Jump to content

Talk:Second Sahrawi Intifada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second Sahrawi Intifada removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

[edit]

Second Sahrawi Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because {{{1}}} POV This article is absolutely inoccurate and not neutral. Please comply with WP principles. Best regards. Daryou 09:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC) What? And why? I think this article should be both expanded and updated, but I don't see any POV problems. The Moroccan view is given, and there are lots of external sources and links. I suggest the same method as on the Polisario talk page: mention one or two things you find problematic; then we discuss them, reach consensus and make a change; then we move on to other problems (if you think there are any). Okay? Arre 19:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

okay, it's been more than a month, and no reply. i am now removing the NPOV tag, and updating the page. Arre 02:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have noticed this and it is ridiculously POV. First, the "Intefada" appelation is not only absurd, I have never heard it before. Blowing up the disturbances into an "Intefada" may serve the activists circles, but certainly no outside neutral observer would so name the rather limited riots that. Although this minor event hardly merits an encyclopedia entry, I have edited down to core events and information, and removed the regurgitation with respect to Saharan history etc. (Collounsbury 07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).[reply]

Images

[edit]

I just uploaded two images. I know they are not copyrighted (but rather intended to be spread by those who took them), so I hope they pass WP copyright control and stay up. Anyway, I'm not particularly good at editing pages, so anyone who could rearrange these images in a better way, please do so. I'm not very happy with the result as it stands... Arre 23:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politics infobox

[edit]

May you explain me your point please? I thought that this infobox is used in articles about political structure in the territory named WS, I mean politacal parties, elections, and foreing relations, as you can read in this infobox and in other ones handeling with politics in other territories and countries. the article is about the "independance intifada", it isn't a political party neither an election system nor the president of SADR, thank you for understanding. Please let's use our time to discuss really important issues and make WP progress, I feel that you simply don't agree with this edit because it's mine. Daryou 22:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===>Political events warrant politics infobox This was/is a political event and it's in Western Sahara, right? Therefore, it is relevant to politics in Western Sahara. Justin (koavf) 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was a political event in Moroccan-held parts of Western Sahara and by then is relevant to politics in Morocco, right? May I add also the Morocco politics infobox? Daryou 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf makes the point well. The WS-pol infobox already refers to Morocco, and you may not add the flag, unless you are also prepared to add the WS flag to the Moroccan infobox. This article has nothing to do with internal policies in what Wikipedia considers "Morocco", but is exclusively concerned with Sahrawi protests in WS (a minor spread to Sahrawis in southern Morocco does not affect that, nor does protests among Sahrawis in Spain and Algeria). Arre 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with protests of Sahrawis living in Moroccan held parts of WS, they have the National Moroccan ID card and they vote in the Moroccan elections, their protests have close relations with Moroccan politics. Daryou 23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has close relations to Moroccan politics in Western Sahara only. We do not describe El-Aaiun as a Moroccan city, even though (some of) its citizens vote in Moroccan elections and it is under Moroccan military control; we describe it as a city in the occupied or contested territory of Western Sahara, and it will only have the specific WS infoboxes and labels. That goes for this article too, and to make things even clearer, the WS-Pol infobox states the arguments on sovereignty and refers also to Moroccan politics. Arre 23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say that it has close relations to Moroccan politics in WS. You say that your WS-pol infobox refers to Morocco's politics also, why do you refuse to include also the Moroccan flag? Daryou 23:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your first argument misses the point. It refers only to Moroccan politics in the WS, that does not make it fit for a Moroccan flag, in the same way that El-Aaiun does not have a Moroccan flag. Your second argument concerns the form of the Western Sahara infobox, and I am discussing it there. To repeat an unanswered argument, I don't think you'll agree to a Sahrawi flag in the Morocco infobox, which would be logical if you argue that the two political areas are by definition confused. You can't say that everything concerning WS is Moroccan politics, without saying that Moroccan politics logically includes WS. Either you separate them as best you can, or mix both (= put both flags on both). But please continue that part of the debate on the appropriate talk page. Arre 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that WS is disputed between Morocco and Polisario. It's about WP neutrality as I said before, please refer to the discussion in the Infobox-pol talk. Daryou 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are no longer disputing the presence of an infobox here. Can I put it back? (I answered the arguments concerning the infobox in the infobox talk page.) Arre 01:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me because I was a little bit busy this two days. I am still disputing this infobox here because the subject has closer relations with Moroccan politics than SADR ones. Daryou 16:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===>What? How is it possible that the Independence Intifada has more to do with Moroccan politics than Sahrawi? Justin (koavf) 18:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What what? It's about protests of Sahrawis living in Moroccan controlled WS and voting in Moroccan elections not in the SADR ones. Daryou 18:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===>Ridiculous It's not about voting at all. And it's in Western Sahara, ergo, it's about the politics of the Western Sahara. You're being juvenile. Justin (koavf) 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rediculous!!!! Please stop personal attacks. those are events in Moroccan controlled WS, in a territory administrated and under the rule of Moroccan government. Daryou 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===>Do you want to address the issue, or not? Is the Independence Intifada a political event in Western Sahara? If so, the "Politics of Western Sahara" infobox is completely appropriate. Justin (koavf) 05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those events are political events in WS, I mean in the Moroccan controlled part, they was handeled by Moroccan police, protesators was juged by Moroccan courts, It's about Moroccan politics. Daryou 07:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===>This article isn't about the police or courts This is about the Intifada itself. The Intifada was carried out by Sahrawis, and it occured inside of Western Sahara. Therefore, it is about the politics of Western Sahara. You cannot possibly construe this event to be more about Moroccan politics than Western Saharan politics. Feel free to put in Morocco's infobox, but there's no justification at all for deleting Western Sahara's. Justin (koavf) 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is two solutions to resolve the dispute in Template:Politics of Western Sahara and in the Independence Intifada pages:

===>Those are your solutions? If these are your "solutions", then why is this the opposite of the actual edits that you made to the page? I see your strategy now, and it's the same as on the Western Sahara page: push a pro-Moroccan bias, complain that everyone else is unwilling to look for consensus, and then "compromise" by trying to get people to acquiesce to you. Am I wrong? Justin (koavf) 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? what is the opposite of what? Why don't you show a minimum of good faith? why are you discussing my strategy instead of discussing my propositions? Do you yes or no accept any of my propositions? And what do you mean by "everyone else"? Actually everyone else in this discussion agree with me except you (and maybe Arre). Daryou 20:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, since there's only us three discussing it... :-) As for where I stand: I'm completely in agreement with Koavf, both about your edits, your proposals, and -- sorry to have to say this -- about your strategy. I've seen this before.
  • For the sake of the discussion, I think we must try to separate between a) the presence of an infobox (that should of course be Politics of WS, since this is, as Koavf has pointed out, undisputedly a political event in Western Sahara), if we b) should have two infoboxes and c) how the infoboxes should look. The question of flags in the WS infobox should be addressed on the talk page of the WS infobox, since that is where the actual edits would be made. Arre 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep you updated, the Template:Politics of Western Sahara infobox was moved to Template:Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic after a discussion on the talk page. I don't see a problem with having both the SADR and the Moroccan infobox on this page, but I am willing to hear discussion about it. - FrancisTyers 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tenditious and Exagerated Language

[edit]

Having just run across this bizarre article, I am afraid I have to agree with many of the prior objections by Daryou.

First, as an analyst of the region, I have never heard the riots referred to as an intefada except by Polisario activist sources. Writing the article in the present form implies (i) the reference is common and well-known, (ii) used outside certain political circles. Neither is the case. The article adopts effectively a political point of view with barely disguised langauge. Encyclopedia should not adopt party-political views. Further, the description of events appears to be largely drawn from Polisario sourcing, with a nod to more neutral international human rights sourcing or international news sourcing. I am slapping a factual accuracy and NPOV on this since the edits to core facts was reverted. (Collounsbury 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>Speaking of bizarre and obscure There is no such word as "tendicious" at least not in English. Do you mean tendencious? Anyway, which claims are suspect? What name would you give this article? -Justin (koavf), talk 02:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be childish, a typo. First, the very article is absurd. A series of minor riots and demonstrations over several months hardly merits this lengthy treatment on a compartive basis with the Palestinian intefada or even the the Lebanese usage. Second, leaving that aside, the usage intefada itself is tendencious as it is clearly a party-political usage intending to play off of the Palestinian model, and it is not in common usage. As I said, I am professional analyst of the region, never saw this before this article - although I was well-aware of the WS incidents. As a professional, if the usage were common outside of activist circles, I would have seen it. Third, the language used is POV (hint, non-POV does not mean using partisan language and then mentioning at the end of the paragraph, oh yeah, the other guys disagree/characterise otherwise) throughout, adopts the Polisario POV re territory, and goes beyond the information provided in neutral sourcing. It is, in short, party-political activist agitprop dressed up as an article. A NPOV article would not adopt the Intefada usage as it is not used outside one side's agitprop, would stick to neutral characterisations and to facts from neutral sources. Further, much of the article merely repeats other WS pages you've written. There is no need for massive regurgitation (Collounsbury 02:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>Not quite true The uprisings continue to this day; they didn't just happen months ago. They've also resulted in arrests, police brutality, and at least one teenage kid getting killed by the police. That's hardly minor. I'll grant you that they aren't as important as the al-Aqsa or Cedar revolutions, but this article also isn't as extensive as those, so it makes sense. "Intifada" isn't in common usage only to the extent that it's not reported in the West or much of anywhere (especially compared to the Palestinians.) I'm still at a loss: what would you call it? If you have a less-POV way of mentioning how cops beat a woman in the head with night sticks, or ran over a teenager, feel free to re-write the article. Bear in mind that if you take out relevant information, it will certainly be reverted. If you have neutral sources to cite, I would personally be delighted to see them sourced and included in the article: feel free to make it stronger. For what it's worth, I honestly did not understand what you were saying with the typo, and the word tendencious is pretty obscure anyway. You had me right up until "There is no need for massive regurgitation." What? -Justin (koavf), talk 02:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)], I have been around real uprisings. In the Occupied Territories. Western Sahara ain't in that league. Unlike yourself, I've actually been there. A teenage kid was killed, yes. Police brutality, yes. Guess what, happens all the bloody time. They are minor. Trivial in fact. As for Intefada not being common usage because its not reported much, well, no kidding; because frankly they're minor local riots that the party activists are trying to pimp as a major blow up to leverage for political gain. You needn't give me any idiocy about Western media either, I am fluent in Arabic as well as French, and my goddamned job is to cover the MENA region. As for massive regurgitation, you're vomiting up every bloody cite and half the bloody text for WS on a minor article about a minor set of disturbances being spun by some activist sitting thousands miles away. (Collounsbury 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>Kid? How do you know I haven't been there? I'll still concede that this is minor compared to the Palestinians - most everything in terms of independence movements and refugee situations in the modern world is. Calling a teenage boy getting murdered by the police of an occupying kingdom "trivial" is pretty disrespectful. I'm not sure what you think "pimp" means, but I don't see how anyone of good faith can call reporting police brutality as pimping a cause. That's a legitimate gripe. Regardless of all of this, the following section is completely inappropriate and irrlevant to the actual questions that I asked:

A teenage kid dying from getting whacked on the head from police interaction happens all the bloody time (whatever re occupying Kingdom, if you think the government would be any better under a shitty military dictatorship a la Mauretania, you're hallunicating). Police brutality happens all the time in region for all kinds of reasons. [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)]. (Collounsbury 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You needn't give me any idiocy about Western media either, I am fluent in Arabic as well as French, and my goddamned job is to cover the MENA region.

Whatever. In terms of this discussion, I honestly couldn't care less what languages you speak, where you've been, or how you put food on the table. The issue at hand is: what in particular do you find objectionable about the article, and how can we change it for the better? Let's get this back on track and find some way to collaborate on a better article. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)], however if you manage to reflect for a moment, you'll understand I am telling you you're pimping party agitprop. I already indicated my issue - language used it POV activist unsupported by the neutral sources. Article unnecessarily imports materials from main WS. Article adopts a partisan party political term not in common usage in any relevant media or source - inherently POV right there. (Collounsbury 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>I think you'll agree this is going nowhere You mocking me certainly doesn't get us anywhere. And the Polisario has pledged to have a multi-party democracy. Whether or not you believe them, or that happens is irrelevant: no one knows what the SADR would be like if it actually administered all of WS, but we do know what Morocco is like and it's one of the most repressive governments in the world. Clearly, you are "bloody" concerned, or else you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

Yeah, Polisario pledged to be little kittens. So did the fellows in Mauretania, and FLN at the time. The Moroccan government is hardly one of the most repressive governments in the world, I would add. Back in the old Man Hassan's day, yes. But hardly now. Again, activist agitprop glurge. I'm 'concerned' about factuality and generally irritated by people simplistically pimping unfactual political rubbish. (Collounsbury 03:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Now, talking about the actual article itself, if you can't either a.) articulate some specific and particular concerns, or b.) provide the sources and edits you think are appropriate yourself, there is no point in putting the POV template on it, or discussing it here on the talk page. How am I supposed to change the article if you write such vague statments as "Article unnecessarily imports materials from main WS." That doesn't even make sense. What is "main WS" anyway? Do you have any constructive, direct answers to my questions or not? -Justin (koavf), talk 03:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have articulated at several reprises - your adoption of Polisario language, the very title is unsupported. But whatever, I will edit it to something factual. We'll have a fine time, [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)]. (Collounsbury 03:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>Okay, kid I can see that you are for some reason biased toward Morocco, in spite of facts (such as these.) Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia, kid, so go for it, kid. Feel free to articulate your reprises without regurgitating pimped agitprop tendenciously. Kid. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)], I am biased toward objective facts, unemotive, non-political analysis. I'm also biased against immature political activists and their dupes. By the way, [personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)], merely repeating what I have typed is not only unimaginative, it's boring. (Collounsbury 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Reducing POV language

[edit]

While the article title itself remains POV and unsupported, I conformed much more of the article language (for a quick edit) to underlying facts (as per, e.g http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE290032005 ) and removed Polisario POV characterisations.

===>Feel free to use the "Show Preview" button a maybe you won't write things like:

The Independence Intifada... is a a Saharawi Polisario activist coinage...

or

International coverage of the disturbances has been limited and Moroccan official sources have .

Needless to say, some of this has to be amended. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say I am reverting. (Collounsbury 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

peaceful solution

[edit]

collounsbury, concerning your last edits: i agree with some, don't mind some of the others, and disagree with some. i think justin probably feels the same way. would it be okay with you (and justin) if we decided to edit your version in paragraph by paragraph, so we could discuss the changes separately? otherwise i'm afraid this will deteriorate into another revert war pretty soon. i promise not to be unreasonable, and as i said i already agree with some of the edits. if we all show some good faith and agree to compromise a little, i think this can be settled without problems.

to start with, i have two points i would like to hear your and justins views on.

  • more is better. instead of deleting information opposed by morocco or sahrawi independentists, i suggest we add another sentence explaining how and why this particular information is opposed by the other side. both arguments or facts should of course be sourced if there's a serious dispute.
  • eu resolution. i just wonder why this should be deleted? how is it not relevant that the european parliament adopts a very strongly worded resolution condemning morocco, referring to these events?

and please, both of you and no matter who started it, calm down a bit. if you really want to insult each other, use e-mail, but keep the talk page civil. Arre 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "more is better" - in encyclopedia entries concise text conveying the core information of that subject should be the aim - above all as Western Sahara - Polisario conflict already has a frankly absurd amount of material devoted to it (versus, for example, more general issues in problems in the Maghreb / West Africa that effect far greater numbers of persons). Certainly, in the context of this article, first as a professional analyst of the region, it's my professional opinion that a very minor set of incidents are being rather blown out of proportion, and adopting the seperatist name for the events sets when that is NOT in common usage immediately adopts a strong POV. P1 (collounsbury 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
With respect to edits, my object was to focus on, as far as possible, core verifiable events directly tied to the actual events as the sole means of maintaining NPOV. I would also strongly militate for changing the title to something more neutral and less POV. Disturbances, etc. My personal POV is that these events do not in fact merit a seperate entry at all (yet, perhaps in the future, but not yet) but am not pushing that. P2 (collounsbury 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Re EU resolution, I simply saw it as not directly relevant in an already over-blown article. I can certainly compromise on that, but overall the Western Sahara materials give me the sensation of activists (with the pro-Polisario activits have a slight upper-hand given better English and less stupid habits) piling up information in a bewildering, unfiltered accumulation of essentially irrelevent petitions and the like. p3 (collounsbury 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Concluding, fine to discuss the edits point by point. p4 (collounsbury 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>My take

  • Clearly, more is better. That's the great thing about Wikipedia - it's not paper. We're not bound by size and material constriants, and we can have up-to-the-second updates. If an article gets too bloated, we can always split it in two. I don't see that happening here, but it's always an option. If there are more important articles to be written, by all means do. I don't have the background knowledge to write about many of the important topics that should be discussed in North African politics, economics, or history, and there is a project to help coordinate these efforts.
  • Do you have a better title in mind?
  • I still don't see how the article is over-blown, but international opinion is certainly relevant. It warrants mention.

I've tried to remain civil, and I'd be happy to avoid a stupid edit war. -Justin (koavf), talk 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would think "more is better" - paper has fuck all to do with my objection - as more adds to the impression of importance to a marginal set of events that for some peculiar reason you've attached yourself to. Minor events deserve minor effort. As to a better title, 2005 Western Sahara Disturbances. As to why the article is overblown, the events barely disturbed normal economic operations in the Western Sahara and made zero international impression, ex the activists like yourself. Non-event. Compare with Dar Fur. Final point on usage on this article (and throughout the Western Sahara texts), regarding ethnicity and the use of 'indigenous.' The constant repetition of a contrast btw "Sahraoui" and "Moor" emphasizes a faux, ahistorical division between "Maure" and Sahraouine - Hassaniya speaking tribal groups that historically migrated all throughout the southern Morocco, WSah., Algeria, Mauretania area. The constant repitition of "indigenous" makes a false and again ahistorical contrast between tribes in the colonial West. Sahara and nearby inhabitants of Morocco, Mauretania and Algeria. I see no legitimate reason to parrot nationalist agitprop. An example outside the area would be overemphasizing the difference between West Bank and East Bank Palestinians, becuase of modern nationalist agitprop. I would remove all further use of "indigenous" as simply inaccurate, emotive appeals to nationalist mythologies (and I would say the same about the pious idiocies the Moroccans pimp re the "Green March", but those have not gained the upper hand here).(collounsbury 03:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>Great I try to be civil, and this is what I get. Paper is relevant, since we could have as much information as we wanted to about this topic, unlike paper, which is limited by being a physical substance. See what I mean? It's not hard to understand. If this is such a minor event, you've already spent more than minor effort on it, so move on. If you think this is irrelevant, then the solution for you is to simply ignore it. Just edit articles on Darfur if you think that's more important; there's no use in trying to convince the people who wrote the article (and got it listed as a good one) that it shouldn't have been written in the first place or that they've expended too much effort. And the claim that it made "zero international impression" is simply untrue; in point of fact, international reaction is explicitly mentioned in the article. I have no idea what you mean by this contrast between Sahrawi and Moor - I don't know of a single article that implies the two are not an overlapping set of people groups. I also have no idea how you are apparently claiming that Sahrawis aren't indigenous to the Sahara; this is news to me. -Justin (koavf), talk 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack removed - FrancisTyers 09:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)] Paper has fuck all to do with anything. Conciseness has its own rewards, including focus on the most meaningful and useful data and reducing the rubbish factor, even in the case of online reference materials. As for moving on, the amount of overdone whanking in re WSahara has annoyed me, ergo I am finding some pleasure in bringing some improvement to the swamp that is the Western Sahara circle jerk of warring activisits.[reply]
Now as to your sub-literate emoting on the following issues: "And the claim that it made "zero international impression" is simply untrue; in point of fact, international reaction is explicitly mentioned in the article." The events garnered near zero international reaction, a petition is not a big deal. Nothing derailed the very talks on other matters, etc. etc. It is, ceteris paribus, a non-event so far. Were it not a non-event, I for one would be professionally concerned about it derailing a number important upcoming trade meetings with EU, etc. I am not in the least so concerned, there is zero effective visibility. That is not a moral judgement, it is a practical one. Of the same kind I would make re e.g. Ben Ali in Tunisia's latest shenanigans arresting opposition. Not a blip on international radar.
Now as to this: "I have no idea what you mean by this contrast between Sahrawi and Moor - I don't know of a single article that implies the two are not an overlapping set of people groups. I also have no idea how you are apparently claiming that Sahrawis aren't indigenous to the Sahara; this is news to me." Your reading comprehension is lacking. As I noted, I find the compare and contrast betweeen Sahraouine and Maure in terms of "ethnic" groups to be rather overdone and indeed largely baseless modern political myth making. They are all of a piece, the entire area pre-colonisation was inhabited by a mix of Tachelhit, Tamahak, and Hassaniya speaking Arabo-Berber tribes. Mauretania-Western Sahara-Morocco-Algeria are meaningless boundaries. Sahraouine are the exact same people as the northern Maure (or southern Moroccan Hassaniya speakers, Sahraouine): same customs, same dialect, same tribes and lineages (obviously there are variations). Can't bloody tell them apart. Ex the Spanish colonial rule and influence. Now, if you can restrain your irrational emoting, you will see that nowhere did I suggest the Sahraoua are not indigenous in some sense to the Sahara- I merely indicated that the term is absurd given the history of the region, the ebb and flow of the tribes and the fact in these articles "indigenous" is being tagged onto Sahraouine in explicit contrast with others, in a manner that ahistorically suggests that Chleuh of modern Moroccan do not also have roots in that area. In short, indigenous may make sense in contrasting with colonial invaders, but is absurd in the context of contrasting Sahraoua with their neighbors, as nomads they had historically been all over the bloody place (and in historical times appear to have possibly displaced themselves speakers of Azer, a Songhai group). Doesn't fit into the mythologised agitprop you have lapped up, but that is the history. An encyclopedia should not merely repeat nationalist mythology. (collounsbury 07:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)) updated (collounsbury 07:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
tone: hey, i'm all in favor of being an asshole to people you don't agree with, but i've discovered that when editing wikipedia it just makes things take more time. so go ahead and create a separate page for abusing each other, and i'll join in that whenever i have a few hours to spare. but leave the verbiage off this page. i don't have time or patience to sift through it. (and yeah, that was mostly for collounsbury, if anyone's in doubt.)
paper: if the event is insignificant, it should say so in the article. but that doesn't effect the level of detail we could put in, as long as it's correct and balanced: if someone actually cares about this insignificant subject enough to look it up, then there's no reason to cut back on the information they could find. however, clearly, many feel that the ind/intf. is not insignificant to this conflict (if it's insignificant to the world at large, well, most things are). if you feel the article isn't concise enough, which is a good point, we could split it into main/sub articles. but we're nowhere near that point yet.
title: i could agree with calling it "western sahara independence demonstrations" or whatever, and having independence intifada as a redirect, but since they're still going on now, putting "2005" in the title would be plain wrong. the arguments for the present name are that it is the one used by participants (same as in the palestinian and lebanese cases), that there is no competing moroccan name (not counting "insignificant algerian-provoked disturbances by misguided youth in the gloriously retrieved southern provinces"), that it separates the present demos and riots from other real or alleged western sahara protests.
sahrawis/moors: as koavf said, i think it is clear from the articles that sahrawis and moors are fairly modern national distinctions. still, today there exists a sahrawi people in the same way there exists an algerian or syrian people, or iraqi: no matter how low or articifial their national cohesion is, they still have status as a subject in international law (in this case, they even have been judged by the UN/ICJ to possess a legal right of national self-determination). if you think we need more background detail in this article on the sahrawi-moorish ethnotangle, there's room for you to write it in. if not, don't.
indigenous: i've used this quite a lot, and i'm sure i've been wrong a few times. my reason for using it has been to indicate that the sahrawis are an indigenous ethnic group (not a local sect, clan, political party etc), since it is often just mentioned passingly. or, in other cases, to distinguish between indigenous pre-1975 sahrawis, and moroccan-settled sahrawis and others, when discussing the settlement plan's voter identification arrangements. there it's pretty important who is indigenous to the territory and who is not. still, i don't remember what applies to this article, and maybe it should or could go.
pure interest: why do you insist on the form "saharaouine"? sahrawi, saharawi, saharaoui, saharaui, etc, i'm familiar with, but not this. from arabic sahrawiyeen?
edits: should we start with paragraph one, then?
Arre 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As to the title, Western Sahara Pro Independence Demonstrations has much to recommend it. First, the Intefada usage I have never seen attested to outside party-political activist circles, including from Sahraoui themselves. I am not inclined to simple make Polisario and related organisations language "Sahraoui" without some substantive evidence that it has taken root (and once again for those inclined to ignorant bias claims, I say the same for the inanities the Moroccans write as well). In the case of both Palestine and Lebanon, there is and was plenty of non-party-political sourcing that indicated the phrasing was in living usage. Should there be objective third party sourcing for the "intefada" usage, I am happy to withdraw my objection, which I emphasize arises from my incredulity in seeing it as, well, I analyse this region for a living and I have never seen it. Independence Demos, etc. etc. yes. Intefada? Nope. I have never seen a sign this usage lives outside a narrow circle of political activists.
As far as the Sahraoua/Maure I absolutely disagree that it is clear in general in the extent Wiki writings, quite the contrary.
In connexion to this your statement re indigenous highlights the issue. To quote: indigenous pre-1975 sahrawis, and moroccan-settled sahrawis and others, when discussing the settlement plan's voter identification arrangements. there it's pretty important who is indigenous to the territory and who is not.; refering to the fiction of pre-1975 Sahraoua and "Moroccan settled" (this leaving aside Moroccan citizens from outside the Saharan zones who have been settled in largish numbers, or have moved to the territory to take advantage of fiscal etc. incentives the Moroccan government has put in place as 'bribes' to one and all) gets to the very problem. Before the post-Colonial situation, the tribes were nomadic and the colonial boundaries nothing much more than fictions. For a period of some 60 years the colonial authorities tried to "freeze" the populations for administrative and political convenience. Understandable. Also understandable that both the Moroccan and Polisario sides have and are trying to exploit whatever documentary angles they can. However, to refer to one bunch of Hassaniya speaking Sahraoua as "indigenous" and another bunch of Hassaniya or Chleuh speaking Sahraoua who may (or may not, given the vagaries of colonial records, etc) have been in the area in the past 60-100 years as "not indigenous" is farcical and lapping up ahistorical and unfactual nationalist agitprop as fact. Indigenous applied willy nilly in this context is idiotic. The persent people of the southern Moroccan area are just as "indigenous" as the Sahraouine with Spanish papers, indeed the surnames are the bloody same right up to the southern Marrakechi area. Go back 100 years or so and they were mixing and intermarrying. It is a false dichotomy. Now, that says nothing per se to the Polisario national claims - they want to carve themselves out, fine. No stupider than Mauretania being a country. My objection here goes to ethnographic fact and the fact "indigenous" very clearly implies a sort of "Europeans invading North America and displacing the indigenous" situation. A proper distinction is simply between Sahraouine and Moroccan settlers, tout courte.
Regarding my usage, I more naturally fall into francophone spelling in this context. Habit. Sahrawi, Saharawi, Sahraoui are all the same. The same for the plurals, Sahrawine or Sahraouine or Sahraoua or whatever.
Hopefully this makes clear my position, and where it is rooted. As for paragraph by paragraph, pls feel free. (collounsbury 15:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I've removed some of the more egregious personal attacks, please try and remain civil. - FrancisTyers 09:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Indigenousness: Yes, I understand your point. You made it before, and you're probably right in many cases that Wikipedia usage has been erroneous. But in some cases, we need a way to separate those people who were settled or at least semi-permanently present in the area before the Spanish census, and those who weren't. The former (and their direct descendandts) are according to the Settlement Plan, Houston Accords etc supposed to hold the right to vote, the latter not. You may disagree with the relevancy of this distinction -- there certainly is a case for that, same as with citizenship rights and nomadic tribes in many African countries. But nonetheless it is politically significant, since both Morocco and Polisario have signed and agreed to it as the basis of voter identification. Thus it should be reported here. That said, I'm not sure that this discussion is relevant to this page, but probably is to other articles.
Sahrawi/Moor: I think it's clear to the extent that, if you see the term mentioned, it's probably because the article talks about one of the national communities - which I agree are modern products of colonization and nationalist redefinition - in a context that doesn't need to bring up the relation to the other. Just as many articles speaks about Kuwaitis, while ignoring the (former?) Iraqi argument that there's no such thing, just us Arabs, simply because it is correct and convenient in relation to Kuwait. It is also clear if you check the articles on these peoples (or wh/e you want to call them) and on hassaniya, although you'd be welcome to contribute to those, since you obviously know a lot about the subject. I think Moors especially is underdeveloped, and the Sahrawis could probably need a straightening out. North Africa in general needs more info on everything, with Western Sahara now being the main exception.
Naming: Okay. We should check Wikipedia guidelines more closely (I don't know what they would say about this) and then try to find an alternative along these lines, that is used on the Internet. Then if there's no consensus around either option, we'll just have to vote. But hopefully not.
First paragraph: Below.
Arre 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have began reworking Sahraouie, leveraging my prior contribution on Haratine as well as the very decent underlying article on Hassaniya. Regarding naming, whatever is the convention. Regarding "indigenous" I am firmly of the opinion that dinstinction can be made (usually, not always) with other less ideologically loaded terms such as "local" - for example. There are some instances where indigenous should be retained, but I am adament that it should not be used as it is presently, which is very ideological and progagandistic. I am of the opinion a properly NPOV article can make the necessary reference to the 'indigenousness' of certain tribes without the constant "indigenous Sahraoui" phrasing, that conveys a distorted impression of the ethnic situation. (I do emphasize however indigenous has its place with restrain in the articles) (collounsbury 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Collounsbury edit - 1st para

[edit]

This is the Collounsbury version:

The Independence Intifada (intifada is Arabic for "uprising") is a Saharawi Polisario activist coinage for a series of disturbances, demonstrations and riots that broke out in May 2005 in the Moroccan-held parts of Western Sahara. This event has also been called "The El-Aaiun Intifada" by the same sources. International coverage of the disturbances has been limited and Moroccan official sources have downplayed the events.

I suggest this for a compromise:

The Independence Intifada (Arabic, intifādatu-l-istiqlāl, meaning "independence uprising") is a Saharawi activist term for a series of disturbances, demonstrations and riots that broke out in May 2005 in the Moroccan-held parts of Western Sahara, and are still on-going as of March 2006. This event has also been called "The El-Aaiun Intifada" by the same sources. The term is controversial, and the Moroccan government maintains that the events are simply minor disturbances or troubles, with little political significance. It has accused the Front Polisario of instigating unrest, and propagandistically mislabeling it an "intifada". International media coverage of the disturbances has been limited.

"Sahrawi activist" I think is fine, since the relation of Polisario to this is not quite clear, just as in Algeria "Berber activist" can be used to describe unrest in the Kabyl (not necessarily "FFS" or "RCD activist").

If we later decide to change the name of the article completely, that will of course affect these paragraphs. But would the above suffice for now? Input requested from both Collounsbury & Koavf, and anyone else who's interested (Francis?). Anyone who can type Arabic script on their computer is welcome to fill that in, btw. - Arre 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I would prefer the notation of the particular party, I am okay with the edit as such. I would suggest w/o particaly insistence "independence" in an adjectival position to clarify (e.g. Sahraouie seperatist or something like that). The section on the Moroccan government position can be pared down to simply "the Moroccan government maintains the events are minor disturbances" for more conciseness. (collounsbury 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Propaganda War between Morocco and Polisario

[edit]

I have added a sentence about the fact that every event whether it's in Sahara or Polisario camps is exploited by Morocco and Polisario as if it was a major event. Every side is trying to get the international press in its side, the Intifada word user by Polisario for what are very small event should be seen in this light, conversely Moroccan authorities have made a lot of noise for troubles that have happened lately in Polisario camps.--Kompere 16:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Okay So are we going to put this sentence on every article related to the Sahara conflict? I'm not doubting there is a propaganda war (there is), but saying that "The real importance of these events should be put in light of the Propaganda war Morocco and Polisario front are having to attract international media attention," without telling us how they should be put in what light, or what the propaganda war even is does not help the reader. In what way should the real importance of these events be put in light of the propaganda war? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen this sentence anywhere in an article about WS, would you please care to show me some examples. how, what, when, where ? should I pass an exam just to be allowed to put my opinion in this article or what ? I could ask you the same thing for every sentence you put there ! . I believe that this article is very clearly biased and is merely regurgitating Polisarian propaganda, and I will do what it takes to make it NPOV. Anyway, I have put some pro Moroccan links to show that the war between Polisario and Morocco has now moved to the media, yours--Kompere 12:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>My opinion Here's the problem with what you're writing: you want to "put my opinion in this article." Articles on Wikipedia are written from a neutral point-of-view; they are not an aggregate of the opinions of everyone who edits. Your opinion has no place in the article. If you think it's biased, explain how, don't just throw in an oblique statement at the beginning and not explain what it means or how it is relevant to the facts that the reader is about to digest. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title and content of this article

[edit]

I have no doubt that this title and content are unencyclopaedic. "Independence Intifada" is a very widely used term and relating it to the WS riots is untrue. Try this googling. Try even this. You are saying that International coverage of the disturbances has been limited, does that mean that Wikipedia is doing that dirty job that mass media couldn't do? You are telling me that the Propaganda war Morocco and Polisario front are having to attract international media attention. Again Wikipedia got to do this for others? I'll be waiting for a feedback. -- Szvest 17:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]

===>What Wikipedia is not I don't see how this is a non-notable event; people have been arrested, tried, beaten, murdered, and this is a sustained political event that has been on-going for months. I'm not saying that "international coverage of the disturbances has been limited," so if you feel that line is inappropriate, I can't give a defense of it. These two sentences are not exactly grammatical, and I'm not sure at whom they are directed, so I don't think I can answer you:

"You are telling me that the Propaganda war Morocco and Polisario front are having to attract international media attention. Again Wikipedia got to do this for others?"

Wikipedia has a project about countering systemic bias, and these users seek to inform people in the Western world about under-reported regions. Are you saying that this is a bad thing? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 00:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, i didn't say it's a non-notable article! All i'm saying is that the title is a non-notable one. Also, i mean that the article got to be merged w/ History of Western Sahara instead of being a fork. -- Szvest 09:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
I think that using the term Intifada is not NPOV, it's siding with Polisario own wording. By using this term, Polisario is trying to give WS riots the same importance as the Palestinian Intifada, which they aren't. I vote for a merge or renaming, I propose to keep the term Independence intifada while clearly mentioning that this Polisario wording.--Khalid hassani 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>NPOV How is the term "Intifada" not NPOV? That is its name. Why should the Palestinian Intifada be called "Intifada?" How is that NPOV? Should we re-name Cedar Revolution and Orange Revolution because they aren't as important as the American Revolution? Should animal rights be renamed since it's not as important as human rights? These are the names used in the media and by the people that are concerned with the political action, and the Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most common name. If you have a more common name for it, please let me know. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Merge? The history of Western Sahara article is huge as it is; if anything, that should be forked. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 14:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's long but not longer than 32 KB which is considered to be the guideline. Indeed, history of Western Sahara is long not because of the dissertation but because of the timeline section. Merge is the suitable option for this article. I'll put a tag at the article and see the opinions of others. -- Szvest 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]

===>32 KB Okay, but if you added in the contents of this article, by your reasoning, you would have to add in Zemla Intifada, Green March, and several more, making it a bloated article in need of splitting. There is no good reason to merge them. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I don't really see a need to merge them either. In fact, I think it is a good thing to keep History of WS as a summary/outline page and give every significant part of that history a page of its own (Green March, Baker Plan, this page, etc). Possibly, some short summary of the Intifada events could instead be brought over to H of WS, as a summary leading on to this page? That would keep the context clearer.
Instead, I do feel this article needs (a) a renewed discussion of the name. The last one we tried died off, and there seems to be some important naming issues at play here; perhaps a vote would be good (though I'm personally more or less okay with both results). Also, it should receive (b) a thorough update; and (c) less squabbling on symbolic issues, more focus on content... Arre 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title of the article should be changed. 'Intifada' as it used in the English language media generally refers to the Palestinian resistance against the Israeli's. I have not seen authorative English language sources where it is used for the actions of Polisario described in this article. A non POV title for this article could be Resistance against Moroccan Rule. Reactions please. S710 07:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow in coming mate, but I agree. Resistance to Moroccan rule would be a better title (and allow more balanced usage and coverage, rather than blowing up the riots into something more than they were. (collounsbury 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
  • The problem we are having here and generally in the topic of Western Sahara is that we have people who bring in Polisario propaganda and present it as it if it was encyclpaedic.
  • Intifada is, like many already say, the uprising related to Palestina and the palestinian people
  • For propaganda reasons and in an attempt to blame Morocco, Polisario and Algeria (especially its propaganda machines) have tried to abuse of the fame of the palestinian Intifada.
  • They tried to describe a few casual riots of mostly young sahrwis as Intifada, comparing Morocc with Israel.
  • An attempt that generally never passed the limit of propaganda and remained used only by Algerian media and a few people like koavf, shaemfully here in such place like wikipedia.
  • This article need radical change.
wikima 20:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs deletion

[edit]

I have never read such a ridiculous article. I don't even ever comment on articles. But this just crosses the line.

I am not that experienced on the procedures inside Wiki.

So please can anyone start the deletion process for this?

Thank you in advance.

will probably do. Lacking of reliable sources makes an article POV. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the name is POV. used just by SADR sources. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
POV? If you have a better name, please let me know. Shall we also change al-Aqsa Intifada to something else? What about Holocaust? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. It deserves no more than "2005 protests in Western Sahara". You alone said, only Polisario sources used it, well that's a minority. I want reliable sources. Let me teach you: Holocaust isn't used just by Jews.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
go, put "independence intifada" in google. Just wikipedia and polisario websites come out. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and more funny was when you put the category "conflicts in 2008": probably the most blatant unsourced thing on wikipedia. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name again It needs to have some name and the name that was chosen by those who participated is just as good as any other as best as I can tell. If you think it violates WP:NPOV, put it up for WP:RfC. Repression and demonstrations are still occurring in 2008, so the category is relevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This again? Well it is clearly POV - frankly it's sad and pitiful Koavf pimps this, the opening paragraph regarding it being a Polisario coinage used among such sources seems good enough. Layoun 2005 riots would be more accurate, but he wants to pimp the dim and weak connection to the Palestinian Intefada. Whatever, not worth the argument. However, the adding of Conflicts in 2006-2008 strikes me as overreaching POV, as the riots were in 2005, a specific period.(collounsbury (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Smara There were uprisings in several places (e.g. Smara.) I have no problem with someone changing the copy of the article in the interests of NPOV, but "this article needs to be deleted" is sheer nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Koavf: instead of removing the tag (this can earn you a block) try to fix the problems on the article. Seems there's no consensus for your edits and for the name. Also, half of the refs are dead links, so the tag has a reason to exist here --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No This article is not unreferenced, since there are references. Putting on that tag over and over again could earn you a block. If you want, you can put on - for instance - {{Citations}} or {{Sources}}, but not {{Unref}}, since it's not true. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

[edit]

Post facto, I do think the move by Fear God makes sense, given the Lebanese events are far better known (and rather better deserving of the label given the length of time and intensity, although American commentators seem to have gone with their label of Cedar Revolution rather than the more common ex-American Intefada label. (collounsbury (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Independence Intifada (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second Sahrawi Intifada. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sahrawi_Intifada&oldid=1216326999"