political Status Of Western Sahara

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

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

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

I may understand your fears about the sources, but they are still valid sources based on Wiki English. You can't just cherry-pick sources based on what you think of them. But here's more sources :
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-05-11/netherlands-backs-moroccos-western-sahara-autonomy-plan-statement
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/morocco-germany-renew-ties-after-misunderstandings/

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

Keylostark (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
1) I restored the previous version, I didn't add anything while doing so. 2) You didn't address what I said regarding a) the creation of a section for those who support a "mutually acceptable political solution" and b) the use of unreliable sources. 3) Describing the autonomy plan as " “important contribution” to a settlement" does not mean supporting the Moroccan position.
Do you have any reliable sources to support the other countries that you added (Italy, etc.)? M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I join my voice to that of @M.Bitton, as @Keylostark didn't provide adequate sources for what would qualify as a "recognition of Moroccan sovereignty", and is simply linking to dubious propaganda websites to try and push their narrative. Saying that a plan is a credible option for a solution does not equate to supporting the Moroccan position of sovereignty over Western Sahara.
I think the best way to address this is to add a section for "mutually acceptable political solution" which is a lot more accurate than the current category and covers most of the red countries. Sizito (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
We can add a section for it if that's what it takes for you to accept it. Keylostark (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Keylostark: If you find reliable sources supporting what you're adding, you'll have no issue re-adding them. The same goes for the map and the so-called support for the "territorial claim". M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Keylostark: I suggest you remove the unsourced map or you'll be reported for violating WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not about having reliable sources, it's about having to re-do my work because you create a conflict seconds after I say I will work on it.
The map is only a representation of the list of countries supporting the plan and the other the list of countries supporting RADS. the Map exist from many years ago, I only updated it based on the list that exist on the page. So basically the sources presented on the list are also valid for the map.
You're welcome to report me for anything you see fit. I will do the same on my part, because you have a large history of just undoing other people work on this page. You're just sabotaging this page without bringing to it any real work. Keylostark (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It is always about the reliable sources. Once you change a map it becomes your work and therefore you become responsible for it and its caption. Which of the those countries support the so-called "territorial claim" (as it says in red)? India? M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's what the legend on the map say : Supports Morocco's territorial claim (including support for autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty); Relations with the SADR terminated and/or recognition withdrawn (if no other position expressed)
As I said before, I only updated the map, It was there for years and I didn't change its legend, just added colors (I even added a country that support RADS).
No further comment. Keylostark (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I told you already about the Map and you still went afterward editing the Map description. The Map was there for years and I didn't change its legend, just added colors (I even added a country that support RADS). Keylostark (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
You changed the map with an unsourced one and are edit warring over it (that's all I know). I didn't change the description, I tagged the BS (for now). M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I changed the map based on the list of countries presented on the page, that are sourced. The previous Map wasn't sourced per say neither. If we add in the description that the Map is only a representation of the list, would that be enough to resolve this issue ? Keylostark (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
1) No, it's not sourced (as the sources that you added have failed verification). 2) Even the portion that is sourced doesn't support the so-called "territorial claim". 3) One way to resolve the issue would be to remove the misleading map altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
As I said before, the map existed for years and I just updated it based on the list presented on the page. You asking to remove it altogether because you disagree with the sources used on the ground of personal opinion isn't valid. If you doubt a source, you're welcome to present a better source that contradict it. Your personal opinion isn't a valid reason for the reliability of a source.
I'm proposing to add a note on the description of the page saying it only represent the list shown on the page. Then we can focus on discussing the reliability of the source on the list. Rather than removing material that existed for years on the page. Keylostark (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
"Existed for years" is not a valid excuse to keep it, let alone change it to a worse one. I don't need to present a source for your misrepresentation of the sources. Please read WP:VERIFY while paying particular attention to the part that starts with "all material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable". M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Keylostark: The Italian source that you added doesn't mention the autonomy. This is a clear case of source misrepresentation to push a POV. M.Bitton (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
In the source they say "Ho elogiato gli sforzi seri e credibili del Marocco per la risoluzione della questione del Sahara nell’ambito delle Nazioni Unite" which can be translated in "I commended Morocco's serious and credible efforts to resolve the Sahara issue within the United Nations". The only effort Morocco have presented is its autonomy Plan. Keylostark (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
That's baseless WP:OR. The source doesn't mention the autonomy plan and that's a fact. Keeping it despite being aware of this means that you are insisting on misrepresenting it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
You're just putting your head in the sand at this point. The efforts of Morocco are clearly just about the autonomy and that is also a fact. You're the one misrepresenting it. Keylostark (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
More baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not baseless, not to mention that you saying they never mentionned the autnomy while at the end they say "La dichiarazione del Ministro italiano arriva in concomitanza con la riunione della coalizione internazionale anti-daesh a Marrakech, dove da Amsterdam a Bucarest e da Belgrado a Nicosia, passando per Il Cairo, Riad, Manama, Niamey o Conakry, il piano di autonomia marocchino è stato al centro di un’azione diplomatica, che ha visto rafforzato il sostegno internazionale." Which is translated to "The declaration of the Italian Minister comes in conjunction with the meeting of the international anti-daesh coalition in Marrakech, where from Amsterdam to Bucharest and from Belgrade to Nicosia, passing through Cairo, Riad, Manama, Niamey or Conakry, the Moroccan autonomy plan is been at the center of diplomatic action, which saw international support strengthened."
I don't know how it can be more clearer. Keylostark (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It's very simple: it become clear when the sources mention it. otherwise, it's just baseless WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The source is mentioning the autonomy in the paragraph I quoted. Keylostark (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Nowhere in that source does it say that Italy supports the autonomy. That's a fact! M.Bitton (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
I notice (with despair) that you also misrepresented the Egypt source. Why would you do that? M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing, I took an ancient article and confused it with a recent one. I will change it right away with another reliable source ! Keylostark (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
All you've done is misrepresent another source that doesn't mention the autonomy. It's now clear to me that you have no respect for the WP policies. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean ? The source (https://www.arabnews.com/node/2079186/middle-east) is titled "Egypt supports Morocco’s territorial integrity, says FM".
It also says "He added that Egypt “welcomed the Moroccan efforts, characterized with seriousness and credibility, that are aiming to move forward toward a political settlement in the Sahara issue.”" Morocco has only been working on its autonomy plan.
I ask you to please have a little of good faith. Keylostark (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Even the Polisario supports Morocco's "territorial integrity". What I mean (for the nth time) is stop engaging in WP:OR and stick to what the sources say. M.Bitton (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes but Egypt didn't support the Polisario stand, it supported "the Moroccan efforts, characterized with seriousness and credibility, that are aiming to move forward toward a political settlement in the Sahara issue."
You're just doing all you can in bad faith to sabotage. I will be reporting you. Literally all you history in this page is just reverting other people's work, you never added anything, it shows your intention here are not to help working on the page but just keeping ideas you '''personally''' oppose to be added. Keylostark (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Please do. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Several activist editors have been putting extremely questionnable and non factual informations about several section on the Page: Political status of Western Sahara, by not only refusing to provide more than one independent source in the several claims that they are presenting and relying exclusively on just one which is the SPSRASD website, a website fully controlled by the belligerent force Morocco is fighting in Western Sahara which is the Polisario front , and with many articles that are no different than North Korean propaganda as you can all see here https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html an article written by the Polisario with completely wild statements that aren't verifiable by any third party independent sources same for these ones https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/29/39909.html or this one https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/05/08/39543.html and many others with informations about "heavy human and material losses" currently taking place, that no media either in Morocco, Europe, Asia or anywhere in the world for that matter have confirmed.

1) Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of factually and accuracy (i.e multiples independent AND reliable sources), but M.Bitton seems to be failing to see the difference between an opinion and a fact backed by multiple independents sources , such as his useless rhetorical questions here: "::::Do you, or anyone for that matter, doubt that countries such as Algeria and South Africa support SADR?M.Bitton (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC) (Editing Talk:Political status of Western Sahara) asking me this question instead of putting themselves in the shoes of the potential reader, and failing to provide more than one source that is at the very least reliable.

2) Pretending that it's just a dead link here (https://www.duhoctrungquoc.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Political_status_of_Western_Sahara&diff=1092233629&oldid=1092232732&diffmode=source) when in reality it's just a completely invented source (this is the reference number 59 mentioned in the article "https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm%7Cpublisher=UN Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York" (you can verify it by pretty much just replacing anything that comes after the "/org" "https://[www].[un].[org]/[insert word]" in this link by any word which will give the same result which is ERROR 404 and therefore artificially create a source and pretend that it's just a "dead link" ) a tactic used multiple times like here as well in the "States supporting Polisario and the SADR on Western Sahara" reference 125 (https://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2012/gaspd507.doc.htm ). Some references added such the ref number 154 ({{cite web |title=DPRK Diplomatic Relations |url=https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/dprk-diplomatic-relations) do not even mention literally neither the Polisario or the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic if you use the command ctrl+f in your browser, which imply that there is quite a lot of false info in this section that I have been warning about hence the two tags "unreliable source" and "better source" needed.

3) And regardless of whether this singular source (that is SPSRASD) that is repeated multiple times with the aim to give the reader some semblance of factuality, is reliable or not (it is not, as it is a press organ controlled by the Polisario that writes many fake news articles such as here https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2022/06/08/40015.html without any additional media confirming the various events on the ground and claims presented), one should always at least try to confirm statements through multiples additional independent media, hence why I added (One source|section) tag.

4) Independent and varied sources are very important to keep a high source of trust in the quality of the informations presented. Tsarisco (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there's an overuse of the SPS as a source in this article, both in terms of relying solely on it and also using it multiple times for each country, there's no need to use 10 SPS articles when one single credible source is enough. But there's also an overuse of Moroccan media in the article, in fact the Moroccan sources are usually making claims that are impossible to verify elsewhere, like the claim on Cambodia recognizing Moroccan sovereignty when it didn't. Both the Sahrawi and Moroccan sources should be avoided to ensure a higher quality and credibility of the article.
I'll try to replace both of those types of sources with sources from either neutral international media, or official sources from the country in question (foreign ministry website, etc.)
As for the dead links it's simply the case of the websites updating their code sometimes so the URLs can stop functioning, the link you're referring to is not an invented source but and can be found here https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/gaspd528.doc.htm, the URL just got slightly modified. And it so happens that I just fixed it. I'll try to fix the other links in the upcoming days.
I think you need to calm down a bit and verify things one at a time, instead of declaring it to be invented outright. Regards.Sizito (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Sizito, how about we do this, we remove every single SPSRASD or Moroccan/Algerian news source and only keep those such as Reuters and others (as you said neutral international media, or official sources from the country in question (foreign ministry website, etc.), or the UN? To keep a maximum of objectivity and neutrality, as this all we need in this article, as for the Moroccan section (States siding with Morocco) I have added a dozens of sources reinforce the Moroccan claims (the overwhelming majority independent from Morocco) unfortunately it took me a lot of time doing so, so I'm glad you are putting the effort to add NON-SPSRASD sources to reinforce the info on the Polisario section. Tsarisco (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Fine by me, I'll replace them gradually while looking for better alternatives. Although I would make an exception for Sahrawi articles that include photographic evidence (if there's any), if there's a picture of an ambassador receiving their credentials, or a handshake between foreign ministers or the like, that should count as an evidence of recognition.
Also the sourcing of this article needs a lot of work, there are many, many sources that are linked but have no mention of the claims made inside of them. For example you said you added sources to support the Moroccan claim, this source is used for Zambia https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2016/07/morocco-join-african-union-western-sahara-dispute-egypt.html, but it doesn't make any mentions of Zambia whatsoever.
And it goes without saying that we should avoid cheap blogs with no reputation that pretend to be news outlets, as well as websites that are Moroccan or publish heavily propagandized news about Morocco, while claiming to be regional websites (example: The North Africa Post). Sizito (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Sizito: Keeping only third party reliable sources is definitely desirable. Thank you btw for putting in a lot of effort into cleaning up the article. Here are a couple of RS that you could add (Libya and Mauritania). The innacessible Ghana source is here. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.
The pro-Morocco section seems to be an even bigger mess, nothing leads to where it's supposed to. At least the RASD sources, as propagandistic as they are, tend to correlate with reality. Sizito (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That's right. However biased it may be, the SPS is both an official and a far more reliable source than all of the Moroccan media outlets. I have yet to see the SPS lie about having a relationship with a country (this is what the article is about), contrary to the Moroccan sources that specialize inn twisting people's words to make them look at though they support their illegal occupation. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Here is a link that I posted that talks about the same 28 African Countries Call On The Immediate Suspension Of The ‘’SADR” - EIN Presswire (einnews.com) , with Zambia is definitely included if your read this article which mentions the signatories of the motion, Al Monitor doesn't mention all countries because it hasn't posted the text of the motion. Tsarisco (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
In that case I suggest using the original source/text that mentions the country, there is no point referencing something that doesn't directly mention what you're trying to prove.
Also suggesting the expulsion of the SADR doesn't equate recognizing Morocco's sovereignty over the disputed territories, or even a suspension of SADR recognition, as we can see Ghana still recognizes the country despite signing that motion. Recognition has to be made clear and not leave room for interpretation. Sizito (talk) 17:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
“Mr. President,   
The 28 Heads of State,  
A/ Bearing in mind the authentic ideals of the African construction;  B/ Faithful to the principles and objectives of the African Union, particularly the achievement of greater unity and solidarity between African States, the protection of their sovereignty and territorial integrity, the promotion of peace, security and stability on the continent, the promotion of international cooperation, taking due account of the Nations Charter and the creation of appropriate conditions for the continent to play its role in the global economy"
[...]
"Decide to act for the immediate suspension of the “Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic” from the activities of the African Union and all its bodies, to enable the AU to play a constructive role and contribute positively to UN efforts for a final settlement to the regional dispute over the Sahara. On behalf of these 28 countries, I urge you to include this motion among the documents of the Summit and ensure its distribution among member states. Please accept, Mr. President, the expression of my highest consideration”
Is there a 1000 other interpretation that can be made from this statement? Clearly they are talking here in the first paragraph about "territorial integrity" and in the last paragraph about kicking out SADR from the organisation which implies that countries in the Motion do not recognize SADR and it's claims over W.S region. Logically speaking this all makes sense doesn't it? Tsarisco (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This source here Majority of African Countries Want Morocco Re-Take its Place in African Union – Middle East Confidential (me-confidential.com) also confirms the Al Monitor info about the 28 countries so there is no doubt about the veracity of the my sources, I agree with you Sizito that the Moroccan section needs to be looked at, by 1 removing the links from Moroccan blogs that have been proven to post fake news, random blogs should definitely not be taken seriously as a basis for factuality and accuracy (and I see that are about 4 countries in the Moroccan table that shouldn't be mentioned), there are several tags (better source needed) on the source (MoroccoWorldNews), as US based Morocco specialized platform (I just checked them), without giving any rational explanations, as example there is the tag (better source needed) next to the reference 101 (MoroccoWorldNews) even though there are several articles from various other website such as Reuters, Saudi Gazette, as well as website that directly keep an archive of what was written in the UN such as Reliefweb (references 102, 103, 104 respectively)
According to this news platform (MoroccoWorldNews) in the "about" section:
"Guiding Principles for Editors, Contributors, and Reporters:
• Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
• Always correct an error openly
• Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
• Always reveal a conflict of interest
• Always respect privileged information
• Always protect sources from the authorities
• Always guard against putting the reporter’s opinion in a news story
• Never fabricate or plagiarize
• Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
• Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe
• MWN’s editorial policies may change from time to time."
I think we should at least give them the benefit of the doubt especially seeing the that the majority of their info as I said is reinforced by other news platform such as Reuters and the United Nations.
I definitely agree with you that sources such as "North Africa Post' should definitely be purged as they are nothing more than crappy blogs.
Regards Tsarisco (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
In terms of reliability of content related to Western Sahara, what "MoroccoWorldNews" publishes is less reliable than what is printed on a used toilet paper. M.Bitton (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Again "M.Bitton" you fail again just like yesterday to present any fact, and instead proceeds to answer with useless opinions that are completely irrelevant to the subjects, if you have any counter proofs that confirms your statements that that what they publish is "is less reliable than what is printed on a used toilet paper" then presents them, or just move on and stop wasting people's times.
Regards Tsarisco (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Check their wiki page and the reliable source that describes them as a makhzenian source. The fact that, after pretending to care about the reliability of sources, you even dare to suggest giving this pro-Moroccan crap a pass is just unbelievable (it clearly shows your intentions). M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The Wiki page is made up of literally 5 sentences... Again in order to dismiss a source from Wikipedia calling it " less reliable than what is printed on a used toilet paper" you need to demonstrate that it's infos are made up of false or at the very least inaccurate/misleading otherwise your statement is irrelevant. There is one source in the mentioned article "talking about makhzenian source" , a writer with an already made up opinion about the W.S conflict according to their writing where the sentence is mentioned, so they are far from a source of objectivity... And it's just one source, in the entire article talking about MWN in that way.. Tsarisco (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Forget their wiki page, I gave you a reliable source that describes them as a maghzenian source. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You didn't give me crap just useless bla bla bla anyone can read the convo my dear sir... the only thing you gave so far is the Wiki page... Tsarisco (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I cited a reliable source just for you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I already wrote what a reliable source is "M.Bitton" , in fact Sizito seems to agree with me on tags (unreliable source) concerning SPSRASD hence why he removed it you are the only one confused here, (MoroccoWorldNews), is a US based Morocco specialized platform (I just checked them), calling them "unreliable" without giving any rational explanations, when in reality next to the reference 101 (MoroccoWorldNews), there are several articles from various other website such as Reuters, Saudi Gazette, as well as website that directly keep an archive of what was written in the UN such as Reliefweb (references 102, 103, 104 respectively) which prove that you are wrong... and therefore because of that confirmes that MWN is perfectly objectively reliable..
But anyway I think I'm done wasting my time with you... Tsarisco (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Sizito most definitely doesn't agree with you giving the crappy MWN a pass. They agree with using third part sources, which obviously excludes your favourite makhzenian source. M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with M.Bitton, MoroccoWorldNews is not credible at all, and it's the primary English-speaking news media of the Moroccan state so it can't be used as a serious source on the topic. Them saying that they're objective or deceitfully pretending to be based abroad doesn't mean anything. If you're going to complain about SPS then I don't see how MWN is acceptable to you. Sizito (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I complained about SPS because they did *literally* post fake news, I posted the articles in questions yesterday (3 articles) . Opinions about MWN should never be interpreted as facts, please provide factual proof that their infos aren't reliable, by showing me an example of an article posting misleadin/inaccurate or false info, otherwise it remains a simple opinion. Tsarisco (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Your opinion is irrelevant. If you have a reliable source that describe them as unreliable, do present it (like I did for the crappy MWN), otherwise, I suggest you stop wasting people's time. M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
These 3 different articles are fake news, as they haven't been confirmed by any third part independent international media or by Morocco...
SPLA units leave huge human and material losses in enemy ranks in Mahbes and Hauza regions | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info) SPLA carries out new attacks against Moroccan occupation forces in Hawza sector | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info) SPLA carries out new attacks against Moroccan occupation forces in Hawza sector | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info)
And the SPSRASD isn't just suspected of being part of the Polisario, it literally is... SPSRASD stands for (Sahrawi Press Service Republique Arabe Sahraoui Démocratique) literally in the name. My god... Tsarisco (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That's your irrelevant opinion. The fact that what SPS publishes doesn't suit your political agenda has been noted. Now, what was all that pretend talk about using third party sources about? M.Bitton (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
My only political agenda is objectivity and facts. Perhaps you should learn from me... Tsarisco (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Very funny. M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You're turning in circles with @Sizitoand @M.BittonBoth of them have a clear common political agenda. So I think the actual solution would be to just use the sources from MWN and use them as direct source rather than using MWN. Because if we don't, @Sizitoand @M.Bitton will just use it as an excuse to sabotage any information to be added. They clearly deny people adding information for personal opinions. Keylostark (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
No, you either want propaganda on both sides removed or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose, that's what bias and political agenda looks like. Sizito (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I must say I'm a bit disappointed you turned around to try and defend Moroccan sources, when the deal was to abolish biased sources on both sides, to make the article as good as it can be.
I have a feeling you couldn't find alternative sources that support your claim, unlike the Polisario section where every country was easily verifiable from third parties.
I'll treat MNW the same way your treated the SPS, as a mere propaganda outlet. Sizito (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Show me a single article that confirms this info? SPLA units leave huge human and material losses in enemy ranks in Mahbes and Hauza regions | Sahara Press Service (spsrasd.info) and besides I'm not the who put MWN as a source, all my sources are not tied to either Polisario or Morocco. If you can't that mean's that is a fake news, and now show me an article that contradict any info written by MWN? Tsarisco (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't have to show you a thing, especially now that that it's amply clear that you're wasting people's time by pretending to care about the quality of the sources, while in fact, you're only interested in applying your double standard to the sources that don't suit your political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you, please for the love of god, learn how Wikipedia function.., Tsarisco (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't take advice from disruptive single purpose accounts. M.Bitton (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Well You made a claim, you need to prove it. If you don't prove it, your claim doesn't stand. You're the one wasting people's time, you never added anything to the page, all you do is removing informations or undoing other people's work. You're not here to contribute but rather sabotage other's people work. I said last time and it's true. Keylostark (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Frankly I shouldn't be wasting my time when you changed your opinion on using Moroccan sources within a few hours. I have no guarantees that you aren't just trying to stall. Not to mention that you're engaging in a basic logical fallacy (burden of proof), trying to get others to prove things for you, as opposed to providing proof yourself, and when proof is provided you simply dismiss it. None of this makes it attractive to engage you.

Sizito, how about we do this, we remove every single SPSRASD or Moroccan/Algerian news source

I'll argue when I see that you started working on that thing above and that you have the right intentions, if a news is legit you should have no trouble finding credible neutral sources talking about it. Also don't forget to remove all the mirror sites that are caching Moroccan outlets, like this [1].
Best of luck. Sizito (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Okay let's do it, remove every single Moroccan/SPSRASD/Algerian website, I'm totally down. I only talked about Morocco World News (a source which I never put in the first place..) which as far as I've seen is the one the most mentioned with the tag (better source needed that was added sometimes in the past) even if just next to it there are various sources confirming the articles written by it... It's a waste of time but let's do it... I did not add that source (8), also I already mentionned muultiple time that the Morocco World News articles are backed by multiples other sources that I added such as this JSTOR and International Crisis Group "https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep31615.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1fbc88f1481715ed99d3d6068f6bf8e8&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1" in reference 118 when it comes to Burkina Faso, and other such as in the case of Burundi reference 125 https://www.theafricareport.com/67550/this-years-au-could-work-to-moroccos-advantage-over-western-sahara/ which proves that Morocco World News articles are factual but you can remove them if you want I don't care anymore this convo is going no where as long as SPSRASD has been removed I'm satisfied. Tsarisco (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tsarisco: both Sizito and I still don't understand how or why you changed your mind about using third party sources, especially after all the effort that was made by Sizito. If you don't want to make any effort to find them, that's your prerogative, but you can guess which section will be cleaned next. M.Bitton (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Because a source isn't considered unreliable because of your personal opinion, but because of actual proofs. He asked you many times, to present a single article with false information to prove it being unreliable source, but you never gave one. He, on the other hand, gave many examples on why the SPSRASD is unreliable. As simple as that, I don't understand how or why is that hard to understand. Keylostark (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
The issue has been sorted and an agreement to only use independent sources (which obviously excludes MWN) has been reached. I suggest you read the above discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed Egypt from the list (as the two unreliable sources have failed verification). I also tagged Nauru, Suriname, Turkmenistan and Cyprus. As has been stated previously, the Moroccan section is going to need a lot of work. M.Bitton (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure why the "map" news was reinstated for Nauru, but I have removed it and tagged it again. I also removed Benin from the list as the cited sources failed verification. M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Egypt reported supporting Moroccan integrity at the same time it declared not recognizing Polisario The article is in Arabic Keylostark (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
1) That's not a reliable source. 2) It makes no mention of the autonomy proposal. I already explained to you that supporting Morocco's integrity does not mean anything in this case since WS is obviously not Morocco. The latest politician who was reported by the usual Moroccan propaganda outlets (including MWN of course) as having supported Morocco's territorial integrity in a manner that suggests a connection to WS was Turkey's foreign minister. Luckily, his spokesman put an end to their lies (embarrassing them in the process). M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The recently added "Greek" source is just a translation of what was said in "leconomiste" in a news aggregator site. This is obviously neither a reliable nor an independent source, and therefore, not one that we can use (as discussed above).

Sudan was removed from the list given that all the cited sources failed verification.

Romania was cn tagged since the original supporting source is from the Moroccan propaganda machine (CORCAS).

Paraguay was removed from the list as all the cited sources failed verification, with 3 of them being actually pro RASD. M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

"I re-tagged Chad as "Labass.net" is neither an independent nor a reliable source. Two sources that were added for the Cyprus claim are unreliable news aggregator sites. I also reworded part of the map's caption, in line with what's cited. M.Bitton (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

A website from Greece cannot be classified as unreliable by any standard, Greece does not have any special relationship with Morocco, and the content of the website directly reproduces the statement of the foreign minister of Cyprus. If this is also an unreliable website, then this article There are only a few links that are reliable content, and the Western Sahara issue itself is an unpopular topic internationally and does not attract most attention 161.8.184.61 (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Of course it can, but that's not the issue here as the unsigned article in the news aggregator is simply translating what the crappy site "lopinion" has published. I don't need to remind you that we agreed not to use RASD and Moroccan sources. Also, there is no valid reason to change the map's caption at it describes in an NPOV manner what the various positions are. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
@161.8.184.61: I don't understand why despite everything that has been said, you keep collecting crappy sources and adding them to the Cyprus claim. In case you haven't realized: as well as taking our agreement about using reliable third party sources, in this particular case, the sources have to be of a higher quality as the claim involves a WP:BLP. M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sizito: Since Peru withdrew its recognition of RASD (again), I have removed it from the list. Please note that contrary to what the IP claims, there is no mention of support of any kind. M.Bitton (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't establishing a diplomatic mission in Dakhla and/or Laayoune constitute recognition of sovereignty? There is no contrast between the United States' announcement recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over the region and all the other states establishing diplomatic missions in Dakhla and Laayoune to represent them in Morocco. I don't understand why the United States is differentiated from other states just because they made an "announcement". Opening a diplomatic mission is the biggest of announcements, albeit not the only form of announcement. I have made changes so that all states that recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the region are highlighted in green (instead of just the United States). Usernom77 03:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the change I made was reverted by @161.8.184.61: Can you please explain your logic? I don't see why "there is no need to mix the United States with the countries that have consulates". The recognition of sovereignty is principal to this issue and opening a diplomatic mission constitutes recognition of sovereignty. There is no difference between the U.S., Togo, and Jordan for example. They all recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the region.
Maybe I'm not seeing another angle here. I'd like to open this up for discussion and get other active folks' opinions. What do you all think of this? Usernom77 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Rep. Dom. y Marruecos suscriben Declaración Conjunta; acuerdan reforzar lazos bilaterales Consulado General de la República Dominicana en la República Checa (Consulate General of the Dominican Republic in the Czech Republic official website) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.184.61 (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

In the article on the political status of Western Sahara, the Dominican Republic was deleted by someone who said that the so-called first comment was the opposite interpretation, but the same situation existed in Guatemala, the first comment was in the past to support the opponent's point of view, It clearly shows that these countries have changed their views, but whether they should be classified according to recent views rather than previous views, the two commentary websites in the Dominican Republic are the official media of the Spanish-speaking world, why can't they be used as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.184.61 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No matter what the foreign minister of Cyprus was in charge of, his current position can only represent Cyprus and nothing else, just like Serbia because of the Kosovo issue, Cyprus also needs support on the issue of the Turkish Republic in the north, and his previous UN position It is even less known, and he has already resigned, and does not represent the views of others. The most prominent point is the problem of the Dominican Republic, not Cyprus, and the Dominican Republic does not have such or such problems. Cyprus is long off the list, no need to argue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.184.61 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This person has prejudice. In the relationship between China and Morocco, I edited and edited a lot of content, but he grabbed one place. First of all, China is inherently neutral in the dispute. The content of the parties to the conflict is already in the resolution, calling on the Quartet to resolve it through a round table meeting, which has caused dissatisfaction in Algeria, which also has a statement, and secondly, all Non-Self-Governing Territories, including others such as Gibraltar, are related to "self-determination" , this is exactly the same as the resolutions of the past decades, why should it be emphasized many times?

Even in the China-Algeria joint statement, the two sides affirmed that "with regard to the Western Sahara issue, both sides emphasized their support for efforts to reach a just and lasting solution within the framework of international law, especially the relevant United Nations resolutions." They did not take sides.中华人民共和国外交部和阿尔及利亚民主人民共和国外交部联合声明（全文） — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.184.61 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the question of whether Cyprus supports Morocco, here is an Italian media report, I don't know if it meets the citation requirements Sahara Occidentale: Cipro sostiene il piano di autonomia marocchino — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.184.61 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The OP is well aware that the fundamental issue with their edits is the fact that they keep misrepresenting the sources (here's another example that I ended up repairing) and denying it. For the Cyprus claim, I'll just repeat what I said previously: claims involving a living person need multiple reliable third-party sources, especially in this case since the claim is extraordinary (given that it's attributed to the former chairman of the ad hoc Committee for Human Rights in Western Sahara). Dubious outlets with no history of fact checking and unsigned articles to boot simply won't do. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that the IP thinks that this is some game: first they complain about the word "welcome", stating that welcome is different from support/appreciation and does not mean affirmation; and after I removed it (to please them), they bring a source that says "welcomes".
In any case, this is just another example of their disruptive editing, with the biggest issue of all being their misrepresentation of the sources (that they still deny to insult people's intelligence). They are not fooling anyone by scribbling few words in Chinese (to pretend to be from there) while using an open proxy. M.Bitton (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)