This template is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
I believe this template refers to Western Sahara's politics, and should therefore have the flag of Western Sahara. This does not mean bias against the Moroccan viewpoint (that WS is Moroccan), since there simply is no "politics of Western Sahara" in the Moroccan context; just "the Southern Provinces".
It is the same case as with Template:Politics of Palestine; it would be really weird (and incredibly POV) to put an Israeli flag there , since it only concerns intra-Palestinian politics (and I believe this template is for intra-Sahrawi politics, since Morocco has its own template). This does not mean that Wikipedia denies the Israeli claims on Palestinian territory, since that particular conflict is covered extensively in the text of those articles. It just means that, just as it is not reasonable to have the Fatah page headed by an Israeli flag, it is not reasonable to have the Polisario etc pages headed by Moroccan flags.
The references to Western Sahara's present non-sovereignty and the link to Moroccan politics are informative and appropriate, though.
I think that there is a confusion between the words "Western Sahara" (the territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario, and controlled by Morocco) and"SADR" (the proposed state proclaimed by Polisario over this territory). Western Sahara isn't for SADR what France is for Republic of France for example, at least not for the UN and of course Morocco. To clarify the situation for WP readers we should change the title of the templatee into "Politics of SADR, etc", Or comply to WP neutrality principles by adding information about Moroccan government who have de facto control over the territory. Daryou14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this is not (only) about the territory or about the Sahrawi republic, but about intra-Sahrawi politics (within and without, before and during the republic & Polisario) referring to "Western Sahara" as a nation or concept. It is completely synonomous with Palestinian politics, where there neither is nor should be an Israeli flag, since Israeli politics are a different matter altogether, despite the fact that Israel physically controls the territory the Palestinian politicians are claiming to represent. This point is made clear in the articles on the territory, but that doesn't change that Palestine and Israel are different political entities, as are Morocco and Western Sahara. Separating the subjects does not mean taking sides in the territorial/national dispute between the two political/national camps. Arre20:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, Western Sahara isn't for SADR what France is for Republic of France, Otherwise there wouldn't be any conflict. (Remember what Palestenian Terrotories are for State of Palestine) Daryou00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox should not have the Moroccan flag. It is about the politics of Western Sahara, and all WS politics does not concern Morocco (for example interior workings of the SADR, jat achahid etc). If you argue that some WS political events also concern Morocco, then the same goes the other way around. Are you prepared to be consistent and add the Sahrawi flag to the Moroccan infobox? (Personally, I think that would be just as bad.) Arre23:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that you supported the 2 flags option of the WS infobox. All the WS politics refer to politics of Morocco. the Moroccan flag is relevant. Daryou23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I supported that option as the least bad of the other options; it was also about a subject that clearly concerns Morocco, even if you disagree with the occupation. But not all WS politics concern politics of Morocco, and you know that. How is the election of a minister in the Sahrawi republic a part of Moroccan politics, for example? He is not Moroccan, he doesn't call himself Moroccan, no country acknowledges him as Moroccan, and Morocco has no control over the process.
It's nice to have you back, but I'm growing slightly exasperated that you cannot let a single page discuss the life and politics of the Sahrawi community, without putting it in a pro-Morocco context. This seems like a disturbingly nationalist bias to me, but I know you do not agree. Arre23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All articles dealing with WS politics refer also to Moroccan politics because Morocco claims and controls most of the territory. It's about neutrality of WP, the territory is claimed by Morocco and SADR, there is 2 solutions: change the titles of the WS politics pages into "SADR politics" or comply with WP neutrality and add the Moroccan flag. All your edits put WS related articles in a pro-polisario context, it seems to me that you are a little bit biased to polisario :) . Thanks. Daryou23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're not answering my arguments. Morocco does not in any way control what goes on in Algeria, Spain, Mauritania or anywhere else, where there's Sahrawis (pro- or anti-Polisario). These communities are the main frame of reference for Sahrawi politics, as an independent subject. And even if Morocco has military control over much of Western Sahara, this does not imply that everything there is Moroccan politics - similar to Palestine/Israel, where there's no Israeli flag on the pages on Palestinian politics. But to test your argument: let's put the Moroccan flag here, and put the Western Sahara flag on the Moroccan infobox. Agree to that? I don't like the idea, but at least it's consistent. Only changing the WS template is not. Arre01:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WS is disputed between Morocco and Polisario, Morocco isn't disputed between Morocco and Polisario. The Moroccan flag has its place in the Western Sahara (a disputed territory) politics related pages, the Polisario's one has nothing to do in Moroccan pages. Daryou16:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We all know the meaning of palestinian politics; there is a confusion about WS which is a disputed territory. If the title of the pages was "politics of SADR" I won't contest any thing. actually the title is politics of WS. WS isn't for SADR what France is for republic of France. Daryou19:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
===>I can't understand you What does this mean:
"We all know the meaning of palestinian politics..."
It's about neutrality of WP, each side of the conflict has its arguments, WP have to stay neutral in this conflict, the Moroccan flag is relevant. Daryou22:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia seems to be split between having just one flag (the flag of the nation/government) and having two (one for the "internationally recognised" (IR) government and one for the non-recognised (NR) government).
There doesn't seem to be a politics page with an IR government flag below an NR government flag, so I would think that thats not the best way to continue. The Palestinian page is not appropriate to compare as it redirects to Politics of the Palestinian National Authority which is about a government not a country. If we were to make that comparison then both this template and the page would have to be moved.
Seeing as this is about a government in exile, we could treat it like Politics of Tibet and have solely a Western Sahara flag, or seeing as it is a disputed territory, we could treat it like Politics of Kosovo and have no flag.
2 flags: (i) Flag of Western Sahara (ii) Flag of Morocco
2 flags: (i) Flag of Morocco (ii) Flag of Western Sahara
Thank you for your opinion, Western Sahara is a territory disputed between Morocco and Polisario, each side has its own arguments which they think suffiscient, the UN is trying now to resolve the problem through a referundum. First of all, the problem is about neutrality of WP, the flag shown in the politics infobox is the flag used by one party of the conflict (polisario) and refused by the other (Morocco) and not recognized by the UN (the mediator in this conflict). There was an edit conflict about the infobox of Western Sahara page between me in one side and Koavf and Arre in the other, a survey was necessary and the results are here and here. The "no flags" option seems to be the least controversial solution. Daryou23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree. It seems that User:Koavf has stated that this is inconsistent with other disputed territories. The treatment of disputed territories is inconsistent, but at least one example can be pointed to that takes the no flag option. - FrancisTyers23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
===>Further inconsistency You'll note that Daryou contradicts himself when he a.) consistently inserts the Moroccan flag and then b.) appeals to an article where no flags are present. Furthermore, in his edit summaries, he asks that we refer to talk or reach consensus, when he's the one that is brazenly putting in the Moroccan flag without any consensus or discussion beforehand. Justin (koavf)05:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that both of you have been getting worked up over this article. Blind reverting will not do any good. Do you agree to have a template with no flags, or can you recommend/suggest another option? - FrancisTyers11:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I know what does mean consensus for you, you are not willing to change your opinions and you confessed many times and in your user page that you are pro-polisario biased, no consensus is possible with you, we had the same edit conflict before, a survey was necessary, you see that most of WPians agree with neutrality, please comply with their opinions. You see that third party opinion in this last conflict agree with an infobox without flags, I willl do it. Daryou07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to talk about his beliefs. We're here to talk about flags. Note, I agree that there shouldn't be any flag for now, but this is just to stop you edit warring while you resolve the dispute more fully. I would point out that moving the template to Template:Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic would solve the problem and I believe this kind of solution is the type used in resolving the Palestine issue. - FrancisTyers11:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
==>Move to SADR, if you want A no-flags option is simply acquiescing to his demands, rather than seeking consensus. The consensus is to leave it as is. Frankly, Daryou, from what I can understand of your comments, I find your allegations absurd and baseless. I've worked to find consensus on several edits before, on a variety of topics. On the other hand, you apparently have no interest in Wikipedia outside of pushing a pro-Moroccan agenda, which makes it impossible to seek consensus with you. Justin (koavf)16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
===>What? Did you read the discussion that went on above, and the consensus reached? You offered no new arguments or evidence! What are you doing? How is redirecting a Western Sahara template to a Moroccan one not an "abuse of Western Sahara in naming templates?" Are you going to start presenting your ideas for consensus or not? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reject any idea that suggests Western Sahara is part of "sadr"
If the consensus is thta, I reject it.
I started inserting an other template in related articles.
I sould suggest you the same and refrain form miusing the WS-Template
===>Consensus In case you weren't aware, consensus is a guideline on Wikipedia. It's how the entire enterprise works. If you keep on making edits contrary to consensus, you will keep on being reverted and very likely blocked. If you want to reject the consensus of the editors in your heart, I don't care, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. No one is concerned about the contents of your mind; we are concerned about the actions that you take. If you want to persuade us to change our opinions, you'll have to present some actual evidence and a cogent argument rather than ranting. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail19:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Western Sahara in not part of "sadr".
This is confirmed in all articles on the territory
Then, all articles on Ws are evidence against this "consensus" and this template.
This template is a clear POV and goes against the main rules!
A consensu in not a bible. However if its a "wikipedia rule" I'll read about it and see how to deal with.
===>Western Sahara and SADR The statement "*Western Sahara in not [a] part of [the] 'SADR' [sic]" is POV. No article on Wikipedia asserts that Western Sahara is or is not rightfully a part of the SADR or Morocco. All of the articles simply state who is currently administering the parts of the territory and what the stated positions are of the interested parties. Granted, a consensu[s] is not a [B]ible, no one is saying that consensus is always correct. All I'm saying is this is how it works. Ignore it at your own peril and frustration. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No article confirms WS is part of "sadr"
Control of territory is 1/ disputed and 2/ no confirmation of sovereignty
===>Let's get some things straight I know that no article confirms "WS is [a] part of 'SADR.'" Also, no article confirms that WS is a part of the Kingdom of Morocco. They are written from a neutral point-of-view. Control of the territory is only disputed by you. People who have actually been there say that the SADR control it, and you refuse to believe them for some reason. I didn't attack you. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic claims Western Sahara, so that is why it is referenced in the template. Some of the articles are "X of Western Sahara" and others are "X of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" where one or the other refers to the territory or the political entity. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail20:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you are getting things rather confused than straight.
I clearly separate between:
1/ A: The redirect from WS templates to "sadr"
and
2/ B: The ambiguity in the "sadr" template by including "Politics and government of Western Sahara"
In your reaction, you try to block changes by providing dogmatic arguments: "This has been a consensus" and "'sadr' claims the territory", an attitude that is not open minded and that reflects fear of changes and development.
A:
The redirect is a clear POV. Nothing from WS should redirect to "sadr" or polisario, as the territory is disputed.
If this redirect is done just because "sadr" claims the territory, then the same right is valid for Morocco and the templates must be redirected to Moroccan templates
There is no need for such a redirect as it can be replaced by other ones, e.g. {{Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}} which you developped and are using already.
B:
Western is the territory
It has no government
It has no politics
Morocco that claims the territory and governs most parts of it has a government and politics.
"sadr" that claims the territory - and control on a strip of it - is proclaimed and has a "government". It has therefore politics, although it is a largely unrecognized entity an although.
In the Moroccan template it says Politics and government of Morocco, which goes along with the other country templates: e.g. Politics and government of Tunisia, Politics and government of Germany etc.
The "sadr" template however includes Western Sahara by saying Politics and government of Western Sahara.
This is misleading and suggests that Western Sahara is "sadr"
Wikima, there's room for both types of templates. You don't have to misread everything to be a conspiracy against Morocco. For example, there are political events that have to do with Western Sahara but not exclusively with the SADR (like MINURSO or the UN missions to the territory). They should go under Politics of Western Sahara. And there are things that have to do with Western Sahara only or mainly in the context of the SADR (like the post of President of Western Sahara, which is a SADR mandate). These could be filed under a Politics of the SADR heading, or both. Clearly, however, there is a need for a template that covers political events i relation to Western Sahara -- because there are political things going on there, despite (or because of) the absence of a universally recognized government. Arre20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arre,
At the end you contradict yourself: Who the hell is the president of Western Sahara? Is this a Polisario page?
There must be a cleaning of all this. Things are so much confused that this harms a project like Wikipedia.
There is politics related to Western Sahara but Western Sahara has no politics
And these politics belong to the parties involved in the conflict. WS is juts a territory.
This is the way ti should go, and if we have a brain we must find the best way to reflect this.
1 - That's the title of the president in the SADR system. It doesn't mean he is the president of an independent country named Western Sahara, since there is no such country. Though he would sure like to be.
2 - So you keep saying.
3 - I don't care who "has" the politics. Let's call it "Politics related to Western Sahara" instead then, if that does it for you. Point is that there are things in Western Sahara that are (a) political and (b) not related to SADR. (See pt. 4 for more.)
4 - No. For example, the United Nations clearly do not "belong" to either Morocco or the SADR, and I would argue that neither do the Sahrawis in general. Assuming that they are all for or against, or even controlled by, one of the two main parties, is precisely what they would both want you to think, but that doesn't mean it's true. They're a people in their own right, with a myriad different opinions that shouldn't be subsumed under the push-pull battle of Morocco and Polisario. Also, there is history to consider: the Sahrawi political movements and colonial history that existed prior to Polisario and the Moroccan occupation, is not automatically part of the politics of either SADR or Morocco -- but it is clearly part of Western Sahara's political history.
5 - * Brains we have. Perhaps a little less mouth would do the trick.
"Politics and government of Western Sahara" is clearly a POV.
I have set a dipuste banner so we can discuss.
This appears on all related templates but this is the function and the significance of a template: it appears on all pages, therefore it's important to clarify.
There is no recognised state or country called Western Sahara with a governement, president etc. and honnetsly I do not care of the wishes of Mr Abdelaziz to president of such a state.
In reallity there isn't even a Sahrawi Republic. It's is just a fictive entitiy, located in Algeria and without territory.
I would suggest "Politics of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". At least information on this entitisy can be clarified in its section.
Re "less mouth" I don't undertsand really what you mean, but please, again, let me express my opinion and what I think. We live in a free world. Tanks.
Saying there is "no recognized state or country called Western Sahara with a government, president etc." is POV. All that we can say is that several dozen governments contradict you. The fact is that if several dozen governments recognize a state, it has recognition. If an organized political entity administers territory with a permanent population, it is a government. The SADR does this. It's irrelevant what Mohammed Abdelaziz wishes or your take on his opinions; these facts remain the same.
The statement "[The SADR is] just a [fictitious] entitiy, located in Algeria and without territory]" is also not true and something that you must realize no one else is going to accept. The SADR existed prior to Algerian support for Polisario and it does administer territory. The fact that you say these things aren't true over and over again, even when it's unrelated to the discussion at hand, will not change the facts or people's opinion of them. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikima, you're not responding to my argument. I'm not saying Western Sahara is a state or that it should be, because the title suggests no such thing. I'm saying that there are a vast number of political events related to Western Sahara, that are not only - or even mainly - Polisario's or Morocco's business. For example, everything that happened before the 1970s. This cannot be covered under Politics of the SADR, nor under Politics of Morocco. However, if you want to suggest another phrasing for the name of the article ("Political events and phenomena allegedly related to or concerned with the territory formerly known as Spanish Sahara"?), go ahead, I'll listen. Arre10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
===>Not necessarily Usually, it's not desirable to have a template inside a template. When there are disputes or votes for deletion, the templates about the dispute are not included within the template itself. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template is part of the article and the contents. If it displays information that is disputed this must be reflected. Now "Politics and government of Western Sahara" is a strong POV i my view as there is no governement in that territory. This hoevers continues to display in articles. And this shoudl not be the case. Discussions can take time. wikima17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
