Talk:Political status of Western Sahara/Archive 4

Wholesale changes
With regard to this edit: 1) I would expect a lot more than Update., as an explanation for the wholesale changes, especially when it comes to tables. In fact, I expect every change, be it addition or deletion, to be explained. 2) Having picked a change to a country (Guatemala) at random, it turns out that all the source (an amateur pro-Morocco propaganda website) is saying, once you put their misleading title aside, is the Government of Guatemala has called on all parties of the Western Sahara conflict to respect the UN Security Council’s resolutions and honor the 1991 ceasefire., which cannot be interpreted as "Guatemala supports Morocco".

You'll also notice that I tagged a section that seems to be full of WP:OR. For instance:
 * The Netherlands is cited amongst the States supporting Moroccan claims on Western Sahara (using a 2009 source that I haven't checked), yet this source from 2016 says: The Netherlands and Sweden are among the few EU member states to have recognised Western Sahara as an occupied territory.. They cannot be both correct.
 * The claim (supposedly backed by a couple "sources") that Russia supports Moroccan claims on Western Sahara is totally unfounded.
 * 1) Here's its official position in 2002.
 * 2) Its position as stated in RS published in 2010.
 * 3) It's official position in 2017.
 * 4) It's official position in 2020.
 * 5) As you can see, not only does it no support Moroccan claims, but it clearly states that the final formula "should envisage self-determination for the people of Western Sahara on the basis of UNSC resolutions in the framework of procedures that should meet the goals and principles of the UN Charter."

I haven't checked the others, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them don't stand up to scrutiny. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed 6 countries from the table as their governments had only stated they support a political solution to the conflict, not any of Morocco's claims on Western Sahara in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

- Antigua and Barbuda -Cameroon -Costa Rica -Democratic Republic of the Congo -Saint Lucia -Togo The Peoples Front of Judea (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any source for the claim that the Netherlands supports Moroccan claims either (the source cited says nothing about supporting anyone's claims in particular). This page from an agency of the Department of states that "The Netherlands and the EU are neutral in the conflict between Morocco and Frente Polisario and do not recognize either party's claims to the territory. The Netherlands supports the UN in attempts to reach a political and lasting solution which provides for self-determination for the territory's original Sahrawi-population" -- which pretty clearly suggests that the Netherlands does not in fact support Morocco's claims.JorisEnter (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
Regarding this edit:

As I stated in the edit summary, the article's content mentions national sovereignty and not sovereignty over WS, which would be controversial and covered in RS. Please stop edit warring and seek consensus for your controversial change. the other source that you added is not reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
The following comment was left on my talk page:


 * 1) maroc.ma is not a reliable source, so I won't waste my time reading it and I don't expect you to replace the sourced content based on what it says. Also, why did you move a source that was there for the SADR support into the Morocco support section?


 * 2) The second source roughly translate to this:




 * Nowhere does it say that Guatemala supports Moroccan claims on Western Sahara, if anything, what is says about the UN's mission and the "just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution" makes it clear that it's neutral. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
With regard to this edit: the first source is unreliable (written by a nobody and published in some BS blog like site). The second's reliability is irrelevant since it's about the opening of an embassy in Morocco (nothing to do with Western Sahara). As far as I know, Sierra Leone's official position vis-à-vis the Western Sahara is this (October 2020). If it has changed since then, then I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to source properly using an official source that leaves no room for misrepresentation (see the example I gave previously). M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources used to justify this edit are also unreliable.
 * whomever is hiding behind 194.0.168.235 (a proxy) knows what they are doing is wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

== Sources backing the Polisario claims in the section called "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" are all from it's own propaganda news network of the "SPS" "Sahara Press Service" ==

The quality of the informations mentioned in "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" is extremely questionable, as the overwhelming majority of them are all from one same source which is directly the Polisario propaganda news agency "SPS" or "Sahrawi Press Service", they can absolutely not be taken seriously, if we are going to start considering sources from private Moroccan news network as unreliable and add a tag "better source needed" next to any "Morocco World News"  and the template "This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Political status of Western Sahara. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." then the same thing needs to be done to the section "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" as all the claims come one and unique source which is the Polisario "news agency" making it many times worse, in addition to the fact that most of the sources in "States supporting Morocco's autonomy proposal" come from various websites and platforms all around the world including statements in the UN website from international diplomats. Tsarisco (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive tagging
Why are you tagging what is easily attributable? M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I see that you are ignoring my question and are now tagging dead links with as "failed verification". Care to explain why? M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * M.Bitton I already wrote the reason why I put the "failed verification", as none of your sources prove any of info that is supposed to make up a factual Wikipedia article, please provide independent and factual sources that back up your claims, as none of the links with "failed verification" show any info whatsoever, and some of them are even made up such as the case of the North Korea source. Tsarisco (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my question: why are you tagging what is easily attributable? M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific and give some examples about what "easily attributable" sections of mu changes are you talking about? Tsarisco (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you, or anyone for that matter, doubt that countries such as Algeria and South Africa support SADR? M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Provide sources! Wikipedia is about facts not rhetorical questions my friend, and this isn't about opinions but about facts, if you want to back up those facts you must mention multiple independants sources that back up your statements that's just how Wikipedia function and Wikipedia shouldn't be a source of propaganda, as already mentioned in the explanation that I provided in "unreliable sources". Tsarisco (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if you need a source then, the correct tag is "cn" and not what you've been doing.
 * as none of your sources They are not my sources. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you mistagged these two sources (among others) with a failed verification tag again and are clearly edit warring, you leave me with no other choice but to report you. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why did write " as none of your sources " are you implying the countless sources that I added are unreliable? This quite funny to pretend that these sources that aren't even connected to any belligerent force (Morocco and the Polisario) such as here:
 * and
 * and sources that I have taken directly from the UN website such here )
 * and so many others that I put aren't "reliable" but the only one source which is the "SPSRASD" mentioned multiple times in the section of "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara[edit]" is... factual, if that what you are saying.
 * Regards Tsarisco (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These sources https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm|publisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York and url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gaspd507.doc.htm are completely manufactured, made up... literally . This source is also literally made up as if you read the article you will find no mention of Polisario or Saharaoui Democratic Republic (=https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations), and I reverted the changes to the two links that you listed.
 * Pretending that it's just a dead link here (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm|publisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York), when in reality it's just a completely invented source (this is the reference number 59 mentioned in the article "https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm|publisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York"
 * You can verify it by pretty much just replacing anything that comes after https://www.un.org/News in this link by any word and therefore artificially create a source and pretend that it's just a "dead link") and it will give the same message which is ERROR 404. Tsarisco (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "M.Bitton" You have ignored my previous post above that I wrote several weeks ago "Sources backing the Polisario claims in the section called "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" are all from it's own propaganda news network of the "SPS" "Sahara Press Service" failing to answer to the concern about the reliability of the "SPSRASD" source. I have therefore decided to act and put the appropriate tags in the relevant sections, you writing that I ignored your messages in this page is nothing more but lies which is quite daft as Wiki admins can simply go here and see this exchange to prove that not only I answered you here, but I wrote a section in the talk above in May 25 explaining my very logical reasoning.
 * Kindly. Tsarisco (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Don't ever edit, move or partition my comments again. This is your only warning. 2) The green text is a quote (what you wrote). 3) You either don't understand the difference between a dead link and a source that failed verification or you're pretending no to. 4) You kept ignoring me even though I left edit summaries that you could see, started a discussion and pinged you twice. 5) At this stage, I don't see any need to continue this discussion, especially now that the matter has been reported and a new discussion has been started. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)