Talk:Sahrawi People's Liberation Army

Reversion
@M.Bitton Can we please discuss the intentions behind your revert of sourced materials in this edit, explaining with "We don't add abaseless claims to infoboxes" in the edit summary?

I have included an attributed, well-sourced claim that is widely used by the Moroccan government but denied by both Iran and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, describing the stance of each side. This is hardly the place to judge whether the claim itself is baseless or not. The Wikipedia policy reads: يوسف قناوة (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If you read further down the NPOV policy, you'll find the WP:UNDUE rule which states that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." The only reason the BS claim is kept in the "Iran–Morocco relations" is simply because that's Morocco's official reason for cutting the diplomatic relations. M.Bitton (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And see also Fringe theories. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton, Regardless of how veracious this viewpoint is, it is officially held by a major party in the conflict, major enough to not be deemed "an extremely small minority" or even "minority." The first paragraph of WP:UNDUE reads:
 * I have ensured that all relevant positions of the concerned parties are included without giving undue weight to any. Additionally, I emphasized that the claim is attributed to Morocco, as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
 * I don't find this approach unusual, as there are several parallel examples. For instance, the MAK is listed as a perpetrator of the 2021 Algeria wildfires, according to the infobox, per Algerian authorities. يوسف قناوة (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comparing apples to oranges is an exercise in futility that is definitely not worth entertaining. When country A makes a baseless claim (officially or otherwise) against country B, then the claim in question may or may not belong in the "A-B relations" article, but that's as far as it goes. The WP:UNDUE policy is pretty clear on this, so I see no need to repeat what it says here. BTW, he article is in my watchlist, so there is no need to ping me. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are not tasked with independently judging sourced content or determining whether it is baseless or not. Instead, relevant points of view can be attributed and presented. Using terms like 'baseless' to describe attributed positions or claims falls outside Wikipedia's scope and introduces a clear POV. يوسف قناوة (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are not tasked with independently judging sourced content or determining whether it is baseless or not. Instead, relevant points of view can be attributed and presented. Using terms like 'baseless' to describe attributed positions or claims falls outside Wikipedia's scope and introduces a clear POV. يوسف قناوة (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)