This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Below is an excerpt from the report published by the UN visiting mission in 1975. I think it proves that the UN mission found WS was in favour of independence: "Owing to the large measure of cooperation which it received from the Spanish authorities, the Mission was able, despite the shortness of its stay in the Territory, to visit virtually all the main population centers and to ascertain the views of the ovverwhelming majority of their inhabitants. At every place visited, the Mission was met by mass political demonstrations and had numerous private meetings with representatives of every section of the Saharan community. From all these, it became evident to the Mission that there was an overwhelming consensus among Saharans within the Territory in favour of independence and opposing integration with any neighbouring country.... "The Mission believes, in the light of what it witnessed in the Territory, especially the mass demonstrations of support for one movement, the Frente Polisario..., that its visit served as a catalyst to bring into the open political forces and pressures which had previously been largely submerged. It was all the more significant to the Mission that this came as a surprise to the Spanish authorities who, until then, had only been partly aware of the profound political awakening of the population." (my bolds) Arre 23:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Here is the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975. Daryou 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) those are two different UN opinions. there was a UN visiting mission, and THEN came the ICJ verdict. please read the text again, you'll see that this sentence refers to the visiting mission, which i quoted above. Arre 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1. i copied that text from somewhere on wsahara.net, but the original is from the UN visiting mission's report. stop removing this from the page. it is two different texts, the verdict and the visiting mission, and you're confusing them. Arre 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
2. oh, sorry, you hadn't removed it this time... my mistake :o) Arre 00:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. what UN evidence? of what? i am sorry, but i just can't understand what you are asking for. please, again, note that the ICJ verdict and the visiting mission's report are TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS. 2. your second comment (sadr-sweden) doesn't seem to be related to anything on this talk page or in the article. Arre 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. ah, then I see. well, i've seen that quote (and other quotes from the report) in many places, so there's no question of it being made up. but if you want the whole report, i don't think its on the internet since it's so old. except of course as quotes from various publications (however, if you find the whole report out there somewhere, please let me know). in hodges its listed as "United Nations Visiting Mission to Spanish Sahara, 1975, in General Assembly Official Records, 30th Session, Supplement 23, UN DocumentA/10023/Rev". it was a three-man delegation headed by simeon aké. 2. those countries recognize WS precisely as an independent, sovereign state (albeit occupied) and SADR as its legitimate government. that is why they (south africa, nigeria, east timor) have diplomatic relations with SADR on a state-to-state level, whereas most other countries (such as morocco, USA, sweden) only have that with the SADR as a party of the WS conflict or as a non-governmental organization. Arre 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Arre 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Answers
Anyway, here are some further quotes from him (same book, Western Sahara: The Roots of a Desert War, Lawrence & Hill Co., USA, 1983). Any misspellings are mine, since I typed them myself:
Okay? This must be clear now. Those little mentions of the UN mission's conclusions are probably the most well-sourced sentences on Wikipedia right now :-) ... I will accordingly reenter it. If you want to delete them again, I am going to ask some one to come over and look at this dispute, since I think I have presented near-ridiculous amounts of proof. Please note that I'm not angry, hostile or upset, or anything, but I really can't keep arguing like this, if you don't present any constructive evidence for why this must not be included. I just don't have the time to write page after page on this if it's simply a question of denial. Okay? No hard feelings, but that's how I see this. Oh, and I almost forgot! :-)
Best regards, Arre 00:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Deletions Why do you keep on deleting relevant material? Fayssal, since you protected this page, will you intervene here? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 08:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
grand theft auto 6 31.4.150.139 ( talk) 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Below is an excerpt from the report published by the UN visiting mission in 1975. I think it proves that the UN mission found WS was in favour of independence: "Owing to the large measure of cooperation which it received from the Spanish authorities, the Mission was able, despite the shortness of its stay in the Territory, to visit virtually all the main population centers and to ascertain the views of the ovverwhelming majority of their inhabitants. At every place visited, the Mission was met by mass political demonstrations and had numerous private meetings with representatives of every section of the Saharan community. From all these, it became evident to the Mission that there was an overwhelming consensus among Saharans within the Territory in favour of independence and opposing integration with any neighbouring country.... "The Mission believes, in the light of what it witnessed in the Territory, especially the mass demonstrations of support for one movement, the Frente Polisario..., that its visit served as a catalyst to bring into the open political forces and pressures which had previously been largely submerged. It was all the more significant to the Mission that this came as a surprise to the Spanish authorities who, until then, had only been partly aware of the profound political awakening of the population." (my bolds) Arre 23:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC) Here is the ICJ Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975. Daryou 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC) those are two different UN opinions. there was a UN visiting mission, and THEN came the ICJ verdict. please read the text again, you'll see that this sentence refers to the visiting mission, which i quoted above. Arre 23:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
1. i copied that text from somewhere on wsahara.net, but the original is from the UN visiting mission's report. stop removing this from the page. it is two different texts, the verdict and the visiting mission, and you're confusing them. Arre 00:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
2. oh, sorry, you hadn't removed it this time... my mistake :o) Arre 00:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. what UN evidence? of what? i am sorry, but i just can't understand what you are asking for. please, again, note that the ICJ verdict and the visiting mission's report are TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS. 2. your second comment (sadr-sweden) doesn't seem to be related to anything on this talk page or in the article. Arre 22:57, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
1. ah, then I see. well, i've seen that quote (and other quotes from the report) in many places, so there's no question of it being made up. but if you want the whole report, i don't think its on the internet since it's so old. except of course as quotes from various publications (however, if you find the whole report out there somewhere, please let me know). in hodges its listed as "United Nations Visiting Mission to Spanish Sahara, 1975, in General Assembly Official Records, 30th Session, Supplement 23, UN DocumentA/10023/Rev". it was a three-man delegation headed by simeon aké. 2. those countries recognize WS precisely as an independent, sovereign state (albeit occupied) and SADR as its legitimate government. that is why they (south africa, nigeria, east timor) have diplomatic relations with SADR on a state-to-state level, whereas most other countries (such as morocco, USA, sweden) only have that with the SADR as a party of the WS conflict or as a non-governmental organization. Arre 00:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Arre 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Answers
Anyway, here are some further quotes from him (same book, Western Sahara: The Roots of a Desert War, Lawrence & Hill Co., USA, 1983). Any misspellings are mine, since I typed them myself:
Okay? This must be clear now. Those little mentions of the UN mission's conclusions are probably the most well-sourced sentences on Wikipedia right now :-) ... I will accordingly reenter it. If you want to delete them again, I am going to ask some one to come over and look at this dispute, since I think I have presented near-ridiculous amounts of proof. Please note that I'm not angry, hostile or upset, or anything, but I really can't keep arguing like this, if you don't present any constructive evidence for why this must not be included. I just don't have the time to write page after page on this if it's simply a question of denial. Okay? No hard feelings, but that's how I see this. Oh, and I almost forgot! :-)
Best regards, Arre 00:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Deletions Why do you keep on deleting relevant material? Fayssal, since you protected this page, will you intervene here? - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 08:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
grand theft auto 6 31.4.150.139 ( talk) 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)