there is some progress, we finally (Koavf and me) agree upon 2 points:
 * Of course, there are exceptions to the naming convention, that is why it is a convention rather than an inflexible rule. No one is disputing that.
 * This flag isn't adopted by Morocco, the UN and 147 states to represent this territory.
 * There is still 2 unanswered questions, Koavf refuses to respond to the first one and don't understand the second:
 * Should WP take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict? I guess that if Koavf refuses to answer this question and considering the fact that he supports the independence of WS, then his answer is surely: "YES WP SHOULD TAKE A PRO POLISARIO STANCE IN THIS CONFLICT", am I wrong?
 * Is there a policy or a principle or a rule or a convention in WP saying that the articles should be similar. In other words, is there any rule saying that if there is an article named Flag of Tibet, then the title of our page should be "Flag of WS"? If the answer is YES, then show me the related page.
 * Daryou 21:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>This is simple
 * You can assume all you'd like, but there's cliche in America: when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Do whatever you want. I've told you why I'm not answering your ridiculous question, and you can pretend like you just don't get it, or write in ALL CAPS as much as you want.
 * The related page is flag of Tibet. This is exactly what I'm saying. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good. Anyway, according to WP:NPOV the answer is NO: WP shouldn't take neither a pro-polisario nor a pro-Morocco stance in this conflict. It's very simple :).
 * Is the flag of Tibet article a WP policy page just like the WP:NPOV and WP:5P ones?
 * Daryou 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Very good :) Look, there's no reason or justification for you being a jackass. If you don't act inflammatory, and discuss the issue rationally, more people will have charity toward your edits. No one is saying that Wikipedia should have a pro-Polisario bias, so it's irrelevant as a question. Furthermore, no one other than you seems to think this title is inherently biased. So, what you are saying is not germane to the discussion at hand. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy, I agree with you there's no reason or justification for you being a jackass. We finally agree that WP shouldn't take a pro-polisario stance in this conflict. What about the second question? Daryou 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Wow. I cannot believe you. I honestly can't. I just explained how your questions are irrelevant. There is nothing more to be said, and your questions are sarcastic anyway. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't act like this, stop your accusations and try to discuss like a civil human being, is it so hard? And you didn't answer my second one: Is there a policy or a principle or a rule or a convention in WP saying that the articles should be similar. In other words, is there any rule saying that if there is an article named Flag of Tibet, then the title of our page should be "Flag of WS"? If the answer is YES, then show me the WP page dedicated to this policy or principle or rule or convention . Daryou 22:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>That's it. This conversation is over. Clearly, consensus is on my side, and I've made my case. If you want mediation, go for it. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see, you drop out because you don't have any valid argument.
 * There are exceptions to the naming convention, that is why it is a convention rather than an inflexible rule. No one is disputing that.
 * This flag isn't adopted by Morocco, the UN and by 147 states to refer to this territory.
 * WP shouldn't take a pro-polisario stance.
 * And the answer of my last question is: NO there isn't such a policy.
 * By then:
 * The title of the page is: "Flag of WS", however the flag that I see in the page is the flag adopted by one party of the conflict (Polisario) and completely refused by the other (Morocco). This title is by then completely pro-polisario biased.
 * This flag isn't used by the UN and by 80% of the world countries to refer to this territoty. The title is by then inaccurate.
 * Even if the name "flag of WS" is commonly used, this name is biased and inaccurate. WP naming convention musn't be applied in this case because all WP articles have to be neutral without exceptions according to WP:NPOV.
 * Daryou 23:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Great You know, this is why I resent talking with you on these pages. I honestly do. I didn't stop talking becuase I had no valid argument. I do have one, I've presented it, it was persuasive to others. I kept on asking you questions, and you ignored them; you kept on asking me the same rhetorical and sarcastic questions, and I refused to answer them. I provided one link to a government that doesn't recognize the SADR (the U.S.) that includes this flag as the "flag of Western Sahara" so you're out-and-out not paying attention, and distorting facts to fit your syllogism. You've still not explained how this page's name is biased, you've not convinced anyone that is the case, and you assert that this title is inaccurate when a wealth of information and arguments have shown above that it is accurate. Then, you don't offer a viable alternative of what to name the page. It's like talking with a brick wall. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you stop personal attacks?!
 * Which link are you talking about?
 * I explained many times why this name is biased: this title is an adoption of Polisario's POV and a refusal of the Moroccan one. It's a pro-polisario stance in this conflict.
 * I don't know what are you talking about here: "wealth of information and arguments have shown above that it is accurate"!!!!!
 * A viable, neutral and accurate alternative is: flag of SADR.
 * Daryou 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

test vote
I agree with what the Minister said. This is as usual going nowhere. Let's see what people feel about this, instead of having to go to mediation. Sign your name under the heading you generally agree with, or add another one. But be sure to have read the arguments on this page before voting. If there's a strong majority for either side, then let's work from that with disclaimers on the page to satisfy the minority.


 * Flag of Western Sahara is the only possible option
 * -Justin (koavf), talk 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Flag of Western Sahara is preferable
 * Arre 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. Unless, as Yobaranut mentions, Flag of WS becomes a redirect to Flag of SADR. Once there is also a Flags of Moroccan Sahara article, "Flag of WS" should become a disambiguation link. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 12:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is the only possible option
 * Daryou 17:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree: Western Sahara isn't a state but a disputed territory, the question of souvereinty isn't resolved yet and the territory is disputed by Morocco and SADR. Neutrality of WP has priority. "Flag of SADR" is neutral and more accurate because of the sensibility of the situation. Dark side 18:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After giving it a second thought, I don't think there's an alternative to flag of SADR. It is more accurate and informative as to the nature of it, and therefore more NPOV --Yobaranut 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikima 13:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)  -->Flag of "SADR". WS is only a disputed territory.
 * This is my vote. -- Szvest 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is preferable


 * Some other title is best (please indicate)


 * I don't care


 * Comments
 * I must say that the options of the vote are kind of tricky. How preferably is something over another preference? Maybe it will work, but if this vote comes up ambiguous, perhaps we should vote for options a la Talk:Georgia. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Any explanation about why this vote is considered a "test"? -- Szvest 17:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * It says above, it's an attempt to avoid mediation by seeing what the people involved feel about this. I just set it up to see if there was some kind of consensus or at least a general opinion among the participants in the debate. Now, a lot of other people have joined in as well, after Daryou posted messages about this on talk pages of presumed sympathizers. I have no problem at all with that - the more people that take an interest, the better. But perhaps we should scrap the test vote and hold a proper, decisive vote instead (formally posted and all), since this one is no longer confined to those of us who were debating. Then that could settle the issue. Arre 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Arre. It sounds like a good idea. -- Szvest 12:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll on Naming Issue is closed
THE POLL IS CLOSED

The issue at hand is the naming of this article.

Background on the conflict
Western Sahara is a disputed territory on the west coast of Africa. It is partly controlled by Morocco and partly by the indigenous Polisario which supports the government in exile of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Both claim the entirety of the region called Western Sahara, although Morocco officially uses the term Moroccan Sahara. Both sides have several countries backing their claims, but neither is widely recognised.

The flag in this article is a flag used by the Polisario and SADR, but is unrecognised (indeed forbidden to wield) in Morocco.


 * See Also: Naming conventions
 * See also: Neutral Point of View

The Arguments
The poll has three options and everybody is invited to cast multiple votes on the options he/she would be willing to support. This allows for a certain amount of preference to be indicated. Below are a sampling of arguments from the discussion. Some are stronger than others and the number and order of arguments reflect no particular preference.

The current name of this article is disputed because:


 * Western Sahara is the name of a disputed territory, and thus has no one flag.
 * Calling this flag Flag of Western Sahara implies that the flag is the rightful flag of the whole territory, which is POV. NPOV takes precedence over naming conventions
 * In a similar case, the Flag of Taiwan redirects to Flag of the Republic of China.
 * Morocco uses the Moroccan flag in Moroccan Sahara, and several other different flags of different Provinces within the area.

The current name is defended because:


 * Any naming of the article does not imply any POV, simply naming conventions.
 * It is generally known by the name of Flag of Western Sahara. The term Flag of SADR is very uncommon, and the flag should be easy to find in the Encyclopedia.
 * The term Flag of Western Sahara could not be applied to any other flag. There is no Moroccan version of a flag of Western Sahara, save the Flag of Morocco itself, and the Flags of the Provinces in Moroccan Sahara (this article doesnt yet exist).
 * Morocco does not officially acknowledge the very term Western Sahara, so there is no reason why the naming of non-Moroccan flags should be POV.
 * The flag is not pro-Polisario or pro-SADR as it has been used before the inception of SADR and has been flown by Polisario and non-Polisario people
 * There is already a precedent with such articles as Flag of Tibet and Flag of Palestine, which both have similar issues.

The Poll
THE POLL IS CLOSED

Because options two and three overlap, everyone may support multiple options. It is impossible to oppose. The addition of multiple votes means that normal comparison of support votes is not possible. Support for each option will thus be expressed by the percentage of total voters who supported that option. This allows multiple votes to be cast without unbalancing the comparison of the support for each option.

Regardless of the outcome, it is unavoidable that the articles would need a tag at the start of the article signalling there are other flags relevant to the region of Western Sahara. Because of the desirability of external comments, the poll has close Monday February 27 at 10:00 CET (UTC+1).


 * FINAL tally as of 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Voter Turnout: 35 individual voters
 * Option 1: 21 support votes (60% of total voters)
 * Option 2: 4 support votes (11% of total voters)
 * Option 3: 14 support votes (40% of total voters)

Option 1: Flag of Western Sahara should remain as is

 * Flag of Western Sahara: Flag of SADR, with links to Flag of Morocco and possibly Flags of Provinces in Moroccan Sahara


 * Current votes: 21.


 * THE POLL IS CLOSED

Support:
 * 1) Votes are evil, but meh, what can we do. &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Flag is also flown by non-members & non-supporters of present SADR, thus flag of SADR is inappropriate. Arre 17:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I've made my case. -Justin (koavf), talk 17:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I let Google speak: Hits for "Western Sahara Flag": 3,410. Hits for "SADR Flag": 129. Common use dictates keeping it the way it is. Kafziel 17:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutrality in Wikipedia has priority over the naming convention. The SADR and its flag aren't recognized by the UN and 80% of the world countries. Daryou 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Based on the above arguments I would tend to agree with this. --Horses In The Sky 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  Omoo 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. At present SADR is recognized by 48 nations (not including 22 nations that have cancelled their earlier recognitions and 12 nations that have frozen their relations), and Moroccan sovereignty over the territory is explicitly recognized by the Arab League[1],[2] and by 25 states. Morocco has been trying to take it by force, has been unsuccessful, and this seems like the right option to me. --RaffiKojian 22:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a source of neutral and reliable information, not an organ of moral jugement neither the mouthpiece of separatist/independance movements. Daryou 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Don't mess with it. Polls are evil. Western Sahara is the name the territory is most commonly listed as on western maps. That's enough for me. --  §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 00:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This poll is doubly evil because its available options are all bad. That said, this option (although I'm not in favor of the "disambiguation" part) is best. Putting my vote here now...this is a naming discussion, we can argue about content once this is resolved. See below for further comments. Tom e rtalk  23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) support (see "My two cents" section for comments) Poobarb 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) I think this is fine the way it is.  I don't see what all the hub-bub is about this.  --myselfalso 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Bother... // Liftarn 08:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Willtron 10:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) As an English speaker and someone with some experience in talking about flags, I think the title is NPOV. The Moroccan view, in normal English, is that the flag of Morocco is the national flag in WS, not that it is the flag of WS. Issues of the flag's legitimacy belong in the article, not in the title. My earlier comments reflected my concern that it may be worth avoiding even an appearance of POV, but I'm more and more convinced that the details belong in the text. JPD (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) As above --Irishpunktom\talk 12:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WS is disputed territory, both Morocco and Polisaro are claiming it. Referring to the flag proposed by the Polisario (and refused by Morocco) as the flag of WS is nothing but a pro-Polisario stance. It isn't about what is the Moroccan flag of the territory, it's about what is the accurate and neutral name of the flag that I see in this page, is this flag accepted by the 2 parties of the conflict as the flag of WS? the answer is NO. Daryou 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) CHV (O mío Buzón de Correus) 14:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) The arguments in favour of the status quo seem the most compelling. The name 'Western Sahara' does not appear inherently POV as it is in very common use without political connotations. JPD is right about the text being the place for the argument - the name should stay as it is. Besides, to switch to one of the other options would be making much more of a political statement. Peeper 14:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutrality in WP has precedence over the naming convention. And reffering to a party's flag as the flag of WS does have political connotations. Daryou 19:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support as per JPD Mostlyharmless 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This is the best solution. -- Al1976 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, the note at the top of the article along with the main text clearly and concisely discuss the issues. It is fine as is. Make like the Beatles and LET IT BE. At least until Morroco manages to finally quell the Polisario or they manage to win their independence from Rabat. But I'm not holding my breath for either event...this conflict has been ongoing for over a quarter century.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as flag has been used before SADR concept and Polisario. --  max rspct   leave a message  16:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Option 2: This page should be a disambiguation page

 * This flag should be moved to Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and the disambiguation page should refer to all flags relevant to Western Sahara (Flag of SADR, Flag of Morocco, and possibly Flags of Provinces in Moroccan Sahara)


 * Current votes: 4.


 * THE POLL IS CLOSED

Support:
 * 1) As I said above Western Sahara is a disputed territory, not a state. Referring to the Polisario's flag as the flag of WS is misleading and biased: First, polisario doesn't control the whole territory, second; It's an adoption of polisario's POV. Neutrality of WP is more important than the naming convention: no one disputes that neutrality is one of the pillars of WP (WP:5P), the naming convention isn't. Dark side 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Reasoning very similar to Dark side's. Daryou 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Per NPOV --Yobaranut 05:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) With there being a ceasefire at the moment, a U.N. Peacekeeping Force, a Polisario-controlled Free Zone, and five Moroccan Provinces present in the Western Sahara, it is incorrect and POV for this page to be anything other than a disambiguation page, irrespective of how many countries recognise one party or the other, until there is a resolution of the issue. Perhaps a rename to Flags of Western Sahara might be more appropriate. Scratch the plural Flags, it should stay as Flag and the title should definitely not include the word (disambiguation) because readers are not going to type that word in, when all they will be looking for is Flag of Western Sahara. Green Giant 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Option 3: this page should be redirect to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

 * This flag should be moved to Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, with tags linking to other relevant pages, or to Flags of Western Sahara (disambiguation) if necessary.


 * Current votes: 14.


 * THE POLL IS CLOSED

Support:
 * 1) Support, see above. Dark side 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Qualified support - this is definitely preferable to option two, but not to option one. I don't know how to put that in a single vote. Arre 17:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This will be taken into account; I amended the voting system so that these preferences are taken into account. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) See above. Daryou 22:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Idem--Yobaranut 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tenative support Robdurbar 11:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. The problem I see here is that this is the flag of the shadow government, not of the population-in-exile and not of the Moroccan territory. But a user looking for "flag of western sahara" almost certainly means this one, so the redirect is a necessary evil. It's annoying to put an article under an uncommon name, but in this case, it's the accurate choice. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  I think this option would be most accurate, as at this point it's still basically a party flag.  My second choice would be option #1.--Pharos 04:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember, you can cast multiple votes to reflect this. In your case, you could also support option 1 to demonstrate your preference of both of them over option 2. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 08:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support for the reasons stated by Pharos. (Collounsbury 08:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
 * 2) Support too--Khalid hassani 19:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Official names should be used rather than unofficial ones--Burning phoneix 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- MK  12:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- Darwinek 10:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I think this option is coherent with most choices done on WP on contentious flag issues (see on Talk:Palestinian_flag) notably for the Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Palestinian flag or the Flag of the Republic of Macedonia. We should not reinvent the wheel. French Tourist 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, I feel it makes sense. --Tarawneh 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting System
The comment by Arre above alerted me to the fact that multiple votes need to be counted differently than single votes. Percentages are usually calculated in relation to the number of votes cast, but in this case the possibility to cast multiple votes would unbalance this system. Therefore, I have calculated percentages on the basis of the total voter turnout; this is the only way to do a fair comparison on the support of each of the options among those who voted. I hope the rationale behind this is clear. Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

FINAL RESULTS
The FINAL TALLY is as follows:


 * Voter Turnout: 35 individual voters
 * Option 1: 21 support votes (60% of total voters)
 * Option 2: 4 support votes (11% of total voters)
 * Option 3: 14 support votes (40% of total voters)

This means there is no consensus to rename the article. There is certainly no consensus to make this into a disambiguation page. There is some support to make this page redirect to the Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, although it is outnumbered by those who feel it should remain as is.

Although the status quo has not received a clear-cut consensus, it remains the most supported option. As such, we can conlude there is no consensus to change the status quo.

On a follow-up note, I suggest that the discussion now turns towards expanding the actual content of the article. As some editors have already noted, the discussions raging here are actually very itneresting, and should be incorporated as much as humanly possible within the article.

Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 09:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So 18 POV saying it's NPOV means it's NPOV?
Ironic how nearly all of those who voted for keeping the name Flag of WS belong to the Polisario supporters category. So if every Moroccan state employee voted here saying that calling it Flag of Sahara Terrorists is NPOV, it would mean it is? Now I'm starting to understand some of the critics about Wikipedia. Fervent proponents of a cause are always willing to devote more energy to promote it than more neutral and moderate parties. And Wikipedia as a platform doesn't escape their targetting... --Yobaranut 00:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is what some call a vocal minority, in WP it is called Systemic bias--Khalid hassani 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Criticisms of Wikipedia
===>I honestly resent this I resent that it comes to this when interacting with real people over the Internet. I honestly do. The entire premise behind Wikipedia is an elegant one: everyone contributes the knowledge they have. It's so simple. But people piss and moan, and end up expending so much energy on something so small. Then, when things don't go their way (as well it shouldn't in this case), they cry foul. Ridiculous. Initially, this was a straw poll to get a feel for the perspectives of people actually associated with this discussion. Since Daryou was heavily outweighed, he recruited people, some of whom hadn't contributed on Wikipedia for months, simply because he wanted to get his way. So, it became a formal poll, posted all over the place. Then, I did the same. If it's going to be opened to people unrelated to the discussion, let's see where the consensus lay. And it's clearly with the side that I advocated. And now the losers are decyring the whole process (see also where Daryou insisted the article "Western Sahara" only be about the region of Western Sahara, and then inserted criticisms of the Tindouf Algeria camps into it - what's that all about?) It's tragic that this is parallel to the situation in the Sahara, where Morocco will never allow a referendum that they can't stack in their favor. A sad irony. The difference, of course, is that their crime against humanity causes demonstrable human suffering, whereas this is trivial at best. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about Daryou here, but about myself. This matter is not about "things not going my way", it's about good faith knowledge indeed. I've actually been there and my family was a first hand witness of the WS mess on both sides of the border when you were not even born yet. So don't "honestly resent me" or "piss and moan me" when all you've done so far when it comes to WS is to make Wikipedia, supposedly a neutral knowledge reference, a hysterical Polisario platform. If you're really being honest, then try to get some facts right first, most of which you can even get from Indiania. Polisario *is* keeping Moroccan hostages in Tindouf. The Polisario itself refused international arbitration by the US and the UN when he thought the referendum wouldn't go in its favor and publicly refused to commit to its result if it didn't lead to independence. Sahrawis have the same rights as Moroccans in Morocco, and even more sometimes (they have access to quite a few loans in Morocco your average Moroccan don't have access to). Most of the historical leadership of the Polisario settled the issue by peaceful negociation with Morocco and defected, leaving only the most radicals in command. And so on and so on. Now I don't know what axes to grind with Morocco you have (no I am not Moroccan), but whatever you promote, neutrality commands that a seperatist/rebel/terrorist/freedom fighting/(you name it) movement should be called so, not called a state or a country. And this is what the poll, in this Wikipedia page, is ultimately about.--Yobaranut 23:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Excuse me? It's not like all I've done is make hysterical rants on Wikipedia (needless to say, I'm not hysterical); I've actually spoken at the UN to represent the Sahrawis. You have no idea what I've read, who I've met, where I've been, or to whom I've given money, so don't presume that I've only ever stayed in Indiana writing articles on the Internet. If Polisario is keeping Moroccan POW's, as you somehow know, tell the Red Cross and American government who said that they were all released. Matter of fact, maybe you can do their job better than them. Morocco is the party that insisited that non-inhabitants of the Sahara be allowed to vote. Of course Polisario won't accept that. Polisario and Morocco accepted the Framework Agreement, and then Morocco changed its mind for no apparent reason. Even now, as Morocco has previously committed, they have stuck to Baker II as the basis for negotiations while Morocco comes up with an absurd plan to grant autonomy where they have no right and in flagrant violation of the agreed-upon terms on negotiation. Sahrawis absolutely do not have the same rights under Moroccan administration - that's why they aren't allowed to unionize, they are disporportionately disappeared, and out of 53 people in a mass grave found last year, the majority were Sahrawi. This fact is attested to be every human rights organization that's been in the Sahara and the U.S. Justice Department. Sahrawis that are political propaganda tools are given privelege in as muchas they are willing to sell out the rest of the Sahrawis to give Morocco credibility. As far as defectors go, neither you nor I know why they left, but considering how Morocco has abducted innocent people who disagree with their politics, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them feared for the lives and freedoms of their loved ones. Also, as you pointed out, they are heavily subsidized to do so. If the choice is to live in the poorest refugee camp in the most inhospitable place in the world or be given protection by the King, it's easy to see why they might defect. My ax to grind with Morocco has mostly to do with occupation, flagrant human rights violations, and their disrespect for rule of law and blatant lies in international fora. If the SADR isn't a state, tell it to the AU. Maybe you know more than they do, too. Polisario are not seperatist (as the Sahara was never a part of Morocco), they are not rebel (as they are the legitimate representatives of the Sahrawis), they are not terrorists (as they have respected the ceasefire of 1991), and they are not freedom fighting (as they have employed primarily diplomatic and democratic means for decades). Those are the facts. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You might have talked at the UN as part of a classroom work, you might have spoken to I don't know whom in your church, you might have visited all of Indianapolis' suburbs, all you've been told about Morocco and the Sahara is a pack of lies. It's not a personal attack, it's just an observation. Almost everything you said above is a lie.--
 * Quoting you Justin: ===>Excuse me? It's not like all I've done is make hysterical rants on Wikipedia (needless to say, I'm not hysterical)
 * Right:)

Yobaranut 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC) ===>Whatever. You clearly don't have a logical leg to stand on, if you're going to blindly say "it's lies" and offer no evidence. I'll happily show you evidence for my position if you want. I didn't go the UN as class work - it was motivated by my own personal convictions. I have no idea where you got that ridiculous comment. If you're saying that I'm spreading lies, that is simply untrue also. If you want to attack me, I honestly don't care, but lying about it is sad. The cutesy crap doesn't do much for me either. Right :) LOLOL -Justin (koavf), talk 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No Justin, I'm not here to pick childish fights, so I'll leave it there. I also honestly it's a pure waste of time trying to have a good faith discussion with someone who has a nearly religious cause to defend, because every fact, anything I could say would be filtered through that prism anyway. I have a life besides Wikipedia, and if I see that I'm going to waste too much energy on this because a bunch of Polisario supporters are willing to devote the necessary energy to take over every related article and promote their stuff, then, what can I say? kol hakavod.--Yobaranut 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

General Comment
Please do not modify the poll itself. I can assure you I have no particular preference either way. Some amount of POV words cannot be avoided in a conflict which is about the use of words, more than anything else. We are all obliged to accept some of the "other side's" terminology.

Moreover, rephrasing the poll when it is ongoing and when most of you are so clearly a party in the dispute leads to discussions (and we've already had plenty), and - worse - to a chaotic poll. Remember, the primary function of this poll is not to discuss, but to give others a quick overview of the conflict, and let them make up their own mind.

I have rephrased parts of the poll. If you want any addition/retraction post it on my talk page rather than here. The poll itself should stay clean. The Minist  e   r of War   (Peace) 19:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a toughy. Would it be possible for this to be at flag of SADR with flag of western sahara redirecting here? This would make it easy to find and allow the common usage to send you here. It would also be reflecting the technical realities of the situation. Whatever the result, flag of SADR might as well be created as a redirect too anyway. Robdurbar 22:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, your suggestion is listed as option 3 above. Currently its the other way around; Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic redirects here. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 08:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved from the poll

 * Morocco does use and accept the term "Western Sahara" Daryou 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This argument is untrue: Morocco does aknowledge the very term of "Western Sahara". Daryou 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify this one? In what sense does Morocco acknowledge the term i.e. what do the Moroccan government refer to when they say 'Western Sahra'? The SADR? The Free Zone? The territory as a whole? The Spanish colony? Robdurbar 22:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above section [on other disputed Flags - MoW] should be removed from the introduction since it is used as an argument to defend the actual naming. Daryou 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

===>POV? Well, Polisario is indigenous. It's made up of Sahrawis, the indigenous inhabitants of the Sahara. Morrocans, on the other hand, come from Morocco, which is not in the Sahara. I'm not entirely sure what the rest of your post means, so I can't speak to it, but I don't see how this in a matter of dispute. -Justin (koavf), talk 05:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This background introduction sounds to me so POV... Implying that "Polisario" is indigenous while Morocco isn't is already POV, as you concede a "temporal" legitimacy to a political entity (not to a population, which in fact might feel Moroccan or not) which you don't to the other party.--Yobaranut 05:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, POV. The Saharan region begins well above the artificial lines drawn by Spain and France (in Morocco), and the Saharaouine tribes historically covered areas beyond those borders. Moroccan rule certainly also found indigenous support, some tribes supported the Alaouite kingdom, some did not. I find most everyone on wiki about the issue tenditious POV written by inadequately informed activists, and certainly more neutral lang. could be used all around (Collounsbury 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I really don't want to start a discussion about this issue, I have just 2 comments: Many of the SADR officials don't come from Western Sahara (including Mohamed Abdelaziz itself, the "president" of this entity). Second, Polisario doesn't represent the opinion of all Sahrawis, It'ss still unknown if a majority of Sahrawis want independance (since the referundum wasn't held yet). Daryou 08:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Regardless Okay. Even if Abdelaziz wasn't born in the Sahara, Sahrawis are still from there (in southern Morocco, WS, Mauritania, Algeria, and even Mali). As for the majority opinion of the Sahrawis, see United Nations visiting mission to Spanish Sahara, and pretty much anyone who has been to the camps. -Justin (koavf), talk 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Additional arguments already cited in this talk page:
 * Neutrality has priority.
 * There are exceptions for the naming convention (see Flag of the Republic of China)Daryou 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't moved here from the poll, instead it's an extension of my comments above. The "best" NPOV approach for this article is not to move it to Flags of..., but to leave it right where it is and to cover each of the flags within the article: whose they are, what they symbolize, where they're used, laws restricting their display, etc. If there's enough information to cover in a separate article for the Flag of the SADR (such as is the case with the Flag of the United Kingdom as distinct from the Union Jack), go ahead and cover it in a separate article. Calling this article Flag of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is inherently POV if it is used as the article covering the flag of Western Sahara. Since there is no internationally (i.e., by any sizable number of governments) recognized country of Western Sahara, that's the way we have to write about it in WP (including editors from countries that do take a particular stance on the Moroccan claim). The fact of the matter is that even most map publishers are too timid to take a stance; while many show the Moroccan zone of occupation (and previously also showed the Mauritanian zone as Mauritania-occupied Western Sahara), they almost universally show Western Sahara (by that name, or the native-language name of the mapmaker in question) with its outline at the time of its abandonment by Spain. (A similar situation holds with the West Bank and the Golan, and, to a lesser extent, the Gaza; and prior to 1990, held with Namibia when South Africa de facto annexed it as a province.) Therefore, IMHO, calling any part of the territory Moroccan Sahara (as opposed to Morocco-occupied Western Sahara) is inherently POV, and should be avoided. Tom e rtalk 23:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Daryou's commentary inserted in the middle of the poll:
 * Kafziel said
 * I let Google speak: Hits for "Western Sahara Flag": 3,410. Hits for "SADR Flag": 129. Common use dictates keeping it the way it is.

Daryou said:
 * Neutrality in Wikipedia has priority over the naming convention. The SADR and its flag aren't recognized by the UN and 80% of the world countries. Daryou 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * RaffiKojian said:
 * Support. At present SADR is recognized by 48 nations (not including 22 nations that have cancelled their earlier recognitions and 12 nations that have frozen their relations), and Moroccan sovereignty over the territory is explicitly recognized by the Arab League[1],[2] and by 25 states. Morocco has been trying to take it by force, has been unsuccessful, and this seems like the right option to me.

Daryou said:
 * Wikipedia is a source of neutral and reliable information, not an organ of moral jugement neither the mouthpiece of separatist/independance movements. Daryou 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute about the Polls background
The poll has just began but there is many problems: Daryou 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no dead line.
 * The background (introduction and argument section) has to be approved by the both sides of the dispute, it's not the case: See Straw polls.
 * Koavf made a change in the background, but Arre reverted my changes.
 * The background have to be reworded and less controversial.


 * I wasn't aware Koavf had made a change in the background; depending on what it was, it's quite possible that that should be reverted as well. Your edits wouldn't be a big deal if you just added something small or corrected spelling (as I've done, where there was a missing negation in one sentence), but you removed references to Flag of Tibet, changed or deleted your opponents' arguments and inserted all sorts of strongly POV edits - I don't see how you can do that to someone else's message on a talk page. I'm really allergic to changing the terms of a vote after it has begun.


 * If you feel there's real and important problems with the background that the Minister of War provided (I'm not entirely happy myself, but I can live with it), then I suggest you make those changes as comments or at least discuss them first so that voters are aware of what is being changed. And in either case, every argument that could possibly be relevant to the vote has to have been presented above in the talk page. Anyone interested could probably read it there: point those issues out where you feel there's a problem, and voters can scroll up and read the controversy for themselves. Arre 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already posted a comment in MoW talk page (you know it) before Koavf's change, here is a summary of my complaints: Anyway I don't see any need for an "arguments section" since the same arguments are in this talk page, and the introduction have to be shorter, what do you think? Daryou 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Moroccans accept and use the term Western Sahara.
 * About the comparison with the Flag of Tibet and Flag of Palestine, there should be also the comparison with the flag of ROC (Taiwan). Maybe we should also include that all conflicts aren't similar. In the other hand those examples were included by Koavf as arguments.
 * We should also include "See Also: WP:NPOV"
 * Morocco does acknowledge the very term "Western Sahara", it's a fact. The argument that I deleted is completely wrong.
 * There is one or 2 of my arguments that the MoW didn't mention: There are exceptions to the naming convention (flag of Taiwan), and "neutrality of WP has priority".

Mea culpa
===>Sorry I didn't mean to rock the boat; I just thought an important argument (consistency/precedence) had been deleted from it. -Justin (koavf), talk 19:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My two cents
OK, here is my two cents: - So, in conclusion I think keep the current title
 * 1) The "Taiwan/naming convention exception" argument is not valid IMHO. "Flag of Taiwan" is not appropriate despite being most prevalent as it is intended to be the flag of China, not Taiwan. However, I don't think this qualifies as an "exception" to the naming convention, as "Flag of Taiwan" is not used as it is factually incorrect, not because anyone thought it merited being an exception to the rule. "The flag of WS" is a flag of WS although disputed by Morocco. It is not factually incorrect to call it a "flag of WS". I suppose this could be summed up as; there are no exceptions to the naming convention, provided that the most prevalent name is factually correct.
 * 2) The statements "This flag isn't used by the UN and by 80% of the world countries to refer to this territory" & "This flag isn't adopted by Morocco, the UN and 147 states to represent this territory" are misleading and/or irrelevant. Morocco obviously won’t recognize it as it degrades their claim to sovereignty. To reject "The flag of WS" because Morocco doesn't except it is POV, because it’s supporting the Moroccan viewpoint. If another reason can be found not to have the title then fair enough. The UN doesn't adopt the flag... But it doesn't adopt the Moroccan flag either, as it’s trying to remain impartial and mediate. Therefore the presence/lack of UN adoption of the flag or the Moroccan flag tells us nothing except the UN is trying to remain an appropriate mediator to both sides. This can't be used as an argument against the title. Additionally I believe many of the 147 states are trying to remain equally neutral and so don't recognise either's sovereignty in order not to undermine the UN mediation, so the fact that 147 states don’t adopt it is irrelevant as well. Anyway, I think all this is besides the point - if anyone recognises it at all it’s a valid title, regardless of how many numbers weigh in where.
 * 3) The flag is a flag of WS, and, being the only one, therefore the flag of WS.
 * 4) I fail to see how "the flag of WS" is POV. Any possible inference about being "the rightful" flag etc. could quickly be quashed with a sentence at the start of the article saying this should not be inferred. The issue of Morocco flying its own flag/provincial flags in the region can be addressed by adding statements demonstrating this to the article. With these the article can stay with current title and be defiantly NPOV.
 * 5) The outside world most widely recognises the current title as appropriate. If wanted this information from Wikipedia, the current title is the one I most probably would have looked for, as would most people.

Poobarb 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is my answer: Daryou 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes it is an exception: "flag of Taiwan" is the common name of the flag. Naming convention has somehow precedence over accuracy (for example Arabic numerals). Referring to a party's flag as the flag of WS is inaccurate and biased. And NPOV has precedence over the naming convention.
 * 2) You say: "To reject "The flag of WS" because Morocco doesn't except it is POV, because it’s supporting the Moroccan viewpoint". This flag isn't the flag of WS: it is the flag proposed by one party of the conflict, Morocco is the other party of the conflict and doesn't recognize this flag. A title "flag of WS" in a page where only the flag proposed by Polisario is shown is nothing but supporting the Polisario POV. The UN and 147 have a postion of neutrality, and neutrality is among the five pillars of WP.
 * 3) It's not about this flag being the only one or the fourty fourth one. It's about neutrality of WP. This flag is a party's flag of WS and should be named as it is.
 * 4) " How can an article be neutral if its title is POV?
 * 5) The outside world most widely doesn't recognise this flag as the flag of WS (the UN and 147 states), and to follow your reasoning the title "flag of Taiwan" is the one I most probably would have looked for, as would most people.

===>Two more cents
 * 1) There are other proposed and real flags of Taiwan, and the flag of the ROC is not a flag of Taiwan; it is a flag of China, so it is an irrelevant example to the discussion. As we've discussed before, this is the flag of Western Sahara, since there is no other flag of Western Sahara. Do you know of any other flag of Western Sahara?
 * 2) Other states don't necessarily have a policy of neutrality, as many of them have no policy. You're making it appear that many states have some policy that they don't. Also, states with policies of neutrality, such as the United States, still refer to this as the flag of Western Sahara, as I've pointed out before.
 * 3) If there was a rival flag, this case might be more like the flag of the Republic of China versus the flag of the People's Republic of China - see flag of China. But there's not, and never has been (other than when Spanish Sahara was a province of Spain, of course.)
 * 4) Just look at it's content. Pretend like there was no title, then read it, and see if it is neutral.
 * 5) If you look up flag of Taiwan, you'll see that the article addresses this common confusion in an unobtrusive and helpful way for people who are ignorant about the Chinese conflict. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is anybody keeping track of those cents? I have a feeling we could make a lot of money here! :-) The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As we've discussed before, this is the flag of Western Sahara, since there is no other flag of Western Sahara. That ignores the possibility that there is no flag of Western Sahara at all. I believe this is the correct way of looking at it, because there is no political entity called "Western Sahara." The Polisario Front calls it the SADR, and the flag in question is their flag, but to call their flag the "flag of Western Sahara" ignores the fact that they are in control of, at most, a tiny sliver of the territory, and the fact that they are only the self-proclaimed government. The Moroccan government doesn't view "Western Sahara" as a single entity but as its Southern Provinces, so any subnational flag that Morocco recognizes wouldn't merit the "flag of Western Sahara" title either. That leaves us with no flag of Western Sahara. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Huh? I never even heard of that before. Just because administration is split between two competing governments, that doesn't make it not exist; just look at a map. Since there is a PRC and an ROC is there no such thing as China? The SADR is to WS as the French Republic is to France. One is a government, the other a territory, and the two of them represent a geo-political person in international law. I'd like to also point out that Morocco has been willing to consider the Sahara as its own political entity in terms of "granting" it autonomy (not that they have any right to grant autonomy to stolen land. Imagine Israel granting autonomy to the Palestinians as a solution! Also, that autonomy would almost certainly be a pretense to legally-sanctioned oppression and racism, but that's another point entirely.) -Justin (koavf), talk 22:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The SADR is to WS as the French Republic is to France.  That is not accurate - not even a tiny bit. And I think the reasons are self-evident. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

===>You can't say, or you won't say? So self-evident that you aren't going to enumerate them? Thanks a lot. Do you expect me to agree with you just because? If you're going to say that French Guiana is not France, that would be incorrect, just like saying Alaska isn't America or Hainan isn't China (whatever entity is China). If you aren't going to say that, I have no idea what you are going to say. So, again, thanks. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to agree with me at all, and your hostile tone above confirms that suspicion. Rather than create a long and likely contentious discussion on something rather tangential to the topic, I limited my response. My point in posting was for undecided editors who come to this page.
 * Given the tone of your reply, I can't tell if you really wanted to hear the reasons, or if you just wanted to be sarcastic. On the chance that you wanted to hear the reasons, here are some:
 * The French Republic is the only government for the region of France. SADR and Morocco are both vying for that title in the Western Sahara.
 * The French Republic is recognized by every government in the world. Neither SADR nor Morocco (in WS) are recognized by even 1/4 of the governments of the world.
 * The SADR/Polisario Front isn't even the acknowledged or official government of the exile population. France doesn't have an exile population, or a government-in-exile, or anything along these lines.
 * The China example was similarly inapt. The issue there, as with Korea, is that two nations claim that name. There is no group here that is claiming "Western Sahara" for its name. Morocco doesn't use it. The Polisario Front doesn't use it. "Western Sahara" refers to a geographic area, but not to any political entity at all. France, China, Alaska ... those are all political entities. But Western Sahara isn't. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Western Sahara isn't for SADR what France is for Republic of France because Western Sahara is a disputed territory which the question of sovereignty isn't resolved yet. Daryou 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Daryou that the French comparison is not accurate. Neither is this claim that Moroccan control is illegal. You have to look at the way that Morocco has gained it's independence and how it came to be in control of Western Sahara. Before independence in 1956, most of Morocco proper (i.e. excluding Western Sahara) was under a French protectorate. The rest was divided into a small Spanish protectorate in the north, Spanish-held Ifni toward the south and the Tangier international zone in the north. When the French protectorate gained independence in March 1956, it was joined by the Spanish protectorate in April 1956 and the Tangier zone in October 1956. The northern strip of Spanish Sahara was ceded to Morocco in April 1958 and Ifni was ceded in June 1969. So long before Spanish Sahara was renamed as Western Sahara, part of the region was legitimately under Moroccan rule and Morocco was expanded by a process of gradual transfer of colonial territories. In November 1975, Spain transferred the territory to neighbouring Morocco and Mauritania, but at no point did the Spanish talk about independence for the territory. The Polisario movement didn't declare the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic until March 1976. Mauritania renounced it's claim to Saharan territory in August 1979 and immediately Morocco laid claim to that part of the Western Sahara too.
 * We might agree or disagree with Moroccan control of the area but that should not be reflected in Wikipedia articles. The page on the flag should mention that there is more than one flag used in the Western Sahara - the SADR flag and the Moroccan flag irrespective of whether Morocco calls the region it's Southern Provinces or not. Green Giant 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Wholly untrue This passage is key and also false:
 * So long before Spanish Sahara was renamed as Western Sahara, part of the region was legitimately under Moroccan rule and Morocco was expanded by a process of gradual transfer of colonial territories.

This is why the ICJ ruled as it did - that Morocco had no legitimate claim of sovereingty over the region. Morocco never controlled the Sahara, and didn't even administer all of its present territory directly prior to decolonization. Morocco gained territory that it didn't have regardless of annexing the Sahara. This is also not the case:
 * at no point did the Spanish talk about independence for the territory. The Polisario movement didn't declare the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic until March 1976.

The Spanish discussed, internally and in international fora such as the United Nations, a referendum on self-determination. That was the stated Spanish position for over a decade prior to when they left. I have no idea where you even got the idea that the SADR was proclaimed in March - I've never read that before. It was proclaimed the day after the Spanish left, in February. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The northern strip (Tarfaya) of Spanish Sahara was transferred to Morocco in 1958, long before the withdrawal by the Spanish from the rest of the territory so the statement is not false at all. I made a mistake on the declaration, what was formed in March 1976 was the Government-in-Exile of the SADR. Green Giant 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of this is irrelevant. The question is simply what to call this flag. To call it "Flag of Western Sahara" says that it is a flag representing Western Sahara. It doesn't say that it is an official flag. It doesn't say that it is a legitimate flag. If there needed to be a poliltical entity for an area to have a flag, then there might be a problem with it, but there doesn't need to be a political entity. There is no political entity represented by the Flag of Greater Sydney. The flag's legitimacy is disputed. From the sounds of things, it's even outlawed in some sense in the areas under Moroccan control. These are good things to mention. The fact that the Moroccan flag is considered the national flag and flown as such by people in WS is a good thing to mention in the article. These facts explain what being "Flag of Western Sahara" means - they don't change the validity of the title. It doesn't matter who controls the region, it doesn't matter who should control the region - there is a flag used by some people to represent the region, and this is it. JPD (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Tarfaya It was never a part of Spanish Sahara, nor a province of Spain. It was a part of Spanish West Africa. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ===>Koavf, pointing to Spanish West Africa is not acceptable as a proof of what you say. The Spanish West Africa article does indicate that Tarfaya was never part of Spanish Sahara, but I note that the relevant edits were made by you User:Koavf without citing any outside sources for the fact, so hardly a conclusive proof. By the way what the ICJ did was to provide an advisory opinion, which is a non-binding legal interpretation and nothing more. read the ICJ summary carefully and you should note that the majority of judges were convinced that some legal ties did exist between the Western Sahara and Morocco prior to colonisation.
 * From your claims to have represented the Sahrawi people, it seems you hold a personal agenda, which would be fine if this was your personal website, but that's not the case is it? Don't get me wrong on this, I am a passionate supporter of the right of small nations to self-determination, but this cannot be allowed to filter through into encyclopedia articles. The article should reflect the de facto situation on the ground and not our personal opinions. What is so difficult about having this page explain the fact there is a zone controlled by Morocco over which the Moroccan flag flies and there is a zone over which the SADR flag flies?
 * On the point by JPD, the mere fact of calling it Flag of Western Sahara indicates that it is the official flag in the same way Flag of Australia indicates that the main flag depicted there is an official flag and hence a legitimate flag. Your example of the Greater Sydney Flag fails to mention that (quoting from Flagspot.net) "this is an unofficial flag described as the "Greater Sydney" flag. It is a private design by John Vaughan of Australiana Flags. John designed the flag over 10 years ago to fill the void created by the refusal of the Sydney City Council to permit private citizens to fly the official Sydney flag". There may be no Greater Sydney political entity, but the flag is trying to represent (unofficially) the metropolitan area. Certainly flags can and do exist without representing something, but that is not the point of this debate. Green Giant 00:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay. I don't know what to tell you about Tarfaya. If you don't trust me, just look it up. For instance, read this. The mandate of the ICJ to provide advisory opinions includes an article directly prior to it in the UN Charter that reads:
 * 1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.
 * 2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

So, even if it is non-binding in so far as there is no world government to enforce a ruling, Morocco entered the Court under the auspice of respecting its opinion, which it clearly didn't. No one is doubting any legal ties; I don't see how that's relevant. There were more judges that beleived in legal ties between the Sahara and the Mauritanian entity, so is the Sahara really more Mauritanian than Moroccan? Of course not. It's a territory belonging to its inhabitants: the Sahrawis. I have no objection to an explanation of who controls what territory and what flag(s) fly there. -Justin (koavf), talk 01:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Take the discussion about the ICJ and the history somewhere else. Everyone should be able to agree that under a NPOV, the ownership of the area (and hence the right to make "official" flags, etc) is disputed. The question is whether "Flag of WS" implies that it is a legitimate official flag. I don't believe it does. I believe the only reason that "Flag of Australia" implies that the flag is official, is because there is a widely recognised government. The Flag of Australia, Flag of the United States, Flag of Saudi Arabia, Flag of United Kingdom, Flag of Tibet and so on all have slightly different status. I don't see why you say that my mention of the "flag of Greater Sydney" failed to mention that it is unofficial - that was my point! It can be called Flag of Greater Sydney, because it represents Greater Sydney, official or otherwise. The "Flag of Christmas Island" (see List of Australian flags) is also unofficial - that doessn't make it any less valid to refer to it by that name. I completely agree that we should acknowledge that the Moroccan flag flies in one zone, but that doesn't change the title of the article. "Flag of XXX" means that the flag represents XXX, not that it is flown there. JPD (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with JPD. The name should stay the same.  There's no reason to change it.  --myselfalso 17:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As mad as it may be, I seem to be the first on this lengthy page to point that, not only "In a similar case, the Flag of Taiwan redirects to Flag of the Republic of China." (extract from section The Arguments) but also the Flag of Northern Cyprus redirects to Flag of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Flag of Palestine redirects to Palestinian flag and the Flag of Macedonia redirects to Flag of the Republic of Macedonia. --French Tourist 18:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Added a few minutes later : things are a bit trickier - I just discover that as concerns Palestine, the flag page has been renamed only four days ago. --French Tourist 18:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
===>Since the poll is over In a day or two someone should probably archive this, and add a little note at the top. Do you figure we should archive the entire discussion, since it was essentially all about this topic? -Justin (koavf), talk 16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends. I was thinking about archiving if nobody responds for about a week to give everybody a chance to see it. After that its fine I think. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 08:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Many relevant parts of this discussion should remain here and not be archived. It should be made easier for people to read some of the exchanges and make up their mind on whether the page in its current form is more the result of a vote over wikipedia's neutrality policy or the result of someone with an agenda having had his way through his supporter's votes. Archiving the relevant parts supports the status quo (which obviously suits the agenda of those who want to make wikipedia a mouthpiece for their cause).--Yobaranut 03:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Huh? Such as what, Yobaranut? And don't give us sour grapes. I did nothing other than what Daryou did, days after he did it. He had all the time in the world to recruit people, and he's the one that posted it all over Wikipedia and it was his idea in the first place. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, tone down that constantly hostile tone a bit and learn to talk like an adult. You're screaming non-stop and it's a nuisance. You can support a cause without being hysterical.
 * Now, I'm not against recruiting per se. As far as I know, Daryou didn't recruit in a "pro-Moroccan sovereignty" category, didn't create one, etc. Even if he did, it's not my problem anyway, I'm not Daryou and I'm not talking about Daryou. So you don't have to "Daryou" me everytime you feel criticized. It's not about sour grapes either, no more than it should be about a kid's Lawrence of Arabia complexes. It's about neutrality, about factually and accurately representing the on the ground reality, which you very obviously don't know first hand. To put it shortly, it's about respecting the spirit of Wikipedia. And if you did, you'd leave your vow of "doing your darndest to create an independent Western Sahara" out of it.--Yobaranut 04:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Hypocritical? How am I being hysterical? How am I being hostile? You were the one with the tacit insult about this page being POV. Your position was not persuasive; that's all there is to it. Show me one example of actual advocacy that I've made on an article; one non-factual piece of slander. I'm not impugning you for what Daryou did, what I'm saying is that it's the height of hypocrisy to blame me for it, when he started it. If you dislike recruiting people for votes so much, blame him. If you don't dislike recruiting, I don't see what the beef is. And if you have some kind of beef with me, feel free to bring it up on my talk page, e-mail me, IM me, call me at work, fax me, or send me a postcard. This isn't the place for it; this is the discussion about the article "Flag of Western Sahara." -Justin (koavf), talk 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are hysterical, constantly screaming. Just read the tone of your posts and you might understand why I find it distateful and even a lowering of my usual standards to talk with you. No offense meant, sincerely. I could reconsider should you learn to speak in a civil manner.
 * As for the rest of it, I agree, it's about the article. It's not about persuasion, I've learnt by experience that trying to persuade people with an agenda is a waste of time, so I wouldn't bother. With some maturity, you may understand that everyone is not running after some exciting greater cause. Simple principles like Wikipedia's spirit of neutrality and accuracy are enough. And the fact that you're pushing your vow to do your darndest to create an independent Western Sahara all over this article and other related ones here on Wikipedia is definitely relevant to this.
 * --Yobaranut 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, lets just cool it down a few notches. We've had a vote, a vote in which many people came to vote, most (if not all) with good intentions. As far as I can tell, quite a few people came in through WP:RFC/P, WP:NPOV, WP:MILHIST and WP:Naming conventions on which I posted my own requests to come over and vote. I think it is unfitting, and perhaps even uncivil to suggest that they were pushing an agenda. If you think they did, take it up with the WP:ArbCom. Otherwise, lets just accept the results of the vote.
 * As far as archiving goes, I think its important to archive. Most articles have one or two polls in their archives, and it wont be difficult to point them in the right direction. The vote is simply over, and we should close this chapter and get to expanding the article (which I havent seen done yet sadly).
 * In the end there is nothing left for us to do than either accept the results (and archive them), or to post an official complaint.
 * Cheers, The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to file a complaint about this specific vote (since the naming issue itself is is a minor point), and it's not significant in itself compared to the rest of WS editing. But the whole set of edits surrounding the Sahara pushed by someone who's very openly a Polisario supporter does lower the quality standard of Wikipedia. I happen to be neither emotionally nor personally involved on the Sahara issue, I have no stakes on it, besides having family and friends on both sides of the line. But it also happens that I know for a fact that what is on wikipedia when it comes to the Sahara is propaganda, whether it pleases or not that I say it. Leaving it that way on an issue I happen to know first hand destroys my trust in the credibility of the rest of its content, or at least, in the good faith editing of most of the controversial issues in it and their outcomes. Sorry, I can't assume good faith in something which I happen to know first hand it's so disconnected from reality and where so much effort is spent on keeping it that way. This whole issue for me has been about the principles of Wikipedia, neutrality, accuracy, etc. I am still undecided as to whether a general complaint about this is what I should do (even though I have a life besides wikipedia) or whether those stated principles aren't worth the bytes they're on meaning I should quit WP and move on... Nothing personal as you can see, MOA --Yobaranut 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Here's what I don't get I joined Wikipedia for two reasons: 1.) to learn, and 2.) to teach others. If you have some pertinent information on the Sahara, I'd love to have it. Please feel free to edit any page on the conflict in order to spread the information. What I don't understand is the vague accusations of lies and propaganda without any verifiable sources that contradict. If you have a stronger case to make, please make it. I'm here to learn. As for why I state that I'm pro-Sahrawi (which is not identical to pro-Polisario, as much as Moroccan propaganda would like one to think) is that they have a right to self-determination; it's as simple as that. Hassan II said so himself (at times), and the UN have reaffirmed it over and over again. I state my biases on my userpage so that my edits will be transparent and no one can claim that I have some secret agenda. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not everything that doesn't stem out of Polisario rags is Moroccan propaganda, and that is true for what comes out of Moroccan rags too. I don't have time to dig all around the web in order to source what, unlike you, I know first hand, though I will do so on occasion if I didn't decide that WP is hopeless. In some sense, as a college kid, you've got an advantage with all the free time you have to serve the Polisario. Justin, you are pro-Polisario, there are plenty of posts out there where you're parroting them. My point is not that one though. My point is not about Morocco either. Work to split it in a hundred pieces and screw it even worse than Iraq if it pleases you, be my guest. But you have an agenda, it's not a secret, you've vowed that you'd do your darndest to create an independent Western Sahara, didn't you? Now, since that's the case, you should definitely step aside on the related articles if you're not able to keep your biases and agenda out of them. If you don't, you're engaging into propaganda and you're not abiding by Wikipedia's stated principles. Now, that is my point.--Yobaranut 03:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Whatever. Look, if you want to insist that I'm somehow subverting NPOV, actually show me the edits. Like I said before, you show me what I've edited that's propaganda. What agenda do I have on Wikipedia? I didn't say that I don't have any goals in life, or things that I would like to see occur. It seems obvious to me that if people were more well-informed on the Sahara, they would also be pro-Sahrawi, and to that end, I like to spread information about the Sahara. If that is somehow NPOV, let me know. Again, if you want to talk about me, there's a whole page for that. For what it's worth, I work like most growed-up peoples, and I go to school, so it's not like I have an excess of free time. I also have no idea what "Work to split it in a hundred pieces and screw it even worse than Iraq if it pleases you, be my guest" is supposed to mean. Feel free to explain on my userpage, if you are so inclined. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, a pretty example of the blatant Polisario crap you're bringing. Kind of like calling a few tens of people's demonstration in front of the Capitol the "war of liberation against the US Nazi government". I won't engage into a debate about the justness or not of the Polisario's cause though, you wanted an example, you have it. It seems to be an almost "religious" matter for you, and discussing with proselytes makes me yawn. My objections are not about your beliefs, they are about using Wikipedia to pass them on. Now if you'll excuse me...--Yobaranut 04:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Thanks for nothing More vague statements without any proof of the contrary, and more discussion of me on this article's talk page. You may want to read this. And then respond on my talk page - what a novel idea! -Justin (koavf), talk 04:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK for archiving every section relating to the page title controversy, that is most of this Talk Page. Note that sections 6 and 11 are about the flag proper (atypical sections !) and might remain here. French Tourist 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)