Talk:Moroccan Western Sahara Wall/Archive 1

Archive 1

Phrasing

"Since the barrier is in multiple sections a double barrier with a substantive distance its parts, many Sahrawis are captured in between the walls." -- This is incredibly poorly phrased.

Is it trying to say -- "Since, at many places, the barrier is a double barrier with a significant distance between the two halves, many Sahrawis are captured (arrested?) in the middle."

Or is it trying to say -- "Since, at many places, the barrier is a double barrier with a significant distance between the two halves, many Sahrawis are forced to live in this no-mans-land."

Thank you for your comments. Please feel free to edit as you understand the text. Best regards, Gidonb 17:05, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I understood the text I would edit it. As I don't understand it, I can't and someone who knows about this topic needs to. --- sgb

In the meantime, I edited the texts with some help from your comments. Thanks and keep up the good work, Gidonb 07:27, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Just one thing: Bedouins that are living between the walls are permitted to cross at specified checkpoints, provided that they are unarmed. Morocco claims that the wall is not being used as a regular personnel stopping border, but as a military means to stop armed fighters. --213.146.115.42 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not clear, at least to me, what is meant by "In front of the Wall" and "Behind the Wall". It seems to me that the meaning of the term is relative depending on who you are. I think this either needs to be rephrased, or there needs to be a paragraph defining what is meant by in front and behind. Capmango 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture Material

Nice article on a fascinating subject everyone. I remember reading somewhere that it's the phosphate mines that the wall protects and that the money from these has paid for some very high tech monitoring techniques along the wall. Although I don't want to detract from the huge human cost, has anyone got any more details or pictures on the structure of the Wall itself? adamsan 20:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello Adamsan, I only found a map in a linked article. Unfortunately it is protected by copyright. No pictures. Gidonb 22:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disputed Statement

"Effectively, Polisario controls all areas to the east of the barrier; however, these areas are mostly uninhabited." This sentence is disputed by Morocco, which claims that its army and police forces regularly patrol the complete Western Sahara (the territory claimed by Morocco) on both sides of the Wall. They claim this by airing documentaries on TV and showing satellite pictures. Wether it is true or not, is difficult to assess. Since it's disputed, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? --213.146.115.42 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

===>Sure. That's certainly fair. I'm all for including the relevant information. Justin (koavf) 18:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection against including Moroco's claim. gidonb 18:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I do, since it is plainly absurd. Morocco could not possibly patrol the whole of Western Sahara, since it is barred from this by UN peace keeping forces since 1991 (the mission is called MINURSO. I believe maps can be found at www.un.org). Only a few, limited breaches of this has ever been reported. Conversely, the Polisario is not allowed to approach the Moroccan positions (i.e. the wall). I have been to the Polisario held parts of Westenr Sahara, and while there are plenty of Polisario guerillas and bedouins, Moroccan soldiers or policemen would be shot on sight. -ARRE.

I do not doubt any of that. But since Marocco is a major actor in the dispute over the Western Sahara, its claims are important information to the reader. gidonb 12:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. If you can find a quote where the Moroccan king or some other high-ranking representative of the country says that its army controls all of WS, then it should be in the article. Along with an explanation that this is false (for reasons stated above, such as UN monitoring). The same procedure would be appropriate if Polisario claimed to control the royal palace in Rabat. Thing is, I've never seen any such statements from Morocco (although I don't doubt they could exist). Arre 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Zunes

Marsden, here's the information you requested:

• "For most of the war, the Moroccans attempted to depict the Polisario as essentially an Algerian creation. Many strategic analysts in the United States have also depicted the conflict as something of a proxy war between the two most powerful Maghrebi states. However, Algeria supported another independence movement for a period in 1973, rebuffing requests for assistance from the Polisario. Following the launching of the armed struggle in Algeria gave some limited support to the Polisario,(12) not throwing their full support to the movement until 1975 and then, only reluctantly."

[...]

"The Algerians claim that their support for the Polisario is simply a matter of principle, of helping a neighboring country in need. Algerian support was crucial in the initial humanitarian relief efforts and in assisting the Polisario in its formation of the SADR, though Algeria has remained a respectful distance from the activities in the Polisario-controlled refugee camps, which - while located within Algerian territory - are given effective autonomy and the SADR flag flies alone. The Algerian approach to supporting the Polisario was a two-pronged military and diplomatic strategy: Keeping Morocco bogged down and embarrassed on the battlefield while winning a series of victories in the international arena. They were largely successful in this regard. Algerian President Houari Boumedienne refused to talk to Morocco on principle and had a strong ideological commitment to the Polisario. His successor, Chadli Benjedid, was more pragmatic and moderate than his predecessor, both in foreign and domestic policy, engaging in domestic liberalization and pursuing friendlier relations with the United States, France, and Morocco, but he continued Algeria's support for the Polisario. Far from being an Algerian puppet, the Polisario has always maintained a distinct identity in terms of its desire for independence, its own agenda distinct from Algeria's and its own autonomous political organization and decision-making. However, it is highly dependent on Algeria for food, supplies, arms, and sanctuary. Therefore, it has long been recognized that a major reduction or elimination of Algerian support would have serious consequences to the Sahrawi independence movement."

- Zunes, Stephen. (1995). "Algeria, the Maghreb Union, and the Western Sahara stalemate". Arab Studies Quarterly. Summer. v17 n3 p23(14).

I don't see any reference to the 1963 attack -- is there more? And it sounds like the characterization of Algeria's support for the Polisario as being part of a proxy war against Morocco is denied by Algeria -- shouldn't the article at the very least phrase this characterization as opinion rather than fact? Marsden 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Map

I just want to say Astrokey44 did a terrific job with the map. This page just got so much better. Arre 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks alot! I hope it was alright - I was a little confused about one thing - area under Moroccan control. I think that Morocco controlled most of the country since 1975 or whenever it was, and its been the wall thats expanding (territorial expansion has not gone with the wall - they controlled most of the territory even though it wasnt all behind the wall). So I put it on the map as territory behind the wall by *year*, I hope thats right. I mean, they controlled most of the territory in 1982 but only part of it was behind the wall? I'm repeating myself here cause its confusing to explain, does that make any sense? Astrokey44 04:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I understand what you mean. The answer is, of course, yes and no. The Moroccans did control more of the country than what was inside the wall, since they kept military bases along major roads and in some towns, too. Also they occasionally made offensives out of the walled areas, at which point the Polisario of course retreated away, but generally everybody just stayed put. Any position that was too far from the main force was sure to come under attack, and convoys in unsecured territory were frequently harrassed So the desert countryside was more or less Polisario territory until the wall got in place, and everything outside of it still is. In the early phases of the war, Polisario clearly controlled larger expanses of land than Morocco, although that land was of course economically worthless; the wall(s) changed all that. There is nothing wrong with your map, though, quite the contrary. It's excellent. Arre 05:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This article has come a long way

As the original author of the article in English, I would like to compliment all participants, map makers, contributors and editors on the terrific progress made in this article from its humble beginnings. Keep up the good work, this article is an important venture from a human rights perspective! P.S. As a non-Sahrawi or Moroccan I am willing to assist occasionally in consensus building around texts or concepts, when necessary. gidonb 21:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Title

Where on earth did the phrase "Moroccan Wall" come from? I have seen "Moroccan Sand Berm" / Barrier etc but never "Moroccan Wall." (Collounsbury 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

I wrote this article first on the Dutch Wikipedia, after someone dumped a plagiarized text from an external website. Having done some webresearch on the issue, I later translated my article to English. From here it evolved into a much completer entry. Now to the alternatives: Moroccan Wall get 12,000 hits. [1], "Moroccan Sand Berm" 1 and "Moroccan berm" 17. "Moroccan barrier" gets 31 hits. These are huge differences. Of course there are other considerations than rating, but you would have to try to persuade the community to change it. gidonb 22:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am professional analyst and specialist in Middle Eastern and North African affaires. How's this: "I've never seen Moroccan Wall" in professional writing on the issue. I would rename this article "Moroccan Sand Wall." or "Moroccan Sand Berm." You can find both phrasing in international organisation writing (UN, ICBL.org). Moroccan Wall is simply poor usage and I only see it on the political activist pages.(collounsbury 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

===>Berm I've mostly seen it referred to as the berm, for what it's worth. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I also ran "Moroccan Sand Wall", which was not in your previous posting. It gets 3 hits. [2] gidonb 04:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If already barrier makes more sense, since it is second most common after Moroccan Wall. I think what you really need to do in order to get your case through is to establish why Moroccan Wall would be POV with respect to the actual structure. The fact that political activist pages also use this name does not make it POV. It only reinforces that this name is extremely wide used. It better be a good case, because 12,000 hits for Moroccan Wall against 31 hits for Moroccan barrier is a huge difference. I am listening. gidonb 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV has all to do with my complaint, which I cite "[it] is simply poor usage" What is this "I ran a google" search as "research"? Those google searches and counting hits are not research, not matter what some may think. Good lord, running a search on "Moroccan Wall" is useless , as it includes anything mentioning "Moroccan Wall" in any context. The proper way to judge the matter is to look at what professional usage is, as in what terminology is being used in international organisations writing (and not by blindly googling terms in quotes). I recall again for you that what I said it is poor usage and not something I have seen in my professional life. Incidentally, it only seems to show up on activist sites, which is merely noted in the context of poor quality writing. Next time you reply, at least spare me the use of google. (collounsbury 06:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

===>Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies? Here are three that are pretty important:

1. Names - we use commmon names of persons and things. Ergo, searching Google is more valuable than looking in technical writing, as people who are not experts will be more likely to look up the former name than the latter.
2. We're expected to be civil - talk like a respectful adult, even if you really aren't one.
3. Be nice - don't use profanity and imply (or especially explicitly state) that the people with whom you are discussing are sub-literate. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my pious little friend. As to the substance, a google search is bloody useless, above all as structured in the link as it captures utterly irrelevant citations. In order to properly even use google like a literate, one has to structure a search to exclude irrelevancies. Use of NOT terms, inclusion of terms like "Western Sahara" as a quote limiter including variations. "Morocco Wall" by itself is worse than useless, it's deceptive. Thus depending on the writing of international organisations, especially PR type releases intended for a broad audience is best if one desires to find common usage without getting GIGO glurge. This is Basic Research Skills, something we professionals have an understanding of, kid. I'm bloody sick of seeing "I google X and got Z^10 results" as if that proved anything other than the person in question has zero understanding of search logic. (collounsbury 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Do you actually expect to convince someone of your point through bottomless arrogance and extensive use of caps and bolding? How could an educated professional superhuman like your self not understand that it is hopeless? --Bjarki 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I've read what collounsbury is saying and I aboslutely agrre with him
• Moroccan wall is nonsense.
• Google is indeed no argument
• Activits pages are no arguments neither
• I suggest to rename the title to Moroccan Sand Berm

Cheers wikima 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wall Comparison Not Valid

The comprarison of the Moroccan Wall with the walls in Israel and in Berlin is non valid.

• Both walls were meant to separate urban areas and civilians. The Moroccan wall does not.
• Morocco rather appeals to Algeria and Polisario to let the refugees in Tindouf leave the camps and join Morocco.
• Both walls are political in first instance.
• The Moroccan wall has no political relevance and pure military self-defense construction
• Therefore it can be compared with other constructions fo this kind to protect soliders and territories such as ... in the wold wars, although the dimesions...
• This is especially relevant as prop-polisario propaganda uses the contexte of the Israel-Palestina conflict in an attempt to gain the sympathy of the arab public opinion (Wall of shame, Intifada etc.)
• Please discuss this topic instead of reverting without arguments. Thanks

Cheers wikima 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion here. In fact all three barriers, that inside Western Sahara and those along the boundaries Israel/inside the West Bank and between the Berlins all had a security purpose. The comparison is an important illustration for the Western reader, as these walls are so much more known to us. I hope you will now seize your one-sided deletions until after we reach some consensus and that you will stop making accusations of propaganda. Surely I have nothing in common with Polisario and just happened to take interest in the Moroccan Wall. In fact, I am the original author of the article. gidonb 18:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am not convinced because you don't deliver answers to my reaction, especially that the wall is radically different from your comparisons.
• Security is common to all walls, even to the ones of my kitchen.
• This comparison is not necessary
• This comparison is totally misleading as people get the picture the wall is an urban one that separates urban areas. This false.
• I believe you have nothing to do with polisario. These propaganda nomenclature is used by polisarian propaganda though.
• I suggest you find other comparisons with walls and berms that have been used in wars.
• You can "google" as you seem to be liking to find.
• Meanwhile this comparison must be removed.

Cheers wikima 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, the war between Polisario and Morocco is a low key war, especially the last few years. I believe there even is or was a formal ceasefire. Likewise the Israeli West Bank barrier was erected as a response to the Second Intifada. The Berlin Wall was erected in the framework of the Cold War and was one of its symbols. These comparisons are extremely helpful for Westerners, as we know the objects of comparison so much better. Please do not remove again without consensus. I do not think it is very relevant to this discussion what Polisario claims or does not claim. See the article Polisario if you are very interested in this organization. This article is about a structure that was erected by the Morrocan government, mostly in the Western Sahara. gidonb 20:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, you are talking fo a consensus but you are ignoring my arguments - I have put a dispute banner on the article.
• The most important one is the this wall is a purely military berm.
• And it is not even a physical wall as it is not that high.
• If is like a firewall used in case of war for defence.
• The other walls are purely urbain and political
• The wall in the sahara is just like any defence line that countries would grab and charge with mine and other stuff to prevent the ennemy from crossing over.
• You comparison is totally misleading!
• If you have cases of such walls that have been built during wars (WW1 and WW2, Vietnam, Irak etc.) then bring them.
• Since you like google, I suggest then search berm using the image option and you'll see the images you get.

wikima 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• If no reaction I will remove the banner and the line of comparison.

Cheers wikima 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, since all three structures are categorized in the same Category:Separation barriers there is no basis for your claims and for your pov warning. I have the utmost respect for your personal convictions, but this is not the place to advocate them. Regards, gidonb 13:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am delivering arguments and logic for what I say. You cannot reduce this just to my "personal convictions"!
• I would invite you to do the same and to respond to what other say. Thanks

wikima 17:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you still believe the comparison is pov, please explain how this is possible while these better known structures are classified under exactly the same Wikipedia category. If you will not explain why the comparison nevertheless would be pov, the warning will be lifted. gidonb 21:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I was accidentally logged out, so I would like to clarify beyond doubt that it was me who lifted the warning in line with the above discussion and the edit summaries. gidonb 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The comparision between a military line of defence to keep armed guerilla from attacking towns as they did in the late 70s, and other walls or barriers separating parts of the same city is nonesense. What I have remarked in these articles is that objectivity is a big absent. Some are turning Wikipedia into a propaganda machine for one side in the Western Sahara conflict. It is better we agree on either removing the POVs, or putting both stances in, or unfortunately an edit-war will wage on the wikipedia pages. --SteveLo 23:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

===>They're similar, not same They are all separation barriers, so they are similar. Regardless of the materials used to compose it, or who is being kept where, they are similar. Also, the glib remarks about guerillas is not going to get people on your side. You forgot to mention the war of aggression waged by Moroccan occupiers and illegal settlers that created one of the 10 biggest refugee situations in the world, by the way. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 07:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see: The Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall, and the Antonine Wall all seem to have had similar purposes to the Sand Berm Wall. I think the argument that the wall is physically a berm is the strongest...but the whole thing is silly. What's the harm from calling it a wall. If we put up a wall in San Diego are we not going to call it a wall? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.47.59 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

POV and factual accuracy

===>Why? From which POV is this article written? Which facts are being called into question? If these questions can't be answered, then the banners need to be removed. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

=====> The Moroccan wall (berm) is a military defence wall erected in time of war on the battle field. It can be compared to other defence walls like the Siegfried line or the Maginot, or Bar-Lev walls. Comparing it to political walls which have nothing to do with military operations and are rather political and go even through the same city (Berlin) or through cities and villages and even run inside schools (Israeli separation barrier) is wrong, and full of bias. No similariy or analogy at all can be drawn, not even physicaly: the moroccan wall is a set of trenches, whereas the Berlin and Israeli walls are actually walls of concrete, several meters high. So the comparision with the Berlin and Israeli walls should be removed, and I don't mind replacing it with the Siegfried, Maginot, Bar-Lev comparision. --SteveLo 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Okay You neither addressed nor answered the questions I presented. The Israeli wall is a military defence wall erected in time of war on the battle field. I certainly have no objection to comparing it with other separation barriers, but you're still not answering *why* comparing it to others is illegitimate. You say that it's full of bias, but you don't explain where the bias lies - to or against whom is this comparison biased? The separation barriers that will likely be most familiar to readers are the Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China, and the Israeli Wall, so they are convenient measurements. The Moroccan Wall is not a set of trenches; it is built up from the ground out of sand, it has guard towers with armed troops (pre-ceasefire at least), and is in the middle of one of the world's largest minefields. Clearly, it is a military defense wall, or else it wouldn't have soldiers and mines surrounding it. Again, you never actually answered the two questions I posed above. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

====>Okay. Here you are:

• The article is written from the POV of Polisario. The Polisario-minded editors who inserted the comparision with the Berlin Wall and the Israeli Barrier simply want to transmit the bad reputation these two walls have to the Moroccan defensive wall. Every person free of bias, would not find it difficult to see that from every aspect (physical, rational behind its construction etc.), it cannot be compared to them but rather to other military walls. Honestly, what is the point in saying that the berm is longer than the Berlin Wall?. Who would expect the Berlin Wall, running through Berlin to even remotely be close to a berm running from nearly the Anti-Atlas to the Atlantic ocean?. ===> In my opinion, this sentence should be removed: "The barrier is longer than the Israeli West Bank barrier and the Berlin Wall."
• "Because the barrier is doubled in many places, with a significant distance between the two halves, many Sahrawis live in this no man's land with profound constraints on mobility and accessibility.". This is quite ridiculous. The writer of this sentence was surely looking at the map in the article, that shows the different phases of building the wall, and thought that they are all existing today with minefields in between them. The reality is that when the outer berm was completed all the inner walls were removed and troops and mines were moved to the outer one. So behind the outer Wall there are no walls, no minefields, and no restriction on movement of the Sahrawis. ===> the quoted sentence is wrong ad should not be in the article.
• The paragraph about "human rights" activists staging a show every year in front of the wall is useless rethoric. 50 persons or so have a paragraph for them in Wikipedia. That's fantastic. That does not need to be removed.
• "Simlar but not the same", well why don't you compare it to the walls of fences separating the US from Mexico for example?. Or the walls built around Ceuta and Melilla. --SteveLo 23:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

===>POV?

• If you can think of other separation barriers, feel free to add them. Again, these are the ones most familiar to people reading the article, so it gives context. If you want to mention the separation barrier with Mexico or between Ceuta and Melilla and Morocco, go ahead. I don't see why anyone would object.
• This may be true. If you are correct, go ahead and take out this line.
• How many persons are there at the demonstrations? How do you know this? How many makes a quorum for what should be mentioned? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 23:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would object, strongly.
• The wall in the Sahara can not be compared to the political border stuff between countries.
• Again it is for military purpose only.

wikima 17:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not helpful Wikima, I asked you several simple, direct questions, and you took two and a half months to ignore them. Are you interested in discussion or not?

• Why do you object? You gave no reasons.
• Clearly it can; it is being compared right now. Why can't it be compared? You gave no reasons.
• This is a non sequitur; it doesn't answer my questions, and you're not providing anything new to the discussion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

===> POV

• On the contrary, that comparision means to take the subject out of context. The problem is not removed by me listing other walls, but in the removal of the false comparision to political walls in the existing text. --SteveLo 09:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

===>Context Okay, how much context do we need? What is a "false comparison?" -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion not finished, why remove the POV?

• I don't understand this. I don't have the feeling that there is an issue to the discussion.
• I have a strong objection against this comparison.
• The berm of the Sahara is a defense berm. It has nothing but NOTHING to do with walls such as in Berlin or Israel
• Please leav the POV until this has been clarified! Thanks

wikima 17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag This is the first discussion in a month. I'm not going to leave on the tag indefinitely. We've been through this before. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think we are through.
• I don't see any evidence for the comparison of a technical war defence line with political walls.
• The remarks that I wrote and that are very similar to what Steve Lo says are simply not ansewered.

wikima 20:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag

Again If you don't want to discuss or provide any new information, there is no dispute. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

image

The image hanging out at the See Also section looks nice, but I can't see the wall − it could use a caption to explain where it is! Deuar 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Map

A "self-published" map being used in this article (homemade by "Astrokey44" (pseudonym), see File history, 3 November 2005) is a primary source and cannot legitimately be used as a secondary source in this article according to the Reliable sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. I therefore deleted it.S710 09:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) The Map was also published on: [ http://www.wsahara.net/morberm.html ], a partisan pro-Polisario website (bottom of the page).S710 11:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it appears to be a primary source, it was also very useful! − it shows the location of the wall in some detail, and is apparently not a copyright violation. For example, I found it a very useful aid to find the wall on Google maps satellite photos. It turned out to be largely quite accurate.

Currently, with it gone, the article is strongly lacking a diagram that shows the location of the structure. While a possible alternative might be the UN map from the external links, it suffers from two disabilities in comparison:

1. I'm not sure whether including it would be a copyright violation
2. The UN map does not show the internal barriers running from the outer "wall" to the coast.

In light of this, I think we should re-introduce the map (or some modified version of it) into the article for information purposes, but make it very clear that it is of dubious accuracy. For example like this:

File:Western sahara walls moroccan.gif

Purported approximate location and construction dates of the walls

• It remains unsourced and unreliable. S710 12:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, look at the time when the map was created (this talk, I think), there are references to the official MINURSO maps. You're really just out to sabotage these pages, aren't you? Arre 22:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

the internal barriers were based on this hand drawn map as it says in the image caption. --Astrokey44 02:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I say put it back in. There's nothing POV about it and its accuracy is not disputed (not compared to other maps, anyways). ¦ Reisio 12:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

• [ http://countrystudies.us/algeria/157.htm ] Algeria. A Country Study, edited by Harold D. Nelson, chapter: National Security, section: Security Problems with Neighboring States (Country Studies/Area Handbook Series) ed. Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, 1985. (retrieved May 1, 2006)
• Williams, Ian and Zunes, Stephen, [ http://www.fpif.org/papers/sahara2003.html ] "Self Determination Struggle in the Western Sahara Continues to Challenge the UN"], Foreign Policy in Focus Policy Report, September 2003. (retrieved May 1, 2006)

These footnotes did not refer to the quotation in the text or the "International reaction" to the wall. Therefore I deleted them.S710 10:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

External Link

I deleted the external link *Footage of the berm, courtesy YouTube It is not footage of the "berm" (fortified wall), but footage of a demonstration (author unknown, May 2005, place unknown).S710 11:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Now this article has the new name of Border Wall (Western Sahara). This is both un-recognizable and misleading. Firstly, it's not on the border! Any of

• Separation Wall (Western Sahara)
• Defensive Wall (Western Sahara)
• Separation Barrier (Western Sahara)
• Moroccan Wall (Western Sahara)
• Berm (Western Sahara)

etc, is much preferable because at least they're accurate. Yes, even Moroccan Wall is better, because at least it was built by Moroccans. Secondly, I have never seen this particular name used, and I'm sure people searching for this article would have small chance of finding it if it wasn't for the redirect at Moroccan Wall. Thirdly, it's not really a wall in the usual meaning, more a barrier, or berm.

I'm going to change this name soon to something more accurate, unless there are violent protests. I'm considering Separation Barrier (Western Sahara), Berm (Western Sahara), or just good old Moroccan Wall (Western Sahara). Any suggestions/preferences/improved names? Deuar 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, there was a previous discussion of this a few months ago at Talk:Moroccan Wall#Title. Deuar 17:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The words separation and barrier and even to a lesser degree wall, are IMHO not the right ones for the article. The "whatever it is" is a military defence structure. Its aim was to contain the guerillas attacks, and keep them away from attacking towns and disrupting economical activity, and also chosing the battle instead of fighting over a region bigger than Tunisia. (Now the US, a super power, has trouble on much less than that, the Sunni triangle in West Iraq). It was constructed with the idea of being far enough from the Polisario bases that they will have to drive hundreds of Kms to reach it, the time to be detected by the Moroccan army, and after the attack, the long distance to base, will allow the Moroccan Air force enough time to conduct pursuit attacks on the retreating Polisario forces. That worked fine, and precipitated the end of hostilities, and one year after the completion of the "whatever it is", a peace-plan was agreed upon for the first time. So, the "whatever it is" was not a bad idea in terms of making the war fruitless and thus precipitating the political settlement. Separation and Barrier do not seem to me military oriented.--A Jalil 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This has been discussed at length, and this is probably the worst name I've seen so far (Moroccan Wall is neutral enough to me, though perhaps Western Sahara Wall is even more neutral?). Also, material has been lost, including a map that was made by a WP editor and agreed upon by all sides to this conflict. User:S710 is a problem editor who almost never discusses edits, and makes sweeping changes. I've seen several articles, all on Western Sahara, gutted and sources removed with no explanation. If it continues, he should be reported. Arre 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Arre, I deeply understand your frustration in seeing your efforts of disfiguring the Moroccan articles, and of injecting anti-Morocco and pro-Polisario/Algeria POVs and rethoric, in seeing these efforts going with the wind, because now there are serious editors, like S710, who contrarily to you, is not an activist for some cause. His contributions are well written and sourced. They are balanced. And I don't even know if he is from the Maghreb. Contrarily to your contributions that show without any doubt that you are ALGERIAN in the service of the media war against Morocco, though you deny it. So, calling S710 a problem editor will surely backfire on you, because your edits are there to witness against you, as an activist for the Polisario cause who made every effort to make wikipedia's Morocco/WS articles a mirror of Polisario propaganda. As to your precious "sources", I mean Mr Hodges' authored and co-authored books, they are all that you have as sources, so you do better speak of a source rather than sources.--A Jalil 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article is here (Border Wall (Western Sahara)) instead of where it was (Moroccan Wall). The comment on the move referred to neutrality, but I don't understand that either; it's a wall, and it was made by Morocco - it's a Moroccan Wall, and I'm fairly certain that's the most popular name for it by far. Naming conventions suggest this article should be where it was, at "Moroccan Wall". ¦ Reisio 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 00:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've gone and done a little google survey to see if any terminology is the most popular. Here are the results:

search string	Google hits
"moroccan wall" "western sahara"	511
"border wall" "western sahara"	1130
"berm" "western sahara"	18,000
"separation wall" "western sahara"	1230
"defensive wall" "western sahara"	1220
"separation barrier" "western sahara"	513
"defensive barrier" "western sahara"	276

So there you have it - it turns out that "Berm" is the clear winner (to my surprise). Since Berm is so far ahead, I'm going to go and rename the article to Berm (Western Sahara) according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This name also has the advantage of being relatively neutral.

A thing to note - to do the search properly, I found that firstly you have to include the exact expression "western sahara" in all searches (e.g. searching for just "moroccan wall" gives 9690 hits, mostly related to random mundane walls in morocco), and that the relevant name must also be given as an exact expression ( a search for moroccan wall without the ("), gives ~961,000 hits). Deuar 13:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your research as rather meaningless. You're not going to find many people that refer to this landmark as "berm [(]western sahara[)]", or even "western saharan berm"; nor 'Moroccan berm'. You will however find a lot of people referring to it as the 'Moroccan wall'. Naturally a search including two country names ("moroccan wall" "western sahara") is going to be more limiting than one that contains only one ("berm" "western sahara"); compare 'japan china martial arts' (≈1,650,000) with 'japan martial arts' (≈2,500,000) and 'china martial arts' (≈2,810,000). There's more to Wikipedia naming conventions than what Google returns the most results for - by that logic if for whatever reason Google returned the most relevant results from the terms 'ooga booga shooga', we would name the article ooga booga shooga, which is rather silly. ¦ Reisio 05:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm opposed to Googleocracy for naming issues as well. However, the main point of the survey was to at least give some relevant facts, which has got to be an improvement over purely having a bunch of editors giving their personal opinions. Contrary to what you might think, I have found "berm" to be used commonly in situations where the writer takes an actively neutral stance, for example UN publications. Naturally, if you discuss the structure mostly with people opposed to the Moroccan occupation, then they're going to prefer to use the more revealing "Moroccan wall". That's probably why I also expected "Moroccan wall" to come up in the lead as well!

Regarding your technical reservations, You may have missed the point of having double quotes around the search terms in the table. ("moroccan wall" "western sahara") means search for articles which contain the exact expression "moroccan wall" AND the exact expression "western sahara". It is in no way the same as (moroccan wall western sahara), which looks for articles which contain all four words "moroccan", "western", "sahara", and "wall" in any order, gives 940,000 hits, and is completely useless. So, ("moroccan wall" "western sahara") and ("berm" "western sahara") both search for articles which contain two precise expressions. I'm changing one expression: "moroccan wall", for another: "berm". Including also "western sahara" excludes "moroccan wall"s in Morocco or wherever, as well as miscellaneous "berm"s. In the language of your examples, it's like searching for ("japan" "martial arts") and ("japan" "sumo"). Even though the number of words appears at first glance to be different, the number of expressions is the same. Deuar 12:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated - it's a wall built by Morocco...that makes it a "Moroccan wall" - there's nothing POV about it. If Morocco has a problem with people referring to their wall as 'Moroccan' and then as a courtesy people don't refer to it as such, I'd call _that_ POV - in Morocco's favor. I'm also not interested in better, but correct. ¦ Reisio 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's me, the nagging creator of this article again. Not only is the Google tally above incorrect, the comparison is very misleading. By the logic of the search term Berm "Western Sahara", one should have also included Wall "Western Sahara". This was not done, but I did it:

search string	Google hits
Berm "Western Sahara"	5,140
Wall "Western Sahara"	449,000

The results speak for themselves. Now by the reasoning of Deuar above, the name should have been Wall (Western Sahara) and should have been changed immediately. I don't think this is the optimal name, method, or methodology, and would like to see some compromise discussed. As an outsider, I hereby offer my help at reaching a good and agreed name. Until a good compromise is reached, I request that the name shall not be changed. gidonb (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I have changed the name accordingly. gidonb (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As it is now (Wall (Western Sahara)), we are apparently disambiguating this article from the article wall, for people who apparently are looking for this article by searching for the name "wall"…which is obviously nonsense. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uuugh, rename the article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as title was not sensible. Discussion on whether it should really be here or at Moroccan Berm or Moroccan Border Wall etc. can proceed below; other names did not appear common to me but should be considered if others find them. Also merged talk page history, which had been stranded with the move in 2006. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Wall (Western Sahara) → Moroccan Wall — Naming conventions & enduring majority opposition to current name. Reisio (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a ridicules name for an article. Shall we reaneme the great wall of china to "Wall (China)"? Also, the argument above that "Wall" gets more google hits than "Berm" so it must be the best term shows a complete misuse of that metric. --MarsRover (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The current name is completely stupid. I don't see how Moroccan Wall is a problem, seeing as it was the Moroccans who built it, but how about the super-neutral (but not stupid) Western Sahara wall? -M.Nelson (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed too. The actual name seems to be a tactic to underestimate the article, being only a part of a bigger article. I suggest to do a poll to rename this article. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Opened (another) move request. The only reason this page is where it's at now is because while you can easily move a page from where it should be to somewhere it absolutely shouldn't be, the reverse is not true — you need an admin. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support The proposed title may not be perfect but its a significant improvement over the current title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support just to eliminate the current ugghhh title. Open to other suggestions as well but latter portions of the discussion above seems to support Moroccan Wall. — AjaxSmack 19:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, the current title is indeed stupid and needs moving urgently.--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• 'Oppose' for the very same reasons laid out in discussions above on this very page over three years where consensus of editors over three years was contra for reasons of common usage and other. (collounsbury (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

I don't see any arguments for the current name. Maybe the proposed one is not optimum, but the current one is quite unsupportable.--Kotniski (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you've come to interpret opposition to something (which is what the "discussions above" you've referred to are) and then a period of nothing happening as consensus for that something. It isn't. Consensus is when a clear majority agrees upon something — in this particular situation we have consensus to revert to the original article name, and have for some time. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Separation barrier WP:OR

Since the article has been vandalized repeated by a banned user on reinserting that category and/or see also, I assumed it was him again. Anyway, unlike Wikimedia commons, in Wikipedia we do need reliable sources calling this a separation barrier and none have been found so far. It will be removed if there is no reliable source found. CarolMooreDC🗽 04:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Supposed POLISNARIO propaganda (According to User)

This section is used to discuss the supposed propaganda. If you wish to remove large sways of the sections, you must first demonstrate that they violate Wikipedia's policy on content as well as seek a consensus. Ging287 (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV

That was unacceptable POV which is why I edited it. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001: Morocco is occupying the territory. The UN has declared it several times, with Ban Ki-Moon saying as much last year. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moroccan Western Sahara Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027155338/http://www.minurso.unlb.org/MINURSO_Ceasefire.pdf to http://www.minurso.unlb.org/MINURSO_Ceasefire.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209034916/http://www.cidi.nl/isnbr/2004/hoofd2-0104.html to http://www.cidi.nl/isnbr/2004/hoofd2-0104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moroccan Western Sahara Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221012627/http://www.minurso.unlb.org/milestones02.htm to http://www.minurso.unlb.org/milestones02.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109235619/http://www.fpif.org/papers/sahara2003.html to http://www.fpif.org/papers/sahara2003.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

Why is a section named "Timeline" that does not actually discuss a timeline of the berm? Trumblej1986 (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Good question. I've reorganized the article to put all the historical information under "History" and redistributed a few other sentences. Largoplazo (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)