This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic template. |
|
Africa: Western Sahara Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Politics Template‑class | |||||||
|
I believe this template refers to Western Sahara's politics, and should therefore have the flag of Western Sahara. This does not mean bias against the Moroccan viewpoint (that WS is Moroccan), since there simply is no "politics of Western Sahara" in the Moroccan context; just "the Southern Provinces".
It is the same case as with Template:Politics of Palestine; it would be really weird (and incredibly POV) to put an Israeli flag there , since it only concerns intra-Palestinian politics (and I believe this template is for intra-Sahrawi politics, since Morocco has its own template). This does not mean that Wikipedia denies the Israeli claims on Palestinian territory, since that particular conflict is covered extensively in the text of those articles. It just means that, just as it is not reasonable to have the Fatah page headed by an Israeli flag, it is not reasonable to have the Polisario etc pages headed by Moroccan flags.
The references to Western Sahara's present non-sovereignty and the link to Moroccan politics are informative and appropriate, though.
Cheers, Arre 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC).
I repeat, Western Sahara isn't for SADR what France is for Republic of France, Otherwise there wouldn't be any conflict. (Remember what Palestenian Terrotories are for State of Palestine) Daryou 00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This infobox should not have the Moroccan flag. It is about the politics of Western Sahara, and all WS politics does not concern Morocco (for example interior workings of the SADR, jat achahid etc). If you argue that some WS political events also concern Morocco, then the same goes the other way around. Are you prepared to be consistent and add the Sahrawi flag to the Moroccan infobox? (Personally, I think that would be just as bad.) Arre 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
All articles dealing with WS politics refer also to Moroccan politics because Morocco claims and controls most of the territory. It's about neutrality of WP, the territory is claimed by Morocco and SADR, there is 2 solutions: change the titles of the WS politics pages into "SADR politics" or comply with WP neutrality and add the Moroccan flag. All your edits put WS related articles in a pro-polisario context, it seems to me that you are a little bit biased to polisario :) . Thanks. Daryou 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
WS is disputed between Morocco and Polisario, Morocco isn't disputed between Morocco and Polisario. The Moroccan flag has its place in the Western Sahara (a disputed territory) politics related pages, the Polisario's one has nothing to do in Moroccan pages.
Daryou 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
===>Let's be consistent So, should I add the flag of Israel to the Palestinian infobox, too? Justin (koavf) 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We all know the meaning of palestinian politics; there is a confusion about WS which is a disputed territory. If the title of the pages was "politics of SADR" I won't contest any thing. actually the title is politics of WS. WS isn't for SADR what France is for republic of France. Daryou 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
===>I can't understand you What does this mean:
"We all know the meaning of palestinian politics..."
Israel is an occupier, Morocco is an occupier. It's politically inappopriate to put Morocco's flag here. Justin (koavf) 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It's about neutrality of WP, each side of the conflict has its arguments, WP have to stay neutral in this conflict, the Moroccan flag is relevant. Daryou 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Daryou has broken is one off breaking the 3RR. Can you not find a better way to resolve this? -
FrancisTyers 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
So, the first problem in this template is regarding which flags to include. I've been to the politics pages of similar states and made a list:
Wikipedia seems to be split between having just one flag (the flag of the nation/government) and having two (one for the "internationally recognised" (IR) government and one for the non-recognised (NR) government).
There doesn't seem to be a politics page with an IR government flag below an NR government flag, so I would think that thats not the best way to continue. The Palestinian page is not appropriate to compare as it redirects to Politics of the Palestinian National Authority which is about a government not a country. If we were to make that comparison then both this template and the page would have to be moved.
Seeing as this is about a government in exile, we could treat it like Politics of Tibet and have solely a Western Sahara flag, or seeing as it is a disputed territory, we could treat it like Politics of Kosovo and have no flag.
I would recommend removing both flags, per Politics of Kosovo while the dispute is resolved. - FrancisTyers 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a vote, but you might want to explain your preference, reason etc. beneath the ones you approve of. - FrancisTyers 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
===>Further inconsistency You'll note that Daryou contradicts himself when he a.) consistently inserts the Moroccan flag and then b.) appeals to an article where no flags are present. Furthermore, in his edit summaries, he asks that we refer to talk or reach consensus, when he's the one that is brazenly putting in the Moroccan flag without any consensus or discussion beforehand. Justin (koavf) 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
==>Move to SADR, if you want A no-flags option is simply acquiescing to his demands, rather than seeking consensus. The consensus is to leave it as is. Frankly, Daryou, from what I can understand of your comments, I find your allegations absurd and baseless. I've worked to find consensus on several edits before, on a variety of topics. On the other hand, you apparently have no interest in Wikipedia outside of pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda, which makes it impossible to seek consensus with you. Justin (koavf) 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that there is two solutions to resolve the dispute in Template:Politics of Western Sahara and in the Independence Intifada pages:
So, Justin what do you think? Is this compromise ok? We move this template to Template:Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and include the flag? I haven't looked at the Independence Intifada page yet, but you can discuss which infoboxes should be included on the talk page there. - FrancisTyers 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
===>Fine. An SADR infobox with a Western Sahara flag is fine by me. A Moroccan flag is totally inapporpriate, of course. Justin (koavf) 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks wikima 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Other Change: Pease don't mix-up the so caled "Sahrawi Republic" with Western Sahara. Thanks. wikima 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>What? Did you read the discussion that went on above, and the consensus reached? You offered no new arguments or evidence! What are you doing? How is redirecting a Western Sahara template to a Moroccan one not an "abuse of Western Sahara in naming templates?" Are you going to start presenting your ideas for consensus or not? - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikima 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>Consensus In case you weren't aware, consensus is a guideline on Wikipedia. It's how the entire enterprise works. If you keep on making edits contrary to consensus, you will keep on being reverted and very likely blocked. If you want to reject the consensus of the editors in your heart, I don't care, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. No one is concerned about the contents of your mind; we are concerned about the actions that you take. If you want to persuade us to change our opinions, you'll have to present some actual evidence and a cogent argument rather than ranting. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikima 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>Western Sahara and SADR The statement "*Western Sahara in not [a] part of [the] 'SADR' [sic]" is POV. No article on Wikipedia asserts that Western Sahara is or is not rightfully a part of the SADR or Morocco. All of the articles simply state who is currently administering the parts of the territory and what the stated positions are of the interested parties. Granted, a consensu[s] is not a [B]ible, no one is saying that consensus is always correct. All I'm saying is this is how it works. Ignore it at your own peril and frustration. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikima 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
A:
{{Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}
B:
wikima 20:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>Let's get some things straight I know that no article confirms "WS is [a] part of 'SADR.'" Also, no article confirms that WS is a part of the Kingdom of Morocco. They are written from a neutral point-of-view. Control of the territory is only disputed by you. People who have actually been there say that the SADR control it, and you refuse to believe them for some reason. I didn't attack you. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic claims Western Sahara, so that is why it is referenced in the template. Some of the articles are "X of Western Sahara" and others are "X of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" where one or the other refers to the territory or the political entity. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
1/ A: The redirect from WS templates to "sadr" and 2/ B: The ambiguity in the "sadr" template by including "Politics and government of Western Sahara"
A:
B:
wikima 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"We live in a free world" — an interesting turn of phrase... - FrancisTyers 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
===>You're arguing past Arre rather than with him
I am trying to insert a POV tag that shows on the template. Any one has an idea of an elegant way to do?
Thanks wikima 17:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Not necessarily Usually, it's not desirable to have a template inside a template. When there are disputes or votes for deletion, the templates about the dispute are not included within the template itself. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The template is part of the article and the contents. If it displays information that is disputed this must be reflected. Now "Politics and government of Western Sahara" is a strong POV i my view as there is no governement in that territory. This hoevers continues to display in articles. And this shoudl not be the case. Discussions can take time.
wikima 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Templates within templates The only precedent that comes to mind is the templates listed for deletion. If you want to delete a template, you don't insert the notice inside the template itself, you <noinclude> it. And there are two governments in Western Sahara: The Kingdom of Morocco in the Southern Provinces and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in the Free Zone. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic template. |
|
Africa: Western Sahara Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Politics Template‑class | |||||||
|
I believe this template refers to Western Sahara's politics, and should therefore have the flag of Western Sahara. This does not mean bias against the Moroccan viewpoint (that WS is Moroccan), since there simply is no "politics of Western Sahara" in the Moroccan context; just "the Southern Provinces".
It is the same case as with Template:Politics of Palestine; it would be really weird (and incredibly POV) to put an Israeli flag there , since it only concerns intra-Palestinian politics (and I believe this template is for intra-Sahrawi politics, since Morocco has its own template). This does not mean that Wikipedia denies the Israeli claims on Palestinian territory, since that particular conflict is covered extensively in the text of those articles. It just means that, just as it is not reasonable to have the Fatah page headed by an Israeli flag, it is not reasonable to have the Polisario etc pages headed by Moroccan flags.
The references to Western Sahara's present non-sovereignty and the link to Moroccan politics are informative and appropriate, though.
Cheers, Arre 23:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC).
I repeat, Western Sahara isn't for SADR what France is for Republic of France, Otherwise there wouldn't be any conflict. (Remember what Palestenian Terrotories are for State of Palestine) Daryou 00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This infobox should not have the Moroccan flag. It is about the politics of Western Sahara, and all WS politics does not concern Morocco (for example interior workings of the SADR, jat achahid etc). If you argue that some WS political events also concern Morocco, then the same goes the other way around. Are you prepared to be consistent and add the Sahrawi flag to the Moroccan infobox? (Personally, I think that would be just as bad.) Arre 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
All articles dealing with WS politics refer also to Moroccan politics because Morocco claims and controls most of the territory. It's about neutrality of WP, the territory is claimed by Morocco and SADR, there is 2 solutions: change the titles of the WS politics pages into "SADR politics" or comply with WP neutrality and add the Moroccan flag. All your edits put WS related articles in a pro-polisario context, it seems to me that you are a little bit biased to polisario :) . Thanks. Daryou 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
WS is disputed between Morocco and Polisario, Morocco isn't disputed between Morocco and Polisario. The Moroccan flag has its place in the Western Sahara (a disputed territory) politics related pages, the Polisario's one has nothing to do in Moroccan pages.
Daryou 16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
===>Let's be consistent So, should I add the flag of Israel to the Palestinian infobox, too? Justin (koavf) 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
We all know the meaning of palestinian politics; there is a confusion about WS which is a disputed territory. If the title of the pages was "politics of SADR" I won't contest any thing. actually the title is politics of WS. WS isn't for SADR what France is for republic of France. Daryou 19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
===>I can't understand you What does this mean:
"We all know the meaning of palestinian politics..."
Israel is an occupier, Morocco is an occupier. It's politically inappopriate to put Morocco's flag here. Justin (koavf) 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It's about neutrality of WP, each side of the conflict has its arguments, WP have to stay neutral in this conflict, the Moroccan flag is relevant. Daryou 22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Daryou has broken is one off breaking the 3RR. Can you not find a better way to resolve this? -
FrancisTyers 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
So, the first problem in this template is regarding which flags to include. I've been to the politics pages of similar states and made a list:
Wikipedia seems to be split between having just one flag (the flag of the nation/government) and having two (one for the "internationally recognised" (IR) government and one for the non-recognised (NR) government).
There doesn't seem to be a politics page with an IR government flag below an NR government flag, so I would think that thats not the best way to continue. The Palestinian page is not appropriate to compare as it redirects to Politics of the Palestinian National Authority which is about a government not a country. If we were to make that comparison then both this template and the page would have to be moved.
Seeing as this is about a government in exile, we could treat it like Politics of Tibet and have solely a Western Sahara flag, or seeing as it is a disputed territory, we could treat it like Politics of Kosovo and have no flag.
I would recommend removing both flags, per Politics of Kosovo while the dispute is resolved. - FrancisTyers 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not a vote, but you might want to explain your preference, reason etc. beneath the ones you approve of. - FrancisTyers 23:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
===>Further inconsistency You'll note that Daryou contradicts himself when he a.) consistently inserts the Moroccan flag and then b.) appeals to an article where no flags are present. Furthermore, in his edit summaries, he asks that we refer to talk or reach consensus, when he's the one that is brazenly putting in the Moroccan flag without any consensus or discussion beforehand. Justin (koavf) 05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
==>Move to SADR, if you want A no-flags option is simply acquiescing to his demands, rather than seeking consensus. The consensus is to leave it as is. Frankly, Daryou, from what I can understand of your comments, I find your allegations absurd and baseless. I've worked to find consensus on several edits before, on a variety of topics. On the other hand, you apparently have no interest in Wikipedia outside of pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda, which makes it impossible to seek consensus with you. Justin (koavf) 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that there is two solutions to resolve the dispute in Template:Politics of Western Sahara and in the Independence Intifada pages:
So, Justin what do you think? Is this compromise ok? We move this template to Template:Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and include the flag? I haven't looked at the Independence Intifada page yet, but you can discuss which infoboxes should be included on the talk page there. - FrancisTyers 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
===>Fine. An SADR infobox with a Western Sahara flag is fine by me. A Moroccan flag is totally inapporpriate, of course. Justin (koavf) 21:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks wikima 18:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Other Change: Pease don't mix-up the so caled "Sahrawi Republic" with Western Sahara. Thanks. wikima 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>What? Did you read the discussion that went on above, and the consensus reached? You offered no new arguments or evidence! What are you doing? How is redirecting a Western Sahara template to a Moroccan one not an "abuse of Western Sahara in naming templates?" Are you going to start presenting your ideas for consensus or not? - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikima 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>Consensus In case you weren't aware, consensus is a guideline on Wikipedia. It's how the entire enterprise works. If you keep on making edits contrary to consensus, you will keep on being reverted and very likely blocked. If you want to reject the consensus of the editors in your heart, I don't care, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. No one is concerned about the contents of your mind; we are concerned about the actions that you take. If you want to persuade us to change our opinions, you'll have to present some actual evidence and a cogent argument rather than ranting. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikima 19:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>Western Sahara and SADR The statement "*Western Sahara in not [a] part of [the] 'SADR' [sic]" is POV. No article on Wikipedia asserts that Western Sahara is or is not rightfully a part of the SADR or Morocco. All of the articles simply state who is currently administering the parts of the territory and what the stated positions are of the interested parties. Granted, a consensu[s] is not a [B]ible, no one is saying that consensus is always correct. All I'm saying is this is how it works. Ignore it at your own peril and frustration. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
wikima 20:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
A:
{{Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}
B:
wikima 20:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
===>Let's get some things straight I know that no article confirms "WS is [a] part of 'SADR.'" Also, no article confirms that WS is a part of the Kingdom of Morocco. They are written from a neutral point-of-view. Control of the territory is only disputed by you. People who have actually been there say that the SADR control it, and you refuse to believe them for some reason. I didn't attack you. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic claims Western Sahara, so that is why it is referenced in the template. Some of the articles are "X of Western Sahara" and others are "X of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" where one or the other refers to the territory or the political entity. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
1/ A: The redirect from WS templates to "sadr" and 2/ B: The ambiguity in the "sadr" template by including "Politics and government of Western Sahara"
A:
B:
wikima 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
"We live in a free world" — an interesting turn of phrase... - FrancisTyers 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
===>You're arguing past Arre rather than with him
I am trying to insert a POV tag that shows on the template. Any one has an idea of an elegant way to do?
Thanks wikima 17:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Not necessarily Usually, it's not desirable to have a template inside a template. When there are disputes or votes for deletion, the templates about the dispute are not included within the template itself. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The template is part of the article and the contents. If it displays information that is disputed this must be reflected. Now "Politics and government of Western Sahara" is a strong POV i my view as there is no governement in that territory. This hoevers continues to display in articles. And this shoudl not be the case. Discussions can take time.
wikima 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
===>Templates within templates The only precedent that comes to mind is the templates listed for deletion. If you want to delete a template, you don't insert the notice inside the template itself, you <noinclude> it. And there are two governments in Western Sahara: The Kingdom of Morocco in the Southern Provinces and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in the Free Zone. - Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)