Talk:Political status of Western Sahara

May 2022

Here's the official position of the Netherlands and its usual support for "the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and his efforts to continue a political process aimed at reaching a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the aims and principles set out in the United Nations Charter." The same goes for Germany. Since this position is no different than that of most countries, it cannot be grouped with those who voiced their support for a position that goes against internal law. While I have no objection to creating a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution", I don't see what it could possible add to the article.

The other added sources (mapnews, northafricapost, moroccoworldnews) are non RS with a history of lying and twisting what is said by others. When a country changes position (like Spain did), you'd expect the change to be covered by multiple reliable sources (including official ones). M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, from the website you gave (official position) here's what was said (full quote) : "The Netherlands and Morocco affirmed their support for the UN Secretary General’s Personal Envoy for the Western Sahara and his efforts to continue a political process aimed at reaching a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the aims and principles set out in the United Nations Charter. In this context, the Netherlands considers the autonomy plan presented in 2007 as a serious and credible contribution to the UN-led political process." So the country explicitly said they support for the Moroccan Plan and thereby you can't say such stuff as you're taking it out of context. So if the same goes for Germany, both are valid.

I may understand your fears about the sources, but they are still valid sources based on Wikipedia. You can't just cherry-pick sources based on what you think of them. But here's more sources :

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-05-11/netherlands-backs-moroccos-western-sahara-autonomy-plan-statement

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/morocco-germany-renew-ties-after-misunderstandings/

Another last point, You didn't only undo informations about Netherlands and Germany, you included many more informations. I ask you to avoid doing such big changes like that in the future and then not even mention them.

Keylostark (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

1) I restored the previous version, I didn't add anything while doing so. 2) You didn't address what I said regarding a) the creation of a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution" and b) the use of unreliable sources. 3) Describing the autonomy plan as " “important contribution” to a settlement" does not mean supporting the Moroccan position.

Do you have any reliable sources to support the other countries that you added (Italy, etc.)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I join my voice to that of @M.Bitton, as @Keylostark didn't provide adequate sources for what would qualify as a "recognition of Moroccan sovereignty", and is simply linking to dubious propaganda websites to try and push their narrative. Saying that a plan is a credible option for a solution does not equate to supporting the Moroccan position of sovereignty over Western Sahara.

I think the best way to address this is to add a section for "mutually acceptable political solution" which is a lot more accurate than the current category and covers most of the red countries. Sizito (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We can add a section for it if that's what it takes for you to accept it. Keylostark (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It has long been known that the administrator of this particular Wikipedia article is a diehard f*cking Polisario supporter. There is no point in making adjustments because this bastard keeps reversing everything and does not want to acknowledge the facts. He refuses to implement any change that provides positive information about Morocco with regard to the recognition of the Sahara as belonging to Morocco. The fact that the countries that support Morocco are colored red on the map instead of green says enough about the administrator what kind of feeling he wants to create in the reader's thoughts. Administrator, if you're reading this. You will never achieve your goal. Sahara will belong to Morocco and belongs to Morocco. Saharaismoroccan10 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There are no "administrators" of individual pages on Wikipedia. Western Sahara isn't Moroccan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Look up saadi dynasty, and learn some history before you come talk here nonsense Saharaismoroccan10 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Advisory opinion on Western Sahara ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Since I see you don't seem to read my answer fully, I will split this in point that hopefully you will read it all :

• I already addressed what you said about the sources, I gave other sources but you seem to ignore it. I gave sources from USNews and Euractiv.
• Your personal opinion of a source isn't a valid reason to discard a source, you need to give other sources to prove them wrong (which isn't the case here).
• Please refrain from taking quotes out of context, specially since the sentence you omitted start with "In this context".
• The creation of a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution" : You can create it if you wish, but the referendum clearly isn't the mutually acceptable political solution anymore.
• Describing the autonomy plan as " “important contribution” to a settlement" does not mean supporting the Moroccan position. : considering it an important credible contribution is supporting it as a plan.
• Your reverse also removed many other countries (Egypt, Cyprus, Italy and Serbia) not only Netherland and Germany. You only mention it now after I said it.
• Again, it's not because you now ask (after I mentioned you removing them without a word) for other sources that's it's enough reason to remove them.
• I will gladly add more source to the other countries too. But next time you are not personally satisfied with sources, just add the mention "better source needed" rather than discarding them

I will reverse it back, you're welcome to discuss it further here if you still don't agree. Keylostark (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm too tired to argue about the position of Germany and the Netherlands, so I will keep and tag them for now, but the others (sourced to cesspits) will need to go (you are welcome to restore them when you find reliable sources to support the change). M.Bitton (talk)

As I said before, if you are not personally satisfied with sources, just add the mention "better source needed" rather than discarding them. You removed them while I was working on adding the sources, you're sabotaging my work by keep editing... Keylostark (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Keylostark: If you find reliable sources supporting what you're adding, you'll have no issue re-adding them. The same goes for the map and the so-called support for the "territorial claim". M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Keylostark: I suggest you remove the unsourced map or you'll be reported for violating WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about having reliable sources, it's about having to re-do my work because you create a conflict seconds after I say I will work on it.

The map is only a representation of the list of countries supporting the plan and the other the list of countries supporting RADS. the Map exist from many years ago, I only updated it based on the list that exist on the page. So basically the sources presented on the list are also valid for the map.

You're welcome to report me for anything you see fit. I will do the same on my part, because you have a large history of just undoing other people work on this page. You're just sabotaging this page without bringing to it any real work. Keylostark (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It is always about the reliable sources. Once you change a map it becomes your work and therefore you become responsible for it and its caption. Which of the those countries support the so-called "territorial claim" (as it says in red)? India? M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's what the legend on the map say : Supports Morocco's territorial claim (including support for autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty); Relations with the SADR terminated and/or recognition withdrawn (if no other position expressed)

As I said before, I only updated the map, It was there for years and I didn't change its legend, just added colors (I even added a country that support RADS).

No further comment. Keylostark (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I told you already about the Map and you still went afterward editing the Map description. The Map was there for years and I didn't change its legend, just added colors (I even added a country that support RADS). Keylostark (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You changed the map with an unsourced one and are edit warring over it (that's all I know). I didn't change the description, I tagged the BS (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed the map based on the list of countries presented on the page, that are sourced. The previous Map wasn't sourced per say neither. If we add in the description that the Map is only a representation of the list, would that be enough to resolve this issue ? Keylostark (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

1) No, it's not sourced (as the sources that you added have failed verification). 2) Even the portion that is sourced doesn't support the so-called "territorial claim". 3) One way to resolve the issue would be to remove the misleading map altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, the map existed for years and I just updated it based on the list presented on the page. You asking to remove it altogether because you disagree with the sources used on the ground of personal opinion isn't valid. If you doubt a source, you're welcome to present a better source that contradict it. Your personal opinion isn't a valid reason for the reliability of a source.

I'm proposing to add a note on the description of the page saying it only represent the list shown on the page. Then we can focus on discussing the reliability of the source on the list. Rather than removing material that existed for years on the page. Keylostark (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Existed for years" is not a valid excuse to keep it, let alone change it to a worse one. I don't need to present a source for your misrepresentation of the sources. Please read WP:VERIFY while paying particular attention to the part that starts with "all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable". M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Keylostark: The Italian source that you added doesn't mention the autonomy. This is a clear case of source misrepresentation to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In the source they say "Ho elogiato gli sforzi seri e credibili del Marocco per la risoluzione della questione del Sahara nell’ambito delle Nazioni Unite" which can be translated in "I commended Morocco's serious and credible efforts to resolve the Sahara issue within the United Nations". The only effort Morocco have presented is its autonomy Plan. Keylostark (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That's baseless WP:OR. The source doesn't mention the autonomy plan and that's a fact. Keeping it despite being aware of this means that you are insisting on misrepresenting it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You're just putting your head in the sand at this point. The efforts of Morocco are clearly just about the autonomy and that is also a fact. You're the one misrepresenting it. Keylostark (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

More baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not baseless, not to mention that you saying they never mentionned the autnomy while at the end they say "La dichiarazione del Ministro italiano arriva in concomitanza con la riunione della coalizione internazionale anti-daesh a Marrakech, dove da Amsterdam a Bucarest e da Belgrado a Nicosia, passando per Il Cairo, Riad, Manama, Niamey o Conakry, il piano di autonomia marocchino è stato al centro di un’azione diplomatica, che ha visto rafforzato il sostegno internazionale." Which is translated to "The declaration of the Italian Minister comes in conjunction with the meeting of the international anti-daesh coalition in Marrakech, where from Amsterdam to Bucharest and from Belgrade to Nicosia, passing through Cairo, Riad, Manama, Niamey or Conakry, the Moroccan autonomy plan is been at the center of diplomatic action, which saw international support strengthened."

I don't know how it can be more clearer. Keylostark (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple: it become clear when the sources mention it. otherwise, it's just baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The source is mentioning the autonomy in the paragraph I quoted. Keylostark (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in that source does it say that Italy supports the autonomy. That's a fact! M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I notice (with despair) that you also misrepresented the Egypt source. Why would you do that? M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, I took an ancient article and confused it with a recent one. I will change it right away with another reliable source ! Keylostark (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

All you've done is misrepresent another source that doesn't mention the autonomy. It's now clear to me that you have no respect for the WP policies. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean ? The source (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2079186/middle-east) is titled "Egypt supports Morocco’s territorial integrity, says FM".

It also says "He added that Egypt “welcomed the Moroccan efforts, characterized with seriousness and credibility, that are aiming to move forward toward a political settlement in the Sahara issue.”" Morocco has only been working on its autonomy plan.

I ask you to please have a little of good faith. Keylostark (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Even the Polisario supports Morocco's "territorial integrity". What I mean (for the nth time) is stop engaging in WP:OR and stick to what the sources say. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes but Egypt didn't support the Polisario stand, it supported "the Moroccan efforts, characterized with seriousness and credibility, that are aiming to move forward toward a political settlement in the Sahara issue."

You're just doing all you can in bad faith to sabotage. I will be reporting you. Literally all you history in this page is just reverting other people's work, you never added anything, it shows your intention here are not to help working on the page but just keeping ideas you '''personally''' oppose to be added. Keylostark (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Update Request : Peru suspends relations with RASD and recognize Morocco's sovereignity over WS

https://www.gob.pe/institucion/rree/noticias/642189-comunicado-oficial-del-ministerio-de-relaciones-exteriores

Would be great to update list & maps 196.121.110.118 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

The Polisario Front, an abbreviated form of the Spanish Frente Popular de Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el Hamra and Rio de Oro), also known as Frelisario at the start of its existence, is a political and armed independence movement of Western Sahara, created in 1973 to fight against the Spanish occupation. It has been opposed since 1976 to Morocco for the control of Western Sahara. Slimatechservices (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing "Frelisario". Do you have a citation for that name? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2023

Cambodia Supports Morocco's Sovereignty Over Disputed Western Sahara https://eacnews.asia/home/details/21190 Jassicamanson89 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The source is not reliable and is contradicted by more reliable sources that are already listed in the article. Please read the above discussions where an agreement was reached to only use reliable third party sources. Official sources are obviously accepted, as long as they are not making claims about others. M.Bitton (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Status of Western Sahara

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The classification of Western Sahara as an occupied territory is a matter of contention, reflecting diverse perspectives on its status. While some argue for its characterization as an occupied territory, this viewpoint is not universally accepted. In contrast to regions like the West Bank, consistently termed "occupied territory" by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the UNSC has varied in its language regarding Western Sahara.

For instance, the UNSC's resolutions, such as the 2022 UNSC resolution, describe the situation in Western Sahara as a disputed territory rather than explicitly labeling it as occupied. The nuances in UNSC language underscore the complexity and ongoing debate surrounding the status of Western Sahara.

Additionally, it is worth noting that author, for reasons not explicitly stated, omit references such as the Letter dated 29 January 2002 from the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Legal Counsel, addressed to the President of the Security Council. This letter refers to Morocco as the administrative power rather than an occupation power in Western Sahara. .

Therfore i am deleting the line about occupation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raye Smith (talk • contribs) 14:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The illegal occupation of Western Sahara is undisputed (as well as the cited scholarly sources, others can easily be added). Unlike Spain, Morocco is not has never been the administering power of WS (again, easily sourced). I suggest you refrain from deleting properly sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, none of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions label Morocco as an occupying force. Since further discussion seems unproductive at this point, I am initiating the process for article sanctions to seek a more formal resolution. Raye Smith (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The reliable sources (including the scholarly one that is cited in the article) disagree with your assertion. No comment on the rest. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

France recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara

On 30 July 2024, Moroccan Royal Cabinet announced that the King received an official letter from the french President stating that "France recognises a plan for autonomy for the Western Sahara region under Moroccan sovereignty as the only way of resolving a long-running dispute over the territory" https://www.reuters.com/world/france-recognise-moroccan-autonomy-plan-western-sahara-only-basis-lasting-2024-07-30/ 194.154.197.119 (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Algeria announced France's intentions 4 days ago, so we'll wait for the official statement (France is perfectly capable of speaking for itself, no need for a third party). Also, it's about the autonomy plan and not the sovereignty as you're suggesting in the section title. M.Bitton (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok for waiting for france's official statement.

As for sovereignty, I partially disagree, France's new position includes the moroccan sovereignty which is what changed compared to its previous position. We may be agreeing but speaking with a different vocabulary, the autonomy plan that morocco suggested back in 2007 is an autonomy under the moroccan sovereignty, which means to give Western Sahara a separate government, but would still be under the moroccan King.

France's previous position was that the 2007 autonomy plan that morocco proposed was a 'good basis' for discussion, which implies that we can start discussing but it won't necessarily be the solution. France's new position is that the autonomy plan is 'the only base'.

Here is the full letter posted by a french journalist on X : https://x.com/malbrunot/status/1818220255254065628?s=46&t=hcCWTCciNBMcxQWVGIJYIA 194.154.197.119 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

the autonomy plan that morocco suggested back in 2007 is an autonomy under the moroccan sovereignty hard to image it suggesting an autonomy plan under someone else's sovereignty, but that doesn't mean what you wrote in the section's title.

I know what France's previous position is and I'm fully aware of its intent to reword it (like I said, Algeria announced it before anyone else). In fact, it's clear that France didn't "support" the autonomy plan (contrary to what is claimed in this article about it and other countries). Anyway, we'll await France's official statement and also check other entries for sources misinterpretation. M.Bitton (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why it's hard to image. another example would be Scotland having its own government but still under United Kingdom's sovereignty. We're not supposed to discuss if it's a good idea or not, it's just a fact. you can read further on the topic on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara_Autonomy_Proposal 194.154.197.119 (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I know what the "autonomy plan" is (I don't need to read about it). I also know for a fact that what you wrote in the section's title is incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest another one ?

What about 'France's new position over Western Sahara Autonomy plan' ? 194.154.197.119 (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Apparently. France is about to "support" it (that's the new position). 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

France already supported it on many occasions, but the level of support changed from 'it's a good basis for discussion' to 'France considers that the present and future of western sahara fall within the framework of the moroccan sovereignty' (i'm quoting the macron's letter) 194.154.197.119 (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it didn't (saying that it's viable or credible solution, bla bla bla... doesn't mean "supporting" it). Such nonsense has been discussed before and it's clear that some editors have been pushing their own POV, sometimes through some Moroccan propaganda outlets. The fact that the upcoming "support" is making headlines speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

this from 2012 says otherwise : https://me-confidential.com/5130-paris-backs-moroccos-autonomy-plan-for-western-sahara.html

Also this from 2023 : https://www.reuters.com/article/world/france-says-to-negotiate-un-text-on-western-sahara-idUSJOE93I049/

"We believe that the status quo is in the interest of nobody and we have supported for a long-time a fair, lasting and mutually agreeable solution. We have always said we support the Moroccan autonomy plan, which is as a serious and credible solution," Lalliot said.

The phrasing is the always the same : france supporting morocco's proposal. 194.154.197.119 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is another proof that official sources are the only way to go:

France’s position on Western Sahara is unwavering. We support a just, lasting, mutually acceptable political solution in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. In that regard, the Moroccan autonomy plan is a serious, credible basis for discussions.

What France officially supports (until proven otherwise) is clearly marked. M.Bitton (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

And I think the french version of the website gives more informations on a later date : https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/maroc/evenements/article/maroc-q-r-extrait-du-point-de-presse-29-02-24

“La question du Sahara occidental, s’agissant de la France, la position reste la même et le Ministre l’a redit à son homologue marocain. On a réaffirmé le soutien clair de la France et constant au plan d’autonomie de de 2007.”

the translation : “ The question of Western Sahara, with regard to France, the position remains the same and the Minister reiterated it to his Moroccan counterpart. We reaffirmed France's clear and constant support for the 2007 autonomy plan. ” 194.154.197.119 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't give more information about it's official position on "Western Sahara". It's properly labelled "Western Sahara - Q&A" and, luckily, it's written in English (the "we" is there for a reason). Anyway, since we both agreed to wait for their official statement, I don't think there is any need to continue this discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 13:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, feel free to consult the latest topic: "France: green highlight?"

A wide array of references are provided to support (a). French establishment of consular presence in Laayoune on 6 November 2024 and (b). the publishing of a new map of Morocco -- featuring the nation 'absorbing' all Southern Provinces.

Do these two conditions not constitute/define France as "States that have recognised Western Sahara as part of the Kingdom of Morocco through official announcement" -- the green highlight?

Fischer published a new map on the behalf of the U.S.'s foreign office of the full Moroccan map. France did the same :

The French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, stated at a press conference with his Moroccan counterpart, Nasser Bourita, that his ministry decided to modify the image of the map of Morocco on its official website to include the territory of Western Sahara as part of the Moroccan kingdom. Regarding the full map of the Kingdom of Morocco, the French minister stated: ‘We have backed up these words with actions and I am pleased to announce that the map of Morocco has been updated on the website of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs’.

Source: https://www.atalayar.com/en/articulo/politics/france-updates-the-map-of-morocco-and-reaffirms-its-recognition-of-moroccan-sovereignty-over-western-sahara/20241030114941206870.html

Hyperlink where you'll find the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs' publish of the official map of the Kingdom of Morocco on its website, englobing the Sahara.

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/dossiers-pays/maroc/presentation-du-maroc/ Anon-helper123 (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

@ The IP that keeps changing the colour: the green is for "States that have recognised Western Sahara as part of the Kingdom of Morocco". France, while supporting the autonomy plan, has done no such thing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I stated above that we should wait for the official statement, but since you insist on using other sources, you'll notice that all of them repeat the same thing about what France is meant to support:

Our support for the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 is clear and constant. For France, it now constitutes the only basis for achieving a just, lasting and negotiated political solution in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council M.Bitton (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s not me who changed anything but I want to add information on this discussion.

the autonomy plan proposed by morocco includes the sovereignty of morocco over western sahara. So supporting the autonomy plan is the same as supporting sovereignty.

that being said, support and recognition are two different things. 2A02:678:60D:D500:2C72:9E9A:53B:419E (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Supporting the autonomy plan means supporting the autonomy plan. There is no need to resort to interpretation. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

M. Bitton -- I mean this in no disrespect, but the question must be posed for the record. Do you have any favorable, personal inclinations and/or biases that may hinder and impede your ability to be an open source editor on this Wikipedia article page? 128.197.28.149 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF. I won't ask again. M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I shall assume good faith. However, for the Ecuador argument we had, based on your replies I see that you prefer to add info to a WikiArticle only based upon facts & reality rather than interpretation.

What room of interpretation is left for us, the editors, when Ecuador unequivocally freezes diplomatic ties with the SADR via a letter than was sent from their very own FM -- Gabriela Sommerfeld.

From what I'm seeing, a lot of the dark-grey, color coded countries are those that have or confirm the plan of opening consulates in Laayoune/Dakhla. However, don't fall into this confusion, consulate opening is NOT a pre-requisite to freezing of ties. A country (like Ecuador) can make the autonomous decision of withdrawing/freezing/revoking ties with any country/disputed territory (in this case: the SADR) and this should accurately reflect on Wikipedia -- the most visited open source encyclopedia!

I'd love to hear a second opinion on this. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no "however", you assume good faith without prerequisites. I have no idea what you're on about: Ecuador has suspended its recognition, and as such, it has been removed from the list of states that support SADR. What else do you expect to see? M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Bitton, take the example of Burundi. It forms part of 28 African Countries calling On The Immediate Suspension Of The ‘’SADR”

(Ref: [117])

It's highlighted dark grey:  States that have withdrawn, frozen or suspended their recognition of the SADR.

If Ecuador did the exact same: suspending their ties with the SADR, then why the heck should it not be a part of the list witk a dark grey color code? 128.197.28.149 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Just because Ecuador hasn't announced *yet* that a Consulate will be built in Dakhla/Laayoune doesn't diminish 1% away from its effective support of Morocco's autonomy over the Sahara.

When you suspend ties with one person/party, it automatically means support for the values and position of the opposing person/party -- you must infer and use reasoning, at times. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, Ecuador's green color on the map is: wrong. It's green for "Maintains diplomatic relations with or recognizes the Sahrawi Republic" which is factually false. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ecuador doesn't support the autonomy proposal, so I won't waste any more time on this baseless claim. It's official position is here if you're interested. Feel free to correct the map. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Bitton, having trouble doing so. Could you try? I think Ecuador's absence from the source code is what is making this tricky. Lmk. Materhand (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I will address France's position here and ping Sizito (who worked tirelessly on this article).

France supports the autonomy proposal:

As announced by @EmmanuelMacron, Morocco’s autonomy plan for the Western Sahara forms the only basis for reaching a just and lasting political solution negotiated in line with @UN Security Council resolutions.

The rest is just what a repeat of what the actual autonomy proposal states (Morocco proposes broad autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty). At no point did Macron expressly recognize the "Moroccanness" of the Sahara (there are plenty of French sources stating "Sans reconnaître expressément la "marocanité" du Sahara").

Besides, since Morocco is regarded by the UN as an occupier that has no sovereignty over the territory that is awaiting decolonization, a state cannot recognize such illegal sovereignty "in line with @UN Security Council resolutions" (which Macron repeated during his speech). The only way to do it would have to be the illegal way, like Trump did. M.Bitton (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: France's position have weakely changed from July to October. Panam2014 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't, it's still the same as July. What was said in the diplomatic correspondence is being repeated (le plan d'autonomie de 2007 constitue la seule base pour parvenir à une solution politique juste, durable et négociée, conformément aux résolutions du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.). M.Bitton (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If France supports the autonomy proposal but does not support Moroccan sovereignty, then just who is it that Western Sahara would have autonomy under? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between supporting a plan that is presented as a basis for negotiation (supposedly "in line with the UN Security Council resolutions") and supporting the so-called sovereignty (i.e., the illegal annexation). M.Bitton (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The plan specifically places WS under Moroccan sovereignty. You can't support the plan without accepting Moroccan sovereignty. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You can support the plan that is presented as a "basis for negotiation" without supporting the claims of an existing sovereignty. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

"For France, autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty is the framework within which this issue must be resolved," according to the letter sent by Macron to Morocco's King Mohammed VI.

From the article titled “France backs Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara”

Reuters is a very reliable source, unless you bring a more reliable source this is the way to go.

The source: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-recognise-moroccan-autonomy-plan-western-sahara-only-basis-lasting-2024-07-30/ Sayuuuto (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, you can support the idea of autonomy under some yet to be determined sovereignty, but if you support this specific plan then you are supporting specifically Moroccan sovereignty. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If you "support the idea of autonomy under some yet to be determined sovereignty", then we mention that you the plan (which is what I said in my previous comments). M.Bitton (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Want to try that again in English? Because "that you the plan" is incoherent. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, I missed the word "support" (I type fast while doing other things). M.Bitton (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, if you support autonomy under an undetermined sovereign you are not specifically supporting autonomy under Morocco. "The plan" is under Morocco, supporting "the plan" is supporting Morocco. That's how it works. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I specifically used your words, but that doesn't change anything. If you support the idea of autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty (that's what the proposal is about), then we mention that you support the plan (which is what I said in my previous comments). M.Bitton (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect to both of you, I think that trying to overthink if supporting the autonomy plan means this or means that is just a waste of time (even if I agree with Khajidha there) as Macron clearly said in a separate statement that France supports morocco's sovereignty over western sahara as I said in my previous comment. Sayuuuto (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Besides, since Morocco is regarded by the UN as an occupier that has no sovereignty over the territory that is awaiting decolonization
— User:M.Bitton

Can you provide a reliable source for this? if not, it's just WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

For it to not be OR, you need to provide something like this : [1] Sayuuuto (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

it's a known fact that is already sourced in the WS article.

Also, since I have no tolerance for those who cast aspersions (blanking your talk page doesn't erase what your editing history), I will kindly ask you not to ping me again. M.Bitton (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked and there are no sources that states what you said.

what aspersions? I talked here about the subject and not about you.

I am aware that blanking my page doesn’t remove history, and diverting subjects also doesn’t remove the fact that what you said is blatant OR. Sayuuuto (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

What do you guys think of the 2 new paragraphs under positions of Security-Council Members -- more specifically, France

It gives insight into Macron's 30 July 2024 letter to King Mohammed VI as well as info on his three day trip from 27 to 30 October, 2024.

Also, I omitted South Sudan from the list of nations supporting the S.A.D.R in reference with these sources. Agree?

https://diplomatie.ma/en/ambassador-south-sudan-morocco-reaffirms-his-country%E2%80%99s-clear-support-territorial-integrity-kingdom

https://northafricapost.com/61079-south-sudan-debunks-algerian-propaganda-clarifies-stance-on-moroccan-sahara.html

https://sudantribune.com/article64482/ 128.197.28.149 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you should refrain from removing sourced content that you either disagree with or simply don't understand. 1) The relation between SADR and other countries has nothing to do with any other country, least of all, its number one enemy. 2) The irrelevant sources that you're citing are from 2018 and 2020, while the reliable sources that you removed (including this official one) are from 2022. M.Bitton (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to check the updates under France + accurately reflect Ecuador on the map -- if time permits. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 04:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove "our support for the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 is clear and unwavering"? M.Bitton (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bitton, I can only help but question South Sudan's references! The first footnote is published by what seems to be a blog-website by the Sahara Press Service -- the official news agency of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR). Since SPS serves as the state news source for the SADR, I question its reliability.

The second reference is a since-deleted MSN news article?!

I'll give you benefit of the doubt: we'll fully trust the SPS reported dated 20/09/2022.

The NorthAfricaPost -- an unbiased source -- is dated 24/09/2022 and states: The Republic of South Sudan “recognizes only those states that are members of the United Nations,” said the South Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mayiik Ayii Deng, in an official letter addressed to his Moroccan peer Nasser Bourita, and distributed in New York, which is hosting the 77th General Assembly of the United Nations.

As you know, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

South Sudan's stances on SADR/Morocco is not made easy giving how ambiguous & flip-floppy they are + the lack of proper sources on this -- so I can give this one time.

But, I'd love to hear what you think of the fact that its 2 references are iffy, whats does the wiki procedure call for? 128.197.28.149 (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

SPS is the official news agency of SADR (all official statements about SADR are made through it). The entry is properly sourced after a long discussion and huge amount of work that went into that section (I suggest you read the article's talk page).

Can you please answer the question that I asked and that you're making me needlessly repeat: why did you remove "our support for the autonomy plan proposed by Morocco in 2007 is clear and unwavering"? M.Bitton (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your tone is unacceptable. I'm done here. Good luck to all that shall interact with you in future for WikiEdits -- you haven't been easy. Good luck to you, too. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

And you are welcome for the 3 paragraphs added to the lacking 'France' section which previously didn't mention the 30 July 2024 letter + the three-day 27 to 30 October 2024 State Visit implications.

Best, a new guy to Wiki that was just trying to keep a page relevant to current news & accurate!

I'm happy Ecuador was removed from the list, I'm happy the France additions are thus-far approved. I'll be back to this page whenever countries blatantly desist from SADR support + open Consulates in Dakhla/Laayoune (as this seems to be the only appropriate condition in the Mr. Bitton truth-arbitror WikiRealm)...

I'm done here -- it's been a real couple of days, I think my work here wasn't to shabby. Anyone reading this -- watch out for Bitton, might have personal inclinations but I'm not sure. Assuming G.F. was thrown out the window when dealt with hostility and lack of logical continuity. 128.197.28.149 (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ecuador, Panama: suspension of SADR ties

Ecuador and Panama have both suspended ties with the SADR — with immediate and indefinite effect.

Thereby, 2 edits are needed: 1) The removal of Panama form the list of states supporting the SADR 2) The appropriate color-coding update being executed as to accurately reflect Panama and Ecuador’s positions (in the Central-Southern American map included in the WikiArticle) 128.197.28.150 (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)