This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Western Sahara War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I dispute with the date of 1973 as the beginning of the war, in 95% of the articles I've read about the issue puts on 1975 as the date of the starting of the hostilities (for some authors the date is 1976). Of course the Polisario Front fight against Spanish Army started in 1973, but this confrontation was more small raids on Spanish military posts on the north than a war. Also, for example, Polisario started to fight against Moroccan forces (Front Liberation & Unity) infiltrated in W. Sahara in 1974, but it were skirmishes on some parts of Saguia El-Hamra, not a war. It was in late 1975, with the invasion of the armies of Morocco & Mauritania when the war started, with generalized fighting (Farciya, Mahbes, Smara, Dakhla, Lagouira...).-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 12:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's begin with the first paragraph : The Western Sahara War was the armed conflict which saw the Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement Polisario Front battling Morocco and Mauritania for the decolonization and independence of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara from 1975 to 1991. The war resulted in the Spanish retreat in 1976 (Polisario had fought against Spanish forces since its creation in 1973), the Mauritanian retreat in 1979 and a cease fire agreement with Morocco. The bigger part of the territory remained under Moroccan control.
First : Polisario Front was fighting for independence not for decolonization, decolonization needs a referendum, the two parties were agreed for that after the war not during the war
Second : western sahara is not a former spanish colony but is still considered legally as a spanish colony despite the spanish retreat
Third : if polisario has fought spanish forces since 1973, morocc has fighted them since 1958 when the moroccan king Mohamed V claimed soereignty over western sahara in the same year
Fourth : "sahrawi rebel national liberation" is a secundary information that must be inserted in Polisario front article, if you insist that it should be mentionned in this article, then we should replace morocco by "The moroccan-Sahraoui liberation army", moreover many mauritanian soldiers enrolled polisario, so we can't speak about "sahrawi rebel national liberation" but only "a national movement of liberation"
Sincerely -- Yusuf ibn Tashfin ( talk) 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is plenty of non-neutral Terms like "moroccan attack", it was a war between 2 armies, both of them are attacking and counter-attacking, not only morocco was attacking, this article is in general not neutral, and try to give a false reality about the war and the history of the territory, favoring one party over an other...(kind of propaganda) and using some questionable spanish antimoroccan sources -- Yusuf ibn Tashfin ( talk) 10:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear user Stegop, please notice the difference between the Western Sahara conflict (Polisario Front dispute for Independence), which has lasted since 1975 till today; and its first phase - the Western Sahara War, which went on from 1975 until 1991. Mixing interiwikis of the "conflict" and the "war" is messing up things. Thank you for understanding. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of the edits I've made were justified, I removed bits that were non-factual, dramatized and based on personal assumptions. I didn't remove sourced content I edited the sources with more credible ones that aren't affiliated with any side of the conflict.
1) The Western Sahara is under Moroccan control as it also administers the area as opposed to just occupying it.
2)The percentage of land Morocco controls isn't clear as it's difficult to assess as the borders between the Polisario and Mauritania aren't clear. So, it's more based on assumptions than facts.
3) Islamic Jihad is an accurate description of the nature of the activities led by the Polisario as it also has a religious and political aspect to it. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2011-005886_EN.html?redirect
4) Morocco was able to achieve decisive gains as it now controls the majority of the territory. 5) Since building the wall Morocco was on the defensive as they didn't try to capture the rest of the territory and were mostly stationed behind the wall.
6) The report that Saudi Arabia helped Morocco before the ceasefire is biased and couldn't be verified with independent sources.
7) The polisario did use using women and kids as a human shield, i referenced independent sources, and I don't see why it should be removed other than trying to make them look good for the lack of better words.
I'm not used to working with Wikipedia, if you have any objections, discuss them with me here rather than reverting my edits for no reason without providing any counter-arguments.
one has to be mentally impaired to confuse my personal point of view with an outside point of view.First personal attack.
I didn't remove any source for 4, again you have to be impaired to think I did.Second personal attack.
M.Bitton, in reality, it seems that your POV is the one that's baseless.
1. "The fact that Morocco occupies (illegally for that matter) Western Sahara can be attributed to a raft of reliable source." Morocco does not "illegally occupy" Western Sahara, it administers/controls (most) of it, around 75-80% of the territory. Morocco has administrative control over W.S. according to the UN (a reliable source), so the fact that they "occupy" is your POV.
2. " and we'll also add that the Moroccans shot at those defenseless women and kids (with a source of course)" Constantly claiming to have "reliable sources" to support your claim is not the same as actually providing them. If that what you have claimed was true, the media, mainly media in the West would go nuts. Can you provide any reliable source to support your claim??
3. Morocco's military position in W.S. has been mainly defensive of the land west of the Berm Wall it controls, while the Polisario Front has been offensive and had multiple failed (ongoing) attempts to expand the territory of the so called "S.A.D.R." or "Liberated Territories". We can also add that in reference to those women and kids, the Polisario Front has been exploiting them and brought them to Guerguerat while they were hassling/harassing truckers crossing into Mauritania. They violated international law as well as the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement between Morocco and the Polisario brokered by the UN. Thanks. - AdDakhla
Hi, I made 2 articles about battles, they were declined for "Not having sources". The thing is there are little to no sources that I can find, help me please. The battles were: Draft:Battle of Tifariti and Draft:Battle of Tifariti
Refusing to call the Polisario members and population indigenous or describe them as Sahrawi implies that others who live under Moroccan rule are not indigenous nor Sahrawi. We conclude from associating Polisario with the Sahrawi indentity or even calling them exlusively indigenous, provides them an exclusive right to associate with those terms. You can't call a Moroccan citizen who lives in the Sahara region simply "Moroccan" - while at the same time call Polisario members "Sahrawi" just for belonging to the same exact region. This is bias and Pro-Polisario propaganda. Mohamed.sakhiri ( talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
reliable sources are biasedwhat you think of the reliable sources is irrelevant (I suggest you familiarize yourself with our core content policies). I'm done here (as there is just much baseless WP:OR I can entertain). M.Bitton ( talk) 16:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
there must be an equal representation of narrative. That is not how this project works. You can stake out two opposing sides on any given topic, but (for example) Wikipedia isn't going to give equal representation to the idea that the earth is flat. MrOllie ( talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Western Sahara War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I dispute with the date of 1973 as the beginning of the war, in 95% of the articles I've read about the issue puts on 1975 as the date of the starting of the hostilities (for some authors the date is 1976). Of course the Polisario Front fight against Spanish Army started in 1973, but this confrontation was more small raids on Spanish military posts on the north than a war. Also, for example, Polisario started to fight against Moroccan forces (Front Liberation & Unity) infiltrated in W. Sahara in 1974, but it were skirmishes on some parts of Saguia El-Hamra, not a war. It was in late 1975, with the invasion of the armies of Morocco & Mauritania when the war started, with generalized fighting (Farciya, Mahbes, Smara, Dakhla, Lagouira...).-- HCPUNXKID ( talk) 12:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's begin with the first paragraph : The Western Sahara War was the armed conflict which saw the Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement Polisario Front battling Morocco and Mauritania for the decolonization and independence of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara from 1975 to 1991. The war resulted in the Spanish retreat in 1976 (Polisario had fought against Spanish forces since its creation in 1973), the Mauritanian retreat in 1979 and a cease fire agreement with Morocco. The bigger part of the territory remained under Moroccan control.
First : Polisario Front was fighting for independence not for decolonization, decolonization needs a referendum, the two parties were agreed for that after the war not during the war
Second : western sahara is not a former spanish colony but is still considered legally as a spanish colony despite the spanish retreat
Third : if polisario has fought spanish forces since 1973, morocc has fighted them since 1958 when the moroccan king Mohamed V claimed soereignty over western sahara in the same year
Fourth : "sahrawi rebel national liberation" is a secundary information that must be inserted in Polisario front article, if you insist that it should be mentionned in this article, then we should replace morocco by "The moroccan-Sahraoui liberation army", moreover many mauritanian soldiers enrolled polisario, so we can't speak about "sahrawi rebel national liberation" but only "a national movement of liberation"
Sincerely -- Yusuf ibn Tashfin ( talk) 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is plenty of non-neutral Terms like "moroccan attack", it was a war between 2 armies, both of them are attacking and counter-attacking, not only morocco was attacking, this article is in general not neutral, and try to give a false reality about the war and the history of the territory, favoring one party over an other...(kind of propaganda) and using some questionable spanish antimoroccan sources -- Yusuf ibn Tashfin ( talk) 10:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear user Stegop, please notice the difference between the Western Sahara conflict (Polisario Front dispute for Independence), which has lasted since 1975 till today; and its first phase - the Western Sahara War, which went on from 1975 until 1991. Mixing interiwikis of the "conflict" and the "war" is messing up things. Thank you for understanding. Greyshark09 ( talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Most of the edits I've made were justified, I removed bits that were non-factual, dramatized and based on personal assumptions. I didn't remove sourced content I edited the sources with more credible ones that aren't affiliated with any side of the conflict.
1) The Western Sahara is under Moroccan control as it also administers the area as opposed to just occupying it.
2)The percentage of land Morocco controls isn't clear as it's difficult to assess as the borders between the Polisario and Mauritania aren't clear. So, it's more based on assumptions than facts.
3) Islamic Jihad is an accurate description of the nature of the activities led by the Polisario as it also has a religious and political aspect to it. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2011-005886_EN.html?redirect
4) Morocco was able to achieve decisive gains as it now controls the majority of the territory. 5) Since building the wall Morocco was on the defensive as they didn't try to capture the rest of the territory and were mostly stationed behind the wall.
6) The report that Saudi Arabia helped Morocco before the ceasefire is biased and couldn't be verified with independent sources.
7) The polisario did use using women and kids as a human shield, i referenced independent sources, and I don't see why it should be removed other than trying to make them look good for the lack of better words.
I'm not used to working with Wikipedia, if you have any objections, discuss them with me here rather than reverting my edits for no reason without providing any counter-arguments.
one has to be mentally impaired to confuse my personal point of view with an outside point of view.First personal attack.
I didn't remove any source for 4, again you have to be impaired to think I did.Second personal attack.
M.Bitton, in reality, it seems that your POV is the one that's baseless.
1. "The fact that Morocco occupies (illegally for that matter) Western Sahara can be attributed to a raft of reliable source." Morocco does not "illegally occupy" Western Sahara, it administers/controls (most) of it, around 75-80% of the territory. Morocco has administrative control over W.S. according to the UN (a reliable source), so the fact that they "occupy" is your POV.
2. " and we'll also add that the Moroccans shot at those defenseless women and kids (with a source of course)" Constantly claiming to have "reliable sources" to support your claim is not the same as actually providing them. If that what you have claimed was true, the media, mainly media in the West would go nuts. Can you provide any reliable source to support your claim??
3. Morocco's military position in W.S. has been mainly defensive of the land west of the Berm Wall it controls, while the Polisario Front has been offensive and had multiple failed (ongoing) attempts to expand the territory of the so called "S.A.D.R." or "Liberated Territories". We can also add that in reference to those women and kids, the Polisario Front has been exploiting them and brought them to Guerguerat while they were hassling/harassing truckers crossing into Mauritania. They violated international law as well as the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement between Morocco and the Polisario brokered by the UN. Thanks. - AdDakhla
Hi, I made 2 articles about battles, they were declined for "Not having sources". The thing is there are little to no sources that I can find, help me please. The battles were: Draft:Battle of Tifariti and Draft:Battle of Tifariti
Refusing to call the Polisario members and population indigenous or describe them as Sahrawi implies that others who live under Moroccan rule are not indigenous nor Sahrawi. We conclude from associating Polisario with the Sahrawi indentity or even calling them exlusively indigenous, provides them an exclusive right to associate with those terms. You can't call a Moroccan citizen who lives in the Sahara region simply "Moroccan" - while at the same time call Polisario members "Sahrawi" just for belonging to the same exact region. This is bias and Pro-Polisario propaganda. Mohamed.sakhiri ( talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
reliable sources are biasedwhat you think of the reliable sources is irrelevant (I suggest you familiarize yourself with our core content policies). I'm done here (as there is just much baseless WP:OR I can entertain). M.Bitton ( talk) 16:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
there must be an equal representation of narrative. That is not how this project works. You can stake out two opposing sides on any given topic, but (for example) Wikipedia isn't going to give equal representation to the idea that the earth is flat. MrOllie ( talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)