![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No more time ago some person erase the table with; the dirham, de facto and others dates. Please CRC or some person put this away.
Why? Why would you delete sourced, relevant info? Why would you put this as a main article in a Morocco category? Why would you revert to redirect links? This is nonsense. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The Activist PR type listing of very Scandinavian grocery store that ostentasiously indicates it's not buying X, Y or Z from Western Saharan territories is not encyclopedic. Nor are unverified emails cited by activist websites. It's trivia. A paragraph discussing cessation of business deals where W. Saharan products are suspected to be involved is encyclopedic. The present text is Agit-Prop. ( collounsbury ( talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC))
This article has multiple issue, primarily its not WP:NPOV and the sourcing is to one site Western Sahara Resource Watch [1] which describes as an activist group to campaing against corporations working for Moroccan interests. Gnan garra 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would an area where solar energy could be developed profitably continue to produce ALL its electricity from fossil fuels?
However, in the article, we read:
Desertec is an energy project launched in Munich in 2009, consisting on the use of solar and wind technology in the Sahara desert, with the aim to provide that energy generated to African and European countries.
In April 2010, a Desertec spokesperson confirmed to the English newspaper The Guardian that the project will not be placed in disputed Western Sahara, saying: "We want to confirm… officially that our reference projects will not be located in the West Sahara. When looking for project sites, Desertec Industrial Initiative will also take political, ecological or cultural issues into consideration. This procedure is in line with the funding policies of international development banks." [1]
Now if any other new electricity generator contributes from renewables at least 1% of the electricity that is consumed in Western Sahara, the electricity consumed there is no longer completely (100%) drawn from fossil fuels. Hasn't that happened yet, in the face of the SDGs? I suggest that this article should be updated. MaynardClark ( talk) 22:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can resolve all the above, but I inserted new statistics from the CIA's World Factbook, which was the best I could find for that part. And I removed the associated warning atop the article . FloridaSammi ( talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I read through the above, and I'm still not sure about the precise COI concern--is the worry that someone who posted here was a member of the activist group cited several times in the references? I'm going to try to remove some of the activist citations and replace them with news, but in any case it seems a little redundant with the neutrality warning. So I moved the latter up to the top and removed the former for now. I will work a bit more to try to improve this issue, too. FloridaSammi ( talk) 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I removed some of the stuff without a 3rd-party, newsy source. I also cited stuff to news wherever possible, like the battles over offshore oil and fishing. I rearranged a bit as well. But I definitely don't think I've solved the neutrality problem, which is a bit above my paygrade. Hopefully an expert will someday address this one, who's familiar with the tangle of issues and prepared to represent both sides. It seems fairly involved. FloridaSammi ( talk) 19:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No more time ago some person erase the table with; the dirham, de facto and others dates. Please CRC or some person put this away.
Why? Why would you delete sourced, relevant info? Why would you put this as a main article in a Morocco category? Why would you revert to redirect links? This is nonsense. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The Activist PR type listing of very Scandinavian grocery store that ostentasiously indicates it's not buying X, Y or Z from Western Saharan territories is not encyclopedic. Nor are unverified emails cited by activist websites. It's trivia. A paragraph discussing cessation of business deals where W. Saharan products are suspected to be involved is encyclopedic. The present text is Agit-Prop. ( collounsbury ( talk) 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC))
This article has multiple issue, primarily its not WP:NPOV and the sourcing is to one site Western Sahara Resource Watch [1] which describes as an activist group to campaing against corporations working for Moroccan interests. Gnan garra 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Why would an area where solar energy could be developed profitably continue to produce ALL its electricity from fossil fuels?
However, in the article, we read:
Desertec is an energy project launched in Munich in 2009, consisting on the use of solar and wind technology in the Sahara desert, with the aim to provide that energy generated to African and European countries.
In April 2010, a Desertec spokesperson confirmed to the English newspaper The Guardian that the project will not be placed in disputed Western Sahara, saying: "We want to confirm… officially that our reference projects will not be located in the West Sahara. When looking for project sites, Desertec Industrial Initiative will also take political, ecological or cultural issues into consideration. This procedure is in line with the funding policies of international development banks." [1]
Now if any other new electricity generator contributes from renewables at least 1% of the electricity that is consumed in Western Sahara, the electricity consumed there is no longer completely (100%) drawn from fossil fuels. Hasn't that happened yet, in the face of the SDGs? I suggest that this article should be updated. MaynardClark ( talk) 22:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can resolve all the above, but I inserted new statistics from the CIA's World Factbook, which was the best I could find for that part. And I removed the associated warning atop the article . FloridaSammi ( talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
References
I read through the above, and I'm still not sure about the precise COI concern--is the worry that someone who posted here was a member of the activist group cited several times in the references? I'm going to try to remove some of the activist citations and replace them with news, but in any case it seems a little redundant with the neutrality warning. So I moved the latter up to the top and removed the former for now. I will work a bit more to try to improve this issue, too. FloridaSammi ( talk) 19:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I removed some of the stuff without a 3rd-party, newsy source. I also cited stuff to news wherever possible, like the battles over offshore oil and fishing. I rearranged a bit as well. But I definitely don't think I've solved the neutrality problem, which is a bit above my paygrade. Hopefully an expert will someday address this one, who's familiar with the tangle of issues and prepared to represent both sides. It seems fairly involved. FloridaSammi ( talk) 19:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)