Talk:Sahrawi/Archive 1

Examples of POV in this page
The following sentences (I cite only some of them) need rewording, evidence or deleting because of pro-polisario and anti-morocco stance. Please cite your sources so others can check your work:
 * "but remains fiercely loyal to the cause of the Sahrawi republic and refugee return."
 * "but minority life in Morocco has been difficult, and Sahrawi culture and traditions have been challenged not only by government neglect, but occasionally also by open and violent hostility."
 * "they also see Spanish as part of their cultural legacy"
 * "spurning kingship and centralist governments." Daryou 08:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, they do not need anything because of an "anti-Morocco stance". Maybe some need sources or explanation (I'm providing this below), but they can't be deleted simply because some of it is contradicted by the Moroccan government version. Also, you're not changing individual sentences, but rather removing large bodies of text just to purge politically unacceptable content. This is exactly the same thing as on the Western Sahara page, were ALL information on the oil debate was deleted as "pro-Polisario" instead of challenging facts presented. This must stop. But feel free to attack individual problematic texts or supply adequate replacements. Arre 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of Sahrawis (according to pro-Sahrawi sources possibly up to 2,000) have been abducted and "disappeared" by Moroccan security forces throughout the years. This is acknowledged even by Moroccan human rights groups. That's a pretty tough situation to live. For a discussion of Sahrawi life under occupation, I recommed Toby Shelleys Endgame in Western Sahara (Zed Books 2004). Arre 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See above. This is completely uncontroversial, by the way, since Morocco does not deny that this part of the Sahrawi population was under Spanish colonial rule, just as Morocco was under French rule, and accordingly attaches cultural importance to French. Arre 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is pretty obvious from demonstrations, Moroccan refusal to confine voting rights to this minority, etc, but I'll agree to rewording. "Fiercely" is not the most scientific-sounding adjective. Arre 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is in the context of traditional Sahrawi culture. The Sahrawi had a completely tribal system, although occasionally moderated by tribal alliances, confederations and pacts, whereas all surrounding Arab nations had kings and/or central governments. Check Tony Hodges' Western Sahara. The Roots of a Desert War for an extensive discussion of pre-colonial Sahrawi society. Arre 18:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And please separate your comments from mine, thanks. Daryou 20:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The neutral point of view according to WP attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. In this conflict there is the Moroccan and the Polisario POV. Your version of the article isn't accepted by Moroccan party and by then not neutral. By the same way if I say that "WS is Moroccan": this sentence isn't accepted by the the polisario and by then not neutral.
 * You didn't provide evidence but title of Books that most of WP readers can't or don't have the time to check. If you provide internet evidence it would be preferable because easily checkable. And you may have mis-interpreted those books.


 * Hey, I gave you good responses. You work with those. Morocco does not agree with this article with or without the things you're deleting, and neither does the Polisario. Wikipedia is about providing information, not about deleting everything that's contradicted by someone else. Please discuss what is in fact a neutral description, not what your government believes should be in there.
 * Most WP users can read the books if they're interested. And if they're not interested, I don't see why they should be involved in this argument at all. The Hodges book is the by far most respected account of early WS history and the first years of the war; Shelleys book was very well received and is easy to get, and also it's the only book I know of that focuses extensively on Sahrawi life under occupation. There's plenty of evidence of Sahrawi resistance to Moroccan rule on www.arso.org, which you've quoted elsewhere, and www.afapredesa.org has additional info on the Disappeared and other repression of Sahrawi civilian society, personal accounts etc, under Moroccan rule. Those sources are pro-Sahrawi, but feel free to check reports on Morocco/WS on www.hrw.org, www.amnesty.org, www.freedomhouse.org, www.rsf.org, etc. Same stuff there.
 * I will now revert to the last edit I did, where I removed "fiercely" and made other clarifications in line with (parts of) your criticism. If you don't agree, please discuss what I said above instead of just stating that Morocco doesn't agree. Arre 23:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Daryou 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I deleted only POV not facts. WP is a neutral encyclopedia. There is always a way to present facts in a neutral way according to WP principles. Feel free to add all the facts you want, but please avoid Pro-Polisario POV without any evidence.
 * I confess that I can't read those books, It is very difficult to get English books in Morocco. Pro-polisario links aren't neutral evidence. I used one of them previously to convince you. If you refer to HR reports you'll see that HR status in North Morocco and in WS are similar. The last Amnesty report states that there is many improvements in HR in Morocco(Including WS) . You see that I provided a checkable internet link. Would you do the same in you future posts?
 * To show my good faith I didn't revert, would you make the necessary changes please to show me yours?


 * If you're in Morocco, I would say the problem isn't English books, but books on Western Sahara. I'm sorry for that, but I still think the information in them is valid as evidence.
 * The pro-Sahrawi links (one of them is Polisario-affiliated, not the other) was not intended as evidence by themselves. If you check them, you will however find a large number of useful links and reports from international HR organizations, the UN documents, etc, that touches upon this subject. I don't mean you should read the opinion columns.
 * Human Rights Watch says in their last report on Morocco (Human Rights at a Crossroads, Oct 04) that
 * For years, debate inside Morocco on the disposition of the Western Sahara has been stifled by officially encouraged chauvinism on the issue and laws punishing persons who question the “Moroccan-ness” of the region. Authorities continue to persecute advocates of an independent Western Sahara, and are generally less tolerant of dissent in this region than elsewhere.


 * Amnesty International writes in a report that deals more with WS from 2005 that
 * Regrettably, the current climate of openness does not extend to discussion of rights and freedoms in Western Sahara. During Amnesty International’s visit, the Moroccan authorities refused to allow a group of human rights activists in the disputed territory to begin procedures to register their association. This is only the latest in a series of measures to suppress freedom of expression on Western Sahara, which has helped foster deep mistrust towards the authorities' approach to human rights within the territory.


 * And as I said, Freedom House gives Morocco proper the score of 5/4 for political/civil rights, and Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara 7/6.
 * These are just some examples. Keep reading those reports, and you will notice again and again that these organizations differentiate between the human rights situation in WS and Morocco.
 * I'm very happy you didn't revert. Now, just tell me exactly what the problems are, and why, and we'll make the best of this. I tried to adress those complaints I agreed with, and the rest I argued for above, but you're obviously not happy about it yet. Let's solve it.

Arre 00:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that HR organizations said what they said. Does those reports prove that the sentences I mentionned above are neutral and facts? Please re-read the current version of the article. It is still POV. The wordings are still clearly anti-moroccan. You didn't provide me evidence. Please revise the article and make it neutral. Thanks. Daryou 01:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't if you don't tell me what's wrong. I wrote in the last post: Now, just tell me exactly what the problems are, and why, and we'll make the best of this. I tried to adress those complaints I agreed with, and the rest I argued for above, but you're obviously not happy about it yet. Let's solve it.
 * So, just give a brief list (like you did above) of what the main points you want fixed are, and well do something about it.

Arre 03:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Other examples of POV
''"the Morocco- occupied Western Sahara...bloodily split between their occupied homeland and the refugee camps in Tindouf...A smaller number managed to stay behind under Moroccan occupation, but demonstrations and dissident activity seem to indicate continued Sahrawi loyalty to the cause of the Sahrawi republic and refugee return...Most of the Moroccan Sahrawis have been resettled, sometimes with harsh measures, in the occupied parts of Western Sahara in an attempt to bolster Morocco's claims to the area...but there has also been numerous instances of Moroccan Sahrawis displaying their solidarity with the anti-occupation movement, and a couple of the most high-profile independence activists (such as Ali Salem Tamek) are actually from southern Morocco rather than Western Sahara...but minority life in Morocco has been difficult, and Sahrawi culture and traditions have been challenged not only by government neglect, but occasionally also by open and violent hostility. In contrast, the situation of the Sahrawis in Mauritania has been relatively unproblematic, and they tend to support a Sahrawi state in Western Sahara ... they also see Spanish as part of their cultural legacy... spurning kingship and centralist governments...The Polisario Front is the main Sahrawi nationalist organization"''===>Need rewording because of anti Moroccan and pro polisario stance, and/or evidence. Daryou 15:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

1. occupied, this is worth discussing. the area is de facto occupied, but i'll look at your minurso argument (not de jure occupation) and get back to you on this. also worth checking how similar situations has been handled on wikipedia.

2. bloodily, this is not POV,and does not assign blame to any party. no one disputes that the sahrawi-moroccan conflict has been bloody and painful for both sides, and that the sahrawis were forcibly split (the debate is why etc).

3. a smaller number: yes, a smaller number. for example (i copy the text since you can't get the book, spelling errors are mine):


 * on January 7, 1976, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the League of Red Cross Societies announced in Geneva that forty thousand Saharawis had fled their homes. Half had reached Algeria, where they were squatting, destitute, on the Hammada, where the winter nights were frightfully cold. The rest, who were in an even worse pligth, had taken refuge in remote parts of Western Sahara that had not yet been reached by the Moroccan and Mauritanian forces. By the end of February, Spanish journalists in El-Ayoun were reporting that only five to six thousand Saharawis remained in the capital, barely more than a fifth of the twenty-nine thousand who had been registered there during the 1974 census. The Saharawi barrios of Colominas, Zemla and Jatarrambla were starting to look like ghost towns. - Tony Hodges, Western Sahara. The Roots of a Desert War, p. 232.

4. demonstrations for independence indicate adherence to SADR ideals. yes. what do you suggest they indicate, if not that?

5. Most of the Moroccan Sahrawis; agreed, I don't know for a fact that it's a majority of them, although I assume so. This should be stricken and replaced with "many" or "tens of thousands of".

6. Harsh measures; yes, the tribes were told to go to WS, they didn't just spontaneously all decide to emigrate in a matter of days. there was little room for discussion. the wording could be tempered though, since i don't know of any actual physical compulsion. let's say we change it into "more or less voluntarily", or something like that.

7. settlers are there to bolster morocco's claims. how is this POV? do you think the settlement program is just for fun? the sentence does not pronounce any verdict on the legality of such an operation, this is the main point.

8. Numerous instances of pro-Sahrawi and pro-independence activities in south Morocco and by south Moroccans. Yes. There has been many demonstrations, flag hangings, sit-ins etc in towns with a significant Sahrawi population in s. Morocco, such as Tan Tan, Assa etc. Information and a lot of pictures are available on pro-independence web sites, such as arso, cahiers du sahara etc.

9. Ali Salem Tamek is, I would say, the most well-known Sahrawi activist in the area. Possibly Muhammad Daddach is equally well-known, and Aminatou Haidar is on a distant third. Tamek is born in Assa, south Morocco. Comments to this?

10. Minority life in Morocco has for Sahrawis indeed been very difficult, as you can see from the HR-reports I linked above. I consider killings of Sahrawi rights activists (see HRW etc) a good example of "violent hostility".

11. Mauritania recognizes the SADR stating the relations between its Sahrawis and Polisario as a reason. It is well known that many Mauritanian Sahrawis (the Ahl as-Sahl tribes residing in the northern part of the country) were sympathetic to Polisario even during the war, and that many deserted to join the Polisario against their own government. SADR even had a Mauritanian Sahrawi in its government for a while, although I can't remember his name.

12. Spanish is part of the Sahrawi heritage regardless of whether you support Morocco or Polisario, since Spain colonized Western Sahara. Do you also think it's controversial to say that the French language is part of the Moroccan heritage?

13. Kingship: the Sahrawis never had any kings (before 1975), although individual tribes sometimes pledged allegiance to kings, warlords and other powerful neighbours from Morocco and other places. Kingdoms (or emirates etc) was the only (or main) example of centralized government in medieval North Africa, since republican governments weren't really invented yet.

14. Polisario is the main Sahrawi nationalist organization. Yeah? Except the Front Polisario Khat al-Shaheed, which is minuscule, I don't know of ANY other functioning Sahrawi nationalist org's.

I explained several of these things above. As you see, I agree with you in some instances, but mainly I think you're being paranoid about the wording. Most of the sentences you've bolded do not convey any political information at all, and those who do are true even though it is not politically correct to acknowledge this in Morocco (this is not POV), as I've argued for.

Please comment on what of my arguing you believe is wrong/right, and we can try to narrow the list down, and then reach a compromise. It will not work just to restate your complaints; I can't keep writing these long responses every time. Also, please respond by number (as above), for clarity, and feel free to leave out those points you believe we are agreed upon.

Arre 21:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * occupied: untill you find a Minurso evidence, please change it to "controlled" or some thing else.
 * Ok
 * According to your source: forty thousand Saharawis had fled their homes. So 50% of the Sahrawis Left their homeland and 50% stayed in their homeland according to Red Cross.
 * It's about the sentence "A smaller number managed to stay behind under Moroccan occupation, but demonstrations and dissident activity seem to indicate continued Sahrawi loyalty to the cause of the Sahrawi republic and refugee return", For the casual reader, this sentence seems to indicate that Sahrawis living in Moroccan controlled WS are loyal to the cause of Polisario.
 * I would say "some".
 * Ok for : "more or less voluntarily".
 * Ok.
 * Numerous is an amplification for 2 or 3 manifistations.
 * Does Ali Salem Tamek live now in Moroccan controlled WS? I assume that all Polisario members were born in WS except the "president" of SADR (born in Marrackech). Did you say "Assa, south Morocco"? Thank you ;-).
 * Please trust me, I live in Morocco and I swear that minority life in Morocco for Sahrawis isn't difficult at all, They do have many advantages, they study in Moroccan universities, they have the same rights than any Moroccan or even more. I studied in Medicine with dozens of Sahrawis. In the hospital where I work there is 1 or 2 Sahrawis chiefs of departments. Many Moroccans (including Sahrawis) rights activists were killed in the 1970's according to your links. I gave you the AI link explaining that HR have improved since those years.
 * Ok.
 * The wording of this sentence is clearly pro-polisario. Remember that Spanish is part of the heritage in north Morocco wich was collonized by spain. And Spanish isn't really used in WS controlled by Morocco.
 * It's about the sentence "Spurning Kingship": did you make a survey? and what do you mean by "The Sahrawis never had any kings (before 1975), although individual tribes sometimes pledged allegiance to kings, warlords and other powerful neighbours from Morocco and other places" I feel some contradiction.
 * Daryou 15:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is working.

1. Let me think about this for a while. I can't decide which is better, going with UN lingo only ("controlled", "held" etc), or with normal linguistic definitions ("occupied"). Both have their advantages and controversies.

3. This was in the beginning of the war, just two months after Morocco invaded. As you see, the Moroccan forces hadn't even reached all of Sahara yet, and still, half of the population had fled.

4 The demonstrations are for independence, thus they indicate that there are pro-independence feelings among Sahrawis. Wouldn't you agree? It doesn't say ALL native Sahrawis in the territory are loyal to either side; clearly some are pro-Moroccan.

8. There has been many demonstrations, sit-ins, strikes, riots and other kinds of protests among Sahrawis in south Morocco. Check the pages yourself. Even if you don't agree with the content I'm sure you agree that pictures of a demonstration are pictures of a demonstration.

9. Tamek is in jail in Morocco, but before that he lived in Moroccan-controlled WS (El-Aaiun). He is originally from Assa, which is in south Morocco (not WS). Same goes for Mohamed Elmoutaoikil and other activists, especially among the pro-independence leaders in the territory there are many Sahrawis from south Morocco. I don't know why this is so. Check this [Afrol report] for example.

10. Well, I've met many Sahrawis who've fled Morocco or Moroccan-controlled WS because of persecution, killing of their relatives and such. Mostly during the "years of lead", of course, but I also met a guy who fled as late as 2000. The human rights situation in Morocco is as you say much better now than before, and it has improved slightly in WS also, but not nearly as much. But if you check the number of "disappeared" during the bad years, you will find that a very large number, possibly a majority are Sahrawi (from south M and WS). Considering the fact that the Moroccan population is 100 times larger than the Sahrawi population, this says something about the scale of repression towards Sahrawis. Agreed, things are better now, if far from good -- and we could put that in the text. But we can't ignore the tens of years of historical repression towards Sahrawis.

12. I really can't see how it would be pro-Polisario...? This I think is the most obviously non-political sentence of them all? Of course the Moroccan article should say that the Spanish occupation of the north and (non-WS) south is part of the Moroccan heritage too, and the same goes for the Sahrawis. Additionally, in the refugee camps (probably the single largest concentration of Sahrawis) all children study Spanish as a second language.

13. Well, we can change the wording. I just wanted to point out there was no central authority and that the Sahrawis have traditionally refused central power, instead relying on a tribal system. They didn't have kings and they didn't have presidents. Now they have both, but historically (for a 1000 years) this was true. My sentence meant there were occasional exceptions, when tribes pledged allegiance for a limited time to the Moroccan king, Mauritanian warlords, each other, the Spanish king etc, but these were exceptions, not the rule.

I think we're basically agreed on points 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, possibly more. Arre 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. Remember that we are searching a consensus, that means making some concessions like I've done above. What seems to you a normal language isn't for me. The word "occupied" definitively have no advantages for me. "Occupied" isn't neutral because of anti Moroccan and pro polisario stance unless you give me Minurso evidence. Using the Minurso reports wording have the advantage to be accepted by both sides. The word "controlled" and "held" are most likely to be accepted by both sides and was used many times without any problem in WS page and you agreed :).


 * 3. According to your evidence, "forty thousand Saharawis had fled their homes: Half (of them) had reached Algeria, where they were squatting, destitute, on the Hammada, where the winter nights were frightfully cold. The rest (of this half), who were in an even worse pligth, had taken refuge in remote parts of Western Sahara that had not yet been reached by the Moroccan and Mauritanian forces". You should re-read your evidence.


 * 4. I repeat that the wording is clearly anti-Moroccan. Have you any suggestion of rewording?


 * 8. How many manifestations was held? were they all pro-polisario or only to request work (Tashghil in Arabic) as you see in the picture in your afrol report?


 * 9. Are you sure that Tamek is in jail now? can you give me some evidence? Your report says that he has been in and out of Moroccan prisons.


 * 10. You say that "if you check the number of "disappeared" during the bad years, you will find that a very large number, possibly a majority are Sahrawi", have you any neutral evidence?


 * 12. Ok for a rewording, what do you suggest?


 * 13. What is your suggestion?
 * Daryou 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Of course you don't like the word "occupation" :-) But as someone said in another article (don't remember where, but its in the WS sphere): "when a nationa claims to annex a territory" (and controls it militarily, but isn't legally recognized as sovereign) -- then that's fair to call occupation. Minurso is not the only reference here, normal use of language is too. But of course "held" or "controlled" are completely uncontroversial, so it's not that I don't agree with them: I'm just not sure that changing it FROM occupation isn't political in itself.

3. I don't get it? Yes, 40,000 is approximately half of the Sahrawis in the territory (total number, 75,000 in the Spanish census), and they had fled already before the Mor/Mar invasion had reached all of Sahara (they hadn't even gotten to Smara, for example). The text goes on to say that the 20,000 who were spread out in WS eventually went on to the camps i Algeria, after their original camps were bombed in Um Dreiga, Tifariti and other places.

4. Well, are you okay with writing something along the lines that demonstrations for independence prove that there still exists a pro-independence feeling among Sahrawis in the territory? Without specifying exactly how many etc.

8.
 * There has been very many demonstrations, and they are ongoing. Polisario reports demonstrations were held in Smara & El-Aaiun on the 29th, for example, with 4 arrested in El-Aaiun & one man killed in Smara. If you check this blog they have lot's of reports on demonstrations in both WS and south Morocco (almost always with photos on the Internet). You also got the video of Sahrawi students in Rabat calling "Viva Polisario" etc.
 * Social & national demands (freedom & work) are often intermingled, and demonstrations gathered to demand work or treatment of mine victims or whatever, are frequently dispersed when they subsequently turn into nationalist gatherings with chants for Polisario etc.
 * By the way, Daryou, if you don't feel comfortable, for whatever reason, checking pro-Sahrawi links or Polisario pages from Morocco - please tell me and I will refer the content or quote it. I don't know exactly how things work around there.

9. Tamek was arrested on 18.07.05 in El-Aaiun airport returning from Spain. He is still in jail. The European parliament demanded his "immediate release" in a resolution on the 27th of October. The "in and out" part refers to the fact that he's been jailed four times before.

10. Well, any HR org. Here's Amnesty:
 * "By the end of 2000, the cases of several hundred people, the majority of them Sahrawis, who disappeared between the mid-1960s and early 1990s, had not been officially clarified."

12. Uhm, how about something like "since Spain colonized WS whereas the rest of N. Africa was colonized by France, Sahrawis consider Spanish part of their national heritage". (but written in a way so that it fits the text)

13. Again, something about how Sahrawis were a tribal and non-centralist society (this is, I believe, crucial to understanding their history), and "whereas most surrounding Arab peoples were ruled by kings or other forms of central government, the Sahrawis persisted in tribal rule, only forming temporary alliances with other powers and each other to counter external threats". Or something like it. This is basically the same point, but more clear and less prone to be misunderstood as an anti-Moroccan statement, I believe. Do you agree?

Arre 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. I think that we are ok for "controlled", Remember that the use of the word "occupied" is "also" politacal for me ;),
 * 3. So?


 * 4. Just give me a suggestion.


 * 8. I think that the Polisario amplified some 2 or 3 manifestations and called it Intifada! Do you have exactly the numbre of manifestations? I have also serious doubts about the authenticity of the pictures and videos.


 * 9. Ok for Tamek, I just wonder if he would be allowed (him and Mohamed Abdelaziz) to vote in the Referendum as they are Moroccan natives?


 * 10. Ok, I said many times that there was HR repressions and that HR improved considerably. Does this report prove that "the minority life in Morocco has been difficult, and that Sahrawi culture and traditions have been challenged not only by government neglect, but occasionally also by open and violent hostility". And I wonder why we don't add a comment about HR in Tindouf camps? And why don't you trust me about what I said about Sahrawis' life in Morocco? We sould add a comment about it for a better neutrality.


 * 12. You should also pricize that Spain colonized also North and "South" Morocco.


 * 13. I think that such a sentence can't be proven, I suggest deletion, What do you think? And remember that many Moroccan dinasties were Sarawis.


 * Daryou 17:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Of course "controlled" is uncontroversial. Occupied is more political, but that is why it is no less of a political statement to delete it, than to keep it.

3. Well, you're saying most of the Sahrawis didn't flee, based on this quote, aren't you? I think it proves that they did.

4. Well, how about "demonstrations for independence prove that there still exists a pro-independence feeling among Sahrawis in the territory"? :-)

8. I'm sure they try to amplify it all they can, and I do think they exaggerate the size of some demonstrations. But even if you look at it with the most critical mind, there is still PLENTY of evidence for many tens of demonstrations since late May, throughout WS and SM on the pages I pointed you to. If you believe photographic evidence is forged, I'm not sure what to do. Even today, Reuters reported on the kid who was beaten to death in an El-Aaiun demonstration yesterday (check the sahara-libre blog for more info and photos). And there were new demonstrations held at his home after he died: that alone makes two demonstrations in two days only in El-Aaiun. Check the pages I showed you and comment on the content: if you do not want to access those pages, or are not able to, then please tell me.

9. No, I don't think Tamek would have been able to vote in the original referendum (with the Spanish census). That's my point: there is some high-profile support from Sahrawis within south Morocco for an independent WS.

10. Yes, I am pretty sure those reports prove that minority life was difficult, since people were killed. Life doesn't get much harder than that. This is not a general page on HR and this sentence is not about HR (it is about being a Sahrawi minority) but I am all for adding relevant HR info on the Tindouf or Polisario pages. I can promise you I will do so myself when I get back to adding the things we discussed on the Western Sahara talk page (HR, oil etc). Probably not before the infobox dispute is resolved, though, as I don't want to mess too much with the page before that.

12. True, but irrelevant to the Sahrawis. It should be noted in the Morocco articles, though, and I think it is. (By the way: I am all for Morocco kicking Spain out of it's last colonies, Ceuta and Melilla. Good luck with that :-)

13. That the Sahrawis were tribal and non-centralized is proven beyond any doubt. I was actually thinking about writing some more on the details of their tribal system (with concepts such as the Ait Arbain, Znaga tribes etc), but I've put that off until we're finished with this discussion. Tribalism was their only method of organization for a 1000 years, with very brief exceptions when strong tribal chiefs garnered supra-tribal power (latest example, Ma el-Ainain), and with temporary alliances with each other and regional powers (and then not only Morocco, but Mauritanian warlords/kings, non-Sahrawi desert tribes, and very significantly, the French & Spanish armies). If it's the word "king" that bothers you, I think you're being a little paranoid, but we could leave it out for now. It's just that that is the only real form of central power that existed during those years.

Arre 22:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. You say that "controlled" is uncontroversial, let's use it, remember that we are looking for consensus :) (unless you want the discussion to continue for 2 or 3 years ;-) ).
 * 3. Half fleed and half stayed according to your quote.
 * 4. What about "Some demonstrations for independence prove that there exists a pro-independence feeling among some Sahrawis in the territory"
 * 8. I don't have any problem to visit internet pages. I think that "many tens" is exagerating. I think it's about 3 or 4 manifestations (Anyway less than ten) unless you give me evidence. Do you know the exact number?
 * 10. Many Moroccans (not including Saharawis) was also killed in those years. And what about what I said before about Sahrawis living in Morocco? Adding my previous comment in the article would be a good compromize :).
 * 12. What about "Spain having colonized Western Sahara whereas the rest of North Africa was under French rule" except North Morocco colonized by Spain
 * 13. You still didn't give evidence about "spurning kingship and centralist governments" Remember that SADR is a kind of centralist self-proclaimed government.
 * I would just suggest that you make a little comment in your user page explaining where you live and where you are from, I would like to know who I'm speaking with if you don't mind, Do you also have an Email? ;-)
 * Friendly yours Daryou 00:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. well, we're not looking for consensus at the price of accuracy.

3. read earlier and later posts again. the half-of-the-half (20,000) in WS eventually proceeded to tindouf (after bombardments etc), making it more than half of the total population (40,000 of 74,000 counted in the spanish census) in tindouf by early 1976. and this was before the initial invasion was anywhere near completed, so there came a lot more refugees later. people then kept fleeing way into 1977-78, and small trickles continued up until the walls were finished, further increasing the numbers.

4. all demonstrations for independence prove that. what else do they prove? those kinds of qualifications makes the sentences less precise, not more.

8. of course i don't know the exact number, no-one's keeping track. but be my guest and start counting, if you want to. whichever way: if you can visit the pages, then do so and see for yourself. you can't just go around and "think" that it is (or should be) 3-4 protests.

10. yes, but as i said sahrawis formed a MAJORITY of the people killed/disappeared according to amnesty & other HR orgs, whereas the sahrawi population is only about 1% of the moroccan population! this alone tells you something of the magnitude of the repression directed specifically at sahrawis. i think its impossible to say any less than that the sahrawis in morocco/under moroccan rule paid an extremely heavy price for the WS conflict; today the situation is better, but still very bad for many (esp. in the territories). your comment should not be added as such, but it should indeed be clear that today the situation has improved, and, of course, that not ALL sahrawis are persecuted just for being sahrawis. i don't think the page said that though.

12. ah, i see. well, let's change "rest of" to "most of", and we should both be okay. libya was under italian rule etc, and we don't need to get into all that.

13. yes, as i said, this is historically. today they have many kinds of centralist government (sadr, morocco, mauritania etc), but historically this was not so. having a tribal system without central authority = spurning centralist government (including, and specifically for that time, kingship).

i kind of like my no-nonsense presentation ;-I suffice it to say i'm swedish, no arab background - moroccan, sahrawi, algerian or otherwise. if you want my email you can have it, but i don't feel i need to post it on my presentation. yours, Arre 00:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

===>What is the meaning of these changes? 1.) Are you denying that Morocco is occupying the Sahara? They have a field of landmines across the territory, soldiers stationed 24 hours a day, and they kick out suspicious foreigners on a routine basis. This is a classic example of military occupation. 4.) The pro-independce feeling is not just from some Sahrawis - it's most. Every independent observer has stated that Sahrawis are overwhelmingly in favor of independence. Justin (koavf) 00:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Response to ARRE
 * 1. Neutrality according to WP is presenting facts in such a fashion that both sides accept. "Occupied" isn't accepted by one side, "Moroccan" isn't accepted by the other side. "Controlled" is accepted by the both sides, that's why it's used in Minurso reports. Occuracy is relative. Neutrality isn't.
 * 3. I read and re-read your quote, it says half stayed in WS and half feld. I don't know why you don't see it.
 * 4. What about "demonstrations for independence prove that there exists a pro-independence feeling among some Sahrawis in the territory", It's really neutral and pricize.
 * 8. I will start counting, back to you.
 * 9. What you are saying is your interpretation of the HR reports, I respect your opinion. My opinion is completely different, I say that HR was repressed in the whole Morocco. I say that there is 70 or more "disappeared" but there is also 200 000 (Minus 70 or more) Sahrawis who are living in Moroccan controlled parts of WS and in Morocco proper without any problem. If you want to reword the sentence give me a suggestion.
 * 12. "Most of" to describe Algeria Tunisia and Morocco (not including WS and north Morocco) VS Lybia, Egypt, north Morocco and WS is a little bit unprecize.
 * 13. The sentence should be reworded to highlight tribal system of Sahrawis. I wonder if Sahrawis was always spurning Centralist powers as they was in the origin of many Dynasties in Morocco?
 * I see that we agreed upon some points. Can you make the changes in the text and let's see what it gives? And I'm still waiting your greeting card in the occasion of the end of Ramadan by Email, :) Salam ;) Daryou 21:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

1. Well, "one party", i.e. Germany, claimed that Poland fired the first shots in WW2 (and it might be true). I don't think that's reason enough to strike all references to the German invasion of 1939 from Wikipedia... :-) What I mean is, that neutrality is not simply non-controversy. It is of course uncontroversial to say that Martin Luther King "died", but it is both more accurate and, I think, more objective to say he was "murdered". And I do believe it would be an example of unallowable bias to just replace the word "was murdered" with "died" without further explanation; this is similar to "occupied"/"controlled" here.

3. You are obviously not reading my other comments to the quote... I'll make one last summary of the refugee situation, related to that single quote (which was just one example of the scale of the Sahrawi exodus, not intended to sum up the whole refugee issue):


 * WS had 75,000 Sahrawi inhabitants according to the Spanish census. Probably the real number was somewhat higher, around 100,000 (Hodges discusses this earlier in the book). Also there were maybe 200,000 ethnic Sahrawis in the whole region, but half or less than half of these were inhabitants of WS.
 * The quote says 20,000 went to Algeria already in the early stages of the invasion, and that another 20,000 were fleeing the invasion, but were not (yet) outside the borders of WS.
 * Morocco and Mauritania then reached other parts of WS, provoking additional flight from there.
 * The parts that were occupied were nearly emptied of people: El-Aaiun is quoted as an example in the book, with only a fifth of the population remaining.
 * The book later says (I referred this, but haven't quoted it) that these people moved on to Algeria after bombardments and Moroccan army pursuit (making it 40,000 people there).
 * It then makes clear, as do numerous other sources, that people kept fleeing on a large scale, well into the late seventies, and that several escapes were later made in connection with Polisario raids and otherwise, after the construction of the walls (1981-87).
 * All in all, this backs the suggestion that (far) more than half of the population fled.

4. No, the word "some" limits what I (and most observers) believe are the correct proportions of this. I would say that it is definitely "most" or "nearly all" of the native Sahrawis, but I am prepared to leave "Sahrawis" without qualification, so the reader can make up for himself what the proportions are. Okay?

9. I have quoted a number of HR reports that are pretty much unanimous as to this. Your "opinion" doesn't match that, I am afraid. The Sahrawis under Moroccan rule today are certainly not living there "without problems" either, even if you've met some happy Sahrawis at work. I had the same kind of debate with a Turkish guy once, who insisted that Kurds were just about the happiest people on earth in Turkey, since he knew some who said they liked the government. The existence of a large scale Kurdish rebellion, huge amounts of political prisoners and disappeared, tens of thousands of refugees, condemnations from int'l HR organizatinos, and frequent protest demonstrations, didn't seem to enter his world view either.

12. Yes, and sure, Napoleon still affects modern-day Egypt. But this is not an article on the colonization of N. Africa. It is an article which seeks to mention cultural influences on the Sahrawis, and Spanish is a major one, since Spain colonized their homeland. I'm not interested in listing the corresponding influences on other peoples in North Africa or the Middle East, since this is just a piece on SAHRAWI culture. I can't see what the fuss is here. The Moroccan government for once agrees with me: Spain colonized WS, this influenced the Sahrawis.

13. Yes, the tribal system should be highlighted. It is. Individual Sahrawis or Sahrawi tribes didn't "spurn kingship" (everybody wants to be king, right? :-) but as a whole, their society functioned without any central authority. And, quite often, it didn't function just because of that...

I will make some changes and we'll see what you think (maybe tonight, otherwise later). I hope we can then keep discussing them like we've done now, and do any reverting etc afterwards. Okay?

And Happy Ramadan! :-D   Arre 23:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Some changes

 * Hi, I made some changes in line with our discussion above. What do you think? Let me know your opinion. Daryou 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Daryou, I hope this is to your liking, or at least acceptable to you too. I have lengthened and clarified some stuff in the intro (should be non-political) as well as clarified why Sahrawi areas of Morocco are not included in the independence claims etc (same as before, but more clearly stated).
 * Occupation vs. held/controlled/etc. I'm still not sure you're right about this one, but I will leave it for now so we can agree on something. Possibly/probably I will get back to it in the future, and then we can discuss it separately, but right now I will let you have your way.
 * Demonstrations: I removed all qualifications of number, so both of us can be equally unhappy. Later, in the part on South Morocco, I changed "Polisario" to "independence movement", since all independence activists in the territories and in the South are not necessarily pro-Polisario.
 * As for the human rights part, I think this is a reasonable compromise. Actually, whereas we back up the claims of abuse by Morocco, Polisario is cited as possible abusers even without any sources, I think this is really favourable to you - almost to the point of POV.
 * Culture: your change here was not okay to me, but I accept the point you wanted to make. I think this is more accurate for both of us.
 * Language: this is basically the same as you wrote, but with the North Africa link reinserted.
 * Tribalism: I think this is extremely important. I removed the word "kingship" since you seemed to take offense.
 * Now, is this more or less okay to you? I really think I'm bending backwards on this now, just to get it over with, so I hope it is. If so, you can comment here or remove the Disputed-tag. But, if it is not okay, please point out what parts are still problematic, and we can then take it piece by piece instead of just reverting back and forth. I must say, that despite a lot of debating, this method has worked out pretty good. Arre 18:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in many points. I see that our dialectical process is working. I've made some precisions and wording changes. If you are not happy with some of them just change them without reverting the whole page and we'll see. Best regards. Daryou 20:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Good, although we are still not agreed on everything. Main points:
 * human rights in the Morocco-occupied parts are still severely repressed, according to all human rights organizations that have so far been quoted.
 * sahrawi culture was repressed; today it is controlled. i appreciate the difference, and the relative improvement, but please do not remove the references to former repression.
 * the links of some tribes to the king of morocco are not relevant, since the ICJ verdict says just about the opposite of what you are implying. i just removed the "kingship" part on your demand, so don't reinsert it with another slant. if this should be there, there should be references to the even stronger ties to mauritania and spain, as well as to other ties to algeria, france, mali and touaregs... etc. Arre 20:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good we are making huge progress so let's calm down,
 * I'm not happy with your wording about HR, but it could be a compromize.
 * You have evidence that HR are repressed, do you have any evidence that sahrawi culture was also repressed by the Moroccan govrnment?
 * I've always respected your reasonings, but now I don't understand at all why you deleted this sentence, this sentence is nothing but the truth, ICJ verdict doesn't say just the opposite of what I'm implying, the sentence is relevant, you can read the ICJ report here. And you know what? there weren't ever any allegiance ties between WS and mauritania and spain, as well as algeria, france, mali and touaregs Daryou 20:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Answers to Daryou
ANSWERS

No problem, I'm calm :-)

As I see it, we have three disagreements. I list them below:


 * ONE: Number of demonstrations Qualifying the demonstrations as "some" or just writing that there have been demonstrations. I think the latter is better. In fact, I would like to write "many", since there has been many demonstrations, especially considering the climate of opinion in this area, the risks involved and a long history of enforced silence on the matter. But I'll settle for not writing anything, and we have already reworded this sentence to better suit your viewpoint.
 * TWO: Moroccanization Yes, I know I have a book somewhere, and probably I can find something on the Internet. But not right now. I'll get back to you on this, okay? (Probably, though, the sentence should be moved somewhere within the article, whatever happens to it. It is a bit out of context where it is now.)
 * THREE: ICJ
 * The ICJ sentence is irrelevant, because this is not on the politics of the area, but on the Sahrawi tribal system.
 * The ICJ sentence also implies that there was some kind of special relationship to the Moroccan crown; the ICJ states that there was not. Sure, there was a relationship, as is to be expected between neighbouring territories, but nothing notable. In fact, the ICJ states that there were stronger ties between WS and Mauritania than between WS and Morocco, and also, there's a significantly stronger ethnic bond between northern Mauritania and WS, than between Morocco and WS. Here's a quote from the WP article:
 * [the ICJ verdict] was of the opinion, by 14 votes to two, that there were legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco. Furthermore, it was of opinion, by 15 votes to one, that there were legal ties between this territory and the "Mauritanian entity". However, the Court defined the nature of these legal ties in the penultimate paragraph of its opinion, and declared that neither legal tie implied sovereignty or rightful ownership over the territory.
 * ...as you see, the court's recognition of ties to Mauritania even got one vote more than the ties to Morocco. In the actual ruling, the court even talks about "some rights to the land" in the case of Mauritania, but not in the case of Morocco, so as you see, the Mauritanian case was stronger (but not strong enough to void self-determination).
 * The ties between WS and Spain are pretty well-known: Spain exclusively owned the area for 100 years, was the recognized administrative power at the time of the verdict, and its governors had frequently commanded the allegiance of various tribes. Sahrawi tribes also interacted with groups and tribes in Algeria, Mali, etc, and had extensive dealings with France; some tribes swore allegiance to French commanders at times, while others fought them. Just as with Morocco. And, most importantly, there were hundreds of years of history of Sahrawis not allowing anyone to rule them.
 * Point being, presenting ONLY the Moroccan claims is a clear example of bias.
 * Arre 09:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Best regards. Daryou 11:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer "some", and I think that this word is more precise and more neutral, I feel that we are going to debate for months about this word :), so to show my good faith feel free to do what you want.
 * Until you give me your evidence, please delete this sentence about repressing Sahrawis culture.
 * According to ICJ, was there yes or no ties of aligiance between some tribes of the region and the sultan of Morocco?

Hey,
 * Good.
 * The culture sentence we can leave out until I get you some evidence.
 * Yeah, there were ties. Ties to Morocco, and even more so to Mauritania. Those were the two claimants in the ICJ case, and the only ones examined then. But we all know there were ties to Spain and France and Algeria and all kinds of local tribes and factions too. Putting only Morocco in there, in a sentence which isn't even about political affiliation in that sense, can only be interpreted as a sly way of bringing modern politics into the article, to support the Moroccan claims to Western Sahara. I don't think the article is about that, and if it is, then all those other countries should be introduced into the paragraph as well. I don't necessarily think that is a bad idea, but it calls for a serious expansion of the tribal loyalty-part (which I'll be happy to get to later; right now I'm busy debating UN visiting missions and other things elsewhere... :-) if it is not simply going to be a list of all the governments of the neighbourhood.
 * Arre 03:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm speaking about allegiance ties, was there any allegiance ties between tribes of the region and other countries except morocco? I see that you are complaining about my refusal to include your quote in the ICJ opinion page, by then I don't understand why you refuse to include the sentence about allegiance ties, it's a fact and I gave reachable and checkable internet evidence, this sentence is relevant because included in the section speaking about the topic. Daryou 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. Answers:


 * Ties of allegiance criss-crosses the history of Western Sahara. That is how a tribal society works: tribal leaders frequently ally with each other, with neighbours and occupiers, to promote their own tribe in the competition for power, trade routes and resources. The ties of some tribes, at some times, to the Moroccan sultan, were not special in any way, compared to other ties and oaths of allegiance. This is evident from the ICJ ruling, history books on the subject, etc.
 * Of course we can write about the contacts between Morocco and Sahrawis in the text (indeed, we should). But not as you put it, ONLY about the ties to Morocco. That would be like writing that "The second world war was characterized by the large-scale massacring of Germans". True on the surface of it, of course... but not the whole picture, and because of that, not factually or politically neutral.
 * So, please write something more extensive about the tribal allegiances (and the tribal makeup) of Sahrawi society, and then include the contacts with Morocco in that. But not like this.


 * 2. Another thing, on the repression of culture. I now found which book I was thinking of; it is Akbarali Thobanis Western Sahara Since 1975 Under Moroccan Administration. Social, Economic and Political Transformation.


 * Just to dispell the inevitable questioning of the source, I would like to remind you that this is considered a thoroughly pro-Moroccan work, put together after visits in cooperation with the Moroccan authorities to the occupied territories, without any contacts with POLISARIO. It is consistently negative to POLISARIO. (Still, it is very interesting reading, and the most thorough - if biased - analysis to date of Sahrawi life under Moroccan rule.)


 * I quote from the chapter on "Social Transformation", under the subheading "Culture":
 * "The Moroccanization of the territory has been inevitable in the light of the massive development and modernization that has taken place in the territory during the last 25 years ...". This then goes on to talk about Moroccanization in a more or less voluntary sense, as an effect of colonization (well, that is not Thobani's wording of course :-) and details how an "official" version of Sahrawi culture is today supported, and celebrated in the context of 'Moroccanity', for example on the anniversaries of the Green March etc. Later, under the heading "Political Transformation", Thobani states that:
 * The few researchers who have been allowed to travel to the territory have observed that it was forbidden for the native Saharawis to use their native dialect of Hassaniya and that students were required to wear Moroccan-style clothing (Lippert, 1987, p. 53); foreigners were accompanied and followed at all times by security officers; only Moroccan newspapers circulated in the territory, and listening to international radio broadcasts was viewed very suspiciously (Smith, 1987, p. 63). Smith went even so far as to state that "racial discrimination against the Saharawi civilians" was practiced and an apartheid-like situation existed in the territory (p. 70). Various journalists and researchers have also observed that Saharawis were prohibited from having any contact or conversations with foreigners, and that they were also denied any access to the UN offices except for official business and then only if accompanied by Moroccan officials"
 * Also, racism by Moroccan settlers against Sahrawis ("lazy camel-herders" etc) is mentioned, and said to be commonplace. BUT, then the text continues with:
 * "According to this author's experiences in the territory, the situation (...) has improved considerably" and he also mentions several officially sponsored projects on the Hassaniya dialect, students in Sahrawi clothing etc. His visits are made in 2000/01, however, so they hardly invalidate the accounts of previous studies during the war years.
 * Thus, I think we can fairly say that Sahrawi culture was repressed and forcibly "Moroccanized" before (up until the cease-fire?), and that it is now the other way around: a pro-Moroccan version is heavily promoted, emphasizing Sahrawi Moroccanness. The POLISARIO does the same thing in the refugee camps, btw, promoting Sahrawi culture in a way specifically emphasizing Sahrawi separateness (studying Spanish, using national costume frequently, promoting nationalist poetry etc). Arre 17:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Arre
Hi,
 * If you prove me that there were other legal ties of allegiance between tribes of the region and other contries, it will be ok to add them in this article. I really don't understand where is the problem, this sentence is true, sourced and checkable. If you are not willing to accept it, I propose the same proposition you made in the ICJ page, request 3rd party comment.
 * Excuse me but your quotes don't prove that saharawi's culture was repressed. plus, about the dialect and clothes thing, it's completely untrue, I live in Morocco (I mean with the WS) and I know what I'm talking about. You quoted references from other authors in the book you mentionned and I don't know what was the response of our "pro-moroccan" author.
 * You want to add a sentence about culture repression that you can't prove and you refuse to add a sourced, reliable, checkable and true sentence about allegiance. I wonder if the aim of your edits is really information and neutrality or simply to promote POV of one party of the conflict. Remember that WP is an organ of information not of moral judgement, WP don't have to endorse the POV of any party. Excuse my language but I really don't understand your behavior. And remember that I always respected your comments. Daryou 10:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What am I supposed to prove? The ICJ verdict clearly says, with even greater certainty, that Mauritania (understood as the entity of Moorish/Sahrawi tribes in the area) had ties to WS that even included land ownership. Just read it. As for ties to Spain, the area (or parts of it) was under continuous and direct Spanish sovereignty for 100 years; Morocco couldn't even dream of claiming that. The tribal shaykhs of the PUNS and the Spanish Jemaa also regularly and explicitly declared their allegiance to Spain (that was the reason they were supported by Spain), and some even served in the Cortes. During the fighting in the 1930s and the 1956-58 rebellion, several tribes sided with the Spanish or French troops towards the end. Just one example after flipping through Hodges: the head of the Requibat ash-Sharq wrote to the French commander Cusin on January 15, 1958, to request "peace and aid" against the Army of Liberation uprising, after he broke with the Moroccans (p. 79), and then went on to live under their rule. Ties of allegiance between the tribes were at the very core of the system, with znaga/lahma (and many zwaya) tribes subservient through semi-governmental protection agreements (horma) to the ahl al-mdafaa. Etc, etc, etc. Regardless of all this, you are still promoting the inclusion of ONE tribal connection among MANY, to the exclusion of the others; as it happens, the connection of the country whose occupation of WS you support. I don't think I'm being overly conspiratorial when I see a political motive behind that.
 * Did you live in Western Sahara before the cease-fire? Did you travel there a lot? If not, I guess you know as little as anyone else about the situation in those days. I however met some people who lived in the area then, and they were quite explicit about racism and all sorts of discrimination against Sahrawis during their youth. Thobhani's response is as I said: that if this was so, it is no longer the case. But, sure, I would be perfectly happy with adding a "according to some sources" or "reportedly" before that sentence. Feel free to bring in whoever you want for 3rd party comments.
 * Well, since I am the only one actually writing anything, and your only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to stalk me and promote the Moroccan POV in all articles on Western Sahara through mass-deletions, I would be a little bit careful with those kinds of comments. Apart from that, you're a nice guy - but I would prefer if we could focus on the subject, not on each other's character. Arre 11:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Was there any kind of legal ties of allegiance (3 very important words) between tribes of the region and Mauritania and Spain? Yes or No, and please provide me neutral internet souces. If there was any I'm OK to include them in the article without any discussion.
 * I have some parents living in WS, I know what I'm talking about, there is a general confusion between truth and pro-polisario's propaganda and also pro-Moroccan. Please, let's write a "facts" article. You can include a "according to some sources", but you have to include also the Moroccan POV to comply with neutrality principles.
 * You wrote that I'm a nice guy (I forgot what you wrote else in your last comment), thanks, you too. Daryou 12:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, so you're focusing on that exact wording. No, I think "legal ties of allegiance (in the ICJ report" only applies to Morocco, not Mauritania (which, I repeat, even had ties of land ownership, to balance that out). Since there is no ICJ verdict on other nations than those two, I of course can't quote another "tie of allegiance" from the same source, but as you know, there were Sahrawi ties of allegiance to Spain during the colonial era, and to other countries, groups, entities etc. If this is going to be your line of defense (that the debate is only about "legal ties of allegiance" quotable from the ICJ report), then I have to ask why that particular wording is to be the only relevant criteria for inclusion? Because "legal ties of allegiance" are more worth mentioning than "ties of land ownership", "ties of allegiance" etc -- or because that is the only formula that includes Morocco but excludes all other countries and groups?
 * I certainly agree there is general confusion. Of course the Moroccan response ("that's not true") will be included.
 * Good catch, buddy :-)

Arre 22:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Was there any ties of allegiance with Spain before the Spanish colonisation? I think that I wrote "before the Spanish colonialism) :). Daryou 12:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the Spaniards established some trading posts as early as the 15/16th century, so I guess there might have been. Arre 21:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
I see that Koavf made some changes to enforce the pro-polisario bias, I don't understand why you revert the whole page each time. Daryou 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Excuse me? How is it a "pro-Polisario bias?" Is Freedom House run by the Polisario? What are you talking about? I reverted your changes because: There is no good reason to keep the changes and deletes that you made. Justin (koavf) 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They take out pertinent information
 * They introduce errors
 * They are ungrammatical

'''====>Your edits are completely untrue with biased sources, are you calling www.wsahara.net and www.livejournal.com/users/alittlebrickwal neutral and reliable sources?!!! Really very strange!!''' Daryou 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

===>How are they untrue? The sources that I cited are: How are these biased? Can you answer that? If my edits are untrue, as you claim, what is the truth? Also, you simply reverted, reintroducing the exact same errors that I listed above, in grammar and fact. What are you doing here? Justin (koavf) 20:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * wsahara.net, quoting historical, legal documents
 * livejournal.com, quoting a report issued this month by Freedom House
 * www.icj-cij.org, the official site of the ICJ


 * The historical legal documents you are talking about was used by Morocco to prove its claim on WS before the ICJ: " Morocco also relied on certain international acts said to constitute recognition by other States of its sovereignty over the whole or part of Western Sahara, including (a) certain treaties concluded with Spain, the United States and Great Britain and Spain between 1767 and 1861, provisions of which dealt inter alia with the safety of persons shipwrecked on the coast of Wad Noun or its vicinity, (b) certain bilateral treaties of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whereby Great Britain, Spain, France and Germany were said to have recognized that Moroccan sovereignty extended as far south as Cape Bojador or the boundary of the Rio de Oro"
 * Freedom house has its own site so you don't need any quote, you can give us your sources from their site.
 * I didn't contest the icj site and I used it as a source in my edits which you reverted. Daryou 21:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Constantly amazed Okay. You completely ignored several questions I asked you. Your first point is totally irrelevant; how does that change anything at all about this article? Did Morocco win its case at the ICJ? No, it lost. The ICJ ruled, explicitly, that Morocco does not have sovereignty over the territory. Justin (koavf) 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The ICJ stated clearly that there was legal ties of allegiance between some tribes of the region and the sultan of Morocco based on the documents presented by Morocco. Daryou 21:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
I see that Koavf made some changes to enforce the pro-polisario bias, I don't understand why you revert the whole page each time. Daryou 18:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Excuse me? How is it a "pro-Polisario bias?" Is Freedom House run by the Polisario? What are you talking about? I reverted your changes because: There is no good reason to keep the changes and deletes that you made. Justin (koavf) 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They take out pertinent information
 * They introduce errors
 * They are ungrammatical

'''====>Your edits are completely untrue with biased sources, are you calling www.wsahara.net and www.livejournal.com/users/alittlebrickwal neutral and reliable sources?!!! Really very strange!!''' Daryou 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

===>How are they untrue? The sources that I cited are: How are these biased? Can you answer that? If my edits are untrue, as you claim, what is the truth? Also, you simply reverted, reintroducing the exact same errors that I listed above, in grammar and fact. What are you doing here? Justin (koavf) 20:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * wsahara.net, quoting historical, legal documents
 * livejournal.com, quoting a report issued this month by Freedom House
 * www.icj-cij.org, the official site of the ICJ


 * The historical legal documents you are talking about was used by Morocco to prove its claim on WS before the ICJ: " Morocco also relied on certain international acts said to constitute recognition by other States of its sovereignty over the whole or part of Western Sahara, including (a) certain treaties concluded with Spain, the United States and Great Britain and Spain between 1767 and 1861, provisions of which dealt inter alia with the safety of persons shipwrecked on the coast of Wad Noun or its vicinity, (b) certain bilateral treaties of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whereby Great Britain, Spain, France and Germany were said to have recognized that Moroccan sovereignty extended as far south as Cape Bojador or the boundary of the Rio de Oro"
 * Freedom house has its own site so you don't need any quote, you can give us your sources from their site.
 * I didn't contest the icj site and I used it as a source in my edits which you reverted. Daryou 21:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)