Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote

This is a poll that would decide whether the infobox in the Western Sahara article should include the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), or Morocco's flag, or none of them. The survey is being carried out under Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines.

Before voting, please read (at the introduction of) Western Sahara and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic for more information.

'''Vote opened on the 1st of november. Will be closed on the 20th. One may add other options during the vote, in an attempt to reach a consensus.'''

To support either case, add a comment under the option of your choice. You can support or oppose more than one case, and please SIGN the comment with your username and the time and date of the comment. Please do not vote several times under different user names. No vote by ips will be taken into account. Any editor removing or changing another person vote will be stricken by fire.

The option with the highest value of support/total votes (total vote of each option independenlty) will be kept. If you disagree with these rules, please complain before the 2nd.

Option Include SADR flag
This option would include  in the infobox the flag, president, prime minister, koat of arms, national motto and hymne of SADR and leave aside any mention of Morocco. Benefit will be more information for the reader, drawback will be that the information will be considered inexact and offensive to some readers.

Western Sahara Infobox/Option 1


 * Weak support. SADR does have more international recognition than Morocco, with regard to Western Sahara, but does not have effective control.  If the options are between SADR and Morocco's information, I'd pick SADR's, but I think it's misleading to only have SADR's information and not Morocco's.  --Nlu 08:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support. This page is about Western Sahara not only as a territory, but as a (non-sovereign) nation, with a history of its own, separate from Morocco's. Having a Moroccan flag would be similar to having an Israeli flag on Palestine (or vice versa). Having no flag would conform to the Moroccan POV, meaning that WS is only a territory with no political character of its own (i.e. could well be part of Morocco). Having Western Sahara's own flag, together with information that this is disputed by Morocco, would be most accurate -- and it's also how it has been done in the cases of several nations who have NO recognition-of-independence at all (WS is recognized by the African Union and about a third of all world governments). I cannot see why WS should be treated differently from them. Arre 16:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I see that you are confusing WS (Territory) with SADR (Self proclaimed republic), the page WS is actually about the territory, the defenition of WS in the introduction of the article is "WS is a territory" not "as a (non-sovereign) nation", the introduction says clearly that the territory is disputed. The flag of SADR isn't "Western Sahara's own flag" but the flag proposed by one party of the conflict and refused by the other. Using this flag means an anti-moroccan and pro-polisario stance. Daryou 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this would be my second option (with comments that the SADR does not control the territory, and is not universally recognised), but I think it is inappropriate, since the article is (and should be) about the territory, which is not controlled by one government. JPD 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This option isn't neutral. Plus, the SADR does not have control over the entire territory of the Western Sahara, so applying the flag of SADR to the whole of the Western Sahara (including the overwhelming 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 is simply not true. Daryou 18:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The flag should be placed at RASD. This is a territory. The second reason is that as JPD puts it; ...is not universally recognized as the same applies to Morocco and that would explain my votes below. -- Svest 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Oppose. We are dealing here with a disputed territory, and as long as its status is not cleared we need to refrain from puting any flag here.--Khalid hassani 02:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Western Sahara ≠ SADR The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace) 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Western Sahara isn't SADR.Dark side 11:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. The undisputed part of the legal status of Western Sahara is that it is a former colony that was released by its colonizer. When the butter is not clearly on a particular side of the bread for most nations, they will usually agree that what should happen in such a situation is that the indigenous population of the territory should decide its ultimate disposition, whether independence or union with an existing nation. This was never allowed to happen in Western Sahara. Until it is allowed to happen, something that most of the efforts at resolution of the dispute over the territory anticipate, I think its status is most nearly that of a sovereign nation that has not yet decided upon a state. As such, it should be recognized with its own symbols, to the extent that they are available. The SADR indeed is not Western Sahara, and in particular it is the creation of just one organization representing Western Saharans; something like if the nascent American government had been set up only by the Federalists and without any concurrence from the Democratic-Republicans (sorry for the reference that must be very obscure for non-Americans). Still, the article on the SADR gives the clear impression that a lot of procedural policies have been set up in the SADR to divorce it from the Polisario in the event real independence emerges, and I have seen no evidence of native Western Saharans objecting to the SADR (anyone?). It would be much tidier if SADR did not include in its name a form of government, but I still don't think this outweighs that the flag it uses (the file for which is just "Flag_of_Western_Sahara.png," although I'd hardly want to use that fact in a serious argument -- anyone have more information on the flag?) is the only emblem presented as a symbol of what, again, I think is most nearly a sovereign nation that has been prevented from deciding its fate. Even if Morocco's conquest is ultimately accepted, couldn't the flag serve as the provincial flag of Western Sahara within Morocco? Marsden 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, I see that you understand that WS isn't SADR. I think that the status of WS isn't most nearly that of a sovereign nation that has not yet decided upon a state, the status of WS is "a territory disputed between Morocco and SADR". The symbols you are talking about are not the own symbols of WS, they are the symbols used by a concerned party of the conflict and refused by the other. WS isn't SADR. We are not here to discuss the ligimacy of Moroccan control or of the SADR, it's about the neutrality of WP in a conflict. Daryou 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you have included Nazi Germany's flag in an article on Western Poland during World War II? Marsden 17:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since Wikipedia was not around during World War II, this is not a relevant hypothetical question. But assuming that we do discuss historical hypotheticals, think about this: had the Manchukuo survived World War II (either as a result of a Japanese victory in the war or an inconclusive conclusion to the war), the Manchukuo flag would certainly be used despite the thoroughly international law-violating way in which Japan obtained the territory and set up the puppet government.  That's because Wikipedia is supposed to be an informative organ, not one that makes a moral judgment.  I don't think the situation is completely non-analogous.  --Nlu 18:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean, of course, that you don't think it's a relevant hypothetical question. Thank you for your thoughts, Nlu; I disagree. Marsden 19:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the flag, it was originally designed by Polisario in 1973 (two years before the Moroccan invasion), but it has since been adopted by non-Polisario Sahrawi nationalists. It is used extensively in the Sahrawi demonstrations in the territories and in south Morocco, for example, and also by the Khat al-Shahid breakaway faction. Also, it can be found in quite a few dictionaries around the world listed as the flag of Western Sahara, not the "Polisario flag". The case is similar to that of Palestine: the Palestinian flag was first adopted by the PLO, but is by now in widespread use even by elements hostile to the PLO, and seen as representing Palestine, rather than a particular organization within the Palestinian community. Or for that matter, the Tibetan flag: it is not "the flag of Dalai Lama", but precisely the Tibetan flag, whatever one thinks of Tibetan independence. (Perhaps this should go on the talk page instead. We're taking a lot of space now.) Arre 18:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, Arre. I've changed my support to "Strong support." Marsden 19:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I said it many times, the flag you are talking about is the flag used by a party of the conflict and refused by the other, using this flag is pro-polisario and anti-moroccan stance and doesn't comply with WP principles of neutrality. I'm glad you mentionned the examples of Palestinian Territories and Tibet. The flags are not in those pages but in the State of Palestine and Government of Tibet in Exile pages. It is the same in the Taiwan and Republic of China case. I don't know why WS should be an exception. I said many times that the flag of SADR have its place in the SADR page not in the page devoted to Western Sahara; this way of proceeding comply with WP neutrality principles without depriving WP readers from information about independance and separatist movements and about governments in exile. Daryou 13:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * How does your opinion expressed here jive with your support of including the Moroccan flag only? Marsden 21:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I Explained why in my support comment under option 2. However, I support more and more strongly the Option 3. WP neutrality has priority.Daryou 22:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Violates neutrality. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Violates NPOV. Durova 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. This option corresponds to a political position on the conflit and is not neutral encyclopeidc information. It violates strongly the neutrality of the encyclopedia and its spirit. This is even the reason behind this dispute and vote. Whether a number of states recognise(d) the "sadr", whereas many of them droped their recognition further to the blowing of the wind of political opportunities, can not be taken as pretext to define a territory as a country or as a state in wikipedia. (Wikima 12:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Strong Oppose. The Moroccan sahara (Western Sahara) is a Moroccan territory and will always still be a Moroccan territoryAalaeddine 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote is not to be considered as it is the only contribution of the user in Wikipedia. -- Svest 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Strong Support This is the only recognized government that has legitimacy over the territory, and it is present in every other Wikipedia except the French. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Option Include Moroccan flag
This option would include in the infobox the flag, king, prime minister, koat of arms, national motto and hymne of Morocco and leave aside any mention of SADR. Benefit will be more information for the reader, drawback will be that the information will be considered inexact and offensive to some readers.

Western Sahara Infobox/Option 2


 * Support For me the Option 2 is better than Option 1, because Morocco have de facto control over the territory and because I'm Moroccan (That's only a POV). Daryou 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a support for this sentence. Would you put weak support for Option 1 or not ? Anthere
 * Oppose -- with the qualifiers as stated with regard to my own POV as stated below in the discussion on Option 4. Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara is not recognized by the international community, and therefore an infobox containing just Morocco's information would be misleading.  In particular, it is arguably justifiable if this were a (Morocco + Western Sahara) article; but it is not; this is an article about Western Sahara only.  --Nlu 08:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This option is inherently inconsistent. From the POV that WS is Moroccan, it is not a nation (or even a sinlge political entity, as I understand it), and so there is no reason to include head of state, etc. I don't see the US flag at New England. JPD 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - My logic is that this is a territory -which is disputed-. We cannot put the Moroccan flag up there. -- Svest 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Strong oppose. Morocco's flag should be on Morocco's page, of course. If there existed a page for "Morocco & WS" or "Morocco (southern provinces)", then it would at least be in agreement with the Moroccan gov:s POV, but this alternative doesn't conform to ANY interpretation of the conflict. Arre 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If you really are going to show it as a Moroccan territory, the Moroccan administrator of the territory should be in the infobox, not the king etc Astrokey44 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are dealing here with a disputed territory, and as long as its status is not cleared we need to refrain from puting any flag here --Khalid hassani 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Western Sahara ≠ Morocco The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace) 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The status of the territory isn't resolved yet. Including Moroccan flag isn't neutral Dark side 11:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. It is not Wikipedia's place implicitly to endorse a military conquest and aquisition that most of the world rejects. Marsden 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's place to endorse any position, period; while I am also opposing placing just the Morocco flag and information about Morocco on the page, I don't think that your campaign to turn Wikipedia into an organ that makes moral judgments fits with the philosophy of what created it. --Nlu 18:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My "campaign?" Excuse me? Do you really imagine that you have any qualification to speak of my intentions when I am right here? Should I similarly pontificate about what you are up to on Wikipedia? Marsden 19:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Pleassssse guys. Only leave constructive arguments here. Nlu, Marsden has the right to have a personal opinion (even if you think it offensive), so please do not turn to personal attacks. Marsden, in front of a personal attack, just do not react. Do not fuel it any further. There is nothing to gain and much to lose. This type of exchanges brings nothing to the debate. Imho. Anthere 08:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Violates neutrality. --Viriditas  | Talk 03:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Violates NPOV. Durova 17:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose For the reasons listed above, particularly NPOV. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Option include no flags
This option would include in the infobox information about the territory without information about the concerned parties of the conflict (Morocco and SADR). Benefit will be no false information will be provided according to all readers, drawback will be that all involved parties may consider information is missing.

Western Sahara Infobox/Option 3


 * I changed "Independence" into "Status" to make it clear that the territory is disputed between Morocco and Polisario (witch proclaimed the SADR) Daryou 22:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And you also added something like "claimed also by the Polisario for the SADR", next to "independence declared", which I believe is both an inappropriate wording and quite confusing. Because, now it seems like there's three parties claiming to represent Western Sahara: as an independent country, as per under Moroccan sovereignty and as the Polisario. I suggest we change this back later, but most of all, I suggest that we all stop tampering with the proposed infoboxes until voting is completed. People must know that the alternative they've voted for doesn't change AFTER they picked it, and minor stuff like this we can surely handle without a poll. I won't revert it, or engage in a debate on it, but please consider what I said. Best regards, Arre 15:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't write: "claimed also by the Polisario for the SADR", I writed exactly "Claimed also By Polisario Front who proclaimed the SADR in 1976", I don't see any confusion. If you don't like the wording I changed it to "claimed also by the Polisario front which in 1976 formally proclaimed the SADR". If some one who supported the option 3 see any inconvenient, in that case we can restore the previous version. Cheers. Daryou 17:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support As things stand today, I believe that including either flag could be misleading. I am a new user but have tried to read all of your arguments carefully. bradjohnson 1 November 2005
 * I don't know if anybody noticed that the account above has been exclusively used to vote on this survey. Therefore, I am afraid this vote would not be considered for reasons that everybody knows. -- Svest 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * I added an oppose in front of your vote. I hope that's okay. Incidently, a vote from a new user with no contribution at all will not be counted. ant
 * Ant, if I am reading Brad's comments correctly, I think Brad actually supports option 3 -- since he wrote that including either flag would be misleading, and option 3 does not include either. --Nlu 08:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ant, I agree with Nlu, plus Bradjohnson added a comment under the option of his choice (as recommanded above) before Nlu's vote, I mean before the "support oppose neutral" thing. Cheers. Daryou 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did support option #3, but it looks like my vote has been harpooned. It doesn't make sense to me for an encyclopedia to take a stand one way or another on an issue that is obviously making so many people lose their tempers.  Isn't the purpose here to educate impartially?  I believe that including either or both flags would confuse.  bradjohnson 2 November 2005
 * Cool, sorry for the confusion brad. Well, we'll listen to your arguments, but will not count your vote, right ? Anthere 04:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Brad, I think your vote is confusing. Please go ahead and change it to support, oppose, or neutral.  Thanks.  --Nlu 04:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, user accounts set up after the start of a poll rarely have the right to vote. The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace) 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We explained that above but nobody cared. Thanks Minister! -- Svest 11:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;


 * Neutral. I see the practicality of having neither SADR's nor Morocco's information, but I think that while that would be less misleading and less offensive to everyone, it would also be leaving out useful information.  --Nlu 08:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support: I think that there is a confusion between Western Sahara (A territory disputed between Morocco and the Polisario, and controlled by Morocco); and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)(A Republic self-proclaimed by the Polisario Front over this territory). There is 2 sides of the story: The Moroccan one who thinks that WS is Moroccan according to arguments that Morocco thinks sufficient; And the Polisario's one who thinks that WS should be independant under the rule of SADR according to arguments that Polisario thinks sufficient. The UN don't recognize neither the Souvreinty of Morocco nor the SADR and is trying now to resolve the conflict by a referundum. Options 1 and 2 don't comply with WP principles of neutralty because they include the flags of one party of the conflict and denie the POV of the other side. Plus, the SADR does not have control over the entire territory of the Western Sahara, so applying the flag of SADR to the whole of the Western Sahara (including the overwhelming 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 is simply not true. Daryou 17:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * does that count as an opposition ? ant ==> No it's a support. Daryou 08:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Daryou is basically right. There is no clearly internationally recognized authority in Western Sahara.--Pharos 08:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Daryou. Dark side 14:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Having the Moroccan flag, head of state, etc should be as ridiculous from the Moroccan POV as putting equivalent US information on New England, or UK info on England. Having a SADR infobox for the SADR page is good, but this article (correctly, as Daryou says) is about the disputed territory, rather than about an state that is actually independent. Therefore it's best to have a box which doesn't suggest it is an independent country, without flags, heads of state, adn has the independence section replaced with a status section. JPD (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong support - This constitutes the neutrality of Wikipedia to such an issue! -- Svest 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Oppose. This implies it is just a question of a normal territory like Normandie, with no particular history or political claims of its own (while the UN and the International Court of Justice has ruled that Western Sahara is a colonized territory that possesses a right of self-determination). I believe this position is biased towards the Moroccan POV. In addition to that, this option means leaving ALL information out just because of political controversy, and I don't believe that's the way to go for Wikipedia. Some people claim Bin Ladin is no terrorist - does that mean Wikipedia shouldn't touch the subject...? Arre 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this option could be biased to Moroccan POV! The Moroccan POV is clear: "WS is Moroccan (Southern Provinces of Morocco)", Do you read this in this option? Daryou 22:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support, as long as the territory status is not cleared, we need to syat neutral in a Wikipedia spirit. --Khalid hassani 02:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Agree with removing either of the flags, disagree strongly that the article should omit "information about the concerned parties of the conflict". They should definitely be included! Only the implication that either controls WS should be absent, because it is simply untrue. The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace) 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * However, I don't think there is reasonable dispute that Morocco does control most of Western Sahara, so I don't understand your assertion that "the implication that either 'controls' WS should be absent, because it is simply untrue." Whether Morocco's control of Western Sahara is legitimate is the question; that it does control most of Western Sahara is a fact.  --Nlu 11:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but disagree that it follows that legitimacy is the question Wikipedia should answer. Wikipedia has no opinion whatsoever on the matter, and we should always strive to have no comment on the matter. We should merely try to ascertain the facts. One of those facts is indeeed that Morocco control most of the WS, yet not all of it. Thus the WS as a whole has seperate regions controlled by seperate governments. Neither controls all of it. The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace)  17:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that Wikipedia should answer the question of whether Morocco's occupation is legitimate -- in fact, I am saying quite the reverse. I'm saying that that is the only open question.  That SADR controls parts of Western Sahara does not mean that, for all intents and purposes, Morocco does control the vast majority of Western Sahara.  I don't think that control of all of disputed territory is required for "effective control" to be ascertained.  --Nlu 17:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Reasoning very similar to Arre's. Marsden 18:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Deliberate omissions are a violation of NPOV policy. --Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Deliberate ommission of misleading (or oversimplified) information from infoboxes is a very good policy. In general, if the situation is too complex to be summarised simply in an infobox, then don't put it in an infobox - let the readers read the article for the details! No-one has suggested not having the information anywhere at all. JPD (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not correct. I have just discovered that User:Durova has been modifying the polls after votes have been cast, and in this case, the original poll suggested no flags and no information about concerned parties of the conflict should be included. .    I am registering an official protest on the talk page and adding the totally disputed header to this page.  Changing the poll after votes have been cast is entirely inappropriate. --Viriditas  | Talk 12:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that changing the poll after votes have been case is inappropriate, but my statement is still true. Noone has suggested not including all relevant information somewhere appropriate on Wikipedia. The only dispute is whether it should (also) be in this infobox. JPD (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. --Viriditas | Talk 14:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support. I compared this article against Wikipedia's handling of three other disputed regions: Tibet, Palestine, and the Spratly Islands.  Then I checked the SADR page and the Morocco page.  It is consistent with precedent to omit both flags from this page.  Morocco's and the SADR's flags are each on their respective pages.  However it would break with precedent to omit NPOV text about the dispute.  Either discuss it here or refer the reader to another page that presents the issues. Durova 17:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. No flag. This is neutral and corresponds to the neutrality of an encyclopedia on a territory. (Wikima 12:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Support. No flag for NPOV as stated above InvictaHOG 02:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. No flag is NPOV and avoids the impression that we're asserting any sort of legitimacy for the Moroccan occupation/claim on WS. | Keithlaw 00:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. SADR (bold) noted in lead should suffice. El_C 23:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is inconsistent with other disputed territories. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Option Include both flags and both information
This option would include in the infobox information about the territory and include information on both SADR and Morocco. Benefit would be that it provides more information and provides both views' information. Drawback will be that it would have some information to offend all involved parties.
 * I am going to add a few things to note the dispute. --Nlu 17:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Western Sahara Infobox/Option 4 (by Nlu)
 * Western Sahara Infobox/Option 4b (Moroccan flag, but not coat of arms) (by Astrokey44)
 * I like your wording, but I see no reason not to include the Moroccan coat of arms; if we're going to include the flag, might as well have the display be parallel with each other. Also, I don't like putting one above the other -- my version was intentionally trying to keep them parallel with each other to the extent possible.  --Nlu 23:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it is better to have them parallel.. but if it is a territory of Morocco, it would be unusual to show a coat of arms of the entire country wouldnt it? unless Morocco has made a coat of arms specifically for the territory of Western Sahara Astrokey44 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, but the same goes for the flag. JPD (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The version 4b by Astrokey44 is defenitively not neutral:
 * The title should be "WS" not "SADR";
 * this infobox uses the word "occupied" witch is pro-polisario biased, refused by Morocco and absolutly not used in Minurso reports;
 * Most of the information about Morrocco (as a concerned party) is ommited, the only information kept is its flag, saying that this version includes both flags and both information isn't true: It includes both flags but no information about Morocco.
 * Saying that no other country recognizes the Moroccan souvreinty isn't true (unless you give me evidence that all the world countries declared clearly that they didn't recognize Moroccan souvreinty), there is no need to recognize souvreinty of every country over every part of its territory. And remember that WS is included in European-Moroccan fishing treaties. Daryou 23:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most countries didn't get "their" territory by invading neighbouring colonies in defiance of the UN. But let's discuss that on a talk page instead; you're flooding the page by attacking every vote that doesn't agree with you. If there really are problematic texts within the infobox, we can fix that through consensus later. And, also, everybody: please stop changing the templates options. Minor changes we do later and major changes should only appear as new options. Arre 01:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please meet me in the talk page. Daryou 15:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ===> This version is completely different from the Nlu's version. This situation is really confusing, there is at least 3 users who voted before adding this version b (Fayssal, Pperos and Nlu), and it isn't clear if the other voters support one or the 2 versions of this option. If you think that this version should be kept, I suggest to consider it as an Option 5; in that case messages should be sent to the voters to know witch version they support. Best regards. Daryou 23:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Obviously, since I created this, I am supporting this.  I guess this might be rambling, but let me explain my own attitude(s) toward the entire situation.  I am an American who was born in Taiwan, whose sympathy is with the Taiwanese people.  I oppose any attempt by the PRC to militarily conquer Taiwan, although I am not in favor of Taiwanese independence -- but am in favor of the right to declare independence.  This may be shading my view of the Western Sahara situation.  My sympathy is with SADR, but SADR currently does not control most of the territory.  Morocco does.  Therefore, I would find it misleading to have just the SADR information and not Morocco's.  Option 4 was created as a compromise.  I am unskilled with infoboxes, and the result might look odd.  I welcome anyone who is better at handling infoboxes to improve the look and feel.  This, in my opinion, is a reasonable compromise.  Your mileage (or should that be kilometreage?) may vary.  --Nlu 08:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. More information is better, I think. It will at least look like its complete. If you dont include one or both, than both sides will constantly be adding theirs in. Also include a note about it being disputed of course. Astrokey44 11:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak support. More information is better than no information, although I do believe this option blurs the political facts in the case. Arre 16:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. As an impartial participant, I have read all your arguments and am convinced that this is clearly the best option, as long as the info about the situation in the box was clear. As Arre suggests, Wikipedia is about information. To exclude either or both the flags would be less even-handed, less helpful to the interested reader, and less in keeping with the spirit of this project. I appreciate that this is a difficult political situation but hopefully users will assume good faith and acknowledge our attempts to be balanced, informative and fair in a difficult article. Peeper 16:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As mentioned above, it would be completely abnormal to add the Moroccan flag - it would only be done because people object to the validity of the SADR flag. Why does a disputed territory need a flag on it's page? JPD 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak support - Though my position is against any flag on a territory, this would be my second option as much as Wikipedia neutrality regarding issues like this is respected. It also reflects the reality on the ground. Both of the parties control parts of the territory. -- Svest 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
 * Strong oppose. Neutrality according to WP is to present information in such a fashion that both sides agree. Sure Option 4 includes more information, but this information offend all involved parties of the conflict as said before by Nlu, and by then isn't neutral. I think that neutrality have priority, the information presented by WP don't have to be summerized in an infobox, the text of the article will respond to readers curiosity. The flag of SADR could be found in the SADR page, the Moroccan flag could be found in the Morocco one. Option 3 is a neutral choice with usefull information about the territory without offending concerned parties. Daryou 01:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think Option 3 is "neutral" either under your reading of the policy (which I think is too literal, in any case) -- because the lack of the users' "preferred" flag will still be viewed as unsatisfactory to them. I don't see this as a valid objection to Option 4 vis-a-vis Option 3.  --Nlu 05:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The lack of "preferred" flag is neutral because it isn't biased. For concerned parties, I believe that the presence of the other sides flag is more offending than seeing no flags.


 * Support Having both flags and coats of arms clearly indicates that the area in question is apparently disputed, which is the NPOV information we want to get across. All the details can then be explained in the article text. --Jpkoester1 02:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Including both flags is confusing, and will look silly. Again, I disagree with the idea that a show of the flags, and a mention of actual information in the article are considered linked. We should not show both flags, but should also not omit information. The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace) 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there an Option 5 that you are proposing? --Nlu 11:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I guess I am. As omitting information is always a bad idea, I would propose Option 5: No flags, lots of information! As I havent created the poll, I'll leave that to whomever feels responsible for adding this option. The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace)  20:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As is clear from the top of the poll, anyone is free to add options -- as I did with Option 4 when I felt the first three options were lacking. I think you should create Option 5, since you are the one with the clearest idea of what it should look like.  Feel free to adapt from Option 4 if you wish -- as I took all my information from the other options.  :-)  --Nlu 23:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After second thought, it doesnt really warrant another option. All i'm saying is taht the article should always contain as much information as possible, regardless of what stands in the infobox. -- The Minist   e   r of War  (Peace)  06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is about a disputed territory not a country. Flags in such cases are misleading and inaccurate. Dark side 11:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Moroccan flag does not belong. Period. Marsden 18:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be one possible compromise out of many, but is more favorable than ignoring the conflict altogether.  --Viriditas  | Talk 03:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Viriditas | Talk 14:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support. See my comment under no flags.  Other Wikipedia articles about disputed territories discuss the dispute but omit national flags. Durova 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Arker 04:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As user "Dark side" concisely says, the article is about a disputed territory not a country. Flags in such cases are misleading and inaccurate. (Wikima 12:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Strong oppose Inconsistent with other articles. Justin (koavf) 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)