Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2024

The western Sahara is a moroccan territory 188.146.106.121 (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done No, it's not and it's not clear what you want to have edited. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Culture section

Suggested edit to the Culture section. The statement "Physically indistinguishable from the Hassaniya-speaking Moors of Mauritania..." adds no value to this article. It is problematically drawing false equivalence based of physical appearance and defines this culture through comparison to another rather than on its own terms. I cannot imagine including a sentence like that in an article about a white majority culture? "Scottish people are physically indistinguishable from the English neighbours". Suggested replacement to "The Sahrawi people have a range of tribal affiliations that cut across present modern geo-political boundaries. Sahrawi culture has also been influenced by their experience of Spanish colonialism." 82.1.241.52 (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done by removal: it was just unsourced anyway. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Add southern Morocco to it.

I would suggest that we also add southern Morocco. When you search for "Southern Morocco" in the tourist industry or in general, you usually mean Western Sahara. At least the Israeli search engine does. What do you think? ,,Western Sahara or South Morocco is a disputed territory on the northwest coast of Africa. About 20% of the territory is controlled by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR); the remaining 80% of the territory is occupied[3][4] and administered by neighboring Morocco." Vogelman29 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Western Sahara is not in Morocco. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

::Ok but Some people call Western Sahara Southern Morocco because they believe that Morocco has a legitimate claim over the territory, based on historical, cultural, and religious ties. They argue that Western Sahara was part of the Moroccan kingdom before the Spanish colonization, and that the majority of the population is of Moroccan origin and shares the same language, religion, and customs as the rest of Morocco. They also point out that Morocco has invested heavily in the development and infrastructure of the region, and that it has offered a proposal for autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, which they consider a fair and realistic solution to the conflict.

.

One sources that support this view are: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115273

.

This article provides a brief overview of the history, geography, and demographics of Western Sahara. It also summarizes the main points of contention and the current status of the dispute.

.

What do you think now? I wanted to mention these arguments. Vogelman29 (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda outlet. Morocco and Mauritania have no legitimate rights to Western Sahara, this and other facts are properly covered in the article (that I suggest you read). M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people call Taiwan a "rogue province". Some people call the West Bank "Judea and Samaria". When I open your link and press Ctrl+F, there are zero resultss for "Southern Morocco". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've struck through the edits of Vogelman as they were a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

Morocan territories 195.235.191.250 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Also don't post noise here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2024

It's the fifth least populated area, not the second as stated. Naramsim (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Skitash (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2024

Reference used to justify the use of the word occupation is from an outdated resolution from 1980, subsequent UN resolutions especially after the 1991 ceasefire stopped using the word occupation. The word disputed territory is instead used by the UN and that should be reflected in this article.

https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/77/133

https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/2654(2022) 2605:B100:52D:5E26:7D76:F7A:E7A2:AAB4 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: the fact that WS is illegally occupied by Morocco is easily attributable to a multitude of reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see any source more reliable than the UN itself since its neutral in the matter, your sources may be cherry picked and may reflect your personal opinion. The fact is the UN secretary general apologized for using the word occupation a few years ago and he is definitely more qualified than you and i. The word occupation still needs to be removed from the article. 2605:B100:52D:5E26:7D76:F7A:E7A2:AAB4 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all, that's not how we judge reliable sources. Second, you don't get to decide what is and what isn't outdated, that's the job of the reliable sources. I suggest you read the cited source which also mentions the UN resolutions. This will be my last comment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

the cited source is redundant since it also uses as a reference the same 44 year old UN resolution that i was talking about, a 44 year old resolution that’s not recalled in any modern UN general assembly resolution nor in any UN Security Council resolution. If i understand correctly, since your source references the 1980 general assembly resolution to come to its conclusion shouldn’t this article reference the latest general assembly resolution (and other reliable sources) to change occupation to disputed territory? 2605:B100:52D:5E26:7D76:F7A:E7A2:AAB4 (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Already answered (multiple times). M.Bitton (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

When did it stop being occupied? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Spanish occupation ended in 1975 and most leaders in the sahara pledged allegiance to the king of morocco as they were part of morocco for centuries before Spanish and French colonization.

it is a classic case of European colonial powers disregarding history and local politics and drawing bad borders to destabilize ex-colonies. 74.15.136.39 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Mauritania and Morocco occupied the territory after Spanish withdrawal. When did that stop? What happened between 1975 and when the Spanish left in 1976?

”most leaders in the sahara pledged allegiance to the king of morocco”

“they were part of morocco for centuries before Spanish and French colonization”. This is not true. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

“ It was of the opinion, by 14 votes to two, that there were legal ties of allegiance between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco. Furthermore, it was of opinion, by 15 votes to one, that there were legal ties between this territory and the "Mauritanian entity".” (ICJ Reports (1975) p. 68, para. 162)

how can morocco and mauritania be occupiers if they had legal ties to the region? Plus the ICJ confirmed the legal ties of allegiances to morocco.

Here’s also an example i could find for the pledges of allegiance:

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pledge_of_allegiance_by_Sahrawi_tribes_of_Dakhla-Oued_Eddahab_to_Morocco.png

The Madrid accords were signed in November 14th 1975 so officially Spanish colonial rule over the region ended in 1975. 74.15.136.39 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"how can morocco and mauritania be occupiers if they had legal ties to the region?" Because they moved their militaries into someone else's territory, which is the definition of military occupation. They were not sovereign over Western Sahara, which you know from reading the opinion that you just partially quoted.

You didn't answer any of my other questions. Why did Moroccan military occupation of Western Sahara end? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

“However, the Court defined the nature of these legal ties in the penultimate paragraph of its opinion, and declared that neither legal tie implied sovereignty or rightful ownership over the territory. These legal ties also did not apply to "self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory."”

The legal ties to the region may not imply ownership according to one courts non-binding opinion but the fact that the inhabitants of the region pledged allegiance to morocco reflects their decision for self-determination through their free and genuine expression.

The premise behind your question doesn’t make sense because the presence of the moroccan military in a region that pledged allegiance to morocco (a part from a few separatists) doesn’t constitute a military occupation like the presence of of the Spanish military in Catalonia doesn’t constitute a military occupation. 2605:B100:502:4274:314A:8606:6CA9:3B1B (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

When did the Sahrawi people have a free and fair referendum on their independence? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

We can argue about this all day, the written and signed allegiance from sahrawi leader is a free and fair expression of their decision to be moroccan and the disregard of the opinion of the majority of the people of the sahara can only be motivated by a political agenda and not by facts recognized by the UN. And the 1992 referendum didn’t happen because the separatists tried to bring (in bad faith) people from south western Algeria and northern Mauritania to skew the results. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should reflect facts in the real world, the moroccan presence in the Sahara not being an occupation is a fact shared by the UNs highest commissions. You are entitled to your opinions and might disagree with the UN and i genuinely don’t care about that but your personal political beliefs shouldn’t be reflected on the wiki. 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:C54E:C3E1:8DA8:993C (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You just keep on making claims without evidence and write nonsense. This isn't Wikinonsense, so it's not appropriate. Neat how you dug up a document that maybe has 30 signatures saying that they would like to be part of Morocco. Doesn't make the land of the Sahrawis not stolen and occupied by Morocco. You have yet to provide any source that proves that Morocco are not occupying Western Sahara and I have provided sources that they are, so please stop wasting others' time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I see the UN and ICJ aren’t good enough sources for you? For the document there are many others like that signed by TRIBE LEADERS, not sure if you didn’t know but there aren’t that many people that live there so a few dozen tribe leaders pretty much cover most of the territory. There is a lot of reading material in Arabic that might help expand your knowledge of the region and help you understanding the basic facts I’ve been talking about. Also remind me what “sources” you have provided? 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:B584:2EDD:8D5C:C410 (talk) 01:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The UN are the sources I used. Please re-read the thread. The sources were the ICJ Opinion and the relevant General Assembly decisions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Reread the thread i already talked about those to you and M.Bitton and gave more UN GA and SC documentation and resolutions. ICJ opinion doesn’t prove that the land is “stolen“ 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:CC4D:19E4:BC49:8D2D (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You talked about them but didn't understand them. The ICJ ruling explicitly states that neither Mauritania nor Morocco have sovereignty over the land. No one was ever in any way arguing about any "historical ties". Again, you have no sources and your reasoning is faulty, so your requested edits will not be made. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

But before that the ICJ opinion says there is legal ties between morocco and the territory stop Cherry picking parts of the ruling you like it doesn’t reflect good on you. Again, i also linked multiple UN GA and SC resolutions that you’re refusing to address. The only “source” You have is 50 year old non binding opinion that was made in regards to Spanish decolonization, your “source” needs to be put in context. My other source is the declarations of allegiance by dozens of tribe leaders made in 1979 and later, clearly you’re blinded by your sentiments towards morocco. I have presented very clear evidence to support my argument and all you need is to let go of your personal crusade and stop disregarding the multiple clear and evident sources i have provided. 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:E501:93A0:9ADC:3D52 (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As I just wrote, there was never a dispute about some kind of legal ties. Why are you bringing up irrelevant noise? Please show me a United Nations resolution that states that Western Sahara is not occupied. Please also stop ignoring the UN General Assembly resolutions that explicitly call Western Sahara occupied. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are two examples let me know if you need more:

https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/77/133

https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/2654(2022)

“ Please also stop ignoring the UN General Assembly resolutions that explicitly call Western Sahara occupied.” :

Out of context, was made before 1991 ceasefire and accords, pretty much none of the resolutions from this century call it an occupation.

“ As I just wrote, there was never a dispute about some kind of legal ties.” … You wrote this lol:

“No one was ever in any way arguing about any "historical ties"”

there’s a difference between historical and legal ties. if you have legal and historical ties what makes the land stolen?

“ Why are you bringing up irrelevant noise? ”:

Because you’re plainly and unequivocally wrong about everything you’re saying and misconstrued multiple ICJ quotes and put them out of context. The only way i see you doing that is if you’re on a personal crusade.

the very topic we’re talking about was debated before the UN and the UN doesn’t use the term occupied in their resolutions anymore i don’t know your background and credentials but I’m sure legal experts in the UN are better suited to make that judgment than you. 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:942F:F821:320B:4C51 (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those state that Western Sahara isn't occupied. Please stop wasting time.

What is out of context? Did the occupation end in 1991? I've asked you this many times and you keep on ignoring it.

"“ As I just wrote, there was never a dispute about some kind of legal ties.” … You wrote this lol:" Please quote me and link to a diff where I wrote that there were no legal ties. (You cannot, it never happened.)

"there’s a difference between historical and legal ties. if you have legal and historical ties what makes the land stolen?" It's that it wasn't Mauritania's and Morocco's and they militarily occupied it. Morocco still do.

"Because you’re plainly and unequivocally wrong about everything you’re saying and misconstrued multiple ICJ quotes and put them out of context. The only way i see you doing that is if you’re on a personal crusade." Nah, that's BS. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

“Nah, that's BS.“

“the very topic we’re talking about was debated before the UN and the UN doesn’t use the term occupied in their resolutions anymore i don’t know your background and credentials but I’m sure legal experts in the UN are better suited to make that judgment than you”

plz respond to this.

” Neither of those state that Western Sahara isn't occupied. “

They both stopped referring to it as an occupied territory(as do all the ones from this century) what do you think that means..

“It's that it wasn't Mauritania's and Morocco's and they militarily occupied it. Morocco still do.”

They both do have a legal claim over it because of the legal and historical ties, the ICJ doesn’t deny that. 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:C469:9C7D:1223:E6BD (talk) 03:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't answer questions or kowtow to demands from someone who just ignores them himself. Have a nice life and maybe try reading the sources you're talking about and don't waste time in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Been answering your questions from the start lol you’re the one that’s ignoring the facts and questions that prove you wrong. But honestly if it helps you sleep better at night good for you kiddo!

I proved beyond doubt that it’s not an occupation but your ego is too big to admit it. 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:C469:9C7D:1223:E6BD (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You never provided any source that says it's not occupied. Last response from me, kiddo. Your edit isn't happening. Have a nice life. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Son, if all this this doesn’t convince you nothing will and you’re biased: UN, ICJ, tribe leaders, historical and legal links, the the UN secretary general apologizing for using the word occupation, the sahrawi people participating and voting in democratic elections in morocco, the SADR resorting to political assassinations to keep people aligned with their ideology (https://northafricapost.com/77273-tindouf-outrage-erupts-against-polisario-following-a-brutal-murder.html)

polisario being hated by sahrawi people for stealing aid (https://moroccoonthemove.com/2015/01/26/eu-anti-fraud-office-documents-polisario-theft-refugee-aid/)

how is it an occupation if morocco has a legal claim to the area people want to be part of morocco and hate SADR it’s armed separatist wing polisario, don’t people have the right to self determination? 2607:FA49:1B00:4500:C469:9C7D:1223:E6BD (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

<- Setting aside the interesting dynamic of occupations - first there is colonization of land, then there is colonization of language to describe the colonization - the following book may be useful - 'The Western Sahara Question and International Law: Recognition Doctrine and Self-Determination' By Stephen Allen, Jamie Trinidad (Publisher: Taylor & Francis, 2024, ISBN 9781040006368) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.hoyland (talk • contribs)

"Partition"

My edit, that Western Sahara was not "partitioned" but control over it was taken, was return to the original as "not an improvement". I do not want to re-revert, as this would violate community rules, so I would like to explain: At issue is not an improvement yes/no, but a correction of a factual inaccuracy. To say that Western Saraha was "partitioned" would be to suggest that there was a decision, be it external or internal, on partition, as the term is used in the cases of British India or Palestine. This is not the case. On the contrary, claims (and demands) of Morocco and Mauritania were rejected by the ICJ, and the two state invaded the territory. My edit did not seek to take a position on the latter issue, but only to make the description facutally correct. I respectfully request that it be re-instated. YR on wiki (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be misunderstanding here, but Mauritania and Morocco agreed to their own self-styled border between portions of the land they tried to steal. I'm confused as to how that is not them partitioning the territory. The two states never had a dispute among themselves. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reacting. WS was not theirs to partition... We wouldn't say that Molotov and Ribbentrop "partitioned" Europe, would we? At most we would say that they agreed (in both cases) on how to divide their loot. What they actually did (again, in both cases) was invade.In the WS case their status and lack of rights was declared legally. I would suggest "invade," but "took control" is good enough and should satisfy even those who claim Morocco had the right to do so. It's a simple fact. YR on wiki (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, God knows it was not theirs to partition, but it still seems like it meets the definition of what partitioning is. I support you massaging the text in any way that you think clarifies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "In 1976, Morocco and Mauritania invaded Western Sahara and agreed to divide it between them, ..."? M.Bitton (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, M.Bitton, thank you! I would say "divided" rather than "agreed to divide", otherwise the question might arise "so what actually happened".YR on wiki (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

"Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve independence and has been dubbed "Africa's last colony".[14][15]" By whom? I think maybe you're confusing it with Namibia (the actual last African colony). 160.164.197.146 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Click on the numbers at the end of the sentence. Or read the material about this further up this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a serious claim that only official and neutral sources (like United Nations) could be used to back it up and not random left-wing journalists. Everybody knows Namibia was the last African colony, and now it's independent. 105.135.169.235 (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)