Talk:Western Sahara

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Archives: Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

Introduction

Common, who wrote the introduction to this? The intro is wayyy to long and it is practicaly the history of western sahara. Someone please put that information somewhere else. The introduction has to be like this:

"Western sahara is a territory... in africa...... that is controlled/governed by...."

Nothing else. The rest has to be put somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.215.35 (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Phosphate mining

The article currently says that phosphate mining in the WS is economically unviable and is sourced to a US cable. This is wrong AFAICT - e.g. this in Business Week says "Western Sahara is ... where Morocco's best phosphate lies." and that "because the rock there [ Bou Craa ] is of the highest quality in the country, the mine produces 11 percent of the country's total output". The whole economy section in general seems a bit off tbh - why would Morocco be so interested if it costing them so much? SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I read in a piece of Polisario propaganda that phosphate extraction nets Morocco half a billion Euros a year, so clearly they think it's significant. I might try and find a source for their claim if it's true, or a more accurate number if it's not. Unless someone else knows?
In any case, being economically unviable should be removed, since it's unsourced and probably untrue. --RaphaelBriand (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Which variant of English?

Recently, Ebe123 changed some text in the article from British to American English while doing some clean-up. I've no problem, of course, with the clean-up or his/her work but... it struck me that the article would - based on the subject matter - be more appropriate in British English. As such, I've reverted Ebe123's language changes for now and opened this discussion. (Again, no prejudice whatsoever intended against Ebe123's work, and if the consensus/appropriate choice is AmEng, so be it.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

English variations Why would this be more appropriate for British English? When there isn't a strong cultural reason for an English variation, per WP:ENGVAR, it's up to the original main editor or the prevailing standard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, from what I can find, there seems to be a preference for BrEng in Europe and Africa. Looking at the article history, spot checks in 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2011 show the use of British English. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to American English as there was an inconsistency of the two variations. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

I added a POV template for the following reasons:

• In the section "Dispute", it shows a gallery of pictures showing pro-Polisario manifestations, but none for pro-Morocco ones (as if they did never happen [1]) ;
• It shows a picture of "the commemoration of SADR's independence", which isn't appropriated for this article but for SADR's one ;
• It shows a map of countries "supporting the right of self-determination" as if they were supporting Polisario's claims (these last ones consist in a referendum, while "self-determination" doesn't exclusively consist on it).

Omar-Toons (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Response

• I think it is fitting and appropriate to mention pro-occupation events and if there are freely-licensed media of them, I encourage you to add them.
• This is appropriate as it's about Sahrawi culture and it's a cultural institution. Western Sahara is populated by Sahrawi people and the UN recognizes the Polisario Front as their legitimate representative.
• If you think the caption should be changed, then please do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Koavf

• Western sahara is not an occupied territory but a disputed one, according to UN morocco is claiming and controling 80% territory, (no mention of occupation)
• You can find and insert neutral apolitical pictures of sahrawi culture
• those maps are already inserted in the article legal status of western sahara why are you inserting them again in this article? + why don't you insert a map of countries which support the moroccan autonomy plan?", you're adds are definitely violating the principle of neutrality .

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response

• This is not true—the UN has called for Morocco to end their occupation of Western Sahara on multiple occasions.
• That's true and it's fine, but their culture has been dominated by this political dispute as well; there is nothing wrong (and everything right) with displaying that.
• I'd be fine with including a map like that as long as it's accurate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Koavf

*Can you give me a UN resolution which consider morocco as a occupier country? UN calls for referendum but not an end of occupation (we can't speak about occupation of a territoriy which has never been a sovereign country)

*you're wrong, saharaui culture has nothing to do with politics, people of sahara exists many centuries before creation of Polisario, displaying RASD flags or moroccan flags is a violation of the principle of neutrality

*I'm afraid that the article becomes a map war, so I prefer that those maps should be removed because they exist already in the article "legal status of western sahara"

--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• UN resolution - UN General Assembly resolution 34/37 - "5. Deeply deplores the aggravation of the situation resulting from the continued occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco and the extension of that occupation to the territory recently evacuated by Mauritania;"
• Also see "The International Law of Occupation", Eyal Benvenisti, section "7.2.2, The Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara (1975)", Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199588893
• "we can't speak about occupation of a territory which has never been a sovereign country" - sure we can because we must reflect the sources according to NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly As Sean pointed out, the UN have called the Moroccan occupation just that--an occupation. By your reasoning, Palestine was never occupied by Israel. Also, since the UN have called the Polisario Front the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, your claim that "saharaui culture has nothing to do with politics" is demonstrably untrue as well. You could verify these with Google, just like you could have at Human rights in Western Sahara regarding Morocco bombing innocent civilians with napalm and white phosphorous. It makes it difficult to assume good faith when you're willfully ignorant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to Koavf

Please avoid personal attacks and presume good faith.

you've brought me a very old resolution of UN (1979 : the beginning of the conflict), the meaning of the word occupation depends in the context, invading a territory with military troops is an occupation regardless to who belong the territory, in recent resolutions UN is no more mentionning morocco as a occupier country, UN consider the territory of WS as disputed (not occupied), and call the parties to achieve a mutual and political solution in order to organize a referendum

sahraui people have immigrated to WS for many centuries, we can not link many centuries of culture to a recent event, putting RASD flags in article is clearly a propaganda, should we insert moroccan, mauritanian and algerian flags to represent saharawi people who lives in morocco, mauritania and algeria? + The polisario front is the legitimate represntant of sahrawi people doesn't mean that western sahara = RASD, those terms don't have the same meaning and you should stop inserting propaganda pictures of independence manifestations and RASD flags.

Puting in wikipedia that morocco is responsible for aerian bombardments with napalm and white phosphorus require a solid and reliable sources (UN, Amnesty), spanish newspapers or ARSO (the agency of polisario) are not reliable.

Thanks --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right that personal attacks are unhelpful but so are evidence-less assertions by editors. I prefer to ignore both. You asked for evidence. I provided it. It can be described as an occupation because it is regarded as an occupation by notable sources. This is not a negotiable point, it is just how it is, and we are required to deal with the actual evidence that exists in a reasonable sample of reliable sources according to policy to ensure NPOV compliance. Simply presenting one narrative as fact is not good enough. You need to bring evidence in the form of reliable sources to support your statements. You haven't done that. Statements made here without evidence don't have any value and must be excluded from any content decisions. Also, in my experience it's much better to avoid making arguments from first principals based on a personal opinion about what words mean. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

None neutral expressions and pictures

I've replaced the word "liberated territories" by "polisario held territories", UN do not recognize RASD sovereignty over western sahara, then the term "liberated" is not neutral I've also removed a gallery showing a pro-independence manifestation and RASD flags, because the article is about western sahara not about RASD and must be neutral, these gallery can be inserted in RASD article. [2] --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is totally neutral for non marrocan users. Move on. Your userpage is not helping your claim. - Dzlinker (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

there is no mention of my nationality in my userpage, please avoid personal attacks, read this WP:PA--Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that you're going to do the same with the term "southern provinces", wich is clearly non neutral, apart from illegal (its so similar to call the West Bank Judea and Samaria, one more parallel between Israel and Morocco...).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Occupied or Disputed?

Somebody want to discuss instead of edit-waring? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Occupied The territory is occupied and reliable sources say as much. I don't see why this is problematic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but since it is not widely recognized as an "occupied" territory the use of this expression is POV. Nobody can deny the fact that Western Sahara is a disputed territory, but only one side of the conflict claims that it is occupied then describing the territory as claimed by one belligerent isn't WP:NPOV. The word that has to be used is "disputed". --Omar-toons (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have evidence in the form of reliable sources to support the assertion that "it is not widely recognized as an "occupied" territory" ? The statement "only one side of the conflict claims that it is occupied" is patently false as can be seen from the sources in the section above. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry? The UN has called it occupied multiple times--you simply don't know what you're talking about. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've followed a link from talk. Would have to agree with Omar-toons here. I have not seen sources for UN position, but assume Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ is correct. UN opinion is pretty notable, though their opinion can not be used for a fact statement and has to be attributed, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Without attribution disputed could be used. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

See the sources in Talk:Western_Sahara#Lack_of_neutrality above. Given that Omar-toons' statement contained no evidence it doesn't really matter whether anyone agrees with it from a policy perspective. It might be true that "it is not widely recognized as an "occupied" territory". I have no idea actually but the answer will be in the reliable sources rather than our opinions about words. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Occupied Clearly, as Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ had exposed, UN had called Moroccan presence in Western Sahara occupation at least 2 times.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC to come...

Hello,

Following a discussion on Talk:Aminatou Haidar#POV template added where we discussed this issue, I would like to inform you that I have the intention to ask for a global RfC regarding the "occupied/controlled/disputed/annexed" status of the territory.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Demotix is not RS

This does not qualify as RS according to WP guidelines- cites associated with it will be deleted.Parkwells (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Atlantic coastline

The lead of this article says the entire Atlantic coastline of Western Sahara is controlled by Morocco. However, maps such as File:Flags of Morocco and the SADR over Western Sahara map.png, for example, show that the Sahrawi-controlled area does have a small coastline at the southern part of the territory. Which is right? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Opening is a little confusing

The wording of the opening is a bit misleading. The text "Occupied by Spain since the late 19th century, the Western Sahara has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since 1963 after a Moroccan demand" strongly implies that Spain is still ruling the territory. 94.6.182.172 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Additions to Culture Section

I'm a Georgetown University graduate student, dedicating much of my research to the Western Sahara territory. I would like to make many additions to the "Culture" section of the Western Sahara page, including gender relations, cross-cultural influence, art, and traditional women's dress relating to how it has been considered a symbol of resistance. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, or concerns. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ev160 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Remember that anything included needs to come from WP:Reliable sources. Regards, CMD (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"As of 2006"

The main article says "As of 2006, no other member state of the United Nations has recognized Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara." do we have a more up to date reference? Gavinio (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)