Talk:Political status of Western Sahara/Archive 1

Page move
Anyone who disagrees with this page move, please make it known below. - FrancisTyers 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree. This page is about the foreign relations of the territory/entity Western Sahara, and the relations of SADR is only one, albeit defining, part of that. The page details the Moroccan argument, the UN's viewpoint, etc, and not only foreign relations of SADR. A move would be counter to the purpose of the page and would require deletion of important information. Arre 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 *  Strong Agree. This page is talking about foreing relations of SADR, the important information you are talking about are redundant and can be found in other WS related articles. Any way if you say that this page is talking about WS, the infobox should be without flags to comply with WP principles of neutrality. Daryou 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Disagree Clearly, this page is not just about the SADR, rather it is about the region. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong agree Whatever one thinks of the WS issue, WS is NOT independent and has NO foreign relations. SADR has. Saying that WS has foreign relations is fictional politics or nationalist wishful thinking. So it has no place in a NPOV article. Alternatively it could be retitled International status of Western Sahara --Yobaranut 05:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on, that's semantics. The territory has relations even if they're not government relations - and this article is about all those relations: to the UN, to SADR, to Morocco, etc. But i have no problems with renaming the article, if this page is kept as a redirect. Arre 05:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is an organization that claims that territory which has relations, not that territory. It isn't a matter of semantics, but very much a matter of facts.--Yobaranut 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, really, read the page. It's about all of it, from decolonization status to Morocco's southern provinces-claim, not only SADR. Previously there was only SADR info here, and I agree that could be seen as biased, if you don't accept Western Sahara as a short form for that government. But now there should be no problem. Calling it "Foreign relations of SADR" would be extremely inappropriate, on the other hand, since all the info on Moroccan country recognitions and UN status is compiled here; that has nothing to do with SADR. Arre 06:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article title should reflect what the article is about Robdurbar 09:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

List of country recognitions of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara
Hi, this site claims that some countries regonizes Moroccan sovereignty. I am sorry, but that is not true. Some countries support Moroccan claims, that is not the same as reconizing sovereignty. I corrected the statements at the site, but my corrections were reversed by "FayssalF". /Lorenzo 09:39 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Justin, it is considered quite rude to simply revert an edit as well sourced as this without discussing it on the talk page. You'll note that his edits are sourced, the ones in the table are not. Pasted list below. - FrancisTyers 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This list is based on several sources and may be incomplete:
 * 1) Argentina
 * 2) Botswana
 * 3) Cameroon
 * 4) Central Africa ,
 * 5) Chile
 * 6) China
 * 7) Colombia
 * 8) Ecuador
 * 9) Egypt
 * 10) Equatorial Guinea
 * 11) Gabon
 * 12) Guinea
 * 13) Indonesia
 * 14) Iraq
 * 15) Ivory Coast
 * 16) Kuwait
 * 17) Libya
 * 18) Madagascar
 * 19) Malawi
 * 20) Peru
 * 21) Senegal
 * 22) Serbia-Montenegro
 * 23) Swaziland
 * 24) Sudan
 * 25) Vanuatu
 * 26) Yemen

I didn't have time to review the whole list (it's been late and I need some sleep) but I noticed Tunisia is not in the list. While I don't have a direct web source for Tunisia's reckognition of Moroccan sovereignty over WS (would official offline maps references or Tunisian official schoolbooks be considered enough?), Tunisia's relations with Morocco have always been good to excellent (and we can find web sources for that). That would be impossible without Tunisia's reckognition of Moroccan sovereignty over WS.--Yobaranut 06:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, I remember reading Tunisisa is formally neutral, awaiting UN resolution, blah blah, the usual position -- but of course in practice pro-Morocco. But there may be formal recognition too, I don't know. It's worth checking. Arre 06:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

List of country recognitions of the SADR

 * See also tables at this page, this, this, this, this, and that.

Suggestion
If we have two long lists or tables this page is going to get unworkable soon. I suggest making two list of articles, e.g. List of states that recognise SADR sovereignty of Western Sahara and List of states that recognise Moroccan sovereignty of Western Sahara. Then we can have these as articles and just give an overview on this page. - FrancisTyers 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is okay with me. It'll be more work to update the articles whenever something changes, but if it can prevent conflict it's fine. Arre 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's OK wth me too. Daryou 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are these names ok, or are thre any other suggestions? - FrancisTyers 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that List of states that recognise SADR and List of states that recognise Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, are more accurate. Daryou 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for principle and readability, please don't use "SADR" in a page name, use the full Sahrawi Arabla bla. Arre 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Still opposed Since this page's content is clearly about the large amount of perspectives regarding the region, rather than simply one position or another. Splitting it into two articles seems counterproductive, as it would not be what users expect when they do a search, and either article would only have a stub-like amount of information. Justin (koavf) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is far more information than merely a stub on the page at the moment. I'm not suggesting splitting anything else out, just the table/bulletted list. - FrancisTyers 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources & Numbers

 * 1. About the table of SADR recognitions, I suspect that it is originally modelled on this page. I don't think it is perfectly updated, though, and possibly it is selectively interpreted in favour of Polisario. The WikiPedia list I believe is more accurate, but this is a good place to start, since these countries have all at some point recognized WS.
 * One thing that should probably be mentioned in the article in connection to this, is that Polisario/SADR sometimes gives a higher number for state recognitions, possibly because they a) interpret "frozen" relations as still recognizing WS; b) mean that a recognition is a one-time affair, and you can't take it back (when you formally recognized that something exists, you can't very well change your mind and pretend it doesn't) or c) are aware of official relations between SADR and countries who are not on our lists, which they interpret as recognizing the SADR's validity as a government.
 * This does of course not imply that Polisario diplomats are necessarily correct in these assumptions, but it could be cited as a statement by a party to the conflict.


 * 2. About the table of Morocco recognitions. I haven't read every link, but I know ArabicNews.com is a notoriously unreliable news agency. It basically copy-pastes (often with very poltiical editing) from Moroccan, Saudi and some other official news agencies, and I'd rather see that we had the original sources than the ArabicNews.com redrafts.
 * In this list, I find it somewhat suspect that they note for example Libya as a country that recognizes Morocco's claim on Western Sahara -- since Libya simultaneously and explicitly recognizes Western Sahara (I know a Polisario guy who was there on a working visit during some sort of seminar just last month). Maybe Qadhafi is changing his view, but as far as I know, there's no official note on that.
 * Also, see the thing on Angola, from the state Moroccan news agency: the MPLA-led Angola is EXTREMELY supportive of SADR, and there is no way they presently recognize Morocco's claim, what ever MAP.ma says (there's even an active Sahrawi embassy there now, and I've met one of the people working there. I think she would have noticed if it was closed).
 * Further, the source on Yemen is wishy-washy at best, with no quote of the purported support at all, and indeed explicit support also given for the UN's efforts (i.e. not recognizing sovereignty). That said, I don't know where Yemen stands. I'm not sure they do either, after reuniting (the North didn't recognize SADR, the South did).
 * Iraq: some Iraqi official stressed his support for Morocco's territorial integrity, that's all it says. There's no quote, and no reference by the Iraqi to WS, even though the MAP - not surprisingly - mentions it just after that, to imply there is a connection to what he said. Was there? I don't know. Maybe he just said something about the importance of territorial integrity for all Arab countries (referring to Iraq/Kurdistan) - the MAP certainly wouldn't think twice about using this as proof of support. Anyway, I don't doubt that Iraq could support Morocco (under Saddam they had some weird plan to reclaim the Tiris al-Gharbiyya for Mauritanian Ba'thists :-), but I don't think this link is any proof of that.
 * Peru. The article refers to a Peruvian member of parliament, who heads the Moroccan-Peruvian friendship association. It makes no mention of official government backing for his statements.
 * Etc. Etc. Etc. Now, I haven't checked every link in the list, but all the ones I read seemed unreliable.


 * 3. Point being - I don't think that list can be taken at face value, but perhaps the SADR list shouldn't be either. Still, of course, conflicting claims by either side could and should be cited. But to present something as fact, I think we need pretty reliable quotes from top-level dignitaries or official dates etc for the recognition ceremonies. Arre 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree completely. We should have good sources. Preferably from the horses mouth, that is from the respective governments. Neither list is at the moment taken at face value, which is why both are on this talk page. :) - FrancisTyers 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Arre wrote that Arabicnews "basically copy-pastes (often with very poltiical editing) from Moroccan, Saudi and some other official news agencies", I really wonder what could be for you a reliable source if arbicnews wasn't? I invite you to read and check every link, not make some amibigous comments about some of them to attack the reliability of the whole list. I confess that the link about Angola doesn't say clearly that it recognizes Moroccan souvereignty, but those of Senegal, Egypt and Arab league...etc was very clear and there is no place for interpretation. Actually only my list is completely sourced, the SADR one isn't. Daryou 23:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I already answered that. A good, reliable source would be a statement from the respective government. If Arre disagrees with Arabicnews then that is no problem, you can presumably find the original statement, or a statement published on a more neutral source, perhaps Reuters, AFP or the BBC? - FrancisTyers 00:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer to Daryou: (Oh, FrancisT was quicker. I agree with the above... :-)
 * Well, as far as news agencies go, AP or Reuters would feel better, or even MAP.ma (since that's where ArabicNews gets all its Moroccan news). ArabicNews.com is just an Internet service, as far as I know, that rewrites stuff from real news agencies, in the process making it less clear who said what. More often than not, it does so with an over-the-top political slant.
 * (Clarification of that: I don't think MAP is a very good source of anything, but it's better than ArabicNews, since it's the original source for most of their news. Arre 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
 * I don't say all the links are bad, but I think we can agree that some are. I agree that this could be the case with SADR links too, and I agree that sources are a good thing. I just wanted to point out that several of the sources for that list did not say what the list intended them to say. I'm sure you agree with me there.
 * Now, that's the problem with unserious news media such as ArabicNews.com: it will present anything said by anyone as confirmation of its political agenda. The Polisario's SPS (www.spsrasd.info) frequently does the same thing, and I don't respect it as a serious news agency either - even if it is a good way to get information on Polisario, from a distinct Polisario perspective (ArabicNews is also useful for me, the same way, to find out how a Moroccan nationalist perceives reality).
 * Also, if that wasn't clear, I want to say that I think any link is valuable, since it nuances and fills out the picture, even if it does not provide real proof for either side. Peace, Arre 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a need to source Countries recognition of SADR and Moroccan souvereignty. Actually there is no neutral reliable source for the SADR list. I provided sources for the Moroccan list from MAP and Arabicnews, the 2 sites are surely biased and pro-Moroccan, however they report quotes from officials of respective governments.
 * There is a difference between quotes and interpretations. Surely MAP and Arabicnews will interpret in a pro-Moroccan way any quote. But the quote is there and every WP reader can read and interpret it. For example: In an article about the position of Nicaragua we can read this quote :"as long as the referendum process is underway, the Nicaraguan foreign ministry, backed by President Arnoldo Aleman, suspends all relations with the polisario front and the SADR". Every reader can understand that Nicaragua doesn't recognize Moroccan Souvereignty, If Arabicnews was lying, they could easliy interpret it as a recognition but they didn't. Arabicnews didn't say also that Albania recognized Moroccan souvereignty, there is many other axamples. I just invite you to read all the quotes in my linked sources and make your own opinion. If you don't accept some of them, let's discuss it.
 * I invite you to provide sources and evidance for the SADR list, and we'll talk then about their reliability. I see that Arre doesn't trust Arabicnews and even MAP, Me too I don't trust all SADR sites. Daryou 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Arre already said that :P The Polisario's SPS (www.spsrasd.info) frequently does the same thing, and I don't respect it as a serious news agency either. Lets get sources from reputable news agencies :) - FrancisTyers 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What do Arre and Koavf think about it? In that case only SADR recognitions reported by reputable news agencies we'll be sited in the article and in all WS related pages? Daryou 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold on, now. Most of the SADR recognitions were done in the 1970s and early 1980s, and we're unlikely to find much about that on the Internet. The list I pointed to gives a solid date for every such recognition (same as on the WP list), and I've seen similar lists in written literature. I'll try to find one of those books, and we can use that as a basis to compare the WP list with, if Daryou is uncomfortable with ARSO. Also, I think ARSO.org is censored for all Moroccan and Sahrawi Internet users, which makes it kind of problematic as a reference in this debate.
 * I suggest we stick to the lists we have on WikiPedia, and then anyone who wants to contest a recognition (of SADR or of the Morocco's Southern Provinces-thing), should provide sources to back this up. Scrapping all the information we have, especially since no-one has seriously questioned that information before, doesn't seem productive to me.
 * So, what I mean, is that I'm all okay with Daryou's list in principle, but I wanted to point out that some of the sources do not seem reliable, are not clear enough, or do not provide very significant references (such as that Peruvian MP and minor representatives). This is a problem, since we do not have any formal dates of recognition for these countries. In these instances, the government should be removed or, better, resourced. I do think that Daryou's list could be reasonably correct (excepting some wildly-off-the-mark cases, such as Angola, where MAP is obviously just lying), and it shouldn't be impossible to reference this properly.
 * If there is a list available from MAP, ArabicNews or the Moroccan government, we can use that the same way: checking it against the sources. I don't know if there is, though. Arre 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>A few things to bear in mind In addition to the unreliability of arabicnews.com, they use vague language, don't quote sources, and provide virtually no context for what may have been said. If a head of state says that he "respects the integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco" that could mean one or more of several things: So, without context, which one of these (if any) is he saying? Incidentally, I agree with the last statement, and disagree with all of the others. Justin (koavf) 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)~
 * He thinks the Sahara should be annexed.
 * He thinks the Sahara should be partitioned.
 * He thinks Ceuta and/or Melilla should be handed over from Spain.
 * He thinks the Plazas de soberanía should be handed over from Spain.
 * He thinks the Canary Islands should be handed over from Spain.
 * He thinks all of the Sahara, Mauritania, half of western Algeria, and some of Mali and Senegal should be annexed.
 * He thinks the Moroccan state, as is should remain a legitimate geo-political entity.
 * Thank you, that was one of the points I tried to but failed to make above. (And incidentally, I agree with the last, third and fourth points. Maybe we should create a page for Perejil called the Northern Provinces.) Arre 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Furthermore, and likely closer to the truth... A vague, context-less statement like that could also be an example of a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Justin (koavf) 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, first, 2nd, last or whatever are considered nonsense. The other part didn't assume anything of that. Please refrain fron assuming and applying false dichotomies. -- Szvest 05:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

===>Whu? I have to admit I'm a little confuzzled at your post. Are you saying that the statements "the Sahara should be annexed," "the Sahara should be partitioned," and "the Moroccan state, as is should remain a legitimate geo-political entity" are all nonsense? (For the record, the first is the current position of the Kingdom of Morocco, the second was the position of the Kingdom of Morocco from 1975-1979, and the last is the position of most everybody else as far as I'm aware). What am I supposed to have assumed exactly? Where does the false dichotomy lie? What are the two options, and what viable third (fourth, fifth) option(s) are there? Justin (koavf) 05:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You should not be confuzzled. I said WP:Civil and I already discussed that w/ Arre. Cheers -- Szvest 05:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Curioser and curioser You addressed it "guys," so I'm assuming that it has something to do with me. What's going on here? Justin (koavf) 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, If a state says it supports Moroccan territorial integrity, it means simply that it supports Moroccan souvereignty over WS, remember that all quotes date since 2000, all other possibilities are context-less. I agree with Arre, the 2 lists should be used. I think that Angola recognition isn't clear from the quote, I will delete it and look for more sources. However I think that some evidence about SADR recognition by Botswana, lybia and Syria are to be found. Best regards. Daryou 07:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Clearly that's not true... Since Morocco hasn't renounced their claims over most of those territories. And what does 2000 have to do with anything? Justin (koavf) 17:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FLAGS BEFORE NEWS (caps)
First of all!!! How come we got flags here?!!! I am removing both of them per consistency. One problem is fixed. Tackle another one guys! Cheers -- Szvest 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * What? Why no flags here? I think showing both Morocco's and Western Sahara's flag is perfect for this page, since it covers both countries' legal and foreign policy relations to the area. Uncontroversial and informational - could it be better? I won't do anything about it, though... have it your way :-) Arre 03:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is nice but it is ridiculous. Foreign relations of France, Foreign relations of Spain, Foreign relations of the United States are all flag-free. Indeed, who decided that the RASD flag to be on top? Cheers -- Szvest 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Hm. If all other FR pages are flag-free, then so should this one. Although since this one is about two sets of foreign relations (at least), maybe it could be of more use here. Feel free to put the Moroccan one on top, if you want to; or even better, put them in the order that the respective areas are presented on the page. I'll survive either way. Arre 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Why no flags? Clearly, this is about the politics of Western Sahara - the SADR and Morocco. I have no problem with both being presented, as this is clearly a matter that affects both political entities. Justin (koavf) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are happy to present both flags, do them black & white or wiki-speaking left & right!. As I said above, it's about being consistent. If you don't want that than please respect the rule Black & White. Cheers -- Szvest 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Territorial integrity
Territorial integrity of Morocco means in a pro-Moroccan site simply the souvereinty over the Western Sahara and maybe also in some contexts ceuta and melilla. Daryou 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Or-- Maybe also some of the things I just mentioned, or maybe not the Sahara and some combination of the others, or maybe a policy of deliberate ambiguity. You're not actually saying anything new here. Justin (koavf) 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The term means exactlly what I said above. Daryou 19:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Why? What, all the time, just because you say so? Look, I offered actual alternatives and moved forward the discussion. You just ignored them, didn't provide justification or rationale, and then say, they are because they are. Do you have any reasons or an argument to present or not? Justin (koavf) 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what I'm talking about because I'm Moroccan, I live in Morocco and I know exactly what this term means. You have already accepted this reasoning, you accepted the recognition of Gabon for example, and now you are ignoring your own positions. You refuse my list just because it's about 26 countries and not only 3 or 4 states, Why do you contradict yourself? You ask everyone to be connsistent but you forgot to be consistent yourslf. Your strategy is simply to refuse all of my edits and to maintain endless discussions and edit wars, and you know what? I have all my time. Daryou 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What Justin is saying is that when a person says he supports Morocco's territorial integrity, that does not necessarily mean he supports the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, since there are several alternative meanings to this (and the politician may have been speaking in general terms about all countries, all Arab countries, etc, or answered a weasel question about that). Often it does, but we can't be sure.
 * That ArabicNews/MAP/etc choses to report such a comment will of course put in a very specific context, but we have no way of knowing what was originally meant (also, there are no quotes to this effect in several of the articles - just summaries of the person's or country's opinions, evidently written by the agency, and we have no way of knowing what was actually said). Compare with if the Prime Minister of Bulgaria on a visit to Iran says that "all historical events should be thoroughly and critically examined" (maybe he's referring to the Communist period in Bulgaria, to Iraqi WMD claims or to the Iraq-Iran war - or maybe he's just making an off the cuff statement about something else, or presenting a more complicated opinion about WS than the quote alone implies) and this is picked up by an Iranian newspaper that puts it next to a comment about Mahmud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial. See the point? If you only read the Iranian article, you'd get the definite impression he supports Holocaust revisionism. Arre 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasoning, but there is no comparison between the two cases, the officials said every time in Morocco to support Moroccan territorial integrity. They knew exactly what it means, they know what they are talking about. Daryou 23:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why isn't the data available direct from the horses mouth (so to speak)? The same goes for the SADR btw. Why don't we have sources, be they offline or online? - FrancisTyers 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

SADR recog sources

 * okay, i've done a few now. most of the links are good (including a few to the actual embassies), but a couple are more indicative than real proof (arabicnews.com-level stuff). this is a hell of a job - there is, for example, precious little online information on what happened in lesotho in 1979. in fact, lesotho doesn't even have a functioning foreign ministry page: the only thing i could find was a bio of the minister...
 * it's like that a lot, since sahrawi-friendly countries are generally a) poor, b) not good at english and c) have very bad internet access. i've posted a bunch of lists that seem to confirm the one above, though, and since most of them have recognition data i think they are fairly good proof (at least that a recognition has taken place at one point - it could have been rescinded, but if so, we'll surely find info on that somewhere). i invite you all to check and compare, the more the better; i haven't done much myself with that yet. i will also look for a book, i know i have one somewhere. Arre 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Moroccan souvereignty

 * I've sources some countries recognitions from Moroccotimes.com, I hope that Arre and Koavf won't make any objection this time since Koavf seems to trust this source. Daryou 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I added in the Moroccan list many sources other than Arabicnews; I see that Arre seems to trust a little bit this site since he used it to source Kenya's SADR recognition. So if no one see any inconvenient I'll restore the 2 lists. Best regards. Daryou 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think they'd be better in separate articles, but if you wish. - FrancisTyers 19:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ArabicNews: I'm not saying it's all useless, I'm just saying it shouldn't be taken at face value since it's a propaganda site. That goes for Kenya too, but as you can see, there is more than one source for that one -- not counting the six different lists. The AN link was primarily included because it shows the Moroccan reaction (pulling the ambassador). Arre 23:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add that I haven't looked on your lists/sources yet, but go ahead and restore the lists. Disputes should be handled per country, on the talk page. Arre 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I agree with you, disputes about the 2 lists should be handled per country, on the talk page. Peace. Daryou 23:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this site claims that some countries regonizes Moroccan sovereignty. I am sorry, but that is not true. Some countries support Moroccan claims, that is not the same as reconizing sovereignty. I corrected the statements at the site, but my corrections were reversed by "FayssalF". /Lorenzo 09:39 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lorenzo, every edit there is sourced. Don't change anything that contradicts it. i.e., check this out: President Eduardo Duhalde of Argentina on Monday renewed Buenos Aires' backing to Morocco's territorial integrity.  or this one A senior Libyan official on Tuesday said his country backed Morocco's territorial integrity and affirmed that the Sahara is historically established as a Moroccan territory. "Libya strongly opposes the creation of a phantom entity" in the Sahara, Ahmed Ibrahim, Assistant Secretary of the General Congress of the Libyan People, said at a meeting with Abdelaziz Alaoui Hafidi, first vice-speaker of the house of representatives (lower house of parliament). . Cheers -- Szvest 10:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FaysallF, none of the sources that you refere to say anything about regonizing Moroccan sovereignty. It is a well known fact that no member countries of the UN has recognized the Moroccan claims. However, many countries have expressed their support for the territorial integrety of Morocco. Which in no way is the same as recognizing Moroccan sovereignty. Salve --/Lorenzo 10:14 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lorenzo, could you please explain to us what is the difference and the criterea you are using to support your edits? Cheers -- Szvest 10:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FaysallF, the short answer to your question is that reconizing sovereignity and supporting territorial integrety are two completely different things.

Giving support to Moroccos territorial integrity, may be a way of dimplomatically saying that Morocco is right in its claims. In some cases this is obvoiusly so.

But, in the eyes of the international community Morocco is occupying Western Sahara. Just like Israel is occupying the West Bank.

This is the possition of the UN:s Security Council, the legal council of the UN, the EU and officially of all other countries in the world - since no country has recognized the sovereignity of Morocco over Western Sahara, which General Secretary Kofi Annan also stressed in his last report to the Security Council: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/wsahara/2006/0419sgreport.pdf

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

On the other side, many countries support the Polisario and the right of the Sahrawis for selfdetermination, but that does not give automatically that these countries reconize the SADR.

Regognizing the sovereignity of one of the parties is basically saying straight out that "you are right". Interesting engough quite a few countries have recognized SADR, whareas no country has regonized the sovereignity of Morocco over Western Sahara.

You may think it is outrageous or otherwise unfair that no state reconizes Moroccan sovereignity over Western Sahara, but nevertheless it is an undisputed fact. Salve --/Lorenzo 16:40 8 May 2006 (UTC) Ps. I am sorry for the long and untidy posting.


 * I'm not completely clear over this issue. What kind of recognition is Annan referring to? It could possibly mean that no country (except M.) has ever voted (formally, in the UN General Assembly, Committees or S Council) to recognize Moroccan sovereignty, but instead accepted the UN's choice to frame WS as a decolonization issue (even if they in principle support the Moroccan claims, and think that they are morally and politically justified). In that case it is correct to say no country recognizes M's sovereignty.


 * On the other hand, some of the sources cited here (but not all) are pretty explicit, and seem to amount to recognitions in themselves - but if that isn't then backed up by formal recognition/votes/etc in the UN, what's the use of it? Does rhetoric count as recognition when contravened by diplomatic action? Arre 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving support to Morcco's territorial integrity is as I have tried to explain one thing, reconition another. The support is political and can be a way of getting better relations with Morocco while the issue of Western Sahara is dealt (or rather not dealt with). It can imply a future reconition of Moroccan sovereignity, but might as well be just a recognition of the internationally recognized Moroccan borders. You should keep in mind that there are Saharawis living in south of Morocco, and some Saharawis might claim this for a future Saharawi state in Western Sahara. -- /Lorenzo 14:54, 11 July 2006 (GMT)

Libya
Libya is presently on both lists, and we can't have that. There is one link where a Libyan official opposes the SADR, but on the other hand there are several lists of recognition dates, an office or embassy in Tripoli complete with phone number (anyone care to call and check? :-), and Libya seems to have given no formal note of scrapping the recognition, as the other countries have done. Plus, I might add, I recently met a Sahrawi guy who was in Libya last year as a representative of some sort for Polisario or SADR, on a conference. That tells me the recognition still stands, although you never know what Qadhafi might think up next. Arre 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tought that Lybia cancelled its recognition and stopped supporting the Polisario since Morocco and Lybia was "united" for a while. Daryou 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They didn't formally cancel their recognition (or, at least, I've never heard about that). But they did cut back on virtually all support when entering the "union" (is there a WP article on that, btw? Otherwise we should make one). Then when the project crashed in 1986, after the visit of Peres, Libya again began supporting Polisario, possibly as some kind of revenge, but with very limited resources. There are still Sahrawi students allowed to study at Libyan universities etc, and Libyan officials occasionally pays visits to SADR/Polisario events, so I would guess the recognition still stands. Especially since there is no (known) formal note on its cancellation. But, that said, I wouldn't be surprised if Qadhafi decides to cancel it soon. Arre 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So you don't have any evidence, maybe you don't trust my source but I have one, you haven't, So? Daryou 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't have a source for them cancelling the recognition, have you? You say "I thought" above, and I think not. See my reasoning from Jan 24. As for sources, a quick look produces for example this, where the SPS names their Libyan representative. So obviously they have some kind of representation. Arre 00:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you know that I can't verify your source :). Daryou 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * oh, right. i'll paste it here, then, and you will return the favor by drawing some intelligent conclusions from the fact that the moroccan government is scared of letting you read polisario news.
 * ''Tripoli, 09/02/2004 (SPS) Mr. Malainine Etghana, Saharawi representative to Libya, participated on Tuesday to the meeting of African agriculture and waters experts, which is expected to prepare for the meeting of the ministers of the continent, planed for this 11th February in Tripoli (LIBIA).
 * then it goes on, but the rest is irrelevant to our discussion. btw, if you want to i know there are some ways to go around the WS internet censorship, that the sahrawis use - you want links? Arre 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh NO! I don't need it. I honestly know that those are simply Polisario propaganda sites. I really prefer a source that I can verify myself. You never trusted me, and I confess that I don't trust your copy-edit. Remember that I had many times to verify your internet evidence (remember about the UN oil affair). Best regards. Daryou 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * wtf?! when have i EVER falsified a source? i was trying to provide you with a way to verify the sources right now, but you're saying no! as for the "un oil affair", it is still in the text, which you haven't contested, and it holds a link to the full document. if you're interested, here's an online video of Hans Corell commenting on the verdict, and quoting from it -- but i guess the safe bet is that you're not. Arre 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 2 you said: "I will also re-enter something on the oil debate, although as long as I can't find a better original source for the quote, I won't use that", but you simply used http://www.arso.org/UNlegaladv.htm. I wonder why you dare talking in this case about the full document. Daryou 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the full document, and it is not what I was referring in your quote. Have you read it? No. Do you want to? No. It also links to a copy of the original PDF version. Have you read that? No. Do you want to? No. I used it as soon as I found it, after the page had been unblocked following the flag vote (which disrupted my writing son the economy part). If this is your argument for why you should be able to slander me and say I falsify quotes, try again. Arre 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I googled a little and I found those quotes: "Madrid, 19/10/2005 (SPS) Saharawi Representative to Spain, M. Brahim Ghali" and "Ahmed Boukhari, Saharawi representative at the UN", does it mean that Spain and the UN recognise the SADR?! ;) Daryou 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but Spain and the UN typically allows political activities to take place, even if they do not agree with them, whereas Libya does not. If Libya did not accept the SADR, whoever came there to represent it would go to jail. But still, it's a valid point. I'm not saying this alone proves anything. I'm saying we can't have Libya in two categories at the same time, and from what I know so far, it seems more likely it should be in the recognition category, since we KNOW that it HAS recognized SADR, but we have (as of now) no information on a cancellation of recognition. Arre 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems more likely it should be in the Moroccan sovereignty category, since my source seems to indicate a cancellation of recognition (however without providing dates). Cheers. Daryou 22:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===>What? You have to know that is illegitimate and illogical. If you have one source that clearly says "X" and another that indicates "not X" you should go with "X." Show some intellectual honesty, please. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * WHAT???!!!! Is there any kind of logic in what you say?? Daryou 22:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===>What? What do you mean? If the first source says "Yes, this is definitely true," and it is an established fact, and the second source seems to indicate the opposite, it is illogical to accept the second source as a fact. -Justin (koavf), talk 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * One source says clearly "X" in 1980, another source says clearly (you should read the article) "not X" in 1999. It is illogical to accept the first source as a fact in 2006. Daryou 22:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Contradiction Does it "seem to indicate" or does it explicitly say? I thought that I could simply trust what you wrote. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you don't seem to trust what I say so read the source yourself. Daryou 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Angola
===>Angola is pro-Sahrawi Here's some evidence. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Pro-Sahrawi" is a wrong term. Morocco claims it pro-Sahrawis as it considers the Sahrawis as Moroccans. Please use Pro-separatist or pro-independist or whatever. Thanks. wikima 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Iran
Why is Iran listed twice? - FrancisTyers 15:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not. Or is it? Where? About that, we should come to a decision on Libya soon. We can't have them on both lists. Arre 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, my bad. That had already been reverted when I read the page. Now everything is back to normal, but with the extra source. Arre 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Burundi
After Chad, it appears that Burundi has recently cancelled its recognition to the "sadr" (?!). Anyone has any informationon this? Thanks wikima 18:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep talking about Chad, but Chad's non-recognition of the Sahrawi republic is nothing new. They cancelled their previous recognition a long time ago, as you can see for yourself in the table. Arre 04:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, let me please simply talk about what I want to talk about. Thanks.
 * There has been a new decision by Chad.
 * In fact I am talking about Burundi, one of the first African countries that had recognised the "sadr".
 * Cheer wikima 17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Western Sahara and "sadr" mixed-up in this article
WS has no foreign relations as it is merely a territory. This must be corrected through the article. Western Sahara must be dropped of all this here. If n ocmments I#ll statr with the changes as soon as I have a minute. Cheers wikima 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Veiled threat? The article clearly explains that some governments consider the SADR to be the legitimate government of the territory of Western Sahara. How could it be clearer? What kind of changes do you propose? "Morocco" is a territory, and the "Kingdom of Morocco" is a government, but that doesn't mean we need to change the title of the article on Foreign relations of Morocco to Foreign relations of the Kingdom of Morocco. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hugh?! Where is the threat? I say the article MUST be corrected. WS has not foreign relations as it a territory which international status is currently undefined. Chances are that it becomes an autonomous region under the soverignty of Morocco. The comparison with Morocco is absurd as it is an already sovereign state. I kindly leave it to you the change the title and all stuff that wrongly shows any foreign relations or diplomatic activity of Western Sahara. It you don't like to do the work I'll do it. Thanks. wikima 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is about all kinds of foreign relations pertaining to Western Sahara, not about SADR -- which has foreign relations with any other state that considers it a sovereign state, as some do; that's not our business to judge. Some states (such as Sudan) have opened foreign relations with Morocco under which Western Sahara are included; some states have opened relations with the SADR instead (such as South Africa). Both are covered here. There are also descriptions of the UN's view on this (it views WS as a non-sovereign territory slated for decolonization, which can either end up independent or with Morocco). So, the page is not specifically about the foreign relations of the Sahrawi republic, even if that is a subset of the whole. And so, no changes should be done: it's an excellent solution, that explains the POV:s of all sides, and brings all useful facts of the matter together on one page. And as you can see, we've already been through this in a rather longish debate. Read that one, and maybe you'll agree. Arre 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Arre, I understand very well what you say, but sorry I still fully disagree!
 * Western Sahara is merely a territory. It can't have any foreign relations.
 * Those who claim sovereignty on the territory can have those relations.
 * ergo foreign relations must be moved to these respective parts in the conflict.
 * And there a big details that betrays what you say: The template box on right clearly belongs to the so called "Sahrawi Republic".
 * And: there is more about polisario and recognition of the "sadr" then anything else.
 * This should change. I request to rename the article to foreign relations of "sadr" and to review the article. If needs are one can create Foreign Relations of Morocco which would certainly cover the view of the country on the Sahara.
 * Cheers wikima 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Did you read the discussion? The people who wrote this article went through a lenghty process of moderated negotiation before arriving at the current page. This article is about the foreign relations of governments, such as the Kingdom of Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations and African Union, regarding the territory of Western Sahara. That is abundantly clear in the article. The template is in the article because it is part of a series of articles on the SADR; if it wasn't there, what would your objections be to the actual content of the article itself? Of course there is more about Polisario and the SADR becuase there is more to say about them. If you have credible sources to shed information about the Moroccan position, I think everyone would be happy to see them incorporated into the article. If the article were to be renamed Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, it would involve deleting much of the content of the article, and change the scope of it. That's fine, of course, but I say this simply to point out that an article identical to this should not have that title. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Justin,
 * Yes I am aware of the discussion and the more I look at it the more I am convinced that this article must be removed.
 * You confirm my thoughts and remarks on the article beeing rather a "sadr" and polisario one then any thing elese.
 * Therefore I strongly request to dissolve the redirect from Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to this place.
 * If things need to be deleted no problem as the neutrality and accuracy are most important.

Cheers wikima 17:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Move and edit war
Right... So Wikima has created his SADR page; whilst Kovaf keeps redirecting it. This can't go on I'm afraid, so more talk here please. For what it's worth, I think I support splitting the page re Wikima. There's no harm in dividing all this up and, to be fair, 'Western Sahara' as an entity does not have foregin relations - only the SADR and Morocco do. This makes the title of this page a bit of an inaccuracy. --Robdurbar 06:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely!
 * This is an abviouse case of abuse in Wikipedia:
 * - all Western Sahara stuff is (mis-) used for "sadr" and polisario
 * - Although Western Sahara is clearly defined as a disputed territory
 * - Referring systematically to consensus reflects lack of arguments

wikima 18:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This must change.
 * All Western Sahara elements (articles, templates, etc) msut be used in the most neutral manner
 * Accpeting theses abuse is contributing to dammaging Wikipedia's reputation.


 * It wouldn't kill me to move the page, but I just think its so very unpractical. This page gathers all the conflicting views on who rules Western Sahara and who recognizes what, which I think is excellent. Splitting this into several different but interrelated articles (UN view of status of Western Sahara, international view of status of WS, recognitions of Moroccan rule over Western Sahara, foreign rel:s of the SADR, etc) would make following the subject so much harder.


 * Now, f there was a possibility that someone could mistake this page for a pro-SADR piece saying that only the SADR can conclude relations on behalf of the territory, then there would be a problem. But there is no such problem! All sides are treated, and in the most scrupulously neutral fashion. Please reconsider, breaking this page up wouldn't even benefit the nationalists of either side, and it certainly would the info harder to find and to keep updated. Arre 19:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Arre. Trying to be as neutral as i could, i'd say that Rob got a point. WS doesn't have any foreign relations. SADR does. Cheers -- Szvest 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Well, there's two things in play here.
 * (A) - The SADR concludes relations its relations with other states on the basis of a, in their view, legitimate claim to the areas. These governments basically recognize that the SADR = Western Sahara. So, in the view of both parties to the treaties, these are foreign relations of Western Sahara. I guess much the same could be said for Morocco's approach to foreign relations with gov's that recognize its claim, so, essentially, there are foreign relations of the entity "Western Sahara", it's just that they're mutually exclusive and not universally recognized.
 * (B) - That said, I agree that Rob's got a point. But I also don't see the big problem with keeping both Morocco and SADR and the UN and everybody else, on ONE page. It's not as if that strenghtens the claim of any one party, but it definitely DOES provide some overview of the topic. So, same "political" end result, but much more practical. Arre 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see both sides of the argument here; the advantages of holding it all on one page and the slight misnomer of claiming that 'Western Sahra' has foreign relations.

I think both work fairly well... I'd support either to stop an edit war; if I were being pedantic, I would support the split version. --Robdurbar 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Arre,
 * Just have a look at the template of the "Sahrawi Republik" for example. Directly under th title it says "Politics and government of Western Sahara"
 * And this is the case with most article/templates on Western Sahara: they are pretty much connected to "sadr"/Polisario either at the technical level or content or both.
 * The problem is that we are not editing to reflect the "sadr"/Polisario/Algerian view ot the one of those who recognise the "sadr", but we are editing in Wikipedia.
 * Thus, yes, visitors intereseted in the topic get the information: Western Sahara is "sadr"/Polsiario related and/or the territory "belongs" these entities.
 * You concern is - in my view - superficial:
 * 1/ If WS is a territory and has no foreign relations, then we should refrain from giving it foreign relations, because it does not have them.
 * 2/ It is true that information will be splitted but there are thing you commonly call "links" in the internet, which we can use.
 * 3/ It's even better to splitt since the article provides a biased view; example: while the strategy of Polisario and Algeria is to collect recognitions for "sadr", I believe that Morocco is not inthat competition. Morocco is satisfied when countries adopt a neutral position and looks further to a global defitnive international recognition e.g. at the UN. In this context putting a list of countries that recognise "sadr" next to the one of those that recognise the Moroccan sovreignty is not meaningful.

wikima 21:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not an offense but one thing i never understand is that Koavf is into a revert war w/ wikima and never shows off. Please participate in order to find a compromise. Cheers -- Szvest 21:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

On Kovaf's behalf I should point out that according to his user space, he's away for a week. --Robdurbar 07:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info Rob. Much appreciated. Cheers -- Szvest 10:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

This appears to have died off... so should we still go ahead with the splitting? I do think it would be better in the long run. --Robdurbar 09:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Splitting the article I'm opposed to it for three reasons: The argument that Western Sahara is a territory and therefore doesn't have foreign relations is bankrupt. Morocco is a territory, and therefore doesn't have relations. Should we move foreign relations of Morocco to foreign relations of the Kingdom of Morocco? The states that recognize the SADR recognize it as the legitimate government of Western Sahara and so if you asked Algeria whether or not Western Sahara has foreign relations with them, they would say "yes." -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The article as is was created through the combined efforts of several editors (myself included) working in tandem through mediation
 * 2) Splitting the article would make it less useful for the reader, and almost certainly result in redundant information spread across several articles instead of being in one place as it is now
 * 3) I've not seen any novel and compelling reasons for changing the status quo.


 * Alle your three reasons are dogmatic and can be resumed as the follwing: You do not want the change because you do not want the change.
 * The United Kingdom of Morocco has full sovereignty on Morocc. So the comparison is non valid, and absurd -> Otherwise we would not talk about WS as a terriotry under conflict.
 * We are not editing Wikipedia to reflect teh position of 40 countries that recognise the so called sadr.
 * Western Sahara has no foreign relations, none
 * And if any foreign reelations exist on that territory then they are Moroccan as Morocco effictively governs it.
 * The articel reflects wrong information.
 * Its splitting is a necessity.
 * All the respective foreign relations must me moved to where they belong: either to Morocco or to "sadr". Thsi is why Wikipedia has "sections"
 * wikima 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Several options:


 * 1) Redirect the page to Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic &mdash; this is the most common meaning for Western Sahara in English.
 * 2) Keep the page as a disambiguation page for Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Foreign relations of Morocco.
 * 3) Keep the page as is.
 * 4) Move the page to Foreign relations of the territory of Western Sahara, or Foreign relations of the disputed territory of Western Sahara or Foreign relations of disputed Western Sahara.

Personally I'd go for option 3 or option 4. Having both sides on one page is good for NPOV. - FrancisTyers 15:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1 / Reject: Wikipedia just as any knowledge base does not care of what is the most common meaning or common sense. Many of most common meanings are wrong. Encyclopedias are there to transmit and correcte knowledge and information


 * 2 / Reject: Moroccan foreign relations are much larger and Western Sahara is merely a part of them


 * 3 / No


 * 4 / Reject: A territory never has foreign relations (this is what the discussion is about)


 * ==> There is one option: give back Cesar what belongs to Cesar (if this is the wording in English) and put the "sadr" part in the articel of sadr and its foreign relations, and the Moroccan part in the article on Morocco and its f. relations.


 * What is done here is just nonsense, sorry. The only reason to keep this would be to admit Western Sahara is the territory of sadr. This is however a strong POV.


 * wikima 16:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

===>What?
 * Why did you just write me off? I presented arguments and then you didn't address them at all. How dare you tell me what I think or why I make my decisions? Saying "The the comparison [between Morocco and the Sahara] is non valid, and absurd" is just ignoring the point I made. How is it invalid? How is it absurd? They certainly can be compared, even if there are differences. Actually, we "are not editing Wikipedia to reflect teh position of 40 countries that recognise the...sadr" since recognition is one of the common criteria for statehood. States that recognize the SADR do have relations with it vis-a-vis Western Sahara, so Western Sahara does have foreign relations. What "wrong information" is in the article? You won't even say what it is.
 * As for naming, Wikima, you should actually read the naming conventions. If you did, you would know that this is the exact opposite of the convention "Wikipedia just as any knowledge base does not care of what is the most common meaning or common sense." Where did you get this? To quote:
 * Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but what doies this mean? Where did I write you off?
 * There are no arguments you presented
 * "sadr" has foreign relations, with the countries that recognises it. "sadr" is however out of Western Sahara, in Tindouf. It is just an exile governement. Western Sahara is mainly and mostly fully governed by Morocco, so if Western Sahara has any foreign relations then these are part of the Moroccan foreign relations.
 * You cannot continue to ignroe these *facts*
 * However I do not plead to make foreign relations of WS similar to those of Morocco. The logic would be to mention foreign relation of Morocco with regards to Western Sahara in the Morocccan page and do the same for the so called "sadr".
 * This is clear. What you are doing is misleading and suggests Western Sahara is a sovereign country with foreign relations but of two sides: Morocco and "sadr". This is weired!


 * wikima 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I will be off the nest 2/3 week with probably no access to the internet. I will defintively continue the discussion on my return as I am highly intersted! wikima 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, much of your agrument is falsely characterizing other's points of view e.g. 'You do not want the change because you do not want the change'. Also, you have to appreciate that what might seem 'absurd' to you may not seem absurd to others. We all have different backgrounds here and its not on to state that things are 'obvious' and 'clear'.

I quite like the option of having this as a disambiguation page; or something along the lines of FrancisTyers' option 4. What I think he was trying to get at was that this page should be moved to a title that reflects its content; something along the lines of Foreign relations in the context of Western Sahara or Relations of states with the entities who claim to administer Western Sahara. There may be better options than those two names, but the advantage would be:


 * It keeps all the info on one page (which Kovaf is clearly keen on and it is easier for the reader)
 * It does not falesly indicate that 'Western Shara' has any foreign relations
 * It does not mention any validity towards the claims of the SADR or Morocco

Maybe 'Foreign relations in Western Sahara' might be a good title? Or 'in the context of'? --Robdurbar 09:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe we're debating this. But how about Western Sahara and diplomatic relations (or "foreign relations"), and having the entries of both SADR and WS as redirects, plus a link from the Morocco foreign relations page? Otherwise I'd be fine with "the territory" of, as long as the page remains in one piece. Arre 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a brief comment on the topic of SADR. SADR is reconized by the African Union, and considered as Wikima says the exile government of Western Sahara. SADR is however not only in exile - it controles one third of Western Sahara, and its government is considered the legitimate government of the territory by AU and several countries. It is therefore not "just an exile governement", as Wikima put it. In comparison, no country has reconized Moroccan sovereignity over Western Sahara although it controles two thirds of the territory. Morocco is not even reconized as the administrating power, Spain still is since it had no right to give Western Sahara away. So, if Western Sahara has foreign relations they can never be part of Moroccan foreign relations - since the territory is not a reconized part of Morocco. -- Hope this can shed some light on the issue. /Lorenzo 14:49, 11 July 2006 (GMT)


 * The fact that the SADR is recognized by some states does not have a significant importance, because the recognitions are not a permanent act, and can be (and they really were) cancelled by many. Moreover, "A" in SADR stands for Arab, but the Arab league does not recognize it but supports Morocco.


 * Nostalgics to the colonial times of the last century still look to give Spain a role in the territory. A desperate act, given the fact that Spain by signing the Madrid Accords, and the departure of the last Spanish soldier never had anything to do with the territory.
 * "Morocco is not even reconized as the administrating power, Spain still is since it had no right to give Western Sahara away". Are you kidding? what are talking about? even the most fervent nostalgics of Franco and Colonialism have never said that.
 * the territory is not recognized as part of Morocco, and also is not recognized as an independent state. So it can not have a state foreign relations.--SteveLo 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

POV and inaccuracies

 * "The United Nations views Western Sahara as a case of incomplete decolonization[1], until the Sahrawi people are able to use their right of self-determination in the form of a referendum. This makes Western Sahara the last major remaining colony in the world." This is wrong. The UN considers the territory disputed, meaning that the sovereignty is not solved, and the territory can be Moroccan or independent. The territory is on the list of non-governing territories, since the 1960s when it was under Spanish control. The UN is not obliged and has never declared that the solution should necessarily include a referendum.
 * while "Kingdom of Morocco" part should have been reserved for the position of Morocco, it is twisted in the end to contradict its claims.
 * The polisario front is considered by Morocco as separatist movement. That should be mentionned.
 * The Polisario is not the legal representative of the Sahrawis, there is no ground for that. It has never put itself to the ballot test in competition with others.
 * "The UN also considers Western Sahara an occupied territory, and a territory which should be decolonized, since the legal administrator of the territory still is Spain". This needs to be sourced or removed. Example of source, a UN document calling WS an occupied territory.
 * RECOGNITION. Can anyone explain to me please what means "support" vs "recognize"?. a country supports Morocco in the WS conflict and supports its claim on the territory and considers it to be a matter of territorial integrity, BUT, it does not recognize this same WS to be part of the territory of Morocco, thus not its claim on it, thus not supporting Morocco in the conflict.
 * What can a country do to be called as recognizer of WS as part of Morocco?.
 * I did not check all the countries recognizing the SADR, but Syria and the US on the list?????. These need to be sourced or removed. Syria does not recognize the SADR, that is for sure. The US did not include WS in the free trade accord, but to jump and consider it a recognition of SADR is at best vandalism, at worst craziness.
 * the list of countries supporting Moroccan sovereignty on WS is ridiculous. Where is Saudi Arabia, that armed Morocco in the conflict, where is the UAE and Bahrein, Jordan and Oman, France (Chirac calls WS the Moroccan Southern Provinces)... this list should not be there in the first place.
 * to not initiate an edit war on the article, let's use Wikipedia spirit of neutrality and fact accuracy, and set aside own political views and attitudes on the conflict to make this article worth its name.--SteveLo 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Ridiculous?
 * The United Nations includes the Sahara on their list of non-self-governing territories, which are all colonies. When I spoke at the United Nations, it was to the Fourth Committee, the Committee on Decolonization. The UN calls the Baker Plan a "classic decolonization programme." Just do a search at un.org for ""Western Sahara" decolonization. Why do you think that "incomplete decolonization" and "disputed" are mutually exclusive categories? The UN has only ever declared that the solution should necessarily include a referendum. That is the name of MINURSO - United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara.
 * How so?
 * I agree.
 * The United Nations visiting mission to Spanish Sahara clearly recognized the Polisario as the only legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, as have all third parties to the conflict, and certainly the states that recognize the SADR. There was never a vote on whether or not Fretilin was the representative of the Timorese. Or whether the Sultan of Morocco is a legitimate sovereign.
 * Did you even look? There are several sources that (rightly) call the Sahara occupied.
 * "Support" is a vague term that is used for political reasons to engender good relations with Morocco. Many states have made deliberately vague comments such as "we support the territorial integrity of Morocco" which can be interpreted however one wishes. Recognition is an explicit declaration of public policy. As Kofi Annan said, no state (other than Morocco, of course) has recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara.
 * Have a declaration from a high-ranking official saying explicitly that. It would also help if the source for that information was something other than a Moroccan propaganda tool.
 * The U.S. was added in the latest large edit, and should be removed, as it does not recognize the SADR. Here's a source for Syria: Pazzanita, Anthony G. and Hodges, Tony. Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara, 2n ed., Scarecrow Press, 1994. p.379 ISBN 0-8018-2661-5 Do you have some reason to doubt this information (i.e. a contrary source)?
 * If you find a source for them, add them. You can't complain about a lack of infromation on such an obscure topic and then offer no evidence yourself.
 * Okay. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 14:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Page Move - A territory can not have foreign relations!
Hi People,


 * The title of a page is an important part of it and I would like to decide on this soon.
 * For this reason I also put a POV tag on it.
 * In my feeling only Justin insists to keep the title.
 * There seems to an understanding that WS has nor foreign relations since it is only a territory (a natural thing, but not for Justin).
 * Arre's proposal seems to be reasonnable: WS and foreign relations + links to the respective parties and entities.


 * A general remark though: Morocco does not seek nor collate recognistions as does SADR and Algeria for SADR. The philosophy of Moroccan FR and those of SADR/Algeria are fundamentally different.

Cheers - wikima 17:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move again Yes, the title is important, but this is not why the POV tag exist; you aren't disputing the accuracy of the article. Obviously, it's not just me, just look at the informal vote at the top. Why do you say things like this? This name was decided on as a compromise. Clearly, these are the foreign relations relating to the territtory of Western Sahara; Morocco is a territory, too. So is Greenland. So are lots of places. Splitting up the article does a disservice to the reader, and makes it more difficult to find pertinent information. Morocco does not collate recognitions, as no state recognizes their claim to sovereignty over the Sahara (other than themselves); there is nothing to be collated, except possibly a list that looks like this: The association between the "SADR/Algeria" is an old bait-and-switch tactic regarding the Sahara, and I don't think anyone is going to be fooled by your intimate association between the two. You, of course, did not bother explaining how they are different or even what they are, so I don't see how a statement like this can be useful in terms of editing the article. I imagine that if other states recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara, it would become a part of their propaganda campaign there - are you doubting that? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Morocco


 * Justin, honnestly, and no offense, please try to be less agressive.
 * Morocco is a non dipsuted territory. WS is.
 * Telling Foreign relations of Morocco suggests, Morocco is a sovereign country with diplomatic relations.
 * Telling Foreign relations of Western Sahara suggests, Western is a sovereign country with diplomatic relations. But Western Sahara is not a sovereign country and has therfore no diplomaitc or foreign relations.
 * I can only interprete that you make all efforts to keep this ambiguity.
 * Same efforts you did with re to templates and other stuff.
 * In this sense I insiste, WS is a territory and not a sovereign country. And as such it cannot have any diplomatic relations.
 * I maintain to lead the readers to the foreign relation of the respective entities that claim possession of the territory: Morocco and the so colled SADR.
 * I Maintain that the title is one of the most important parts of the content. To avoid any edit war I ask all that we keep the POV tag until this discussion is resolved.
 * Re "SADR"/Algeria, this is my point of view, and we are in the discussion are not in the edit.
 * And in my point of view the so called sadr is nothing but a fantomatic entitiy that Algeria wanted absolutely to have. Algeria is in fact the main part in this conflict against Morocco. So, this is my point of view and I want to be free to express it and to write things as I think, as long as I am not doing in the edit area.


 * Thanks - wikima 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My take on this, w/ more above: This is a nonsense request, and I think Wikima will discover it too, if he takes a step back and looks at it from a less confrontational angle. The page is about all relations pertaining to Western Sahara. Some of them are indeed constructed between a country and WS as a supposedly independent state (such as South African-Western Saharan relations, which are no less formally bilateral than South African-Moroccan relations), some of them on the other hand regard WS as a subunit of Morocco (see Sudan's take on the issue), while most states (and the UN) simply regard it as a non-self governing territory awaiting implementation of its right to self-determination (Europe, the US, etc). The article explains all this very clearly, with no taking sides, and listing all known viewpoints. It's as unbiased as can be.

The name doesn't imply anything either way, since it neither says WS is a country nor that it's not, and, it doesn't say that it's Moroccan, nor that it's not. Plus, even if you would for some reason argue that WP should only present the issue from the dominant third party-angle (of it being a non-sovereign territory), which in itself means a pronounced bias to one take on the dispute, there would apparently be a precedent with Greenland and other territories.

Anyway, no more comments on this from me. I'm convinced there must be something more important to argue about. Arre 22:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not about confrontation. It's about providing balanced, "objective" information on the subject.
 * I know how other countries see the territory.
 * Part of media and diplomatic the lanugage they use is routined biase
 * I don't know much about Greenland but think this region is not in conflict (?)
 * I maintain: Western Sahara has, a territory no foreign relations.
 * The article focuses on recognistions and presents thoses re to WS and Morocco. As if WS would be a competing country to Morocco.
 * It is also unbalanced and asymetric since Morocco's diplomacy does not target the collection of recongnitions although the country is always happy for every support support.

Cheers wikima 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam

 * Morocco has exchanges ambassies with Vietnam: Cooperation Moroccan embassy in Hanoi to boost bilateral ties, Moroccan ambassador.
 * And Morocco does not do this with countries that recognise the "rasd".
 * Anyone has more details on this? Vietnam is listed among the countries that recognise the "sadr"


 * Thanks - wikima 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no information whatsoever on what goes on in Vietnam, but Morocco has lots of embassies in countries that recognize the RASD. There's even a Moroccan embassy in Algeria, and there's one in Mauritania, in South Africa (though the ambassador was temporarily withdrawn after SA's recognition of RASD in 2004), etc etc.

So from what I can tell, the above MT info means absolutely nothing -- it's just a rewrite of some routine press statement from the ambassador. The papers of the region (and, indeed, of dictatorships everywhere) are full of them, articles about "cooperation in all fields", "strengthening of bilateral ties" between the "brotherly peoples" and yadayadayada. If Vietnam agrees to a de-recognition of RASD (which it could well do, not being very ideological about national independence anymore), that will surely get the bold print i the MT, not just some obliquely phrased article like this. Like Cambodia.

Welcome back, btw. Arre 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. We'll see... wikima 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Scholarship" and Dilettantism
Koavf,


 * You'll need to fine tune your understanding of scholarship or simply do some before coming to wikipedia.
 * Since you have damaged the references I can't really read your "scholarly tralali" sources
 * But if I understand you mention Arabicnews and this site: amigosdelsahara.net
 * The first one (arabicnews) is journalistic. All it says is that Syria closed the bureau of Polisario. This is what Jalil is telling you.
 * The second one is a bad insult to scholarship (and to esthetics). It's to be rejected for the following reasons:
 * It's just dilettant
 * It's pro-polisarian propaganda
 * The e-mail gien there (probably never used) confirms that it is a bureau of Polisario (f.polisario@net.sy), again what Jalil is telling you.


 * wikima 19:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great Hodges and Pazzanita are the most credible sources on the conflict and are routinely sourced in academic journals (as well as having been published themselves.) They both say that Syria conducted relations with the SADR. Therefore, until you have a more credible source that refutes them, they will be assumed to be in the right. You could have easily fixed the reference with the tag, but regardless, the information is still there and displayed on the screen. Jalil is not simply telling me that Syria closed the Polisario bureau, he is furhtermore saying that Syria never recognized the SADR. If you want to complain about aesthetics, feel free to send an e-mail to the webmaster at arabicnews.com, because it looks pretty atroicious, too. It also has a sub-AP standard for news writing, to say the least. Your arguments against the use of the amigosdelsahara site are mostly baseless of course (you quote the Moroccan news agency, and that's propaganda), and furthermore, they are irrelevant, because I am not calling it scholarship; I am calling Hodges and Pazzanita scholarship, and they are. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I never dare to say that this or that source is most credible.
 * This is the attitude of believers not of critical people
 * The source that is currently mentioned says the Syria closed the bureau of Polisario. It says nothing about the so called "sadr"
 * If you are talking about www.amigosdelsahara.net then I do strongly rejetct it as non neutral and dilettant.
 * If you have other sources list them, concretly, not by telling me "that gurus have sayed the earth is flat, so it is flat, because both that gurus say it." This is not going to work with me.
 * Keep in mind that Polisario and "sadr" are often and regularly confused as they were the same people behind the same puppets. Now if there are slight differences many media don't separate and confuse the bureau of Polisairo with the one of "sadr" (I thought you're familiar with the topic and no need to teach you such things)


 * wikima 11:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? "I never dare to say that this or that source is most credible." That's not true at all. This is exactly my point: the source says nothing about the SADR It is irrelevant to whether or not Syria ever recognized them, so my source and this one are not in contradiction. Do you reject to the Moroccan government's site as non neutral? I never said anything about "gurus," I appealed to the best scholarship on the issue; consequently, I find it doubtful that they confused the Polisario with the SADR. In point of fact, I find it much more likely that this online news source did. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Koavf For the sake of reason, please take a break to think about this:
 * When Syria and South Yemen, in addition to Libya, Algeria, and the PLO, created "the front of Refusal" in the late 70s as a result to the Camp David Accords, Syria, as a solidarity sign with Algeria which supported it militarily with financing of arm deals with the USSR, Syria (and S. Yemen) allowed the Polisario front to open offices in their respective capitals. Syria was further angered by the role Morocco played in the Camp David Accords, where Morocco hosted the initial secret talks between Egyptians and Israelis (Moshe Dayan), and the relations Morocco continued to hold with the strong Moroccan jewish community in Israel, seen by Syria as normalizing with enemy. But it never went as far as to recognize the SADR. If you think they did, please bring the proof of it before reverting.--A Jalil 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Syria I have to admit that I'm mostly ignorant about Syrian politics and history, but I do know that scholarly, reputable sources claim they recognized the SADR, and you've offered me nothing to contradict it other than a speculative argument. I've offered proof several times. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly sources
Syria, etc. My sources are


 * Hodges, Tony. Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War, Lawrence Hill & Company, 1983, ISBN 0-88208-152-9, p. 308
 * Hodges, Tony, and Pazzanita, Anthony. Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara, 2 ed., Scarecrow Press, 1994, ISBN 0-8018-2661-5, pp. 378-379.

not amigosdelsahara and ArabicNews.com (the latter was Jalil's source.) These are far more scholarly and reputable than the latter two mentioned, they include Syria in their lists, and the other sources do not contradict the information they present. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you paste here the text where Hodges claims Syria (and S. Yemen) recognized the SADR?--A Jalil 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The text It's included in a list on those pages which is reproduced in the table; they're indentical. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Are the scholarly sources provided enough evidence to support the assertions about Syria and South Yemen's recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic?


 * Yes Clearly they are, and the source given by Jalil doesn't even contradict it. Jalil is blindly reverting and obstinantly refusing to even acknowledge the scholarship. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No Such a big thing as a country recognizing the SADR should be sourced enough than just be said by a journalist (Hodges), if he ever does. I asked Koavf to paste the text where that is said in Hodges books but he did not. Can you KOavf find any other sources. I remeber the Moroccan prime minister Youssoufi, on a visit to Syria and answering rumours, declaring that he was assured by the Syrian governement that they never reconozing any such thing as the SADR, and they closed the Polisario office.--A Jalil 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes Here's another source that I easily found using Google Scholar: Journal of African Law: Vol. 26, No. 2, p. 157 URL: http://www.jstor.org/view/00218553/ap020070/02a00030/5?frame=noframe&userID=8644bb9d@iupui.edu/01cce4406700501b06829&dpi=3&config=jstor. What do you want from me? Now there are three scholarly sources; this is more than enough evidence. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Koavf, don't play this game again. Bring clear sources that everyone can read and check. Your links are confusing.
 * wikima 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the first link is a google search for all articles where Syria Polisario etc. occur. The second link did not work. Do you have any other sources. And I still wait for the refered text from Hodges, where it is said and ( should surely be ) sourced that Syria recognized the SADR, NOT the Polisario.--A Jalil 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Game? It's not a game; if you can't access JSTOR, that's also not my fault. I'm on an academic connection, so I can. If you want to read the source, get a copy of the Journal of African Law: Vol. 26, No. 2, and look at page 157. What other sources do you want than academic research in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals? And what does "recognizing the Polisario" even mean? You can't recognize a political party; only a state. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is your Mistake koavf. You links are not verifiable, and you don't make the difference between recognizing a movement and allowing it to open an office (as does Spain), and recognizinf a "Republic" with all what that means diplomatically. I think you said it all there.--A Jalil 21:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not hardly My sources are verifiable; if you don't want to get a copy of this journal, that's not my fault. Not everything that is sourced has to include a reference on the Internet; I provided that for your convenience. Spain has never recognized the SADR, and consequently, were never listed in Hodges book, this article, or any of my edits. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Koavf, Seen you behaviour in this topic and in Wikipedia I doubt very much that you sources are valid.
 * I could mention any Syrian and Yemnite newspapers that you would never be able to check and which clearly denounce the so called "sadr" and confirm their countries have never had any relations with them
 * Jalil, Koavf, seen that:
 * the information on Syria and Yemen is unclear
 * that they don't recognise the so called "sadr" anyway,
 * that it is already stated that Arab league does not recognise this entity neither


 * I would to simply delete entries Yemen ans Syria from the list to close dicsussion that is now becoming blocked/non sense.


 * Hope you accept both of you. Otherwise this would mean you want to remain in this eternal revert.
 * Thanks


 * Right That's outrageous; you've got to know that I won't find that acceptable. If you want to read Hodge's book, you can get it cheaply on Amazon. If you doubt my sources, check them yourself. The information in it is crystal clear, and it's only someone who hasn't read the book(s and articles) that is complaining that there is no source for the information. The Arab League reference is a non-sequitur. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree I agree to remove the disputed claim that Syria and the Former South Yemen ever recognized the SADR Republic. In the case koavf did not agree, as can be seen from his answer, I will change the description to mention that the recognition is disputed.--A Jalil 19:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What? It's not a matter that is disputed; only you are claiming it never happened. Imagine if I went to the moon article and keep on inserting that it doesn't exist, and then wanted to compromise by including a reference to its existence being in dispute. That's preposterous, Jalil. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well well, I am talking about Western Sahara, and you are talking about the moon???--A Jalil 20:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an analogy And you know that. The dispute is only on your part, based on your refusal to actually look at the sources provided. You're disputing these facts by relying on your ignorance. If you want to take this further, put on a disputed tag, and ask for mediation; I've no doubt that consensus will be on my side, as is academic opinion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What analogy?? You don't need to go to the moon to look for support to your argument. I asked you to paste here, the text where Hodges says clearly that Syria and South Yemen recognized the SADR, and had diplomatic relations with it. You surely have no other sources, though you must have many, if it were true. Hodges is pro-Polisario and is a stuch defender of the independence of the Southern Provinces. That makes him biased, and irrelevant as a source. I have heard with my ears, Prime Minister Yousoufi of Morocco, declaring that he was assured by the Syrian officials that Syria never recognized the so-called SADR, and that they closed the Polisario office that was open in Damascus. --A Jalil 21:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Koavf on this; his sources are quite clear on the fact. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jalil is not the only to dispute this
 * It is true that pro-polisarian sources are biase
 * If the info is true all Jalil is asking is to paste some text
 * It's not the first time that koavf is playing with sources and even rejecting his own sources when they don't serve him any more. (s. "Greater Morocco", Western Sahara)


 * Cheers - wikima 22:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jalil, etc. I told you Jalil - they occur in a table that is essentially identical to the one on this page. I have also directed you to another scholarly source that you can read yoruself from JSTOR - you can either connect with an academic network for free or pay for the article. If you don't want to do either, that's not my fault. Every source is biased, not every source is irrelevant. Do you think ArabicNews.com is unbiased? Are you kidding me? Do you think that Prime Minister Yousoufi of Morocco is unbiased? That's outrageous. Wikima, you're just being rude and spreading mendacious distortions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected
OK, I've protected the page from editing for a while. Although I learnt a long time ago that it was a mistake trying to edit this page, Its been cropping up on my watchlist lately. I don't want to comment on content - protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page - but on actions. Edit warring and blind reverting is harmful to Wikipedia - protection is meant to stop that. Disucss here further, get feedback from your RfC, go further with an RfA - but find a consensus. --Robdurbar 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright I think I've made my point clear thus far: the scholarship supports my position, and there is no source to contradict it; let alone a more credible one. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am more than willing to reach a consensus, not only here but on all related pages.
 * Sadly I don't think this is possible with koavf
 * He shows a fanatic pro-polisarian attitude and reverts any thing that is not for the independence of the Western Sahara or against Morocco
 * He even rejects his own sources when he discovers they are actually against his own POV (s. calling code).
 * He does every thing to push pro-polisarian POVs and he populated the whole wikipedia with this.
 * Without the effort of others trying to balance, all articles written on WS and Morocco would look like produced by a Polisario propaganda agency.
 * I am not the only one who complains about his behaviour as being really problematic in WP
 * He has been blocked for this several times, the last time one whole week and on his talk page there are many complaints in this sense (not only re WS)
 * This user is like taking the WS topic as sort of his ownership, his obsessions, like a hostage.
 * He is not the only one who would wish to see an independent WS, but with al the others one can reach consensus, not with him.
 * Etc.
 * I think this is really and should be resolved in general for this topic, not only at this page.
 * Such behaviour damages heavily Wikipedia and I think we should do something about it.
 * And, what I am saying are not personal attacks but real facts that everyone can verify.


 * Thanks - wikima 22:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect
Rob, it looks like user Koavf has been blocked on indef. basis. Please can you unprotect the page? Thanks - wikima 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rob, thanks for the swift reaction, much appreciated - wikima 16:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy of Recognitions disputed
Hi,


 * The map of the recognitions of the "sadr" does not seem to be up-2-date. Some countries appear as having connections to the "sadr" such as Irak or Syria. The map must be either updated or removed as inaccurate
 * alos in the list, the position of certain countries is unclear, e.g. Libya. The sources used for this country are either too old (87) or from biase web sites that support polisario.
 * Generally the section is too long, confusing and not well ordered
 * We shall need to check the whole. Until then I tag the section as inaccurate.


 * Thanks - wikima 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Accuracy
 * The map is a different file. I will update that, but if you think that it is inaccurate, you should put a comment on its talk page, not here.
 * On the map, Libya is clearly marked. The source is a scholarly one (the Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara) that has since been updated (in 2006.) It is not out-of-date.
 * How is it too long, confusing, or not well-ordered? Do you have any suggestions on how to make it better? This is unrelated to its accuracy.
 * I've addressed your objections, and I am consequently removing the tag. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update After reviewing the examples you gave, I have no idea what you're saying. Iraq is not colored on the map, and as far as I'm aware, it should not be. Does Iraq have relations with the SADR? Your reference is confusing to me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The tag is on the section containing the map. Removing it while the map is inaccurate is misleading the readers. After the map is corrected and verified, then the tag can be removed. If we follow the logic of accuracy, then the tag should be on the map and the map removed altogether from the article untill it is corrected. Is that better?. --A Jalil 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The map As I said, it's a separate file; you can discuss accuracy issues there. That having been said, the issues he raises make no sense: Iraq is not colored on the map, and Syria is properly colored. The objections are unintelligible. Do you have inaccuracies in mind? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have re-inserted the tag, in the specific. Two reasons:
 * 1- Sorry but I discuss this section. If you refere to the file as such, I'd suggest to remove it (the map) from here and then discuss it where the file is.
 * 2- The table is misleading. It lists recognitions but mentions their cancellation or suspention as notes only. We need an other table that lists only recognitions. Cancellations/suspentions can be mentioned in a separate one. Comments can be added of course separatly.
 * Until we sort this out please leave the tag where it is. Thanks
 * wikima


 * The map shows Kenya as recognizing and even hosting an embassy. Syria is also shown as having diplomatic relations with the SADR, and a region of Yemen as having in the past recognized the SADR. Those are the first that stroke my eyes, and they are all false. Kenya has undone its former recognition and Syria and the former S. Yemen have in the late 70s allowed the Polisario to open an office in their respective capitals to please Algeria after they formed together with Libya and the PLO, the Front of steadfastness and refusal. During a visit by the former prime-minister of Morocco, Mr. Youssoufi to Syria, he declared that there is no representation of the Polisario in Syria and that he was assured by the Syrians that they never recognised such a would-be republic. The case of S. Yemen is identical to that of Syria and they both had their roots in the Front of refusal. Even the PLO at that time was sympathetic to the Polisario then, and in 1988, king Hassan cut all official ties with the PLO for nearly a year after Arafat and Abdelaziz hug warmly in Algiers during a session of the Palestinian exile congress. Later, Arafat became one the biggest defenders of the Moroccan Sahara, and his role in getting Mandela not to recognize the SADR has made him a persona-non grata in Algeria till he died. So, don't refer me to Hodges and Pazzanita who are strong defenders of the Polisario and have thus stuffed their books with pro-Polisario inaccurate material. I have asked this question before and had no answer: Are there any other sources than Hodges and Pazzanita?. For example, the address of the SADR embassy in Damascus.--A Jalil 20:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We need not a table with the history of recognitions of the SADR, but a table showing the current status of the recognitions, by alphabetic order of countries. The historic table could be moved to another article regarding specifically the SADR. --Juiced lemon 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Jalil for this clarification.
 * Juiced lemon, I think your idea is great. But also the historic table must clearly show the number of current recognistions. The current format suggests that so many countries recognize the so-called "sadr". And this is a wrong presentation of the information.


 * Thanks - wikima


 * Maps, etc. Wikima, why on earth would I remove the (sourced!) map, when *you* are the one objecting? Why should it be removed at all? Why don't you discuss that file on its talk page? This is bewildering. The table is not misleading, and it would not be helpful to split it up; it was arrived at in its present form after a lot of research, talk, and consensus. Changing it capriciously is not wise, nor is removing sourced information. Jalil, as for your constant, unsourced, unverifiable assertions that Syria and South Yemen never recognized the SADR, I have scholarly sources that refute you, and it is clear that Wikipedia should favor sourced scholarly information over your assertions. Your question is inherently contradictory: any source I would provide you would call "pro-Polisario" and any source that is "pro-Polisario" you reject out-of-hand. Hodges and Pazzanita quite literally wrote the textbook on Western Sahara, so when you tell stories about your take on 1970's Arab relations that contradict them, I'm not inclined to believe you, nor would any person who requires some kind of verifiable source for his information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The map includes inaccurate and misleading information.
 * Calm donw please.
 * wikima 11:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have updated the table of recognitions.
 * It now includes only countries that recognize the "sadr", avoiding confusion and misleading of readers.
 * The table is now in alphabetical order.
 * Many entries need sources. If no source, they will be removed.
 * Thanks - wikima 12:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What? Your edit is inaccurate and misleading - it deletes two states, and it asks for citations where there are several. What are you doing on this page? Why is it better to have it alphabetized? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The table was completly confusing. It was listing all kind of countries, alos those who had forgotten about "sadr" ages ago.
 * There is a list of countries whose recognition needs to be sourced. A country does not recognize the so-called "sadr" because you or arre said it. And we need to provide valid sources and referrences, no the usual "friends of sahara".
 * Finally, an alphabetic order would help people to quickly check for information. I though this is a universal evidence...
 * wikima 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Confusing? Why didn't you bring that up months ago when you were in the discussions to make this table? Who was or has been confused by it? There are all kinds of sources for this information. On the one hand, you want there to be sources for the information, but on the other hand, you reject sources outright (with no contradictory evidence) because they are "pro-Polisarian." How could I possibly prove it to you, after I've given you several sources that list this information over and over again? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I told you what it is confusing, undestand it or leave it.
 * All countries taged need a valid source or will be removed.
 * Sources including value judgement, e.g. those who fight to make WS independant are non objective, and so valid. You would understand this if you have done some university or scientific research.
 * wikima 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, rude Wikima, you don't have to be so aggressive or rude to me; I have done research. I actually have a degree in political science and I am a research assistant in that field as well. Reliable sources says nothing about value judgements. And, if it did, all of the links you inserted from the Moroccan press agencies would be deleted on the same grounds. The introduction to that page reads (emphasis added):
 * ''Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. The reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * Examples of reliable sources are well known university-level textbooks and major encyclopedias.''
 * The Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara is, in fact a major encyclopedia, published for an academic audience, and is the most reliable and appropriate published source. You have brought to bear no source that contradicts it, let alone one that is as reliable. The states tagged are cited in that source (among others), and so there is no justification for either asking for a source, nor for deleting them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am talking in absolute terms and don't know whether you did research or not. If you take it personally it's your problem.
 * If such a dictionary or any other source informs on the current state of a recognition, so we can use it of course.
 * What we can't use are that sources that mean to fight for the indpendence of the Sahara, or draw a picture of the good and the bad, as you do in wikipedia
 * I guess dictionaries generally are not appropriate as sources for such information as they are global and don't track the day-to-day information. Especially that the so caled "sadr" suffers (interstingly) an extremly high fluctuation of the recognitions.


 * wikima 19:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You guess...? You guess that dictionaries are not appropriate as sources? The newest edition of the Historical Dictionary was published about nine months ago. Besides, that wouldn't retroactively change information about Syria or South Yemen from the 1970's. You obviously don't have any sources or arguments to contradict the evidence given, Wikima. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't deform what I say please.
 * In the last 9 or more months several countries may have changed their mind. A dictionary can't provide the latest update.
 * wikima 19:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Deform? I didn't deform anything; the dictionary references to Syria and South Yemen are from decades ago, and have been in every edition since 1982. There is no disputing them, especially since you have no source that refutes them. I realize that dictionaries, as print resources, cannot be updated as can web pages. In point of fact, I have personally edited this page several times with breaking news reported on the Internet. If you have a web page that is reliable and contradicts anything in the third edition of the Historical Dictionary, please provide it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not react to that eternally. I think I made clear what I want to say.
 * Recognitions of "sadr" are matter of daily changes and news coverage. Dictionaries are not the best appropriate to inform on daily changes.
 * You will not open a dictionary to check what last statement Porugal has freshly given by taking over the chair of the EU for the next 6 months. Is this really difficult to understand for you??!?
 * wikima 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to remind that the book in question is not a dictionary in the academic sense of the term. It is not to be confused with the category of Larousse and Webster's and so on. This is a book co-authored between two universally known defenders of the Polisario and its position in the conflict. the word "dictionary" only occurs in the name of the book. Why don't you koavf call the Polisario friends you have and ask them for the address of the embassy in Damascus. The map you defend shows Syria as hosting an embassy. This couldn't be more simple.--A Jalil 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries Wikima, you're not making any sense. Jalil, the Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara is, in fact, a perfect example of an academic dictionary. It was written by academics that are recognized as experts in their field and have published on the topic in peer-reviewed academic journals. The publisher is an imprint of an academic publisher that specializes in, among other things, African studies. An academic dictionary is precisely what it is. Would you object to any references to Noam Chomsky because he has political convictions? Have you ever read the book in question? Do you have any substantial evidence to refute any claim made in the book? If the answer is no to these questions, I don't see where this conversation could possibly be going. I don't have any Polisario friends; consequently, I can't call them. I have only ever met one member of Polisario on one occasion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jalil for precising.
 * I almost thought koavf was referring to a universal dictionary and not to a work of the usual "friends of Sahara".
 * Cheers - wikima 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Guys. I've just archived prior discussions. So let's start again. I suggest every single involved editor makes a brief summary of a few lines about h/er concerns. Please avoid responding to eachother for the time being. Any uninvolved editor can participate as well. Thank her disyou. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a summary about what?!
 * About the fact that Western Sahara and the "sahrawi republic" are two distinct thing?
 * I am honnest, I don't understand this action, especially that the article is looking finer and people are doing effort to edit in a productive/constructive way.
 * We need rather to look at the problem where it comes from: koavf, known as militant for the independence of Western Sahara from Morocco wants to use of wikipedia to push Polisario POV, insisting on confusing Western Sahara with the "sadr".
 * This behaviour had costed him to be baned/blocked from wikipedia on indefinite.
 * And now that he is unblocked, even if he is on parole, he violated the rules again, just to furiousely fight for the same ideology and POV.
 * Koavf is only looking for mediation because he can revert only one time/day.
 * You can mediate as you can, as long as koavf edits in Western Sahara, he will edit-war every single change that does not fit Polisario's view.
 * This is the problem.
 * Honnestly I don't know why you don't see it and why you unblocked him.
 * It's that easy: when he is away there is peace. When he is back there is war.
 * wikima 19:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerns
 * The page was moved unilaterally several times, with no discussion, let alone consensus (see also my talk.)
 * Sourced, scholarly information was added by me and reverted out with no rationale.
 * There is an associated map; certain editors asked that it be removed until it was updated to be accurate. I updated it and it was reverted.
 * Part of the article was turned into a POV fork, which was then deleted. This information has also been reverted out of the article.
 * In addition, several small formatting changes were reverted.
 * As one might imagine, this is frustrating, and makes for a worse article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Chad also needs to be added -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Chad has apparently denied this information, also via its embassy in Algeria
 * A known propagada source can not be used on its own as credible.
 * wikima 13:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Propaganda MAP is itself propaganda; you have personally added several citations from Moroccan state-run press agencies. You also did not address my above e-mail. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have renamed this article because its previous title, Foreign relations of Western Sahara, was a patent nonsense, since only states establish foreign relations, but not territories.
 * Notice that most articles about countries deal both with the territory and the state which controls it. However, for a disputed territory, like Western Sahara, we need to clearly distinguish between the territory and the states which claim it, Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
 * So, I tried to choose the best title, according to the contents of the article. When I asked for another (best) title, I got no alternative suggestion.
 * User:Koavf want to get back to the previous title, and I think that it's for propaganda reasons, since there was a redirection from Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to this article (there was a lot of such unjustified associations between Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in the English Wikipedia).
 * The contents of the article must remain in the scope of its subject. Its purpose is to provide informations about the status of the territory. The layout give priority to the current situation: the current status is detailed with 2 similar tables (for neutrality), one for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the other for Morocco. For the history of this status, the reader can consult the following articles: Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Foreign relations of Morocco.
 * Geopolitic maps are welcomed, as long as they regard both Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, not only one of these states. --Juiced lemon 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay... Nothing is happening here. Fayssal, what do you want to do next? If you don't respond in a few days, I am going to reinsert this sourced information. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What "sourced" information? And what sources? Those that says WS must be independant because Morocco is bad?
 * The article is now in good progress to be balanced. You're welcome to cooperate. And cooperating means to edit neutral not to militate for the independance of any entity.
 * wikima 20:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, i don't know from where to begin but if the map has already been updated to reflect the "States recognizing the SADR" than i suggest its reinsertion. "Legal status of Western Sahara" is by far more neutral than "Foreign relations of Western Sahara". MAP is not an unbiased source or reference w/o doubt. It is known to be the mouthpiece of the Moroccan govt. This source, as long as WS official sources, have to be used not to make the position of any party look more legitimate.

I'll also put some additional new {unsourced} tags on some other statements. We'll have enough time until September to bring sources otherwise, the statements will be removed. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  09:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources And what about the fact that my sourced information keeps on getting deleted? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Insert your sources back. But honestly, tell me, do you think having more than 40 references to the same Pazzanita is suitable for a wikipedia article? -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  15:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I thought it was excessive and ridiculous, but that's what was asked for on talk: every reference to every page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fayssal, I think what you are doing now is no more mediation but discussion of the contents
 * You are welcome to do so, but then please do separe froom your mediation task
 * I do not think that inserting 36 times one sinlge Pro-Polsiario source is good for accurate contents
 * We agreed to remove the countries that have once recognised the "sadr" from this page as it is dedicated to Western Sahara and not to the "sahrawi republic". They can appear in this last page as they already do.
 * I have put the disputed tag firts, and I will have a detailed look before possibly reverting to the initial version.
 * If you could make koavf understand that Western Sahara is not "sadr" that would be rather helpful.
 * Thanks - wikima 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)