Talk:List of countries/Archive 3

Western Sahara case
Western Sahara doesn't exist in the official list of countries ISO 3166. It doesn't belongs to any nationality recognized by the UN. Western Sahara exists as a label in the ISO 3166-1 because this document contains both countries and territories also this document was made when Western Sahara was spanish before 1975. Western Sahara is recognized by the UN as a non self-governing territory but it's actually administrated by the kingdom of Morocco.

Wow. You people are pathetic. Just to make things clear: Western Sahara is a decolonization issue. It is legally (by international law, if not Spanish) still part of Spain. Morocco has no claim to the land by any sort of law whatsoever, except maybe for Moroccan domestic law and recognition by the League of Arab States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.22.179 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara has nothing to do with Palestine. Palestine is a decolonization process while Western Sahara is a separatism issue.

According to the above, I propose to delete Western Sahara from the countries list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many non-sovereign territories on this list. Guam is a non-self governing territory that's administered by the United States, but it's still on the list. Aland is a part of Finland and Hong Kong is a part of China, yet both are on the list. A territory does not have to be independent to qualify as a country for the purposes of this article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope Moroccansahraoui, you're completely wrong on all counts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Justin/koavf, writing after two already posted comments, you should have stated whether your disagreement concerned the first or the second entry. We may guess but guessing is not a game on WP. Clpda (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Touché I had this up in my browser for awhile and I guess I didn't hit "edit" until after this last comment was made; that was foolish of me. For what it's worth, my link should provide some context for my statements, but you are correct. Pardon me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From Guam to Transnistria and in-between and any other letters of the alphabet I've missed, it's times like this that perhaps a sanity check is in order? This is a "List of anything remotely purporting to be a country", not a list of countries. No, I take that back, actually, I don't think Guam is a separatist state, it was a possession transferred by treaty to the U.S. It has a president (head of government), but its head of state is the U.S. president. So that makes this a "List of anything WP editors purport to be a country." —PētersV (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * AKA, "Anything can be a country if you put enough ref's behind it and/or put its name in italic." —PētersV (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly Which is why in political science, there is a definition for "state" but not one for "country." The latter is a vernacular term used in colloquial settings - it has no strict definition, so what it means is somewhat open-ended. Consequently, the list of sovereign states is a different article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Justin. That said, the Western Sahara entry is not beyond criticism. It looks like the SADR is controlling all of it, which is not the case according to the Legal status of Western Sahara. The entry should certainly not be removed, as Moroccansahraoui suggested, but could be completed such as controlled partly by Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Clpda (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Until very recently, the entry just read "Western Sahara" Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The list you mentionned corresponds to the labels of all countries AND TERRITORIES (ISO 3166-1). The official list ISO 3166 doesn't contain Western Sahara as a country. The list of the labels was made in the 70' when Western Sahara was Spanish. Western Sahara has a statute of non-self-governing territory since the 60' longer before the creation of SADR. My concern is about the nationality of Western Sahara people, who are they for you? Do they have passport !!!!? Do they have the symbols of a country, are they recognized by the UN as a country? SIMPLY NO...SADR has nothing to do with the territory. SADR is an auto-proclamed republic established in Tindouf South of Algeria so far from Western Sahara. Saying that SADR is a republic in Western Sahara is a mistake and big mistake. Western Sahara is a disputed territory but it's actually administrated by the kingdom of Morocco. SADR isn't a sovereign country so Western Sahara isn't a sovereign country. It's a territory. Justin, I have already mentionned this for you many times but you don't want to admit it. I don't know why? You have a list available from the external links of this page which mentions what I wrote above. Please you have to be in conformance of the UN list of countries. Personal convictions have not to influence the content of Wikipedia ! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moroccansahraoui, the list of independent countries is at List of sovereign states. This list specifically includes non-independent territories in addition to sovereign states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not correct to give proofs on other Wikipedia pages basis. I think we must be very wisdom and get rid of all personal opinions or convictions. In the history perspective, Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia of established facts and information. Otherwise, international people would be confused and induced into error. I believe we must dissociate the region and the flag and SADR. There is a reality in the ground where the unionist are far from separatism/communism ideas spread by Polisario Front. I am not exaggerating or diffamating or propagating on saying that the reality of the unionist sahraouis is definitely opposite from what Wikipedia pages are conveying. I will remain convinced that associating Western Sahara to the flag and to SADR is a big MISTAKE. Besides, in the Western Sahara wiki page there is no flag anymore ! Justin, It's obvious you are under the spell of Polisario Front but here in Wikipedia we must be under the spell of the reality and established facts. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 15:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted Western Sahara from the list and I put it on 'Entities not included' section. I think it's the best place where it can reflect the reality of the region to avoid any misunderstanding or distortion to the reality of the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using the list of sovereign states as a source, I was pointing out that the list of independent countries is elsewhere. This is a not just a list of UN-recognized independent states. It is a list of sovereign states, unrecognized states, and non-independent territories. (And I'm beginning to think that this page needs to be renamed to make this point clearer.) In other words: For the purposes of this list, non-independent territories are considered countries. You are using the word "country" in a different way than the editors of this page.
 * Also, I'm a bit confused by your most recent posts. Do you want the flag and SADR name removed from the Western Sahara entry or do you want the Western Sahara entry removed from the list altogether? Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense Moroccansahraoui, if you think I'm going to re-hash these Moroccan nationalist arguments (which I've been doing for three years), you're mistaken. And yes, there is an SADR passport. Obviously, you are a hypocrite because you claim that personal convictions have no place on Wikipedia, but you have a nationalist username and you're only crusading for deleting Western Sahara, not e.g. Nagorno-Karabakh. (The rest of your edits confirm your pro-Morocco bias.) There have been several nationalists such as yourself who have tried to push their Moroccan POV on Western Sahara articles and your efforts will be no different: you can make verifiable claims based on reliable sources and they will be incorporated into Wikipedia, or you can make personal screeds that will not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Justin, you "are member of the Western Sahara WikiProject, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of Western Sahara (SADR) on Wikipedia". I think it's clear that you are not impartial in your manner to treat this very sensitive subject. When I read on your Wikipedia profile that you created all the pages related to Western Sahara Wikiproject I wonder if you can be really honest on your talk. You are associating Western Sahara exclusively to SADR which is not correct. You are misleading international people with your stubbornness. Nobody has to make his own law on Wikipedia. Otherwise it will become absolute anarchy. If Western Sahara remains a COUNTRY and if SADR is dishonestly associated to Western Sahara, Wikipedia has became ANARCHY. You are not serving the wikipedia spirit by acting to support your own opinions. Can anyone tell me how to proceed in such case : I mean when the corrector isn't impartial in his action!. Many thanks in advance. Regarding my profile name, I could take MoroccanBerber, MoroccanArab and I choose MoroccanSahraoui as the context is related to Western Sahara. You are simply lying when you say that there is SADR international passport !!!! It's really unbeareable. MANHASSET TALKS WERE BETWEEN THE KINGDOM OF MOROCCO AND THE POLISARIO FRONT. There were no SADR aroud the table. It's really dishonest what you are making on Wikipedia !!!! What to do in such case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, the wiki page of Western Sahara has no FLAG. What is this contradiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, no personal attacks (this goes for both Koavf and Moroccansahraoui). We're not here to discuss other editors, only the content of the articles themselves. Now having said that, the fact remains that the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognized by 49 states and the African Union as the legitimate government of Western Sahara. And although Morocco claims the entirety of its territory, it is our job to present both POVs here on Wikipedia, see WP:NPOV. If we can mention Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia (which are recognized by a smaller number of countries), surely we can include Western Sahara. Khoikhoi 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but in Western Sahara there is no republic. By putting a flag on Western Sahara, you are simply inducing people into error. SADR which is the auto-proclamed republic of Polisario Front is taking place outside of Western Sahara. Polisario Front is taking place in Tindouf camps south Algeria. Western Sahara has the statute of non-self governing territory. It's actually administrated by the kingdom of Morocco. Polisario Front is claiming independence from Tindouf side. Manhasset talks were held between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front, the separatists faction claiming independence. The reality of the ground show that the flag of Western Sahara is moroccan. At the UN level, the statute is still non self-governing territory. Western Sahara must remain territory until the end of the running dispute between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's agree that (most of) Western Sahara is de facto administered by Morocco, and that it's not a self-governing territory. That still makes it appropriate for inclusion in this list, with a status similar to the Palestinian territories (except the SADR enjoys more widespread recognition as a state). The entry should reflect the de facto status, reading something like "Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, de facto mostly under Moroccan administration". Huon (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huon, it will be more correct if we get rid of SADR. In such case, the supporters of SADR won't be happy ;-). I think my proposal to write "Western Sahara - a non self governing territory in North Africa" is the best way to avoid misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with you Huon. I also propose to delete it from the list and add it in a section related to other territories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Huon, (sorry) I am OK with terygazoulit proposal. At the UN level, Western Sahara is a non self-governing territory even if it's administrated by the kingdom of Morocco. I don't think opportun to compare Western Sahara issue to Palestine. Palestine is recognized by the UN (observer) which is not the case of SADR. Palestine has never recognized SADR !!! I insist on my request to delete Western Sahara entry. Western Sahara is a territory and not a country. Thanks. The Justin views aren't NPOV !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that this being a list of countries, and not sovereign states, the note at the start ( 1 state, recognized by 46 UN member states but never admitted to the UN itself, with most of its claimed territory under Moroccan de facto administration: and the bottom of the article are enough to clear any confusion. I see consensus to keep the entry. -- lucasbfr  talk 15:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moroccansahraoui, territories are considered countries for the purposes of this list, even if they are not independent. If you read the list, you will see that all other territories on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories are on there. That's reason enough to include Western Sahara, and it's around as NPOV as you can get. I do, however, agree that putting the SADR flag next to the Western Sahara entry is probably inappropriate, and having the SADR name next to the entry almost certainly is. I'd suggest rendering it with noflag, like so:
 * And then including a footnote explaining the status of the territory and of the dispute between Morocco and the SADR. If we then decided that we wanted to include SADR as well, we could give its own entry which doesn't include the words Western Sahara, like so:
 *  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
 * And again give it some copious footnoting. I don't think removing Western Sahara makes sense though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not asking to remove Western Sahara entry from the page. I am asking to remove it from the list. I am saying that Western Sahara has no flag and has no republic. In such case, Western Sahara could be present on 'Entities not included'. There is no consensus on that at all. It's not about sovereign state vs country. It's about country vs territory. To me sovereign state is a country, there is no difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As regards this list, you are incorrect. A country is different from a sovereign state, and there is near total consensus on this issue. The criteria for what we define as a country is right there at the top of the article, and Western Sahara fits into it. The article even specifically says "Such inclusion criteria means the list does not treat the word 'country' as synonymous with 'sovereign state,'". As long as the list of countries contains non-sovereign territories, Western Sahara belongs on the list. There's no way around it. Orange Tuesday (talk)
 * I do agree with the first entry of Western Sahara. The second entry makes some trouble with the concept of a country : a country needs attributes of sovereignty. SADR is a republic taking place south Algeria so far from Western Sahara. The name of SADR has nothing to do with Western Sahara. That's why I return to my first proposal. I propose to keep the entry of Western Sahara in the section 'Entities not included' with the mention related to the self-governing statute. That will be more correct and more in comformance with the political statute of Western Sahara. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote "The name of SADR has nothing to do with Western Sahara", that means we aren't talking about "Western Sahara Republic" or "The state of Western Sahara". We are talking about an auto-proclamed republic in a violation of international law with no territorial existence (Inside Algeria so far from Western Sahara). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But we're not just talking about the SADR. You've said many times during this discussion that you specifically want Western Sahara (i.e. the territory) removed from the list and put into the Entities not included section. That's what I have a problem with. As a territory on the UN List of Non-self governing territories, it belongs in the main body of the list, right there under Wallis and Futuna. Whether or not we include the SADR name and flag, that's debatable. But Western Sahara itself has to stay. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with you. Western Sahara must be kept on the list as a non self-governing territory but not as a country. SADR has nothing to do in this list/page anymore. Just to let you know about the reality of the ground, the flag existing at the top of administrations in the main cities of Western Sahara, Laayoune city and Dakhla city and Smara city and Boujdour city and Aousserd city, is the moroccan one because Morocco is actually the administrative authority of Western Sahara. At the UN level, Western Sahara is a disputed region/territory between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front who is claiming independence from his side south Algeria. This is a link to the last report of the SG of the UN on Western Sahara issue. I invite you to read it and focus on the official map of the UN where there is no mention to SADR neither the territory controlled by SADR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am with you. Western Sahara must be kept on the list as a non self-governing territory but not as a country. SADR has nothing to do in this list/page anymore. Just to let you know about the reality of the ground, the flag existing at the top of administrations in the main cities of Western Sahara, Laayoune city and Dakhla city and Smara city and Boujdour city and Aousserd city, is the moroccan one because Morocco is actually the administrative authority of Western Sahara. At the UN level, Western Sahara is a disputed region/territory between the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front who is claiming independence from his side south Algeria. This is a link to the last report of the SG of the UN on Western Sahara issue. I invite you to read it and focus on the official map of the UN where there is no mention to SADR neither the territory controlled by SADR.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 17:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a remark on legal status of Western Sahara page where it mentions 28 countries recognizing SADR while the text above is mentionning 46. Please do correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to comment on this.


 * That particular article apparently has an issue with internal consistency as the map contains a few countries not listed. According to this site the full list of countries recognising the SADR, along with the date they first recognised it, is:


 * "Algeria (1976), Angola (1976), Antigua and Barbuda (1987), Barbados (1988), Belize (1986), Bolivia (1982), Cuba (1980), East Timor (2002), Ecuador (1983-2004, 2006), Ethiopia (1979), Grenada (1979), Guinea-Bissau (1976-97, 2000), Guyana (1979), Haiti (2006), Iran (1980), Jamaica (1979), Laos (1979), Lesotho (1979), Malawi (1994-2001, 2008), Mali (1984), Mauritania (1984), Mauritius (1982), Mexico (1979), Mozambique (1976), Namibia (1990), Nicaragua (1979-2000, 2007), Nigeria (1984), North Korea (1976), Panama (1978), Papua New Guinea (1981), Rwanda (1976), Sierra Leone (1980-2002, 2003), St. Kitts and Nevis (1987), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (2002), South Africa (2004), Suriname (1982), Syria (1980), Tanzania (1978), Trinidad and Tobago (1986), Uganda (1979), Uruguay (2005), Venezuela (1982), Vietnam (1979), Zambia (1979), Zimbabwe (1980)"


 * That's 45 countries. It's possible that either we or they are out of date, but note that some of those dates are 2008.  I will bring up the discrepancies at that talk page.


 * For the record, Western Sahara pretty clearly belongs on this list in my view. Pfainuk talk 17:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents again Obviously, I'm not going to go on ad infinitum about personal attacks and my own credibility. Neither you nor I are disinterested parties in the Western Sahara conflict and the Moroccan occupation. That having been said, it is possible for either of us to make edits that conform to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia, which I think I do. If you have some complaint about my behavior, feel free to post on WP:AN.
 * And yes, there are SADR passports.
 * The idea that the SADR isn't present in Western Sahara is, of course, untrue. Pursuant to the Agreed Framework #1 - the ceasefire negotiated by the United Nations - the SADR patrols the Free Zone, minus the 3-5 km buffer zone next to the berm. This is a set of old Moroccan canards that hold no water and are irrelevant to this discussion because the criteria for inclusion are clearly presented on this page and no one is going to allow anyone to remove a case that obviously fits them.
 * As for inconsistency with the recognitions, this was an on-going problem due to a POV fork and the inclusion of some dubious sources on that article. I hold myself personally responsible for being complacent about updating and tidying the article, its references, and the map. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too much Justin. To justify that SADR has passports, you put a link to GlobalVoicesOnline article where it's mentionned that the sahrawi TV has been launched which is not true anymore. I made comments on this. Then what's the relationship of passport existence and this article? That is simply called propaganda. Justin, you aren't here on Wikipedia to spread impartiality. You are here to propagate Polisario Front theses. You have the power of editing and that is not normal. I made a link to the last report of the UN on the issue where there is no mention to SADR neither the territory controlled by SADR and the only thing you did is to put a link to a GV article. What's that? excuse me but that is more than fascism. The unique idea whitout any respect to the ideas of others. Is that the spirit of Wikipedia? Am I wrong when I say that there is no mention to SADR in UN resolutions? I can't believe how the reality is diverted by Justin. Justin, you are very young (26 old years) and you are far from the region, you have no idea about the reality of the ground. Besides, you are diverting the UN RESOLUTIONS. Oh Jesus! what's that!!! I need an answer to my question : Am I wrong when I say that there is no mention of SADR in UN resolutions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 45 (and not 46) countries recongnizing SADR, let me do the same as you do according to the list present in this page : Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Belize, Cuba, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ecuador, Uruguay, Venezuela, Iran, East Timor. That's about 28 knowing that :

Mali, Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Panama, Uruguay, Iran and probably others withdraw their recognition of SADR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * allow me to take part of this interesting discussin concerning the nature of the Western sahara issue, in this respect, we have to understand that most if not all the countries that recognised the SADR are from either the African countries or the South american countries which have no influence on the international politics , in fact it is thinks to the algerian pressure on these countries that this republic was recognised . Having said that no arabic , Islamic , European , and even THe countries belonging to the Socialist bloc (apet from CUBA) have regonized this republic including the former Soviet Union , and Russia now  . from the international law point of view  the "RASD" the unilateral proclamation by polisario is in flagrant violation to the interrnational law, the Arab  shraoui Democratic republic has no territorial existence, it is set up in Tindouf inside Algeria territories , it has no attribute of sovereignty, exists only on the territory of a foreign country--196.206.255.160 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)TERRY
 * I am with the comment from 196.206.255.160 which seems to be TERRY. TERRY, you have to be connected then sign your comments. Thanks. How should we proceed in such case? Is that meaning that there is no consensus on keeping SADR on the list?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the former proposal of Orange Tuesday. It's a first step to a consensus. Why not discussing Orange Tuesday proposal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Passports and other things that don't matter That post was made by Dr. Nick Brooks who is a professional academic doing archaeology in the Free Zone; he would know. I know of no mention of the SADR in any UN resolution. I also do not see how that is germane. The anon IP made the false claim that no Arabic (Syria), Islamic (Iran), European (Yugoslavia), or Socialist bloc countries (Libya) have recognized the SADR. Again, what this has to do with it being on a list of countries is beyond me. You're never going to get Western Sahara deleted from this list; it's not going to happen. The notion that the two oof you constitute consensus is also complete nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. All of this - whether it issues passports, whether it is recognised and by whom and suchlike have no bearing on this list.  The situation is adequately explained in the introduction and I see neither need nor consensus for any change. Pfainuk talk 11:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that this discussion whether the "RASD" is a state or not, should be dealt from the international law point of view , to make life easy for everybody taking part of this discussion i would suggest to go the facts on the ground which are the following : 1-this republic was declared from Algeria , and precisely from Tindouf in the refugee camps . 2-the repuplic in question can not be recognized because from the international law it has no attribute of sovereignty, and therefore exists on the territory of a another country ; 3 - the same republic is not recognized by the UN , in fact all resolutions dealing with the western  Sahara mention the "Polisario front " only.4- whether the "RASD" is recognised by  30 or 60 countries most of them are from the African countinent , and they announced their recognition as result of the Algerian pressure, as it is known to almost everybody ; in addition to the information cited above , the Polisario officials move around the world with  Algerian Diplomatic passports ; there is no doubt that  the components of a sovereign state, as stated in the international law and the UN resolutions dealing with such matters in addition to the nonnrecognition of the international community of such republic should lead us to believe that the "RASD"  can not and should not be added to the list of countries  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * being myself a researcher in the field of international politics, i hope that this discussion should aim to give the right information and datum about topics and international events ,without using either terms or sentences such as "you are never going to delete western sahara from this list" the discussion should aim at bringing to the readers and resershers true and concrete informations about any political, economic , and cultural events happening in the world, as tothe Western Sahara conflict, it does exists , the refugee camps of Sharaouis does exist inside the Algerian territory, this conflict is dealt by the security council of the UN , but as far as the "RASD" is concerned was an unilateral proclamation by Polisario for its own purpopses but in contadiction with the international law, WIkipedia , being a genuine source of information,should delete the "RASD" from the list of countries for the following reasons : 1- the UN is still dealing with the conflict through diplomatic channels, searching for a final settlement  2- the outcome of the UN efforts to reach a solution will determine if the Sahraouis are to create their own state , or simply become part of Morocco , and enjoy a substantial autnomy as it is one of the alternatives that Morocco put forward , and the UN security council sees it as a credible and serious solution to the conflict . In my view the "SADR " should be removed from the list of countries for the reasons i have explained above,particularly that the Polisario front made it clear in so many occasions that it  insists on having a refurendum  within the Sharaouis , whether Western Sahara will be become an independant state or simply remains part of Morocco,  therefore the proclamatio of republic by the Polisario is a countrdiction with its non stop claim of a referendum .......  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.206.255.160 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no zone called 'Free Zone' in the UN resolutions. We must call things by their name. It's about a buffer zone established for the ceasefire agreement and dishonestly called 'Free Zone' by polisario leaders and its supporters. FYI, Syria, Iran and Lybia withdraw their recognition of SADR since many years. Regarding Yougoslavia, you are talking about the state of Yougoslavia before the war of the 90' which make divided the former Yougoslavia. There is no mean to divert the reality of UN resolutions. Again, there is no mention of SADR or territory under the control of SADR. Everything else is about allegation and misinformation. Western Sahara is a territory, a non self-governing territory under the administration of the kingdom of Morocco. UN resolutions are resuming the statute of Western Sahara. In such case, there is no consensus on keeping Western Sahara on the list. I as terrygazoulit disagree with you so there is no consensus on that. Besides, I know Nick Brooks very well and we had already interesting chats on the issue and I respect his own opinions BUT we can't build the reputation of Wikipedia on personal opinions. We have UN resolutions beyond everything. Are UN resolutions to be trusted or not? --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * well i guess our friend(Moroccan Sahraoui ) has got a point here, as i totally agree with him that the UN resolutions should be the basis of any decision concerning either the Polisario or the"SADR". The UN does not recognize the so-called"SADR", secondly in the UN resoltions concerning the western sahara conflict there is no mention of the republic, in fact the UN refers to Morocco and Polisario, in addition to that the UN is still supervising direct negotiations between the two parties, so far these negotiations have not lead to any agreement, so it is from the legal point of view that the "SADR" should be removed from the list of countries until the international community through the UN achieve a settlement of the conflict  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view The western sahara issue as it is written down in the Wikipedia pages contains plenty of correct informations, but there are still some mistakes that we should discuss in order to correct them , especially in terms ofthe following topics : 1-The moroccan wall stalemates the war 2-cease-fire and referendum process 3-political ideology  'and the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic, these opur some topics i would like to discuss putting forward documents  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * These issues are, or should be, discussed on other pages, such as Legal status of Western Sahara, not on a list. The note (currently nr. 40) gives enough additional information to the reader to see that WS is in a 'special situation'. I see 2 options that could reach consensus:
 * Keep the WS entry but remove the mention of SADR and leave it to the note to redirect the reader to the other pages giving more details, OR
 * Keep the WS entry and add 'administered by Morocco but claimed by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, in exile in Algeria'.
 * I prefer the first option, since it discharges this list of a discussion which I find more appropriate on more specialized pages. If there is consensus on the second option, fine! Clpda (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the big problems are two things : the flag and the representativity of Polisario Front. The flag has nothing to do in the WS entry. Regarding the two options, I believe that the UN statute of WS must be taken into account based on UN resolutions no more nor less. In other words, if we let WS on the list we need to put in front of it a flag while there is no UN legal flag. Second, the sole body recognized by the UN is Polisario Front. To avoid all this kind of contradiction, I am asking you to delete the Western Sahara entry from the list and to put it on the buttom section. I will complete the proposal made by Clpda : "WS a non self-governing territory administrated by the kingdom of Morocco but claimed by Polisario Front" That should be the definitve format of consensus.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with Clpda, the matters mentionned by Terrygazoulit must be discussed in other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[indenting reinitialized] About the flag, I apologize having neglected this issue. If the current flag is the one of SADR, I agree that it should be removed presto and, where available, replaced by the flag that WS had at the Spanish time. Because WS status is still unsorted, the latest admitted flag should prevail (no way of putting Morocco's or a derivative!). For your second comment (Polisario vs. SADR), I can't say. Clpda (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever the legal situation the SADR has de facto control of the area east of the berm (which they call the "free zone") and as such there is a direct parallel with other states that don't have general recognition. We should - as we currently do - treat Western Sahara in exactly the same way as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland and other unrecognised states exercising de facto control over territory: giving the official name as claimed with a footnote giving a detailed discussion of the situation and links to more details.


 * This list explicitly includes as part of its criteria several claimed countries which many would argue are illegal under international law, explaining the situations as we go. There is no reason to make this case an exception. Pfainuk talk 17:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I basically agree, but what does it mean concretely? What are your opinion(s) regarding the latest proposal(s) ? Clpda (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. I think we should stick with the current version, except probably with the words "Western Sahara" in bold and italic as the other unrecognised states are.  Removing the flag or the reference to SADR would make Western Sahara an exception to the pattern used elsewhere, and so I can't support that. Pfainuk talk 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But does treating all of these unrecognized states exactly the same make sense? I mean, they're all pretty unique cases. Anyway, I'm not convinced that giving Western Sahara (the territory) SADR's name and flag is NPOV. I think the best solution would be to have a Western Sahara entry without the SADR flag or name and then a separate entry for the SADR without the Western Sahara name. Orange Tuesday (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I should elaborate on why I think the SADR is a special case. With Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, etc. there are only two sides to the argument. One side claims that they're independent, the other claims that they're as part of another sovereign state. With the Western Sahara dispute, there are three sides. Morocco claims the territory as an integral part of Morocco (The Southern Provinces), the SADR claims it as an independent state, and the UN classifies it as a non-self governing territory. If you only have the "🇪🇭 Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" entry, you're not including that third side at all. That's what makes the current version NPOV.


 * And just to clarify, I feel that removing the SADR name and flag entirely would also be NPOV. Orange Tuesday (talk)


 * I hope I'm not spamming the talk page here, but I just want to add that listing the SADR under "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" instead of "Western Sahara" would make this list consistent with the list of sovereign states. Orange Tuesday (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, well I don't mind going for the current version. But I do feel that since a significant part of the claimed territory is controlled by the SADR government, the flag and name of the SADR should remain - along with the footnote to explain the situation in more detail.  While Western Sahara is on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, it is an unique case on that list as every other territory on it has a formally acknowledged administering power - including in one case where sovereignty is disputed - while Western Sahara does not.


 * On which name to use as main descriptor - well "Western Sahara" is the common name for the territory, so that's my preference. Pfainuk talk 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the last bits of discussion, I would then amend my second proposal as:
 * [no flag] Western Sahara - administered by Morocco, claimed by the Polisario Front, in exile in Algeria but controlling part of the territory, aiming to make it The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
 * How does that fit? Clpda (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What we currently say in the footnote is:
 * "Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony which was in 1960s put on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories subject to decolonization. It is claimed by the Kingdom of Morocco which currently rules large portion of it, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) which exercises effective control over the area east of Moroccan Wall. SADR is a member of the African Union and the Asian-African Strategic Partnership formed at the 2005 Asian-African Conference. It is currently recognized by 46 UN member states but has never been admitted to UN itself. UN has attempted to hold a referendum through the mission United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), and is holding direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario Front (the ruling party of SADR). Despite these attempts, however, the legal and political status of Western Sahara remain unresolved. See also Legal status of Western Sahara."
 * IMO that's enough explanation. I must admit I still think the status quo is the best option here.  While Western Sahara may be a unique situation in UN terms, the SADR do have effective control over the areas east of the Berm and I don't see why we should get rid of their flag while keeping those of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Kosovo, Taiwan and so on. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't focus on the flag, that's just an image. The main points are that:
 * the Western Sahara entry should be kept on the list - the earlier proponent of removing it has admitted it, as long as SADR is removed or replaced into context.
 * The additional information following the WS entry should balance the various entities available after it, the details being left to te notes and other pages. Clpda (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading over my comments above, I accidentally said that the current version is NPOV when I should have said that it was not NPOV. (Whoops!) Most states neither recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara nor the independence of the SADR. So why does the SADR get on the list when Western Sahara the non self governing territory gets left off it? I'm going to say it again: Split the entry into two. One for Western Sahara and one for the SADR. You're never going to get an NPOV list if you try to fit both into the same bullet point.
 * We should also make a new section on the talk page and list all the proposals there, because this discussion is really really long. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense I have never tried to hide my own biases, but rather, broadcast them in order to be accountable. The very fact that Moroccansahraoui uses scare quotes every time he mentions the SADR shows his biases as well. No one is indifferent to everything, and making accusations about someone else on a talk page doesn't get us anywhere. If you want to support a claim, you should give verifiable facts rather than character assassination.

Almost none of this has anything to do with anything, but I will point some serious errors and possible distrortions. The SADR was in Western Sahara in 1976. At the time, the Polsiario did not have the support of Algeria, and they weren't even the first state to recognize them. This claim that the Polisario are some Algerian organization made up of crypto-Moroccans is an old canard. In fact, the SADR couldn't have been declared from the camps in Tindouf: the camps were formed because of the Moroccan invasion (including the dropping of napalm on innocent civilian populations) and the invasion only happened after the declaration of independence. Your claim is not only untrue, it's utter nonsense.

The claim that the SADR cannot be recognized is also nonsense as well. The Montevideo Convention states that a state must have (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. The SADR has all of these, therefore it can be a state.

The UN is a neutral arbiter in the conflict: it neither recognizes the SADR's sovereignty nor Morocco's. Since it defines the Polisario Front and the Kingdom of Morocco as the parties to the conflict, there would be no impetus to mention the SADR. That having been said, according to the Constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, until the occupation of Western Sahara ends and free elections can be instituted, the SADR is a one-party state with the Polisario as the single party.

Several non-African states have recognized the SADR and if you're going to make the claim that they were somehow strong-armed by Algeria (?) and this is a well-known fact, it should be easy to provide a source for that claim.

Let me reiterate that Western Sahara is are never going to delete from this list, as it fits the criteria and unilateral Moroccan nationalism is not convincing evidence.

By your own reasoning, Palestine should be deleted because "the UN is still dealing with the conflict through diplomatic channels, searching for a final settlement" and was a "was an unilateral proclamation by the PLO for its own purpopses." Also, that is true of several unrecognized states on this list and virtually every state in history. (E.g. the United States of America was "an unilateral proclamation by the Founding Fathers for their own purpopses.") The position of the Polisario is not that "whether Western Sahara will be become an independant state or simply remains part of Morocco," because Western Sahara is not, nor has been a part of Morocco. Furthermore, "the proclamatio of republic by the Polisario" is not a "countrdiction [sic] with its non stop claim of a referendum" because the declaration was made decades prior to the referendum process. You are clearly either ignorant about the conflict or your twisting around facts to make a nonsense case that is incredulous.

The Free Zone was established in the Agreed Framework No. 1; the ceasefire agreement that lead to MINURSO's deployment in the region. Obviously, the UN does not call it the Free Zone or the Liberated Territories, but it is territory under the administration of the SADR pursuant to the mandate of MINURSO. The buffer zone is a much smaller region that is only 3-5 kilometers around the Moroccan Wall on either side. Since Western Sahara is more than 10 kilometers wide, that leaves a substantial region. Again, this is a lame canard that you either believe to be true because you don't know better, or you are presenting as true because you're lying. These are the only possible options.

You also make some wild claim about Libya not recognizing the SADR; I have no idea where you got this information, since Libya has been one of the biggest backers of the Polsiario and one of the most frequent destinations for Sahrawi students to study abroad. Again, if you want to make an outrageous claim like that, it will only be credible if you offer a source. Apparently, you are unwilling or unable to do that.

You seem to have some misconstrual of the function of the United Nations: they do not vet candidates for lists on Wikipedia. The UN doesn't recognize (e.g.) South Ossetia or Kosovo. It's curious that you aren't arguing for their deletion from the list. At the risk of sounding bad-faith myself, you are clearly just displaying your own bad-faith and biased editing. I'm happy to use the UN as a source where it is appropriate (e.g. earlier on in this same post), when they are irrelevant, they are irrelevant.

As for cplda's two options, neither is strictly accurate:
 * "remove the mention of SADR and leave it to the note to redirect the reader to the other pages giving more details," would be out-of-step with all other cases of unrecgonized states (e.g. TRNC or Kosovo.) Why should the SADR receive some kind of oppbrobrium that isn't reserved for Abkhazia?
 * "Western Sahara - administered by Morocco, claimed by the Polisario Front, in exile in Algeria but controlling part of the territory, aiming to make it The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" is more accurate, but ignores the fact that the SADR already exists and the SADR is attempting to control their remaining claimed territory. It would be like saying that the Republic of China doesn't exist until it takes back the Mainland.

I'm all for some massaging of the text, but I personally don't see what's so problematic with it as it stands.

Regarding the flag: it is the flag of the SADR, Polisario, and Western Sahara (e.g. the Flag of the Republic of China's canton is the flag of the KMT.) Again, if the flag of Kosovo is on here, why not the Sahrawi flag? What is so compelling about deleting information about this one case and leaving it about all these others? Especially when there is a much stronger legal precedent for thinking of the SADR as a state than virtually all of the other unrecognized states on this list. The last flag used by the Spaniards was the flag of the Spanish Empire as Spanish Sahara was a constituent of Spain at the time. Why we would include a flagicon for the Spanish Empire is beyond me. The idea of mentioning one (the SADR or Western Sahara) with no reference to the other is virtually impossible; how could you even explain one of those entries?

Orange Tuesday's comments about there being three positions doesn't make any sense to me: the UN mediates between the Repbulic of Cyprus and the TRNC as well. They recognize that there are two parties, even if only one is understood as a state. I don't really see how this is different.

"Most states neither recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara nor the independence of the SADR. So why does the SADR get on the list when Western Sahara the non self governing territory gets left off it?" The rest of the UN's list of non-self governing territories are integrated into states as dependencies and many of them have no active indepenence movement. None of them have declared indpendence nor been recognized as such by anyone else. Western Sahara is very different from a number of those cases historically and as a matter of international law.

Splitting the entries would be like splitting Kosovo and the Republic of Kosovo, since the latter doesn't control Mitrovica. What's the point? States that recognize the SADR recognize it as the government of Western Sahara; they are identical as much as "France" and the "French Republic" are to the international community at large.

I suppose by and large, Pfainuk and I are on the same page here: the status quo is working and the proposals are not better as they miss something of the complexity of the situation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As discussion is moving forward, I don't think that spliting the entry in 2 entries will give the right point on the western sahara case. As SADR isn't a sovereign country, SADR has no place here. WS is a territory. I am with the idea to put a WS entry without any flag but we need to precise to the readers the official statute of the region (UN view). I support the idea to precise that "WS is a non self-governing territory administrated by the kingdom of Morocco and claimed by Polisario Front". There is no official document (UN) where it's precised that the kingdom of Morocco is controlling 80% of the territory and that Polisario Front is controlling 20%. Besides, there is no official document (UN) where the term 'Free Zone' is mentionned. All this kind of information come from pro-polisario websites. Here, we need to be impartial (NPOV) and clever in our presentation of the list.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * POV Saying that the SADR is not a sovereign state is POV; that's not for this list to decide. Since there are states who say otherwise, it's simply up to Wikipedia to report that reality rather than choose a side. As I have pointed out to you several times, SADR administration of the Free Zone was a product of the Agreed Framework No. 1 ceasefire. I'm not going to go over this with you ad infinitum. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll break this down. In the case of Kosovo, there's recognition and there's non-recognition. By which I mean, either you recognize the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state (in which case it would meet the inclusion criteria for this list) or you recognize it as an integral part of Serbia (in which case it would not meet the inclusion criteria for this list). We provide a neutral point of view between these two positions by putting Kosovo in italics. This tells the reader that some states recognize the independence of Kosovo and some do not. Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, and Transnistria all fit the same pattern. It's binary. Either its independent and belongs on the list or it's part of another state and it doesn't. That's why there's no POV problem with the flags or official names of any of these entries. Anyone who would object to having and "Republic of Abkhazia" on the Abkhazia entry would not want the entry to be on the list at all, because they would view it as a part of Georgia and not as an independent state.


 * But with Western Sahara, the situation is a bit different. There are three points of view on the subject. The first view is that it's an integral part of Morroco (and therefore not on the list). The second view is that it's independent as the SADR (and therefore on the list). But the third view that it is not a part of Morocco, but that it is also not a part of the SADR (therefore on the list but in a different form). This is what makes Western Sahara unique from the other states on the list. It has two competing POVs for what the correct entry on the list of countries would actually be. Those holding the second view would want something like this:
 * 🇪🇭 Western Sahara - Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
 * while people holding the third view would want something like this:


 * The thing is, you can't have both of these in the same bullet point. You can't have that flag and not have a flag, and you can't have that name and not have a name. And if we keep the status quo, we only represent the first and second views and ignore the third. That's what makes the status quo a violation of NPOV. It presents the Western Sahara situation as a binary dispute between the SADR and Morocco when a significant chunk of the international community favours neither side.


 * That's why I'm so strongly for splitting the entry like this:
 *  Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
 * It allows SADR to remain on the list, while at the same time allowing for a Western Sahara entry which does not give undue weight to the SADR POV. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly A great many states have said nothing about Kosovo - neither that it is an independent republic, nor that it is an integral part of Serbia. Furthermore, what constitutes Kosovo is what makes a parallel with the SADR/Western Sahara. The Republic of Kosovo does not control the entirety of what is recognized to be the region of Kosovo; do you propose to make two separate entries? If not, why should this be any different? As I pointed out, the UN mediated between two parties in the TRNC/Republic of Cyprus conflict without recognizing it as a state; that is hardly a third point of view. It is a policy of deliberate ambiguity in which they recognize that there is a dispute and two parties. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly A great many states have said nothing about Kosovo - neither that it is an independent republic, nor that it is an integral part of Serbia. Furthermore, what constitutes Kosovo is what makes a parallel with the SADR/Western Sahara. The Republic of Kosovo does not control the entirety of what is recognized to be the region of Kosovo; do you propose to make two separate entries? If not, why should this be any different? As I pointed out, the UN mediated between two parties in the TRNC/Republic of Cyprus conflict without recognizing it as a state; that is hardly a third point of view. It is a policy of deliberate ambiguity in which they recognize that there is a dispute and two parties. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm basing this argument on international recognition and not territorial control, so the example of North Kosovo isn't really relevant. But more to the point, staying out of (or mediating) a dispute is different than taking a third side in a dispute. The United Nations specifically calls Western Sahara a non-self governing territory. It classifies it as a distinct geopolitical entity. That's something which it doesn't do for the Northern Cyprus. It's a mediator in the Cyprus dispute, but it doesn't produce world maps with a divided Cyprus and it doesn't include Northern Cyprus on its list of non-self governing territories.


 * Taiwan is not Abkhazia, and Kosovo is not Western Sahara. These unrecognized countries are all different. Just because we've put them into the same category doesn't mean that we have to treat each of them the exact same. We can make exceptions. Orange Tuesday (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure That is true, but I still see no compelling reason to do anything to alter the status quo. Your point about Cyprus simply isn't true and I don't know where you got that idea - the Green Line is a product of UN intervention. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * iam afraid some argument put forward by some contributors are out of the context, for example KOSOVO was part of Yougoslavia, during the socialist era, the war in the Balkans , paved a way to the independance of BOSNIA, and the inhabitants of Kosovo with the help of the international community have imposed their wish not to remainh part of Yougoslavia , to compare the case of Cosovo with Western Sahara is out of context, therefore iam asking those contributors to read the history of the area , particularly from 1884 when the Spanish colonized the Sahara, until 1975 when the confict about western Sahara became obvious betwen Morocco and Algeria on one hand , and Morocco and Polisario on the other hand .reading the history of the conflict , and particularly from thev point of view of the legal and historical relationship between Morocco and Western sahara , will definitely help each contributor to be more objective, and avoid any unnecessary arguments--Terrygazoulit (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Context Well, I'll grant you that Kosovo and Western Sahara are different in some respects (e.g. Western Sahara was never a part of Morocco), but they are similar in others; it's a common tactic amongst Moroccan nationals on Wikipedia to argue that Western Sahara is somehow dissimilar from every other territorial dispute and it's not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Biases have no place in Wikipedia. Even if you support the Western Sahara Wikiproject, you can't impose your viewpoint and the one of ONE party in Wikipedia. It doesn’t make sense. We are not here to make judgment from our side. If I am using quotes when I write “SADR” that’s simply because of its non existence at the UN. I am not accusing anyone. I am simply noticing that mirages and wrong information are becoming established facts. When I mention UN resolutions, I believe it’s beyond any suspicion.

“SADR” HAS NEVER BEEN IN WESTERN SAHARA. The founders declared the establishment of this republic from Zouirate in Mauritania in 1976. This is an established fact and many former ex-polisario leaders can confirm it. That shows clearly that you are misinformed about Western Sahara issue.

“SADR” had the support of Lybia and Algeria in a context of the cold war. Polisario front was used by Algeria and Lybia to plot the Moroccan monarchy. Many Moroccan opposants to the Moroccan regime joined the movement. The strategy was clear: getting the independence of Western Sahara and plotting the monarchy to get a communist country. That was the strategy of the Soviet Union in North Africa. That means Polisario front was initially supporting the unity of Morocco. There was no invasion. There was an arrangement between the kingdom of Morocco and Spain after many years of negotiations under the UN auspices. It’s pity there are many wrong information on Western Sahara. I don’t know if it’s because of lack of information or something else I don’t want to qualify. Anyway, the green march took place in 1975. “SADR” was established in 1976. So you were definitely wrong on that.

“SADR” hasn’t permanent population. Many of them return to Western Sahara when they succeed to flee from Tindouf camps. Besides, the population of Tindouf camps is a combination of people from Mauritania, Mali and Algeria. People originally from Western Sahara are very few. Regarding the territory, “SADR” is established in Tindouf camps south Algeria. “SADR” has no official territory. “SADR” has non democratic government in the sense that there are no political parties (unique party), there are no elections. The parliament is designed and not elected by population…there is no opposition. Any opposition is persecuted and oppressed. “SADR” has no capacity to enter into relations with European countries, with the US, Canada, Japon, Russia and so on. These kinds of countries can’t have diplomatic relationship with one-party organization.

The word ‘occupation’ isn’t correct. This word is used by polisario supporters. Let’s talk about “administration of the territory”. This is the term used at the UN level. UN resolutions have never mentioned that the administration of the territory is about occupation. It’s only about dream to think that one day elections could be held in Tindouf camps by polisario leaders.

If you say that the UN is mentioning the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario Front, I am sorry to say the constitution of “SADR” has no sense in this discussion. It was made for Tindouf camps and not Western Sahara. The constitution of “SADR” has nothing to do with Western Sahara.

When a so-called republic is recognized by a sovereign country then when the later withdraws its recognition for some reason, I believe there is no seriousness treating the so-called republic. When Palestine was recognized by many countries, none of them withdraws its recognition till nowadays. Affirming with insistence that WS will never be deleted from this list isn’t NPOV !

As I said Palestine fight is more concrete and serious than Polisario Front fight. Palestine fight is clear and has no lies. Polisario Front is about lies and exclusively lies (NPOV). When the terms of UN resolutions are diverted from their initial meaning (Buffer zone…), I believe it’s about misinformation and lies. Regarding the historical relationship of Morocco with Western Sahara, you have no information on that. You are simply taking into account the version of polisario supporters. The proclamation of “SADR” is in total contradiction of international law. There was no preparation at the UN level of this declaration.

Excuse me but you can’t say that I am ignorant. I am sahraoui and I belong to Western Sahara. I am sure that I know more than you. My knowledge on the issue is not based on polisario supporters documents or websites or emails. I lived many of the western sahara issue steps and I especially have relatives on Tindouf camps ;-)

Again there is no mention to a ‘Free Zone’ in the text of the ceasefire agreement. Re-saying this expression is about NPOV or about lack of information. There is no administration of Polisario front in this area. As I said before, each time Polisario Front militaries go inside this area they are urged to come out. FYI, the Moroccan administration in charge of statistics (http://www.hcp.ma) can give you all information about this region, just to let you know that the kingdom of Morocco is really administrating the region. So, there is no recognized ‘Free zone’, there is only a ‘Buffer zone’.

Kaddafi had an historical meeting with Hassan II in 1984 in Oujda (east Morocco) where they signed an agreement where Lybia made the commitment to stop the support of polisario and to withdraw the recognition of “SADR”. As you aren’t from the region, I guess you can’t know some of the established facts on Western Sahara issue.

I am sorry but we are discussing the special Western Sahara case. We are not talking about the other cases where local governments are inside the territories which is not the case of “SADR”. The UN is clear on Western Sahara issue. Everything else is about allegation and dishonesty.

“SADR” has nothing to do with the other cases. You have not to put at the same level “SADR” and the other republics. “SADR” is out of the territory and “SADR” is controlling anything from what you are saying. Is there any official document where it’s mentioned black on white that “SADR” is controlling 20% of Western Sahara. I can tell you that except polisario propaganda, there is no official document.

Western Sahara has no flag. The flag you put on the WS entry is the one of “SADR” taking place in Tindouf camps south Algeria. “SADR” has nothing to do with Western Sahara. The faction involved in Western Sahara conflict is Polisario Front. The flag is the one of the Polisario Front and “SADR” maybe but not the one of Western Sahara. Of course, putting the former Spanish flag doesn’t make sense. Again, my proposal is the most impartial one and it relates the reality of the ground at the UN level which is beyond any pro-moroccan or pro-polisario propaganda: let’s delete the WS entry from the list and let’s add it in the section of entities not included with the mention : WS a non self-governing territory administrated by the kingdom of Morocco and claimed by Polisario Front.

I believe that the none-recognition of “SADR” by the UN is the most significant matter on the way we must consider Western Sahara. Besides the name of Western Sahara has nothing to do with the name of SADR. If it was ‘Republic of Western Sahara’, it would maybe correct to associate both of them but here we are talking about “SADR” taking place far from Western Sahara.

Again and again and again, I can’t understand the stubbornness of the editor on none-respecting of the UN resolutions terms. These documents are the most NPOV references we can get. In these documents, there is no mention to “SADR” and there are no ties between “SADR” and Western Sahara. Besides, Western Sahara isn’t considered as a country. I repeat again Western Sahara is a non self-governing territory. Is there any consensus on that? We need to move forward because there are many other wrong affirmations published on the Western Sahara Wikiproject to contest and update. --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Biases There are biases in Wikipedia and there should be - e.g. Wikipedia favors verifiable and sourced information over hearsay. If you have additions to make to this or any other article, that is fine, but it has to be accompanied by verifiable and credible sources. And that's a good bias. Another is NPOV - that is a bias in the writing that comes from a neutral perspective and I personally think it is a good one. If you see wrong information, you should cite a verifiable and credible source that contradicts it and make an addition to the contrary.
 * The declaration of independence of the SADR was February 26, 1976, after Spanish withdrawl. I never said nor implied that it occured before the Green March the previous November and I have no idea why you bring it up in the first place.
 * YOur claims about Polisario being used to overthrow the Moroccan monarchy are completely baseless - they never fought in Morocco proper and only ever defended their territory in Western Sahara. In point of fact, they were established to fight Spanish colonialism and were not initially supported by Algeria at all. Again, if you have some credible and verifiable source that Polisario are a joint Algerian–Libyan plot to overthrow the Moroccan monarchy, please present it and add that to the appropriate article. If not, you're wasting your time posting this conjecture. If you're claiming that Morocco never invaded Western Sahara, I'm honestly at a loss.
 * The population of the SADR lives in the Free Zone and the refugee camps. That is a permanent population because many of them have been in the camps for decades and there are established towns, cities, and trading posts in the Free Zone. Your claim that the camps are composed of Algerians, Malians (?), and Mauritanians is also specious; show me some evidence that such is the case. Where did the Sahrawi refugees go? Who in their right mind would choose to live in the sheer squalor of these refugee camps instead of Mali? According to Freedom House, the Moroccan administration in Western Sahara is one of the most repressive and least democratic in the world; what does the relative political freedom of an administration have to do with anything? What is your point?
 * The UN has called Western Sahara occupied on several instances: to whit, UN General Assembly Resolution 34/37 and UN General Assembly Resolution 35/19. Again, these are verifiable and credible sources which directly contradict your claim.
 * Again, you're mistaken about the Constituion of the SADR: it was initially drafted in El Aauin and subsequently revised in Tifariti at the General Congresses.
 * The withdrawl of recognition of the SADR is entirely up to individual states, but that doesn't undo the reality of the state. See also Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. The ROC didn't cease to exist when states recognized the PRC instead, nor would it cease to exist if all states recognized the PRC.
 * Western Sahara won't be deleted from this list; it fits the criteria. The only way it could be deleted is if the situation changes or the criteria change. Since you can't unilaterally do either, you're not going to get it deleted. You need to understand the nature of consensus on Wikipedia and how to get it; the notion of deleting Western Sahara is entirely unrealistic and will not be supported by consensus.
 * I don't even know what "Palestine fight is more concrete and serious" is supposed to mean. If you really think that "Palestine fight is clear and has no lies," then I honestly don't know what to say to that either. If you think that "Polisario Front is about lies and exclusively lies" is NPOV, then you have misunderstood WP:NPOV. The claim that I have no information on "the historical relationship of Morocco with Western Sahara," you are also mistaken. For instance, I know that the legal ties between Morocco and Western Sahara neither imply "sovereignty or rightful ownership over the territory."
 * You may well be Sahrawi and I can't dispute that, but you show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and documented fact about the Western Sahara dispute; my guess is your proximity to Morocco is a hinderance rather than a help considering the massive propaganda machine that exists there for disseminating lies.
 * For instance, as MINURSO has clearly defined it, the Free Zone and the Buffer Zone overlap, but are not identical east of the berm. I don't know why I have to keep on telling you this, but it's still true no matter how many times you repeat your misinformation.
 * If you have a source for your claim about Libya, please provide it. If not, your claims are really of no consequence.
 * The claim that the SADR has "nothing to do with Western Sahara" shows that you are either making claims in bad faith or have a serious misunderstanding about the situation.
 * Again, you conveniently skip over the fact that the UN considers (e.g.) Palestine to be a non-state entity. I don't suppose you're proposing to delete it as well, are you? Again, this proves your bad faith and the fact that you want to impose your biases about the conflict onto this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

MS: You wrote ‘the invasion only happened after the declaration of independence’. You were wrong the declaration of “SADR” establishment was made in 1976 from Zouirate and not from Western Sahara (as you said) after the green march.

The point concerning the initial objectives of Polisario leaders are well known by all former Moroccan dissidents who joined Polisario Front in the 70’ as well as many former polisario leaders. The ESISC report contains many declarations on the initial objectives of Polisario leaders.

The kingdom of Morocco has recovered Western Sahara in 1975 to finalize the decolonization of its territories. The kingdom of Morocco was united before 1912. The occupation of the kingdom of Morocco started in 1912. The French were in the center of the country and the Spanish were in the north and the south (Western Sahara). The recovering of Western Sahara is the last phase of decolonization of the kingdom of Morocco. The kingdom of Morocco has faced the Spanish since the 60’ to decolonize the region. Hassan II asked the UN to consider this region as non self-governing territory in the 60’. There was no Polisario Front nor “SADR”. The statute of Western Sahara has been running since then longer before Polisario front or “SADR”.

The buffer zone dishonestly called liberated territories and free zone by polisario hard supporters is no man’s land because life conditions are very hard. The few people living there are nomads and have Moroccan IDs. Please look at this recent reportage from Euronews which mentions clearly that many Mauritanians are living in Tindouf camps.

http://www.euronews.net/en/article/28/08/2008/growing-voice-of-the-bewildered-in-western-sahara/

as people are politely retained and encircled by polisario militaries first then Algerian militaries, they are not allowed to go out of the camps. That’s the explanation of the happiness of people living in such hard life conditions .

Saying that the Moroccan administration is one of the most repressive and least democratic is simply conveying the exaggerated propaganda of hard polisario supporters. The reality of the ground is definitely different from what you are writing. It’s pity I feel that I am reading a polisario newspaper!! The kingdom of Morocco is facing a separatism issue as any other country (Spain, France…). There are some separatists in Western Sahara but bizarrely they aren’t originally from Western Sahara. Many of them come from the north of Western Sahara or from the north of the country. In fact, some of these separatists are sometimes persecuted by police forces in very few figures not as much as the polisario propaganda tries to convey on Internet. These separatists living in Western Sahara all have Moroccan IDs. They travel abroad to support separatism and they return back to their homeland safely and respectfully. Is that about democracy or not?

False and allegation, UN resolutions have never used the term occupation. What are the links to these UN resolutions to illuminate us and justify your saying?

As people are not from the region (as you) and as they have no knowledge on the western sahara issue (genesis of polisario front, ties of polisario with the soviet union block…), you could say whatever you want on this page without any real control or contradiction. It’s pity for the knowledge spirit of Wikipedia. I am little bit sade about that. How could you talk on El Aauin without précising that it’s about “Laayoune camp” and not the city situated in Western Sahara. Why making people confused on the reality of the ground of Western Sahara?

Why not saying that the congresses of Polisario Front are made in contradiction of the ceasefire agreement and that the MINURSO asked Polisario Front many times to stop his activity in the buffer zone. Why not saying the truth on that? Why not relating what it’s written black on write on UN resolutions?

This is the link to the official map of the Western Sahara. Any other map is about misinformation and manipulation:

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/minurso.pdf

I am not saying that Western Sahara must be deleted. What I am saying is that Western Sahara must be put on the other section of this page to mention its real statute to avoid misinforming people. The role of Wikipedia is to inform not to deform or support non NPOV.

I am looking for consensus on presenting Western Sahara as it is at the UN level. It’s important to the readers to know the reality of the ground from UN perspective. Why not considering UN resolutions on describing Western Sahara? I can’t understand your stubbornness on that.

As I am new on Wikipedia I probably don’t master Wikipedia policies but the thing I am sure is that the readers of Wikipedia were abused with many wrong or incomplete information on Western Sahara issue. It’s because one editor had the power of information to impose one version and only one version of the conflict!! That’s not a fair.

FYI, if I were supporting 100% the Moroccan version of the Western Sahara conflict I won’t be asking to keep Western Sahara on the list at all because in Morocco, Western Sahara is called Southern provinces and you know that very well. I am here in this debates to relate the reality of the ground no more nor less. It’s about NPOV to ask to respect the content of UN resolutions. I am here to support justice and accuracy.

Again, “SADR” is an auto-proclamed republic who claims separatism in Western Sahara. The sahraouis composing the polisario front are relatives to the unionists living in Western Sahara since 1975. I personally have relatives in Tindouf camps.

I believe I know more than any other one in this debates the real situation of Western Sahara issue. Again, I am really honest and just when I am talking to be in conformance of UN resolutions, UN map and General Assembly reports.

Regarding Palestine, I support their legal fight and I support to put them on the list because their statute is advanced than “SADR”. Palestine authority is an observer in the UN which is not the case of “SADR”. Palestine was recognized once for all by many sovereign countries. Palestine authority is sovereign and has a territory to apply his power. “SADR” isn’t a sovereign state. !!!“SADR” is fighting to get a territory!!!!

Again, I feel that relating the truth about Western Sahara is a bit embarrassing to the editor. It’s pity to impose lies and distortion as established facts.

Again, there is no consensus on putting a flag and “SADR” in the WS entry.

--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

 * MS: Justin and I were supposed to no intervene in this section. As Justin made comments, I also will made some comments on this arbitrary section.
 * although i made an appeal to all contributors so the level of discussion is superior to the one iam witnessing right now, there is no doubt on my mind that one and one contributor only aims at imposing his points of view, and beliefs, whether they are right or wrong, on the rest of the contributors concerning the necessity of deleting the "SADR" from the list of countries, for obvious and legal reasons, if the editor refuses to do so, the only explanation is that the latter refuses to deal with the reality of the matter , in another word that the international community through basically the UN organisation does not recognise the republic in question , and that from the internatiobnal point of view this so -called "RASD" does not possess the minimum components which makes out of it a real republic , in this respect i feel that the editor is not objective at all in terms of dealing with such important issue , giving wrong information, makes Wikipedia a non genuine source of information , and this is extremently important for the latter to make sure that information and datum given by it are true and genuine , and taken from relable sources; the argument put forward by the "Moroccan Saharoui" should be taken into account, he definitely has got a point when he said that nobody even the editor should ignore the UN resolutions concerning any conflict in the world, i would like to see the editor bringing to this deiscussion some convincing views , instead of imposing what seems to be his own beliefs --196.206.255.160 (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See above —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Koavf, what I meant by the Cyprus comment was that the UN doesn't regard Northern Cyprus as a distinct political entity in the same way it does Western Sahara. The UN map you showed has a united Cyprus with some cease-fire lines running through it. "Northern Cyrpus" as a country isn't on that map anywhere. The only people who regard Northern Cyprus as a distinct country as defined by this list view it as the TRNC, and the UN is not among those people. This is the same situation for most of those break-away countries, but not for Western Sahara, where the territory is viewed as a distinct political entity but not as a part of the SADR.


 * I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think the UN should dictate what's on the list, but I do think that its opinion is important, and should be at least included in there somewhere. The status quo entry for Western Sahara doesn't do a sufficient job of that, in my mind. It's POV in a way that the entries for the other unrecognized countries are not.
 * MS: the UN is the most impartial reference. Otherwise, you will get some fabricated maps/sites/websites with wrong or incomplete information as references and as you have no knowledge of this cold war conflict you will simply give your consensus.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The UN has a strong bias toward maintaining the integrity of the current list of member states. It also has a very strong bias of the permanent members of the security council. Readin (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I think this discussion is completely out of hand. Far too many people are bringing their nationalist biases to the table and going on rants instead of trying to make the page better. So I'm going to step out of it. I still don't think the status quo is the best option for this page, but whatever. You guys do whatever you like. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure Well, I'm sorry to see you go, but I should also point out that Turkey recognizes the TRNC (of course.) I agree that the UN shouldn't dictate what's on this list - nor has it, and nor should any one editor who wants to push a pro-Moroccan agenda. Nor should any one editor who wants to push a pro-Polisario agenda as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: I am also sorry to see that you are leaving. You were the voice of justice in this debate. How to do to make you stay? I was trying to impose UN resolutions not pro-moroccan agenda. As I said above pro-moroccan agenda is to consider Western Sahara as part of the kingdom of Morocco. Western Sahara is called Southern provinces in Morocco. I am here in this debate to support justice and accuracy. UN resolutions are the best examples.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to be in the middle of this discussion, in fact what pushes me to take part of such discussion is the interest as journalist who often deals with the international information, in this respect, I would like to go back to what I bileve is confusion of the author of the list of countries, although I do not feel in atotal disagreement with ideas put forward by Justin. It seems to me inconvenient to place of Western Sahara the initials of "SADR", knowing that the UN do not recognize such republic, we should not go that far, because this criteria of recognition by the international community through the United nations, wheter we agree or not, seems to me closer of the less ideological and more objective approach of the Encyclopedia Wikipedia. The list includestin fact just countries and entities recognized by the UN, so neither the flag nor the name of "SADR" correspond to an entity recognized somehow, by the UN. The Non recognized of the UN of this state is an accomplished fact, as there is no document, no statement from the UN, which never mentioned the name of "SADR". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquo (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * UN recognition Jacquo, there are several entities on here which are not UN member states; that is not the purpose of this list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: Justin, can you explain to us the purpose of the list from your perspective?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Orange Tuesday, it's really a pity if you leave the scene: you have shown the most neutral points of view and suggested among the most balanced solutions. Justin and Moroccansahraoui have provided us with useful information, despite their obvious bias, lately in such a verbose mode that I think they've 'used up all their bullets'. My suggestion would then be:
 * to Justin and Moroccansahraoui: now that you had the opportunity to express all your arguments, as champions of a cause or the other, please stop repeating them and leave the rest of us to find a balanced solution - which, by the way, is only to find out the number of entries on this list and an appropriately worded complement (if the number of entries is not 0, which is likely)
 * to the rest of us: let's continue the discussion without more partisan statements.
 * Clpda (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is a bit long, I'm afraid, but I want to give my thoughts, and describe the situation as I understand it. My background here is that I don't generally edit articles related to Western Sahara (I tend to do the South Atlantic) and I have no known connection to either side of the dispute, nor any strong political opinion on the matter.

I'll start with the relevant facts as I have understood them over the last few days, and end with my thoughts on a way forward.

First, definitions:
 * Western Sahara is the former Spanish Sahara (or at least, that part that Spain left in 1976).
 * Polisario is an organisation set up with the intention of creating an independent state in Western Sahara.
 * The "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" (SADR) is the partially recognised state associated with Polisario. It is governed entirely by Polisario.
 * The berm is a wall dividing Moroccan-held territory from Polisario-held territory.
 * MS: I need to correct you about the Wall. The wall was held before 1991 to stop polisario front attacks. Polisario front had the most sophisticated weapons of that time made in the Soviet Union and sponsored by Lybia till 1984 and Algeria. The wall was the sole solution to protect unionist sahraouis people from the attacks of polisario front. The wall was made in a context of war not to divide the territory or to separate families as some hard suppporters of polisario are conveying on Internet. After the end of the war in 1991 which corresponds to the end of the Soviet Union block, the UN profits on the territory behind the berm to establish a ceasefire zone called buffer zone.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And now some facts:
 * The SADR exercises de facto control over the area east of the berm, which totals approximately 20% of the territory of Western Sahara and is home to approximately 30000 people. Morocco says they shouldn't be there and considers this a "buffer zone" between the sides.
 * MS: Again, there is no official document mentionning that Polisario front is controlling 20% of the territory. All comes for the classical polisario front propaganda and hard supporters. Then, the sahraouis are living in Tindouf camps not in the buffer zone as life conditions are hard to support. Some nomads are living there.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The SADR is recognised by 45 countries plus the AU (according to the most reliable external source I found).
 * MS: FYI, Guinee-bissau, Guyana, Iran, Mali, Syria withdraw their recognition. Maybe many others did before. The official list exists at the UN level.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Western Sahara is on the UN list of non-self-governing territories, the only such territory with no country acknowledged as the administering power.
 * MS: The administration power is the kingdom of Morocco. It's mentionned in a UN resolution.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I do feel that the SADR name and flag belong in the article. The words "Western Sahara" would seem to be the most common English-language name for the area they claim, but as I say it also refers to the geographical region as well.
 * MS: As They are claiming the territory that means they have no territory. In fact, they are established in Tindouf camps south Algeria.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I copied out the footnote earlier in the page: "Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony which was in 1960s put on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories subject to decolonization. It is claimed by the Kingdom of Morocco which currently rules large portion of it, and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) which exercises effective control over the area east of Moroccan Wall. SADR is a member of the African Union and the Asian-African Strategic Partnership formed at the 2005 Asian-African Conference. It is currently recognized by 46 UN member states but has never been admitted to UN itself. UN has attempted to hold a referendum through the mission United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), and is holding direct talks between Morocco and the Polisario Front (the ruling party of SADR). Despite these attempts, however, the legal and political status of Western Sahara remain unresolved. See also Legal status of Western Sahara."
 * MS: It was subject of decolonization when the Spanish were there. After the agreement between Morocco and Spain, the kingdom of Morocco recovered the territory. There is no official document who mentions that the territory is divided into 2 parts, one controlled by the kingdom of Morocco and the other by Polisario Front. Less than 45 countries are recognizing "SADR". I will post the definitive list of the UN in the very near future. This note is clear : the statute of Western Sahara remains unresolved !!!--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, I would suggest: "The legal and political status of Western Sahara remains unresolved. It remained on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories following the departure of Spain, the administering power, in 1976, and is claimed both by Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). which The SADR is a member of the African Union that is recognised by 45 UN member states, but not by the UN itself.  The SADR exercises de facto control over areas east of the Moroccan Wall, whereas Morocco exercises control over the rest of the territory."
 * MS: You can't say that "SADR" is exercising de facto control on the "Free zone" because there is no official free zone. There is no official document mentionning the term of "Free Zone". Then there is no official document mentionning that Morocco is controlling 80% of the territory and that 20% are controlled by Polisario leaders.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm undecided over the words "Western Sahara" but I do think we should probably put this in the list no more or less than once. Pfainuk talk 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: You are in total contradiction. We are talking about the whole Western Sahara as a country at the same time you are presenting it as a divided territory between Morocco and Polisario Front. So why Polisario Front is more legitimate than Morocco. In such case, why not the moroccan flag as it's the administrative power!! It's not logical at all. We need to keep the UN statute. It's better than to be under POV.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent synthesis; I agree. As far as the name is concerned, I think there is no contestation about it. It is used as such on the Spain page, and also widely used in its French version as 'Sahara occidental'. Clpda (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: Of course there is contestation on this. Nothing logicial in your approach! I have a question why not considering the UN resolutions, UN maps, GA reports on Western Sahara issue.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've made a minor style change to my footnote - I've converted the long sentence in the middle to two sentences - but that shouldn't be controversial, I hope. Can I just make sure I'm clear that the current proposed change is to:
 * 🇪🇭 Western Sahara – Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[second footnote above]
 * Other options may be:
 * 🇪🇭 Western Sahara – Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[second footnote above]
 * 🇪🇭 Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic[second footnote above]
 * Actually, I kinda prefer that one with both names linked - we have different articles for Western Sahara as a territory and the SADR as a partially recognised state, and it would be a good idea IMO link to them both in the article proper. Pfainuk talk 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Style Regarding the small style point you raise, I think that you're correct - since there are two articles, two links makes sense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * About your footnote, 2nd version, 1st sentence: shouldn't it be 'remains'? or then 'statuses'? I agree with Justin that a link to SADR's page is better. Although it is clear enough in the footnote, I think that Morocco's involvement should appear in some way in the entry. Clpda (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: I am not OK to present it as you do. You are not in conformance with UN resolutions. Why not relating what it's written black on white? Is there any reserve on that? "SADR" is not a sovereign country. "SADR" has no territory. "SADR" is fighting to get a territory which is actually a non self-governing territory. We are talking about the whole Western Sahara and not part of it. Western sahara territory starts on the atlantic sea and finishs bordering Algeria and Mauritania. You are totally wrong.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: As you insist on not taking into account UN resolutions, here UN activities in the region. this is the weblink to the minurso ceasefire monitoring : http://www.minurso.unlb.org/monitoring.html

and this is the link to the official map of the Minurso : http://www.minurso.unlb.org/MINURSO_Ceasefire.pdf I hope you will be honest on your reading of the above document. You can see the camps in Tindouf and you can read the restricted activity zone and the violation notices the parties can get in case of violation of the ceasfire agreement. There is no mention to "SADR" neither to the territory controlled by "SADR". The body recongnized by the Minurso and the UN as well is Polisario Front and that's why I am not putting it between quotes.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Last but not leat, this the presentation of Western Sahara made by the MINURSO (UN) where it's mentionned as a territory. Please read all the text : http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minurso/background.html --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To MS, I would prefer it if you didn't intersperse your text like that. It makes it very hard to work out who wrote what.  Please consider consolidating it into one block.


 * This source and the map linked to it notes - in effect - that under the ceasefire, there is equal standing between Polisario/SADR forces east of the berm and Moroccan forces west of the berm (except for a 5km-wide strip on the Polisario/SADR side). To my mind it successfully disproves - among other things - your assertion that Polisario is not in Western Sahara.  The map you cite shows a sharp divide between the two sides of the berm, which again is consistent with my summary above and not with your objection to it.  Your third document seems largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


 * You will need to back up (with reliable and neutral sources) your assertion that Morocco is the "administering power" for Western Sahara on the list of non-self-governing territories, bearing in mind that committee that organises that list doesn't list it as such. And again, without reliable and neutral sources for your points on recognition we must ignore them.  On the word "claim", it is both fair and accurate in the English language to say that both Morocco and the SADR claim Western Sahara, and control parts of it.


 * I would also add that this list includes 52 entities (21%) that are not recognised as sovereign states by the UN. That includes at least one (Taiwan) that is specifically not recognised as a sovereign state and 43 (18%) which do not even claim to be sovereign states.  We do not use UN recognition to decide whether an entity should be on this list.


 * To Clpda - I've made my preferred edit on the footnote. My concern with a mention of Morocco in the listing is that we don't mention Serbia in when mentioning Kosovo and so on.  If we can devise a non-arbitrary criterion on whether to mention a third country in the listing or not, I'll accept it, but I believe the reason we have the footnotes is so that we don't have to. Pfainuk talk 18:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I will try again to do my best to illuminate you. I stay logical in my approach there is no mention of "SADR" in these documents. Please do answer to my question : is there any mention of "SADR"?. Then you said that the third document has nothing to do here. I disagree with you. In the first line of this document, the MINURSO mentions that Western Sahara is a territoy and not a country with a brief presentation of the Western Sahara issue. Why do you insist on distorting the truth about the region and the conflict!!!!--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can read, the Minurso mentions "Polisario Front troops". It's about ceasefire agreement after a WAR (1979 to 1991). There is no mention to "SADR" at all. Many thanks to reconsider your wrong point of view. I bring all the official documents where there is no mention to "SADR" as a country or a sovereign state in Western Sahara. I don't know what to do to convince you. Everything is clear to me and to two other editors in this page. The consensus is still running.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Minurso is the body in charge of keeping peace in the buffer zone. Polisario front troups are about militaries and not a government or republic. Here is the link of the presentation of Minurso work on Western Sahara http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minurso/background.html where there is metion of the right figures of people eligible to the referendum from each side. And this is the official map of the Minurso to manage the ceasefire http://www.minurso.unlb.org/MINURSO_Ceasefire.pdf

--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if the editor of this page refuses all argument putting forward concerning the Western Sahara issue and particularly whether the "SADR" is legally speaking a sovereign state or not, then we have to make appeal to international law experts to give their view about this issue, the reason of this discussion is to provide readers, and those who would like to consult the Wikkipedia pages with genuine information  about every single national , regioanl , or international event, but reading the nature of the discussion and the way some contributers keep insisting on the fact that the "SADR" is a sovoreign state and should remain so without any concrete argument or  official documents tends to empty this discussion from its main aim and porpuse , which is obviously  to present to the readers , researchers journalists and international opinion the truth only the truth about the Western Sahara dispute, .i will again call the editor to remain objective and honnest in the approach he is using to tackle this issue, i would like to be part of a fruitful  discussion ,so whoever is participating in this discussion feels that he is contributing in a such way that we end up formulating a page full of genuine information , and correct historical events, i will keep taking part of this discussion defending any views that are supported by documents and resolutions--Terrygazoulit (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:Thanks Terrygazoulit for your compassion and your objectivity. I believe that 'Orange Tuesday' made a first step to consensus but he left the discussion. I am OK to start from what he points out above. He made a very interesting proposal on separating Western Sahara and "SADR". Let's talk on the manner we can do it on this list. Just to inform some of you who are not aware of the western sahara issue. In the report of the secretary general S/2001/398 par. 19 of April 14 2001 on Western Sahara issue, you can read this :
 * ...I do believe, however, that substantial progress has been made towards determining whether the Government of Morocco as the administrative power in Western Sahara is prepared to offer or support some devolution of authority for all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of the Territory that is genuine, substantial and keeping with international norms.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is vital to defferenciate in our discussion between Polisario as a movement or a political party and the "SADR" as a state without the strict minimum requirements of a sovereign state, on this subject, there is another element of reflection to be added to this discussion , if we take into account the rejection of the Baker Plan , Algiers proposed , at the beginning of 2003, the pure and simple partition of Western Sahara between Morocco and Algeria, the Sahraoui cause was forgotten , and those who have declared the creation of the "SADR" were not in the position to refuse the Algerian proposal to divide Western Sahara into two parts . This proposal proves to what extend the Algerian are the only policy maker about the future Of Western Sahara, and that the creation of the "SADR" was only political tactics to put pressure on Morocco, on this subject i will quote Dr William Zartman , director of the Management of conflicts program in the Paul H . Nitze school of advanced international studies of the John Hopkings University in Washington , who believes that " the question of the Sahara is probably also an existential question for the Algerian army, more than for the Moroccan army . One must wondered by which enemy Algeria is confronted to justify all this heavy armement, and it is onlyby cultivating this idea of the Moroccanenemy that the Algerian army can obtain it"(speech of Dr Zatman 3may2004 during a conference on "is the Sahara ready for a political solution"in new york)not only experts in interrnational relations and conflicts confirm that the Algerian regime was and stiill behind any decision taken by the Polisario including the announcement of "SADR" which was obviously for geopolitic purposes, one historiacl military leader of the Polisario LAHBIB AYOUB explains it all, after the leader of Polisario disclosed to him the intention of Algiers "without ever clearly mentioning the project of partionning the sahara, he gave me to understand that such was the will of algerians and that we could nothing about it"(interview with L AYOUB to the committe of inquiry for the  fourth committee of the UN    brussels/New york , october 2006) . This statement makes everything cristal clear , that the Algerians are simply behind every single move made by the Polisario , including the "SADR" . I guess these two vital documented examples should make those in this discussion refuse to delete the "SADR" from the list to rethink their positions--Terrygazoulit (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The principles of objectivity within the framework of searching a certain consensus require that this issue concerning countries to be added to the list of countries should be tackled in a just and fair manner, by going back to the UN organization, resolutions and also recognition of states. in fact I have consulted all resolutions of the UN in connection with the Western Sahara issue, but I have not found any resolution mentioning “SADR” the UN resolutions and officials refer to Polisario Front, it seems to me that it will be consensual, and in conformity with the spirit of  Wikipedia, to take into account the UN resolutions about Western Sahara issue, it is obvious that the name “SADR” should be dissociated from Western Sahara, because “SADR “ does not correspond  legally speaking to the international organisations and their resolutions, not even on the ground, because the same international organisations do not mention any territory belonging to “SADR”, which is under control of the Polisario, I tend to sympathise with Mr Justin’s ideas , but I still think that just and fair to dissociate “SADR” from western Sahara, I also think that western, Sahara should be found in another list more precise, i.e. non –autonomous territories--Jacquo (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)--Jacquo (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I think the viewpoints of these editors are interesting. Besides, you can read this in 'Entities not included' section : various disputed or occupied territories, see the "List of territorial disputes" and if you go through this list, Western Sahara is considered as a disputed territory between the kingdom of Morocco, "SADR" and Mauritania (Dormant claimer). To be credible and in conformance with the spirit of the present list, Western Sahara is already mentionned in the section 'Entities not included' and has to be deleted from the official list. It doesn't make sense to mention it twice in two different places with two different statutes!!! I think there is a big confusion on the statute of Western Sahara in Wikipedia pages due to a lack of information or lack of intellectual honesty, I really don't know.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Collection of points here.
 * Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts, not truth.
 * The new source cited is not a "decision" let alone a "resolution" and has no relevance to the UN list of non-self-governing territories.
 * So far you have shown us no verifiable evidence at all (neutral or otherwise) that suggests that there is no de facto state run by Polisario in Western Sahara and quite a bit (including every UN source you've cited so far) that there is.
 * The UN try not to refer to states they don't recognise by name. That is normal.  We are not the UN.
 * Polisario uses the name "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" for the state that it says it governs, and in every other such case we use the name as claimed by the unrecognised state. I see no reason why this case should be treated differently.
 * 38 countries on this list are also on the list of dependent territories. Being described as a "territory" does not disqualify a country from this list.
 * 9 countries on this list are not recognised by the UN (all of whose territories are entirely disputed by other countries). The UN's POV is not relevant as to whether a country is listed.
 * The latest comments about Algeria could equally be applied to several other countries included on this list, and is not relevant to whether or not the territory should be included.

The question is thus, how can we solve this?
 * Based on comments so far there is neither reason nor consensus to remove the SADR from this list, including the flag of the SADR and the name "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic".
 * I see the idea of separating out the territory and the de facto state into separate as a bad idea, potentially confusing and unnecessary.
 * I will accept as a compromise an entry that does not use the name "Western Sahara" except in the footnote, as mentioned above. Pfainuk talk 13:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As an ordinary unbiased observer, I deem completely wrong, unfair and misleading to put Western Sahara as a country (whether sovereign or not). No objective media refers to Western Sahara as a country or SADR when talking about this conflict. This is a TERRITORY disputed over by Morocco and the Polisario Front.--Samcommentator (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i would like to think that the majority of the contributors have opted for the principle of deliting the "RASD" from the list of countries, therefore this consensus should be put into practice and respect the well documented argument of the majority of the contributers--Terrygazoulit (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i have come to the conclusion that some of us being contributors should learn more about the truth of the dispute, and also learn the extent of Algiers 's intervention in the making decision od Sahraouis within the framework of Polisario front, also we have to ask ourselvesdquestions about the reason, behind the decision of thounsands of political , military leaddersd , as well as ordinary Sahraoui refugees to go back in most cases to Morocco. If we put our fingers on thetre viatal historical events , and add to it the position opf the UN and the international community , then we will come up soon enough withy a consensus, It is my duty to warn that any failure to reach a consensus on this particular and vital point will subsequently lead to the fact that Wikidea will loose its integrity and objectivity--Terrygazoulit (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning to Terrygazoulit

 * To Terrygazoulit: I suggest that you must read WP:SOCK because as I can see that you are violating it, it's so cheap and childish when you want to deal a problem by this way. I will keep a keen eye on your other usernames as: Samcommentator, Jacquo and maybe Moroccansahraoui. Ciao!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What a waste Requests for checkuser/Case/Moroccansahraoui (new link: Suspected sock puppets/Moroccansahraoui). This sham consensus is such a waste of my time and effort. Pending this checkuser, I'm not going to bother arguing with five different logins for the same Moroccan nationalist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:What are you saying? I can't believe you. Is it a coalition to discredit my posts and comments? How can you say that I belong to many other accounts? I can't believe it. What's that? Is that your strategy to impose your consensus? Well, there are many free proxies on Internet we could use the same poxy provider but you can't say it's the same account. That is about allegation and grave accusation. Their style is more closed to native english speaker style!!! Please do read the comments of each one of them and take care of the content and do not try to discredit my comments and remarks on your the wrong information you put on this page.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll see Sockpuppetry is a serious offense and personally offensive to me if you've been playing me for a fool. Once this is done with, we'll see where we stand. See also Open proxies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I put all together some comments of all my suspected shadows to let you see if there is something commun to all of us. Look at the style and the comments. These editors are simply supporting the idea that Western Sahara isn't a country and that "SADR" isn't sovereign. I don't think they are 100% pro-moroccan and I don't care of it. The thing I am taking care of is that they share the same ideas about Western Sahara. We also have something else in commun: we used maybe the same freeproxy provider no more nor less. Anything else would be a mirage and discreditation. I really regret that Orange Tuesday left this discussion. He had very interesting ideas on our disputed discussio. Did someone ask him to give up the discussion? I also can be suspicious. Here are the comments all together :

1. allow me to take part of this interesting discussin concerning the nature of the Western sahara issue, in this respect, we have to understand that most if not all the countries that recognised the SADR are from either the African countries or the South american countries which have no influence on the international politics , in fact it is thinks to the algerian pressure on these countries that this republic was recognised. Having said that no arabic, Islamic , European , and even THe countries belonging to the Socialist bloc (apet from CUBA) have regonized this republic including the former Soviet Union , and Russia now. from the international law point of view the "RASD" the unilateral proclamation by polisario is in flagrant violation to the interrnational law, the Arab shraoui Democratic republic has no territorial existence, it is set up in Tindouf inside Algeria territories, it has no attribute of sovereignty, exists only on the territory of a foreign country--196.206.255.160 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)TERRY

2. I am with the comment from 196.206.255.160 which seems to be TERRY. TERRY, you have to be connected then sign your comments. Thanks. How should we proceed in such case? Is that meaning that there is no consensus on keeping SADR on the list?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC) What about the former proposal of Orange Tuesday. It's a first step to a consensus. Why not discussing Orange Tuesday proposal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

3. I would like to be in the middle of this discussion, in fact what pushes me to take part of such discussion is the interest as journalist who often deals with the international information, in this respect, I would like to go back to what I bileve is confusion of the author of the list of countries, although I do not feel in atotal disagreement with ideas put forward by Justin. It seems to me inconvenient to place of Western Sahara the initials of "SADR", knowing that the UN do not recognize such republic, we should not go that far, because this criteria of recognition by the international community through the United nations, wheter we agree or not, seems to me closer of the less ideological and more objective approach of the Encyclopedia Wikipedia. The list includestin fact just countries and entities recognized by the UN, so neither the flag nor the name of "SADR" correspond to an entity recognized somehow, by the UN. The Non recognized of the UN of this state is an accomplished fact, as there is no document, no statement from the UN, which never mentioned the name of "SADR". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacquo (talk • contribs) 18:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Moroccansahraoui, Jacquo, Samcommentator and Terrygazoulit...is ONE

 * Now, I can be sure with my edivendes about Suspected sock puppets violation of Moroccansahraoui. Here is the latest evidence (Look at the signatures and all 5 of these IP and accounts wasn't signed its name at all before). As I can see that you (Moroccansahraoui) is the only one user who want to delete Western Sahara (49) although it's earned more Inetrnational ecognizations than Abkhazia - South Ossetia (2), Kosovo (46), Northern Cyprus (1), Taiwan (23)....you fell very lonely and hopeless because there is no one here support you and that's why you've created many "zombie" usernames. I think you should be block now because you have tried the worst way to solve a problem. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MS:You miss Orange Tuesday. It's also belongs to me. Come on! there is no evidence on what you are saying. You are simply participating to a big manipulation machine to stop my contribution to the debate on the Western Sahara entry presence. This manipulation machine was inititiated by Justin, the hard supporter of Polisario Front and "SADR". Justin has already been in Tindouf south Algeria and has already defended the Polisario Front in international meetings. How could he be impartial? Justin is simply expressing his wishful thinkings. He would like to impose "SADR" as sovereign country in Western Sahara on Internet but the world, I mean people who are interested on the issue, know perfectly the reality of the ground. THAT IS THE REAL EVIDENCE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's split the problem into parts and tackle them with method
This debate has been a dialogue of the deaf partly because two separate issues have been mixed up, especially by Moroccansahraoui: The legitimacy / naming / recognition / effective control / status etc. of SADR vs. Polisario vs. Morocco has actually little to do with the justification of an entry, since the territory it is disputed. The last recognized status of WS was a dependent territory of Spain and the only case where a removal would be undisputable is if it were legally united with another existing country (Morocco, Algeria or Mauritania) and recognized as such. However, where Moroccansahraoui was right is in pointing out the discrepancy between the presence of WS in the list and one of the rules for non-inclusion:
 * The justification of an entry for WS in the list (that he denies)
 * If justified, how it should be complemented
 * Various disputed or occupied territories, see the List of territorial disputes.

If we were to take this rule à la lettre, that would lead to removing WS indeed, but also about 10 more other countries, the ones mentioned by Angelo above plus other territories such as Gibraltar, Falkland Islands etc. I'm sure that nobody wants this, as it would clearly be an unacceptable loss of information for the readers. Moroccansahraoui's expectation of coherence, even if obviously opportunistic, remains legitimate and should be satisfied first. My proposal is therefore to suspend the debate about WS, leaving the present entry as it is now, as disputable it may be, and start a wider discussion to refine the rule above with objective and verifiable criteria. I would also advise both interested parties (i.e. Justin and Moroccansahraoui plus his fellows or other identities) to avoid suggesting criteria for inclusion/exclusion just because they match their agenda. I know this is impossible to enforce; just remember that your past roughness in the debate may have slightly discredited you vis-à-vis other editors. After that, a survey would allow to check whether the current entries remain justified and whether currently excluded entries should be added. If WS's entry 'survives' this test, then the debate can restart about what should follow its name. Clpda (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I begin, I'd like to thank Clpda for splitting off the discussion like this. This is the kind of talk I want to help with. :)


 * I'd say there is one major problem with the structure of this list. We are trying to create a canonical list of "countries", despite the fact that there is no agreed-upon definition of the word country. This results in a very long and complicated inclusion criteria, where we essentially go case by case and decide what is a country and what isn't. That's going to result in inconsistencies, and it's going to go against what a lot of people consider to be "countries". The eternal problems with Wales and Scotland on this list stem from this.


 * I think we can tweak the inclusion criteria as much as we like, but ultimately we're going to run into problems because of the nature of this list. I'd recommend renaming the article to something like List of sovereign states, dependent territories, and unrecognized states (or whatever) and then make the List of countries page into a disambiguation between this list and the list of sovereign states. The specific title of this page doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't include the word "country" or something equally ambiguous. Whatever it is, it should make the inclusion criteria largely self-evident. People shouldn't be able to see the title and claim that Tibet belongs on this page.


 * Now bearing that in mind, here are some of the inconsistencies I see within the current structure.
 * We are insisting on placing all the entities on this list into three broad categories. This works fine for recognized sovereign states, because there are exactly 193 of them and they're all more or less the same. It gets thornier for unrecognized states, because they all have varying levels of recognition and sovereignty. But with the leftover non-sovereign territories, it's a total mess. We put Hong Kong, the Sovereign Base Areas, and Aruba in the same category, when they share very little in common.
 * We don't have a single approach dependencies of dependencies. Ascension Island is listed separately from Saint Helena, but Alderney is not listed separately from Guernsey.
 * We exclude uninhabited territories.
 * We exclude states without an indigenous population even if they aren't uninhabited. The British Indian Ocean Territory is currently home to 3000 people, but it's excluded from the list because none of them were born there.
 * We exclude two fairly significant disputed territories: The Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands. (Each of which has a CIA World Factbook Entry)
 * We specifically exclude integral parts of dependent territories (French Guiana) But then have a "special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement" category for those integral parts that we can't bare to leave out (Macau, Aland)
 * We exclude the SMOM, despite the fact that it is a sovereign entity which has diplomatic relations with many states.
 * We exclude de facto independent territories if they have not declared independence. This mainly affects the Somalian states like Puntland.
 * We exclude self-declared independent territories if they do not have de facto control over their territory. The example here would be the Caucasus Emirate.
 * We exclude micronations, even if they do have de facto control over their claimed territory and have declared independences.


 * Now, keep in mind that I'm not saying that all of these things are bad or require changes. (I think we can all agree that The Principality of Sealand doesn't belong on this list) I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of areas where the cut-off is apparently arbitrary, and where the inclusion criteria could probably be renegotiated.


 * Finally, whatever we criteria or format we decide on, it should be chosen with the goal of helping the reader in mind. You shouldn't have to go delving through footnotes to get the full picture.


 * You know, writing this out has given me a lot of ideas. I think I'm going to make a little mock-up proposal on my user page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Orange Tuesday, for your nice words to me, and especially for coming back to the discussion. I agree with you that not only splitting the current WS problem but the lists themselves, led to through a range of disambiguation pages, could be an excellent idea and solution. That would actually remove several redundancies (OK, some 'places' are likely to belong to more than one list anyway) but that would be a progress indeed. Clpda (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MS: Many thanks for your wisdom and your good faith. I am not looking to delete WS from the list, what I am saying is that :
 * 1. We are wrong on considering Western Sahara sovereign country under the rule of "SADR" for the reasons I mentionned above (UN resolutions on the issue, reality on the ground...)


 * 2. We can't maintain WS as a sovereign country and keep it on the list of disputed country while the later qualification is the best one to be associated to WS.
 * I do agree that we need to split the list to get UN recognized countries (countries, observers) in a hand and all the rest in the other hand. Regarding WS point, we can start in the end by wondering if there is another case similar to WS. I think WS case is unique in the world.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lies, lies, and contradictions I'm not going to talk about it until the sockpuppet inquiry is closed. I don't know the backlog on it, but my guess is the turnaround is ~72 hours. Whether or not any particular username belongs to any editor irrespective. Moroccansahraoui, you say some seriously crazy stuff sometimes: I've never been to Tindouf, and I - again - have no idea where you got this idea or why you repeat it with such authority. You plain insistence that some of these assertions are true with a vacuum of evidence is positively staggering. Also, let me quote from a few pixels above this comment: "According to the above, I propose to delete Western Sahara from the countries list" and "I am not looking to delete WS from the list." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, could you please not have the exact same argument you've been having for days right here? I'd like for this section to be about discussing the inclusion criteria and format of the list in general rather than Western Sahara specifically or Moroccansahraoui's suspected sockpuppetry. Thank you. Orange Tuesday (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

More irrelevant things

 * MS:Just to let you know how committed is Justin in his support to Polisario Front. I made a copy of the following from Justin' profile :
 * 2005-10-05 — Spoke at the United Nations' Sixth Committee on the situation in Western Sahara[1].In such case, Justin can't be impartial in his discussion. Justin is supporting Polisario Front fight to get independence which I respect of course but I can't tolerate misinformation and distorsion of the reality of the issue. There is no contradiction. I am saying that WS entry should be removed from the list as a sovereign country but kept in the same list in another section with the appropriate statute. We don't have to induce the readers into error. Justin, why are you insisting on keeping a wrong statute of WS on the list?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes What does that have to do with anything? Every Wikipedian has biases and I'm making mine clear on my userpage. I am insisting on keeping a wrong statute of WS on the list because I think it's really funny and cool and it gets me lots of friends. This discussion is such a waste. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I like your style to be funny. I am not asking to delete WS from the list. I am asking to put WS in the appropriate section with the appropriate statute. "Orange Tuesday" made an interesting proposal few days ago. Let's start with it. We can get the consensus on his neutral proposal basis. We have a proposal on the table, why are you wasting time? WS/"SADR" are in the wrong place, we need to correct it. That's all!--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
The way the List of countries article is set up, I don't see how Western Sahara, a region apparently recognized by 45 or 49 states, can be excluded. However, I agree with Orange tuesday that the article is asking for trouble because of the confusion between the popular meaning of 'country' and the meaning ascribed to in in the article. For example, under the current definition, Kashmir, Tibet, and other obviously non-independent states would need to be listed. A very problematic list to say the least. A list where the caveats are as long as the list itself is no list (IMHO). The best way forward is, in my opinion, to look at the list of inconsistencies listed by User:Orange Tuesday and work toward a list that is consistent in meaning and definition. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * there is no doubt that the argument whether such republic should be kept in the liqst of countries or not has been going on for a while there is on one hand a misunderstanding of the conflist and thev real porpuse behind declaring such state and also the fact that it is not recognized by the only international body whci gathers all independant countries that is the UN, so let us come with a compromise and the r"SADR" should be added in ather page with countries for example are still waiting first of all to reach asettlement with other parties concerned . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrygazoulit (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * there is no such popular meaning of a "country", the internatianal law has defined the main components for a state or rather an independant state, it is cristal clear that the "SADR" has a lack of the basic components of an independent state as it is confirmed by the law of nations and the resolutions of the UN since its creation after the second WW. I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IAM EXTREMENLY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE WAY ONE PARTICULAR CONTRIBUTOR IS DEALING WITH THE WHOLE MATTER , he gives the impression that he perfectly knows everything about the conflict , and insists on keeping the republic in question in the list of countries without even looking at the definition given by the UN as to independant countries , i know as every knows that Tibet , Western sahara and others are still in the process of reaching settlement to their disputes, when it comes to W sahara issue , i would like to remind all contributors that the UNSG is about to name a new envoy to the area of dispute , in order to carry on direct negotiations betwen Morocco and polisario , the UN GS made a statement recently calling for the continuation of negotiations , but to my knowledge he didnot declare to the whole world that the republic in question is recognized by the UN--Terrygazoulit (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right There are several unrecognized states on here - as well there should be. And there is already a new UN envoy. Again, UN membership or recognition is not a criterion here and there is no compelling reason it should be. As I stated above, the Montevideo Convention would clearly count for the SADR as being a state. I have no idea why we are having this discussion again and again. Your nonsense about me "giv[ing] the impression that he perfectly knows everything about the conflict" is just utter trash and libel and achieves nothing other than making me mad and you look inarticulate; what is the point of character assassination? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I made a proposal for a new format to the list
Anyone who wishes to see it may direct their eyes here: User:Orange Tuesday/List of countries proposal

There are a lot of changes, so I'll list the main ones:


 * The list is no longer alphabetical. It's divided into separate sections for sovereign states, dependent territories, and unrecognized states. This allows us to get rid of the imprecise bold/italic key.
 * The Western Sahara entry is separated into two. One for a territory called Western Sahara and one for an unrecognized country called SADR. This did not enjoy a lot of support the last time I suggested it, but given the change in the format of the list, I think it makes sense. That being said, it's a minor detail and it can be changed. and I'm fine with any presentation of Western Sahara as long as it isn't misleading and it has consensus.
 * The format of the unrecognized countries section is different from that of the rest of the list. Unrecognized country entries are now accompanied by short paragraphs explaining their status. This is so that the reader does not have to go delving through footnotes to get important information about these entities. My feeling is that sovereign states and dependent territories do not need much explanation, but unrecognized states do. I've tried to keep the paragraphs as concise as possible so that the flow of the list isn't broken too much. Again, the specific wording can be changed. Right now they've just been cobbled together from snippets on the current list.
 * Dependent territories are listed according to administering power. (A section for France, another for UK, etc.). Another way to do it might be inhabited/uninhabited.
 * On that note, the list includes uninhabited territories. They're distinct geopolitical entities and they usually have ISO codes, so there's no real reason to exclude them.
 * Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha are in a nested list under Saint Helena to signify their status as "double dependencies". This might be more confusing than helpful, so I'd like to hear opinions on that. I've also done similar things with Alderney and Sark (which are now on the list, again debatable) and the US Minor Outlying Islands.
 * I've put the SMOM in a section of its own because of its particular diplomatic status, but it doesn't have to be there (or even on the list at all)
 * I've got a list of eight territories that I'm not sure what to do with. They're all integral parts of sovereign states, but they all have ISO country codes. They are the four "special territories" currently on the list plus the four French overseas departments that aren't on the list. I don't know whether or not they belong, but my opinion is that they're similar enough that either all of them belong or none of them belong. I'm leaning towards none, but I'd like to hear opinions on this.

Finally, along with this proposal, I'd like to see the list given a new, more precise name (Something to the tune of List of sovereign states, dependent territories, and unrecognized countries), and have the List of countries page become a disambiguation page. It might not be as pretty, but I think it'll be more encyclopedic, and it'll probably cause fewer headaches in the long run.

The purpose of this proposal is to encourage discussion. I've heard people say that the list is fine as it is, but given the frequency of vandalism and the intensity of this most recent debate, I'm not sure about that. This proposal is just one possible option. It is not finished or polished, and the details should be debated here. Also, feel free to make counter-proposals of your own.

Parties which are heavily invested in the Western Sahara conflict on this page are kindly asked to approach this proposal from a broader perspective and put aside personal grudges. Thanks everyone. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you making the list no longer alphabetical? If people are looking for a country, they shouldn't have to look through four different lists to find it.  Once they find the country they can see by the formatting, key, or footnotes any additional information about the status of the country.
 * If you want to have a List of sovereign states, dependent territories, and unrecognized countries, please make one. You don't need to delete the List of Countries page in order to make a page you think should exist. Readin (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, to an extent. There's already List of sovereign states, Dependent territory and List of unrecognized countries, and I don't see a need for a list that is simply an amalgamation of the three. I do see a point in moving this to List of sovereign states, dependent territories and unrecognized countries or something similar, while maintaining the alphabetical order. Laying down inclusion criteria for a true "list of countries" is difficult as any attempt to unambiguously define "country" will either be unsourced original research or giving undue weight to some sources over others (I'll note though that we have lots of lists of countries). On the other hand, a "list of sovereign states, dependent territories and unrecognized countries", combined in alphabetical order, will not be any harder to maintain than those three separate lists. Not to say that that is easy (see their talk pages), but at least easier than a "list of countries". -- Jao (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jao, I think you've sort of got what I'm trying to get at. This already is a list of sovereign states, dependent territories, and unrecognized countries. So instead using a word that's impossible to define like "country", I think we should call the list what it is. Otherwise, we have to come up with an arbitrary definition of country and then tell people why Scotland and Tibet don't fit into it.


 * I removed the alphabetical order for three reasons. First, because it appeared that we had more categories of countries than we did typefaces. Second, because I felt that splitting the list into sections made the information easier to process. Third, it allowed me to format different sections in different ways (i.e. the inline notes with unrecognized countries). I can see that people think the alphabetical order adds value, though, so maybe that's not the best direction to go in. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Different formatting for different types of countries can be handled within a single table.  See List of Asian countries for an example. Readin (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Your proposal certainly includes some gravitas and hard work; I really appreciate you coming back and giving it the old college try. Let me say that I take issue with the notion of Western Sahara as a dependency since it does not fit the criteria at Dependent territory; the other regions on this list are administered by a state and the claims to those territories are non-controversial (barring the very low-level conflict over Navassa.) This also doesn't represent the views of any party: Morocco considers it an integral part of the Kingdom (unlike, e.g. Hong Kong SAR), the SADR and its supporters consider it the sovereign territory of the SADR, the disinterested parties of the international community consider it a frozen conflict with a majority of the territory under military occupation. I suppose you could view that as a kind of strength, but it seems to me to smack of WP:OR.


 * Formatting-wise, I suppose I see the value in discarding the bold/italics style, but it's never been particularly confusing to me.


 * I would also object to the separate entries for Western Sahara and the SADR; this is like creating separate entries for China, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of China (and maybe even Taiwan.) Speaking of that conflict, you can't call the ROC "Taiwan." At the very least, User:Jiang will notice and smack you down. At the risk of being pedantic, there are not two separate states called "China" and "Taiwan;" there are two Chinese states with overlapping sovereign claims. To recognize one China is to not recognize the other. I think you have done a disservice to that conflict by using the colloquial terminology of "China" and "Taiwan" when actually referencing the PRC and ROC. I mean no disrespect, of course; please forgive me if that reads harshly. In sum: you can't have an entry for "Taiwan."


 * Regarding in-line notes about the status of unrecognized states/countries, that makes a lot of sense to me. It's pretty handy visually, considering how long this list is. On the other hand, if the list remains alphabetical - which is my preference ultimately - that would be cumbersome. This gets to a much more difficult question of deciding what exactly constitutes an unrecognized country. Since (cf. with my last paragraph), the PRC is "unrecognized" in some sense, does it belong here? It's on the List of unrecognized countries. On the other hand, there is clearly a difference between Somaliland and the PRC. When it comes to the brass tacks of saying "State X is 'recognized' and State Y is 'unrecognized'" it gets much stickier.


 * I also see no reason to exclude uninhabited territories as, colloquially, Antarctica would constitute a "country."


 * SMOM are always the mavericks; it seems worth mentioning them somehow, somewhere as they are unique. I don't know what more to say about that, honestly.


 * Re: the French overseas territories. They were assigned ISO codes prior to their integration into France. At the time, it made sense to give them codes. Now, it makes as much sense as a code for Mississippi or Saskatchewan; French Guiana is an integral part of France, just as much as Alaska is a U.S. state. These are now simply overseas enclaves.


 * Finally, in regards to the argument that this isn't just fine as it is, there really hasn't been that much activity contradicting the scope of this list, and it is all localized with a handful of editors pushing a Moroccan POV. This exact same problem has happened before and will likely happen again; I would hate to see this list broken apart because of this ephemeral problem. I sincerely hope that something I wrote was valuable and coherent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To just take your last paragraph, Justin, I'm afraid that very little (if anything) of what you wrote was valuable, if at least, coherent. Your one-before-last paragraph is simply wrong, as maybe/probably many of your earlier statements. For instance, French Guiana was made a department in 1946, years before these ISO codes existed and even one year before ISO itself (founded 1947) existed. So, stop polluting this discussion with biased pseudo-information, ranting and the rest of it. I've recognized in the past, higher up on this endless and fruitless discussion, when you were actually right and your ideas are not always wrong but they were unfortunately always diluted into an unacceptable stream of POV statements that nearly entirely discredited you.
 * So:
 * be brief
 * avoid mentioning Western Sahara again - we had enough of it!
 * Clpda (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I included Western Sahara under dependent territories because that's where the rest of the countries on the UN non self governing territories list are. I don't know where else to put it, honestly.


 * I understand the arguments for excluding those French regions, but would those same criteria not exclude the four special territories? Aland is an integral part of Finland and Hong Kong is an integral part of China. Autonomous parts, to be sure, but there are lots of autonomous territories which are not included on the list.


 * Regarding Taiwan/China, that wording was taken directly from the current list. Again, it's the sort of thing that can be easily changed. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'd just like to point out that the list is a Featured List. Not sure, after all, if it is a great idea to tinker with the list in a big way. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a very good point, but I do feel that it is possible to build on the list without removing what made it featured in the first place. "Featured" does not mean "Best it can possibly be". Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

alternative alternative proposal
If Orange Tuesday's proposal has the advantage of losing the bold and italics, but the disadvantage of losing alphabetical order, would this help? Meanwhile, for ease of finding and following discussion, could I suggest that discussion about the status of French Guiana, Aland, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc take part in other threads Does this help? Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this format. It has the advantage of simplicity (one list to find them sort of thing). The notes section will take care of properly explaining the status of the country (appropriately cited, of course). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just thought I'd put my view in here. My preference is for the table form as suggested here - I think it maintains the best of both worlds, giving ample room for the necessary explanation while allowing a compact format.  I will also accept Orange Tuesday's suggestion or the status quo.  Most disputed territories have articles describing their statuses in detail and these should be linked in the list - directly underneath the entry is best unless we use the table.  If we just refer readers to these articles I don't think we need detailed explanation here.


 * The criteria for inclusion should ideally be as per the current ones, plus uninhabited territories (excluding all Antarctic claims) as suggested. I would like to see Hong Kong, Macao, Åland and Svalbard in the list but I think the French DOMs (Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and La Réunion) should be excluded.  I won't outright oppose other reasonable solutions - if it is felt that this is too ambiguous then fine - but that's my preference.


 * On Western Sahara, I should hope my position's reasonably clear from the above. The three proposals for wordings I gave were in the context of this list as it is now, but they could easily be altered to fit other ways of organising this list and those three would be my preferred descriptions in this case. Pfainuk talk 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also approve this kind of layout. Maybe the 'UN' column could be extended to 'recognition' for countries not fully recognized and could contain the template proposed by Justin below (but extended to all places concerned). BTW, I suppose the intended title of the last column was 'Status' not 'Staus'. I also approve omitting the overseas French departments, their status is clear and undisputed (except from very marginal groups). Clpda (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Small suggestion There is no need for a separate column for flags and I don't see how that's useful. See United Nations member states for how to sort with flagicon. I'm not sure if I prefer this proposal, but I would definitely change it in the way I just suggested. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. Two suggestions would be to make the flag column unsortable (or just put the flags in the name column) and to include UN Membership in the status column. (I'd also bold the country names to make them stand out more, but that's a personal taste thing)


 * I am in favour of having those sixteen uninhabited territories added, but I don't see why we have to leave out Antarctic claims. Australian Antarctic Territory, British Antarctic Territory, Ross Dependency, Peter I Island, and Queen Maud Land are all treated as uninhabited dependencies by the states that claim them. We could explain their disputed status in the status column like we do the unrecognized countries.


 * I'm still a little unclear on how Åland, Svalbard, Hong Kong, and Macau are fundamentally different from those four French regions. They're all integral parts of sovereign states, aren't they? Should they not all be excluded for that reason alone? Maybe I'm missing something here. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Åland, etc Those four that you mention are administered as a product of some kind of international treaty or intervention, whereas those parts of France are just parts of France. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * On Antarctica, while seven or eight countries have claims south of 60°S (and two more have reserved the right to make claims), they are quite unable to back them up in any practical sense per the Antarctic Treaty. No country has effective control over any part of Antarctica outside their own bases - and about 29 countries have bases in Antarctica.  So my inclination is to look at the facts on the ground and say that these "countries" don't actually exist in any practical sense.


 * I would also say that if we do decide to include the Antarctic claims, we should not include Brazil's ill-defined "Zone of Interest" in that decision. This is quite a different situation as does not involve a formal claim (though what it does involve isn't clear).  Also, the Argentine and Chilean claims are considered by those countries to be integral parts of their respective territories and as such should not be included. Pfainuk talk 10:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed on Brazil's Zone of Interest. If we do include Antarctic territories, it should only be those five which are claimed as dependent territories. Also, including uninhabited territories but not Antarctic territories raises the question of what to do with the French Southern and Antarctic Lands. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly in disagreement with Pfainuk's proposed inclusion of landmasses lacking permanent human inhabitation. I'm of the opinion that having "normal" inhabitants is an important qualification for meeting the definition of the word "country" on purely a dictionary-definition level.  I think the reason Greenland, Aruba et. al are frequently referred to as countries, despite their lack of an ability to serve as sovereign actors in international relations, is because there's a sense--and you'll have to forgive me for sounding mushy and sociological here--that there's an inherently distinctive life narrative associated with the people who live there and are identified with that chunk of the earth as being their home (and to clarify, I mean home quite distinctly from concepts of homeland and all that other delightful jazz that gets tied up in the concepts of nation).  In contrast, I don't think anyone has ever called Navassa Island or Jan Mayen a country--even if you're sleeping there every night, its because you're posted there by the military, or carrying out a task like fishing or repairing your boat or researching birds.
 * I realize I'm kind of a curmudgeon on this subject, but I really do think that the existing definition is more or less fine as-is The Tom (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That "mushiness" is exactly why I think this page should stop using the word country. Everyone has a feeling about what a country is and what a country isn't, but there's no single accepted definition and you can't base an encyclopedic list on a feeling. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd agree there. Given that we are including dependent territories (which is the distinction between this list and the list of sovereign states) we have to draw a line somewhere as to what is included and what is not.  The word "country" doesn't lend itself to drawing such a line.  And there are cases where "inhabited" status is not easy to judge.  For example, from 1992-2006 two people lived at Grytviken essentially permanently (running the museum for the scientists living there and the cruise ships visiting).  And there are still always people there.  It thus seems odd to call South Georgia "uninhabited".


 * On Antarctic claims - you're right of course about the French claim, and while we could put it in with a note explaining the situation, I can understand why you might prefer to list all five. So I'll accept them in there, noting that, with the exception of Peter I Island, all of the claimed territories do contain a base belonging to the claimant concerned, and thus the claimants do exercise effective control over very small parts of their claims. Pfainuk talk 17:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am back after an unjuste week "on jail". I was really disappointed on the hative decision made by some administrators to stop my editing options. Anyway, I read all the proposals of the week and I suggest to move forward on them. I return back to Orange Tuesday proposal. Why not considering his proposal to divide the list into more convincing sections? making columns and lines with flags and figures and UN or not UN will not resolve the problem of the "territoriality aspect" of Western Sahara. Sorry to mention Western Sahara case again but I initiated the debate on this list on that basis. As I said before, WS case is unique. The inhabitants of a country or a sovereign state can't be refugees living outside of this country. That's the case of sahraoui people controlled by Polisario Front in Tindouf camps south Algeria. Regarding the figures of countries recognizing "SADR", the auto-proclamed republic of the Polisario Front, in fact the figures are changing all the time. It's unique in the world. It's the unique auto-proclamed republic which gains less and less recognitions. From more than 70 countries in the seventees/eightees, there are less than 30 countries nowadays. What I would like to say is that a sovereign state gains normally more and more recognitions to prepare UN recognition not the opposite.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh really? "The inhabitants of a country or a sovereign state can't be refugees living outside of this country." Yes, they can - the Sahrawis are a perfect example. Somalis living in Kenya are still Somalis. Sahrawis living in Tindouf are still citizens of the SADR. I honestly have no idea where you got this fallacious notion. Furthermore, there are not "less than 30 countries" nowadays which recognize the SADR either. These are simple factual claims and you have no basis making them, since they are patently false. While it is normally the case that sovereign states gain more and more recognition, the latter is certainly possible (e.g. the Republic of China or dramatic regime changes) I don't see what bearing this has on our discussion; even if no state recognized the SADR, it would still be on this list, just like Transnistria or Somaliland. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! always the same arguments . The Somali leaders are on the ground. "SADR" "institutions and parlement" are taking place in Tindouf camps south Algeria NOT IN WESTERN SAHARA. You can't be serious if you decline this affirmation. Regarding the countries recognizing "SADR", I made some research about the countries you metioned a few weks ago. Most of them withdraw their recognition. The definitive figures are finally about 30 and not 45 neither 46 nor 80 as it's mentioned in other Wikipages from YOUR WS Wikiproject!!! Let's move forward, what about the neutral proposal of Orange Tuesday? Is anyone interested on exploring this proposal for a consensus? I repeat again Western Sahara must be kept on the list but in an appropriate section.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Always the same arguments. I'm not doing this anymore! The SADR is present in Western Sahara - they have elections, military activities, and a populace there! You know this! This is a waste! No one is listening to you other than me, and I'm arguing your points! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the problem of the WS Wikiproject. As nobody is interested on the issue, you were free to impose wrong or incomplete information as established facts. As nobody knows the reality of the issue, you had the power of information. In fact, discussing on bad faith is a waste to me also but that is not a reason for me to give up the consensus. It's not about honesty to say that "SADR" institutions are in Western Sahara. It's not about honesty to say that there are "elections" while "elections" concern in general limited people about 1000/1500 well selected voters, so what about the other inhabitants!!! It's not about honesty to say that there is a populace there. Let's move forward because I start getting tired of this sterile and dishonest discussion. There is a neutral and proposal on the table (Orange Tuesday), why not discussing on that basis?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not a problem You can bring forth any information at all that you want and if it is sourced by verifiable and credible sources, then you can add it. You have consistently refused to do this and resorted to libel and hearsay instead. To allege dishonesty on my part is utterly ridiculous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MS: Let's make it reverse. Would you please tell the editors your references to affirm that Western Sahara is a country and that "SADR" belongs to Western Sahara? And please, don't post pro-polisarian links do it honestly and give us links to official bodies (UN for example) where Western Sahara is considered as a sovereign country/state and that "SADR" is the republic of Western Sahara.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: After the first contradiction of Western Sahara in this list i.e. its presence as a sovereign state and as disputed territory, there is another contradiction : Western Sahara isn't mentioned in the list available from the first external link (ISO 3166). Please do check the combo list there is no mention to Western Sahara as a country.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources Okay, here's a problem I've encountered with Moroccan nationalists several times over, where you ask for two contradictory pieces of information: a source that "affirm that Western Sahara is a country" and isn't "pro-Polisario." Once I provide any source for the former, it is labeled as pro-Polisario. So, for instance, I will offer The Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara, which is published by an academic press and authored by a scholar. We'll see if that's too "pro-Polisario." Or, I could give an example like the UN - namely, the African Union. I suppose that they will be "pro-Polisario" as well. It's an impossible task. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is the No true Scotsman fallacy. Jayjg (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Why do you keep on bringing up ISO 3166, when I have already shown you that Western Sahara is a country in it? It is ISO 3166-2:EH. See it right here from the ISO site - a table of country codes in English which includes Western Sahara. Honestly, what is your purpose in bringing up ISO 3166 again and having me provide the same link again? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS: The AU case is a bit special. In the UN, 193 sovereign states are recognizing each other. In the AU, many countries don't recognize "SADR" even if "SADR" is part of the AU. AU is not really the world neither the UN. It's a regional indepedendant body. I don't want to return back to the history of "SADR" in the AU. It's not really interesting for editors.
 * What about the contradictions and what about the proposal on the table? Please talk in good faith about the list, here is the official list http://www.guavastudios.com/downloads/countries/countries.txt from the external link of this page. The page you mentionned is the label of both countries and territories. The ISO label of Western Sahara as a territory is EH. Then if Western Sahara was a sovereign country, Western Sahara should have an Internet label like all the other sovereign states i.e. ".EH" but ".EH" is not assigned yet at the ICANN level (touché or still not).--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense It's irrelevant if each AU member state recognizes the SADR - the AU does. In the UN, North and South Korea don't recognize one another. A host of Muslim states don't recognize Israel. It's utterly immaterial to the point that I just made, and the AU and UN are not different at all in that regard. But, of course, you don't want to return to that because it directly contradicts you. The idea that the "official list" of the ISO is hosted at "guavastudios.com" rather than iso.org is completely maniacal. What on earth makes you think the "official list" is at the URL you provided and not the one I gave? Where did you get this idea? Also, Where did you get the idea that this is "the label of both countries and territories?" The top of that page clearly says "English country names and code elements This list states the country names (official short names in English) in alphabetical order as given in ISO 3166-1 and the corresponding ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 code elements." I am honestly astounded by the stunts you pull - I dare you to answer these questions: Why do you think the "official list" is hosted at guavastudios.com and not at iso.org? and Why do you insist on claiming that this list is "the label of both countries and territories?" Where did you get these ideas? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop making ridiculous claims. The ISO website holds the official ISO list, not "guavastudios". Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I am not making ridiculous claims. I am just inviting you to consider the right documents to make a judgment. In the ISO website, you'll find the official list of countries ISO 3166 and you'll find the lists related to telecommuncations and army labels of countries and territories which are ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2. In fact, in the laters you will find all non self-governing territories but in the first one (ISO 3166) there is no mention to Western Sahara.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:The official list of countries is ISO 3166 and not ISO 3166-1 or 3166-2. In the official list of ISO 3166 there is no mention to Western Sahara as a country. In the others, Western Sahara is refered to as a region. These label official documents are used for telecommunications and army services to cover the entire world. Again the list of guavastudios.com is an external link at the buttom of the page 'list of countries' and it refers to ISO 3166 and not its variants (ISO 3166-1 or 2). Your page is full of contradiction and that is not good for the readers. This page needs unquestionably to be updated in conformance with ISO 3166, the official list of countries.
 * MS:If Western Sahara was a country, why '.eh' isn't assigned at ICANN level? I really don't feel you are in good faith in this debate. We may need the support of other editors or admins to make a judgment on what is mentioned above.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Moroccansahraoui, I think you're a bit confused. ISO 3166 is a standard consisting of ISO 3166-1, ISO 3166-2, and ISO 3166-3. ISO 3166-1 is the list of country codes in ISO 3166. It is a part of ISO 3166, not a variant. The official list is here: This page is on the official ISO website, and it is the only list of country codes in the ISO 3166. If you look at that list, you'll see that it consists only of country codes. ISO 3166-1 makes no distinction between countries and territories. There are no "territory codes" or "region codes" given out. Every entry on this list is considered a country. As you can see, Western Sahara is on the official ISO 3166-1 country code list. This means that by the ISO 3166 standard, Western Sahara is considered a country. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MS:Am I wrong if I say that ISO 3166 was elaborated in the 60' and that the first version was only about countries and territories? Am I wrong if I say that ISO 3166-1/ISO 3166-2... are updates of the original standard made after the 60' to cover the international community needs in terms of telecommunications and army codes? Even if EH is the ISO 3166-1 label of Western Sahara, '.eh' is not assigned as an Internet label to the region. ISO 3166-1 & 2 are covering all the countries and territories without any distinction. There are many conflictuel places in the world which are present on the list as countries. The Soviet Union (SU) label remains present on the list longer after the end of the soviet union block and there are many transitional cases. Regarding the appellation of the column in the ISO database, I have no idea why ISO put countries and territories at the same level, maybe to make it simple to avoid political aspects. Besides, to make international calls to cities in Western Sahara, you dial the code area (+212) corresponding to the moroccan code are. To make international calls to Tindouf camps ("SADR" place), you dial the code area of Algeria not "SADR" because there is no international code are associated to "SADR". I am sorry to argue in favor to consider WS as a territory and not a country because there are many proofs on that.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, I think you are mistaken. ISO 3166 was first published in 1974, and then revised in later years based on political or naming changes. The country list was transfered to ISO 3166-1 in 1997, and since then that has been the only official country list in ISO 3166. All the old versions of the list are out of date and unofficial. Only the current list on the ISO website is official, and that list contains Western Sahara.


 * As for the Soviet Union, it is in ISO 3166-3, which is the list of former country codes. It is not in ISO 3166-1, which is the up to date list of current country codes.


 * If you want to argue against Western Sahara for other reasons, like ICANN or area codes or whatever, fine. I don't care. But you are entirely incorrect in claiming that Western Sahara is not considered a country in ISO 3166. It is. It has a country code. The official list proves that. Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MS:Let me copy the background on ISO 3166 from the official site of ISO
 * "What is ISO 3166?
 * ISO 3166 is the International Standard for country codes. The purpose of ISO 3166 is to establish codes for the representation of names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, and their subdivisions. It does not establish:
 * * the names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest which are taken from the relevant UN sources;
 * * the names of subdivisions of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, which are taken from relevant official national information sources."
 * If you look at the ISO 3166-1 decoding table here, you will see that many entities figure on this list while they are not representing countries or territories. The SU is on the list as well as many others. I think the fact that the column label is 'countries' doesn't mean that entries correspond exclusively to countries. It's really simplistic to consider all entries as countries!!--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Oh snaps Requests for checkuser/Case/Moroccansahraoui. After so many years of A Jalil, Wikima, Stevelo, Daryou, Yasser04, etc., having another five accounts pop out of the clear blue to push the Moroccan POV just wears on me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not credible: the 'confirmation' comes from a "red" user and the issue is not listed under Suspected sock puppets, where it should have been, as Justin admitted himself. Justin may be himself suspected... And as speaking of POV, Justin could also question himself. Clpda (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What? What is a "red" user? I have no idea what you're talking about and the offending usernames have been blocked. If I am "suspected of being a sockpuppet," I encourage you to add some info here: Requests for checkuser/Case/Koavf. Again, I honestly don't know what you're even trying to say. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies about the "red" user, it was an additional sockpuppet mentioned, that I mixed up for the signatory of the statement. The suspicion came only from that, since a confirmation from a 'secret' user, i.e. having no user page, was looking dodgy. I withdraw this statement and the hypothesis (based on that page only) that you could have a sockpuppet yourself. I maintain the second statement about POV: I think you have been even worse than MoroccanSaharaoui at several occasions and have little ground to criticize his POV yourself (the moderate editors are here for that). Clpda (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see
Here And discuss it there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay on this page
Please let's try to find a consensus on this talk page. I think there is no way to find a consensus on Justin proposal.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not considering Orange Tuesday proposal?
Could someone (neutral and not member of Justin' fan club) tell me why we don't take into account the neutral and logicial proposal of Orange Tuesday to update the list with less effort. I believe we can reach a consensus on it. I remind the editors the proposal : Orange Tesday proposed to make sections on the list in conformance with the statute of each country and territory to avoid any problematic situation. He did more than that. He proposed an update of the page HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Orange_Tuesday/List_of_countries_proposal.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see from the discussion above that people didn't think that splitting the list into different sections was as helpful as having it in alphabetical order. I think the discussion was leaning towards Kevin McE's "alternate alternate" proposal, but then it kind of died out. I don't think anyone's really considering my original idea anymore. Orange Tuesday (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I am not wrong the problem with Mike' proposal is that the statute of WS can't be integrated to the table. We can't have the right figures of countries recognizing "SADR". The only way to get the right figures is to ask the Secretary General to send us a memo of these countries because that is the only way to get impartial lists. Pro-moroccan or pro-polisarian sources wouldn't be as credible as the UN. I believe your proposal remains credible and juste. In fact, the main problem of it is the presentation in alphabetical order. Is it a problem to think more about the presentation on your proposal basis? --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I got a look to Mike' proposal again. The problem is that we can't associate the flag of "SADR" to Western Sahara. I will be OK with this list if :
 * 1. there is no flag in the entry
 * 2. the column label is "Countries and territories". If it's only 'Countries", I would suggest to put the term (territory) for WS
 * 3. the entry is Western Sahara and not "SADR"
 * 4. the statute is the one recognized by the UN : a non-self-governing territory administrated by the kingdom of Morocco and claimed by Polisario Front.
 * That's the consensus we can get on this list. I am sorry my last comment was about Justin' proposal.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Puntland
Is Puntland excluded from this list because it does not aspire to complete independence from Somalia? Otherwise, perhaps it should be included on the list. Thanks for everyone's thoughts. --24.211.242.80 (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A lack of 'aspiration' is/would certainly be a factor but not the only one. Compare with Scotland and Wales, having some aspiration to independance (or at least more autonomy, and having actually been granted some in the last few years): they are not in the list either. The inclusion criteria are a bit complex but will probably show that Puntland's non-inclusion is in agreement with the current criteria. Clpda (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

External links of this page
The external links of this page were changed. May I know who made this changement? was there any consensus on that? Maybe because one of the external links wasn't mentionning Western Sahara as a souvereign country !! any idea to restablish the real statute of Western Sahara in this page.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can see in the 'history' tab who made it and what it was. For the last one, it was just a correction of a link to another linguistic version of WP, so nothing to do WS. Clpda (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:No, there is no mention to the removal of this link http://www.guavastudios.com/downloads/countries/countries.txt. There were 3 links to http://www.guavastudios.com in the external links paragraph. Sorry but I can't see any entry in the history about this changement !!!!! How could that be? Many thanks for the dodgy style :-). No worries, I am not an english native mind and I assume to live with this inconvenience :-) .--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not either and you know this was not meant nastily but just to add another justification to our choice of language. We still have to find a way to continue... what about opening an account on the French speaking WP? Clpda (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These two links - to a commercial site - were replaced with a link to the ISO, and then the ISO link was deleted. This was just after midnight UTC on 26 September.  There was no discussion on talk because there was no objection raised and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  You imply the guava list was removed because it didn't list Western Sahara.  I find this suggestion curious because that list does in fact include Western Sahara. Pfainuk talk 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:Sorry but there was no Western Sahara in these links (it's mentionned above in one of my previous comments). I am quite sure about that. Regarding deleting/adding texts in Wikipedia, my understanding was that every line subject of modification has to be discussed and approved by people involved in discussion. Is my understanding wrong? I am not a hard wikipedian but I am trying to become one. This kind of use makes me a bit confused on the policies of wikipedia.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * MS:I would like to consider this as disputed page. Are you with this proposal?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like their list was last changed in November, so it may not have included WS before then. In any case, WS is certainly included now, both in your link and the link removed from the article.


 * Generally speaking, if no-one objects to a change it does not need to be discussed - though if a change is potentially controversial you should normally bring it up on talk first. In this case, per WP:EL, we should not link to sites that do not provide relevant information that this article (as a Featured List) does not include - including almost any other list of countries.  Thus the removal of the link was in line with style guidelines.


 * On your second edit (17:29 UTC), I don't understand what you mean. Pfainuk talk 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

USA
Excuse me, this article should list the US first and then all the other countries. I had to scroll all the way down the page to find the US. We are the best country in the world and more important than the other ones so we should be at top of list. Thankyou. 58.178.2.176 (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV. Seems a little strange that this suggestion should be coming from an IP in Australia, but there we are... Pfainuk talk 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)