Talk:Western Sahara War

Western Sahara War: 1975-1991

I dispute with the date of 1973 as the beginning of the war, in 95% of the articles I've read about the issue puts on 1975 as the date of the starting of the hostilities (for some authors the date is 1976). Of course the Polisario Front fight against Spanish Army started in 1973, but this confrontation was more small raids on Spanish military posts on the north than a war. Also, for example, Polisario started to fight against Moroccan forces (Front Liberation & Unity) infiltrated in W. Sahara in 1974, but it were skirmishes on some parts of Saguia El-Hamra, not a war. It was in late 1975, with the invasion of the armies of Morocco & Mauritania when the war started, with generalized fighting (Farciya, Mahbes, Smara, Dakhla, Lagouira...).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's the proof the war started in 1975? Spain took part in this war. B-Machine (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

koavf's adds are not neutral

Let's begin with the first paragraph : The Western Sahara War was the armed conflict which saw the Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement Polisario Front battling Morocco and Mauritania for the decolonization and independence of the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara from 1975 to 1991. The war resulted in the Spanish retreat in 1976 (Polisario had fought against Spanish forces since its creation in 1973), the Mauritanian retreat in 1979 and a cease fire agreement with Morocco. The bigger part of the territory remained under Moroccan control.

First : Polisario Front was fighting for independence not for decolonization, decolonization needs a referendum, the two parties were agreed for that after the war not during the war

Second : western sahara is not a former spanish colony but is still considered legally as a spanish colony despite the spanish retreat

Third : if polisario has fought spanish forces since 1973, morocc has fighted them since 1958 when the moroccan king Mohamed V claimed soereignty over western sahara in the same year

Fourth : "sahrawi rebel national liberation" is a secundary information that must be inserted in Polisario front article, if you insist that it should be mentionned in this article, then we should replace morocco by "The moroccan-Sahraoui liberation army", moreover many mauritanian soldiers enrolled polisario, so we can't speak about "sahrawi rebel national liberation" but only "a national movement of liberation"

Sincerely --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Non neutral Terms

This article is plenty of non-neutral Terms like "moroccan attack", it was a war between 2 armies, both of them are attacking and counter-attacking, not only morocco was attacking, this article is in general not neutral, and try to give a false reality about the war and the history of the territory, favoring one party over an other...(kind of propaganda) and using some questionable spanish antimoroccan sources --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately koavf is a well known POV-pusher on those articles, he's been blocked some 30 times for this but always finds a way to come back. There isn't much we can do about some of the fallacious stuff he inserts in these kind articles. --Tachfin (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara conflict

Dear user Stegop, please notice the difference between the Western Sahara conflict (Polisario Front dispute for Independence), which has lasted since 1975 till today; and its first phase - the Western Sahara War, which went on from 1975 until 1991. Mixing interiwikis of the "conflict" and the "war" is messing up things. Thank you for understanding.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting edits for no reason, citing unreliable/biased sources.

Most of the edits I've made were justified, I removed bits that were non-factual, dramatized and based on personal assumptions. I didn't remove sourced content I edited the sources with more credible ones that aren't affiliated with any side of the conflict.

1) The Western Sahara is under Moroccan control as it also administers the area as opposed to just occupying it.

2)The percentage of land Morocco controls isn't clear as it's difficult to assess as the borders between the Polisario and Mauritania aren't clear. So, it's more based on assumptions than facts.

3) Islamic Jihad is an accurate description of the nature of the activities led by the Polisario as it also has a religious and political aspect to it. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-7-2011-005886_EN.html?redirect

4) Morocco was able to achieve decisive gains as it now controls the majority of the territory. 5) Since building the wall Morocco was on the defensive as they didn't try to capture the rest of the territory and were mostly stationed behind the wall.

6) The report that Saudi Arabia helped Morocco before the ceasefire is biased and couldn't be verified with independent sources.

7) The polisario did use using women and kids as a human shield, i referenced independent sources, and I don't see why it should be removed other than trying to make them look good for the lack of better words.

I'm not used to working with Wikipedia, if you have any objections, discuss them with me here rather than reverting my edits for no reason without providing any counter-arguments.

1. The fact that Morocco occupies (illegally for that matter) Western Sahara can be attributed to a raft of reliable source.

2. The land that is under Moroccan occupation is roughly 75% (easily sourced, but tag it if you wish).

3. That's your baseless POV.

4 and 6. Again, that's your POV and certainly not a valid reason for the removal of the rock solid reliable sources.

7. Great, you can add that to the article (without removing anything) and we'll also add that the Moroccans shot at those defenseless women and kids (with a source of course).

Being new is not an excuse for the removal of sourced content and edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you point out exactly what sourced did I remove? I removed 3 sources for "military stalemate" that were books written by a Spanish individual and replaced them with a declassified CIA document that states the same thing, but it would easily classify as a more reliable source.

Control and occupy is roughly the same thing, the illegality of the occupation is also contested otherwise there wouldn't be a conflict in the first place.

I cited a source other than my own point of view, with all my respects one has to be mentally impaired to confuse my personal point of view with an outside point of view, i would cite other sources if would be so kind not to remove rock solid sources.

I didn't remove any source for 4, again you have to be impaired to think I did. Its common logic that Morocco controls the majority of the territory as the 25%(based on estimates) the polisario controls is by no mean a substantial.

6 is propaganda with not concrete proof.

7 Morocco didn't shoot the women and kids, they fled and there's plenty of evidence, sources and articles documenting it. There's even video proof. The articles stating otherwise are propaganda.

On the other hand there's plenty of articles and evidence of human rights violations withing the Polisario and Algeria itself, everything from rape to murder and torture and the role of Algeria in establishing the polisario. Hard line facts that I don't see anywhere in the page.

one has to be mentally impaired to confuse my personal point of view with an outside point of view. First personal attack.

I didn't remove any source for 4, again you have to be impaired to think I did. Second personal attack.

You're going to have to find other editors who are willing to put up with your personal attacks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I find it more disrespectful that you're accusing me of things I clearly didn't do, i made my intentions clear from the start that I'm looking for a discussion or a debate without having a fight.

M.Bitton, in reality, it seems that your POV is the one that's baseless.

1. "The fact that Morocco occupies (illegally for that matter) Western Sahara can be attributed to a raft of reliable source." Morocco does not "illegally occupy" Western Sahara, it administers/controls (most) of it, around 75-80% of the territory. Morocco has administrative control over W.S. according to the UN (a reliable source), so the fact that they "occupy" is your POV.

2. " and we'll also add that the Moroccans shot at those defenseless women and kids (with a source of course)" Constantly claiming to have "reliable sources" to support your claim is not the same as actually providing them. If that what you have claimed was true, the media, mainly media in the West would go nuts. Can you provide any reliable source to support your claim??

3. Morocco's military position in W.S. has been mainly defensive of the land west of the Berm Wall it controls, while the Polisario Front has been offensive and had multiple failed (ongoing) attempts to expand the territory of the so called "S.A.D.R." or "Liberated Territories". We can also add that in reference to those women and kids, the Polisario Front has been exploiting them and brought them to Guerguerat while they were hassling/harassing truckers crossing into Mauritania. They violated international law as well as the 1991 Ceasefire Agreement between Morocco and the Polisario brokered by the UN. Thanks. -AdDakhla

Not enough Sources

Hi, I made 2 articles about battles, they were declined for "Not having sources". The thing is there are little to no sources that I can find, help me please. The battles were: Draft:Battle of Tifariti and Draft:Battle of Tifariti

Polisario members and population must not be called indigenous

Refusing to call the Polisario members and population indigenous or describe them as Sahrawi implies that others who live under Moroccan rule are not indigenous nor Sahrawi. We conclude from associating Polisario with the Sahrawi indentity or even calling them exlusively indigenous, provides them an exclusive right to associate with those terms. You can't call a Moroccan citizen who lives in the Sahara region simply "Moroccan" - while at the same time call Polisario members "Sahrawi" just for belonging to the same exact region. This is bias and Pro-Polisario propaganda. Mohamed.sakhiri (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually denying the fact that there is a difference between the Moroccans and the Sahrawi? M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What kind of difference are you pointing out to? Your question and use of terms are so ambiguous. From a limguistic point of view, Sahrawi by definition is anyone who belongs to the Sahara الصحراء. From a historical/political pov, being Sahrawi is rather a cultural/regional identity rather than a national one. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Sahrawi people holding the Moroccan citizenship. Even the founder of Polisario front, El-Ouali Mustapha Sayed, was a Moroccan citizen, studied in Marrakech and enjoyed a scholarship from the Moroccan government.

Deciding to create a republic and basing its nationalistic identity around being Arab and Sahrawi at the same time does not grant you the right to revoke the Sahrawi identity from the inhabitants of southern Morocco.

Hope you understand.

Sahrawi, by definition and identity is anyone who belongs to the Sahara الصحراء region. Mohamed.sakhiri (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. Let me put it another way: the reliable sources use the following two terms to differentiate between the current inhabitants of Western Sahara, settlers and indigenous. Are you suggesting that the Sahrawi are the settlers? M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I explained my point of view as well. Your reliable sources are biased, therefore only subjectively reliable to your point of view.

There are two narratives when it comes to this conflict, the Moroccan narrative and the one of Polisario. One can either be neutral and not adopt any narrative, therefore using neutral terms. Or one can simply be biased and rely on his own "reliable sources", thus using biased and one-sided terms.

There are around 23 Tribes pledging allegiance and loyalty to the King of Morocco every year. You can find their names in this letter:

https://www.habous.gov.ma/daouat-alhaq/item/8539

So please explain, objectively, how does being Moroccan oppose with being a Sahrawi?

Calling southern Moroccan citizens as settlers is completely wrong. There are over 23 indigenous authentic Sahrawi tribes in Sahara region who pledge allegiance and loyalty to the King of Morocco each year. Here's a letter from their representatives to the current King of Morocco, Mohammed the Sixth, published by the Moroccan governmen Mohamed.sakhiri (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

reliable sources are biased what you think of the reliable sources is irrelevant (I suggest you familiarize yourself with our core content policies). I'm done here (as there is just much baseless WP:OR I can entertain). M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

> I provide arguments and evidence and the possibility of offering reliable sources for my claims around Sahrawi identity from history, linguistics, and politics.

> M.Bitton relies on a tag of a self-proclaimed "reliable sources"

> I check the sources used in this article, they use Pro-Polisario narrative. Some are even in croatian language such as lupiga.com.

> Dude cuts out my sentence from "YOUR reliable sources are biased" to "reliable sources are biased" and becomes rude about it.

• Classic Wikipedi moment*

Mohamed.sakhiri (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not 4chan. Please don't try to make it 4chan. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia sides with the reliable sources, biased or not. Our neutrality policy, WP:NPOV, explicitly rejects the idea that articles should try to strike a false balance rather than reflecting the 'bias' of the best available sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, "Biased or not" says it all.

Over-representing the Polisario narrative and under-representing the Moroccan narrative makes this whole article biased. Reliable sources or not, there must be an equal representation of narrative, or else this whole platform is just one giant propaganda machine.

Thanks anyway for the polite explanation. I hope my comment lives here forever. Mohamed.sakhiri (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The point is that you do not get to decide which sources we use based on your personal feelings about what is biased. The Wikipedia community has specifically rejected the idea that there must be an equal representation of narrative. That is not how this project works. You can stake out two opposing sides on any given topic, but (for example) Wikipedia isn't going to give equal representation to the idea that the earth is flat. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

feelings aren't involved in this. In political matters it's the country's interest and bias that pushes "reliable sources" such as media platforms, journals magazines, even historians, to adopt a certain narrative.

To disengage feelings and national bias from politics, one must equally represent all the narratives. It's not ethical at all to construct an opinion on behalf of the reader. This is exactly what makes me think this platform is now just one huge propaganda machine.

What makes matters worse, this article is so wrong on so many levels. But who cares since the white european journalists have written that, it's a reliable source for wiki.

Let's take for example the fact that the remaining part of the Moroccan Sahara is a no-man's-land, while this article claims that Polisario administers a republic there. Can you go to Google maps, enable satellite view and spot a single governmental structure in there? A single city or town (except those tiny towns administered by the UN)?

But again, dude said reliable sources and rejected my edits. lol Mohamed.sakhiri (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"No matter what science says, we must spend an equal amount of time on the crackpot theory that gravity is just the earth sucking everything toward it via billions of invisible straws." ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

lol, what? The Sahrawis are the indigenous people of Western Sahara and the Polisario are their recognized national representatives. Moroccan colonial occupiers are not native to that region, they're just a settler population. Nothing wrong with immigrants (tho there is something wrong with colonists), but they just aren't the indigenous people of that place. Western Sahara is not and has not historically been part of Morocco, so it's entirely true that the Sahrawis are the indigenous people of Western Sahara. Very strange post to make. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)