Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 19 September 2005

Error

There is an error: The zone is very wealthy in phosphorus, gas and maybe petrolium. Its sea is also very wealthy.

Should we be describing the region as a country? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:08, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that Morocco is internationally recognized in its "normal" borders, not including WS, and that the crisis is yet unresolved, yes. --Joy 11:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, WS isn't "internationally recognized" as a country, so if your standard is international recognition, than we shouldn't call it one. My point is NOT that it is part of Morocco, and therefore not a country. My point is that it isn't a country in its own right, regardless of who has sovreignty at the moment. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:13, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The UN recognizes that it's not just a Moroccan territory, so it's somewhere inbetween a country and a dependency... either way, the template applied to subnational entities don't differ much from the one applied to countries, so I don't see much of a problem even if it one day becomes a province of Morocco. --Joy 19:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much the template that worried me, it's the usage of the word country throughout the article body. I'm gonna change appropriate instances to region. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd pick "territory", "region" sounds somewhat more slanted towards the Moroccan POV to me. --Joy 11:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For your information, WS is recognized by a minority of 49 countries out of 151. Morocco has made huge investmùents to develop this region which in my opinion is part of itsd teritory. Unfortunately, the article lacks somme historical background. The Polisario front had been largely manipulated and can't claim representativity of sahrawi people who in majority is faithful to Morocco

===>Inaccuracies in the last post: The SADR has been recognized by 76 states, most recently South Africa in 2004. Including the SADR and Taiwan, there are 194 countries. I honestly have no idea what your last two sentences are supposed to mean. Justin (koavf) 16:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

western sahara is neither a country nor a state

People,

You are presenting ws as if it was an independent country or a state. Fact is that this is NOT the case. So, either you do wikipedia (here) or you do politics (somwhere else) but not both in the same time.

If you want to inform about ws you have to present the informaton in an objective way and include not only information that is pro polsiario and/or pro algeria.

Morocco claims this region is part of its territory and this opinion MUST be presented and respected as long as the conflict persists.

Regards

IT'S SO SAD

Misplaced Pages has been always a great pleace to refer to if you need a quick glance at any info of any type. It is sad that politics is covering the subject of Western Sahara, English version. I really believe that the aricle is providing enough information for the reader about the territory, the contest, the claims for both Polisario movement and the kingdom of Morocco. Howevere, I don't see any reason for all the discussion and the additional article of dispute. They've managed to create the dispute over Wikepidia, now the region is disputed, even over Wikepidia. In fact, every subject in Wikepidia could be disputed and to be really neutural and objective, all subjects should bear the logo of ( disputed ), check aricles of Libya, Israeli-Arab conflict and many others in Wikepidia. It'll be much better if Misplaced Pages is a place that people can go to and read and change if they're aware of the subject. To make it a forum of debate inwhich one supports Polisario and another supports Morocco will really affect the aim of Misplaced Pages.There are many forums for that. I don't wanna see Misplaced Pages falling to the level of some arab websites where there is a huge debate about the subject of Western Sahara full of pro and against insted of useful infromation. Plus, the discussion of the nature of the Saharawi case is in hands of the United Nations since the 60's and hopefully it is the one that is going to decide the future of W.Sahara, those who question the nature of the region can go back to the UN's documents, don't we believe that it is our United Nations,where nations meet and agree, the documents are full of description and details. This article is pro Polisario, that one is pro Morocco is the beginning of bringing Misplaced Pages down to weaki-pedia. Thank you all.

Canlcellations of recognition must be mentioned

Hi,

I am not very exprienced with wikipedia. How can the following centence be completed?

" whereas the SADR is recognized by several dozen."

This should be copmpleted by the follwing one:

"However many states froze or cancelled their recognition." (source is in the overview table in the article itself)

Who can help? Thanks.

--> Link to edit found. Thanks

The article states that dozens (70-80) of the states recognised the "sadr" but does not mention that many of them (23 + case of yemen unclear) have cancelled their recognition. This fact is relevant to mention as it concerns the decision of not only one or two states but a share of ca 30% (!!) of those who spoke out their recognition. I think this must be mentioned in the article (and must be taken into consideration as well when replying to other users (s. thread above)).

Regards

Wikima 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please provide sources as to when and under what circumstances recognition was withdrawn by 23 countries, and which ones. Thanks. El_C 14:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Polisario is algerian backed

All,

This is a fact. polisario is algerian backed. None can deny this. When international media talk about the sahara issue they rarely miss to mention the involvement of algeria in the conflict. The fact that this country denies its involvement is part of its strategy against Morocco and no argument as such.

Read an example of the BBC here qhich says: "The Algerian-backed Polisario said the latest proposals..." (Source: BBC News World Edition http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2677581.stm).

Leaving polisario as the only actor against Morocco in the conflict shows an unbalanced picture of the situation and reflects a political position rather than the transmission of information onf acts as should be a project liek wikipedia .

Therefore I would like to make that change and insert the "Algerian-backed Polisario ..." in the follwing paragraph (History):

"A guerrilla war carried by the Algerian-backed Polisario Front contesting Rabat's sovereignty ended in a 19 ..."

How is the change to be done?

===>No one doubts Algerian support Since the 1970's, Polisario has been supported by Cuba, Libya, and other states, most consistently by Algeria. This is not to imply that it is an Algerian movement, though, as it was founded by the indigenous inhabitants (the Sahrawis), and the membership is composed entirely of them. Furthermore, when Morocco consistently refused to have talks with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as they did not recognize them as a state, Algerian diplomats represented their interests.

I don't think anyone is trying to make the conflict out to be simply Morocco versus Polisario (although they are the most prominent parties). Certainly Algeria, Mauritania, France, Spain, the United States, the African Union, and the United Nations are all interested parties to the conflict.

I would object to inserting the phrase "Algerian-backed Polisario Front", as the Polisario Front was seeking independence prior to Morocco's invasion, and the phrasing is so vague that it implies that the Western Sahara conflict is simply a proxy war between Morocco (and Mauritania) and Algeria, which is absolutely not true. To some extent, there are Algerian interests in a proxy war, but that is not the source of the conflict. Justin (koavf) 20:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

===> At the level of language I think that saying "algerian backed" means "algerian backed" and not that the movement is algerian.

You are trying to put algeria just as on the same level as any other country that supports the polisario. This is not true.

Algeria has from the beginning hosted, financed, supported and did EVERY THING for the polisario. algeria invests a large amount of its monney, puts the own country and people under risk of a potential with Morocco, invests a huge part of its diplomacy in a war against Mrocco in all intrnational instances.

Do you know that algeria banished ca 50.000 moroccans from its country to Morocco after having dispossed them from all their goods (houses, businesses etc) just because of this sahara issue? Is this supporting or something else??

In fact polsiario is NOTHING without algeria. When the last moroccan prisonors of war were released lately (some of them spent since more than 20 years in the camps of the polisario) their liberation went via algier! The USA almost explicitly thanked the algerian governement for "helping" getting them free. Only the execution of their liberation was done in Tindouf where they were hold under circonstumces that go against every international law.

Lately and in the same context the USA by its representative Mr Lugar almost ignored the polisario and asked Morocco and algeria to talk directly and make further efforts in order to find an issue. Immediately after this algeria sent one of its most important men (Mr Belkheir) as embassador to Rabat. etc. Ths USA did nto ask Mauritania, Spain, the Afircan Union, France or Sweden to find an issue with Morocco.

And you are telling algeria's support is the same as any other country's?

I think it is important to mention the algeria backing of the polsario. This is the minimum to do as the examples of the BBC News shows.

I also think it is necessary to provide more information on the role of algeria in the conflict around the sahara.

If we don't do so the topic would look too unbalanced and politically too tendencious.

Wikima 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Confusion and misdirection I'm a little confused by your phrase "at the level of language" and what you are trying to express here. All I'm saying is, the movement was supported by several states, the most important being Algeria, without question. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

In regards to the POW's, I think your claims are a little curious - of course the POW's went through Algiers, as they were in refugee camps on Algerian soil. While Western Sahara did have some of the longest-held POW's in the world, Morocco also has some from the conflict that they won't admit to having, they've killed and arbitrarily jailed innocent civilians, and refuse to name them, and have no plans on releasing their prisoners of conscience ever. In point of fact, Morocco has denied entry of Moroccan POW's in the past, and releasing them prior to the supervision of the United States and Red Cross may have meant that those men would have become refugees themselves.

My Senator, Dick Lugar, appealed to Morocco and Algeria to have direct discussion precisely because the stated position of the United States on the Western Sahara issue is neutrality: we neither recognize the annexation (like all states) nor the legitimacy of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.

I certainly would not say that the support of Algeria is the same as any other nations, and in point of fact, several of the nations listed have been on the side of Morocco (such as France, who donated planes to drop napalm on civilians or Spain, who sold out Spanish Sahara for a cut of the phosphate profits in the first place). By far the greatest international support has come from Algeria, but the phrase "Algerian-backed (or -supported) Polisario Front" is so superficial, and possibly glib, that it requires much more explanation to do the issue justice. The Polisario existed before Algerian support, during the brief period of Algerian hostility, and during times of Algerian complacency; it will continue to exist without Algeria entirely. Justin (koavf) 23:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

>> Involvement of Algeria:

Example 1: This is how the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants describes the involvement of Algeria in the conflict,

"The Government allowed the rebel group, Polisario, to confine nearly a hundred thousand refugees from the disputed Western Sahara to four camps in desolate areas outside Tindouf military zone near the Moroccan border 'for political and military, rather than humanitarian, reasons,' according to one observer. According to Amnesty International, 'This group of refugees does not enjoy the right to freedom of movement in Algeria. … Those refugees who manage to leave the refugee camps without being authorized to do so are often arrested by the Algerian military and returned to the Polisario authorities, with whom they cooperate closely on matters of security.' Polisario checkpoints surrounded the camps, the Algerian military guarded entry into Tindouf, and police operated checkpoints throughout the country." (Source: http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?id=1300)

Example 2: This is how James Baker describes the involvement of algeria in a TV interview:

"MISHAL HUSAIN: Do you think armed hostilities could resume then?

JAMES A. BAKER III: I don't know. I have no idea. I think that's an issue probably that is more on the plate of Algeria than anybody else because it isn't going to resume unless Algeria permits it to happen. As long as Algeria says to the POLISARIO you're not going to fight anymore then they're not going to fight anymore." (Source: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/sahara/transcript2.html)

These are just 2 examples and I am quite sure that investigative work would provide more information like this.

I don't think you can hide these facts. The expression "algerian-backed polisario" is the less that you must say in this context.

Your comment on the POWs looks polemic to me. We are investigating the role of Algeria and I am saying that every thing shows that the release of the Moroccan POWs went via algeria and that only the execution of the release was done in tindouf. This goes along with what James Baker says above and shows pretty much the strong involvement of algeria in the sahara conflict.

The USA invite Morocco and algeria to talk because they believe that algeria is in fact an involved part in the conflict even if they can't say it explicitly.

Algeria is a extremely and highly active actor in all international instances in fighting (diplomatically) against Morocco. Polisario is simply relying on what algeria does. algeria is the leading actor not polisario.

Since the beginning of the conflict the algerian government put its country in the situation of a potential war with Morocco because of this conflict. This is not the behaviour of a part that is only "interested".

To burrow the role of algeria in the sahara conflict or to compar it with the role of any other country is definitely misleading and goes against the facts. It does not provide accurate information on the conflict and it is close rather to a political position. I don not think this goes along wiht the spirit and the objectives of of wikipedia.

Cheers.

Wikima 10:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Algeria is uniquely involved Algeria's deep involvement in the conflict is due in no small part to Moroccan policies regarding the dispute. Since King Hassan II refused to have direct talks with the Polisario, as he did not recognize the SADR as a state, it was up to Algeria to represent their interests. Also, since the only other states that border Western Sahara were at war with it, Algeria took in refugees from the conflict (again, instigated by Rabat). Since Algeria has allowed an extra 200,000 people to live inside its borders, it only stands to reason that:

1. the government of Algiers would represent those people diplomatically,
2. the military would patrol the borders of the camp, to keep refugees from spilling into the rest of the country (causing all manner of internal problems for Algerians), and
3. the Algerian people certainly have no desire for conflict to resume, as they will certainly be drawn into a second war with Morocco (the first, again, having been instigated by Rabat).

The Moroccan POW's had to be released through Algeria, as it is the state harboring them. If the refugee camps were actually located in Western Sahara (say, east of the berm), then the involvement of Algeria would not be necessary.

You comment about the United States is simply incorrect. The US invites Algeria to represent Sahrawi interest for two reasons:

1. the US recognizes the government in Algiers, and not the SADR
2. Morocco has consistently refused high-level direct contact with the Polisario

Since it is the stated position of the US to remain neutral in the conflict, it is only appropriate to engage Algeria as a representative of the Sahrawi interest. Otherwise, no one would represent them. Again, Polisario existed before Algerian involvement, and in the period when Algeria was actually hostile to the Sahrawi interest, Polisario fighters received more training and material support from Libya and Cuba than from Algeria. To say Algeria is the leading actor is also not true, as the initial conflict was between Polisario and Spain. Once Spain exited the picture and Morocco and Mauritania attacked, the focus of fighting shifted to those two external threats. Algeria did nothing at all to support Polisario for the first six years of its existence.

I don't want to downplay Algeria's role in the conflict: it has without a doubt been the largest supporter of the SADR symbolically and materially, but it is also accurate to say that it is an involved party, just as much as France is, although to a much greater extent. Justin (koavf) 04:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

>>>> The less you can say is that algeria is an involved part:

First of all, from your reaction I take the involvement of algeria in the conflict as given and evident. On the background of what you say the expression "algerian backed" even appears as rather weak. I think the less we must do is to add "algerian backed" in the article while talking about polisario.

In your reaction you try to justify algeria's involvement by making Morocco responsible for it. This is clearly your personal opinion and political position. I feel this is definitively non encyclopedic.

Above I am not quoting any moroccan instance or defending any moroccan position but quoting James Baker and the U.S. Committee for Refugees.

The first one clearly confirms algeria’s total and overall control, which at the military level is extremly meaningful. When a country has total control of the military decisions of a "political movement" this means two things:

- This country must have political and overall control as well.

- There is enough reasons to start exploring the case of a proxy war.

The Committee for Refugees clearely confirms that algeria uses the refugees 'for political and military, rather than humanitarian, reasons’. This tends to suggest a proxy war as well.

An other fact is that neither the polisario nor algeria created the "sadr" when the sahara was under spanish control. There is not much information on polisario during that time so we can claim it was insignificant and/or almost inexistent, and the indepedence of the sahara was apparently not that important for algeria when it was under spanish colonialism. This you confirm in your reaction when you say algeria did not support polisario in the beginning. Algeria in fact "supported" polisario and called the "sadr" only when Morocco entered the sahara. And only after this event polisario became strange to say strong as well. This also tends to show that algeria fights Morocco, because although the reason is essentially the same it did not fight against Spain. This is not my opinion, but a fact none could deny.

Above I provide the fact that when Morocco entered the sahara algeria immediatly disseized about 50.0000 of moroccans before banishing them from the country. Most of them were born in algeria or were living there since their shildhood and never saw Morocco. Sir, no country would do that just because it is supporting a political movement.

All this shows how algeria is a leading and active part in the conflict from its beginning. Any independant objective investigative effort would confirm this.

In your message you are talking about 200.000 people while the U.S. Committee for Refugees mentions nearly a hundert thousend. Please stuck to the facts and avoid giving numbers uncarefully. These numbers are extremly sensitive for the sahara issue and are in the centre of the dispute. In this context it is always important to mention the sahrawis who live in the part which is governed by Morocco and which includes all urban centres and big cities.

I do not discuss the other aspects in your reaction because they appear to me to be rather a political position and I feel this is the wrong place for this.

Cheers

Wikima 10:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

WS is not a country

Misplaced Pages is a 💕 where all points of view must be exposed. I think that the last version of the article is not neutral because it consider WS as a country. I think that it is a conflictual territory or region. If you think that WS is a country so why not Kurdistan, Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque territory and else. I think that you must remove the flag of RASD and all informations about president, prime minister ..etc. Thanks

===>Other entities have this information First off, the article clearly explains the dispute and the fact that the soveriegnty over the territory is not finalized in the international arena. Secondly, other non-state entities (provinces, dependencies, disputed territories, historical states, etc.) have flags, and information about the governments on them. In point of fact, Kurdistan is an excellent example. Why exactly should we take out this information?

You are blatently contradicting yourself by saying that "all points of view must be exposed", and then saying the article is not neutral. You want to take out one point of view (the SADR is already sovereign, or possibly that it should be sovereign), and replace it with one-sided information. Justin (koavf) 01:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Westerne Sahara" is a geographic territory not a country, the title of the page is "Western Sahara" not "SADR", now this territory is governed by Morocco and not by "SADR", there is a conflict between two sides Morocco and Polisario, if you think that this flag represent the region so you are not neutral, in this case why not put the flag of Morocco?, I repeat this a page about a territory (Western Sahara) and not a proposed country (SADR), Thanks

===>Untrue First off, Morocco does not administer the entire territory. Secondly, if this article claimed that Gaza and the West Bank were part of Israel simply becuase they administer the territory, the same peoeple who are making pro-Moroccan edits would cry foul. Since this is an unresolved dispute, and this conflict is clearly explained at length in the article, there is no justification for deleting the infobox. There are other geo-political entities that have these boxes than states, and I'm willing to assume that Misplaced Pages readers are smart enough to digest the article themsevles. The flag of Morocco is not here because it is the flag of Morocco. The flag that is on this page is internationally recognized as the flag of Western Sahara. Justin (koavf) 04:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Justin again, Morocco administrates and controls most of the territory including all cities and important urban centres. And the country invests important part of its budget and its manpower in developing them with remarkable results (!). The sahara in as you confirm yourself disputed and under the circumstances of tension it is normal for a non industrial country wihtout significant resources such as Morocco to concentrate the control on the territory even if far peripheral areas in the desert "escape". Morocco is not the only country in this situation and in comparison to many of the 3rd world countries with similar problems it does pretty well!

This being said I think that the presentation is an extremly important part of an article. How you present things play a central role, and this applies of course more when articles deal with symbols and representations such as flags etc. Replying that wikipedia readers are "smart" is non valid. Here you are presenting the territory as if it was a country. You may personnaly wish this but it is NOT a country and this is a fact. The information in an encyclopedia must be presented as objective and as exact as possible no matter whether the readers are smart or spend ten hours in contemplating articles or not. I am not the only one who says the information and especially its presentation is not balanced. I think we must find a solution here.

Cheers.

Wikima 08:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Koavf, don't you use all the time the word movement and organization? Calling it a country is totally innacurate and totally POV. If you can prove to us that it is a country than the article would use that term. Otherwise, we'll be forced to change that. cheers --  

Koavf, I understand that you are very interrested in indepencence movements. Sure we all sypathyse with separatist movements. But don't forget to be objectif and neutral. There is a conflict between two sides : 1)Morocco who thinks that WS is a part of its territory and 2)Polisario who thinks that this territory must be independant and proclamed a republic in this territory. If you think that "western sahara" is for "SADR" what "france" is for "republic of France" for example, in this case you are defintively no neutral and you are imposing your POV to readers of WP. I think that the aim of WP is to expose facts not POVs. WS is a territory who is subject to a conflict between two sides not a country. the page called "Western Sahara" seems like a page devoted to SADR and expose informations about this entity (flag, president, etc). these informations are refused by the first side of the conflict (Morocco); exposing them in this page is not neutral. I find my self forced to erease this information for the neutrality of this article. thank you for understanding and excuse my English language;-) Daryou 19:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

this page is not neutral

This page is definitively not neutral in the current version. the text is considerably pro-polisario and anti-Moroccan. I request your attention to change it for a better neutrality. I think that with the cooperation of every one we will obtain a more objectif article. Thanks. Daryou 18:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to recent questions and edits

==>A request for assistance from Daryou and FayssalF

I have reverted an re-written to make the article more informative and balanced. I left the disputed notice as a sign of good will.

Fayssal asked:

"Koavf, don't you use all the time the word movement and organization? Calling it a country is totally innacurate and totally POV."

I do use "organization" when refering to the Polsario, as that is what it is: Polisario is not a government, state, or country. It is a political party, like the Republicans in America. I never use the term "country", as its colloquial meaning and the definition of the term "state" in political science are frequently conflated. The SADR is a state or government. Western Sahara is a geographic entity. If the SADR should rightfully administer Western Sahara, then it would be appropriate to call Western Sahara a state or country. Daryou goes on to say an essentially similar thing...

Daryou wrote:

"There is a conflict between two sides : 1) Morocco who thinks that WS is a part of its territory and 2) Polisario who thinks that this territory must be independant and a republic in this territory. WS is a territory who is subject to a conflict between two sides not a country. the page called "Western Sahara" seems like a page devoted to SADR..."

While you are correct in several points, in all fairness and objectivity, you should also admit the following facts:

1. This is not a conflict between two parties. For a variety of reasons, Mauritania, Algeria, and Spain are intimately involved. Furthermore, France, the United States, the United Nations, African Union, Red Cross, and other states and entities are involved, including the dozens of states that recognize the SADR as the legimitate government of Western Sahara have some vested interest in the conflict.
2. The page is not devoted simply to the SADR or its stated point of view on the conflict. The article goes into length surrounding the conflict and several facts explain this. The infobox (which I have since made a separate template) contains several facts of a plain, geographic nature, and explains that the government is one in exile.

Please assist me

If you want to prove to me that you are both committed to neutrality and fairness, I respectfully request that you leave the English article as it stands: I believe that it represents the conflict in a holistic fashion, and gives the user enough information to make his own judgements regarding the politics of the situation. In the meantime, please go to the Arabic Misplaced Pages article on Western Sahara, and edit that article to make it more neutral. Now, I'm not fluent in Arabic (otherwise, I would edit it myself), but the article there is completely POV in favor of Morocco, and gives no pertinent information regarding the conflict. It is entirely a piece of propaganda. Once that article actually fair and objective, then I feel like we can discuss this one with authenticity and candor. Of course, it is completely within your rights to ignore my request, and continue the discussion here; should you chose to do so, I will be happy to discuss it further in English. Thank you for your time. Justin (koavf) 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all Koavf, thanks for your show of goodwill. I appreciate that. Starting from your call for assistance, I'd say that I've never edited or even visited Ar.Misplaced Pages. Remember that if the article there is totally POV as you state than for sure there are users from Algeria, Syria, Libya and other Arab countries who can help there. Therefore, asking people to leave this article in peace until those people go and fix things somewhere else seems to me irrelevant. Following the link, I have just visited Arabic Misplaced Pages article on Western Sahara and it is not an article but a personal view just like a graffiti on a wall. I am sorry to not be able to edit it because of technical reasons (No Arabic Windows). What I could do is remove all the graffiti.

Back to our issue here. The POV things we are talking about are the following:

• ...bordered by Morocco... Does that mean that the issue is resolved and WS has got its own borders?
• ...The largest city is El Aaiún (Laayoune), containing the majority of the population... Does that mean that the Saharawis making the majority of the population there are not Moroccans? None of the Saharawis living in the city is not Moroccan!
• ...but it is obvious that Morocco, as the current de facto power in much of the territory, stood only to lose... Does that mean something NPOV?
• ...Indeed, shortly after the Houston Agreement... What is the meaning of the word Indeed?
• ...pro-Moroccan bias... Does it mean Misplaced Pages bias? Who defines that bias, you? If yes than it is totally POV!
• ...(making it less reliant on the occupying power)...(making it harder to stall or subvert)... Is there any other NPOV expression?
• ...Baker II, was in a quizzical suprise move accepted by the Polisario... Who uses that expression?
• ...uneasy with the UN process... Is the term encyclopaedic?
• ...Size of the native population versus Moroccan settlers is not known, but the settlers heavily outnumber the indigenous population... How do you know if it is already stated that the size of the natives Vs Moroccan settlers is not known?

Those are the points we need to see fixed Koavf. Otherwise, the article would be considered POV. I hope you understand that I am not Pro-Moroccan but Pro-Misplaced Pages and that also that we are needing assistance from you and not the opposite. Cheers -- Svest 01:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)  

Dear Koavf, I visited the arabic page but I can't edit it because my keybord is in French. You say in you personal page that you represent the intersets of the truth AND the Sahrawis of Westerne Sahara, I'm wondering if you are not totally neutral in the subject of WS. you say:

1. This is not a conflict between two parties. For a variety of reasons, Mauritania, Algeria, and Spain are intimately involved. Furthermore, France, the United States, the United Nations, African Union, Red Cross, and other states and entities are involved, including the dozens of states that recognize the SADR as the legimitate government of Western Sahara have some vested interest in the conflict.
2. The page is not devoted simply to the SADR or its stated point of view on the conflict. The article goes into length surrounding the conflict and several facts explain this. The infobox (which I have since made a separate template) contains several facts of a plain, geographic nature, and explains that the government is one in exile.

I say that it is always a conflict between two sides: the pro-moroccan side and the pro polisario side (remember that only 50 contries recognize SADR over 190). I say that if you expose the infobox about SADR in this page, you are exposing the POV of the pro-polisario side. It is absolutly not neutral. I don't understand why you continue to impose your POV to readers of WP. If you are neutral like you say you MUST erease this infobox. Thanks. Daryou 17:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Further revision and response

Fayssal:

I have addressed the particular issues that you raised, and in retrospect, I think many of them are valid concerns. My suggestion about editing the Arabic article was to simply prove that you (all of you) have good faith and an actual interest in removing POV, rather than simply inserting the Moroccan government's stated position. Some of the questions you raise, however, do not need to be addressed further in the text of the article, or are answered in an encyclopedic manner in the first place.

• ...bordered by Morocco... Does that mean that the issue is resolved and WS has got its own borders?

No, and yes. The issue (that is, the dispute over sovereignty) is not resolved, but Western Sahara does have internationally-recognized borders. The geographic entity that we know as "Western Sahara" is identical to the one known as "Spanish Sahara". That entity (initially a colony, then a province) had its borders defined in treaties signed in 1900, 1904, and 1912, and have never been disputed as being what constitutes the territory in discussion. These borders are consistently reflected in every map published in the past century.

• ...The largest city is El Aaiún (Laayoune), containing the majority of the population... Does that mean that the Saharawis making the majority of the population there are not Moroccans? None of the Saharawis living in the city is not Moroccan!

I honestly don't understand your objection here, but I tried to make it clearer in the article. The majority of the non-military persons who live in Western Sahara live in El Aaiún. More people live there than live anywhere else in Western Sahara put together; it has nothing to do with their national and ethnic identity.

• ...Indeed, shortly after the Houston Agreement... What is the meaning of the word Indeed?

"Indeed" reinforces the claim that was made in the prior sentence.

• ...Size of the native population versus Moroccan settlers is not known, but the settlers heavily outnumber the indigenous population... How do you know if it is already stated that the size of the natives Vs Moroccan settlers is not known?

There are no large-scale, reliable, independent studies of the region's demographics since Spanish withdrawl, but due to the immense size of the refugee population, and the known number of Moroccans who have relocated, it is obvious that the majority of the current inhabitants are Moroccan, rather than Sahrawi. As far as I'm aware, the only in-depth study in English is Akbarali Thobhani's book from 2001, which is the only piece of literature in English from the past 25 years that has a pro-Moroccan bias, was written by someone who is ethnically Moroccan, and relies exclusively on otherwise unverified government documents, which themselves must be considered suspect.

Please continue addressing particular concerns, and we can, through this dialogue, write an article that represents the facts as they are.

On the other hand, Daryou, you have seen fit to delete information that is helpful, and not in any way suspect. Your edits have made the article less useful for readers, and you haven't actually revised anything, but glibly cut out huge portions from the article without apparent justification. I admit my baises on my user page precisely becuase I want to be accountable to them. I think that the objective facts themselves will largely support the Sahrawis, since Morocco has attacked, stolen from, and marginalized them for decades. Any rational human can see that grave injustices have been inflicted upon them, and were entirely unprovoked; the Sahrawis live under occupation and presented no threat to the well-being of Morocco or the Moroccan citizenry.

To say that the conflict is one between two sides is simplistic and obviously not the case. You are either ignoring simple facts, or are attempting to paint the conflict as one side versus another to manipulate the discussion. For instance, there is the position of neutrality and mediation, which is the stated position of the United Nations, United States, and Mauritania. There is the position that the SADR is a state, the position of Algeria and the Polisario. There is the position that the SADR should be a state, which is the position of the African Union, and several states that recognize the SADR. Within the Polisario, there are several points of view, for that matter. Some think that peaceful means are the only ones acceptable, others advocate a return to violent resistance. There are several solutions that have been considered by the Security Council: independence, partition, autonomy, integration, and the status quo. Since there are a multiplicity of sides in the conflict, claiming that there are two is simple bifurcation. Also, bear in mind that whatever it is you call the "pro-Polisario side" is supported by 50 states, but the "pro-Moroccan side" (the position that Western Sahara is an integral part of the Kingdom of Morocco) is supported by 0 states other than Morocco itself. Everyone either sees the territory as: being independent, should be independent, or a region under military occupation that should have the issue resolved by referendum. Justin (koavf) 19:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Justin, I thank you for your recognition of your pro-polisario opinion and your non-neutrality. I see that you are manipulating the discussion by stating that there are a lot of sides in the conflict. It is a mater of fact that there is only two sides (see reports of Minurso) Morocco thinks that WS is an integral part of Kingdom of Morocco, Polisario and its supporters think that this territory must be independent. Sure 50 nations recognize the SADR, but 24 nations cancelled their recognition of this entity since 1989. For the rest of the nations of the world: they are neutral, they don't have any position in the conflict and think that the UN should resolve the question : That should be the position of WP. I repeat that you are not neutral and I ask you to stop imposing your POV to readers of WP. Please be objective and neutral or don't touch this page. Thanks. Daryou 20:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Daryou, Vandalism must stop

===>This article is a work-in-progress Please stop vandalizing it. Revisions are being made by consensus, according to the Talk page. I have never made my biases a secret, and neither have you, so this glib justification for reversion is unacceptable and hypocritical. I am not manipulating the discussion - I make assertions, backed with facts. There are several opinions regarding the Western Sahara issue (not just two), and I listed them above. If you want to discuss the matter intelligently, please do. Otherwise, don't resort to petty vandalism. The position of Misplaced Pages is not proscriptive. For Misplaced Pages to say that the UN should solve the dispute is a point-of-view. You contradict yourself, if you say that all points of view should be exposed and then claim that only one should. Neutrality is itself a position in regards to this dispute, as you just admitted, after claiming that there are only two positions. Show me how I've imposed a POV on the discussion and we can discuss it from there. I've been editing these articles for a year before you ever got here (unless you've been editing anonymously, as I initially did), and I have always been willing to revise. Justin (koavf) 20:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Koavf vandalism must stop

I don't understand your comportement, this infobox isn't usefull at all, it expose information about SADR, but the title of the page is "Western Sahara", it is absollutelly not neutral. Daryou 22:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

===>The definition of vandalism Taken from here:

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content."

What vandalism is not:

"NPOV Violations - The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Misplaced Pages veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. See also: NPOV dispute."

I am not vandalizing. You are. Please stop. The infobox is useful, it includes relevant information, you have not proven that it is, in and of itself, not neutral, and "comportement" isn't a word.Justin (koavf) 03:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

According to your definition of vandalism, I'm not vandalizing, I just restored the page to a previous version before your modifications. I see that it is very easy to accuse other people of vandalism when you don't have the arguments for discussion. I ask you to discuss and stop accusing people of vandalism just because they don't have the same POV of YOU. You are not omniscient, you are human and humans can do errors. I repeat that the infobox doesn't have any thing to do in this page. these informations are not neutral. If you expose the Flag and President of SADR here you recognize the SADR, but SADR isn't recognized by 140 nations and by the UN. the infobox isn't usefull at all. I repeat that it is your point of view and you don't have the right to impose it to readers of WP. Readers of WP are intelligent as you say so stop trying to manipulate them. Daryou 16:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

===>In response to the accuse of vandalism I'm not that much interested in disputing Fayssal, Daryou and the rest of Moroccans. I only want to tell you Koavf, that you'll will have a great headache if you keep this dialogue with those who pretend that they are mainly angry for the NEUTRALITY in itself. In fact, they have a political agenda. For them, defending the agenda of Morocco in Western Shara is a national cause that they have to embrace as a sacred burden. They'll describe you in terms of vandalism; they'll ask and wish that the word of W Sahara be wiped out of the dictionary. They're doing the same thing in many other places, as long as the discussion about Western Sahara is an open topic for the public to talk about. Mark my words, they're not sincerely complaining about the neutrality and the objectivity of the article as much as they're about serving their regime. You can keep trying to to make them feel better from time to time, but never content until you change the entire article. They'll be so happy if the whole article bears the title Moroccan Sahara with their flag and their fake history concerning the conflict and the great Moroccan empire that included Algeria, W. Sahara and Mauritania, as it was described in details in Alal El Fassi's book (White Book). This is how the regime in Morocco makes its population busy. National claims beyond the Morocco borders and fake patriotism let the subjects of Ceuta and Melia (occupied and run by Spain) but never mentioned by Morocco, or the various islands that fall into the same category. I wonder for a population that doesn't exercise the minimum democracy under an absolute monarchy and makes that much of noise in Western forums pretending otherwise. NOTE: (comportement), French word that stands for (conduct, behavior), he means (your behavior). He/she probably doesn't know the term in English. You have to bear in mind that French is the 2nd language in Morocco.

Hi anon, I think you are being totally out of here. First of all, you claim that we are Moroccans! How do you know? Second, that I am not pretending but saying that the article is not neutral. I am meaning it and said why presenting my reasons and Koavf responded adequately.

What is the relationship between speaking a language as a second or tenth language and discussing the issue here?

Your comments are out of subject because they are simply personal. You brought nothing to the discussion! Cheers -- Svest 17:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)  

Mediation

I think that the best way to resolve the dispute is to stop the edit war and to request a Mediation, what do you think about it? Daryou 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)