Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 3

RfC
I came in through WP:RFC/POLITICS. I admit that i dont feel like reading all the comments, but i think i get the general idea of the problem.

To the casual reader (being me), two things seems to be confused in this article. On one side, we have the Western Sahara (region) (mind the important hyphenations), which is contested by several parties. On the other hand we have the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is one of the claimants of the area. It seems to me that these should be split up. Admittedly, the Polisario and the SADR should play a large role in that article. However, putting up the flag here would be the same as equating the SADR with the Western Sahara (region), which by any account, is not entirely true.

Would splitting up the article help? The Minister of War 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with The Minister of War, It should be the best solution. This split-up is already done and there is in fact a Western Sahara page about the territory and a page about SADR proclaimed by Polisario, Polisario and the SADR should play a large role in that article and the flag of polisario should be there. Daryou 23:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Unsatisfactory and unprecedented I object to this solution on a variety of grounds: There is simply no justification for removing it, and a multiplicty of reasons for keeping it. Justin (koavf) 01:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) This information has been present for months without objection.
 * 2) Daryou joined merely to delete what he (as a Moroccan) perceives to be pro-Polisario/anti-Moroccan bias.
 * 3) Other disputed territories have this exact same information without any outcry (see: Abkahzia, Transnistria, Northern Cypruss, Somaliland, Chechnya, and South Ossetia, for instance).
 * 4) All other Wikipedias that have an infobox have this exact same graphic, except the French one, which recently took it off. The French are also the most pro-Moroccan society.
 * 5) This flag is the only one recognized by any state as the flag of Western Sahara. If you went to anyone knowleadgeable about the topic and asked them "What is the flag of Western Sahara?" they would explain that it is this.
 * 6) There are sovereign states that recognize the legitimacy of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and no state recognizes the claims of Morocco over the territory. This is the exact opposite as the breakaway republics that I mentioned above, and still they have these flags on their pages.
 * 7) This flag is not simply the flag of the Polisario, as Daryou would have you believe, but is the national flag of the Sahrawi people, and the state flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.


 * I agree, there are many articles that do. Usually, the consensus is to use the flag of the entity which de facto controls the area (for example, see the discussion on the naming of Stepanakert in Nagorno-Karabakh). All the examples you mention are break-away states that actually control the territory that they claim. The only exception is Chechnya, but the flag there is not in fact the flag of the independence movement, but the official Russian flag of the Republic of Chechnya. The "rebel" flag (so to speak) is used on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which is their own government.
 * In this particular case, the SADR does not have control over the entire territory of the Western Sahara, so applying the flag to the whole of the Western Sahara (including the Moroccan-controlled part) is not accurate - especially not for an encyclopedia. For the casual reader, it seems to indicate that the SADR wields control over the entirety of the WS, which, as i understand it, is simply not true.
 * To give the most accurate picture of the situation (thats our goal as an encyclopedia after all), I think its necessary to split the article, into Western Sahara (region), and the SADR. Western Sahara could serve as a disambiguation page with both of those on. The Minister of War 08:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Slander and lies
===>Slanderous mistruths about me Clearly, Daryou has not assumed good faith, and falsely claimed that I am unwilling to discuss the issue(s). I personally have discussed it more than anyone else on Wikipedia, and off of it, I've exchanged a series of messages at a Google group. To say that I'm unwilling to discuss is simply a lie to discredit me. Plus, Arre has been discussing this whole time, and essentially presenting the same viewpoint as me, so there's no need to demand my intervention.

Furthermore, Daryou has requested a comment, and got none. He has sought consensus, and also got none. He has had an administrator previously lock this page (immediately after his deletes), and the solution posed was to discuss it amongst ourselves. Fyssalf has attempted to revise the article to meet everyone's expectations, but Daryou has not. He has merely deleted information that has been here for weeks, flippantly claiming that it's POV, and offering nothing but assertions, slander, and misdirection.

He waited until I explained that I would be out of town to delete it here, and offered the absurd edit summary that he would do it if no one minds, knowing full well that several people objected.

Even as I wrote this response, he broke the three-revert rule on this page.

If you want me to re-hash my arguments, I will again, and I stand by them. Justin (koavf) 01:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Daryou 01:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all there is no need to resort to persaonal attacks.
 * I responded to all your arguments, I never accused of slander or lies, So stop accusing me.
 * There is a comment of the Minister Of War who responded to the RfC, you should read it and read all the comments added by administrators.
 * Maybe you was out of town but you continued your activities in WP except in WS talk page.
 * It will be very good to respond to my last arguments in the "Answers" section. Thanks

===>Ridiculous What personal attacks? You claim that I'm disobeying administrators. You claim that I'm unwilling to talk. You are the one who instigated this; not me.

You did not respond to all of my arguments, or not in a convincing way. But that's irrelevant - my position has support; yours doesn't. That's it. If you can't convince people to support you, you have no license to delete information.

I only contributed to Wikipedia during the few minutes that I was on the Internet in the UN's basement, and I was utterly aghast at the absurd justification that you gave for deleting information again. Justin (koavf) 01:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Slander and lies", "Slanderous", "has not assumed good faith", "falsely claimed", "merely deleted information", "flippantly", "offering nothing but assertions, slander, and misdirection", "absurd edit summary", "Ridiculous", "You are the one who instigated this","absurd justification" ===> are personal attacks.
 * My position does have at least a third party support as we all know that you and Arre are pro-polisario.
 * If my arguments didn't convince you explain me why?
 * I confess that you contributed a lot in Wikipedia exept in WS talk page during the few minutes that you was on the Internet in the UN's basement as you said.
 * Daryou 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Again, mistruths The phrase "merely deleted information" is not a personal attack? What constitutes a personal attack to you? What are you talking about here? Does this have something to do with your limited grasp of English? If you want to talk about me, talk about me on my talk page. If you want to discuss Western Sahara, do it here.

Who is your "third party support"? Certainly no government in the world, except Morocco itself.

I have explained why so many times. That's all I've done with you.

You can't "confess" something for me - that makes no sense. Plus, that's a complete and utter lie. I made two minor revisions, both reverts on October 6: One to this article, the other to the infobox. Here is a clear example of your blatant lies about me. Please desist immediately and stop acting like a petulant child. Justin (koavf) 01:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Misdirection -No state recognizes Moroccan sovereignty. Some states recognize the SADR as the government of Western Sahara. That's simple.
 * "The only flag that anyone in the international community recognizes is this one. That's it"==> Who gives you the right to say that? did you make an opinion survey?.

-A referendum isn't "trustful" if it is stacked against the Sahrawis by Morocco. Plus, testimonies are personal statements given by people who were there. I have personally talked with two Sahrawis, from the refugee camps, and they both say that the people in the camps are 100% pro-independence.
 * If "The testimony of Sahrawis" (I don't know what you are talking about) and third-party observers can also make assertions without evidence. Only a referundum is trustful.

-Describe for me the difference between "an evidence" and an assertion. I provided evidence - it supports my claim. An assertion has no support.
 * "Plus, if the Sahrawis identified as Moroccan, they would be happy to live under Moroccan administration, and not have a nationalist movement" ==> That's not an evidence but an assertion.

-The SADR does control part of its territory, just as the People's Republic of China controls part of its territory, Morocco controls part of its, the Republic of China controls part of its, etc. There are many territorial claims made by several governments which are not support by factual administration.
 * The key difference with Abkhazia and others is that those states do control the tarritories, it's not the case of SADR or the State of Palestine.

-The Moroccan government link is one you provided. That is, of course, bankrupt. It's the single most biased source you could possibly choose.
 * Give me just one of my links who is bankrupt or isn't a third-party sources or is taken out of context.

-"An evidence" is the simple fact that every independent third party understands the Sahrawis to be a separate group. Did you even read the ICJ article that I linked?
 * Explain me why the sentence "Western Sahara is not Morocco, not Algeria, not Mauritania. Its people are not Moroccans, not Algerians, not Mauritanians" isn't POV, give me an evidence.

-No. First of all, the Sahrawis do have a government - the SADR. Secondly, the Sahrawis are stateless persons, so they are not citizens of the kingdom of Morocco. Third, the Berbers live in the interntaionally-understood borders of Morocco, whereas the international community does not accept the claim that Western Sahara is Moroccan. In fact, no one except Morocco does.
 * Sahrawis have no recognized government and that they clearly constitute a separate ethnic community, like Berbers, does it mean that Berbers aren't Moroccan?.

-How? This is a groundless assertion with no evidence. How should the ICJ finding be interpreted? I dare you to give me an intellectually honest interpretation that also supports Moroccan claims to sovereignty. It's absolutely impossible.
 * Furthermore, the finding of the International Court of Justice are misinterpretated by the Polisario.

-No. I don't know what you're talking about. But, you may be conflating nation and county.
 * I said before that Saharawis are maybe a nation according to your definition. But WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario according to Minurso reports. Why are you saying that I'm changing the subject?

-Okay. It's virtually impossible to get a reliable estimate of how many people are in the territory, as Morocco keeps on expelling foreign journalists, aid workers, and members of government anyway.
 * I will try to get this book, I prefer internet links as they are easily reachable.

-I don't even understand these sentences.
 * Sure, something isn't necessarily biased because it is opposed by someone, but some thing upon a conflict is necessarly biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: You do oppose the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and you have the right to think that it's biased. And there's plenty of things that Morocco would like to change in this article. But I see that the actual version of the article "text" is consensual.

-This is not a personal attack - it is directed against your edits, not your character. The evidence is your contributions. A perfect example is the one that I already mentioned; I said I was going to be away, so you changed the infobox once I left with a glib summary that said "if no one minds..." knowing full well that people did object. You show me where you've added information with consensus and then I'll retract my statement.
 * "You are not proceeding in a dialectical, like Fayssal has. You have deleted information without a justification or a consensus" : is POV, personal attack. give me evidence.

-I already explained why this is the case - why did you ignore that? "Palestine" means several things. "Western Sahara" means just one thing. It's a simple distinction. Plus, the SADR has control over some of its territory. The PLO only controls what Israel disengages, so that is devolved authority.
 * I said before my point about Abkhazia and other unrecognized states. You have already edited the List of unrecognized countries and you know that in the territories you mentionned there are unrecognized states with de facto control over their territories, SADR and State of Palestine are partially recognized but without de facto control upon the territory. Remember that there is no flag in the Palestinian territories page but in the State of Palestine one.

-Of course not, but it proves that there was a consensus about it for months. I've had consensus; you haven't.
 * "This information has been present for months without objection" : that doesn't mean we can't change them, otherwise all WP pages will be protected.

-Okay. The French are also the most biased in favor of Morocco of any people on earth. That proves nothing.
 * All other Wikipedias that have an infobox have this exact same graphic, except the French one, which recently took it off after a dialectical process in witch I took part, I personally launched the disscussion upon the Infobox in the Frech WP.

-There is no society in the world that is as favorable to Morocco. France has given military, financial, and diplomatic support to Morocco for decades.
 * "The French are also the most pro-Moroccan society"==> What do mean?.

-Just because they don't have full diplomatic relations, that is also irrelevant. As I said before, this kind of information is on articles about entities that no one recognizes, so it must be present on an article about an entity that some recognize.
 * "This flag is the only one recognized by any state as the flag of Western Sahara. If you went to anyone knowleadgeable about the topic and asked them "What is the flag of Western Sahara?" they would explain that it is this" is totally POV. The UN doesn't recognize this flag, and 150 countries doesn't either.

-So?
 * There are 44 sovereign states that recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, 31 states cancelled their recognition.

-There you are completely in the wrong. The United Kingdom (not Great Britain) is recognized as sovereign over Northern Ireland, and has been for centuries. Morocco has never been sovereign over the Sahara, and invaded it after decolonization in 1976. In pan-African politics and the guiding principles of the African Union, the integrity of inherited borders is a crucial principle to keep the region from delving into endless civil wars. This principle has only been violated twice: by Somalia in the Ogaden and Morocco in the Sahara. Morocco has the burden of proof on them to show that they deserve the territory. They had this opportunity at the ICJ in 1975 and miserably failed. Per the United Nations Charter, all member states are to respect the decisions of the Court, and Morocco defied the UN, claimed sovereignty over the territory, and waged a war of aggression. These are simple facts - do you care to prove me wrong?
 * There is no need for any state to recognizes the claim of Morocco over the territory as there is no need to recognize the sovrainty of Great Britain over northern Ireland. The WS is included in fishing european treaties with Morocco.

-Of course it is. It's been used since before decolonization, and is used by all Sahrawis nationalist groups.
 * This flag is not the national flag of the Sahrawi people. That's the heart of the conflict.

-What? That's what I wrote. What are you talking about?
 * There is simply no justification for removing it, and a multiplicty of reasons for deleting it.

-Several of them aren't. And I've never lied about you - you just did about me.
 * What about all the other personal attacks I've listed above?.

-He's the first person (other than a French user who has since vanished), and that was tonight.
 * My third party support in this talk page is a WP user (the Minister Of War).

-You're lying. I was at the UN for one day. Sheer lies.
 * I gave an internet link to prove your activities in WP those last days.

-Okay; either way, it's true. Justin (koavf) 03:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the sentence "Here is a clear example of your blatant lies about me. Please desist immediately and stop acting like a petulant child" is a personal attack.

''Note to both of you: this is nearly unreadable. But since it's also interesting, could you please try to separate your comments more clearly in the future? Thanks :-)''

Welcome back, Justin.

I've made my points over and over again here, and Justin has now made them even clearer, as he also did earlier. I cannot see how Daryou is able to pretend no-one is discussing with him, and I think the stabs he is taking at Justin in the edit summaries are completely out of line.

I am equally disturbed by the fact that he, for the fourth or fifth time around, proceeds to edit (read: delete) disputed parts without support from anyone, while at the same time complaining that he is the only one seeking consensual debate.

Also, the statement that I am not a reliable contributor because "we all know Arre is pro-Polisario" is not only insulting and wrong, but self-destructive. First, I have never said such a thing (and while I do consider myself pro-Sahrawi in this context, I don't have any particular relation to Polisario; I also try my best to edit fairly). Second, I have added or suggested adding a lot of stuff on POW:s and other things, that the Polisario certainly wouldn't want in the article. Third, and most amusingly, Daryou himself has made it clear that he is here to defend Morocco's point of view, and has apparently created his account only for this reason. So, really, Daryou, let's not get into that debate.

Now, preemptively, this is not a personal attack, Daryou. You seem like a nice guy, and I do believe you could make important contributions to this page if you actually added something instead of just deleting. But first of all, I honestly disagree with you about what you want to change this page into, and second, I also think you're acting and arguing unfairly and dishonestly. Please stop this. For a while, I felt we had a constructive debate going, but then you just went off and erased the parts that werent politically correct to you. Again...!

Apart from that, all the best, and I hope this can be sorted out.. Arre 23:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear a conciliatory statement. I cant help to point out I have a proposition for a solution above, which, in my mind, deserves to be considered without power terms. The Minister of War 08:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Koavf and Arre
===>Answer to Koavf and Arre
 * First of all I refuse to resort to personal attack and I’ll never accuse any one of lying or being a child. I was really offended. WP principles say clearly to avoid personal attacks.
 * SADR isn't recognized by the international community as a legitimate power in the WS, that's a fact. SADR isn't recognized neither by the UN nor by any superpower state but only by 44 countries of what was called the third world (due to the support of Algerian diplomacy), I can assume that those 44 countries did what they thought was in the best interests of their countries (remember that the state of palestine is recognized by 100 states and have a surveillant seat in the UN).
 * I spoke with dozens of Sahrawis who studied with me in the medicine university and they say that Sahrawis in WS are 100% pro-Moroccan.
 * Maybe the polisario controls some parts of WS, but Morocco has the facto control over the quasi-totality of the territory. Polisario have control over the Tindouf camps (in Algeria) and territories behind the berm which are practically not populated.
 * I never provided the Moroccan Governmental site as evidence, I just suggested adding it in the external links of the article for better neutrality. What about all the third party links I provided as evidence in my comments posted in this talk page?
 * Sure Sahrawis are a separate group, Berbers too, but they are all Moroccans, it is my POV. Your POV is that Sahrawis don't self identify as Moroccans.
 * The ICJ stated clearly that there were allegiance relations between the Sultan of Morocco and some tribes of the region.
 * ARRE said that "Sahrawis are a nation" (not a nation state), I said that could be true. I added that WS is a disputed territory according to the Minurso Reports but not a state.
 * I see that we finally agree that it's virtually impossible to get a reliable estimate of how many people are in the territory.
 * A POV about a conflict is necessarily biased when it is opposed by a party of the conflict: Polisario opposes the sentence "WS is Moroccan" and have the right to think that it's biased. Morocco opposes the sentence "SADR is the legitimate power in WS" and have the right to think that this sentence is biased. There is only one fact:"WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario".
 * Every one can look at the history of the page and its talk and confirm that I did made many consensual modifications, ARRE agreed upon many of them, and we was discussing about adding some other stuff in the article in a neutral way. You should re-read the article, its history and its talk page.
 * Palestine means many things but Palestinian territories means one thing. Both SADR and State of Palestine control a little part of the territories (Gaza Strip for Palestinians)
 * There is every day dozens of new users of WP who want to share their knowledge and opinions. Some thing can be consensual for months and become the opposite after the intervention of new users. For example the "text" of WS article has changed a lot in a consensual way after my intervention and ARRE's (who is a new user).
 * I see that you think that the French WP is a pro-Moroccan encyclopaedia. You said yourself that"All other Wikipedias that have an infobox have this exact same graphic, except the French one, which recently took it off"==> According to you French people was until recently not pro-Moroccan (until exactly 26 August 2005 )???!!!
 * I see that you are confusing SADR and WS ==> WS is according to Minurso reports and the UN a territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario. SADR is according to Minurso a proposed state proclaimed by the Polisario front who claims the territory. This proposed state was recognized by 80 states. Since 1989, 31 states cancelled their recognition and 5 froze their relations. You see that SADR had full diplomatic relations with 36 countries who despite of this cancelled or frozen those relations (36 is 45% of 80).
 * WS also was under the sovereignty of Morocco for centuries before the colonisation (Since the Almoravides).
 * The flag of polisario isn't recognized by Sahrawis living in Moroccan controlled WS.
 * I see that some one is vandalizing my own posts, I wrote "There is simply no justification for keeping it (Flag of Polisario), and a multiplicity of reasons for deleting it".
 * I see that we finally agree that I have a third party support.
 * You should take a look at this link . You say that you were in the UN for one day, Witch day? You said that you were heading to the UN in 5 October, you didn't discuss in the WS talk page since 10 October. And you began reverting the infobox since 17 October without any discussion until 20 October. No one discussed with me in WS talk between 14 and 19 October . You see that I provide evidence, I wonder who is lying.

==>I want to add just one thing Daryou 22:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don’t have any thing against Arre and Koavf. We are here to discuss and write a WP article not to resolve the WS conflict, We aren’t here to discuss if WS is Moroccan or SADRian. I can’t convince them that WS is Moroccan and they can’t convince me that SADR is the legitimate government in WS. I see that despite of our divergences we succeeded to write a consensual article in a neutral way. There are still many things to add. I’ve already said to Arre to feel free to add comments about human rights and oil debate in a neutral way. The main point of discordance is the Infobox. I explained many times that displaying the flag of Polisario in the WS page isn’t in concordance with WP principles because of anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance and because the SADR doesn’t have de facto control over the territory. I said many times that this article is about WS (the territory and the people), not about SADR (the proposed state proclaimed by Polisario). "WS isn’t for SADR" what "France is for Republic of France".
 * I was here for a while and I see that all what I say is taken by ARRE and KOAVF for pro-Moroccan POVs. I don't have any thing to do with the Moroccan government. I repeat that if I was defending enough my country I would prefer to display the Moroccan flag in the WS page (Morocco have de facto control over the quasi-totality of the territory, the Moroccan flag does flow over every school, every department and every office in Moroccan controlled WS). I said many times that such a thing wouldn’t be neutral. I wonder if Arre and Koavf are willing to do the same and make the WS page neutral and free of flags.
 * If this suggestion isn’t accepted by Arre and Koavf, I suggest 2 solutions:
 * 1) Carry on a WP survey
 * 2) Or accept the proposal of The Minister of WAR.
 * NB: Please separate your comments from mine; Thanks.

Flag in infobox
As someone not previously engaged in debate -- what about having the flags of both SADR and Morocco in the infobox, as a compromise? --Nlu 23:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that there is many third party proposals, What do Koavf and Arre think about them? Daryou 13:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that neither Koavf nor Arre responded to the proposals above. I think that Third Party comments agree that the infobox with polisario flag don't comply with WP principles. I'll restore an infobox without flags. If there is any problem just revert and respond to the proposals above. Thanks and Peace. Daryou 20:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Objections to the proposals First you said that there were three (and there are), and then changed to two, inexplicably.


 * Nlu's proposal: To include the flag of Morocco on the page for Western Sahara is inherently pro-Moroccan. The flag of Morocco is just that - the flag of Morocco. What constitutes "Morocco" is internationally-understood by every state to end before the Sahara, so it is inapporpriate to put it on here.


 * The Minister of War's proposal: I object to splitting the page, because Western Sahara is not a region that is geographically-defined, like Taiwan, so it is inapporpriate to take this information and put it into two separate pages. If anything, it would be appropriate to merge the two. Justin (koavf) 00:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is internationally-understood by every state that WS is a territory disputed by Morocco and Polisario, and is controlled by Morocco. Displaying only the flag of SADR is inherently pro-polisario. The Moroccan flag is the flag who flows over most of the territory so it has his place here. Neither the SADR nor its flag are recognized by the international community.
 * Why overturn precedent, the Palestinian Territories and State of Palestine are splited-up. Are you trying to say that Palestinien territories are geographically-defined (according to your reasoning).
 * So you refuse all third party proposals. What about the WP survey? Daryou 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

===>Untrue. It is not "interntaionlly-understood by every state" that there even is a conflict, because, as I've stated several times, most states have no interest or involvement in the conflict. Most don't even acknowledge it's existence. The term "Palestinian territories" refers to a particular geographic entity, whereas what would or should constitute a Palestinian state is a matter of dispute, even among Palestinians. Therefore, it is appropriate to have separate articles. Justin (koavf) 01:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Response to Daryou from Archive 2
===>Only the most pertinent points

"SADR isn't recognized by the international community as a legitimate power in the WS, that's a fact..." -The SADR is recognized inasmuch as most states have no official position on the matter. Among the states that do, none of them recognize Moroccan sovereignty (furthermore, neither does the UN, who explictly stated that Morocco is not sovereign over the Sahara).

"I spoke with dozens of Sahrawis who studied with me in the medicine university and they say that Sahrawis in WS are 100% pro-Moroccan." -Clearly, this cannot be true. There is no way that every Sahrawi in the camps is pro-Moroccan, or else there would be no conflict.

"The ICJ stated clearly that there were allegiance relations between the Sultan of Morocco and some tribes of the region." -Right. They also stated that Morocco was not sovereign over the Sahara. So, how did Polisario misintpret them? You did not answer my question at all.

"...There is only one fact:"WS is a disputed territory between Morocco and Polisario"." -There are several relevant facts, such as the ones that I mentioned above: no one recognizes Moroccan sovereignty. That's also a fact.

"I see that you think that the French WP is a pro-Moroccan encyclopaedia. You said yourself that"All other Wikipedias that have an infobox have this exact same graphic, except the French one, which recently took it off"==> According to you French people was until recently not pro-Moroccan (until exactly 26 August 2005 [38])???!!!" -No. What I'm saying is, they are most susceptible to being persuaded by pro-Moroccan interests. They've been pro-Moroccan for decades.

"WS also was under the sovereignty of Morocco for centuries before the colonisation (Since the Almoravides)." -Although it's probably true that this empire controlled all of current-day Morocco and most, if not all of the Sahara, this was for a period of time (not most of human history) and Moroccans did not control it directly prior to colonization, which is what is relevant. Again, see the ICJ opinion.

"The flag of polisario isn't recognized by Sahrawis living in Moroccan controlled WS." -It's curious you should say something like that. When I claim that the Sahrawis in the camps are pro-Polisario, you say "POV", even though that is established by third-party and first-hand testimony. Then, you make a claim like this? How is this defensible?

"I see that some one is vandalizing my own posts, I wrote "There is simply no justification for keeping it (Flag of Polisario), and a multiplicity of reasons for deleting it"." -It is entirely untrue that someone is vandalizing your posts. You typically edit the same page over and over again, apparently without previewing, and occasionally contradict yourself in the course of editing. 

"I see that we finally agree that I have a third party support." -No, I didn't agree to that. Now, other people have proposed things other than what you have proposed. How is this support?

"You say that you were in the UN for one day, Witch [sic] day? You said that you were heading to the UN in 5 October, you didn't discuss in the WS talk page since 10 October." -Exactly. I headed to the UN on the fifth. I was in the UN for one day; the sixth.

I'm really indifferent to a survey. Justin (koavf) 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I log onto Wikipedia and find this:
 * Hi, I see that you didn't respond to third party proposals in the WS talk. If you don't mind I'll restore the no flags infobox. - Daryou


 * Now, if there's any question about it: no, that's not OK. Daryou knows full well that I mind, and so do others. And what's even less OK is that it has happened several times now, on this page alone. At least this time we got a 48 hour warning before debate was broken off, but not the previous times. Also, Daryou, on other WS-related pages you have made some really sneaky changes claiming they were "minor edits", but in reality moving large chunks of text or changing the meaning completely. Such as in an article where "some tribes support Morocco" was changed into "most of the tribes support Morocco" (not exact quotes, but you get the point of it), or another where a "minor" correction turned out to be removing all information that Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara is not internationally recognized. I know this is not something relevant to this article, but I feel it is necessary to point out that this behaviour is not new, and not confined to this page... although it is of course confined to the subject of Western Sahara.


 * Splitting the page: I think that would be to ignore precedent and also, as Justin has said more often and more clearly than me, Western Sahara as a nation coincides with the geographic territory (as opposed to Palestine or Taiwan, which are the exceptions to the rule that Daryou points to). It would be to treat WS differently from similar cases, bowing to the Moroccan description of reality (which, and I cannot stress this enough, is not supported by a single other state). However, splitting the page is of course much better than heading it with a Moroccan flag, which would really be unprecedented. Now, this should not in any way be interpreted as me supporting cutting "Western Sahara" into two. It would be POV by default: the "nothing-but-geographic Sahara" page is supportive of Morocco's point of view by its very existence, while the "SADR" one would remain plainly descriptive. I think that's a bad solution for what isn't a problem. But I do acknowledge that there's bad and worse, and of course I prefer deleting information (Western Sahara has no flag) to presenting false information (Western Sahara has Moroccan flag).
 * Sahrawis: That many Sahrawis in Morocco claim they support Morocco's annexation, might be because it is illegal for them to say anything else. Sahrawis handing out leaflets asking for independence in W Sahara were given jail sentences of 10 years and upwards not too many years ago; these days the punishment evidently amounts to some months in prison and a beating.
 * Flags: The flag of Western Sahara is very obviously used by Sahrawis under Moroccan occupation, since it is flown in the demonstrations calling for independence that has been occurring constantly since May this year. It is also spray-painted on walls, hung nightly on streets, etc. Including among Sahrawis in Southern Morocco. If that is "the Polisario flag", then the Polisario sure has a lot of members in Morocco.
 * Numbers: We are not agreed that there is no way to calculate rough demographic estimates. I did in this page, for example.
 * International Court of Justice: The ICJ verdict says there were contacts between some tribes of Morocco, Mauritania and WS, but also states -- in response to the question of independence or integration -- that these ties were NOT enough to constitute evidence of sovereignty and are NOT a basis for soverignty in the 20th century (or 21st, for that matter). And anyway, this and much else is completely irrelevant to the discussion, however comforting it might feel to dwell on it. I think many subjects should be dropped from this discussion completely (first and foremost the issue of how many days Justin spent at the UN... :-).


 * Arre 02:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The Minister of War said above "Usually, the consensus is to use the flag of the entity which de facto controls the area (for example, see the discussion on the naming of Stepanakert in Nagorno-Karabakh). All the examples you mention are break-away states that actually control the territory that they claim. The only exception is Chechnya, but the flag there is not in fact the flag of the independence movement, but the official Russian flag of the Republic of Chechnya. The "rebel" flag (so to speak) is used on Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which is their own government. In this particular case, the SADR does not have control over the entire territory of the Western Sahara, so applying the flag to the whole of the Western Sahara (including the Moroccan-controlled part) is not accurate - especially not for an encyclopedia. For the casual reader, it seems to indicate that the SADR wields control over the entirety of the WS, which, as i understand it, is simply not true"And he proposed to split-up the article, I do agree with him. Daryou 15:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Koavf
Daryou 01:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat that we aren't here to discuss whether Western Sahara is Moroccan or not, I repeated my arguments many times and this discussion isn't leading anywhere, You can't convince me that WS is SADRian and I can't convince you that WS is Moroccan. Anyway this discussion won't resolve the WS conflict. And there is many internet forums to carry on such discussions.
 * I discuss here whether displaying the Polisario flag in the infobox is neutral or not. According to the UN and according to the article itself, the WS is a territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario and is mostly controlled by Morocco. A WP article have to comply with WP principles of neutrality. In that case by displaying the 2 flags or no flag at all.
 * The Minister of War responded above to your "overturn precedent" argument.
 * Do you mean that you don't accept to carry on a WP survey?

Survey
How do you want to carry on the survey: Daryou 17:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Will you accept the results?
 * Will IPs and new users (they can be Sock puppets) be allowed?
 * The duration?
 * Do you accept this one?

Survey, schmurvey, Daryou.

It's really hard to believe your calls for discussions and surveys and whatnot, when you keep censoring and destroying the Western Sahara articles to better fit your political tastes, Daryou. I can't even remember the number of dishonest edits (massive deletes under "minor edit" etc) I've found by you, always on this topic.

I just noticed you had changed the Template:Politics of Western Sahara, removing Western Sahara's flag and inserting the Moroccan flag. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you keep acting like that?

No wikilove this time, Arre 05:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

==>Excuse me !!! Please desist and stop accusing people. I've showed many times my goodfaith. And you come now accusing me for doing some thing that I didn't. Check the Templates [history] and compare the different versions. Wilfried Derksen (he's an administrator) did what you are talking about and you are accusing him of "sabotage". I see that you don't have any respect for other users edits and accuse people of lying, vandalizm and sabotage when they don't agree with you. Koavf accused me of lying when he was refusing the discussion in WS talk from 14 to 20 October saying that he was in the UN basement, but he said after that he was in the UN in the only day of 6th October. I wonder who is lying and who doesn't show some Wikilove in this affair. I have neutral users support in this dispute but I see that you aren't willing to reach a concenssus. I proposed many times many Dispute Resolutions procecesses, I requested Mediation, RfC, Survey to show my goodfaith but I see that you don't trust any of my proposals just because I'm Moroccan. You should visit the Racism page. Now if you don't feel concerned by Wikilove principles that's your business. I believe in Wikilove. Daryou 08:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't remember accusing you of lying. I have accused you of destroying pages rather than editing them, and I have accused you of acting dishonestly by pretending to be interested in mediation and discussion, but at the same time making radically POV changes in the hope of not being noticed. You being Moroccan has nothing to do with it, you ruining hard work I put in to make these pages better, longer and more informative has everything to do with it. As for the apparently very important issue of how many days Justin/Koaf stayed at the UN, that's a debate you're the only participant in. Don't involve me.  Arre 09:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read my previous post? I don't think so. Did you check the WS politics template history ? Did you see by your self that I didn't do what you are accusing me of? Why don't you recognize your fault?
 * I said that Koavf accused me of lying, but I provided evidence that he lyied about his UN affair. Provide me evidence that "I'm acting dishonestly by pretending to be interested in mediation and discussion".
 * Arre, I never accused you. What you are doing is intimidation and personal attacks. It doesn't comply with WP principles. Daryou 14:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Arre, Koavf, You have your word to say about the modalities of the Survey and if you'll accept the results? Othwise there is no need for a survey as we know that the results aren't binding. Daryou 17:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I see that if improvement over text has been a success, we are still stuck in the template issue :-(

I like the survey proposed by Daryou, but at this point, I suggest that this survey be more than a survey, but a binding vote, or we will never get out of this. I also propose the following rules : no ip votes. If suspicious editors (recent names....) are voting, I'll conduct an ip check on them, because I think it would be extremely unfair to do this.

I also suggest that the poll is advertised on the pump or any other relevant places, so that not 3 people alone be voting.

Would it be possible that a fourth suggestion is added to the page : ie, both logos visible in the template, with a legend below ? Could someone make a sample of that possibility ?

Daryou and Koavf, what I will ask you both to do as well is a very short introductary summary of what the problem is and why there is a conflict between the two of you on the topic (so as to avoid people jumping and voting with very little knowledge of the current situation). I am sure you will be able to agree on a comment text.

Vote will start early next week, as soon as you have agreed on the little text.

I am a bit disappointed that we should result in voting, which is not consensus, but if that is possible, I would like you to mention in the page which would be your preferred solution by far, which would not be a good solution but would be acceptable, and which would absolutely NOT be acceptable.

thanks

Anthere 07:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Anthere, I agree with you, If Koavf agrees we can make this introduction. Daryou 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * all of you: whatever happens, just please stop deleting the infobox for now. it's confusing and takes up unnecessary time. let anthere find a solution for this, survey or vote or mediation or whatever. Arre 23:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I wish that Koavf will hear you. I wonder why he continues reverting without any discussion in this talk page. Remember that Anthere said she's Ok for the vote (did you read her post?) Daryou 00:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

===>I have nothing to say You're the one who wants a survey. If you propose an actual question and a way of conducting it, then I can respond. It's not my idea, and I don't really have any input to give at this point. If you give me more information, I can be of more use to you. Justin (koavf) 00:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I do not like doing this, I think you do not leave another option. Koavf, I have the feeling that your only activity right now is to wait for the other party to get tired and drop the whole matter. I do not think it is the correct attitude in the least. The current situation is not that you are correct and that Daryou should prove you wrong. I think far from enough information has been given from both sides and you both have proved unable to reach an agreement. Hence the survey. Refusing to participate to it upon the reason the other party proposed it is not the way we work on wikipedia. I personally do not care at all which solution will be found, but this solution will NOT be made by bullying. I think that if we let your solution on the page, you will never participate to the survey, hence the solution for the page will be to contain NOTHING at all for now. I will ask you to give your opinion on the various solutions. Thanks.

Anthere 11:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote : vote opened.

Typo in Politics section
There is a typo in the "legal status" link -- should be "status" and not "statues." Admin, please correct when you get a chance. --Nlu 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

recognise Morocco?
Just wondering - how many countries (if any) recognise Morocco as the owner of Western Sahara? Astrokey44 11:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

===>None (other than Morocco, of course). Justin (koavf) 14:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Answer to Astrokey:
 * States recognize states, they don't have to recognize souvreinty of each country over each part of its territory. Plus, WS is included in Fishing treaties with European Union and 2 companies responded to oil drill offers in WS made by Morocco. SADR is recongnized only by 44 states (from Africa, Asia and Southern America), SADR isn't recognized neither by the UN nor by 148 states (including 36 who have cancelled their former recognition of this self proclaimed entity). I don't see why 44 states will impose their POV to the overwhelming rest of the world and the UN (148+1). By the way saying that the rest of the world isn't interested in the conflict is rediculous, At least 36 countries who are interested in the conflict cancelled their recognition of SADR.
 * The infobox vote isn't about who is rightful: Morocco or SADR, the conflict isn't resolved yet and UN is mediating as a neutral refree, the UN doesn't recognize the POV of either side and is trying to resolve the problem by a referundum. The infobox vote is about the neutrality of WP in this conflict. Daryou 17:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

===>Well, that was odd That had nothing to do with anything at all. Anyway, no state has ever recognized Morocco's sovereignty over the Sahara, and the UN actually said that they have no rightful claim to it. The internationally-understood borders of Morocco end at the Sahara, and no government or inter-governmental organization has ever said otherwise. The weirdest parts about this rant are that they address something totally unrelated (the vote), and you inserted something about being indifferent to responding, while responding, and then deleted it. What is going on here? Justin (koavf) 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

both flags infobox
How would this work as the start of the box with both flags? I dont think the Morocco coat of arms is necessary. In case it gets edited the text Ive used here is: "Morocco occupies and claims the Western Sahara, but the UN and many countries recognise Western Sahara as an independent state. The legal status of territory and question of sovereignty is unresolved. The below flag and coat of arms are of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic based in Algeria which is recognised as the government of the Western Sahara by 44 nations"Astrokey44 23:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry I didnt realise there already were options shown on the vote page, Ive moved it to Talk:Western Sahara Infobox/Option 4b Astrokey44 23:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

map
made this map for the history section, shows Polisaro/Moroccan control. Thought it could go in after the page is un-protected Astrokey44 00:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent map illustrating how the current line of control (as in Cyprus and Kashmir) is not coterminous with the sand wall erected by the Kingdom of Morocco. I think this map should go on the article's front page, and replace the one from the CIA factbook. Colours could be better though. --Big Adamsky 01:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though I don't think it should replace the CIA one - this is more of a political map compared with the geographical CIA one. What colours would be better? Astrokey44 05:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a really nice-looking map (and I don't mind the colours). But I am afraid it is wrong. You have in fact just superimposed two suggested routes of the wall on top of each other. The separation lines in the maps you've used actually both represent the wall, one more exact (based on UN maps, I think) and the other sketchier - thus producing the illusion of different zones of control.


 * In fact, I believe the zones of control correspond exactly to the route of the wall. To the best of my knowledge, the Polisario has no control over anything inside the walled area, and vice versa, even if both sides frequently crossed it during the war. Also, there is a UN military no-go zone separating the two forces, on the eastern side of the wall, so it appears quite impossible for anyone to reach out into territory held by the other one during peace-time.


 * I definitely think something like this could be used in WP, though, but a map showing terrain would be useful too. So, please give it another go: the UN's Minurso mission has a very detailed map on its homepage that I guess is the best one available. Try that one!


 * Maybe you could post a map on the Moroccan Wall page also? For that, be aware that it is not just one wall, but six, cutting the country into many different zones on the Moroccan side. They were built successively from the north down to expand Moroccan control further south. The one you've drawn is the outline of several connected walls that mark the border towards Polisario territory. Information on those walls, plus a small and hideously ugly map (I do mind the colours :-), can be found through an SPS page on the "Wall of Shame". Now, clearly that is an extremely biased source, but I don't think the actual routes of the inner walls are under much dispute - so the map is more or less accurate. (But anyone who knows of a Moroccan version, or better, a neutral version: please let me know.)

Great job drawing, btw. Arre 04:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was meant to show that the border was different in different maps. It was meant to show the different views, rather than 'line of control'. The UN map does look better - it looks almost the same as mine, except for a little area near Smara in the north. I'll see what I can do about the Moroccan wall map. I had also a vague memory of seeing somewhere a map showing Western Sahara divided between Morocco & Mauritania - that would also be a good one. Astrokey44 05:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

map suggests misleading information:

I do not think this map makes sense. The red zone is not under control of polisario but under no control. The situation of the sahara is now pending and waiting for a solution. This map suggests, that there is a liberation war and that the space in red is liberated as the polisario states. This is misleading information. There is no war. The situation ca be described as currently frozen and the minruso is formally controlling the situation (ceasefire). (Wikima 13:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC))


 * There is formally war, since there is formally a cease-fire. The zone east of the wall is, with the exception of a minor no-mans land separating the two sides, controlled by Polisario in every way. Arre 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Since there is war none can state that polisario controls that part or that it has liberated it as it claims. That zone is mainly desert a part from a few point where human beeing can be seen. The moroccan armee has bulit the wall around the most important areas and to protect the main urban centres. Evdiently parts like that would remain not totally covered but this does not mean that they are onfficially or not in the hands of any polisario group. Such a map suggest exactly this thugh, and this is wrong. Against please lets stuck to the facts and to the spirit of the encyclopedia and not turn it to a place to milite for any part.


 * Polisario controls the areas east of the wall politically, militarily and in every other way, just as Morocco controls the western part. They even have border posts at the Sahrawi-Algerian border. The area is completely under the Sahrawi republic's jurisdiction, and if you commit a crime there, you will be tried in a Sahrawi court. That is control, whether you accept it politically or not.
 * Incidentally, the Polisario-controlled areas have more international recognition than does the analogous Moroccan control of the western parts. This does not mean I (or Polisario themselves, for that matter) dispute that those areas are presently under Moroccan control.
 * The small number of people in the territory (which is mentioned) does not affect the fact that it is under Polisario control.
 * Ergo, the map is factually correct.
 * Arre 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Polisario is algerian backed
Hi,

A time ago we had a discussion on the involvement of Alegria in the conflict around the Sahara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_Sahara/Archive_1#Polisario_is_algerian_backed

I would like to refresh this topic. To me it is an essential part of the information on the history and current status of the conflict.

I was contemplating the page on the "Western Sahara" and gained the impression that the conflict is really between Morocco and the Polisario only. Thsi is wrong, completely wrong.

In the discussion (s. link above) I delivered enough evidence that in this conflict Morocco is facing Algeria more than anyone else. Even the United States call to talks and dialogs essentially between Morocco and Algeria.

1/ On this background I repeat my request to write the "algerian backed polisario" instead of polisario.

2/ An other additional idea (i should think of how to make the effort) would be to add a section on the involvement and role of algeria in the conflict and in the creation of polisario.

Cheers (Wikima 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Sure, the relation between Polisario front and Algeria should be mentionned in the article. I googled a little bit about the sentence ""Algerian-backed Polisario" : I found 1200 pages,sure all what is said in internet isn't necessarlly true, but there is a lot of neutral and pro-polisario sites witch use this wording, for example:, ,,, , . I believe that this sentence should be added somewhere in the article in a neutral way maybe in the history section with a brief description of the algerian-polisario relations. Daryou 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Reply to both Wikima and Daryou:
 * There is no doubt on whether Polisario is supported by Algeria or not if you check the article, or the Polisario article (I personally wrote several sentences on Algerian support). The phrase "the Algerian backed Polisario" used consistently, as a permanent epithet, is however to adopt a well-known formula of Moroccan government language, like writing "the so-called 'polisario'".
 * The conflict is between Morocco and Polisario. Polisario was created in 1971-73 (first as the "embryonic movement" but formally founded 10 May 1973), and was then completely without Algerian backing. That came later, in mid-1975; El-Ouali was actually briefly arrested by the Algerians when he tried to gain support from them before the Moroccan invasion. Polisario asked ALL surrounding governments incl. Morocco for support, approximately 1972 (only Libya answered by sending a crate of rifles and their best wishes...). It was a completely self-created movement. That is undeniable even if you would want to argue it was not representative of Sahrawi opinion.
 * All this means that there was and would have been a Moroccan-Polisario conflict anyway, even if Algeria hadn't gotten involved on Polisario's side. That Algerian support has strenghtened Polisario considerably does not change the fundamentals of the conflict. Also, as you can see in any United Nations report, Morocco itself has only negotiated with Polisario on the issue, and all agreements have been between Morocco and Polisario/SADR. True, Algeria is regularly consulted by the UN when drawing up peace plans. But so is Spain, Mauritania and other nations. It has no say in negotiations, and explitly refuses to negotiate on behalf of Polisario. In this respect, Polisario's role is similar to De Gaulle's Free French. An exile movement, they were dependent on foreign support to manage their part in the war, but that doesn't mean they were not a real party to it. Arre 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you in many points, we are writing an encyclopedic article; it is a fact that polisario is backed by Algeria and such a thing should be said in the article in a neutral way somewhere in the article. The relations between Algeria and Polisario are very close, Algeria gives money, weapons and diplomatic support. We didn't suggest to add the sentence "So called Polisario", I suggested to say in the history section that Polisario is Algerian backed with a brief description of those relation. Best regards. Daryou 08:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, you are absolutely correct. I was confusing this article with another one (probably History of... or something like that). This article does mention Algeria's role - or rather lack thereof - in negotiations and that the refugee camps are in Tindouf, etc, but it fails to mention explicitly that Algeria supports Polisario diplomatically/militarily. That is important, though I still disagree with Wikima's presentation above.
 * A mention of this should go into the history section (which is generally poor, that's not the only problem). I suggest we await the infobox poll and then write something about this in the history chapter. I have several additions I am planning to do anyway (reentering stuff on human rights, oil etc), but I don't want to touch anything until the poll is done. Arre 08:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer To Arre

I have delivered enough evidence and witnesses above on the involvement of Algeria in the conflict. The only thing that speaks against it is that Algeria does not admit it. Algeria is though part in the conflict. Drawing this conflict as only between Morocco and "polisario" provides an unbalanced information and ignroes important facts.

Before Algeria adopted polisario as its pupet in the conflict it was not more than a moroccan splinter group. It would have died without the algerian support. I hope you know that the main leader of polisario is of moroccan origine and that his family lives in Morocco and stands for the Moroccanity of Sahara.

Any way, this is an encyclopedia so please lets avoid polemic discussion. What I demande is to state that polisario is algerian backen and to write "the algerian backed polisario" in the article in order to cover the information with the fact. And I am talking about the article we are discussing here not about others. Tahks & Cheers (Wikima 19:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC))


 * As I wrote to Daryou, Algerian backing should be given clearer recognition. To present Polisario as a mere "puppet" is both wrong and obviously biased, from the perspective of this encyclopedia. To consistently write "the Algerian-backed Polisario" instead of just "Polisario", as you seem to suggest, is blatantly POV, pointless repetition, and also bad English.
 * Algeria clearly acknowledges giving support (humanitarian, military, economic, political, diplomatic) to Polisario and the refugee Sahrawis, and Polisario clearly (loudly!) acknowledges that it receives crucial support in these areas from Algeria. There's no dispute there.
 * The rest of your arguments do not seem to concern the changes you suggested. However, Polisario was obviously not a "Moroccan splinter group" before Algeria started supporting them; Western Sahara was not even under Moroccan control then. The leader of Polisario (Abdelaziz?) is Sahrawi. Since he is from a nomad background, he has family in the refugee camps in Tindouf, other parts of Algeria, as well as Mauritania, Western Sahara and, of course, Morocco.
 * Thanks, Arre 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC).