Jump to content

Talk:Political status of Western Sahara

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMorocco C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Help expand the project:

You can help! يمكنكم أن تساهموا


WikiProject iconAfrica: Western Sahara C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara (assessed as Top-importance).


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 112 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political status of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale changes

With regard to this edit: 1) I would expect a lot more than Update., as an explanation for the wholesale changes, especially when it comes to tables. In fact, I expect every change, be it addition or deletion, to be explained. 2) Having picked a change to a country (Guatemala) at random, it turns out that all the source (an amateur pro-Morocco propaganda website) is saying, once you put their misleading title aside, is the Government of Guatemala has called on all parties of the Western Sahara conflict to respect the UN Security Council’s resolutions and honor the 1991 ceasefire., which cannot be interpreted as "Guatemala supports Morocco".

You'll also notice that I tagged a section that seems to be full of WP:OR. For instance:

  • The Netherlands is cited amongst the States supporting Moroccan claims on Western Sahara (using a 2009 source that I haven't checked), yet this source from 2016 says: The Netherlands and Sweden are among the few EU member states to have recognised Western Sahara as an occupied territory.. They cannot be both correct.
  • The claim (supposedly backed by a couple "sources") that Russia supports Moroccan claims on Western Sahara is totally unfounded.
  1. Here's its official position in 2002.[1]
  2. Its position as stated in RS published in 2010.[2]
  3. It's official position in 2017.[3]
  4. It's official position in 2020.[4][5]
  5. As you can see, not only does it no support Moroccan claims, but it clearly states that the final formula "should envisage self-determination for the people of Western Sahara on the basis of UNSC resolutions in the framework of procedures that should meet the goals and principles of the UN Charter."

I haven't checked the others, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them don't stand up to scrutiny. M.Bitton (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed 6 countries from the table as their governments had only stated they support a political solution to the conflict, not any of Morocco's claims on Western Sahara in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

- Antigua and Barbuda -Cameroon -Costa Rica -Democratic Republic of the Congo -Saint Lucia -Togo The Peoples Front of Judea (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any source for the claim that the Netherlands supports Moroccan claims either (the source cited says nothing about supporting anyone's claims in particular). This page from an agency of the Department of states that "The Netherlands and the EU are neutral in the conflict between Morocco and Frente Polisario and do not recognize either party's claims to the territory. The Netherlands supports the UN in attempts to reach a political and lasting solution which provides for self-determination for the territory's original Sahrawi-population" -- which pretty clearly suggests that the Netherlands does not in fact support Morocco's claims.JorisEnter (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

@154.62.182.10: Regarding this edit:

As I stated in the edit summary, the article's content mentions national sovereignty and not sovereignty over WS, which would be controversial and covered in RS. Please stop edit warring and seek consensus for your controversial change. the other source that you added is not reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

The following comment was left on my talk page:

https://www.maroc.ma/en/news/dominican-republic-deems-autonomy-viable-proposal-realistic-solution-sahara-issue-joint

another note of Dominican-republic https://estatements.unmeetings.org/estatements/11.0040/20201015/RN6wcCb1rMzF/UysIgIDaryqb_es.pdf

If you know Spanish, please look at Article 7. The representative of Guatemala clearly mentioned support for the autonomy plan under Moroccan sovereignty. 154.62.182.10 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

1) maroc.ma is not a reliable source, so I won't waste my time reading it and I don't expect you to replace the sourced content based on what it says. Also, why did you move a source that was there for the SADR support into the Morocco support section?
2) The second source roughly translate to this:

Regarding the issue of Western Sahara, Guatemala reiterates its support for the efforts of the Kingdom of Morocco in the search for a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution to resolve this regional dispute and considers that its autonomy initiative presented in 2007 , constitutes a realistic, credible and serious basis for reaching a negotiated solution between the parties, within the framework of respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Morocco and its national sovereignty. Guatemala has supported the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations Organization on the question of Western Sahara; as well as the efforts of the Secretary General and his Special Envoys to comply with the mandates of said resolutions.

Guatemala urges the parties to continue showing their political will and to collaborate in developing a climate conducive to dialogue, with the aim of entering a substantive phase of the negotiations, ensuring due compliance with the pertinent resolutions to guarantee stability. , peace, security and integration of the Mágreb region. Guatemala awaits the prompt appointment of the new Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for the Sahara.

Guatemala reaffirms its constant commitment to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, contributing personnel deployed in the field, in line with our firm support for the development of a transparent and effective peacekeeping system. We understand that peacekeeping operations must be part of a comprehensive strategy that includes conflict prevention and sustainable peace building, integrates a development perspective and addresses the root causes of conflict. Likewise, we consider of great importance the tasks of promotion and protection of human rights and gender equality; Therefore, we will continue to support the inclusion of these components in peacekeeping missions.

Nowhere does it say that Guatemala supports Moroccan claims on Western Sahara, if anything, what is says about the UN's mission and the "just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution" makes it clear that it's neutral. M.Bitton (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

With regard to this edit: the first source is unreliable (written by a nobody and published in some BS blog like site). The second's reliability is irrelevant since it's about the opening of an embassy in Morocco (nothing to do with Western Sahara). As far as I know, Sierra Leone's official position vis-à-vis the Western Sahara is this (October 2020). If it has changed since then, then I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to source properly using an official source that leaves no room for misrepresentation (see the example I gave previously). M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used to justify this edit are also unreliable.
information Note: whomever is hiding behind 194.0.168.235 (a proxy) knows what they are doing is wrong. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Here's the official position of the Netherlands and its usual support for "the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and his efforts to continue a political process aimed at reaching a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the aims and principles set out in the United Nations Charter." The same goes for Germany. Since this position is no different than that of most countries, it cannot be grouped with those who voiced their support for a position that goes against internal law. While I have no objection to creating a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution", I don't see what it could possible add to the article.

The other added sources (mapnews, northafricapost, moroccoworldnews) are non RS with a history of lying and twisting what is said by others. When a country changes position (like Spain did), you'd expect the change to be covered by multiple reliable sources (including official ones). M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from the website you gave (official position) here's what was said (full quote) : "The Netherlands and Morocco affirmed their support for the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and his efforts to continue a political process aimed at reaching a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the aims and principles set out in the United Nations Charter. In this context, the Netherlands considers the autonomy plan presented in 2007 as a serious and credible contribution to the UN-led political process." So the country explicitly said they support for the Moroccan Plan and thereby you can't say such stuff as you're taking it out of context. So if the same goes for Germany, both are valid.
I may understand your fears about the sources, but they are still valid sources based on Wikipedia. You can't just cherry-pick sources based on what you think of them. But here's more sources :
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-05-11/netherlands-backs-moroccos-western-sahara-autonomy-plan-statement
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/morocco-germany-renew-ties-after-misunderstandings/
Another last point, You didn't only undo informations about Netherlands and Germany, you included many more informations. I ask you to avoid doing such big changes like that in the future and then not even mention them.
Keylostark (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I restored the previous version, I didn't add anything while doing so. 2) You didn't address what I said regarding a) the creation of a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution" and b) the use of unreliable sources. 3) Describing the autonomy plan as " “important contribution” to a settlement" does not mean supporting the Moroccan position.
Do you have any reliable sources to support the other countries that you added (Italy, etc.)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I join my voice to that of @M.Bitton, as @Keylostark didn't provide adequate sources for what would qualify as a "recognition of Moroccan sovereignty", and is simply linking to dubious propaganda websites to try and push their narrative. Saying that a plan is a credible option for a solution does not equate to supporting the Moroccan position of sovereignty over Western Sahara.
I think the best way to address this is to add a section for "mutually acceptable political solution" which is a lot more accurate than the current category and covers most of the red countries. Sizito (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you don't seem to read my answer fully, I will split this in point that hopefully you will read it all :

  • I already addressed what you said about the sources, I gave other sources but you seem to ignore it. I gave sources from USNews and Euractiv.
  • Your personal opinion of a source isn't a valid reason to discard a source, you need to give other sources to prove them wrong (which isn't the case here).
  • Please refrain from taking quotes out of context, specially since the sentence you omitted start with "In this context".
  • The creation of a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution" : You can create it if you wish, but the referendum clearly isn't the mutually acceptable political solution anymore.
  • Describing the autonomy plan as " “important contribution” to a settlement" does not mean supporting the Moroccan position. : considering it an important credible contribution is supporting it as a plan.
  • Your reverse also removed many other countries (Egypt, Cyprus, Italy and Serbia) not only Netherland and Germany. You only mention it now after I said it.
  • Again, it's not because you now ask (after I mentioned you removing them without a word) for other sources that's it's enough reason to remove them.
  • I will gladly add more source to the other countries too. But next time you are not personally satisfied with sources, just add the mention "better source needed" rather than discarding them

I will reverse it back, you're welcome to discuss it further here if you still don't agree. Keylostark (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too tired to argue about the position of Germany and the Netherlands, so I will keep and tag them for now, but the others (sourced to cesspits) will need to go (you are welcome to restore them when you find reliable sources to support the change). M.Bitton (talk)

As I said before, if you are not personally satisfied with sources, just add the mention "better source needed" rather than discarding them. You removed them while I was working on adding the sources, you're sabotaging my work by keep editing... Keylostark (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Keylostark: If you find reliable sources supporting what you're adding, you'll have no issue re-adding them. The same goes for the map and the so-called support for the "territorial claim". M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Keylostark: I suggest you remove the unsourced map or you'll be reported for violating WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about having reliable sources, it's about having to re-do my work because you create a conflict seconds after I say I will work on it.
The map is only a representation of the list of countries supporting the plan and the other the list of countries supporting RADS. the Map exist from many years ago, I only updated it based on the list that exist on the page. So basically the sources presented on the list are also valid for the map.
You're welcome to report me for anything you see fit. I will do the same on my part, because you have a large history of just undoing other people work on this page. You're just sabotaging this page without bringing to it any real work. Keylostark (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is always about the reliable sources. Once you change a map it becomes your work and therefore you become responsible for it and its caption. Which of the those countries support the so-called "territorial claim" (as it says in red)? India? M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the legend on the map say : Supports Morocco's territorial claim (including support for autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty); Relations with the SADR terminated and/or recognition withdrawn (if no other position expressed)
As I said before, I only updated the map, It was there for years and I didn't change its legend, just added colors (I even added a country that support RADS).
No further comment. Keylostark (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I told you already about the Map and you still went afterward editing the Map description. The Map was there for years and I didn't change its legend, just added colors (I even added a country that support RADS). Keylostark (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the map with an unsourced one and are edit warring over it (that's all I know). I didn't change the description, I tagged the BS (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the map based on the list of countries presented on the page, that are sourced. The previous Map wasn't sourced per say neither. If we add in the description that the Map is only a representation of the list, would that be enough to resolve this issue ? Keylostark (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) No, it's not sourced (as the sources that you added have failed verification). 2) Even the portion that is sourced doesn't support the so-called "territorial claim". 3) One way to resolve the issue would be to remove the misleading map altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the map existed for years and I just updated it based on the list presented on the page. You asking to remove it altogether because you disagree with the sources used on the ground of personal opinion isn't valid. If you doubt a source, you're welcome to present a better source that contradict it. Your personal opinion isn't a valid reason for the reliability of a source.
I'm proposing to add a note on the description of the page saying it only represent the list shown on the page. Then we can focus on discussing the reliability of the source on the list. Rather than removing material that existed for years on the page. Keylostark (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Existed for years" is not a valid excuse to keep it, let alone change it to a worse one. I don't need to present a source for your misrepresentation of the sources. Please read WP:VERIFY while paying particular attention to the part that starts with "all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable". M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Keylostark: The Italian source that you added doesn't mention the autonomy. This is a clear case of source misrepresentation to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the source they say "Ho elogiato gli sforzi seri e credibili del Marocco per la risoluzione della questione del Sahara nell’ambito delle Nazioni Unite" which can be translated in "I commended Morocco's serious and credible efforts to resolve the Sahara issue within the United Nations". The only effort Morocco have presented is its autonomy Plan. Keylostark (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's baseless WP:OR. The source doesn't mention the autonomy plan and that's a fact. Keeping it despite being aware of this means that you are insisting on misrepresenting it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're just putting your head in the sand at this point. The efforts of Morocco are clearly just about the autonomy and that is also a fact. You're the one misrepresenting it. Keylostark (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not baseless, not to mention that you saying they never mentionned the autnomy while at the end they say "La dichiarazione del Ministro italiano arriva in concomitanza con la riunione della coalizione internazionale anti-daesh a Marrakech, dove da Amsterdam a Bucarest e da Belgrado a Nicosia, passando per Il Cairo, Riad, Manama, Niamey o Conakry, il piano di autonomia marocchino è stato al centro di un’azione diplomatica, che ha visto rafforzato il sostegno internazionale." Which is translated to "The declaration of the Italian Minister comes in conjunction with the meeting of the international anti-daesh coalition in Marrakech, where from Amsterdam to Bucharest and from Belgrade to Nicosia, passing through Cairo, Riad, Manama, Niamey or Conakry, the Moroccan autonomy plan is been at the center of diplomatic action, which saw international support strengthened."
I don't know how it can be more clearer. Keylostark (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's very simple: it become clear when the sources mention it. otherwise, it's just baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is mentioning the autonomy in the paragraph I quoted. Keylostark (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in that source does it say that Italy supports the autonomy. That's a fact! M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notice (with despair) that you also misrepresented the Egypt source. Why would you do that? M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing, I took an ancient article and confused it with a recent one. I will change it right away with another reliable source ! Keylostark (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All you've done is misrepresent another source that doesn't mention the autonomy. It's now clear to me that you have no respect for the WP policies. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean ? The source (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2079186/middle-east) is titled "Egypt supports Morocco’s territorial integrity, says FM".
It also says "He added that Egypt “welcomed the Moroccan efforts, characterized with seriousness and credibility, that are aiming to move forward toward a political settlement in the Sahara issue.”" Morocco has only been working on its autonomy plan.
I ask you to please have a little of good faith. Keylostark (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Polisario supports Morocco's "territorial integrity". What I mean (for the nth time) is stop engaging in WP:OR and stick to what the sources say. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Egypt didn't support the Polisario stand, it supported "the Moroccan efforts, characterized with seriousness and credibility, that are aiming to move forward toward a political settlement in the Sahara issue."
You're just doing all you can in bad faith to sabotage. I will be reporting you. Literally all you history in this page is just reverting other people's work, you never added anything, it shows your intention here are not to help working on the page but just keeping ideas you '''personally''' oppose to be added. Keylostark (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources backing the Polisario claims in the section called "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" are all from it's own propaganda news network of the "SPS" "Sahara Press Service"

The quality of the informations mentioned in "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" is extremely questionable, as the overwhelming majority of them are all from one same source which is directly the Polisario propaganda news agency "SPS" or "Sahrawi Press Service", they can absolutely not be taken seriously, if we are going to start considering sources from private Moroccan news network as unreliable and add a tag "better source needed" next to any "Morocco World News" and the template "This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Political status of Western Sahara. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced." then the same thing needs to be done to the section "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" as all the claims come one and unique source which is the Polisario "news agency" making it many times worse, in addition to the fact that most of the sources in "States supporting Morocco's autonomy proposal" come from various websites and platforms all around the world including statements in the UN website from international diplomats . Tsarisco (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive tagging

@Tsarisco: Why are you tagging what is easily attributable? M.Bitton (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsarisco: I see that you are ignoring my question and are now tagging dead links with as "failed verification". Care to explain why? M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton I already wrote the reason why I put the "failed verification", as none of your sources prove any of info that is supposed to make up a factual Wikipedia article, please provide independent and factual sources that back up your claims, as none of the links with "failed verification" show any info whatsoever, and some of them are even made up such as the case of the North Korea source. Tsarisco (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsarisco: You haven't answered my question: why are you tagging what is easily attributable? M.Bitton (talk) 00:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific and give some examples about what "easily attributable" sections of mu changes are you talking about? Tsarisco (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you, or anyone for that matter, doubt that countries such as Algeria and South Africa support SADR? M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provide sources! Wikipedia is about facts not rhetorical questions my friend, and this isn't about opinions but about facts, if you want to back up those facts you must mention multiple independants sources that back up your statements that's just how Wikipedia function and Wikipedia shouldn't be a source of propaganda, as already mentioned in the explanation that I provided in "unreliable sources". Tsarisco (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you need a source then, the correct tag is "cn" and not what you've been doing.
@Tsarisco: as none of your sources They are not my sources. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mistagged these two sources [6][7] (among others) with a failed verification tag again and are clearly edit warring, you leave me with no other choice but to report you. M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why did write " as none of your sources " are you implying the countless sources that I added are unreliable? This quite funny to pretend that these sources that aren't even connected to any belligerent force (Morocco and the Polisario) such as here:
([1][2][3]) and [4][5][6][7]
and sources that I have taken directly from the UN website such here [8])
and so many others that I put aren't "reliable" but the only one source which is the "SPSRASD" mentioned multiple times in the section of "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara[edit]" is... factual, if that what you are saying.
Regards Tsarisco (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These sources https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York and url=https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gaspd507.doc.htm are completely manufactured, made up... literally . This source is also literally made up as if you read the article you will find no mention of Polisario or Saharaoui Democratic Republic (=https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations), and I reverted the changes to the two links that you listed.
Pretending that it's just a dead link here (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York), when in reality it's just a completely invented source (this is the reference number 59 mentioned in the article "https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York"
You can verify it by pretty much just replacing anything that comes after https://www.un.org/News in this link by any word and therefore artificially create a source and pretend that it's just a "dead link") and it will give the same message which is ERROR 404. Tsarisco (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"M.Bitton" You have ignored my previous post above that I wrote several weeks ago "Sources backing the Polisario claims in the section called "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" are all from it's own propaganda news network of the "SPS" "Sahara Press Service" failing to answer to the concern about the reliability of the "SPSRASD" source. I have therefore decided to act and put the appropriate tags in the relevant sections, you writing that I ignored your messages in this page is nothing more but lies which is quite daft as Wiki admins can simply go here and see this exchange to prove that not only I answered you here, but I wrote a section in the talk above in May 25 explaining my very logical reasoning.
Kindly. Tsarisco (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) Don't ever edit, move or partition my comments again. This is your only warning. 2) The green text is a quote (what you wrote). 3) You either don't understand the difference between a dead link and a source that failed verification or you're pretending no to. 4) You kept ignoring me even though I left edit summaries that you could see, started a discussion and pinged you twice. 5) At this stage, I don't see any need to continue this discussion, especially now that the matter has been reported and a new discussion has been started. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale changes 2022 about the section "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" (Finally solved by Sizito); Discussion on the use of third party sources (Agreement reached for the Moroccan section)

Several activist editors have been putting extremely questionnable and non factual informations about several section on the Page: Political status of Western Sahara, by not only refusing to provide more than one independent source in the several claims that they are presenting and relying exclusively on just one which is the SPSRASD website, a website fully controlled by the belligerent force Morocco is fighting in Western Sahara which is the Polisario front , and with many articles that are no different than North Korean propaganda as you can all see here https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html an article written by the Polisario with completely wild statements that aren't verifiable by any third party independent sources same for these ones https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/29/39909.html or this one https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/08/39543.html and many others with informations about "heavy human and material losses" currently taking place, that no media either in Morocco, Europe, Asia or anywhere in the world for that matter have confirmed.

1) Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factually and accuracy (i.e multiples independent AND reliable sources), but M.Bitton seems to be failing to see the difference between an opinion and a fact backed by multiple independents sources , such as his useless rhetorical questions here: "::::Do you, or anyone for that matter, doubt that countries such as Algeria and South Africa support SADR?M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC) (Editing Talk:Political status of Western Sahara - Wikipedia) asking me this question instead of putting themselves in the shoes of the potential reader, and failing to provide more than one source that is at the very least reliable.

2) Pretending that it's just a dead link here (https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092233629&oldid=1092232732&diffmode=source) when in reality it's just a completely invented source (this is the reference number 59 mentioned in the article "https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York" (you can verify it by pretty much just replacing anything that comes after the "/org" "https://[www].[un].[org]/[insert word]" in this link by any word which will give the same result which is ERROR 404 and therefore artificially create a source and pretend that it's just a "dead link" ) a tactic used multiple times like here as well in the "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" reference 125 (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gaspd507.doc.htm ). Some references added such the ref number 154 ({{cite web |title=DPRK Diplomatic Relations |url=https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations) do not even mention literally neither the Polisario or the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic if you use the command ctrl+f in your browser, which imply that there is quite a lot of false info in this section that I have been warning about hence the two tags "unreliable source" and "better source" needed.

3) And regardless of whether this singular source (that is SPSRASD) that is repeated multiple times with the aim to give the reader some semblance of factuality, is reliable or not (it is not, as it is a press organ controlled by the Polisario that writes many fake news articles such as here https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html without any additional media confirming the various events on the ground and claims presented), one should always at least try to confirm statements through multiples additional independent media, hence why I added (One source|section) tag.

4) Independent and varied sources are very important to keep a high source of trust in the quality of the informations presented. Tsarisco (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's an overuse of the SPS as a source in this article, both in terms of relying solely on it and also using it multiple times for each country, there's no need to use 10 SPS articles when one single credible source is enough. But there's also an overuse of Moroccan media in the article, in fact the Moroccan sources are usually making claims that are impossible to verify elsewhere, like the claim on Cambodia recognizing Moroccan sovereignty when it didn't. Both the Sahrawi and Moroccan sources should be avoided to ensure a higher quality and credibility of the article.
I'll try to replace both of those types of sources with sources from either neutral international media, or official sources from the country in question (foreign ministry website, etc.)
As for the dead links it's simply the case of the websites updating their code sometimes so the URLs can stop functioning, the link you're referring to is not an invented source but and can be found here https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm, the URL just got slightly modified. And it so happens that I just fixed it. I'll try to fix the other links in the upcoming days.
I think you need to calm down a bit and verify things one at a time, instead of declaring it to be invented outright. Regards.Sizito (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sizito, how about we do this, we remove every single SPSRASD or Moroccan/Algerian news source and only keep those such as Reuters and others (as you said neutral international media, or official sources from the country in question (foreign ministry website, etc.), or the UN? To keep a maximum of objectivity and neutrality, as this all we need in this article, as for the Moroccan section (States siding with Morocco) I have added a dozens of sources reinforce the Moroccan claims (the overwhelming majority independent from Morocco) unfortunately it took me a lot of time doing so, so I'm glad you are putting the effort to add NON-SPSRASD sources to reinforce the info on the Polisario section. Tsarisco (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, I'll replace them gradually while looking for better alternatives. Although I would make an exception for Sahrawi articles that include photographic evidence (if there's any), if there's a picture of an ambassador receiving their credentials, or a handshake between foreign ministers or the like, that should count as an evidence of recognition.
Also the sourcing of this article needs a lot of work, there are many, many sources that are linked but have no mention of the claims made inside of them. For example you said you added sources to support the Moroccan claim, this source is used for Zambia https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2016/07/morocco-join-african-union-western-sahara-dispute-egypt.html, but it doesn't make any mentions of Zambia whatsoever.
And it goes without saying that we should avoid cheap blogs with no reputation that pretend to be news outlets, as well as websites that are Moroccan or publish heavily propagandized news about Morocco, while claiming to be regional websites (example: The North Africa Post). Sizito (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sizito: Keeping only third party reliable sources is definitely desirable. Thank you btw for putting in a lot of effort into cleaning up the article. Here are a couple of RS that you could add (Libya[9] and Mauritania[10]). The innacessible Ghana source is here.[11] M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.
The pro-Morocco section seems to be an even bigger mess, nothing leads to where it's supposed to. At least the RASD sources, as propagandistic as they are, tend to correlate with reality. Sizito (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. However biased it may be, the SPS is both an official and a far more reliable source than all of the Moroccan media outlets. I have yet to see the SPS lie about having a relationship with a country (this is what the article is about), contrary to the Moroccan sources that specialize inn twisting people's words to make them look at though they support their illegal occupation. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link that I posted that talks about the same 28 African Countries Call On The Immediate Suspension Of The ‘’SADR” - EIN Presswire (einnews.com) , with Zambia is definitely included if your read this article which mentions the signatories of the motion, Al Monitor doesn't mention all countries because it hasn't posted the text of the motion. Tsarisco (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I suggest using the original source/text that mentions the country, there is no point referencing something that doesn't directly mention what you're trying to prove.
Also suggesting the expulsion of the SADR doesn't equate recognizing Morocco's sovereignty over the disputed territories, or even a suspension of SADR recognition, as we can see Ghana still recognizes the country despite signing that motion. Recognition has to be made clear and not leave room for interpretation. Sizito (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Mr. President,   
The 28 Heads of State,  
A/ Bearing in mind the authentic ideals of the African construction;  B/ Faithful to the principles and objectives of the African Union, particularly the achievement of greater unity and solidarity between African States, the protection of their sovereignty and territorial integrity, the promotion of peace, security and stability on the continent, the promotion of international cooperation, taking due account of the Nations Charter and the creation of appropriate conditions for the continent to play its role in the global economy"
[...]
"Decide to act for the immediate suspension of the “Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic” from the activities of the African Union and all its bodies, to enable the AU to play a constructive role and contribute positively to UN efforts for a final settlement to the regional dispute over the Sahara. On behalf of these 28 countries, I urge you to include this motion among the documents of the Summit and ensure its distribution among member states. Please accept, Mr. President, the expression of my highest consideration”
Is there a 1000 other interpretation that can be made from this statement? Clearly they are talking here in the first paragraph about "territorial integrity" and in the last paragraph about kicking out SADR from the organisation which implies that countries in the Motion do not recognize SADR and it's claims over W.S region. Logically speaking this all makes sense doesn't it? Tsarisco (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source here Majority of African Countries Want Morocco Re-Take its Place in African Union – Middle East Confidential (me-confidential.com) also confirms the Al Monitor info about the 28 countries so there is no doubt about the veracity of the my sources, I agree with you Sizito that the Moroccan section needs to be looked at, by 1 removing the links from Moroccan blogs that have been proven to post fake news, random blogs should definitely not be taken seriously as a basis for factuality and accuracy (and I see that are about 4 countries in the Moroccan table that shouldn't be mentioned), there are several tags (better source needed) on the source (MoroccoWorldNews), as US based Morocco specialized platform (I just checked them), without giving any rational explanations, as example there is the tag (better source needed) next to the reference 101 (MoroccoWorldNews) even though there are several articles from various other website such as Reuters, Saudi Gazette, as well as website that directly keep an archive of what was written in the UN such as Reliefweb (references 102, 103, 104 respectively)
According to this news platform (MoroccoWorldNews) in the "about" section:
"Guiding Principles for Editors, Contributors, and Reporters:
  • Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
  • Always correct an error openly
  • Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
  • Always reveal a conflict of interest
  • Always respect privileged information
  • Always protect sources from the authorities
  • Always guard against putting the reporter’s opinion in a news story
  • Never fabricate or plagiarize
  • Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
  • Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe
  • MWN’s editorial policies may change from time to time."
I think we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt especially seeing the that the majority of their info as I said is reinforced by other news platform such as Reuters and the United Nations.
I definitely agree with you that sources such as "North Africa Post' should definitely be purged as they are nothing more than crappy blogs.
Regards Tsarisco (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of reliability of content related to Western Sahara, what "MoroccoWorldNews" publishes is less reliable than what is printed on a used toilet paper. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again "M.Bitton" you fail again just like yesterday to present any fact, and instead proceeds to answer with useless opinions that are completely irrelevant to the subjects, if you have any counter proofs that confirms your statements that that what they publish is "is less reliable than what is printed on a used toilet paper" then presents them, or just move on and stop wasting people's times.
Regards Tsarisco (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check their wiki page and the reliable source that describes them as a makhzenian source.[12] The fact that, after pretending to care about the reliability of sources, you even dare to suggest giving this pro-Moroccan crap a pass is just unbelievable (it clearly shows your intentions). M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki page is made up of literally 5 sentences... Again in order to dismiss a source from Wikipedia calling it " less reliable than what is printed on a used toilet paper" you need to demonstrate that it's infos are made up of false or at the very least inaccurate/misleading otherwise your statement is irrelevant. There is one source in the mentioned article "talking about makhzenian source" , a writer with an already made up opinion about the W.S conflict according to their writing where the sentence is mentioned, so they are far from a source of objectivity... And it's just one source, in the entire article talking about MWN in that way.. Tsarisco (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forget their wiki page, I gave you a reliable source that describes them as a maghzenian source. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't give me crap just useless bla bla bla anyone can read the convo my dear sir... the only thing you gave so far is the Wiki page... Tsarisco (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cited a reliable source just for you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already wrote what a reliable source is "M.Bitton" , in fact Sizito seems to agree with me on tags (unreliable source) concerning SPSRASD hence why he removed it you are the only one confused here, (MoroccoWorldNews), is a US based Morocco specialized platform (I just checked them), calling them "unreliable" without giving any rational explanations, when in reality next to the reference 101 (MoroccoWorldNews), there are several articles from various other website such as Reuters, Saudi Gazette, as well as website that directly keep an archive of what was written in the UN such as Reliefweb (references 102, 103, 104 respectively) which prove that you are wrong... and therefore because of that confirmes that MWN is perfectly objectively reliable..
But anyway I think I'm done wasting my time with you... Tsarisco (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sizito most definitely doesn't agree with you giving the crappy MWN a pass. They agree with using third part sources, which obviously excludes your favourite makhzenian source. M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with M.Bitton, MoroccoWorldNews is not credible at all, and it's the primary English-speaking news media of the Moroccan state so it can't be used as a serious source on the topic. Them saying that they're objective or deceitfully pretending to be based abroad doesn't mean anything. If you're going to complain about SPS then I don't see how MWN is acceptable to you. Sizito (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I complained about SPS because they did *literally* post fake news, I posted the articles in questions yesterday (3 articles) . Opinions about MWN should never be interpreted as facts, please provide factual proof that their infos aren't reliable, by showing me an example of an article posting misleadin/inaccurate or false info, otherwise it remains a simple opinion. Tsarisco (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is irrelevant. If you have a reliable source that describe them as unreliable, do present it (like I did for the crappy MWN), otherwise, I suggest you stop wasting people's time. M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These 3 different articles are fake news, as they haven't been confirmed by any third part independent international media or by Morocco...
SPLA units leave huge human and material losses in enemy ranks in Mahbes and Hauza regions | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info) SPLA carries out new attacks against Moroccan occupation forces in Hawza sector | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info) SPLA carries out new attacks against Moroccan occupation forces in Hawza sector | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info)
And the SPSRASD isn't just suspected of being part of the Polisario, it literally is... SPSRASD stands for (Sahrawi Press Service Republique Arabe Sahraoui Démocratique) literally in the name. My god... Tsarisco (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's your irrelevant opinion. The fact that what SPS publishes doesn't suit your political agenda has been noted. Now, what was all that pretend talk about using third party sources about? M.Bitton (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only political agenda is objectivity and facts. Perhaps you should learn from me... Tsarisco (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm a bit disappointed you turned around to try and defend Moroccan sources, when the deal was to abolish biased sources on both sides, to make the article as good as it can be.
I have a feeling you couldn't find alternative sources that support your claim, unlike the Polisario section where every country was easily verifiable from third parties.
I'll treat MNW the same way your treated the SPS, as a mere propaganda outlet. Sizito (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a single article that confirms this info? SPLA units leave huge human and material losses in enemy ranks in Mahbes and Hauza regions | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info) and besides I'm not the who put MWN as a source, all my sources are not tied to either Polisario or Morocco. If you can't that mean's that is a fake news, and now show me an article that contradict any info written by MWN? Tsarisco (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to show you a thing, especially now that that it's amply clear that you're wasting people's time by pretending to care about the quality of the sources, while in fact, you're only interested in applying your double standard to the sources that don't suit your political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't talking to you, please for the love of god, learn how Wikipedia function.., Tsarisco (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take advice from disruptive single purpose accounts. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I shouldn't be wasting my time when you changed your opinion on using Moroccan sources within a few hours. I have no guarantees that you aren't just trying to stall. Not to mention that you're engaging in a basic logical fallacy (burden of proof), trying to get others to prove things for you, as opposed to providing proof yourself, and when proof is provided you simply dismiss it. None of this makes it attractive to engage you.

Sizito, how about we do this, we remove every single SPSRASD or Moroccan/Algerian news source

I'll argue when I see that you started working on that thing above and that you have the right intentions, if a news is legit you should have no trouble finding credible neutral sources talking about it. Also don't forget to remove all the mirror sites that are caching Moroccan outlets, like this [8].
Best of luck. Sizito (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let's do it, remove every single Moroccan/SPSRASD/Algerian website, I'm totally down. I only talked about Morocco World News (a source which I never put in the first place..) which as far as I've seen is the one the most mentioned even if just next to it there are various sources confirming the articles written by it... It's a waste of time but let's do it... Tsarisco (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsarisco: both Sizito and I still don't understand how or why you changed your mind about using third party sources, especially after all the effort that was made by Sizito. If you don't want to make any effort to find them, that's your prerogative, but you can guess which section will be cleaned next. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ "Bahrain to open consulate in Western Sahara, Morocco says". Reuters. 27 November 2020.
  2. ^ "Question of Western Sahara: Report of the Secretary-General". Reliefweb. 19 October 2019.
  3. ^ "Bahrain and UAE welcome US recognition of Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara". Saudi Gazette. 11 December 2020.
  4. ^ "28 African Countries Call On The Immediate Suspension Of The SADR"". Newswire. 20 July 2016.
  5. ^ "Why Morocco really wants back in the African Union". Al-Monitor. 26 July 2016.
  6. ^ "Liberia: The Expulsion of the "Sadr", a Non-State Entity, From the African Union - a Prerequisite for an Effective Regional and Continental Integration / for the Premunition Against Separatism Liberia: The Expulsion of the "Sadr", a Non-State Entity, From the African Union - a Prerequisite for an Effective Regional and Continental Integration / for the Premunition Against Separatism :::::::". AllAfrica. 30 December 2021. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 386 (help)
  7. ^ "Sahara-Occidental : Le Maroc remonte sur le ring africain". Liberation. 20 July 2016.
  8. ^ "DEPUTY PERMANANT REPRESANTATIVE PAPUA NEW GUINEA PERMANANT MISSION TO THE UNITED NATION" (PDF). estatements unmeetings. 20 October 2021.
  9. ^ Various (2021). Routledge Library Editions: North Africa. Routledge. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-317-30445-6.
  10. ^ Edmund Jan Osmańczyk (2003). Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: G to M. Taylor & Francis. p. 1398. ISBN 978-0-415-93922-5.
  11. ^ "QUESTIONS OF GIBRALTAR, GUAM, WESTERN SAHARA DISCUSSED IN SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE - Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". Welcome to the United Nations. 27 Sep 2000. Retrieved 9 Jun 2022.
  12. ^ Smith, A.R.; An-Na'im, A.A.; Belghazi, T.; Cline, R.J.W.; Echkaou, H.; Donald G. Ellis, U.H.; Graiouid, S.; Hannan, J.; Hernandez, T.; Klyukanova, A. (2016). Radical Conflict: Essays on Violence, Intractability, and Communication. Peace and Conflict Studies. Lexington Books. p. 221. ISBN 978-1-4985-2178-9.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&oldid=1092388515"