Chipmunkdavis (talk | contribs) →Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence.: Edit summary doesn't seem to track |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 344: | Line 344: | ||
:Will do. Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
:Will do. Thanks. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 21:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
:{{Ping|Koavf}} Can you explain your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1183811931 here] saying "it's been here for years"? It was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1182879481 on 31 October]. I'm not seeing it spotchecks of the last 500 versions. To "leave it" at the stable version would be to maintain the lead as it was, although it has now being edit warred in. As for this discussion it is a mess, if there is a desire to push this in then an RfC should be started that would hopefully be less susceptible to bludgeoning. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
:{{Ping|Koavf}} Can you explain your edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1183811931 here] saying "it's been here for years"? It was added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&diff=prev&oldid=1182879481 on 31 October]. I'm not seeing it spotchecks of the last 500 versions. To "leave it" at the stable version would be to maintain the lead as it was, although it has now being edit warred in. As for this discussion it is a mess, if there is a desire to push this in then an RfC should be started that would hopefully be less susceptible to bludgeoning. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
::That's true: it was not there before. That said, it's sourced and there's consensus for it to be there. ―[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''<span style="color:black">v</span>f</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== "[[:서사하라]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
== "[[:서사하라]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
Revision as of 01:44, 7 November 2023
Western Sahara was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 27, 2005, and February 27, 2006. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is the description of the dispute biased?
I know nothing about this conflict and have no dog in the fight at all. I first learned about it today and was trying to brush up. But certain language in the description of this conflict sounds like it is preferring one side to me. For example: "the remaining 80% of the territory is occupied... by Morocco," obviously assuming that Morocco's presence is an occupation, not legitimate governance. Presumably, Morocco does not think so. Similarly: "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence," clearly presuming that Western Sahara is a state, a claim which (I assume) only one side of the dispute agrees with. This second claim is also rather outlandish in that there are definitely other territories in Africa seeking independence from their current governments.
It just sounds to me, as an outsider, like this article was written by someone who believes in the cause of Western Sahara, and that this has influenced the stance of the article. I'm hoping someone who knows more about it than me might step in and make some adjustments to more neutrally represent the positions of both sides.
Apologies if I am just ignorant and everyone but me knows that this is a perfectly fair and reasonable description of the circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.139.1 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are right. I would suggest deleting the sentence “Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence” Mosti95 (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the map outdated?
According to some sources, it seems that Morocco has extended its berm into Mauritanian territory and successfully split the previously contiguous SADR-controlled part into three separate regions.
Link: https://sovereignlimits.com/boundaries/morocco-western-sahara-land 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022
Please it Moroccan Sahara not western sahara 105.159.180.210 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- No and don't do this yourself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Also, please provide reliable sources. EnIRtpf09bchat with me 08:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022
UN does not consider Morocco as an occupying entity of the Western Sahara. The latter is indeed in the 4th committee but it I was put there by Morocco when Spain was occupying Western Sahara.
Change "while the remaining 80% of the territory is occupied and administered by neighboring Morocco." to "while the remaining 80% of the territory is administered by neighboring Morocco." Neglectos (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- The General Assembly have called Morocco an occupier multiple times. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not done You need to provide a source to support the requested change. - wolf 13:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
"Disputed territory" in lead sentence
Should its description as a "disputed territory" be in the lead sentence? Compare with the following:
The Golan Heights, or simply the Golan, is a region in the Levant spanning about 1,800 km2 (690 sq mi).
Crimea is a peninsula in Eastern Europe, on the northern coast of the Black Sea, almost entirely surrounded by the Black Sea and the smaller Sea of Azov.
The Liancourt Rocks are a group of islets in the Sea of Japan between the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago.
Nagorno-Karabakh is a landlocked region in the South Caucasus.
As you can see, almost no other article about a disputed territory refers to them as such in the lead sentence, I think it would be better suited to have the lead written something like this, and summarise the geography afterwards, then get into the political situation:
Western Sahara is a region the northwest coast and in the Maghreb region of North and West Africa.
- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how that's an improvement. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Unexplained revert
Hi @M.Bitton, could you please explain why did you dismiss the content i added as "UNDUE"? SimoooIX (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did so don't you dare call it "unexplained" and don't ping me again. It's not just UNDUE, it's POV that serves no purpose other than a political agenda. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- 1)- you called my edit "UNDUE", so you sould explain why.
- 2)- If you don't want to be pinged, please explain your edits next time. What you're doing doesn't make anysense. SimoooIX (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- What POV? and what political agenda? Please refrain from such accusations. The scholarly source clearly suggests what i added.
In the 1540s, according to Marmol-Carvajal (a Spaniard who was prisoner in Morocco for over seven years), the authority of Muhammad al-Mahdi reached as far as Saqiyat al-Hamra. [1]
- It is not undue. The Saqiya el-Hamra is a part of Western Sahara and thus its history is a part of Western Sahara's. SimoooIX (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- For those who are not familiar with the subject: this edit is clearly meant to create a historical link between present-day Morocco and Western Sahara (a contentious subject that was settled once and for all by the ICJ). M.Bitton (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- That wasn't the reason why added it. But isn't there a "historical link" already? Am I the one who's going to create a historical link? Sorry, but your excuses don't make anysense. SimoooIX (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- We're not talking about you normal historical links that are shared by all neighbours. This is a case of asinine irredentist claims that have been conjured up in the 20th century. M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if i accurately undestood what you meant. Please could you clarify? SimoooIX (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Western Sahara is not only a disputed geographic area, but also holds a rich historical significance, which is why there is a dedicated section for "history". The content I added, which is sourced, pertains to the 16th century rather than the 20th or 21st centuries. (I actually still have more content to add) SimoooIX (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking me to comment. Simoool, what kind of content are you planning on adding? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you koavf, the content i wanted to add is about history. please see my edit here, and here is the source. [2] --SimoooIX (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This does seem like a one-off opinion from several centuries ago, so I think it may be WP:UNDUE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Luis del Mármol Carvajal is one of the most reliable chroniclers when it comes to this period. also these maps here [1][2][3] are confirming that the Saadi authority had reached Saqiya al-Hamra region. SimoooIX (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Koavf, i'm waiting for your answer please. SimoooIX (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- A one-off reference to a single source several centuries ago seems undue to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Koavf, i'm waiting for your answer please. SimoooIX (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Luis del Mármol Carvajal is one of the most reliable chroniclers when it comes to this period. also these maps here [1][2][3] are confirming that the Saadi authority had reached Saqiya al-Hamra region. SimoooIX (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- This does seem like a one-off opinion from several centuries ago, so I think it may be WP:UNDUE. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you koavf, the content i wanted to add is about history. please see my edit here, and here is the source. [2] --SimoooIX (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking me to comment. Simoool, what kind of content are you planning on adding? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Simoooix.haddi You're annoying and playing stupid. If you are incapable of understanding what has been explained to you already you should spend time studying logic, reason and English. But you do understand the issues and that is why you've been overruled. On the subject matter i don't care much about it as I'm from a different continent. SarsZals (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is a personal attack and you've been warned in your talk page. (The following question is not for you) Is it normal that this new editor pinged my old username? Or because that was my username when i started this discussion? (This is a serious question) SimoooIX (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Western Sahara is not only a disputed geographic area, but also holds a rich historical significance, which is why there is a dedicated section for "history". The content I added, which is sourced, pertains to the 16th century rather than the 20th or 21st centuries. (I actually still have more content to add) SimoooIX (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if i accurately undestood what you meant. Please could you clarify? SimoooIX (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- We're not talking about you normal historical links that are shared by all neighbours. This is a case of asinine irredentist claims that have been conjured up in the 20th century. M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- That wasn't the reason why added it. But isn't there a "historical link" already? Am I the one who's going to create a historical link? Sorry, but your excuses don't make anysense. SimoooIX (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Oliver, Roland, ed. (1977). The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 3: From c.1050 to c.1600. The Cambridge History of Africa. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 410. doi:10.1017/chol9780521209816. ISBN 978-0-521-20981-6.
- ^ Oliver, Roland, ed. (1977). The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 3: From c.1050 to c.1600. The Cambridge History of Africa. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 410. doi:10.1017/chol9780521209816. ISBN 978-0-521-20981-6.
Correction on Moroccan frontiers
moroccan south borders is Mauritania. There is no country in UNations called western Sahara,. It's Moroccan Sahara. Eastern and western. Please correct. And always go to sources like united nations before publishing. Thank you 196.75.138.108 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- This article does not claim to be about a country, it's about a disupted geographical region. It clearly states "Western Sahara is a disputed territory..." in the opening sentence. The borders of the article's subject are correct. The partially-recognized country is Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Fbergo (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
Add coordinates:
{{Coord|24|N|14|W|type:country|display=title}}
Wiki-ircecho (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023
41.147.1.220 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
- No. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
First sentence
Any objection to reducing on the northwest coast and in the Maghreb region of North and West Africa to on the northwest coast of Africa? Srnec (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- No objection, I guess, but I think it's fine as is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Law enforcement in Western Sahara has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 28 § Law enforcement in Western Sahara until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence.
I’ve got a few problems with this sentence.
first this article is about the region not the partially recognized SAR, so i honestly don’t know if it fits to say that it is a colony, since only states not regions are colony’s to my understanding. Maybe I’m mistaken so please correct me if there are articles on Wikipedia about regions, not states that got colonized.
secondly the sentence seems politically in favor of claims of SAR. It is written as a fact, not as a statement by someone. There is no mentioning of any counter opinion.
Thirdly there is no mentioned source for this “fact”. Mosti95 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's your problem. Western Sahara is also known as Africa's last colony (that's its second common name) and that's how we'll describe it regardless of what anyone thinks, likes or dislikes about it. There really nothing to discuss here. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I’m happy to discuss with you the topic. I would suggest you to be open to dialog and ask you to keep a respectful tone.
- I made an suggestion under the other comment and would ask you to read it and give me your feedback about. Mosti95 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a WP:FORUM. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe there was a misunderstanding. I see a Problem in the article. The sentence seems, non fitting, biased and is not backed by a source. I suggested you some changes to make the article in my opinion better and more scientific. I would like to hear your serious response towards the suggestions. If you do not want to give any response to it and don’t change anything, I’m convinced that the changes I suggested are reasonable and I will apply them. In that case I hope that you don’t start edit warring. Mosti95 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you dare to delete what is easily attributable (despite what I said), then you'll be reported again to the admins. I hope I made myself clear. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- If it is “easily attributable” I suggest adding a scientific source.
- i don’t see right now me doing anything against, the codex of Wikipedia. Maybe you could explain to me why you think deleting that unfitting, biased and unsourced “fact” would be in violation of the terms of Wikipedia? Mosti95 (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you delete what is easily attributable one more time, you will be reported (again). M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- You do understand that the text is right now:
- also known as Africa's last colony, is a disputed territory on the northwest coast of Africa. Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence
- ?
- i asked Wikipedia for a third opinion. I hope this resolves it. Mosti95 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I entertained your disruptive editing and socking for far too long. Enough is enough. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- I made a mistake when I started editing, I didn’t know that you are not allowed to edit logged off after you edit an article while logged in. This was a few months ago. The admin acknowledged it and i learned out of my mistake and did not repeat it since then.
- I named my Arguments for the change and stayed respectful while you Ridiculed and threatened me.
- The third opinion will see what you wrote. I hope you change after this for your mistakes as well. Mosti95 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bla blah blah (the way you describe your logged-out block evasion is how you describe everything).... @Koavf: could you please weigh in? I honestly can no longer deal with their usual nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop the extremely disrupting editing to enforce pov and the Eddit warring. Mosti95 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- You don't have consensus. If you keep on reverting, I'll just report it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then work on consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Africa's last colony" is a very common epithet and true and relevant to decolonization. It's far from accidental or trivial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then work on consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- You don't have consensus. If you keep on reverting, I'll just report it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop the extremely disrupting editing to enforce pov and the Eddit warring. Mosti95 (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think we should just move on from this and find something else constructive to do with our time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. We should delete the sentence since it is just a catchy moniker. Mosti95 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's nice to see that you at least agree with yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is not just a catchy moniker. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, it is blatant propaganda. Mosti95 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's nice to see that you at least agree with yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate why you disagree? Mosti95 (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because it's not? That's not how logic works: you have to prove that it is propaganda. :/ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate why you disagree? Mosti95 (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, it is blatant propaganda. Mosti95 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. We should delete the sentence since it is just a catchy moniker. Mosti95 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Bla blah blah (the way you describe your logged-out block evasion is how you describe everything).... @Koavf: could you please weigh in? I honestly can no longer deal with their usual nonsense. M.Bitton (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I entertained your disruptive editing and socking for far too long. Enough is enough. M.Bitton (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you delete what is easily attributable one more time, you will be reported (again). M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you dare to delete what is easily attributable (despite what I said), then you'll be reported again to the admins. I hope I made myself clear. M.Bitton (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe there was a misunderstanding. I see a Problem in the article. The sentence seems, non fitting, biased and is not backed by a source. I suggested you some changes to make the article in my opinion better and more scientific. I would like to hear your serious response towards the suggestions. If you do not want to give any response to it and don’t change anything, I’m convinced that the changes I suggested are reasonable and I will apply them. In that case I hope that you don’t start edit warring. Mosti95 (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is not a WP:FORUM. M.Bitton (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I reverted this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&diff=1182879481&oldid=1182216561) agreeing with Mosti95 that it needs a source. M.Bitton, please engage in discussion and don't just dimiss people's concerns with statements like "that's your problem". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I returned it with a source. It was extremely easy to find, I had my pick of many. Please don't just delete things when they are extremely easy to source - we're here to grow the encyclopedia, right? MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree and was in the process of looking into it. You beat me to it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS: If you agree that it is easily attributable, then why did you remove it? Also, why did you inject your WP:OR into the article? The scare quotes that you added are not used in the hundreds of sources that refer to it as Africa's last colony (justifying the "also known as" and the bolding). M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it should be bolded, as it's not an alternative name. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- 1) You didn't answer my first question. 2) This is not a vote: the alternative is supported by hundreds of sources. 3) You haven't addressed the fact that you keep injecting you WP:OR into the article and edit warring over it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Pinging the other editors: @Skitash and MrOllie: could you please weigh in? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. I believe that "Africa's last colony" should be included in the lead, preferably in bold. There are countless sources referring to Western Sahara using that term. Skitash (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The inclusion of that moniker in the second sentence in bold reads as textbook POV writing. It's an obviously charged and variously interpretable description being put in as a name. It comes across strongly as something not written to summarise the body but to get across a specific view, and it being edit warred in seems an extension of this. CMD (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: it's been dubbed that way by countless sources. How do we usually deal with an alternative name? Would restoring the "also known as" (which was removed) be more appropriate? M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a name, it is a description. It's an obviously catchy moniker that sources will use for that reason; this use does not mean it is encyclopaedic, does not mean it is appropriate for the lead, and certainly does not mean it is an alternative name. CMD (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I saw a revision by @Moroccan Citizen
- that got reverted by @M.Bitton
- instead of the colony narrative it was just:
- has been on the lastUN list of [[United Nations list of non-self-governing territories
- has been on the lastUN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories since 1963 <ref name="unpop">{{United Nations|url=https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt/western-sahara African|title=Western colonialSahara stateUN yetPage to|version=1963 achieverevision its|publisher=United independenceNations}}</ref>
- In my opinion this sounds more neutral. Mosti95 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from pinging me. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why Mosti95 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reverting the edits of multiple editors (mine, MrOllie's and Skitash's) to impose your POV (by restoring the edit of a blocked editor) without consensus is very disruptive. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why Mosti95 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please refrain from pinging me. M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why isn't a moniker that is used in hundreds of sources encyclopedic? Don't we add nicknames to WP:BLP to which the strictest policies apply? M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Encyclopaedic writing and news/journalism writing are different, and have different purposes and conventions. "Africa's last colony" is a description, and thus presented on its on is at best pointlessly repetitive of what should be the article content. We do not write "Belarus, or Europe's last dictatorship..." for example. It might be due discussion/mention on its own term as a label, but that should be clearly in context and would not be remotely due in the lead. CMD (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- When we have reliable sources (including scholarly ones) that label it that way, then it makes sense to add it to the lead (just like we do for WP:BLP articles). It is in context and a good summary of what's already covered in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That argument does not follow at all, we don't include everything sources say in the lead. The BLP comparison is flawed in that this is a description. The label does not summarise the text in the body, which sensibly does not engage in trying to define what makes something a colony and whether this is the "last" one in Africa. CMD (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's how the RS describe it. In any case, most editors agree that it should be added back to the lead, so the only question is whether it is added in bold or not. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- RS can describe something in a lot of ways, that doesn't change that this is a pointed description aimed at eliciting a particular POV. In particular, this appears to be a phrase used to support the independence of Namibia that, has now been adopted for the Sahrawi cause. CMD (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's how the RS describe it. In any case, most editors agree that it should be added back to the lead, so the only question is whether it is added in bold or not. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- That argument does not follow at all, we don't include everything sources say in the lead. The BLP comparison is flawed in that this is a description. The label does not summarise the text in the body, which sensibly does not engage in trying to define what makes something a colony and whether this is the "last" one in Africa. CMD (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to include in the lead but should definitely not be bolded as it not an alternative name. A version like this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Sahara&oldid=1182989598) seems a good option, with the phrasing of: Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence, and is often referred to as "Africa's last colony". (Could be with or without quotes in my opinion.) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please consider the 3 points I mentioned in the other comment, especially since the article is not about SAR but about the territory Western Sahara. Mosti95 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll respond to those points you've made and hopefully so will others. Also, you are making some good contributions here but I want to remind you to please remember Wikipedia:Civility, it's pretty important. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will try better! I will read the article. Mosti95 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good to hear. Focus on content, not contributors, and don't engage in personal disputes with other editors. Just ignore rudeness etc. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will try better! I will read the article. Mosti95 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'll respond to those points you've made and hopefully so will others. Also, you are making some good contributions here but I want to remind you to please remember Wikipedia:Civility, it's pretty important. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Since the majority agree that it should be in the lead, all that's left now is to work out whether it should be in bold or not. M.Bitton (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Please consider the 3 points I mentioned in the other comment, especially since the article is not about SAR but about the territory Western Sahara. Mosti95 (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- When we have reliable sources (including scholarly ones) that label it that way, then it makes sense to add it to the lead (just like we do for WP:BLP articles). It is in context and a good summary of what's already covered in the article's body. M.Bitton (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Encyclopaedic writing and news/journalism writing are different, and have different purposes and conventions. "Africa's last colony" is a description, and thus presented on its on is at best pointlessly repetitive of what should be the article content. We do not write "Belarus, or Europe's last dictatorship..." for example. It might be due discussion/mention on its own term as a label, but that should be clearly in context and would not be remotely due in the lead. CMD (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a name, it is a description. It's an obviously catchy moniker that sources will use for that reason; this use does not mean it is encyclopaedic, does not mean it is appropriate for the lead, and certainly does not mean it is an alternative name. CMD (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Mosti95 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: it's been dubbed that way by countless sources. How do we usually deal with an alternative name? Would restoring the "also known as" (which was removed) be more appropriate? M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it should be bolded, as it's not an alternative name. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting @M.Bitton
- The current state of the article is:
- Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence, and has been dubbed Africa's last colony.
- is this how you imagined it?
- for me it would be more fitting to just say.
- “Western Sahara has been dubbed as “Africa’s last colony”.”
- the first part of the sentence is in my opinion a bit dubious. Mosti95 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate why you consider the first sentence to be dubious? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The first part of the sentence describes a fact while the second part describes how it is described.
- the first part is for three reasons problematic:
- 1. This article is about the Region Western Sahara, not the Sahraoui Arab Republic.
- Regions are according to my under standing not colonies, states are. Saying that it is a colony is mixing the state (SAR) and the Western Sahara uncleanly together and opens the question why Wikipedia has two separate articles.
- 2. The statement is politically loaded. It positions itself, clearly on the pro-SAR/Contra-Moroccan position towards the conflict. To my understanding Wikipedia should try to stay neutral. Just as it is wrong to write something like “Westsahara is the southern province of Morocco” we should also avoid the other direction.
- 3. I checked the sources. The Amnesty Source says: “ Crowned as Africa’s last colony”. This indicates just the second part of the sentence in the article, not the first. The other source is unfortunately behind a paywall but the first sentences indicate that he is talking about the SAR not the Western Sahara.
- This is why I suggest to remove the first part and leave the second.
- But I’m happy to discuss it! Mosti95 (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know enough about the subject to get to the bottom of this. I did find that Chagos has been referred to as "Britain's last colony in Africa" though [4], for what that's worth.
- I'm personally fine with removing the entire sentence of "Western Sahara is the last African colonial state yet to achieve its independence, and is often referred to as Africa's last colony." I don't see that there's any informative or encyclopedic reason to include this, especially if it's controversial and/or not even a clear fact. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- The reliable sources decide what's controversial and what's not. We have hundreds of RS describing it as such (this is factual statement about a territory that is awaiting decolonization as per the UN), to remove it is tantamount to censorship. M.Bitton (talk) 23:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- It certainly is controversial. The sources mentioned by @M.Bittonare politics articles, not scientific papers. They don’t fulfill the same standards and are biased towards a direction.
- i would prefer to delete the sentence entirely, but would accept something like, “due to the conflict between Morocco and the frente Polisario, some authors call it the last colony of Africa“.
- honestly, the best solution, is to delete the sentence and ad the by @M.Bitton sentence that it is listed by the un as a non self governing territory.
- That is neutral towards booth positions and based on facts. Mosti95 (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- "politics articles, not scientific papers." of course. What "scientific paper" talks about colonialism? What in the world are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Im sorry that you got confused. what exactly is not clear about the diffentiation of science and politics when we talk about articles? Mosti95 (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your complaint is that someone provided a political article about a political topic: it's not a serious complaint. You're not being a serious person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I understand, but ask you to pleas keep a civil manner and assume good faith just as I do.
- Political articles are not written the same way as scientific articles. I doubt that you find for example on Google scholar articles that state west Sahara is a colony.
- im happy to discuss this topic further in a respectful manner. Mosti95 (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Political articles are not written the same way as scientific articles": this is precisely my point.
- "I doubt that you find for example on Google scholar articles that state west Sahara is a colony." See, this is how I know you're not being serious: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C29&q=%22Western+Sahara%22+colony&btnG= ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Im excited to see you provide scientific articles that besides the Catchy title actually write it like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯???????????????????????? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Read the articles and see if they actually call Western Sahara like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- What? Several of them do in the title. Is this some kind of prank or performance art or something? Seriously. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, the title is most likely just chosen to be catchy. The question is wether or not the author kn the articles actually call them like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dude, this was your idea. You wrote, "Yeah, but I bet if you looked on Google Scholar, they wouldn't say 'Africa's last colony'!" and then I showed you that there are plenty of academic sources on the outlet you chose that say precisely that. This is so far from productive, good faith, useful conversation that I have to wonder why you're doing this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, I recommend reading the articles. Titles can be misleading. Mosti95 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- They have a habit of wasting people's time by moving of the goal posts, making any discussion with them a time sink. Just ignore them and let's start discussing which version is more appropriate: the one with the bolded text or the one without. M.Bitton (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of them of course, since there is no provided proof that the scientific community uses that term.
- But thank you for providing your opinion. Mosti95 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is the editor who yesterday said:
for me it would be more fitting to just say. “Western Sahara has been dubbed as “Africa’s last colony”.”
- Their time wasting tactics are tiresome and extremely boring. Please ignore them and let's move on to the next stage. M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is the editor who yesterday said:
- It should definitely not be in bold, there is no reason for that. Does anyone other than yourself consider it an alternate name that should be bolded? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dude, this was your idea. You wrote, "Yeah, but I bet if you looked on Google Scholar, they wouldn't say 'Africa's last colony'!" and then I showed you that there are plenty of academic sources on the outlet you chose that say precisely that. This is so far from productive, good faith, useful conversation that I have to wonder why you're doing this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Again, the title is most likely just chosen to be catchy. The question is wether or not the author kn the articles actually call them like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- What? Several of them do in the title. Is this some kind of prank or performance art or something? Seriously. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Read the articles and see if they actually call Western Sahara like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯???????????????????????? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Im excited to see you provide scientific articles that besides the Catchy title actually write it like that. Mosti95 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your complaint is that someone provided a political article about a political topic: it's not a serious complaint. You're not being a serious person. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Im sorry that you got confused. what exactly is not clear about the diffentiation of science and politics when we talk about articles? Mosti95 (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- "politics articles, not scientific papers." of course. What "scientific paper" talks about colonialism? What in the world are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Regions are according to my under standing not colonies, states are". This is entirely mistaken. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concerns. Could you Elaborate please why you think it is mistaken? Mosti95 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because states aren't colonies: see Montevideo Convention, for instance. A state cannot be a colony. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can you ellaborate pleas? I don’t recall that the Montevideo conventions defines that regions but not states can be subject of colonialism. Mosti95 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- A state is a sovereign political entity: it is not controlled by another state. A region is a physical place and can be the basis of a political entity that is a colony. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interpretation. It would be great if you could find some literature that clarifies this in a scientific manner. Mosti95 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Scientific? There is no branch of science that is about politics, and I say that as someone with degrees in philosophy and political science. This entire conversation is off the rails and ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- This certain question is part of „Staatstheorie“. I have a degree in Law and Economy and know that this is a question science addresses. Mosti95 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Incorrect. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I have to disagree.
- I would advise you to read this article.
- https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatstheorie#:~:text=Eine%20Staatstheorie%20oder%20Staatsphilosophie%20behandelt,und%20juristische%20Bedingungen%20und%20Grenzen. Mosti95 (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Meine Deutsche ist nicht gut. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- There are great translation tools on the web. I would recommend to use them. I hope after you read those articles we can come closer to an agreement! Mosti95 (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Boy, that would be nice. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- There are great translation tools on the web. I would recommend to use them. I hope after you read those articles we can come closer to an agreement! Mosti95 (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Meine Deutsche ist nicht gut. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Incorrect. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- This certain question is part of „Staatstheorie“. I have a degree in Law and Economy and know that this is a question science addresses. Mosti95 (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Scientific? There is no branch of science that is about politics, and I say that as someone with degrees in philosophy and political science. This entire conversation is off the rails and ridiculous. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interpretation. It would be great if you could find some literature that clarifies this in a scientific manner. Mosti95 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- A state is a sovereign political entity: it is not controlled by another state. A region is a physical place and can be the basis of a political entity that is a colony. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Can you ellaborate pleas? I don’t recall that the Montevideo conventions defines that regions but not states can be subject of colonialism. Mosti95 (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because states aren't colonies: see Montevideo Convention, for instance. A state cannot be a colony. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your concerns. Could you Elaborate please why you think it is mistaken? Mosti95 (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate why you consider the first sentence to be dubious? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS: If you agree that it is easily attributable, then why did you remove it? Also, why did you inject your WP:OR into the article? The scare quotes that you added are not used in the hundreds of sources that refer to it as Africa's last colony (justifying the "also known as" and the bolding). M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree and was in the process of looking into it. You beat me to it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Mosti95, I feel like you're arguing in good faith but you're not being very logical at all. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I Hope every participant is arguing in good faith.
- could you pleas ellaborate why you think that my arguments don’t make sense? In my opinion there is no reason to add sentence at all. It only adds controversy. Mosti95 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a lot in the above discussion, but there is certainly nothing like a clear consensus for anything particular. The addition in question remains very pointed, and the result is a good example of the benefits of treating WP:Leads as the summaries they are meant to be. CMD (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree Mosti95 (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- The only issue was whether it should be in bold or described as "known as" in the lead sentence. Of all the involved editors, you were the only one who was opposed to its inclusion in the lead (while in fact it is more lead worthy than some of what's already in there); and since nobody, but yourself, has disagreed with the compromise that was introduced by IOHANNVSVERVS, then we have an implicit consensus. Needless to remind you that consensus needs not be unanimous. Also, your "revert" doesn't restore the stable version. I will await and see what the others have to say about the refusal to compromise and what can only be described as censorship.
- @MrOllie, Koavf, and Skitash: given the previous discussion,, do you agree that this version (which was introduced by "IOHANNVSVERVS" and slightly adjusted by myself) is a good compromise? IOHANNVSVERVS obviously thinks it is and so do I. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- That’s not true. Mosti95 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- How is that a compromise lmao Mosti95 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It seems good. I agree. Skitash (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It looks good to me. MrOllie (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's fine. Let's move on. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Now that the wrong sentence has been deleted we can move on and stop wasting time Mosti95 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- What "wrong sentence"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- How many sentences did get deleted? Mosti95 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- You answered a question with question. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- 5 editors agree with the way it is. The fact that you don't is irrelevant and doesn't give you the right to impose your view on the majority. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is no consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most editors agree and the phrase has been there for years and it's sourced. This is stupid. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- there is no consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- One editor bludgeoning the talk page does not prevent a consensus from forming. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- there is no consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- If 5 editors agreeing with it is not consensus, I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course you don’t. Mosti95 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense. Anyway, the majority has spoken, time for you to move on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not that complex. The sentence is wrong. Mosti95 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- How is it wrong? It's sourced. What source do you have to contradict this sourced information? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not that complex. The sentence is wrong. Mosti95 (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense. Anyway, the majority has spoken, time for you to move on. M.Bitton (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Of course you don’t. Mosti95 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Most editors agree and the phrase has been there for years and it's sourced. This is stupid. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is no consensus. Mosti95 (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- How many sentences did get deleted? Mosti95 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- What "wrong sentence"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. Now that the wrong sentence has been deleted we can move on and stop wasting time Mosti95 (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the compromise version is fine, though I also think @CMD makes a good point. Regarding the discussion here, I agree that @Mosti95 is being disruptive (Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process). I also think that @M.Bitton has been repeatedly uncivil, making rude remarks and accusing others of bad faith—including seemingly accusing @CMD of censorship. That said, I do think the article is improving from all our efforts. Let's try to keep things positive moving forward. We're all working together here and are all unpaid volunteers, we don't need this to be a stressful process. 🌻 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Also, thanks @M.Bitton for your willingness to compromise. I hope you interpret my criticism as respectful and intending to be constructive. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS: I have known CMD for a while and I certainly didn't accuse them personally of censorship, so please don't misrepresent my words or take them out of context. As for the compromise, I even accepted the scare quotes and the move from the lead sentence that wasn't even discussed just so that we can stop wasting time on this. M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Administrator note: I've fully protected the article for two weeks so that you all can achieve some sort of consensus, or at least stop the bickering. Mosti95: Consider yourself warned, and any further disruptive editing will lead to a block. M.Bitton: please try to disengage from the discussion where possible. If you believe another editor is abusing the consensus process, and they've already been warned, consider reporting them to ANI instead of continuing to engage at the article's talk page. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Obrigado. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Will do. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Can you explain your edit summary here saying "it's been here for years"? It was added on 31 October. I'm not seeing it spotchecks of the last 500 versions. To "leave it" at the stable version would be to maintain the lead as it was, although it has now being edit warred in. As for this discussion it is a mess, if there is a desire to push this in then an RfC should be started that would hopefully be less susceptible to bludgeoning. CMD (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's true: it was not there before. That said, it's sourced and there's consensus for it to be there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
"서사하라" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect 서사하라 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § 서사하라 until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 12:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Westsahara the most sparsely populated Country?
The lead sentence is : Western Sahara is a disputed territory on the northwest coast of Africa. The article description is: This article is about the geographical area. For the partially recognized state that controls the Free Zone and claims sovereignty over Western Sahara, see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The linked list never specifies if it is talking about countries or dependent territories. Why would we suddenly start calling it a country? Mosti95 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- You seem to think that 'country' is a term that excludes dependent territories. It is not. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then why should we prefer the use of country or dependant territory? Mosti95 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is a term that properly includes both the Western Sahara and the other regions it is being compared with. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- So according to you Kabylia would be a country? Mosti95 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems off the topic. Stick to this article and this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I wanted to show you the absurdity of that position. Mosti95 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Find a source that calls Kabylia a country. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep the changes on the discussion page. Mosti95 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton
- Why did you revert my changes? What is the benefit of calling it a country over just naming the list? Mosti95 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seems off the topic. Stick to this article and this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- So according to you Kabylia would be a country? Mosti95 (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Because it is a term that properly includes both the Western Sahara and the other regions it is being compared with. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- Then why should we prefer the use of country or dependant territory? Mosti95 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment: this is nothing but another time wasting exercise by the OP. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)