Talk:Western Sahara/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Western Sahara. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Error

There is an error: The zone is very wealthy in phosphorus, gas and maybe petrolium. Its sea is also very wealthy.

Should we be describing the region as a country? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:08, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that Morocco is internationally recognized in its "normal" borders, not including WS, and that the crisis is yet unresolved, yes. --Joy [shallot] 11:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, WS isn't "internationally recognized" as a country, so if your standard is international recognition, than we shouldn't call it one. My point is NOT that it is part of Morocco, and therefore not a country. My point is that it isn't a country in its own right, regardless of who has sovreignty at the moment. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:13, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

The UN recognizes that it's not just a Moroccan territory, so it's somewhere inbetween a country and a dependency... either way, the template applied to subnational entities don't differ much from the one applied to countries, so I don't see much of a problem even if it one day becomes a province of Morocco. --Joy [shallot] 19:11, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much the template that worried me, it's the usage of the word country throughout the article body. I'm gonna change appropriate instances to region. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:15, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd pick "territory", "region" sounds somewhat more slanted towards the Moroccan POV to me. --Joy [shallot] 11:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I worked for MINURSO in 1999/2001, deciding who was and was not going to get to vote; we had the same problem, what to call WS - couldn't call it a 'country' or we'd offend the Moroccans, couldn't call it a 'region' either. The term unsed by MINURSO was 'territory'.PiCo 03:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

For your information, WS is recognized by a minority of 49 countries out of 151. Morocco has made huge investmùents to develop this region which in my opinion is part of itsd teritory. Unfortunately, the article lacks somme historical background. The Polisario front had been largely manipulated and can't claim representativity of sahrawi people who in majority is faithful to Morocco

===>Inaccuracies in the last post: The SADR has been recognized by 76 states, most recently South Africa in 2004. Including the SADR and Taiwan, there are 194 countries. I honestly have no idea what your last two sentences are supposed to mean. Justin (koavf) 16:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

western sahara is neither a country nor a state

People,

You are presenting ws as if it was an independent country or a state. Fact is that this is NOT the case. So, either you do wikipedia (here) or you do politics (somwhere else) but not both in the same time.

If you want to inform about ws you have to present the informaton in an objective way and include not only information that is pro polsiario and/or pro algeria.

Morocco claims this region is part of its territory and this opinion MUST be presented and respected as long as the conflict persists.

Regards

IT'S SO SAD

Wikipedia has been always a great pleace to refer to if you need a quick glance at any info of any type. It is sad that politics is covering the subject of Western Sahara, English version. I really believe that the aricle is providing enough information for the reader about the territory, the contest, the claims for both Polisario movement and the kingdom of Morocco. Howevere, I don't see any reason for all the discussion and the additional article of dispute. They've managed to create the dispute over Wikepidia, now the region is disputed, even over Wikepidia. In fact, every subject in Wikepidia could be disputed and to be really neutural and objective, all subjects should bear the logo of ( disputed ), check aricles of Libya, Israeli-Arab conflict and many others in Wikepidia. It'll be much better if Wikipedia is a place that people can go to and read and change if they're aware of the subject. To make it a forum of debate inwhich one supports Polisario and another supports Morocco will really affect the aim of Wikipedia.There are many forums for that. I don't wanna see Wikipedia falling to the level of some arab websites where there is a huge debate about the subject of Western Sahara full of pro and against insted of useful infromation. Plus, the discussion of the nature of the Saharawi case is in hands of the United Nations since the 60's and hopefully it is the one that is going to decide the future of W.Sahara, those who question the nature of the region can go back to the UN's documents, don't we believe that it is our United Nations,where nations meet and agree, the documents are full of description and details. This article is pro Polisario, that one is pro Morocco is the beginning of bringing Wikipedia down to weaki-pedia. Thank you all.

Canlcellations of recognition must be mentioned

Hi,

I am not very exprienced with wikipedia. How can the following centence be completed?

"[...] whereas the SADR is recognized by several dozen."

This should be copmpleted by the follwing one:

"However many states froze or cancelled their recognition." (source is in the overview table in the article itself)

Who can help? Thanks.

--> Link to edit found. Thanks

The article states that dozens (70-80) of the states recognised the "sadr" but does not mention that many of them (23 + case of yemen unclear) have cancelled their recognition. This fact is relevant to mention as it concerns the decision of not only one or two states but a share of ca 30% (!!) of those who spoke out their recognition. I think this must be mentioned in the article (and must be taken into consideration as well when replying to other users (s. thread above)).

Regards

Wikima 12:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please provide sources as to when and under what circumstances recognition was withdrawn by 23 countries, and which ones. Thanks. El_C 14:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Polisario is algerian backed

All,

This is a fact. polisario is algerian backed. None can deny this. When international media talk about the sahara issue they rarely miss to mention the involvement of algeria in the conflict. The fact that this country denies its involvement is part of its strategy against Morocco and no argument as such.

Read an example of the BBC here qhich says: "The Algerian-backed Polisario said the latest proposals..." (Source: BBC News World Edition http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2677581.stm).

Leaving polisario as the only actor against Morocco in the conflict shows an unbalanced picture of the situation and reflects a political position rather than the transmission of information onf acts as should be a project liek wikipedia .

Therefore I would like to make that change and insert the "Algerian-backed Polisario ..." in the follwing paragraph (History):

"A guerrilla war carried by the Algerian-backed Polisario Front contesting Rabat's sovereignty ended in a 19 ..."

How is the change to be done?

===>No one doubts Algerian support Since the 1970's, Polisario has been supported by Cuba, Libya, and other states, most consistently by Algeria. This is not to imply that it is an Algerian movement, though, as it was founded by the indigenous inhabitants (the Sahrawis), and the membership is composed entirely of them. Furthermore, when Morocco consistently refused to have talks with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, as they did not recognize them as a state, Algerian diplomats represented their interests.

I don't think anyone is trying to make the conflict out to be simply Morocco versus Polisario (although they are the most prominent parties). Certainly Algeria, Mauritania, France, Spain, the United States, the African Union, and the United Nations are all interested parties to the conflict.

I would object to inserting the phrase "Algerian-backed Polisario Front", as the Polisario Front was seeking independence prior to Morocco's invasion, and the phrasing is so vague that it implies that the Western Sahara conflict is simply a proxy war between Morocco (and Mauritania) and Algeria, which is absolutely not true. To some extent, there are Algerian interests in a proxy war, but that is not the source of the conflict. Justin (koavf) 20:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

===> At the level of language I think that saying "algerian backed" means "algerian backed" and not that the movement is algerian.

You are trying to put algeria just as on the same level as any other country that supports the polisario. This is not true.

Algeria has from the beginning hosted, financed, supported and did EVERY THING for the polisario. algeria invests a large amount of its monney, puts the own country and people under risk of a potential with Morocco, invests a huge part of its diplomacy in a war against Mrocco in all intrnational instances.

Do you know that algeria banished ca 50.000 moroccans from its country to Morocco after having dispossed them from all their goods (houses, businesses etc) just because of this sahara issue? Is this supporting or something else??

In fact polsiario is NOTHING without algeria. When the last moroccan prisonors of war were released lately (some of them spent since more than 20 years in the camps of the polisario) their liberation went via algier! The USA almost explicitly thanked the algerian governement for "helping" getting them free. Only the execution of their liberation was done in Tindouf where they were hold under circonstumces that go against every international law.

Lately and in the same context the USA by its representative Mr Lugar almost ignored the polisario and asked Morocco and algeria to talk directly and make further efforts in order to find an issue. Immediately after this algeria sent one of its most important men (Mr Belkheir) as embassador to Rabat. etc. Ths USA did nto ask Mauritania, Spain, the Afircan Union, France or Sweden to find an issue with Morocco.

And you are telling algeria's support is the same as any other country's?

I think it is important to mention the algeria backing of the polsario. This is the minimum to do as the examples of the BBC News shows.

I also think it is necessary to provide more information on the role of algeria in the conflict around the sahara.

If we don't do so the topic would look too unbalanced and politically too tendencious.

Wikima 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Confusion and misdirection I'm a little confused by your phrase "at the level of language" and what you are trying to express here. All I'm saying is, the movement was supported by several states, the most important being Algeria, without question. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

In regards to the POW's, I think your claims are a little curious - of course the POW's went through Algiers, as they were in refugee camps on Algerian soil. While Western Sahara did have some of the longest-held POW's in the world, Morocco also has some from the conflict that they won't admit to having, they've killed and arbitrarily jailed innocent civilians, and refuse to name them, and have no plans on releasing their prisoners of conscience ever. In point of fact, Morocco has denied entry of Moroccan POW's in the past, and releasing them prior to the supervision of the United States and Red Cross may have meant that those men would have become refugees themselves.

My Senator, Dick Lugar, appealed to Morocco and Algeria to have direct discussion precisely because the stated position of the United States on the Western Sahara issue is neutrality: we neither recognize the annexation (like all states) nor the legitimacy of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.

I certainly would not say that the support of Algeria is the same as any other nations, and in point of fact, several of the nations listed have been on the side of Morocco (such as France, who donated planes to drop napalm on civilians or Spain, who sold out Spanish Sahara for a cut of the phosphate profits in the first place). By far the greatest international support has come from Algeria, but the phrase "Algerian-backed (or -supported) Polisario Front" is so superficial, and possibly glib, that it requires much more explanation to do the issue justice. The Polisario existed before Algerian support, during the brief period of Algerian hostility, and during times of Algerian complacency; it will continue to exist without Algeria entirely. Justin (koavf) 23:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

>> Involvement of Algeria:

Example 1: This is how the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants describes the involvement of Algeria in the conflict,

"The Government allowed the rebel group, Polisario, to confine nearly a hundred thousand refugees from the disputed Western Sahara to four camps in desolate areas outside Tindouf military zone near the Moroccan border 'for political and military, rather than humanitarian, reasons,' according to one observer. According to Amnesty International, 'This group of refugees does not enjoy the right to freedom of movement in Algeria. … Those refugees who manage to leave the refugee camps without being authorized to do so are often arrested by the Algerian military and returned to the Polisario authorities, with whom they cooperate closely on matters of security.' Polisario checkpoints surrounded the camps, the Algerian military guarded entry into Tindouf, and police operated checkpoints throughout the country." (Source: http://www.refugees.org/countryreports.aspx?id=1300)

Example 2: This is how James Baker describes the involvement of algeria in a TV interview:

"MISHAL HUSAIN: Do you think armed hostilities could resume then?

JAMES A. BAKER III: I don't know. I have no idea. I think that's an issue probably that is more on the plate of Algeria than anybody else because it isn't going to resume unless Algeria permits it to happen. As long as Algeria says to the POLISARIO you're not going to fight anymore then they're not going to fight anymore." (Source: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/sahara/transcript2.html)

These are just 2 examples and I am quite sure that investigative work would provide more information like this.

I don't think you can hide these facts. The expression "algerian-backed polisario" is the less that you must say in this context.

Your comment on the POWs looks polemic to me. We are investigating the role of Algeria and I am saying that every thing shows that the release of the Moroccan POWs went via algeria and that only the execution of the release was done in tindouf. This goes along with what James Baker says above and shows pretty much the strong involvement of algeria in the sahara conflict.

The USA invite Morocco and algeria to talk because they believe that algeria is in fact an involved part in the conflict even if they can't say it explicitly.

Algeria is a extremely and highly active actor in all international instances in fighting (diplomatically) against Morocco. Polisario is simply relying on what algeria does. algeria is the leading actor not polisario.

Since the beginning of the conflict the algerian government put its country in the situation of a potential war with Morocco because of this conflict. This is not the behaviour of a part that is only "interested".

To burrow the role of algeria in the sahara conflict or to compar it with the role of any other country is definitely misleading and goes against the facts. It does not provide accurate information on the conflict and it is close rather to a political position. I don not think this goes along wiht the spirit and the objectives of of wikipedia.

Cheers.

Wikima 10:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Algeria is uniquely involved Algeria's deep involvement in the conflict is due in no small part to Moroccan policies regarding the dispute. Since King Hassan II refused to have direct talks with the Polisario, as he did not recognize the SADR as a state, it was up to Algeria to represent their interests. Also, since the only other states that border Western Sahara were at war with it, Algeria took in refugees from the conflict (again, instigated by Rabat). Since Algeria has allowed an extra 200,000 people to live inside its borders, it only stands to reason that:

the government of Algiers would represent those people diplomatically,
the military would patrol the borders of the camp, to keep refugees from spilling into the rest of the country (causing all manner of internal problems for Algerians), and
the Algerian people certainly have no desire for conflict to resume, as they will certainly be drawn into a second war with Morocco (the first, again, having been instigated by Rabat).

The Moroccan POW's had to be released through Algeria, as it is the state harboring them. If the refugee camps were actually located in Western Sahara (say, east of the berm), then the involvement of Algeria would not be necessary.

You comment about the United States is simply incorrect. The US invites Algeria to represent Sahrawi interest for two reasons:

the US recognizes the government in Algiers, and not the SADR
Morocco has consistently refused high-level direct contact with the Polisario

Since it is the stated position of the US to remain neutral in the conflict, it is only appropriate to engage Algeria as a representative of the Sahrawi interest. Otherwise, no one would represent them. Again, Polisario existed before Algerian involvement, and in the period when Algeria was actually hostile to the Sahrawi interest, Polisario fighters received more training and material support from Libya and Cuba than from Algeria. To say Algeria is the leading actor is also not true, as the initial conflict was between Polisario and Spain. Once Spain exited the picture and Morocco and Mauritania attacked, the focus of fighting shifted to those two external threats. Algeria did nothing at all to support Polisario for the first six years of its existence.

I don't want to downplay Algeria's role in the conflict: it has without a doubt been the largest supporter of the SADR symbolically and materially, but it is also accurate to say that it is an involved party, just as much as France is, although to a much greater extent. Justin (koavf) 04:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

>>>> The less you can say is that algeria is an involved part:

First of all, from your reaction I take the involvement of algeria in the conflict as given and evident. On the background of what you say the expression "algerian backed" even appears as rather weak. I think the less we must do is to add "algerian backed" in the article while talking about polisario.

In your reaction you try to justify algeria's involvement by making Morocco responsible for it. This is clearly your personal opinion and political position. I feel this is definitively non encyclopedic.

Above I am not quoting any moroccan instance or defending any moroccan position but quoting James Baker and the U.S. Committee for Refugees.

The first one clearly confirms algeria’s total and overall control, which at the military level is extremly meaningful. When a country has total control of the military decisions of a "political movement" this means two things:

- This country must have political and overall control as well.

- There is enough reasons to start exploring the case of a proxy war.

The Committee for Refugees clearely confirms that algeria uses the refugees 'for political and military, rather than humanitarian, reasons’. This tends to suggest a proxy war as well.

An other fact is that neither the polisario nor algeria created the "sadr" when the sahara was under spanish control. There is not much information on polisario during that time so we can claim it was insignificant and/or almost inexistent, and the indepedence of the sahara was apparently not that important for algeria when it was under spanish colonialism. This you confirm in your reaction when you say algeria did not support polisario in the beginning. Algeria in fact "supported" polisario and called the "sadr" only when Morocco entered the sahara. And only after this event polisario became strange to say strong as well. This also tends to show that algeria fights Morocco, because although the reason is essentially the same it did not fight against Spain. This is not my opinion, but a fact none could deny.

Above I provide the fact that when Morocco entered the sahara algeria immediatly disseized about 50.0000 of moroccans before banishing them from the country. Most of them were born in algeria or were living there since their shildhood and never saw Morocco. Sir, no country would do that just because it is supporting a political movement.

All this shows how algeria is a leading and active part in the conflict from its beginning. Any independant objective investigative effort would confirm this.

In your message you are talking about 200.000 people while the U.S. Committee for Refugees mentions nearly a hundert thousend. Please stuck to the facts and avoid giving numbers uncarefully. These numbers are extremly sensitive for the sahara issue and are in the centre of the dispute. In this context it is always important to mention the sahrawis who live in the part which is governed by Morocco and which includes all urban centres and big cities.

I do not discuss the other aspects in your reaction because they appear to me to be rather a political position and I feel this is the wrong place for this.

Cheers

Wikima 10:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

REFRESH

Hi,

I would like to refresh this topic. I was contemplating the page on the "Western Sahara" and gained the impression that the conflict is really between Morocco and the Polisario only. Above I delivered enough evidence that in this conflict Morocco is facing Algeria more than anyone else. Even the United States call to talks and dialogs between Morocco and Algeria as they are the main protagnists of the conflict.

On this background I repeat my resuqest to write the "algerian backed polisario" instead of polisario. An other additional idea (i should think of how to make the effort) would be to add a section on the role of algeria in the conflict and in the creation of polisario.

Cheers (Wikima 14:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

WS is not a country

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where all points of view must be exposed. I think that the last version of the article is not neutral because it consider WS as a country. I think that it is a conflictual territory or region. If you think that WS is a country so why not Kurdistan, Northern Ireland, Corsica, Basque territory and else. I think that you must remove the flag of RASD and all informations about president, prime minister ..etc. Thanks

===>Other entities have this information First off, the article clearly explains the dispute and the fact that the soveriegnty over the territory is not finalized in the international arena. Secondly, other non-state entities (provinces, dependencies, disputed territories, historical states, etc.) have flags, and information about the governments on them. In point of fact, Kurdistan is an excellent example. Why exactly should we take out this information?

You are blatently contradicting yourself by saying that "all points of view must be exposed", and then saying the article is not neutral. You want to take out one point of view (the SADR is already sovereign, or possibly that it should be sovereign), and replace it with one-sided information. Justin (koavf) 01:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Westerne Sahara" is a geographic territory not a country, the title of the page is "Western Sahara" not "SADR", now this territory is governed by Morocco and not by "SADR", there is a conflict between two sides Morocco and Polisario, if you think that this flag represent the region so you are not neutral, in this case why not put the flag of Morocco?, I repeat this a page about a territory (Western Sahara) and not a proposed country (SADR), Thanks

===>Untrue First off, Morocco does not administer the entire territory. Secondly, if this article claimed that Gaza and the West Bank were part of Israel simply becuase they administer the territory, the same peoeple who are making pro-Moroccan edits would cry foul. Since this is an unresolved dispute, and this conflict is clearly explained at length in the article, there is no justification for deleting the infobox. There are other geo-political entities that have these boxes than states, and I'm willing to assume that Wikipedia readers are smart enough to digest the article themsevles. The flag of Morocco is not here because it is the flag of Morocco. The flag that is on this page is internationally recognized as the flag of Western Sahara. Justin (koavf) 04:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Justin again, Morocco administrates and controls most of the territory including all cities and important urban centres. And the country invests important part of its budget and its manpower in developing them with remarkable results (!). The sahara in as you confirm yourself disputed and under the circumstances of tension it is normal for a non industrial country wihtout significant resources such as Morocco to concentrate the control on the territory even if far peripheral areas in the desert "escape". Morocco is not the only country in this situation and in comparison to many of the 3rd world countries with similar problems it does pretty well!

This being said I think that the presentation is an extremly important part of an article. How you present things play a central role, and this applies of course more when articles deal with symbols and representations such as flags etc. Replying that wikipedia readers are "smart" is non valid. Here you are presenting the territory as if it was a country. You may personnaly wish this but it is NOT a country and this is a fact. The information in an encyclopedia must be presented as objective and as exact as possible no matter whether the readers are smart or spend ten hours in contemplating articles or not. I am not the only one who says the information and especially its presentation is not balanced. I think we must find a solution here.

Cheers.

Wikima 08:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Koavf, don't you use all the time the word movement and organization? Calling it a country is totally innacurate and totally POV. If you can prove to us that it is a country than the article would use that term. Otherwise, we'll be forced to change that. cheers -- ^{Wiki me up}

Koavf, I understand that you are very interrested in indepencence movements. Sure we all sypathyse with separatist movements. But don't forget to be objectif and neutral. There is a conflict between two sides : 1)Morocco who thinks that WS is a part of its territory and 2)Polisario who thinks that this territory must be independant and proclamed a republic in this territory. If you think that "western sahara" is for "SADR" what "france" is for "republic of France" for example, in this case you are defintively no neutral and you are imposing your POV to readers of WP. I think that the aim of WP is to expose facts not POVs. WS is a territory who is subject to a conflict between two sides not a country. the page called "Western Sahara" seems like a page devoted to SADR and expose informations about this entity (flag, president, etc). these informations are refused by the first side of the conflict (Morocco); exposing them in this page is not neutral. I find my self forced to erease this information for the neutrality of this article. thank you for understanding and excuse my English language;-) Daryou 19:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

this page is not neutral

This page is definitively not neutral in the current version. the text is considerably pro-polisario and anti-Moroccan. I request your attention to change it for a better neutrality. I think that with the cooperation of every one we will obtain a more objectif article. Thanks. Daryou 18:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to recent questions and edits

==>A request for assistance from Daryou and FayssalF

I have reverted an re-written to make the article more informative and balanced. I left the disputed notice as a sign of good will.

Fayssal asked:

"Koavf, don't you use all the time the word movement and organization? Calling it a country is totally innacurate and totally POV."

I do use "organization" when refering to the Polsario, as that is what it is: Polisario is not a government, state, or country. It is a political party, like the Republicans in America. I never use the term "country", as its colloquial meaning and the definition of the term "state" in political science are frequently conflated. The SADR is a state or government. Western Sahara is a geographic entity. If the SADR should rightfully administer Western Sahara, then it would be appropriate to call Western Sahara a state or country. Daryou goes on to say an essentially similar thing...

Daryou wrote:

"There is a conflict between two sides : 1) Morocco who thinks that WS is a part of its territory and 2) Polisario who thinks that this territory must be independant and [proclaimed] a republic in this territory. WS is a territory who is subject to a conflict between two sides not a country. the page called "Western Sahara" seems like a page devoted to SADR..."

While you are correct in several points, in all fairness and objectivity, you should also admit the following facts:

This is not a conflict between two parties. For a variety of reasons, Mauritania, Algeria, and Spain are intimately involved. Furthermore, France, the United States, the United Nations, African Union, Red Cross, and other states and entities are involved, including the dozens of states that recognize the SADR as the legimitate government of Western Sahara have some vested interest in the conflict.
The page is not devoted simply to the SADR or its stated point of view on the conflict. The article goes into length surrounding the conflict and several facts explain this. The infobox (which I have since made a separate template) contains several facts of a plain, geographic nature, and explains that the government is one in exile.

Please assist me

If you want to prove to me that you are both committed to neutrality and fairness, I respectfully request that you leave the English article as it stands: I believe that it represents the conflict in a holistic fashion, and gives the user enough information to make his own judgements regarding the politics of the situation. In the meantime, please go to the Arabic Wikipedia article on Western Sahara, and edit that article to make it more neutral. Now, I'm not fluent in Arabic (otherwise, I would edit it myself), but the article there is completely POV in favor of Morocco, and gives no pertinent information regarding the conflict. It is entirely a piece of propaganda. Once that article actually fair and objective, then I feel like we can discuss this one with authenticity and candor. Of course, it is completely within your rights to ignore my request, and continue the discussion here; should you chose to do so, I will be happy to discuss it further in English. Thank you for your time. Justin (koavf) 00:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all Koavf, thanks for your show of goodwill. I appreciate that. Starting from your call for assistance, I'd say that I've never edited or even visited Ar.Wikipedia. Remember that if the article there is totally POV as you state than for sure there are users from Algeria, Syria, Libya and other Arab countries who can help there. Therefore, asking people to leave this article in peace until those people go and fix things somewhere else seems to me irrelevant. Following the link, I have just visited Arabic Wikipedia article on Western Sahara and it is not an article but a personal view just like a graffiti on a wall. I am sorry to not be able to edit it because of technical reasons (No Arabic Windows). What I could do is remove all the graffiti.

Back to our issue here. The POV things we are talking about are the following:

...bordered by Morocco... Does that mean that the issue is resolved and WS has got its own borders?
...The largest city is El Aaiún (Laayoune), containing the majority of the population... Does that mean that the Saharawis making the majority of the population there are not Moroccans? None of the Saharawis living in the city is not Moroccan!
...but it is obvious that Morocco, as the current de facto power in much of the territory, stood only to lose... Does that mean something NPOV?
...Indeed, shortly after the Houston Agreement... What is the meaning of the word Indeed?
...pro-Moroccan bias... Does it mean Wikipedia bias? Who defines that bias, you? If yes than it is totally POV!
...(making it less reliant on the occupying power)...(making it harder to stall or subvert)... Is there any other NPOV expression?
...Baker II, was in a quizzical suprise move accepted by the Polisario... Who uses that expression?
...uneasy with the UN process... Is the term encyclopaedic?
...Size of the native population versus Moroccan settlers is not known, but the settlers heavily outnumber the indigenous population... How do you know if it is already stated that the size of the natives Vs Moroccan settlers is not known?

Those are the points we need to see fixed Koavf. Otherwise, the article would be considered POV. I hope you understand that I am not Pro-Moroccan but Pro-Wikipedia and that also that we are needing assistance from you and not the opposite. Cheers -- Svest 01:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Dear Koavf, I visited the arabic page but I can't edit it because my keybord is in French. You say in you personal page that you represent the intersets of the truth AND the Sahrawis of Westerne Sahara, I'm wondering if you are not totally neutral in the subject of WS. you say:

This is not a conflict between two parties. For a variety of reasons, Mauritania, Algeria, and Spain are intimately involved. Furthermore, France, the United States, the United Nations, African Union, Red Cross, and other states and entities are involved, including the dozens of states that recognize the SADR as the legimitate government of Western Sahara have some vested interest in the conflict.
The page is not devoted simply to the SADR or its stated point of view on the conflict. The article goes into length surrounding the conflict and several facts explain this. The infobox (which I have since made a separate template) contains several facts of a plain, geographic nature, and explains that the government is one in exile.

I say that it is always a conflict between two sides: the pro-moroccan side and the pro polisario side (remember that only 50 contries recognize SADR over 190). I say that if you expose the infobox about SADR in this page, you are exposing the POV of the pro-polisario side. It is absolutly not neutral. I don't understand why you continue to impose your POV to readers of WP. If you are neutral like you say you MUST erease this infobox. Thanks. Daryou 17:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Further revision and response

Fayssal:

I have addressed the particular issues that you raised, and in retrospect, I think many of them are valid concerns. My suggestion about editing the Arabic article was to simply prove that you (all of you) have good faith and an actual interest in removing POV, rather than simply inserting the Moroccan government's stated position. Some of the questions you raise, however, do not need to be addressed further in the text of the article, or are answered in an encyclopedic manner in the first place.

...bordered by Morocco... Does that mean that the issue is resolved and WS has got its own borders?

No, and yes. The issue (that is, the dispute over sovereignty) is not resolved, but Western Sahara does have internationally-recognized borders. The geographic entity that we know as "Western Sahara" is identical to the one known as "Spanish Sahara". That entity (initially a colony, then a province) had its borders defined in treaties signed in 1900, 1904, and 1912, and have never been disputed as being what constitutes the territory in discussion. These borders are consistently reflected in every map published in the past century.

...The largest city is El Aaiún (Laayoune), containing the majority of the population... Does that mean that the Saharawis making the majority of the population there are not Moroccans? None of the Saharawis living in the city is not Moroccan!

I honestly don't understand your objection here, but I tried to make it clearer in the article. The majority of the non-military persons who live in Western Sahara live in El Aaiún. More people live there than live anywhere else in Western Sahara put together; it has nothing to do with their national and ethnic identity.

...Indeed, shortly after the Houston Agreement... What is the meaning of the word Indeed?

"Indeed" reinforces the claim that was made in the prior sentence.

...Size of the native population versus Moroccan settlers is not known, but the settlers heavily outnumber the indigenous population... How do you know if it is already stated that the size of the natives Vs Moroccan settlers is not known?

There are no large-scale, reliable, independent studies of the region's demographics since Spanish withdrawl, but due to the immense size of the refugee population, and the known number of Moroccans who have relocated, it is obvious that the majority of the current inhabitants are Moroccan, rather than Sahrawi. As far as I'm aware, the only in-depth study in English is Akbarali Thobhani's book from 2001, which is the only piece of literature in English from the past 25 years that has a pro-Moroccan bias, was written by someone who is ethnically Moroccan, and relies exclusively on otherwise unverified government documents, which themselves must be considered suspect.

Please continue addressing particular concerns, and we can, through this dialogue, write an article that represents the facts as they are.

On the other hand, Daryou, you have seen fit to delete information that is helpful, and not in any way suspect. Your edits have made the article less useful for readers, and you haven't actually revised anything, but glibly cut out huge portions from the article without apparent justification. I admit my baises on my user page precisely becuase I want to be accountable to them. I think that the objective facts themselves will largely support the Sahrawis, since Morocco has attacked, stolen from, and marginalized them for decades. Any rational human can see that grave injustices have been inflicted upon them, and were entirely unprovoked; the Sahrawis live under occupation and presented no threat to the well-being of Morocco or the Moroccan citizenry.

To say that the conflict is one between two sides is simplistic and obviously not the case. You are either ignoring simple facts, or are attempting to paint the conflict as one side versus another to manipulate the discussion. For instance, there is the position of neutrality and mediation, which is the stated position of the United Nations, United States, and Mauritania. There is the position that the SADR is a state, the position of Algeria and the Polisario. There is the position that the SADR should be a state, which is the position of the African Union, and several states that recognize the SADR. Within the Polisario, there are several points of view, for that matter. Some think that peaceful means are the only ones acceptable, others advocate a return to violent resistance. There are several solutions that have been considered by the Security Council: independence, partition, autonomy, integration, and the status quo. Since there are a multiplicity of sides in the conflict, claiming that there are two is simple bifurcation. Also, bear in mind that whatever it is you call the "pro-Polisario side" is supported by 50 states, but the "pro-Moroccan side" (the position that Western Sahara is an integral part of the Kingdom of Morocco) is supported by 0 states other than Morocco itself. Everyone either sees the territory as: being independent, should be independent, or a region under military occupation that should have the issue resolved by referendum. Justin (koavf) 19:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Justin, I thank you for your recognition of your pro-polisario opinion and your non-neutrality. I see that you are manipulating the discussion by stating that there are a lot of sides in the conflict. It is a mater of fact that there is only two sides (see reports of Minurso) Morocco thinks that WS is an integral part of Kingdom of Morocco, Polisario and its supporters think that this territory must be independent. Sure 50 nations recognize the SADR, but 24 nations cancelled their recognition of this entity since 1989. For the rest of the nations of the world: they are neutral, they don't have any position in the conflict and think that the UN should resolve the question : That should be the position of WP. I repeat that you are not neutral and I ask you to stop imposing your POV to readers of WP. Please be objective and neutral or don't touch this page. Thanks. Daryou 20:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Daryou, Vandalism must stop

===>This article is a work-in-progress Please stop vandalizing it. Revisions are being made by consensus, according to the Talk page. I have never made my biases a secret, and neither have you, so this glib justification for reversion is unacceptable and hypocritical. I am not manipulating the discussion - I make assertions, backed with facts. There are several opinions regarding the Western Sahara issue (not just two), and I listed them above. If you want to discuss the matter intelligently, please do. Otherwise, don't resort to petty vandalism. The position of Wikipedia is not proscriptive. For Wikipedia to say that the UN should solve the dispute is a point-of-view. You contradict yourself, if you say that all points of view should be exposed and then claim that only one should. Neutrality is itself a position in regards to this dispute, as you just admitted, after claiming that there are only two positions. Show me how I've imposed a POV on the discussion and we can discuss it from there. I've been editing these articles for a year before you ever got here (unless you've been editing anonymously, as I initially did), and I have always been willing to revise. Justin (koavf) 20:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Koavf vandalism must stop

I don't understand your comportement, this infobox isn't usefull at all, it expose information about SADR, but the title of the page is "Western Sahara", it is absollutelly not neutral. Daryou 22:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

===>The definition of vandalism Taken from here:

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content."

What vandalism is not:

"NPOV Violations - The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. See also: NPOV dispute."

I am not vandalizing. You are. Please stop. The infobox is useful, it includes relevant information, you have not proven that it is, in and of itself, not neutral, and "comportement" isn't a word.Justin (koavf) 03:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

According to your definition of vandalism, I'm not vandalizing, I just restored the page to a previous version before your modifications. I see that it is very easy to accuse other people of vandalism when you don't have the arguments for discussion. I ask you to discuss and stop accusing people of vandalism just because they don't have the same POV of YOU. You are not omniscient, you are human and humans can do errors. I repeat that the infobox doesn't have any thing to do in this page. these informations are not neutral. If you expose the Flag and President of SADR here you recognize the SADR, but SADR isn't recognized by 140 nations and by the UN. the infobox isn't usefull at all. I repeat that it is your point of view and you don't have the right to impose it to readers of WP. Readers of WP are intelligent as you say so stop trying to manipulate them. Daryou 16:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

===>In response to the accuse of vandalism I'm not that much interested in disputing Fayssal, Daryou and the rest of Moroccans. I only want to tell you Koavf, that you'll will have a great headache if you keep this dialogue with those who pretend that they are mainly angry for the NEUTRALITY in itself. In fact, they have a political agenda. For them, defending the agenda of Morocco in Western Shara is a national cause that they have to embrace as a sacred burden. They'll describe you in terms of vandalism; they'll ask and wish that the word of W Sahara be wiped out of the dictionary. They're doing the same thing in many other places, as long as the discussion about Western Sahara is an open topic for the public to talk about. Mark my words, they're not sincerely complaining about the neutrality and the objectivity of the article as much as they're about serving their regime. You can keep trying to to make them feel better from time to time, but never content until you change the entire article. They'll be so happy if the whole article bears the title Moroccan Sahara with their flag and their fake history concerning the conflict and the great Moroccan empire that included Algeria, W. Sahara and Mauritania, as it was described in details in Alal El Fassi's book (White Book). This is how the regime in Morocco makes its population busy. National claims beyond the Morocco borders and fake patriotism let the subjects of Ceuta and Melia (occupied and run by Spain) but never mentioned by Morocco, or the various islands that fall into the same category. I wonder for a population that doesn't exercise the minimum democracy under an absolute monarchy and makes that much of noise in Western forums pretending otherwise. NOTE: (comportement), French word that stands for (conduct, behavior), he means (your behavior). He/she probably doesn't know the term in English. You have to bear in mind that French is the 2nd language in Morocco.

Hi anon, I think you are being totally out of here. First of all, you claim that we are Moroccans! How do you know? Second, that I am not pretending but saying that the article is not neutral. I am meaning it and said why presenting my reasons and Koavf responded adequately.

What is the relationship between speaking a language as a second or tenth language and discussing the issue here?

Your comments are out of subject because they are simply personal. You brought nothing to the discussion! Cheers -- Svest 17:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Well, I'm lazy as you describe those who are allowed to call you by your real name, Fayssal, Svest is a little bit tricky. How can you be overconfident if you deny your Moroccan origins, yet make so much noise when it comes to Western Sahara issue? You declare who you are by saying:( Folks, I respect everybody's point. I am a Moroccan citizen and of course support my country's claim...), this is, of course in a different location, check your post in this link [1], in case you forget. Did you carry out neutrality in your plenty of articles about Morocco? You devoted an article to the Press Agency [2] of Morocco ( LA MAP) in your Wiki page, Is there any expose of who owns the agency and who runs it? Did you mention any criticism to its credibility as being the voice of the monarchic regime in Morocco? You really sound very neutral in that article !! Your praise of Al Akhawayn University [3] and the Moroccan culture in you article here [4] , your article that deals with Raja [5] and your very skewed article about 2M [6] in which you came up with a new term- new to Moroccans of course, of freedom of speech in Morocco, and many other links that need an urgent NPOV label, I'm thinking about that, with arguemtns, of course. You really praise Casablanca and everything that comes from Casa. So be proud of who you are !! Now, you ask me (you claim that we are Moroccans! How do you know?), well, you know and I hope everybody else knows, I only wish that you, the Moroccans, understand, that the issue of Western Sahara is not going be solved through the internet debate. Before I finish, I want to tell you, I'm not totally out of here, and my point of view was exactly about what was being debated, plus, you're not the one who decides if I enrich the debate or not, simply because you show an immense lack of neutrality.

I know more than what you know about Western Sahara, the only difference is that you make more noise. when Daryou becomes a Wikipedia user mainly to fight for taking away this W. Sahara page as he introduced himself here [7], I only say to you, the Moroccans, all: Keep up the holy fight for El-Makhzan. Cheers.

Now, you can call me: Basiri, Dakhla, SADR.

Dear 69.28.6.92 [8], what about introducing yourself and telling us who you are? Don't be shy, show a minimum of courage (excuse me for my English language). Daryou 16:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I think that the best way to resolve the dispute is to stop the edit war and to request a Mediation, what do you think about it? Daryou 20:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Mediation is unnecessary

Daryou:

I've admitted my personal biases, but not ones in my editing. Until you can admit yours, I don't know that fruitful discussion can occur. You are not simply reverting back to an established edit - your first edit deleted plenty of relevant information and you've been reverting back to that version since then. I've substantiated my claims of vandalism; you haven't. If you want to stop asserting that the infobox is irrelevant and provide evidence that this is the case, please do. Information in and of itself is not biased, but the presentation of information can be, and I've tried to present the information in an even-handed manner. Users like Fayssal keep me accountable to edit with integrity, whereas you haven't. How am I manipulating? This is ridiculous and pernicious.

208.255.152.227:

My fear is that you are right about Moroccan editors having a political agenda behind their edits, but I hope we can all extend the charity to see the fruits of their actions. It is true that Moroccans are heavily propagandized, and it can be difficult to see beyond the faults of their society.

FayssalF:

I can't speak for 208..., but one can assume that you are Moroccan if you support the Moroccan position, as no other government has, and the immediate neighbors to the conflict are either pro-Polisario (Algeria), or neutral (Mauritania). Also, since Daryou is using French, it is likely that he is from a former French colony (such as Morocco), rather than the Sahara (which is formerly Spanish, and that language is largely not used by the population anymore).

If you want to take it to mediation, feel free, but I think that the dialectical process is working well here. Justin (koavf) 02:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll go on answering an out of subject discussion. I must tell you someting very important, especially about your lack of knowledge about Morocco, that I my second language is Spanish and not French. I do speak Spanish at home and not French. Even at work I use Spanish and English, not French or Arabic. You may wonder how and I am not ready to explain this here as it has nothing to do with the topic! Another thing, is that if I got a political agenda than I am no different than you. Cheers. Svest 11:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

In my first editions I deleted the infobox (only the infobox) because I believed, I believe, and I will always believe that this infobox isn’t neutral, I don’t understand why you take it for vandalism. It is easy to accuse people of vandalism when you miss arguments. I’m not vandalizing and I’ll never be. I want to discuss. I’m Moroccan but it doesn’t mean that I haven’t the right to edit WP pages. Where is it told in WP that Moroccans don’t have the right to edit and discuss pages about Western Sahara?! I’m Moroccan and I assume it. We are not here to fight. We are here to discuss in peace and find a consensus for a better neutrality of this page. The conflict of WS has begun before I was born. I’m not a member of Moroccan government. I ‘m here because I see that the page in its current version isn’t neutral, that’s all. I think that the presence of the infobox here is not neutral because it exposes information about SADR (Flag, President, etc) as if WS was a country called “SADR”. This position isn’t neutral because it is pro-polisario’s POV and anti-Moroccan, WS isn't a country. For a better neutrality of this page, the removal of this infobox is definitively necessary. I will stop editing this page until we find a consensus. Daryou 16:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

==>If you manage to convince everyone that the infobox is not neutral and should be removed on the basis that there is nothing such as ( SADR ), and succeed eventually to remove it, which is not a big deal. Then, the biggest next task, you have to work on, is to convince the CIA-World Factbook site to remove (Western Sahara) from its pull-down menu and delete the whole history that is there, and every refernece to (SADR) Check this link [9] for more information, however, there is a great job awaiting the Moroccans when it comes to major editions of maps, and plenty of databases that deal with W. Sahara. It will take them years to change every thing so it pleases Morocco's agenda. Be logic and only play politics where it is appropriate. You all pretend neutrality, since it all smells propganda, just like usual, the old story of crying upon W.Sahara, whenever it is possible.

Dear 12.145.73.51 [10], you'll find my response here Daryou 19:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A message to all

Please refer to User talk:Koavf#WS is not a country. Cheers -- Svest 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Google Group about Western Sahara

===>Let's carry on the discussion at Google It will be more systematic and searchable. We can propose particular wordings or topics there, and debate them. Plus, it will take up less server space on Wikipedia. It's been started here. Justin (koavf) 01:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Great job. I'll help Daryou on the matter. Cheers -- Svest 07:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I suggest to keep the infobox without information about SADR (that you can put if you want in the page you created for this autoproclaimed entity), I mean: name of SADR, flag of SADR, president of SADR, prime minister of SADR, coat of arms of SADR, hymne of SADR and national motto of SADR.
I see that Fayssal, Asterion and Zach were not invited by Koavf to the WS Google Group [11](I can't do it because Koavf is the administrator of the group). I'm waiting. Daryou 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I joined using a different email address. I was invited too. Asterion 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

==>Dear 12.145.73.51[12], (Response to your question above in the "Mediation" section)

First of all I would like you to introduce yourself.
I never accused you of propaganda and I ask you to stop accusing me
I don't have any agenda
All that I want is neutraliity of the page WS.
I visited the CIA-World Factbook [13] as you suggested, and I didn't find any flag of SADR in that page (the pages devoted to countries contain their flag [14]), the pull-down menu you are talking about is labeled "select a country or location" , and the only reference to SADR is this one: "legal status of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved; territory contested by Morocco and Polisario Front (Popular Front for the Liberation of the Saguia el Hamra and Rio de Oro), which in February 1976 formally proclaimed a government-in-exile of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)", thank you very much for this link, it is a very good example for a neutral web page about WS Daryou 19:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

===>The infobox should stay Why? 1.) Similar infoboxes are already used on other disputed entities, such as Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland, Transnistria, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. They're even used on entities that do not claim to be independent (Vojvodina) and ones that don't exist anymore (Biafra). 2.) Virtually identical infoboxes also exist in other Wikipedias from other languages. In fact, only one infobox in all of the Wikipedias doesn't include the flag of the SADR, and that is the French one. The French are also historically pro-Moroccan, and have given the most support to Morocco in their occupation and annexation of the territory.

Also, anyone can join the group, you do not need to be invited. Justin (koavf) 21:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What about the the CIA-World Factbook [15], Is CIA also pro-moroccan? Dark side 21:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Misdirection The CIA is a government agency, and must present information on politically-sensitive topics according to the U.S. position of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a government mouthpiece, and so it can represent this information. Justin (koavf) 21:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism of 208.255.152.227 in this Talk page!!!!

I reverted the vandalism of 208.255.152.227 who deleted sections of this talk page [16]. I don't understand his shameful behavior!! He/shy also vandalized plenty of pages this 22 September 2005 [17]. Daryou 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral version

According to what was said before, I tried to set up a more neutral version, If there is any problem just revert and discuss. Dark side 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I modified the WS infobox template. We all know that WS isn't a country. please refer to the CIA-World Factbook [18] and Western Sahara French WP page [19] If there is any problem please discuss. ThanksDark side 21:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Misdirection The info in the infobox has been there for months, you need to justify deleting it, I don't need to justify keeping it. You've provided no justification, except "we all know it's not a country". Well, tell that to all of the states that recognize it, and the African Union. This is a glib, shallow response, and certainly not convincing. If you look at the French page, you're right, you won't see the SADR/Western Sahara flag, but look at ALL OF THESE:

EVERY other Wikipedia with an infobox has this info. The French are historically pro-Moroccan, so the absence of this info really just proves their POV article, rather than provides justification for your changes. Justin (koavf) 21:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

All theses pages was edited by pro-polisario users. And what about the the CIA-World Factbook [43], Is CIA also pro-moroccan?!!! Dark side 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

Dark side, I see that the discussion with Koavf is not leading anywhere and I bet he is not willing to change this famous infobox ever. It is evident that he's strongly pro-polisario and all his arguments are fake. Putting the flag of SADR is incomprehensible. I put a RfC here [44] and here [45]. Daryou 22:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

===>What in the world are you talking about? If you want to talk about me personally, please do it between yourselves, rather than on this page, and don't resort to personal attacks. Also, Dark Side, please don't forget the three-revert rule and the definition of vandalism. I have no idea what you are talking about claiming that my arguments are "fake". You provide flimsy evidence, and I counter it with mounds of credible evidence; seems pretty authentic to me. Justin (koavf) 00:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Misdirection: You said it your self "The CIA is a government agency, and must present information on politically-sensitive topics according to the U.S. position of neutrality. Wikipedia is not a government mouthpiece, and so it can represent this information", the US have a position of neutrality, so there is no Flag of SADR in the CIA factbook WS page. WP also must have a position of neutrality. The flag of SADR musn't be here, please put it in the page of SADR not here, it is the best solution, the SADR musn't have two WP pages. I understand that you are sympatizing with polisario (and maybe you are a Sahrawi or an algerian). I beg you to stop using WP as a tool to express your POVs. I see that you are the only user with asterion to be not neutral in this talk page (I didn't count the anons). WP is source of trustfull information and not a field of war. Your behavior gives WP a bad name and make it less reliable. Please, please stop this war. "Legal status of (WS)territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved; territory contested by Morocco and Polisario Front (Popular Front for the Liberation of the Saguia el Hamra and Rio de Oro), which in February 1976 formally proclaimed a government-in-exile of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)", this sentence you'll find it in many web pages. Maybe the WS will be a country recongnized by the UN in the future, but now the conflict is not yet resolved. And WS isn't yet a country. Sure WP is not a government mouthpiece but the world's mouthpiece. Thank you very much. And goodluck for your republic Dark side 22:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Asterion, So every one who dosen't agree with you is vandalizing??!!! It is nonsense. And you dindn't even discuss. Really odd!!! Dark side 23:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

protected

I have been keeping my on this page for awhile now and have noticed the constant edit warring. I decided to lock the page until you guys can come to an agreement on a version. Please note that this protection is not an endorsement of either side's preferred version. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jtkiefer, I believe that you locked the page for the consistant edits. However, if you notice how the pages looks right now, you'll see a French version (I mean the infobox),thus, when you say that it is not an endorsmet of either side's preferred version, it is ,in fact, an endorsment for Daryou and his group, who kept presenting the French version as an example to follow.In all cases, I believe in your neutrality, but I see Daryou's joy through his following comments :

The current version of the page is more usefull and neutral
The current version of the infobox is more usefull and neutral.

See whose version was endorsed unintentionally? - Cheers, Basiri, (SADR).

Hi User:Jtkiefer, my opinion is that the entry should be reverted to the original infobox. User:Dark Side has been constantly deleting it. He appeared from nowhere, as if he was "on a mission". I have serious doubts about his character and believe we are encountering a sock puppet here. The info in the infobox has been there for months and was thoroughly agreed over (see page history). He has no rights to delete all the information there, just because he cannot agree with it.Asterion 00:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This is between you two, when you reach an agreement your advised to list the page for unprotection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Many thanks. I have already expressed my views on a possible agreement below. It is up to Dark Side now. Asterion 00:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Message of peace

The position of Morocco is known: "western sahara is morocain", and the position of polisario is known: "WS must be independant under the name of SADR". I don't ask you to recognize the position of Morocco. I don't ask you to put the Moroccan flag in this page. I don't ask you to write that the president of WS is the King of Morocco. I just ask you to be neutral. Is it so dificult to understand?! until the resolution of the conflict, let's say that WS isn't moroccan yet and isn't SADR yet. That's what I call "neutral", that's the position of the UN, that's the position of CIA, that's the position of 140 countries. there are some discussions that can't lead anywhere, the same kind of conversation that could take place between an Israelien and a palestinian or between a priest and an imam who try to convert each other. You'll never persuade me that WS is SADR and I can't convince you that the WS is Moroccan. Some things can seem evident to me and senseless to you and vice versa. there is no truth in this kind of things. But we can find an agreement. I don't have any thing against you, We all are citizen of the world. Maybe if I was born in Tindouf camps I would think differently, and the same thing could hapen to you if you was born in Marrackech. This conflict has begun before I was born, and I'm looking forward the day when it will finish and we become all brothers, What did I say? we are already brothers!! Thanks and respect and peace. Daryou 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia way is to report all relevant points of view, but adopt none. The article should cover what Morocco says the status is, what the gov't in exile claims, what the U.N. has said, what the African Union says, what other countries say. (Did I miss any?) Let's start with a neutral description of what the territory is, its physical location, boundries, characteristics, population, etc., and what the facts on the ground are now. Then succeeding paragraphs can cover competing claims. See Gaza Strip and West Bank for how that can be done. Jonathunder 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the only way would be to create either a subsection or a separate page, where people such as Dark Side, could express the Moroccan view, considering they are unable to agree upon a neutral version. This could be called Moroccan Official View and so on. Regards, Asterion 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, he should therefore stop his destructive campaign of deleting, without consensus, whatever he disagree with. Asterion 00:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathunder, this page have to report all relevant points of view, but adopt none. Legal status of the territory and issue of sovereignty is unresolved and the territory is contested by Morocco and Polisario Front which in February 1976 formally proclaimed a government-in-exile of the SADR. According to Morocco the flag of WS is the Moroccan one, and according to Polisario the flag of WS is the SADR one. The WP way is to adopt no position and no flag of WS (Or maybe to display the two flags)until the conflict is resolved under the surveillance of the UN. Thanks. Dark side 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

My take on the protection and consensus

===>The following are facts:

Almost every other Wikipedia has an infobox with this exact same information, if it has an infobox at all.
ALL other disputed territories (Abkhazia, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, etc.) have this, too.
This information has been here for months.
Thus, there is an established precedent for including this information.
Dark Side and Daryou have resorted to personal attacks, hypocrisy, vandalism, and apparently have created their accounts for the sole purpose of controlling the content of this article.
They have also not shown any desire to discuss particular points in a logical and coherent manner, unlike Fayssal, who has largely stopped editing this page.
The dialectical process with Fayssal, and his particular questions and objections (rather than vague assertions without evidence) were helpful and resulted in a better article with more relevant information.
Dark Side and Daryou's edits serve to detract from the content of the article, and make it less useful for the reader.

Does anyone deny the particular points that I've made above? Justin (koavf) 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

===>Missdirection:

All other WS WP has an infobox but without similar information, look at french page [46], this page was until august 2005 a biased page [47], with a dialectical process we established a neutral version that can be an example for other WP languages
Not All other disputed territories (West bank, Gaza) have this infobox.
Yes there is a precedent for including this information.
Yes I created my account to make this page neutral, but you have no evidence of hypocrisy, vandalism, and you have resorted to personal attacks.
I have shown many desires to discuss particular points in a logical and coherent manner, and I has largely stopped editing this page.
The dialectical process with Fayssal, and his particular questions and objections were helpful and resulted in a better article with more relevant information but it is still not neutral and can be more neutral and reliable with a dialectical process.
My edits and Dark side's and Fayssal's aserve to make the content of the article more neutral.

===> the following are facts:

The current version of the page is more usefull and neutral
The current version of the infobox is more usefull and neutral
There is already a page SADR, where you can put the Flag of SADR.
SADR musn't have two WP pages.
There is 3 possible versions of the WS page:

A pro-moroccan page with the flag of Morocco
A pro-Polisario page with the flag of SADR
An other version neither pro-moroccan nor pro-polisario, a version who reflects the position of UN, whithout the moroccan flag neither the SADR one.

Does anyone deny the particular points that I've made above? and please choose one number 1,2 or 3. And what do you think about my message of peace? Daryou 01:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

==> Well Dear Daryou,I want to tell you the following :

The current version pleases Daryou and Moroccans in general.
The current page without the infobox is not useful. None will be able to know the information that had been there before the deletion, readers, afterwards, can make up their minds.
The whole subject of Western Sahara in WP is being politicised and manipulated by Moroccans.
As far as your last comments are considered:

I don't think manipulating and deleting on purpose is a (message of peace), after all. You can call it the way you want.

Your suggestion that there is a page SADR, where the Flag of SADR can be shown, contradicts your efforts in this talk. How could you deny the fact there is a proclaimed SADR here and allow it somewhere else. You're a Moroccan, for you, no flag, nothing should be mentioned about the saharawi poeple or their struggle, as in Morocco, the Saharawis don't even exist. The page you refer to is already labeled and so is anything that has a word to do with Western Sahara. I will keep telling you, Wikipedia won't resolve 30 years of struggle by both sides over the ex-spanish colony. Admit it or reject it. Plus, your obsession with the infobox won't matter as far as the Saharwis' struggle for liberty is concerned.

Real peace, Basiri (SADR)

Dear 12.145.73.51 or BASRI (SADR)

The current version dosen't please to me and doesn't please to Moroccans because moroccans think that WS is Moroccan. Remember, the current version doesn't say WS is Moroccan but contested. Depite of this, I think that it is a neutral page.
The current version of the infobox is usefull and neutral, the information that was there before deletion was: president of SADR, prime minister of SADR, coat of arms of SADR, national motto of SADR and flag of SADR. Beenig Moroccan I could substitute this information by the flag of Morocco, King of Morocco, etc. but I never did because I think that a WP page must be neutral.
I don't think the whole subject of Western Sahara in WP is being politicised and manipulated by Moroccans because if it was so,the flag of SADR couldn't be there for months.
You think that I'm manipulating, that's your POV, I refuse to resort to personal attacks.It's so sad that you refuse my message of peace.
The page SADR already exist, it isn't my suggestion. And I never denied the fact that there is a self-proclaimed SADR by polisario.
I don't understand this sentence "The page you refer to is already labeled and so is anything that has a word to do with Western Sahara", do you mean that SADR dosen't have anything to do with WS ?!.
I agree with you, Wikipedia won't resolve 30 years of struggle by both sides over the ex-spanish colony. I Admit it. But untill the resolution of the conflict let the WP page be neutral.
I don't have any obsession with the infobox , I just want it to be neutral.
Please respond to my question above and choose a version (1, 2 or 3) if you really want to reach a consensus Daryou 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's BASIRI (SADR), BASRI is something entirely different ;-)

You don't need to keep calling me by my IP , you got my name there.!!!

We all agree dear Daryou that the region is under dispute and that Morocco made huge changes to the region:

Importing Moroccans from the northern Morocco with tax cut incentives and promises of wealth to change the ethnical balance.
Introducing new map to the Moroccan public that includes Western Sahara as a part of Morocco, I guess you watch TV.
Including Main Western Sahara cities in the Moroccan division of regions.
Calling the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara by the Southern Provinces of Morocco.

These points are not for discussion, because they are facts and the Moroccan govt. doesn't deny that. If we all agree that these changes are not legal, as far as the international law is considered, would you accept that including them in Morocco WP is neutral. The Regions Article under Morocco in WP [48] is labeled NPOV. It was labeled by Moroccans who disagree on the map lines [49], the same subject raised here in WP's W. Sahara. In the talk section, they delete any comment and maintain those of pro morocco. I would assume, hypothetically, that you are here for neutrality as you claim. Why don't you defend the same NPOV that exist in Morocco WP's article? It is the same exact reasons that may alert you here in this section?? Am I wrong?

I meant by the phrase (that any thing that deals with Western Sahara or SADR makes Moroccans nervous, this WP article is a great demonstration.)

As far as your suggestion is concerned, you're a party in the conflict defending your country in this talk and appointing yourself as a judge, you're offering only 2 choices, just smart enough to make them look as if they are three since the third serves what you want and ends up pro Moroccan. I wonder how can you consider that neutral.

Your invitation for peace is highly appreciated. We all care about peace. Basiri (SADR)

Dear Basiri

Maybe you can log in WP and become a full user.
I admit that Morocco made a lot of changes in WS, taking them from legal or not legal is question of POV. Moroccans think them legal and you have the right to take them of not legal. That's not our subject.
Please give me some evidence of deleting pro-polisario comments in this talk page so that I can revert them.
I'm willing to discuss neutrality in Morocco page if you really want, but in the talk page of Morocco.
I confess that things that deals with SADR make Moroccan nervous, and things that deal with Moroccan south provinces make nervous the polisario.
I'm Moroccan but I'm defending the neutrality of WP. If I was defending my country enough I would show the flag of morocco in the WS page.
Would you give me one evidence that the third choice is a pro-moroccan choice?!. Excuse me, I don't understand. What could be a final neutral version in your opinion?! please respond by one word: 1)Moroccan flag or 2)SADR flag. just respond 1 or 2 without any argumentation, 1 or 2. Peace Daryou 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerng your request

Right now the page is choice 3 anyway. You want my reponse; either black or white, no arguments. I'm running short of choices because of your request. So, I choose 1, if you're going to care about my choice. I honestly hope you do. Cheers. Basiri (SADR)

Dear Basiri.I see that for you the choice number 2, I mean the pro-polisario choice and the anti-moroccan choise is a neutral one???!!!! I don't know how you are willing to reach a concenssus. For me the choice 3 who is neither pro moroccan nor pro polisario is the neutral. Can you demonstrate that the choice 3 isn't neutral (don't forget that I'm not moroccan)? Dark side 07:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dark side . I'm aware that you are not Moroccan. I guess you're French [50], and I'm sure that you're aware of the French government’s position in the WS conflict. However, I chose 1 and I know that it is a pro Moroccan choice. I mainly did that because choices were either 1 or 2. I state that choice 3 is not neutral because it takes away the Saharwi side of the Story- saying neithger Moroccna nor Saharwi serves the Moroccan, don't you notice? Meanwhile, the WP Morocco article contains a lot of information that consolidate the POV of Morocco govt. Moroccans are endorsing that POV, we don't see them so obsessed with neutrality as in here. I really believe that the whole thing is very complicated, it's the same old Saharawi-Moroccan war in every forum, I guess this choice (choice 2) will satisfy Moroccans. Will it give them WS and legalize the occupation?, definitely no. It won't hurt the Saharawis either. As I told Daryou, WP won't solve the conflict, whatever version is applied. They're the actual occupants of the land, you might as well put their flag, there is a plenty of metarial and resources that people can find about the WS subject and judge for themselves, this way, we unlock the page, remove the NPOV label and use our time to learn from WP, instead of editing and arguing, when we know that there are plenty of arguments with each side that won't really Moroccanize W. Sahara nor will they give the Saharawis their freedom.Finally, It's just what I think, maybe there are many out there who disagree, and I respect that. Peace everyone. BASIRI (SADR).

Dear Basiri,

I congratulate you for your honesty and I think that we are approching to reach a consenssus. I agree with you when you say that the WP won't solve the problem. I don't agree with you in three points:

For your choice (Pro-moroccan version), Because WP must be neutral
When you say "I state that choice 3 is not neutral because it takes away the Saharwi side of the Story- saying neithger Moroccna nor Saharwi serves the Moroccan, don't you notice?", I confess that I didn't notice, and I didn't understand you reasoning. Because the choice 3 takes also the moroccan side of the story. Saying neithger Moroccan nor Saharwi doesn't serve the Moroccans, because moroccans believe that WS is Moroccan. I know many Moroccans here (and I know many algerians also) they come study or work here in Grenoble. I've also visited Morocco as a tourist. WS is a taboo subject in Morocco, they call it the Moroccan Sahara, If you say to a Moroccan in Morocco that WS is neither Moroccan nor SADRian you will make him nervous and you risk your life because you state that WS isn't Moroccan.
I ask you "what is the French government’s position in the WS conflict"? . I think that France is neutral in this conflict and believes that it will be resolved under the surveillence of the UN. If you know another French government's position just give me an evidence.

So you chose the version 1, this version would surely please to Daryou but if he is neutral as he says, he will prefer the version 3. You chose the version 1 but I believe that for you and for your struggle for independence version 3 is better. What do you think?
You have already used two IP's (12.145.73.51 and 69.28.4.207), other people can add comments under your name, I think that you'd better log in Wikipedia as a full user [51], you won't have to give your Email adress, and don't forget to enable cookies in your computer :) .

Peace. Dark side 17:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality problem

If you say that Morocco occupies this region then for more neutrality you must also say that the Polisario occupies it, since the status of the Sahara is not yet settled. --Marmandie (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Morocco occupies WS is undisputed and not mentioning it (to please the nationalist crowd) would be doing a disservice to the readers. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Moroccan-occupied and SADR-controlled are standard international usage. 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

This edit request to Western Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I suggest that you delete "(e.g. the Russian annexation of Crimea)" from the last sentence of the introduction. The new sentence would read, "Overall, the annexation has not garnered as much attention in the international community as many other disputed annexations." The way it is currently written makes it sound like the author is downplaying or excusing the Russian annexation of Crimea. Sloanm212 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done: I would say the author is giving an example of a disputed annexation that has garnered far more international attention than the one of the Western Sahara. If you believe the Russian annexation of Crimea did not garner much international attention then please provide a reliable source to support this view and mark your edit request as unanswered. Waddie96 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"If you believe the Russian annexation of Crimea did not garner much international attention then please provide a reliable source to support this view..."

As a rule finding support for the absence of X is a tall order. Given the possible replication/republishing of documentation of a topic X, accurately describing how much or, (as here suggested) how little attention Topic X receives(ed) is further complicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSchultz111 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2019

This edit request to Western Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"December, 2018" = "December 2018" Unacceptable date formats (except in external titles and quotes) 2605:E000:9149:8300:2506:42B1:2001:39BA (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

<<The United Nations considers the Polisario Front to be the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people>>

This part of the article is not true at all, as the U.N never considered at any point in history the Polisario Front to be the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, please provide a source to support this information or delete it as it goes against Wikipedia standards to spread false and misleading informations or at least add a citation needed" at the end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarisco (talk • contribs) 23:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tsarisco: Read A/RES/34/37 from 1979: "the Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y de Río de Oro, the representative of the people of Western Sahara". You are either mistaken or lying. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note also that you know this and have vandalized articles to remove it in the past. If you continue vandalizing, you will be blocked. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspected Typo

In the third paragraph of the introduction:

"Both Morocco and Polisario have sought to boost their claims by accumulating formal recognition, essentially from African, Asian, and Latin American states in the developing world."

I suspect "essentially" was intended to be "especially". If it is not a mistake, the current wording is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstraw123 (talk • contribs)

@Jackstraw123: Good eye! You can always edit articles on Wikipedia yourself but I'm happy to help if you don't feel like you have the ability yet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf: I can't edit because the page is semi-protected. Would much appreciate if you could make the change! --Jackstraw123

UN Report on Western Sahara

In the lead there is this part:

As of 2017^[update], no other member state of the United Nations has ever officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over parts of Western Sahara.

With the following reference:

"Report of the Secretary-General on the situation concerning Western Sahara (paragraph 37, p. 10)" (PDF). 2 March 1993. Retrieved 4 October 2014.

I looked but didn't find paragraph 37, p. 10 (though the statement itself coincides with the information at the Wikipedia article: Political status of Western Sahara).

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The correct document to reference is this.[52] See original insertion here (though that link is now dead). I can't edit the page though because it's semi-protected. 151.194.65.68 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding it now. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

This edit request to Western Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The moroccan sahara not the western sahara please change that Sanaasellami (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sanaasellami: lol what? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

This edit request to Western Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Due to the recent news about the Trump administration choosing to recognize Morocco's sovereignty over the Western Sahara, I recommend changing the sentence from "As of 2017, no other member state of the United Nations has ever officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over parts of Western Sahara" to "As of 2020, the United States is the only major western country to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara."

Sourcing can be done with the many news articles which have been published since Thursday, December 10th, 2020, and various tweets from relevant parties. Flubberpuff (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As of today, the United States is probably the only country to recognize full Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. 120.16.152.86 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Done – robertsky (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Then-president

Towards the end of the page it says that "then-President Donald J. Trump" recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara on Dec. 10, 2020. The wording "then-President"... seems kind of odd, and not in keeping with what other articles. I think we should edit it to get rid of the word "then". Also it makes no sense to refer to President Trump as "then-president" while he is still president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GloriousPede (talk • contribs) 19:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. With the date of the event noted, we can just write U.S. President Donald J. Trump. The U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara is a huge event, what that means is that the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic will never become a UN member state. Any future membership application from the SADR would be vetoed by the United States. The U.S.' biased favouritism towards Israel has reached a degree comparable to a father and his illegitimate child. In terms of maintaining international justice within the UN System, China and France have done a much better job than the U.S. and Russia. 120.16.152.86 (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

This edit request to Western Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

^[1] Tarik.oumazzane (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Oumazzane, Tarik (23 December 2020). "The Significance of the Morocco-Israel-US Deal for Regional Peace". Global Politics. Retrieved 23 December 2020.

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. Danski454 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this user and the author of the article in the ref they linked have the same name. fyi - wolf 00:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2021

This edit request to Moroccan Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Moroccan sahara 160.177.152.173 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2021 (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. --Ferien (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

This edit request to Western Sahara has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to edit Travis R. Jaico (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

"Cat's Paw"

There is a link to a missing wiktionary page for "cat's paw". I could go create a wiktionary entry, but there seems to be no reason to use an archaic reference to an old fable that is likely unfamiliar to many readers.. The sentence should be re-written to exclude it. 97.102.30.205 (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Area of each side, and the buffer?

We could do with a reliable source for the areas of Moroccan-occupied, SADR occupied, and the supposedly demilitarised buffer in Western Sahara. Right now it's just "most", "partial", etc. which isn't very informative. Rob984 (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the area controlled by each side is always changing. It seems to me that Morocco has now 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) 01:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

De facto and de jure nuances

Similarily to the Cremea page, It should be added in the short description that Morocco is governinh De facto the territory. Maozerhouni (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Not the whole territory though. 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

[1] Oumazzane, Tarik (23 December 2020). "The Significance of the Morocco-Israel-US Deal for Regional Peace". Global Politics. Retrieved 23 December 2020.

[1]