Talk:Southern Provinces

This should be integrated into the article for Western Sahara.

---

Should have a map too.

Delete Article, integrate into Western Sahara

I fail to see the point of this article. It is merely duplicative of the Western Sahara information and frankly no English speaker (ex-Moroccan) ever refers to the Western Saharan territory as "Southern Provinces." This is merely Moroccan agit-prop, and while it may very well be provoked by the rather excessive amount of Polisario pages, I see no reason why one sin should justify another sin. (collounsbury 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Some months ago, an editor, S710, had proposed that both "the Southern Provinces" and the "Free Zone" be merged with "Western Sahara", and be deleted as separate articles. They could be separates paragraphs in the WS article. But some people out there refused that the free zone article be merged and insisted on it being separate. No one cared about the Southern provinces, which was merged since then until I restored it. If you mean to revive the idea of S710, I strongly support it. If you mean just targeting this article, no, Southern Prov. and free zone are both POV in my opinion and you can't deal with one without the other. --A Jalil 21:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a seperate article on the Free Zone? Good lord. Yes, I would merge the bloody lot of it together rather than having all these confetti articles hither and thither. I had no bloody idea the Free Zone arty existed. Bloody nuts. Bloody Hamada and it's got more artys than some major countries. (collounsbury 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

True, there's a million. But conflict, interests, etc. Wonder if there is an article for "hamada", by the way...

As for merging or deleting, I don't mind either way, as long as all relevant info is preserved somehow, and both articles are treated the same way. Arre 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. There are more articles on Western Sahara than I would say 20 african countries grouped together. The backer plan II in 2003 was such that many taught that with the Republicans in office and with a high caliber diplomat as Baker asking for the plan to be forced on the parties, many jumped to the idea that "that's it". Militants and Polisario support groups started grow like mushrooms. On Wikipedia, some militants had such a zeal that you would think they behave as if someone (high in Polisario)is checking every day how the boys' are managing. The reward will come later when the long-awaited republic will be a reality. I remember I told koavf (but he never listens), and I tell Arre now, that whatever we write, and how much we disagree on things, all we write here changes nothing on the ground, and will never do. Expect fish to live outside water, but don't expect Morocco giving away the "Southern Provinces". The rest is just B*******. Cheers. --A Jalil 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we revive this? I see no reason for the multiplicity of articles on this narrow subject. collounsbury 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

This article and the "free zone" one go hand in hand. No problem with me to remove both and integrate the text to Western Sahara article.--A Jalil 13:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me But I'm afraid it might bloat the Western Sahara article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring Again

Where is this going? First, koavf's edits are rather partisan (Algerian backed is not an issue in question), but counter edits are hardly terribly better. Before we start a reprise of the past, perhaps a discussion. (collounsbury 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

There are thousands of references on the web for the "Algeria-backed" Polisario front. He does not want it mentionned. Why? Nobody knows.--A Jalil 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what I would like is a proper convo. Eh? Now and again he has a point, and if he'd learn to be less partisan (but then wikima could learn to be so as well, although he's rather better), whatever the ridiculous over-exposure of W. Sahara, at least the arties would be quality. collounsbury 20:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

Fire away I'd be happy to talk; I post on talk far more often than does Jalil in our little disputes. Jalil, saying that "X is mentioned everywhere thousands of times" and "no one knows about X" certainly seem contradictory. I would be opposed to you constantly mentioning that Polisario is "Algeria-backed" just like you would be opposed to me constantly mentioning how the Sahara is occupied; it's a pleonasm that is often irrelevant to the substance of the article in order to push a POV. It is not necessary to mention in every instance that Polisario are "Algeria-backed" (whatever that means), nor is it necessary in every instance to mention that the Sahara is occupied. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue of constant insertion is a very fair point and I think Jalil should have to grant it - Algeria backed however is clear, Polisario is clearly a creature of Algeria in most respects. That's what happens when you're stuck on another nation's soil and it's a dictatorship. The volte-face on Baker II amply illustrates. Nevertheless, I agree, inserting the reference everywhere is abusive. collounsbury 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Lehbib Ayoub, the hero of the war during 17 years, when he heard that Abdelaziz Bouteflika has proposed a divisuion of the territory in response to the Baker II plan, he (Ayoub) went to Mohammed Abdelaziz and asked explanations of what he heard. He expected anger and refusal from Abdelaziz to Algeria's proposal, but to his surprise, Mohammed Abdelaziz replied that he can't protest anything Algeria does or says. That was enough for the hero to go back to Morocco. By the way, "The Algeria-backed" is not inserted everytime the Polisario is mentioned.--A Jalil 13:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the Algeria issue, I edited the arty, and frankly in this instance mention of Algeria makes much sense, as objectively Polisario needed Algerian backing to maintain itself. I rephrased however to work towards more editorially neutral lang. collounsbury 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Great Your edits here and at the SADR article make a lot of sense and are a good middle-of-the-road effort. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Presuming you're not being facetious, I merely note that having a fairly deep familiarity with the area due to business, my greatest concern is to have balanced and rational articles. Party political partisan rubbish isn't useful to me. collounsbury 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all No, I was being completely sincere; I have no reason to think that you have a particular agenda, and I generally trust the claims you make about your business background and familiarity with the region. I was stating an honest opinion about the quality of the edit and I don't see any need for edit-warring on this page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough mate, and very sporting as well. collounsbury 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

All of Western Sahara, or just the part west of the Moroccan Berm

Are the Southern Provinces all of Western Sahara, or just the part west of the Moroccan Berm.

• The first paragraph says all of WS "These two official Moroccan denominations explicitly include all the parts of Western Sahara, that lie either to the west or to the east of the Moroccan military berm in the area."

• The immige says the western part "The Southern Provinces are the land west of the red line, which indicates the Moroccan Berm."

• The hatnote says the western part: "This article is about areas of Western Sahara ruled by Morocco"

Which is it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume it's just a dejure/defacto distinction. Under Moroccan law it includes all of it, but the reality is it's just west of the berm. Restricting this article to just the de facto area (although of course mentioning the Moroccan position is useful) makes sense due to the larger Western Sahara article. CMD (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So the Southern Provinces is all of WS, but the article wants to focuses on the Moroccan-controlled part of the the Southern Provinces, that makes sense. I edited the article to reflect that, previously it implied that the Free Zone was excluded from the Southern Provinces. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

September 2023

@DamnOscar08: I'm starting this discussion to give you a chance to explain your edit. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)