Talk:Free Zone (region)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Africa Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara. See also The Western Sahara Portal.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The map is not NPOV, as there is no evidence that the polisario effectivly controls the yellow area, it is mainly a ceasefire no man's land--Khalid hassani 13:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

===>NPOV? Are you sure it's not a "cite references/lacks sources" issue? Anyway, the SADR:

• Held press conferences
• Destroyed landmines in the territory, without Rabat's approval
• Held state-sponsored celebrations
• Most importantly, held elections

And these are all in the last few months. Clearly, Rabat doesn't control it. The only people to administer the territory are the SADR. -Justin (koavf), talk 15:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a cease-fire zone. I've been there, it's under direct Polisario/SADR control, and there is no competing authority. There is a UN-monitored cease-fire zone, which is no-go for both sides. But it only extends a couple of kilometers (three?) from the wall eastwards, up to the Polisario positions opposite it, no further. Outside of that area, Polisario do as they please, as long as they report major troop movements and concentrations to the UN (same goes for Morocco on their side).

The Moroccan government has lately been trying to claim the entire zone is a cease-fire area, to protest the Tifariti celebrations (30 years of SADR) that were held there recently, but that is simply not true. Not on the ground, and not in the texts of the cease-fire agreements. Arre 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes Rabat doesn't control it, but there is no evidence that the Polisario does too, as there are no real military settlement of Polisarian troops in the area as far as I know, and merely patrolling there doesn't mean they are controlling it. Moroccan troops can go there whenever they choose too, the only reason they are not doing is to not break the ceasefire. On the other hand Free zone is clearly Polisarian wording, so the name itself is not NPOV, we need to find a more neutral term. For me, this article sounds more like a trumphalist Polisario press release than a WP article, we need to find a more balanced ground.--Khalid hassani 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

===>Wording There is nothing to patrol actively; the crime rate in the camps themselves where the vast majority live is something like .01% (the occasional petty theft.) The SADR clearly do administer the area - people live there, there are buildings and some infrastructure, their government meets there. And should Moroccan troops show up one day, I would not be surprised if fighting would insue due to their presence. Of course, Polisario could walk into the occupied territory, but it would also be a violation of the ceasefire. Regarding the name of the article, if you've got a better one, I would certainly be willing to hear it. So far, the only terms I've read are "Free Zone" and "Liberated territories." -Justin (koavf), talk 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To Khalid:

• As for control, Polisario has the same control over this territory as does Mauritania (and most other desert states) over its territory, i.e. they can't very well supervise what goes on anytime&everywhere - but they maintain clear overall control, and are not militarily disputed by anyone. Also, note that their control is good enough to have picked up the refugees expelled by Moroccan police/military (whatever it was) over the wall in the big refugee crisis last year. Several groups were intercepted in the desert, and brought to the camps for shelter. This has been documented by UNHCR, numerous press reports etc, and Sahrawi web sites have photos and films of the refugees, since Morocco denies that it ever happened. (Here's Daily Star/AFP, a WSO video and The Guardian.
• There are thousands of Polisario soldiers permanently stationed in the area, according to Minurso's and other estimates, and in addition to patrols and the odd military excercise or parade. The territory is rigidly divided into Military Areas (numbered 1-7, if I'm not mistaken), where specially assigned brigades are responsible for both permanent defense posts, military bases and area control. I visited Tifariti (where the 30 years celebrations where held) in 2003, and there was no small amount of soldiers around; including tanks, trailer-mounted anti-air missiles and stuff like that. They keep marked roads/tracks all over the territory, have permanent border stations, and there's defense posts and bunkers (like these) scattered all the way up to the wall; families from the camps are moving through with their camels and other livestock, and we encountered several tens of nomad encampments along the way, with Sahrawis from the camps or Mauritania going back and forth. There's no question they run the place.
• You may have a point about the wording, though. I don't think the article itself is biased in any way, but the name sure is, intentionally so. There is an exact equivalent in Southern Provinces. I tend to think that it's good to use the name people would look for in that case, and so it's reasonable to do the same here. But I wouldn't protest a change either, for both of them. One possibility would be Western Sahara - Moroccan controlled parts and Western Sahara - Polisario controlled parts.

Best, Arre 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this wording seems better, my main concern was that Free zone was typical Polisario wording and that is clearly not NPOV for me. As for what the Polisario really controls that remains to be seen, I think it will be difficult to establish real Polisario settlements in the area, again patrolling is not controlling, the Polisario has also choosen guerilla tactics so I doubt they will settle somewhere as they are at risk of being the target of Moroccan military aviation one day or another. On the other hand, I have heard (this needs evidence of course) that Tifariti is in fact just a UN name for an empty desertic location as the real Tifariti is hundreds kilometers west in the Moroccan controlled area. It seems they intend to build their parliament there but I have seen no photos yet.--Khalid hassani 18:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've been to Tifariti. It exists, believe me. There's not many fixed-structure buildings, but there never were (Sahrawis being nomads), and the few that were standing are now bombed out. A couple have been rebuilt or newly built, among those a hospital and some kind of a hall that has been used as a parliamentary building on occasions. But I think the formal SNC building is still in the camps in Tindouf. There's a UN base right next to Tifariti, so I'm sure they would agree that it exists. There's a photograph of Tifariti in the article now, look for yourself.
• There's no air-raids now, because of the cease-fire. And before the cease-fire there were even more Polisario troops in Western Sahara, so I don't see where you're going with that. If you insist that Polisario/SADR doesn't control this area, then I assume most of Mauritania isn't under Mauritanian control either? And how about the Moroccan-held parts of Western Sahara - they're patrolled all right, but are they controlled? Seems to me you're setting double standards here.
• As for the name, do you want to change it? I don't really, but I wouldn't oppose it either, if both this article and Southern Provinces get new names.

Yours, Arre 19:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are moroccan military troops settlements in the Moroccan controlled part, nearly 100 000 strong, while I doubt there any Polisarian troops settlement in the Polisarian controlled part as the Polisario has choosen the Guerilla tactics so he will not settle anywhere, I don't see any double standard here. As for the name, yes I believe it would be better to change as it carries a Polisarian propaganda flavor, yours --Khalid hassani 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, there certainly are Moroccan troops in the Moroccan-controlled parts. I don't dispute that. But there also are Polisario troops in the Polisario-controlled parts. I've seen them with my own eyes, and so have many people I know; I've met several people who have served in these areas under Polisario command, both before and after the cease-fire. The UN/MINURSO has issued detailed rules of conduct for all military forces in the area, and continuously monitors both Polisario and Morocco troop movements. They document the presence of both armies with reports that are issued regularly, and are available via the UN homepage; if you don't trust me, check those. Some months ago, for example, MINURSO complained that both Morocco and Polisario was strengthening their permanent fortifications in the area, which of course would be an odd complaint if Polisario had no permanent fortifications. Being "guerrillas", which they are, doesn't mean you can't have military bases, bunkers, underground tunnels and whatnot, especially when there's a cease-fire. There's tons of evidence of Polisario's permanent military presence and control of this area, readily available on the net (go google), and I don't see how you can change that by pointing to some definition of how "guerrilla warfare" should always be "mobile warfare".
• As for the name, feel free to do that. But then also change the name of the Southern Provinces; their naming is in parallell, and should remain so.

Yours, Arre 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have seen your modfications, concerning the naming, as long as we explicitly indicate that Free zone is the name given by Polisario and pro-polisario people then its fine with me, my fear was to make it sound like a universal and established name.--Khalid hassani 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I agree with you there. And so does the article, I think - the first sentence is "The Free Zone or Liberated Territories is a name used by pro-independence Sahrawis to denote the area in Western Sahara controlled by the authority of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)". Arre 00:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Neutrality of Article Disputed 2 Consider Last Editings as Rejected 3 POV? 4 Map of the so-called free zone 5 About the Polisario called "Free Zone ", again 6 map 7 Prposal to merge 8 Intro 9 Population

[edit] Neutrality of Article Disputed

Reasons among others:

• Although the article shows that the so called "free zone" is used by pro-independence Sahrawis to etc. but it uses their arguments and terminology as if they were facts.
• Example: "the area in Western Sahara controlled by the authority of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)". Is this part of the Sahara controlled by the "sadr"? In which form? The "sadr is in Algeria, is not recognised by the UN and a great majority of the world and I do not think it controls that part of the Sahara.
• The map is merely an individual effort. The UN part of the reference is almost non-significant. The map is not an institutional reference and must be removed here. wikima 13:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the sources above which suggest that they do control it. Here are some more from some archaeologists, who, being a dull bunch, tend to be fairly neutral and unpolitical [1], [2]. As for your other comments - where are there statements/terminology that are opinions stated as fact? List them and they could change. --Robdurbar 15:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted a bit of a rewording, most notably no longer describing Morocco's control as a 'military occupation' --Robdurbar 15:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the BBC: 'This year, for the first time since a ceasefire was signed with Morocco in 1991, the Polisario held their congress in the heart of what they proudly call "liberated territory".

Most of the international community consider it to be in south-west Algeria, just 300 kilometres from Tindouf.

For some it is a no-mans land under de facto control of the Polisario.'

Which suggests, if anything, we should alter the map to show the free zone edging into Algeria. --Robdurbar 15:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Polisario has never made any claims to Algerian territory, and does not consider Algerian territory to be in any way "liberated", even though they are granted autonomous status in the areas south of Tindouf, around the refugee camps (and so hold the same level of control there as in the liberated territories). Similar to how Palestinians in Lebanon may run their refugee camps, but would hardly refer to Shatila in south Beirut as part of a liberated Palestinian homeland.

The map is excellent, and can be compared to the UN's own maps of what territory is under whose control. Arre 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, yeah, I think I misunderstood what the text was saying there. --Robdurbar 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources of the map:

• Lets have a look at the source. The first one refers to the UN with re to the less problematic aspect of the topic.
• The second one is unacceptable:

1/ It is merely a hand drawing. 2/ It's source is http://www.spsrasd.info which is the propaganda agency of the polisario.

• If you accept to use this map, I will create an other one with own hand drawing and some Moroccan sources which aou will have to accept. Cheerswikima 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The so called control of polisario

• If polisario contorols the area and if "sadr" administers it, why do they rest in Algeria?
• Why do they hold all the "refugees in tindouf and not provide them with urban centres and economic projects in Tifarity or where else?
• The UN clearly condemns the incursions of polisario and "sadr" in Tifariti:

"MINURSO reported that the concentration of military forces of the Frente Polisario during the military parade held in Tifariti on 27 February included about 2,600 troops, 150 camels and 40 armoured personnel carriers, and hence constituted a violation of military agreement No. 1." Security Council - Report of the Secretary-General on the situation concerning Western Sahara.

• If you consider that condemned violations of the ceasefire in that strip are "control", so does Morocco even double than polisario:

"From 14 October to 15 March, MINURSO observed eight new violations by the Royal Moroccan Army and four new violations by the military forces of the Frente Polisario" (Source: ebd.)

• In this context the information on the "buffer zone" is completly missed here.
• You wish to compare these casual inscursions by polisario in totally arid and empty area with the real control of Morocco who really runs all major parts of the territory with all urban and relevant areas etc just like a sovereign state and like any other part of it. While writing in other article the "sadr" is an exile-state or governement. Sorry but this is far from reality (to not to say "nonsense"). You can never compare both.
• This my personal view: the strip that polisario and supporter call "free zone" is seen by Morocco as a buffer zone where it would destroy any military entities in case of hostilities without needing to enter the Algerian territory. This seems to be a reason why no war has been built directly on the borders with Algeria. wikima 19:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

For the first quote, I question what the violation is of? From the wording, it appears that it is the concentration of troops in one area that is a vilation of agreemenet 1. As for the second text; nowhere does it appear to me that the UN are talking about anything other than the entire Western Shara territory. --Robdurbar 07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read furhter down - 'the violations include incursions into the buffer strip' --Robdurbar 07:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I repeat what I've written above. There is a buffer strip between Moroccan and Sahrawi territory, but it's not very wide. It runs along the length of the wall, on its Eastern side, and is something like two-three kilometers wide. In this zone, no military forces are allowed. Both sides have however violated this part of the peace agreement at times, though never to the point of attacking the other party. To the West of the buffer zone, there is the wall and then Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara (the "Southern Provinces", as they call it). To the East of it, there is Polisario-held territory (the "Free Zone" as they call it).

Wikima is, unintentionally I guess, confusing Polisario-held territory with the buffer zone. This article is about the Polisario territory, not about the buffer strip. Different sets of rules applies to them, under Military Agreement No. 1:

• In the buffer strip: no military presence whatsoever allowed for either side. Civilian presence (as with the anti-wall demonstrations) is not explicitly forbidden, but has been recommended against by the UNSG because of the risk for the civilians involved.
• In Polisario-held territory: military presence allowed and expected, but on the condition of cantonization of troops, regulation and registration of movements, continuous MINURSO inspection, and with a ban on fortification or strenghtening of defences from 1991.
• In Moroccan-held territory: military presence allowed and expected, but confined to the wall, plus large general troop reduction, a ban on additional fortifications, and conditions on movement and monitoring similar to those that apply to Polisario.

(There are also Military Agreements No. 2 & 3 -- and possibly more? -- dealing with cooperation in mine clearing and stuff, but that's not important here.)

About the Polisario violation in Tifariti, the report and agreement makes it clear that it is not a violation per se to keep troops in this area. Indeed, Polisario has staged a number of international events there (I've attended one myself), which were guarded by military personnel, with no UN complaints. The problem this time was the troop concentration. The cease-fire agreements stipulates that troop movement, on either side of the buffer zone, involving units over a certain number of soldiers has to be pre-registered with MINURSO. This had not been done, and that's why it was a violation. Not because there were troops present there at all -- they are there year-round, and there's a MINURSO base within eyesight from Tifariti which would certainly have noticed this and complained, if that was an issue.

Wikima, in short, seems to be under the impression that anything outside of Moroccan controlled territory is "the buffer zone". Not so. The buffer zone is a thin slice of land between the two forces. I have given numerous examples above as to how Polisario controls the rest of the territory -- it is not "abandoned desert", as Wikima writes. Or, well, it is desert, but in no way abandoned.

A last note on the sources for the map. I remember when this was done, originally for the Moroccan Wall (though it originated on some other page, probably Western Sahara talk). The SPS drawing was only used to mark which portions of the wall were built at what time (it was constructed gradually, barrier for barrier, over something like seven years). The only thing relevant to this article is the Eastern outline of the wall, which in effect constitutes the dividing line between the two territories. The UN map is what is used for that, and I don't think it is seriously in dispute by anyone. So, if we're going to use Robdurbar's map (where the Moroccan side and the interior barrier system is greyed out), we could eliminate SPS as a source.

Arre 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I kind of suspected that buffer zone may refer to an area between the two. It should also be pointed out that a number of territories exist with some sort of UN/foreign control - Iraq, Kosovo, Guantanamo Bay - but remain sovereign parts of Iraq, Serbia/Montenegro and Cuba respectively. --Robdurbar 07:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Arre, thanks, I will not go into details, what you say is already enough to topple the whole article

• If polisario is not even allowed to concentrate some forces in that part of the WS territory, then it has no control if it.
• If it can't even bring some forces in a place and at a date which it considers highly "symbolic", then it has no control on the rest neither.
• Polisario and "sadr" are in Tindouf, in algeria. The Sahrawi refugees are confined there as well. All polisario does is illegal incursions from time to time and shouting propaganda fictive stuff on a "free zone". And that is no control, NOT IN THE LEAST.

• I do not have details on the buffer strip but as as I could observe it has never been mentionned.
• I criticise the source of the map not only because it is from SPS, but in first instance because it is hand made, so totally irrelevant.
• I don't think that I have said or meant that part of the territory is abandoned. Morocco claims it is a integral part of its territory.
• For Morocco it is like a rear land where order will be done after priority questions have been resolved.
• However, I think it represents de facto a sort of arid and deserted no man' land, which is used by illegal migrants and polisario individuals who deal with them and/or in the black market etc, and where from time to time Morocco's armey units and polisario groups operate incursions that are condemned as violations of the ceasefire agreement.

• Result: Article and map are totally false.

1/The article must be dropped or radically changed because it bases on totally false facts, propaganda, fictive stuff and lies.

2/ Any non official map must be dropped.

Cheers wikima 13:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• 'If polisario is not even allowed to concentrate some forces in that part of the WS territory, then it has no control if it. ' - can the government of Serbia and Montenegro concentrate toops in Kosovo? Can the government of Iraq concentrate troops in Kurdistan? Can teh government of Denmark control some of the laws/happenings in Greenland? Does that make them any less sovereign over these areas - no.

• That the map was hand drawn is eniterly irrelvant; if the source is biased then this is more important

• The UN document does not refer to Morccan controlled Western Shara. Nor does it refer to the Polisario controlled area. It refers only to 'the territory' and the 'buffer zone'. Now I don't know what it means by the buffer zone but we cannot state for certain whether they mean an area between the 'Free Zone' and the 'Southern Provinces' or the entire 'Free Zone' in itself.

Now, given that we are unsure about the source of the handdrawn map, I think it would be acceptable to replace it with one based on the UN map, indicating only the Morocco controlled area and the Free Zone. However, I have seen no evidence that tells us that the Free Zone is not controlled by the Polisario, at least under UN supervision. --Robdurbar 14:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Here's some further evidence from [3] -

'The map shows the "Berm" as a red line. This is the "wall" built by Morocco to separate the Moroccan-occupied zone to the west from the "Free Zone" to the east. Morocco invaded Western Sahara in 1975 when Spain, the former colonial power, withdrew. Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara has never been formally recognised by any government (although many give support to Morocco) or by the United Nations, who have been attempting to organise a referendum on self-determination since 1991.

The Western Sahara Project study sites are in the Free Zone, which is administered by the Frente Polisario independence movement, from the Sahrawi refugee camps near Tindouf across the border in Algeria, home to some 160,000 displaced people. The refugees move freely between the camps and the Free Zone, for example in order to exploit pasture for animals when environmental conditions permit. However, there is little permanent settlement or occupation in the Free Zone due to a lack of water resources and the risk of renewed conflict.'

Again, this source comes from archeologists from the University of East Anglia working in the Western Sahara, not a politicaly motivated group. Their home page is at [4]. --Robdurbar 14:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I have the feeling, you don't want to see it just because you don't want to see it. All is clear though.

Rob,

• The examples you mention in your first point apply more to Morocco than to any other other part. Morocco indeed controls and governs the Western Sahara in its major parts, including all relevant places and towns and the whole cost. It does not, however, totally control the arid and empty part in the back just like algeriea does not control its sahara in that region. See!

• Polisario lacks everything in this topic: no only it can never control such an area but it is not even present there. How can you talk about control while polisario and what it calls "sadr" are both in Tindouf in algeria? Even the refugees are kept in Algeria and not in that part of the sahara. So talking about "control", "free zones" etc is just absurd!
• It is highly relevant that the map was drawn by hand. It is just an individual, personal and subjective effort. I am not a good drawer but I couls also produce a couple of such maps just as everyone can do. The map is not a source and it does not response of any standard of map development.
• The UN document indeed does not refer to the control of any of the parts on this area. This underlines the fact that the "free zone" is just surrealistic propaganda of polisario and its supporters.

You can see now how far from reality all this here is! I really feel ashamed for Wikipedia that it is brought to the level of discussing low-order propaganda stuff.

• I have seen many "scientific" sources dealing with topics related to international politics and often they do not know what they are talking about. In the case of your source I am sure they do great science in the field of their expertise. But they should avoid any comments on such an issue. Example, this is what they write in the 2nd paragraph: "The Frente Polisario are effectively the government of a state-in-exile - the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which has been recognised by some 65 countries". The polisario is not the government but just an organisation. And the 160000 number is taken from everywhere. The real number of the "refugees" is unknown as algeria and polisario do not allow any census in the camps. The UN has in the report above brought the number of assisted beneficiaries to 90000 which means a lot. Only some 46 countries recognise "sadr" and not 65. "sadr" is no state as it does not have the main elements of a state. For example "sadr" has no sovereignty on any territory. wikima 16:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what to say. You contradict yourself, you ignore sources that disagree with you. Clearly the Polisario do not control this area in the way that the British government controls the UK or that most secure areas are controlled. They rule from outside due to the inherent instability of the area; they are clearly under UN restrictions. Now I would re-write the page to include sources that claim it is not controlled by the Polisario; but your arguments have been 'source x does not say that they do control it', rahter than anyone acutally denying Polisario control. Now I do not the exact details of the situation, but I personally trust the academics who have published their work that they had to get Polisario permission to acces the area and that there was relative Polisario control etc.

Also you claim that Algeria does not control the Sahara in that region... now we enter something else... what on earth do you mean by that? Clearly certain areas of remote country are more lawless than others, but this does not mean that they are not controlled.

More importantly.... how do you propose to re-write the article? I'd rather you acutally proposed a change than we just talked theoretically. I'd be happy to add cited claims that this area is not under Polisario control, for example. --Robdurbar 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob,

• It is this simple: polisario does not control that area. It's better to make effort to admit this rather then to try to find an other expression.
• If we decide to keep the article (the question is open), then it article must be radically re-edited, at least!
• The article must clearly reflect that the "free zone" thing is merely a polisario propaganda claim that has nothing to do with facts.
• The article must deal extremely carefully with the notion of "control".
• Any comparison with the governance of Morocco MUST BE AVOIDED. This is something weired: the impression has been given through the non neutral editing as if Morocco controls one part and polisario the other. This is absolutely non real. Polisario, rasd etc, all these entities are vegetating in Tindouf, in algeria.
• No maps as they are misleading.
• I will have an other look and propose something if possible. wikima 19:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Inside the Free Zone

• The SADR does control it. If they don't, who does?
• The issue regarding keeping the article is hardly controversial - you're the only one that thinks it shouldn't exist.
• Obviously, this statement is untrue.
• And how do you propose this? What would you change.
• Why? Morocco does control one part of the Sahara, due to illegitimate military occupation, and the SADR controls the other.
• No maps? Why would you expect anyone to agree to a rule like no maps with the justification "they are misleading?" That's absurd.
• Please do, and make it something useful. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You know Kovaf - and no offence - but that thing you do with the arrows and the bold text? - highly annoying.

But on a further note; yeah, I'm kinda tired about talking about this in abstract. I agree that the article could be edited to stress that the Polisario has less control of the territory than it says at the moment. Bear in mind, too, that the article currently states thar 'Free Zone is the name used by pro-independence Saharawi's', not that it is its accepted name. I dislike stating that any statement is 'obviously untrue'; I also dislike hereing that all maps are 'misleading'. Lets try and maintain an open mind here. --Robdurbar 22:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me quickly state my thoughts on this:

• The Polisario *do* control the Free Zone, period, nothing misleading about that.
• Nothing misleading about maps showing the claims of Morocco, the claims of Polisario, and the zones of control. —Nightstallion (?) 10:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Polisario or "rasd" do controle *nothing*. They are themselves controlled entities by the Algerian government
• One reason why the is mislieading is that it suggests WS is currently shared between Moroco and polisario, a completly surealistic and absurd thing.
• Rob, please be patient. Discussion are not just "abstract" but important to figure out how things are.
• There is an other thing which is weired with this article, it occupies an universal term: Free Zone. Type in "free zone" in google and see how many of them you will get. A free zone is a zone that is free. But here the article limits it to a polisario propaganda thing. If polisario tomorrow uses "blue sky" in its propaganda, then its supporters in wikipedia will open an article on "blue sky" as shouted by polisaro.
• Result: The Free Zone article must be freed from all polisario propaganda. The latter must be removed as it is non important in wikipedia. A footnote in the Polisario article would be more then enough. The article on Free Zone, if it is necessary, must include a universal description of what a free zone is. Wikipedia is universal not polisario related. Cheers wikima 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That last bit's not true - this is Free Zone (region). Free Zone is a disambiguation page. --Robdurbar 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To whomever it concerns:

• I would again suggest that everyone who participates in this discussion reads what has been written on the talk page before. It deals with the same stuff: level of control and name.
• Short summary: (a) Polisario controls the area just as well as any government (which is not to say completely, it's a desert, after all), but has accepted UN restrictions on military movement in the peace plan of 1991. Morocco has done the same, even though the restrictions are slightly different. (b) The name is indeed POV, but Southern Provinces is just as POV (and as much of a "general concept"). They're named in parallell. I'm not opposed to changing to neutral, descriptive names, but I don't mind this arrangement either. As long as both use the same naming principles, I don't care one way or the other.
• About the map, the map with the interior walls removed (Robdurbar's version) is based on the UN map. The SPS map can be removed as a source, since it was only referring to the interior walls. In fact, it should be.
• Wikima: you're just restating your points of view, and ignoring both references to the peace plan (which makes it very clear who's on which side and what prerogatives the UN forces have); also you're blindly repeating that there's no Polisario presence in these areas despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Best, Arre 04:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC).

Rob,

• Granted re Free Zone in general, disagree with Free Zone Region. Later is not internationally nor universally recognised and should not occupy space for Free Zone Region in the encyclopedia.
• There are (potentially) other true free zones that deserve such space on Wikipedia.
• I now insist that a foote note to mentiojn what polisario propaganda means is absolutely enough.

Arre,

• Thanks for the reminder about th ereading, it would be great however if you start applying it and reading the discussion.
• Other short summary:

a/ Polsario has no control of the area. It is not allowed to move/concentrate militairies in the zone.

b/ Polisario is not present in that area. The "sadr" neither. They are both in tindouf in Algeria, totally under controll of the Algerian government

c/ Only at "symbolic" dates polisario and romatic activists

d/ The military concentration during the "celebrations" to the 30th of the so called rasd in Tifariti has costed polisario an international clear slap by the UN

e/ Not only polisario is present in this so called free zone. Morocco has been criticised for twice as much incursions.

f/ Next to bushed polisario individuals in the area, other groups of criminals, illegal immigrants and polisario memebrs who work with them are present as well.

g/ The area is sort of outlaw. Comparing a casual holey and fictive control of polisario with the control of a governements is just absurd.

h/ If I say Morocco governs all Western Sahara (apart from the lawless strip we are talking about here), this means that you can go there and find all sort of institutional, political, economic, social, urban etc. structures, just like in any other region of the country. In spite of war and tension and in spite of absolute lack of oil or any other natural resources Morocco could make out Western Sahara a region that is more prosperm more stable, more organised and more proper than any region in for instance Algeria, polisario's godfather. The last 5-days visit of the King in the region was a clear great testimony for this. Under Spain Elayoun, Dakhla, Smara, Boujodour were almost inexistent or just ugly barracks and black military holes. This is - since Moroccan control - an other world and this is what I call administration, control and governance, not holding a gunn in the middle of nowhere and shouting nonsense propaganda.

Now, your "evidences":

Two littel remarks before commenting on what you call "evidence":

• I don not have much time, though I have looked at all the links you transmitted. I would begg you to bit more serious next time, thanks.
• I do not deny the presence of polisario in that area. I would not deny the presence of criminals, black market circuits etc. neither. We are talking about "control" and you use a lnaguage that suggests governmental control, a full absurdity in this case.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcschlueter/sets/156808/

Photographs, photographs, as anyone can do. Where the control of the area??

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sahara/16242299/

Photographs, photographs, as anyone can do. Where the control of the area??

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sahara/16244657/in/set-1780712/

This one shows polisario troups near Tifariti. This concentration has been clearly condemned by the UN and SC.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaysen/111345375/

A symbolic demonstration as it happens from time to time and as I state above. Polisario and "rasd" are in Tindouf. Polisario carried hunderds of refugees to this place while the camps in Tindouf were being destroyed by sever floadings. To organise this "celebrations" polisario used international aids which were awfully needed in the camps. To know more about this shameful event and the mismanagement of polisario read this interesting report.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10114354@N00/115241493/

A nice picture of a soldier in a stone camoflage. Is he in the Western Sahara? Does he control the area we are talking about? Is he just posing for European/Amercian photgraphs? No idea. This is no evidence.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/western_sahara_project/53159192/

An appeal to independance set in stone. No evidence. It could be next to Tindouf, and even if it was in the area we are talking about, any bored groups of polsiario lost members can spend their times writing in stones to compensate the frustration of their failure.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/sahara/transcript4.html

This is the famous interview of James Baker where he clearly states that Morocco has won the war and that polisario is fully under Algerian control as it cannot decide any thing without algeria.

http://www.spsrasd.info/sps11cong.html

Do not need to view this. It is low-order propaganda and lies

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minurso/MINURSO.pdf

I know this vague document of minurso. The only relevant infomration in it is that it confirms the presence of the polisario troups, howver by putting a question mark on the number (12000 ?). Again, any concentration or moves of troups in this area is clearly condemned by the international community. So ne relevance for any kind of control.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Wsahara.htm

This document is from october 1995. Much has changed in the region from that time! Though I have Searched "control" through the document. All i could find is: "[...] and Polisario controlling a sliver along the eastern and southern borders" and "in the Polisario-controlled section of the Western Sahara". The doc does not say anything on this "control", its kind, its extent. It does not specifiy what the sliver is.

http://www.icbl.org/lm/2001/western_sahara/

This report is much about the military and landmines than about political control. In the same sense one can state that Taliban or AlQaida control certain area in Afghnaistan.

http://www.newint.org/issue297/wall.html

YEP! The follwing sentence reveales exactly what polisario and supporters call control: 'I wouldn't call ours a guerrilla war but yes, our main military goal is to do as much damage as possible rather than to gain territory. We're aiming to sap the Moroccan strength and morale. [...]' It is a guerrilla that challenges a state power. This one has sent them behind the war where they can't do any thing but shout that they have liberated amtpy arid desert land, while, in reality, the polisarians are enjoying international aids for which they mis-use the "refugees".

http://www.themilitant.com/2003/6740/674050.html

A socialist thing. Sorry, do you get them directly form Cuba?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/wsahara/sahara14/sahara14.pdf

Non related scientific research. You'll find many of them using the terminology of thier "hosts" and presenting critical issues careless. Don't blame them their aim is something else and not to report on the situation.

http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/PDF/JMSS-MStephan.pdf

This one talks about the "liberated territory" or "libertaed zone". Hoever it says clearly writes the " so-called “liberated zone”." (Bold is my formatting) p.6. The description of the "liberated territory" in the footnote confirms what I say: casual military presence, without relevant control.

http://www.saharanstudies.org/news/newsletters/v10n1.pdf

refers to

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/wsahara.htm

seen above as:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/wsahara/sahara14/sahara14.pdf

http://www.counterpunch.org/carrion04132005.html

Just read this: "The brutal military invasion was followed by a repopulation campaign known as the Green March, with hundreds of thousands of Moroccan citizens moving to the area with the promise of financial aid and a better life. At the same time, almost 200,000 Sahrawis, as the natives of the land are known, were forced into exile, [...]" and you undertsand that the lady writes imbecile stuff about a topic she seems to be totally ignore.

Cheers wikima 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

===>Evidence

• If you're going to simply resort to saying "Polisario or 'rasd' do controle [sic] *nothing*. They are themselves controlled entities by the Algerian government," we're not going to get anywhere. Evidence has been given to contradict your first statement, and you have provided no evidence for the second. There is no way that other people are going to believe you simply because you repeat yourself. Part of Western Sahara is administered (illegally, due to military occupation) by the Kingdom of Morocco. Part of Western Sahara is administered by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Both governments are obliged to respect a ceasefire from 1991. Both of them have broken it.
• Since there is no widespread use of the term "free zone" to mean anything other than an obscure religious sect, an obscure film, and an equally obscure plot of land, the article Free Zone was made a disambiguation page. The article Free Zone is not about the region, it is a page that leads you to anything that could be called "Free Zone." If you have something else to add there, please do. If you don't think the article Free Zone (region) should exist, why haven't you gone to the article Southern Provinces and written the same thing? Also, simply because you insist on something, that doesn't make anyone more likely to do it.

a/ Polsario has control in the area. It is not allowed to move/concentrate militairies in the zone, just like Germany wasn't allowed to move its military within its own borders after World War I. Does that make Germany a "phantom entity" or really under the control of Algeria?

b/ Polisario is present in that area. As is the SADR. They are both based in Tindouf, and are completely independent of the Algerian government. The pictures themselves are proof. There are small cities in the Free Zone ([5]) and those are administered by the SADR.

c/ Polisario are there all the time, as are nomads, UN personnel, and individuals from research institutions (such as the Western Sahara Project) and other non-governmental agencies.

d/ Morocco has been chastized by the UN for breaking the ceasefire, too.

e/ Morocco is criticized precisely becuase they don't administer the area.

f/ Calling Polisario "criminals" and putting SADR in sarcasm quotes won't help your case. By the way, there are hundreds more illegal immigrants in Morocco looking to get into the EU via Ceuta and Melilla. But that's entirely irrelevant to this article, so there's no need to discuss where there are illegal immigrants.

g/ It's hardly absurd, since several dozen states consider the SADR the legitimate government of the Sahara. It's no more absurd than writing article about the Republic of China, who controls a small percentage of China in terms of geography and population.

h/ Morocco are the ones who destabilized the region by invading it. SADR has control in as much as they do have military personnel moving in the area, they are subject to the international law of a ceasefire, they have foreign relations with other states, they hold elections there, they control exit and entry into the area, and non-governmental actors ask for their permission to use the region (such as the Western Sahara Project). The lack of industrialization is irrelevant. There is very little infrastructure, but that is also true of places that are undeniably states, such as Laos.

• Also, if you're really so concerned about the refugee situation, you must be pretty mad at Hassan II for causing it. The Western Sahara Project is in Western Sahara, not Algeria. While Baker is correct in assessing that Morocco administers most of the territory, and the most important civilian centers, the war itself is not over, anymore than the Korean War is. This is a temporary settlement. I'm assuming that you're making reference to this statement "I think [the resumption of hostilities] is an issue probably that is more on the plate of Algeria than anybody else because it isn't going to resume unless Algeria permits it to happen. As long as Algeria says to the POLISARIO you're not going to fight anymore then they're not going to fight anymore." This doesn't mean the Polisario do nothing without Algeria - they still administer the camps themselves. Algeria just doesn't want to get into another war with Morocco. That's assuming that Mr. Baker is even correct, of course.
• Finally, the way that you just write off sources as propaganda or socialist is bad faith, and will also get us nowhere. Everything you quoted from CounterPunch is entirely true. Can you disagree with any of it? Was there a military invasion? Was it brutal? Was there a repopulation campaign? Was it called the Green March? Did hundred of thousands of Moroccan citizens move to the area? Were they given financial incentives? Were almost 200,000 Sahrawis forced into exile? Are they the natives in the land? What exactly is the "imbecile stuff" here? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Justin,

• I will ignore most of your polemic as it is simply off-topic in this section.
• As you can see i make efforts and take seriousely what other people say. I have checked all articles and sources provides by Aree, read a few of them that appeared to me to be "relevant". Saying that I am repeating myself is nonsense.

"The evidences":

• My answer is that there is no evidence on any control of polisario or "sadr" in the region. The fact to just mentionn it, is no evidence.
• Some of the sources appear to be "scientific" on the question, but are absolutely disappointing. In this example the author states that "More than 70 countries, most recently South Africa and Kenya, now recognize the SADR" (p.19) which is wrong.He makes dangerous statements such as "Hamdi Lembarki was hailed as the Intifada’s first martyr. Several more brutal deaths followed, placing a chill over Western Sahara." (p.15) without delivering one sinlge source on this "bloodbath". The article shows absolute no sense for facts, precision of information and objective analysis. This kind of work is though presented to belong be "strategic studies" and to be scientific.
• Other just miss the topic, talk about the Green March and facts in the most dilettante way etc. I could not find source or author that I would take seriousely really.
• Morocco's control in not just control. Again: Morocco governs Western Sahara like any other of its parts.
• Polisario and "sadr" are both in Tindouf, and are present only casually - for celebrations and propaganda actitvities - in the area we are talking about. They are both under total algerian control, although they claim they are not. Algeria uses them in a proxy-like war against Morocco and behaves exactly like a full part in the conflict. James Baker's, all the intenational calls for negotiations between Morocco and algeria as well as the huge and disproportional efforts Algeria invests in the conflict at all level, are more than evidence. The only difference is that Algeria does not admit this. We shall develop this question in the pages on the conflict, polisairo and "sadr"
• There is a great difference between Southern Provinces and the so called "free zone". The first are subject to real administration of the Morocan government. This means, that you can book holiday in Dakhla, enjoy beautiful and peaceful time, with all what oyu need for your holiday and even send a post card with a Morocco stamp on it to your relatives. All this you can't do in the so called "free zone".
• PS: Also the UN put "sadr" in quotes, because it is an unrecognised entity.

• Result again: this section looks more like misuse of Wikipedia for pro-polisarian ideas.
• My suggestion: 1/ Rename the article to "Polisario named "Free Zone" (Region)" 2/ Check and re-edit the article to avoid every confusiona and make it as clear as possible, that it is merely polisario naming and nothing more.

Cheers wikima 17:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that's the best solution ever to be honest - I think it would contravene Wikipedia's page naming guidelines. How about Free Zone (Polisario) or Free Zone (SADR)? That would possibly be closer to Wikipedia's standards? The rewrite is probably a good idea though.

As for your talk of Algeria control... true or not Wikpedia cannot reflect was is, in the end, utter speculation and rumour. --Robdurbar 20:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob,

• Your suggestion, the first one, seems to me to be closer to reallity, although not yet precise enough. I am wondering whether Free Zone (Polisario Denotation) would go.
• The algerian control is no rumour. Everyone who knows the topic well, knows that without Algeria and Libya in the beginning, and then Algeria until now, Polisario would have never survived. The Sahara question if for Algeria as important as for Polisario. It is a top priority in the Algerian agenda and media. Algeria could risk a war, and yes, was involved in battles with Morocoo because of the Sahara. All people and instances dealing with the question see that the Polisario is a puppet and that real parts in the conflict are Morocco and Algeria. Just see how tempered and fiercely Algeria reacted to the latest UN resolution on the Sahara. Algeria just sent 60 (!) emissaries in the world to lobby for Polisario in attempt to counter the last moves of Morocco (Human rights, King's visit to WS, CORCAS, Autonomy etc.) and the cancellation of recognitions to "sadr" (Chad, Burundi). Algeria was deeply involved in the war crimes and crimes against the humanity commited againste the Moroccan POWs. All this and more is not the behaviour of a "just interested" part.

Cheers. wikima 19:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consider Last Editings as Rejected

• I have realised now that the map has been replaced. The change refers to the talk.
• In this talk however I still don't agree with the map.
• The change is non valid for me and I don't see any convincing arguments on the other side.
• The map sates that the so called free zone is controlled by the so called "sadr". I delivered my arguments above that this is wrong.
• Since you do not wait and edite further to what you believe, I'll do the same and remove the map.

Cheers wikima 22:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry, but evidence has only suggested that they do control the zone. Though we have made a number of changes due to your - perfectly valid - objections, I want to stand firm on this one. Your assertions that the Polisario do not control the Free Zone and that they are totally controlled by Algeria are just that - assertions. Whatever you believe or argue, Wikipedia is based on verifiability and not truth. There are no verifiable sources that tell us the Polisario do not control the zone; there are verifiable sources which suggest that they do, even if these sources do not confirm for certain. I will reinsert the map BUT with a caption noting the uncertainity. I will also enter a paragraph into the article stating that some dispute the fact that the Polisario control this zone; but for now will leave it with a {{Fact}} template. --Robdurbar 09:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob,

• The fact that Algeria controls Polisario and "sadr" is important to mention but is not the scope of this discussion.
• Be sure, we/I will deal with this at its right place.

A:

• There is no evidence that polisario controls the area.

1/ I replied to that above.

2/ Polisario is in Tindouf, in Algeria, not in that area

3/ "sadr" is in Tindouf, in Algeria, not in that area

4/ The refugees are in Tindouf, in Algeria, not in that area

5/ That area is almost empty, totaly arid and desert

6/ Polisario does incursions from to time in that area, Morocco does as well, even twice as many.

7/ When Polisario concentrates troups or makes any military moves, this is condemned by the international community and seen as a serious breach to the ceasefire agreement(s).

8/ Yes Polisario is partially present in that area, but this is non significant, as it is a ceasefire and Morocco will be immediately present there in case of hostilities.

9/ That area is seen by Morocco as "zone tampon", Which means buffer zone. It uses it strategically as a place where it combates Polisario guerrille on the WS territory without needing to attack them on the Algerian territory.

10/This may be the reason why the protection wall is built as it is (tbc).

• Polisario controls the Tindouf Camps, which are under Algerian security control

B:

• The map as is suggests that Morocco controls one part and Polisario the other.
• This is AWFULLY WRONG.
• The part controlled by Morocco is GOVERNED IN THE VERY SENSE OF THE WORD.
• Quantitative difference: the part governed by Morocco is by far much larger than the strip we are talk about
• Quanlitative difference: It is the core of WS, including all urban centres, the whole cost, the main places for history and nomadic activity etc.
• It includes cities and villages that have become impressively modern and prosper in spite of all the tension around the WS
• Although Morocco has no oil and is a poor country rather.
• From there, you can send letters with Moroccan stamps on them, use Moroccan money, use Moroccan telephone, see Moroccan police, meet with Moroccans from the Sahara and other regions, workers, ingeneers and other staffers, etc.
• In all towns and urban cities there are political and admistrative infrastructures just like in the rest of Morocco.
• Elected and local political responsibles are there, living in the regions just like the rest of the Sahwaris and Moroccans that moved to WS
• Other high responsibles from all sectors are regularely present.
• The last visit of the King Mohamed VI, on March 25, was of five days and you could show that every thing went just like in any other region of Morocco. BTW the welcome was impressive and do not tell me it was organised by Moroccan officials or securities (they are not that good).

• There is nothing of all this that would apply to polisario, their so called "rasd" and so called "free zone".
• If you want to use a map, then we can develop one that reflects these facts and just wrongly simplisticly share the territory between Morocco and polisario.

Cheers wikima 10:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So what about the numerous sources that claim that it is controlled by the SADR? Arguments about the size of the relevant portions, or the environment are entirely irrelevant. Greenland is just a bunch of ice caps. Does that mean that Denmark does not control it?]

As for the issue of buffer zone... where we have discussed this before, there are no indications that the the term buffer zone has referred to the free zone. Anyway, if you look, the article now notes these concerns. However, there are no sources for them.

You have stopped using sources and are asserting arguments.

As for the map... it probably still needs some tidying, I agree. --Robdurbar 10:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Rob,

• I do not know the case of Denemark and Greenland, so I can't comment.
• "sadr" is just a fictive entity, a sort of non recognised "governement" whose memebrs are "exiled" in Algeria.
• There is no evidence that details that the control of polisario (itself NOT present in area) is solid and valid.
• As you read above, I do not deny that polisario has military points in the area.
• If you feel that any of my saying is not covered let me know and I deliver you the evidence you need.
• On the other hand, I would assume all I say is valid.
• I do not have the feeling that what I am saying is taken seriousely because in Wikipedia, I am talking to a wall of convictions and romantic wishes.
• The map, yes, that would be an effort. I will see if I can do any thing on my side (no promise). In reallity I don't feel any taste in making efforts just for this polisario low-order propaganda.

Cheers wikima 11:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

===>POV issues What are the POV issues? From which POV is this article written? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It seems neutral enough to me. —Nightstallion (?) 13:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Southern Provinces (Moroccan-governed territories under military occupation)". If that were just " Southern Provinces (Moroccan-governed territories of Western Sahara)" I would consider it neutral. --SteveLo 22:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Where is the POV? How is one POV and the other not? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 23:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the so-called free zone

• I see this map as problematic:

1. It seems to have no source, so it's private and as such not reliable. We had this at length but well ...
2. The southern part is not accurate. As far as I know that area ia totally under Control of Morocco and travelers can go to Mauritania along the Atlantic without any problems.

Thanks to anyone bringing more light into this. wikima 20:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Polisario called "Free Zone ", again

• This is an answer to reisio's revert on Western Sahara that is thought to remain as discussion as this place as the artcile on the "free zone" does not seem to make clear separation between facts and propaganda.

• This region is an arid and unpopulated area. All relevant urban and populated areas are under Moroccan control

• Polisario and "SADR" are based in algeria and only go there for symbolic demonstrations and events, which happens 2-3 times a year. This is not control.

• And when they do, they are severely condemned by the United Nations because concentration of troupes there is not allowed. You can't control nor administer an area if you are not allowed to concentrate troupes in it.

• Moroccan military is also present in that area and Morocco has been condemned for that. If you think that being military present there is control, then Morocco controls the area.

• All the population that is controlled by Polisario is in Tindouf, not in that area. So how can you control an area in which none lives, where you can't use your military and where all your relevant responsibles do not live?

• Unless you source it the so called "free zone" is not recognised as such by the institutions dealing with the conflict namely the UN.

• There is an official buffer zone in that area along the berm. I don't have exact information but it should be a few kms wide. Morocco however considers this whole region as buffer zone and probably has built the wall not directly on the Algerian border to be able to fight the Polisario guerrillas in case of hostilities without being obliged to pursuit them on the algerian territory.

• Furthermore, the information as you are pushing in Wikipedia suggests that Morocco and polisario sort of share the control of Western Sahara. This is completely and awfully wrong.

• Morocco is officially seen as the administrative power of Western Sahara by the UNirted Nations [6][7].

• The area before the berm which it controls include all relevant regions, urban areas, including the capital and the largest cities, the cost and the sahrawis who have chosen to live there.

• Morocco governs that area using all means of sovereignty (flag, money, calling code, stamps, police, military, etc.).

• To change this one needs to justify that the "free zone" exists officially and is recognised by the UN, and that the “SADR” is recognised as its administrative power. This might be a challenge for the moment as the UN nor over 160 countries of the world do recognise the existence of the “SADR”.

• Until then the information remains that polisario merely claims control of a strip that it calls "free zone" for propaganda reasons.

Rgds - wikima 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] map

A "self-published" map being used in this article (anonymous author, uploaded by "IAMTHEEGGMAN" , see File history) is a primary source and cannot legitimately be used as a secondary source in this article according to the Reliable sources guideline and the Verifiability policy. I therefore deleted it.S710 12:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I created uploaded it (the egg guy merely re-uploaded in a new format). There was a source; I'll see if I can dig it out. --Robdurbar 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I based it on the map here. Its being used by some archeaologists from the University of East Anglia - about as neutral a source as you can get on something like this. --Robdurbar 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that your map in the article is an anonymous, primary (self published) source.S710 10:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prposal to merge

What "Free" is in this case depends un your POV. It's a political title for this article.S710 21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Free Zone (region) → Border Area (Western Sahara) —(Discuss)— current name is political pov —S710 21:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. The current title isn't neutral.S710 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The first sentence states that 'The Free Zone is a name used by Polisario'; this article discusses that area and their control of it. I don't see how the new name is any better - for one thing, does anyone call it that? I'm not entirely convinced that having that name is non-neutral. --Robdurbar 22:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My earlier suggestion had been to use the title Free Zone (Polisario terminology) (or something similar) if necessary. --Robdurbar 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Free" is clearly Polisario terminology. Titles should not be in the terminology of one of the parties involved. Indicating that the title is biased doesn't seem a good solution.S710 23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Robdurbar wrote:"I'm not entirely convinced that having that name (Border area)is neutral.". I agree. I withdraw the request to move the article and propose to merge it with Western Sahara.S710 10:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems fairly reasonable, though I'd like the opinions of a few others if possible too. --Robdurbar 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I wouldn't oppose. The section Administrative division could host it.
• I would suggest to rename this section to "Administration of Western Sahara" and extend it to describe the whole.

Rgds - wikima 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the article. There are near one hundred links pointing to it. Your snap merge is no more than a disguised deletion, but which not requires procedure and approbation by the community. --Juiced lemon 08:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi J.Lemon, please can you tell us why you restored the article?
• S710 had asked before doing the merge and we agreed with it.
• If you have reasons and arguments why the article should remain separated so tell us.

- Just accusing the action of being a "disguised deletion" will remain a personal allegation.

- The fact that other articles link to it is no obligation to keep it as is.

• I am interested in your opinion / Thanks - wikima 21:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Free Zone (Western Sahara region) is an area of 50,000 km², which is not controlled by a sovereign State. This special situation, as the numberous links, fully justifies an individual article. I read the S710 arguments, and I don't believe one second in its neutrality. --Juiced lemon 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

S710, Wikipedia has naming conventions which you should read. ¦ Reisio 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone be kind and explain to the readers what is the meaning of "FREE" here. Free from what?. Is it tax-free?. What kind of freedom is meant?. Juiced Lemon, if you look that the article be neutral, this should be addressed. If you want me to spare you some time, I would tell you that those who sticked this article here, and gave it that title meant "the Occupation free". They meant there is an occupied region (under Moroccan control), and a free region (under the Sahrawi Democratic Republic). There you have the neutrality. In its actual state, this article is definitely POV and is far away from being neutral. That is why the merge is completely justified.--A Jalil 12:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I never asserted that the title and contents must remain unchanged. First, I am looking for some material about the subject. What are your suggestions for a new title? --Juiced lemon 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what is wrong with this intro:

The "Free Zone" or "Liberated Territories" are names used by pro-independence Sahrawis to denote the area in Western Sahara east and south of the Moroccan Wall (or berm); approximately 20% of the territory. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) claims to control this area with Bir Lehlou as the temporary capital of the area and of the SADR; a substitute for El Aaiún, which is part of the Southern Provinces, the Moroccan-governed territories since 1975. However, the main Polisario headquarters remain in the refugee camps of Tindouf Province, just across the border in Algeria.

I mean it makes no claim that the Polisario control the area, it just describes it? If the article moves then change the first few words, but the whole thing? --Robdurbar 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what just happened here? Was this page also hit by the S710 deletion hurricane? On the name, that's been discussed a million times. No, Free Zone isn't neutral, but neither is Southern Provinces. They were seen to balance each other, as a pair, which I think is fine, since they also both refer to each other. But if someone really wants a change, I don't mind. But then both must change. (I suggest: Areas of Western Sahara controlled by Morocco, and Areas of Western Sahara controlled by the Polisario Front.) Arre 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh,uh, S710 is one of the best contributors to the Sahara articles. He seems to have the most academic knowledge about the Maghreb in general and The Sahara in particular. I understand your frustration, for all the POV you inserted (with koavf) is ceeding ground to more balanced contributions. The wording "free zone" is something that is at home on the SADR/Polisario's and their supporters pages, but not on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. "Free" from what??, and what about the neighboring part?? it is clearly not "Free", because it is not under Polisario control??. Besides, I have explained elsewhere that not everything that was left by the Moroccan army outside the defensive wall is accessible to the Polisario let alone calim to administer it (especially Laguera and the coastal 65+ Kms). And exactly that word "Administration", Do you know what it means to see if the Polisario presence on some of the region outside the wall can be even termed as such?. So when you say, Areas of Western Sahara controlled by Morocco, you are refering to a region where there are institutions, cities, administrations, and there are political, economical, cultural, touristic, ... activities on all of the region refered to as under Moroccan control. But when you say Areas of Western Sahara controlled by Polisario, you are wrong about the word control, because it does not have it about a big deal of those areas. Having a symbolic and restricted presence of guerilleros here and there, plus some festivities lasting for a couple of days in a few years, do serve as fuel in the propaganda machinery of the Polisario as "proofs" of control, but does not fool the world that knows that the polisario's sporadic presence is a consequence of the cease-fire accords, and that until 1991, there was not a single fixed place where the polisarians coud stay for more than a few hours, otherwise the Moroccan air force would teach them what "Free" or "Liberated" means.--A Jalil 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest going back to the intro that is quoted above by Robdurbar as it strikes me as quite fair and NPOV. collounsbury 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Population

How large is the population of this Zone (if any)? If there is reliable information on this, it should be in the article. Ucucha 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Redhead7 for adding this. Ucucha 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)