Talk:Western Sahara

Is the description of the dispute biased?

I know nothing about this conflict and have no dog in the fight at all. I first learned about it today and was trying to brush up. But certain language in the description of this conflict sounds like it is preferring one side to me. For example: "the remaining 80% of the territory is occupied... by Morocco," obviously assuming that Morocco's presence is an occupation, not legitimate governance. Presumably, Morocco does not think so. Similarly: "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence," clearly presuming that Western Sahara is a state, a claim which (I assume) only one side of the dispute agrees with. This second claim is also rather outlandish in that there are definitely other territories in Africa seeking independence from their current governments.

It just sounds to me, as an outsider, like this article was written by someone who believes in the cause of Western Sahara, and that this has influenced the stance of the article. I'm hoping someone who knows more about it than me might step in and make some adjustments to more neutrally represent the positions of both sides.

Apologies if I am just ignorant and everyone but me knows that this is a perfectly fair and reasonable description of the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.139.1 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you are right. I would suggest deleting the sentence “Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence” Mosti95 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

It is described in reliable sources as Africa's last colony, so what you think is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick answer. It would be great if you could add the sources. For transparency in the article, I would suggest adding something like “According to xxx WS is the last colony” or something similar. Mosti95 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Those articles don't seem to me to be making this claim themselves. The Independent article reads, eg, "It has been dubbed Africa's last colony"; which is an unsourced reference to a phrase that is apparently in use. It is included as a hook, not as a fact claim about the political history of the region, and there is no suggestion in the article that the phrase is accurate, or even particularly meaningful.

It is also noteworthy that the articles are opinion pieces, and clearly taking a side on the issue, so while they may be reliable for facts, this sort of interpretive language, which seems selected to glorify one side, is a bit beyond what these kinds of sources should be relied upon for. 198.160.139.1 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the map outdated?

According to some sources, it seems that Morocco has extended its berm into Mauritanian territory and successfully split the previously contiguous SADR-controlled part into three separate regions.

Link: https://sovereignlimits.com/boundaries/morocco-western-sahara-land 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Please it Moroccan Sahara not western sahara 105.159.180.210 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No and don't do this yourself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Moroccan Sahara 88.169.38.74 (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Also, please provide reliable sources. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 08:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

UN does not consider Morocco as an occupying entity of the Western Sahara. The latter is indeed in the 4th committee but it I was put there by Morocco when Spain was occupying Western Sahara.

Change "while the remaining 80% of the territory is occupied and administered by neighboring Morocco." to "while the remaining 80% of the territory is administered by neighboring Morocco." Neglectos (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The General Assembly have called Morocco an occupier multiple times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any justification! since when a sovereigns country occupying it's land ? 88.169.38.74 (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I cannot justify Morocco occupying Western Sahara, which is foreign territory to them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done You need to provide a source to support the requested change. - wolf 13:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

"Disputed territory" in lead sentence

Should its description as a "disputed territory" be in the lead sentence? Compare with the following:

• The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant spanning about 1,800 km2 (690 sq mi).
• Crimea is a peninsula in Eastern Europe, on the northern coast of the Black Sea, almost entirely surrounded by the Black Sea and the smaller Sea of Azov.
• The Liancourt Rocks are a group of islets in the Sea of Japan between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago.
• Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region in the South Caucasus.

As you can see, almost no other article about a disputed territory refers to them as such in the lead sentence, I think it would be better suited to have the lead written something like this, and summarise the geography afterwards, then get into the political situation:

• Western Sahara is a region the northwest coast and in the Maghreb region of North and West Africa.

- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an improvement. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The current lead in this article gives to much weight to the current political situation IMO compared to the other ones I linked above, it should be balanced in also summarising the geography and history. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Hi @M.Bitton, could you please explain why did you dismiss the content i added as "UNDUE"? SimoooIX (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I did so don't you dare call it "unexplained" and don't ping me again. It's not just UNDUE, it's POV that serves no purpose other than a political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1)- you called my edit "UNDUE", so you sould explain why.

2)- If you don't want to be pinged, please explain your edits next time. What you're doing doesn't make anysense. SimoooIX (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

What POV? and what political agenda? Please refrain from such accusations. The scholarly source clearly suggests what i added.

In the 1540s, according to Marmol-Carvajal (a Spaniard who was prisoner in Morocco for over seven years), the authority of Muhammad al-Mahdi reached as far as Saqiyat al-Hamra.

It is not undue. The Saqiya el-Hamra is a part of Western Sahara and thus its history is a part of Western Sahara's. SimoooIX (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Now that you're familiar with how Wikipedia works, I don't need to tell you what to do or waste time explaining to you what WP:UNDUE is. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you are "done" here, I'm taking this to ANI. SimoooIX (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• For those who are not familiar with the subject: this edit is clearly meant to create a historical link between present-day Morocco and Western Sahara (a contentious subject that was settled once and for all by the ICJ). M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  That wasn't the reason why added it. But isn't there a "historical link" already? Am I the one who's going to create a historical link? Sorry, but your excuses don't make anysense. SimoooIX (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  We're not talking about you normal historical links that are shared by all neighbours. This is a case of asinine irredentist claims that have been conjured up in the 20th century. M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if i accurately undestood what you meant. Please could you clarify? SimoooIX (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

  Western Sahara is not only a disputed geographic area, but also holds a rich historical significance, which is why there is a dedicated section for "history". The content I added, which is sourced, pertains to the 16th century rather than the 20th or 21st centuries. (I actually still have more content to add) SimoooIX (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for asking me to comment. Simoool, what kind of content are you planning on adding? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you koavf, the content i wanted to add is about history. please see my edit here, and here is the source. --SimoooIX (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  This does seem like a one-off opinion from several centuries ago, so I think it may be WP:UNDUE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  Luis del Mármol Carvajal is one of the most reliable chroniclers when it comes to this period. also these maps here [1][2][3] are confirming that the Saadi authority had reached Saqiya al-Hamra region. SimoooIX (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Koavf, i'm waiting for your answer please. SimoooIX (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  A one-off reference to a single source several centuries ago seems undue to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't undue especially when it comes from such a reliable chronicler (not a random person). Also what about the maps? SimoooIX (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources about the subject establish DUE, not random maps (let alone stupid ones, like those that are usually published by sciencespo). Anyway, now that you have the third opinion , you have no reason to keep banging on about this. M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

  @Simoooix.haddi You're annoying and playing stupid. If you are incapable of understanding what has been explained to you already you should spend time studying logic, reason and English. But you do understand the issues and that is why you've been overruled. On the subject matter i don't care much about it as I'm from a different continent. SarsZals (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  This is a personal attack and you've been warned in your talk page. (The following question is not for you) Is it normal that this new editor pinged my old username? Or because that was my username when i started this discussion? (This is a serious question) SimoooIX (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Correction on Moroccan frontiers

moroccan south borders is Mauritania. There is no country in UNations called western Sahara,. It's Moroccan Sahara. Eastern and western. Please correct. And always go to sources like united nations before publishing. Thank you 196.75.138.108 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article does not claim to be about a country, it's about a disupted geographical region. It clearly states "Western Sahara is a disputed territory..." in the opening sentence. The borders of the article's subject are correct. The partially-recognized country is Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Fbergo (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

Add coordinates:

{{Coord|24|N|14|W|type:country|display=title}}

Wiki-ircecho (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

41.147.1.220 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

Any objection to reducing on the northwest coast and in the Maghreb region of North and West Africa to on the northwest coast of Africa? Srnec (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No objection, I guess, but I think it's fine as is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Law enforcement in Western Sahara" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Law enforcement in Western Sahara has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 28 § Law enforcement in Western Sahara until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence.

I’ve got a few problems with this sentence.

first this article is about the region not the partially recognized SAR, so i honestly don’t know if it fits to say that it is a colony, since only states not regions are colony’s to my understanding. Maybe I’m mistaken so please correct me if there are articles on Wikipedia about regions, not states that got colonized.

secondly the sentence seems politically in favor of claims of SAR. It is written as a fact, not as a statement by someone. There is no mentioning of any counter opinion.

Thirdly there is no mentioned source for this “fact”. Mosti95 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's your problem. Western Sahara is also known as Africa's last colony (that's its second common name) and that's how we'll describe it regardless of what anyone thinks, likes or dislikes about it. There really nothing to discuss here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m happy to discuss with you the topic. I would suggest you to be open to dialog and ask you to keep a respectful tone.

I made an suggestion under the other comment and would ask you to read it and give me your feedback about. Mosti95 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe there was a misunderstanding. I see a Problem in the article. The sentence seems, non fitting, biased and is not backed by a source. I suggested you some changes to make the article in my opinion better and more scientific. I would like to hear your serious response towards the suggestions. If you do not want to give any response to it and don’t change anything, I’m convinced that the changes I suggested are reasonable and I will apply them. In that case I hope that you don’t start edit warring. Mosti95 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If you dare to delete what is easily attributable (despite what I said), then you'll be reported again to the admins. I hope I made myself clear. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If it is “easily attributable” I suggest adding a scientific source.

i don’t see right now me doing anything against, the codex of Wikipedia. Maybe you could explain to me why you think deleting that unfitting, biased and unsourced “fact” would be in violation of the terms of Wikipedia? Mosti95 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If you delete what is easily attributable one more time, you will be reported (again). M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You do understand that the text is right now:

also known as Africa's last colony, is a disputed territory on the northwest coast of Africa. Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence

?

i asked Wikipedia for a third opinion. I hope this resolves it. Mosti95 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I entertained your disruptive editing and socking for far too long. Enough is enough. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I made a mistake when I started editing, I didn’t know that you are not allowed to edit logged off after you edit an article while logged in. This was a few months ago. The admin acknowledged it and i learned out of my mistake and did not repeat it since then.

I named my Arguments for the change and stayed respectful while you Ridiculed and threatened me.

The third opinion will see what you wrote. I hope you change after this for your mistakes as well. Mosti95 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Bla blah blah (the way you describe your logged-out block evasion is how you describe everything).... @Koavf: could you please weigh in? I honestly can no longer deal with their usual nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the extremely disrupting editing to enforce pov and the Eddit warring. Mosti95 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. If you keep on reverting, I'll just report it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Then work on consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. "Africa's last colony" is a very common epithet and true and relevant to decolonization. It's far from accidental or trivial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just move on from this and find something else constructive to do with our time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. We should delete the sentence since it is just a catchy moniker. Mosti95 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you at least agree with yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not just a catchy moniker. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it is blatant propaganda. Mosti95 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you at least agree with yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You are just mad that I dared to delete it. Mosti95 (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate why you disagree? Mosti95 (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not? That's not how logic works: you have to prove that it is propaganda. :/ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&diff=1182879481&oldid=1182216561) agreeing with Mosti95 that it needs a source. M.Bitton, please engage in discussion and don't just dimiss people's concerns with statements like "that's your problem". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I returned it with a source. It was extremely easy to find, I had my pick of many. Please don't just delete things when they are extremely easy to source - we're here to grow the encyclopedia, right? MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree and was in the process of looking into it. You beat me to it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: If you agree that it is easily attributable, then why did you remove it? Also, why did you inject your WP:OR into the article? The scare quotes that you added are not used in the hundreds of sources that refer to it as Africa's last colony (justifying the "also known as" and the bolding). M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be bolded, as it's not an alternative name. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

1) You didn't answer my first question. 2) This is not a vote: the alternative is supported by hundreds of sources. 3) You haven't addressed the fact that you keep injecting you WP:OR into the article and edit warring over it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the other editors: @Skitash and MrOllie: could you please weigh in? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I believe that "Africa's last colony" should be included in the lead, preferably in bold. There are countless sources referring to Western Sahara using that term. Skitash (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, there are so many sources (we're talking hundreds, if not thousands) that refer to it as such that it makes no sense to even ask for one. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of that moniker in the second sentence in bold reads as textbook POV writing. It's an obviously charged and variously interpretable description being put in as a name. It comes across strongly as something not written to summarise the body but to get across a specific view, and it being edit warred in seems an extension of this. CMD (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: it's been dubbed that way by countless sources. How do we usually deal with an alternative name? Would restoring the "also known as" (which was removed) be more appropriate? M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a name, it is a description. It's an obviously catchy moniker that sources will use for that reason; this use does not mean it is encyclopaedic, does not mean it is appropriate for the lead, and certainly does not mean it is an alternative name. CMD (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw a revision by @Moroccan Citizen

that got reverted by @M.Bitton

instead of the colony narrative it was just:

has been on the lastUN list of [[United Nations list of non-self-governing territories

has been on the lastUN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since 1963 <ref name="unpop">{{United Nations|url=https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt/western-sahara African|title=Western colonialSahara stateUN yetPage to|version=1963 achieverevision its|publisher=United independenceNations}}</ref>

In my opinion this sounds more neutral. Mosti95 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from pinging me. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why Mosti95 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverting the edits of multiple editors (mine, MrOllie's and Skitash's) to impose your POV (by restoring the edit of a blocked editor) without consensus is very disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Mosti95 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop being extremely disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, stop falsely accusing and assume good faith. Mosti95 (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mosti95, please be more patient and polite. It's not helpful being rude and aggressive. @M.Bitton also. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't a moniker that is used in hundreds of sources encyclopedic? Don't we add nicknames to WP:BLP to which the strictest policies apply? M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopaedic writing and news/journalism writing are different, and have different purposes and conventions. "Africa's last colony" is a description, and thus presented on its on is at best pointlessly repetitive of what should be the article content. We do not write "Belarus, or Europe's last dictatorship..." for example. It might be due discussion/mention on its own term as a label, but that should be clearly in context and would not be remotely due in the lead. CMD (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

When we have reliable sources (including scholarly ones) that label it that way, then it makes sense to add it to the lead (just like we do for WP:BLP articles). It is in context and a good summary of what's already covered in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That argument does not follow at all, we don't include everything sources say in the lead. The BLP comparison is flawed in that this is a description. The label does not summarise the text in the body, which sensibly does not engage in trying to define what makes something a colony and whether this is the "last" one in Africa. CMD (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's how the RS describe it. In any case, most editors agree that it should be added back to the lead, so the only question is whether it is added in bold or not. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

RS can describe something in a lot of ways, that doesn't change that this is a pointed description aimed at eliciting a particular POV. In particular, this appears to be a phrase used to support the independence of Namibia that, has now been adopted for the Sahrawi cause. CMD (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the POV (or "description" as you said) of hundreds of sources. M.Bitton (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That is to be expected of a topic with a lot of sources and strong views. I'm slightly confused by the parenthetical, are you disagreeing that the statement of an adjective and two common nouns (one possessive) is a description? CMD (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to include in the lead but should definitely not be bolded as it not an alternative name. A version like this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&oldid=1182989598) seems a good option, with the phrasing of: Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence, and is often referred to as "Africa's last colony". (Could be with or without quotes in my opinion.) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please consider the 3 points I mentioned in the other comment, especially since the article is not about SAR but about the territory Western Sahara. Mosti95 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll respond to those points you've made and hopefully so will others. Also, you are making some good contributions here but I want to remind you to please remember Wikipedia:Civility, it's pretty important. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try better! I will read the article. Mosti95 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear. Focus on content, not contributors, and don't engage in personal disputes with other editors. Just ignore rudeness etc. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the majority agree that it should be in the lead, all that's left now is to work out whether it should be in bold or not. M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Mosti95 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's nice to see that you at least agree with yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting @M.Bitton

The current state of the article is:

Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence, and has been dubbed Africa's last colony.

is this how you imagined it?

for me it would be more fitting to just say.

“Western Sahara has been dubbed as “Africa’s last colony”.”

the first part of the sentence is in my opinion a bit dubious. Mosti95 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate why you consider the first sentence to be dubious? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence describes a fact while the second part describes how it is described.

the first part is for three reasons problematic:

1. This article is about the Region Western Sahara, not the Sahraoui Arab Republic.

Regions are according to my under standing not colonies, states are. Saying that it is a colony is mixing the state (SAR) and the Western Sahara uncleanly together and opens the question why Wikipedia has two separate articles.

2. The statement is politically loaded. It positions itself, clearly on the pro-SAR/Contra-Moroccan position towards the conflict. To my understanding Wikipedia should try to stay neutral. Just as it is wrong to write something like “Westsahara is the southern province of Morocco” we should also avoid the other direction.

3. I checked the sources. The Amnesty Source says: “ Crowned as Africa’s last colony”. This indicates just the second part of the sentence in the article, not the first. The other source is unfortunately behind a paywall but the first sentences indicate that he is talking about the SAR not the Western Sahara.

This is why I suggest to remove the first part and leave the second.

But I’m happy to discuss it! Mosti95 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't know enough about the subject to get to the bottom of this. I did find that Chagos has been referred to as "Britain's last colony in Africa" though [4], for what that's worth.

I'm personally fine with removing the entire sentence of "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence, and is often referred to as Africa's last colony." I don't see that there's any informative or encyclopedic reason to include this, especially if it's controversial and/or not even a clear fact. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources decide what's controversial and what's not. We have hundreds of RS describing it as such (this is factual statement about a territory that is awaiting decolonization as per the UN), to remove it is tantamount to censorship. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It certainly is controversial. The sources mentioned by @M.Bittonare politics articles, not scientific papers. They don’t fulfill the same standards and are biased towards a direction.

i would prefer to delete the sentence entirely, but would accept something like, “due to the conflict between Morocco and the frente Polisario, some authors call it the last colony of Africa“.

honestly, the best solution, is to delete the sentence and ad the by @M.Bitton sentence that it is listed by the un as a non self governing territory.

That is neutral towards booth positions and based on facts. Mosti95 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"politics articles, not scientific papers." of course. What "scientific paper" talks about colonialism? What in the world are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Im sorry that you got confused. what exactly is not clear about the diffentiation of science and politics when we talk about articles? Mosti95 (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Your complaint is that someone provided a political article about a political topic: it's not a serious complaint. You're not being a serious person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but ask you to pleas keep a civil manner and assume good faith just as I do.

Political articles are not written the same way as scientific articles. I doubt that you find for example on Google scholar articles that state west Sahara is a colony.

im happy to discuss this topic further in a respectful manner. Mosti95 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Political articles are not written the same way as scientific articles": this is precisely my point.

"I doubt that you find for example on Google scholar articles that state west Sahara is a colony." See, this is how I know you're not being serious: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29&q=%22Western+Sahara%22+colony&btnG= ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Im excited to see you provide scientific articles that besides the Catchy title actually write it like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯???????????????????????? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Read the articles and see if they actually call Western Sahara like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

What? Several of them do in the title. Is this some kind of prank or performance art or something? Seriously. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, the title is most likely just chosen to be catchy. The question is wether or not the author kn the articles actually call them like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Dude, this was your idea. You wrote, "Yeah, but I bet if you looked on Google Scholar, they wouldn't say 'Africa's last colony'!" and then I showed you that there are plenty of academic sources on the outlet you chose that say precisely that. This is so far from productive, good faith, useful conversation that I have to wonder why you're doing this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, I recommend reading the articles. Titles can be misleading. Mosti95 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We've read the articles, the titles are not misleading. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s awesome! Please name some and include the page number, that clearly states that Western Sahara, not the SAR is in fact the last African colony so we can assess further! Thank you so much for your work! Mosti95 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They have a habit of wasting people's time by moving of the goal posts, making any discussion with them a time sink. Just ignore them and let's start discussing which version is more appropriate: the one with the bolded text or the one without. M.Bitton (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither of them of course, since there is no provided proof that the scientific community uses that term.

But thank you for providing your opinion. Mosti95 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the editor who yesterday said: for me it would be more fitting to just say. “Western Sahara has been dubbed as “Africa’s last colony”.”

Their time wasting tactics are tiresome and extremely boring. Please ignore them and let's move on to the next stage. M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Having a sincere discussion is not time wasting. It’s unfortunate that you do not provide aqequate sources. I’m still fine with the dubbing sentence, to compromise. I’m not fine with Wikipedia saying that Westsahara is a colony. Mosti95 (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It should definitely not be in bold, there is no reason for that. Does anyone other than yourself consider it an alternate name that should be bolded? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about @Koavf:, but Skitash agrees that it should in bold and MrOllie restored it in bold. Let's wait for koavf's comment. M.Bitton (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that it should be in bold per MOS:BOLD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Regions are according to my under standing not colonies, states are". This is entirely mistaken. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. Could you Elaborate please why you think it is mistaken? Mosti95 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because states aren't colonies: see Montevideo Convention, for instance. A state cannot be a colony. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you ellaborate pleas? I don’t recall that the Montevideo conventions defines that regions but not states can be subject of colonialism. Mosti95 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

A state is a sovereign political entity: it is not controlled by another state. A region is a physical place and can be the basis of a political entity that is a colony. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretation. It would be great if you could find some literature that clarifies this in a scientific manner. Mosti95 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Scientific? There is no branch of science that is about politics, and I say that as someone with degrees in philosophy and political science. This entire conversation is off the rails and ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This certain question is part of „Staatstheorie“. I have a degree in Law and Economy and know that this is a question science addresses. Mosti95 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to disagree.

I would advise you to read this article.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatstheorie#:~:text=Eine%20Staatstheorie%20oder%20Staatsphilosophie%20behandelt,und%20juristische%20Bedingungen%20und%20Grenzen. Mosti95 (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Meine Deutsche ist nicht gut. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There are great translation tools on the web. I would recommend to use them. I hope after you read those articles we can come closer to an agreement! Mosti95 (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Boy, that would be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Mosti95, I feel like you're arguing in good faith but you're not being very logical at all. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I Hope every participant is arguing in good faith.

could you pleas ellaborate why you think that my arguments don’t make sense? In my opinion there is no reason to add sentence at all. It only adds controversy. Mosti95 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot in the above discussion, but there is certainly nothing like a clear consensus for anything particular. The addition in question remains very pointed, and the result is a good example of the benefits of treating WP:Leads as the summaries they are meant to be. CMD (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree Mosti95 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is what you said: for me it would be more fitting to just say. “Western Sahara has been dubbed as “Africa’s last colony”.”, making your sudden agreement look pathetically opportunistic. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

im Stil fine with writing it like that. I prefer not mentioning it all. I disagree with the first part cause it is propaganda. The second part is stupid but acceptable.

maybe you should do some reading exercises??? Mosti95 (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The only issue was whether it should be in bold or described as "known as" in the lead sentence. Of all the involved editors, you were the only one who was opposed to its inclusion in the lead (while in fact it is more lead worthy than some of what's already in there); and since nobody, but yourself, has disagreed with the compromise that was introduced by IOHANNVSVERVS, then we have an implicit consensus. Needless to remind you that consensus needs not be unanimous. Also, your "revert" doesn't restore the stable version. I will await and see what the others have to say about the refusal to compromise and what can only be described as censorship.

@MrOllie, Koavf, and Skitash: given the previous discussion,, do you agree that this version (which was introduced by "IOHANNVSVERVS" and slightly adjusted by myself) is a good compromise? IOHANNVSVERVS obviously thinks it is and so do I. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s not true. Mosti95 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How is that a compromise lmao Mosti95 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems good. I agree. Skitash (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems awful and biased. I disagree. Mosti95 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It looks good to me. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Outrageous Mosti95 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. Let's move on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Now that the wrong sentence has been deleted we can move on and stop wasting time Mosti95 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What "wrong sentence"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How many sentences did get deleted? Mosti95 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You answered a question with question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

So? Mosti95 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

So you therefore didn't answer the question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course I did. Mosti95 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

5 editors agree with the way it is. The fact that you don't is irrelevant and doesn't give you the right to impose your view on the majority. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Most editors agree and the phrase has been there for years and it's sourced. This is stupid. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

there is no consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One editor bludgeoning the talk page does not prevent a consensus from forming. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting since this is not what is happening it’s irrelevant. There are atleast 2 editors who disagree.

there is consensus no matter how much you wanna make it work. You guys don’t make any sense. Mosti95 (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If 5 editors agreeing with it is not consensus, I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course you don’t. Mosti95 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Anyway, the majority has spoken, time for you to move on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s not that complex. The sentence is wrong. Mosti95 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How is it wrong? It's sourced. What source do you have to contradict this sourced information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the compromise version is fine, though I also think @CMD makes a good point. Regarding the discussion here, I agree that @Mosti95 is being disruptive (Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process). I also think that @M.Bitton has been repeatedly uncivil, making rude remarks and accusing others of bad faith—including seemingly accusing @CMD of censorship. That said, I do think the article is improving from all our efforts. Let's try to keep things positive moving forward. We're all working together here and are all unpaid volunteers, we don't need this to be a stressful process. 🌻 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, thanks @M.Bitton for your willingness to compromise. I hope you interpret my criticism as respectful and intending to be constructive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: I have known CMD for a while and I certainly didn't accuse them personally of censorship, so please don't misrepresent my words or take them out of context. As for the compromise, I even accepted the scare quotes and the move from the lead sentence that wasn't even discussed just so that we can stop wasting time on this. M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I've fully protected the article for two weeks so that you all can achieve some sort of consensus, or at least stop the bickering. Mosti95: Consider yourself warned, and any further disruptive editing will lead to a block. M.Bitton: please try to disengage from the discussion where possible. If you believe another editor is abusing the consensus process, and they've already been warned, consider reporting them to ANI instead of continuing to engage at the article's talk page. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Obrigado. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: Can you explain your edit summary here saying "it's been here for years"? It was added on 31 October. I'm not seeing it spotchecks of the last 500 versions. To "leave it" at the stable version would be to maintain the lead as it was, although it has now being edit warred in. As for this discussion it is a mess, if there is a desire to push this in then an RfC should be started that would hopefully be less susceptible to bludgeoning. CMD (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's true: it was not there before. That said, it's sourced and there's consensus for it to be there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think an RfC is a good idea if you are strongly against the "compromise version", for which there is currently rough consensus in my opinion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The new version is not as blatant but remains clearly pointed. It is a step in the opposite of direction of the WP:IMPARTIAL writing we should be aiming for, which would be the case even if it was written in accordance with WP:LEAD and not being edit warred in as a claimed longstanding piece of content. CMD (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Western Sahara is still not decolonized is not some trivial or biased point: it's a pretty fundamental part of understanding the topic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

A point already in the article and lead, in a much more WP:IMPARTIAL manner. CMD (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is very common for Western Sahara to be called "Africa's last colony", including from reliable, third-party sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The reliable third party source in question you point to is explicitly using it as an attributed opinion. That is exactly why it does not belong in an encyclopaedia lead. CMD (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Per? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

IMPARTIAL, LEAD, I believe this has been covered. WP:NEWSSTYLE another quite relevant consideration that I raised above in spirit. CMD (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So shall we start an RFC on Talk:Citizen Kane removing the part about how it's been considered innovative and precedent-setting? I don't see anything in WP:NEWSSSTYLE that prohibits this from the lead, but please show me what I'm missing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Moroccan occupation is already covered in the lead, with the dispute taking up the entirety of the lead outside of the first paragraph (and taking up much of that paragraph too). Per IMPARTIAL, conflicts should be described in a formal tone avoiding editorial bias. Per NEWSSTYLE, we should avoid pervasive writing. The sentence in question, "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence and has been dubbed "Africa's last colony"", is a pretty quintessential example of that sort of writing. The term "African colonial state" feels jargony and gives the impression of being selected to meet a technicality. "last" and "yet" are both directly framing a particular outcome. The "dubbed "Africa's last colony"" is similarly a direct portrayal of that position, and repeats "last" to boot. (The directly political nature of the phrase "Africa's last colony" is underscored quite heavily in that it was previously used to campaign for Namibian independence.) This framed repetition of already covered information seems to only serve to put the epithet in the lead, which is not particularly informative and is the sort of direct quote introduction IMPARTIAL warns against. Stepping back, the presence of such loaded sentences weaken articles as a whole, providing a suggestion to the reader that other writing may be intended to push a similar framing, and thus putting a cloud over the information being conveyed. Being located in the lead heightens this impression, which is why leads should be handled with particular care. CMD (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently so, which is why it would be helpful if a proponent for adding the sentence would open an RfC as I suggested above (or other form of DR). CMD (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Not everything requires an RfC and there's clear consensus here, but feel free to post one if you think it's important. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There is not clear consensus here, the discussion is mostly as summarised "bickering". The WP:ONUS for consensus is on editors who want to add a controversial change. CMD (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Everyone here is fine with it except you and a troll. You may want to consider that. I don't see anything particularly interesting happening here except you reiterating yourself, so if you want to have an RfC over this, knock yourself out. Everyone else is fine with the status quo. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf Wikipedia:Civility, WP:AGF. CMD is making good points here I don't know why you're being so dismissive.

@CMD, you'll have to open an RfC to proceed with this in my

opinion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, so I'm dismissive only to the extent that it's just one person repeating himself. I've engaged this conversation for a long time and I've read everything he's written and taken it seriously. When I mentioned how there is no prohibition on opinions in the lead and pointed to a pretty common and trivial example, he just ignored it. Do you sincerely think there's something more to be discussed with the current participants here? I don't. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The consensus for the compromise is clear and confirmed again by the participants. If some want to overturn it and feel the need for a RfC and further waste of time, then the RfC will have to include all the options and not just the compromise (which was meant to spare us the hassle). M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree Mosti95 (talk) 06:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"서사하라" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 서사하라 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § 서사하라 until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Westsahara the most sparsely populated Country?

The lead sentence is : Western Sahara is a disputed territory on the northwest coast of Africa. The article description is: This article is about the geographical area. For the partially recognized state that controls the Free Zone and claims sovereignty over Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The linked list never specifies if it is talking about countries or dependent territories. Why would we suddenly start calling it a country? Mosti95 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to think that 'country' is a term that excludes dependent territories. It is not. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why should we prefer the use of country or dependant territory? Mosti95 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it is a term that properly includes both the Western Sahara and the other regions it is being compared with. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So according to you Kabylia would be a country? Mosti95 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems off the topic. Stick to this article and this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to show you the absurdity of that position. Mosti95 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your attempt to set up a straw man to attack. Such tactics are never convincing. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ad absurdum is not strawman Mosti95 (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone is confusing Ad absurdum with absurd comparisons. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Find a source that calls Kabylia a country. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep the changes on the discussion page. Mosti95 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton

Why did you revert my changes? What is the benefit of calling it a country over just naming the list? Mosti95 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because you are clearly edit warring to impose your POV. I asked you before to refrain from pinging me, so the next time you do, I will simply mute you. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Then mute me. If you delete what I write and don’t explain or open a thread I will have ping you again. Mosti95 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: this is nothing but another time wasting exercise by the OP. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is misleading Mosti95 (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

How so? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The average reader thinks of a country as an independent state, which the Western Sahara clearly is not. Also this article is about the region Western Sahara not the claimed republic. Mosti95 (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

But states are abstractions and cannot be more or less densely populated, hence it makes sense. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Still, it is misleading since the average reader thinks of a country as an independent state. That’s why I prefer to just say it scores place number 2 on the list of the most sparesely populated countries and dependency’s.

this gives the same information without being misleading. Whether or not it is a country can be discussed on the other page then. Mosti95 (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proof? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

well I don’t know how to proof to you, that saying it scores place 2 on the list and saying it is the second most sparsely poplulated country gives the Same information. Mosti95 (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You made the assertion about readers. Assertions aren't evidence. What is your evidence that this is happening or that there is some problem that needs to be solved? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe my assertion is reasonable. Of course there is no way to proof it. This is why I’m engaging in discussion. Maybe you ca provide some arguments for the other side if you think that it is unreasonable. Mosti95 (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

What would you accept as a proof? Mosti95 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don't know what proof is in principle, then I don't know why you're even here. I'm not having another endless conversation about your nitpicking and trolling. You made a claim and it has no evidence at all and now you're feigning ignorance at what evidence even is. This is a waste of time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No matter what I would say you would say it’s not a proof. And you defining what kind of proof you would have accepted makes this clear.

also WP:Civility Mosti95 (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ You're not going to derail this article with your pleading and bias. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is already a small victory that the sentence is not in lead anymore Mosti95 (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove it. Once protection is over, it will be restored. You need consensus to remove the basic facts from this article and you don't have it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Im leaving Wikipedia for good. Alhamdulilah I had a smal impact for building the truth. Mosti95 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Have a nice life. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a very emotional discussion, I'm afraid, but we must recognize: the sentence "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence" is obviously incorrect, because "Western Sahara" is not a State. It is, as the article says, a "disputed territory". The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) is a State (recognized by several other States), but of course the word "colonial state" does not mean the SADR. As a disputed territory, Western Sahara is either the territory of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (and then it is not colonial) or it is "part of Morocco", or even a "province of Spain", and in both cases it is not a State. The wording such as it is now is just plainly contradictory. It should be changed to something that makes sense. Perhaps the easiest thing would be: "Western Sahara has been dubbed "Africa's last colony" or the "last African territory yet to achieve its independence". Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion of lead sentence on dubbing as "Africa's last colony"

Should this article include in its lead the sentence 'Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence and has been dubbed "Africa's last colony"'? CMD (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Chipmunkdavis: why didn't you include all the options? M.Bitton (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what options you refer to, I included the sentence under discussion which I was requested to open an RfC on. CMD (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Opening a RfC is you decision, but you only included the compromise that was reached after a long discussion and not the original options ("also known as", etc.). M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I explicitly suggested others looking for inclusion open the RfC, but this was not taken up, so I put one together on the question of the sentence under discussion using the recommended format at WP:RfC. If you have other formulations in mind, please include them in a comment. CMD (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The ones who reached consensus through a compromise aren't interested in opening a RfC (that's the job of those who are seeking a new consensus). What started the discussion was the addition of also known as Africa's last colony in the lead sentence,[5] which was reworded as has been dubbed Africa's last colony and moved to the end of the sentence [6] and later unbolded [7], before finally being moved (along with another stable sentence to where they are now). I just think that since a RfC is started, we might as well present all the options to the community. M.Bitton (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a step in DR that was suggested by the administrator who protected the article, and while any editor can lack interest in this, I'm not sure why it would be unexpected that someone else would follow up on the given advice. CMD (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• To summarize my input into the prior conversation, the recently proposed sentence deviates from an WP:impartial tone and conveys explicit editorial bias through WP:PERSUASIVE phrasing (eg. "last", "yet"). The formulations used are novel, not part of the article elsewhere, while the topic it addresses is already covered in the lead to the point where there is almost no coverage of anything else. Adding in a clearly slanted sentence is a flag that calls the impartiality of the rest of the lead into question. (As an aside, I do wonder if there is something to write somewhere on the phrase used, "Africa's last colony", as it previously referred to Namibia ([8][9][10]), and it seems to have taken on this new meaning in the early 21st century, but I haven't found any secondary sources covering this usage shift.) CMD (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  What "Africa's last colony" barely referred to in the past is irrelevant to what it has been referring to in the last few decades, i.e., Western Sahara (something that is easily confirmed with a simple search on Google). We also have RS that state that Western Sahara has been dubbed as such. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Include "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence." That is encyclopedically relevant. Do not include "and has been dubbed "Africa's last colony", since that is completely redundant with the first half, is WP:UNDUE use of a quotation from someone, and is use of a term which proves to be ambiguous, since it is also used in other sources to refer to Namibia and perhaps elsewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  How is it UNDUE? It is used in multiple RS, including scholarly ones, either in their own voice or to state that it has been dubbed as such. If there is redundancy as you suggest, then the sentenc can be adjusted to make it clear that the second is the consequence of the first ("and has thereby been dubbed ..." should do that). There is no ambiguity since Namibia became independent 33 years ago. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Include the line. Extremely common and used by many third party sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include it, there are many, many sources. Also include any other reasonable variation - this RFC should not be read as locking in this particular wording. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Africa's last colony" conveys the same message that the first part, "the last African colonial state", already does. There is also the question of what it means to be a colony. It is no longer a part of Spain. Parts of it are occupied by a neighboring country. The rest appears to be independent. Senorangel (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Comment There are two parts to include or not include, as SMcCandlish has explained. Senorangel (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, the RfC is about a sentence (as explained above). Since you already commented, I suggest you keep your notes to your !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are two parts to the sentence. The first about "the last African colonial state" and the second about "Africa's last colony", as SMcCandlish has explained. Aside from what "colony" means exactly in this case, the second part is a repeat. Senorangel (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Include, don't think we need the "dubbed" part, follows already from the first part.Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include (Summoned by bot), however replace "dubbed" with "described as" TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include (from NPOVN) wording should be per SMcCandlish, or at least drop dubbed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Include the line. There is nothing overtly controversial here. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support for include - West Sahara is a colonized by Morocco. Wether it has to be decolonized or not isn't encyclopedic, seen as the term has recently been unironicallyy declared antisemitic by X. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

United Nations disagrees with itself

This post will not ask for any changes to the article, but rather ask editors to be careful where they get their numbers from, on this article and on other articles.

The UN "Population division" gives a figure for Western Sahara's population at 587,259 in 2023 (that's mid-year, I believe).[11]

But the UN "Statistics division" which puts out the Statistical Yearbook gives a figure of 76,425 with the note "Comprising the Northern Region and Southern Region." Clearly this is a different definition, being used in a way that is easy to miss.

Link to yearbook 2022: [12]

Under "World Summary" see "Table 3" and click on either 'pdf' or 'xls'. Link to pdf: [13]

Either of these sources is used in countless articles, so editors should make sure the region under discussion on Wikipedia has the same definition as whichever UN division is being sourced. Wizmut (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

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)