Talk:Human rights in Western Sahara/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV and disputed stuff

Firstly, let me state that the best way to keep an article without the POV and disputed tags is to keep it clean of bias and unfounded allegations, and writing it in good faith. Not because the people involved in discussion are on holiday, or sick, or ..., that the disputed facts become real. And No one should inject intox in the Wiki articles and then sit complaining why there are POV tags on them, nor should he/she expect people to be stretching their legs in front of the PC enjoying argument and having nothing else to do. So patience and patience.

The article has been disfigured since the Wikima has been off. So my remarks are the current version:

• introduction: What is the meaning of stating already in the beginning that strange talk about "heavily" and "less frequent". Is it better to abuse less? What is the measure of frequency less/more here?.
• Status of the parties: the Polisario position is simply mentionned. The position of Morocco is quickly followed by a "BUT". As far as I know, the Polisario in the Moroccan vocabulary is a separatist movement given the Moroccan origins of its leaders. Suspection of Terrorism and traffic of weapons to terrorist organisations operating in the Sahel and the big Sahara do exist. And again in what is supposed to be the Moroccan position, the Polisario is given the Mic to say they want a clean war.
• Almost all detainees are either set free immediately or if sentenced, are pardonned by royal decree shortly afterwards.
• Aminatou is already free and was recently touring Europe advocating independence for WS. She has not been imprisonned or harrased upon her return. That is worth a mention, instead of letting the reader think she is still jailed.
• what is the meaning of heavy-handed? Does the dispersion of rioters happen with candies?.
• The riots are almost esxlusively in one place in an area in Elaiun (Maatalla), with sporadic occurencies of youth lifting Polisario flags in some places and disappearing. I don' treally call it upprising.
• Freedom of expression: You can enter Polisario sites and see the pictures of Aminatou celebrating her release with Polisario flags, while Moroccan forces are away looking witout intervention. Salem Tamek and many others speak to the press and state they are for independence, and are not harrased for that. Lemrabet has made statements (and still frequently does) against the monarchy and the position of Morocco in the Sahara (though he affirms the Sahara is Moroccan), and he is not arrested when he is (frequently) in Morocco.
• There is no mention of the organisation of Sahrawis victims of human rights abuses in Polisario camps in Algeria.
• You made well mentionning that the internet has become a tool in the propaganda war. Morocco has every right to censor sites that are part of its adversaries tactics to promote riots.
• "the disappeard" 450 or 1500. Are there any neutral sources for those figures?? the article reffered to "Freedom House" states "Local and international human rights organizations say hundreds, if not more than 1,000, Sahrawis remain "disappeared.". What are those international organisations and what are the documents where that is stated?
• "in 2005 mass graves ...", link to the BBC article which states "The graves of 85 people, who had been detained in secret prisons, were also identified.". it refers to people that died during their long detention at distant intervals and each one in its own grave. the definition of a mass grave states "Mass graves are usually created after a large number of people die or are killed, and there is a desire to bury the corpses quickly". Now where are the mass graves? Does the injectors of this allegation understand what is a mass grave?.
• Freedom House:
• "Anti-democratic governance": is The elections in the Saharan provinces register high scores of participation. The independence mineded militants do not have the necessary support to access a seat to the parlement (How come they complain? a non-Moroccan in the Moroccan parliament? strange!!)
• Restricted freedom of expression I stated above the cases of Tamek and Aminatou that contradict this judgment.
• Freedom to assemble, including organized labor: peaceful demonstrations happen regularely in Morocco. All the trade unions are active in the sahara, and local Saharwis are very active in them. Tamek was (is?) the secretary general of one of these labor unions in the South.
• Extrajudicial killing. cases? sources?
• There is so much to say about the rest, but I stop here now, and I will come back to the rest of the article later. --SteveLo 09:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

===>POV tags Let me preface what I'm about to say with a few general remarks regarding the POV tags and the entire discussion process. If one puts a disputed or POV tag on a page and then refuses to discuss why the article is deficient, he's editing in bad faith. If someone says he's going to be back in a few weeks, and then disappears, no one is obliged to leave the tags on the page for eternity (what if he did die? Should it be there forever in memoriam?) This is especially the case when an editor has clearly created a pattern of complaining about POV in order to push an agenda on Wikipedia articles. The discussion process will not go on indefinitely, and if one side refuses to continue in good faith with new argumentation, then I'll go to mediation or arbitration. I'll even put it to a dreaded vote. What I won't do is talk forever while the article(s) stagnate and don't get any better, and ignorant users are under the impression that the information presented is somehow deficient, when in fact it doesn't fit the biases of one particular editor.

• I think you know what the point is: there is one side to the conflict that has been the instigator and the source of more opprobrium. In World War II, there were certainly atrocities committed by the Allies, but criticism is given to the Axis for many more far-reaching abuses. Also, I think it is generally the case that it is better to abuse less. Are you sincerely arguing that it's not?
• The "but" is there because Morocco's claim has been debunked. Can you dispute that Polisario are a national liberation movement? Has anyone credible ever said that they aren't? Feel free to insert that "Polisario in the Moroccan vocabulary is a separatist movement." It has nothing to do with "the Moroccan origins of its leaders." If this suspicion is true, provide a credible source.
• And then arrested again. And some of them are killed an thrown in mass graves. And some of them are never seen again.
• Well, this would be in the article, if it wasn't for the gridlock caused by Wikima.
• No, but there is such a thing as police brutality (or, barring that, sheer incompetence), such as running over a sixteen year-old boy. Or you could do what a democratic state does, and allow peaceful demonstrators to peacefully demonstrate.
• That's not true; there are uprisings (I have no idea why you call them riots, since the vast majority of the violence is committed by the police) in Smara, and even Moroccan universities.
• There are many that talk about Sahrawi self-determination and they are harrassed (see Ali Lmrabet for instance.) The decision to harass or not harass is largely determined by which third-party NGO's happen to be around at the time.
• Then make one. And source it. And put it in the article Human rights in Algeria.
• Or you could say that people have a right to free speech, and Morocco is obliged to provide free and fair access to information. I'm also not sure that you understand what the word "riot" means.
• Freedom House is itself a neutral source and international human rights organization. For instance, Amnesty International writes:

"For two decades Amnesty International has documented and campaigned against human rights violations in Western Sahara. Following Moroccos annexation of Western Sahara in 1975, hundreds of Sahrawi men and women were arrested and disappeared. More than 300 of these disappeared were released by the Moroccan authorities in June 1991, after up to 16 years in inhuman conditions in secret detention centres where scores of them died. To date their families have not been able to find out where their relateives are buried, and these deaths have not been recognized by the authorities. In the same year some thiry Moroccans were also released after 18 years in the the secret detention centre of Tazmamert."

Needless to say, you can find dozens of other references on their site alone.

• These people were killed and there was a desire to bury their corpses quickly.
• The people elected are occupiers who are elected by settlers. The simple act of voting also does not demand that a state be a democracy; there is voting in the People's Republic of China, are they a democracy, too? They complain because they aren't allowed to govern themselves, and yes it is weird that Morocco is administering by force a territory that is not theirs.
• The fact that there are isolated cases where people aren't arrested doesn't prove anything. If you can find cases of restriction, then freedom of expression is restricted.
• Freedom House says they aren't active, and they're a more reputable source than you are. You're not offering any evidence, you're just saying the opposite of what they say. The US State Department wrote in 2004:

"There was little organized labor activity in the Western Sahara. The same labor laws that apply in Morocco were applied in the Moroccan-controlled areas of the Western Sahara... Moroccan unions were present in the areas of Western Sahara controlled by Morocco, but were not active... There were no strikes, other job actions, or collective bargaining agreements during the year. Most union members were employees of the Moroccan Government or state-owned organizations. They were paid 85 percent more than their counterparts in Morocco as an inducement to Moroccan citizens to relocate to the Western Sahara. Workers in the Western Sahara were exempt from income and value-added taxes."

So, the majority of the workers are government employees subsidized to work there, and there is neither incentive nor possibility to collectively bargain.

• Feel free to say more, but I'd encourage you to show at least one source of your information. It would also be nice if you had something to add to the content or quality of the article. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yepp SteveLo. The situation has changed dramatically in Morocco but this is not reflected in the article.
  • The role played by the Moroccan instances for human rights is not visible in the article
  • I think which should make an effort in this sense and underline this more.

Thanks for you remarks.

Cheers - wikima 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

expansion

Duly noted that you're off, WM. As you can see, I expanded the page, to restore stuff that was deleted and to add in the responses from the UNHCR etc. It is not complete (it still doesn't say anything about the biggest human rights issue, the mass flight of 1975), but we'll get around to that.

Now, important thing here is that I didn't remove any of your info. I've shoved it around and copyedited, along with Koavf's stuff, and plucked out a repetition or two, from both parts of the article, but all the torture etc allegations are still there. That's how I think editing should be done: add more, source more, don't delete sourced info: if you feel something is unwarranted or wrong, find contrary sources.

One exception: the Washington Times editorial quote, I deleted. It didn't add much to the meaning, and it is, frankly, an editorial quote. But if you dearly want it back, I'm okay with that.

I would be really disappointed if you just went along to delete all this now, because I spent a huge amount of (precious) time on it, and it really was done with the best of intentions -- adding missing material in, while preserving your edits, and recreating cohesion in the article. But I can't see why you would do that, and I don't think you will. Keep adding instead. And, if you can -- or anyone else can -- please help me get those pictures better aligned with the text.

Ciao, Arre 11:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi,

• Thanks Arre. My absence was somewhat longer (summer) but no worry I would not just delete like this.
• Here are two first observations:
  • As photographs of vticims are strong message transponders/amplifiers, and widely used in propaganda, we should decide whether we use the here ot not. If yes, we must add those of victims of polisario (they should be available). If not, then not.
  • Paragraph Freedom House must be redone/summarised without the bullets. It does not derserve such an extension. The one on France Liberté which is much more extensive has been summarised.
• The article has evolved. I will read through and give my feedback for the rest.

Cheers - wikima 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

* I had given my reamrks on August 13.

* Howver no reaction

* If no reaction after 24 h I will start making changes, e.g. what I rekarked above.

* Id you are interested in the artcile please react

* If not please refrain from polemical reactions afterwards.

Thanks wikima 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Can do If you want to take out photographic evidence of human rights abuses, I certainly object to that. If you want to include photographic evidence of human rights absues by the Polisario, then feel free to include it if it occured in Western Sahara. If it occured somewhere else, include it in another article. If you're thinking of neutering the section by Freedom House, I'm opposed to that. If you're thinking of including a report by another organization on the human rights situation in Western Sahara, I'm for it. Is there something else you want? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, honnestly, I would be interested in the opininon of the others. Arre? Other people?
• Justin, we had discussed the matter of the geographical location. I assume it is closed and there is a whole section on the crimes commited by polisario in Tindouf. If you object, remember polisario and "sadr" is located in Tindouf and I guesse they are WS related aren't they?
• Sure I will add photogpraphs of Moroccan POWs, victims of war crimes of polsiario.
• I will also extend the information on the findings of France Liberté (adding bullts) just as done for freedom house (matter of balance and symetry). If you object do for both.
• Anyhting else?

wikima 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikima, nothing has changed about the scope of the article. If you want to talk about the human rights situation outside of Western Sahara, that information should primarily be elsewhere. You can link to it from here and summarize it, of course, but it doesn't belong here. If human rights abuses happened in Tindouf, they belong in human rights in Algeria. I'm concerned about the line about balance and symmetry, but by all means, feel free to mention any germane reports by any credible institutions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is a section already called "Human rights in the refugee camps"
• I am not intrested in discussing the geogropahy again as we closed that discussion already. Thanks.

Cheers wikima 22:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? And how did we close it? I don't recall there being much resolution on this page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it is closed. Just see all the effort Arre did and which he presents in this very section.
• So please lets avoid turning in the same polemic again or "sabotaging" efforts. Lets be positive, lets be constructive and lets progress with this work. Thanks wikima 22:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

X in Western Sahara The title of the article says it all, Wikima. And don't be passive aggressive by politely asking that I don't sabotage efforts (using scare quotes); it doesn't fool anyone and it's not constructive. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Justin refrain from reverting

• Freedom House section is chortened as we do not need to quote the whole report.
• The accusations of the organisation remain, though not of THAT weight in the world

wikima 19:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

FH report Nowhere near the whole report is quoted; in fact, it's less than a quarter. How is it helpful to the reader to just list that persons were extrajudiciously killed without saying who, when, where, or why? I don't understand what your second points means. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Initially I took the example of FH to present the report of Frane Libertés on the war crimes and crimes against humanity commited by polsiario
• What I am doing here is just taking the efforts of Arre for best practice and doing the same with the FH
• You don't seem to understand this because you don't follow but just revert
• YOu can expand the summary on FH but without POVs and without exceeding a certain limit
• If we were to quote every report the article would be 25 pages long at least

wikima 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Granted No, I don't understand. I don't konw what you want from me. How are there POVs? What are you talking about? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• You don't understand because you don't follow the discussion
• We have a summary on the report of France Liberté, which as such can make a whole article. Why? Because Arre suggested to avoid just quoting and using bullets as it is non encylopedic.
• So I am following his example and best practice by doing the same with FH.
• And you keep on reverting
• You are like inviting me to expand the report of France Liberté to a detailled section
• And there is defintively more reason to than with FH
• It's up to you.

20:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum, I'll take your next revert as a clear invitation to do that. wikima 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine I won't use bullets. There is no way I can understand this sentence "And there is defintively more reason to than with FH." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum Word count on your version for the Freedom House entry: 33. The France Libertes entry: 281. My entry on Freedom House: 164. And you want to talk about balance? That's ridiculous, Wikima. Be rational here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• That's much better - Was it that difficult to understand? Why do we always need such long polemic with you for such things??
• FH rates only Morocco and Jordan as partly free in the Arab World. This must be mentionned.
• Your change refers to a previous report. The lates report [1] does not list "arbitrary killing" for instance.
• The report seems to completly forget about Polisario and Tindouf (a part from the POWs of course). The report on Algeria does not include any information on this – This must be mentionned

• The FH includes one page as summary on Morocco in an index on the whole world
• France Libertés' report is a dedicated indepth investigation which includes 56 pages on the crimes of Polisario
• You can count the words and establish the relation then if you like.
• But thanks for this remark, letr me know what is the rate of 164 words in relation to the FH report on Western Sahara and I'll adjust accordingly the report France Libertés Report

• All this I will update accordingly

wikima 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Section: Human rights in the Polisario controlled refugee camps

• Title of the section changed to make visible we talk about Polisario. We also say the Moroccan controled part of WS.
• “main article|Human rights in Algeria” removed. This is clearly an article about the human right in the Western Sahara conflict and not in the context of an Algerian article.
• Though the Algerian government is a main actor in the conflict and responsible for what happens in Tindouf and the Algerian military was directly involved in the crimes of Polisario
• . “On the contrary, the camps are sometimes presented as a model for running refugee camps democratically” is highly disputed.:

1. Indepth reports such as done by France Libertés and ESISC contredicts this.
2. Mohammed Abdelaziz is president of Polisario and of the so-called “sadr” since 30 years! What an example for democracy!
3. The other contrediction comes from Amnesty just in the paragraph after.

• The information of CLAIHR is to be tkane with high caution. With re to the Moroccan POWs this is what it states: “The prisoners informed us that they are generally well-treated and that they receive adequate food and water.” [2]
• Their quote shortened
• This an example of how such organisations can be blind as Frances Libertés criticises.
• This sectio will be checked on relevance and accuracy.
• Polisario denies it is communist but it was founded on a left wing communist ideology and was mainly supported by communist countries in the former communist bloc led by the Soviet Union (Algeria, Libya, Cuba etc...)
• Quote form the UNHR on sahrawi children in Cuba too long – Shortened

wikima 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted most of this for rather obvious reasons.

• As for the claim that Polisario is or has been Communist, this is plainly bullshit. They were left-wing and described themselves as Socialist (in the sense of Arab Socialism, then the ideology à la mode in the Arab world) from 1973, but gradually abandoned that, and there has to the best of my knowledge not been any reference to any kind of Socialism in a Polisario document for over 15 years.
• The Cuba claims is a mainstay of Moroccan rhetoric, and the quotes from the UN that disputes that thesis is obviously very relevant to this debate. The Moroccan claims are presented, the Polisario claims are presented, and the UN's investigations should be quoted in whatever length needed to adress the claims by both parties. This edit seems mainly intended to remove material that the editor deems unsupportive of his viewpoint.
• That the camps are "sometimes presented" as models for running refugee camps is a fact, not a value judgment of these assertions. It is obviously in the encyclopedia's interest to register the political rhetoric of both parties. But the assertions of either side should of course not presented as facts either, but then they're not here -- on the contrary, the Moroccan view ("concentration camps") is equally clearly given, with the same kind of neutral tone ("this is what these people say, that is what the others say").
• About the reference to the Algeria human rights section, I seem to recall that was originally inserted by you (Wikima) or at your request. I left it in for now, but don't care either way. Remove it if you like. Arre 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Section Moroccans POWs held by Polisario

• Title changed from POWs to Moroccan Prisoners of War held by Polisario

1. Many users are not familiar with the abbreviation and/or non English native speakers.
2. As the article beginns with reports on Morocco it must be made ligible where is deals with polisario

• Polisario held parts of WS is POV. Polisario claims to control these parts of WS. Whether this is true is being disputed on the relative talk.
• "hotly contested by Polisario" removed as indrect POVs (by way of quote).

1. Irrelevant as it would be quite surprising if Polsiario agreed with the report
2. Morocco also hotly contest much of the accusations, do you make the effort to mention? Of course no!

• "unilateral" (releases ...) removed as inaccurate. Morocco is not accused of detaining POWs
• Feel free to correct or refine the language

wikima 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: The relation between cease-fire and the POWs topic to be clarified.
• Obviousely Polisario had broken agreements

wikima 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this: Morocco is indeed accused of holding POWs, by Polisario and many supporters. True or false, the accusation exists. As for "unilateral", that signifies simply that the releases were not carried out as a result of negotiations, but precisely as a result of a unilateral decision. Personally, I think that it is "obvious" that both Morocco and Polisario has broken various agreements, but please source whatever you want to prove by that. Arre 22:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Arre,

• Your reasons are not obvious to me.
• "Bullshit" is not the kind of terminology I use in my talks. Please avoid next time - Thanks.
• I have explained all my changes one by one. Do the same if you want to change and not just write two lines and drop away whole efforts of others.
• I will not repeat what I wrote above and maintain unless you discuss, but react to your last comments.

• Polisario was a left wing organisation. Socialist ideology? Probably, but then we are talking about socialism in the third world in the seventies which was ready for the armed fight to install the dictatorship of the Proletariat and not the social-democracy or social-liberalism of the 90s.
• The whole Eastern Bloc was socialist, even the Soviet-Union was socialist. Communism was considered to be the latest utopia.
• The left wing in Morocco especially at universities (where polisario first members and founders evolved) was radical (extreme gauche) and based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. If this is what you mean, happy to use this term for Polisario’s ideological roots.
• Some rests of these movements remain such as the Nahj party, one of the last Marxist-Leninist political parties in the world.
• All countries that directly and mainly supported Polisario (Algeria, Cuba, Libya etc...) belonged to the Soviet-Union led communist bloc.
• Cuba, a great partner of Polisario is still - next to North Corea - one of the surviving communist countries. Or do you prefer "socialist" for them? Or may be "mad"?
• The purpose here is not to explain the ideological origins of Polisario but to show why Polisario's ties to Cuba are so strong.

• You now think that "Morocco and Polisario have broken various agreements". I am impresed by this progress towards a more balanced view.
• I am sorry though, Polisario commited war crimes and crimes against humanity.

• Algeria human rights section: This is one of those things that need to be linked in two or many worlds in the same time.
• The article on Human rights in Algeria is almost empty (since in this country like in the tindouf camps very thing is just paradise). I will link it as "See also link"

• General remark: I am trying to summarise the article taking exactly your example as best practice.
• If you insist to quote whole sections of reports that suit your pro-polisarian position, so no problem. I will then balance the article by quoting whole sections of other reports.
• We will get then back to the situation you corrected yourself with a much uglier article and which we want to avoid now.
• Meanwhile I will revert to my changes.
• And, please discuss yours

Thanks - wikima 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is simply absurd. You call it a "minor change" to remove whole chunks of text and rewriting? I now reverted to the original, and we shall have to do this part by part. I don't disagree with all of your edits -- far from it -- but others are so grossly POV it's beyond belief. Describing Polisario as a "communist" organization probably made both El Ouali and Karl Marx turn in their graves... and quoting Ali Salem Tamek and Aminatou Haidar (both repeatedly detained and tortured, and both former Amnesty International prisoners of conscience) as examples of the liberty enjoyed by Sahrawis to criticize the government borders on propagandist self-parody.

Propose changes here on talk, one unit/chapter at the time, and we do them part by part. I will do the same, and there won't be a revert war. That's what was done before, and it worked fine. Arre 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just beginn by youself and propose your changes before playing your game of injecting polisarian POV nicely
• I am describing the current situation and delivering sources.
• Aminatou Haidar travels with a Moroccan passeport on Polisario sponsorship
• She gave the interview I sourced to a Moroccan magazine (Le journal hebdomadaire)
• Mothing happened to both of them
• In the same time Telquel published an interview with the Spokesman of Chat Achahid
• Do you want to ignore this?? This is the absurd.
• I didn't call my changes minor but stated above that I followed your example of shortening ans summarysing instead of quoting whole reports.
• If you don't like your idea any more, well, we can quote reports. And witnesses as well as there are lots of former Polisarians who told much to the world. Unless you know better than them on Polisario and the issue.

Cheers - wikima 21:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)