Talk:Green March/Archive 1

This article needs to be cited for speedy delete. Unless you are Spanish or Algerian the entire article it not the truth regarding the Green March of 1975. Spain and Algeria have been notoriously and flagrantly trying to steel Morocco for centuries, if you read up on your history you will write the article based on reality and not on personal politics substantiated by false claims that appear in articles written by the spanish and algerians posted to the internet. Leadership in Morocco is wise enough to not permit any disucssion in media especially on the internet regarding this matter and their lands will be resotred to them in due course. This is indeed a very weasly article and is nothing more than poor research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.238.233 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're okay with my latest edits, I'm basically okay with yours (except where I restored the original text, of course :-). I really didn't intend to write the article in a "weasly" way, but if you got that impression, I'm sorry. I hope it's better now. Anyway, do I think the subject deserves an article.

About the Amir al-Mu'mineen reference, I know I've seen this somewhere, but I don't seem to be able to find a source now. But wouldn't it be obvious that the king invoked his traditional religious legitimacy, since the whole march was shrouded in the symbols of Islam (GREEN march, qurans etc)? I don't know. Any information is appreciated.

For expansions, I think we are lacking information on the march itself. I know more about the political circumstances and results, but the actual march (closer estimates of the number of participants, march route, logistics, present-day celebrations and traces in Moroccan culture, etc) is poorly covered, I'm sorry to say. And a photograph would be nice! I know there are plenty on the net. Arre 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was, and you must see this yourself, grossly opinionated. Please lay out your case for further changes from the compromise I now suggested here on the talk page. I will start with a few comments on specific changes I refused:

• Category: This is a historical event, so History of... is the most appropriate categories.
• The citation needed-tag on the UN visiting mission. The full quotes are available on that page.
• Green for Peace. This is weird. All sources I've ever seen says it was meant to symbolize Islam. This seems no less likely due to the fact that green is the recognized color of Islam, but is not, to the best of my knowledge, ever used to symbolize peace.
• Removing the reference to military invasion - is plainly absurd. You do recognize that this happened, right? How could a war begin if there were no invasion?
• Number of marchers - I'm open for a change here, but source it well.
• The ICJ verdict said that Morocco (and Mauritania, and Spain, and the UN) had no right to do what they pleased with Western Sahara, but had to abide by the wishes of the population. This clearly contradicted the Moroccan case, and this is very relevant to mention.

Arre 00:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arre, Your WS related edits are always, and you must see this yourself, grossly opinionated.

• Category: It wasn't me (it's not the first time that you accuse me without any verification).
• About military invasion: I didn't understand your reasoning.
• Number of marchers: sourced
• I personally think that ICJ didn't contradict Morocco's point since it stated clearly that there was legal ties of allegiance.

==> However I rephrased a little, I hope it's OK now. Daryou 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Daryou

Please leave the article as it is now. I've inserted some of your changes that we agree on, but apart from that, we're at the status quo - where we should be. Let's debate before editing, instead of reverting back and forth, okay?

• Category: What do you mean it wasn't you? Look here.
• Military invasion: My reasoning is simply that since Western Sahara was in fact militarily invaded, not just politically annexed, we should write that. This led to a war, with tens of thousands of casualties and refugees, and that is important. You can't just delete it and expect me not to consider it a political edit.
• No. of marchers: Good. I might get back to it if I find contradictory sources, and we should try to get an English source (there are plenty) but it's not a priority. This is fine for the time being.
• Morocco's case (and Mauritania's) was that the territory belonged to it, in its entirety, and that it had been an integrated part of Morocco for hundreds of years before colonization. It's argument was NOT just that there were "some ties" between the Sultan and certain tribes (who would deny that?). The ICJ clearly contradicted this opinion, and in addition explicitly stated that Morocco was NOT allowed to claim the territory, so there is simply no way whatsoever that the ICJ verdict could be presented as vindication of Hassan's claim. Still, it should be mentioned that this was the reasoning of the Moroccan king at the time, so I've entered a sentence on this. Hopefully you're okay with it.
• Mauritania originally claimed all of WS, not just a part, but like Morocco settled for half in the Madrid Accords.
• Your addition of Polisario's Algerian support from 1975 & its refusal of the M. Accords I agree with, and added a variant on this in the end.
• Spanish refusal to fire: I believe this was more because Spain feared a colonial war with Morocco, than because Franco cared about civilians. And the killing of civilians could lead to war and international condemnation. I don't believe we are in any real disagreement over this: for me it's mostly an issue of style. If you want to, we could write all of the above (on civilian deaths leading to war, which was feared by the Fascists, with Franco severely ill, bla bla), although I guess a reasonably educated reader would guess it from the context. What's your opinion?
• To sum this up, the rephrasing is not okay, for these and other reasons. Also note that there were quite a few spelling errors and an unrelated sentence copied into the text. Now, that is not criticism - it happens to me too - but just so you know why I felt this wasn't a good edit to start from. Also, the status quo is preferable to begin editing from, since we can both relate to it. That does not necessarily mean I want to keep the text exactly as it was (I've already made a few changes in line with what you requested), and as I mentioned to Svest above, it could be substantially improved if we had more info on the march itself. It would be great if you could contribute with this, since I imagine that kind of material is easy to get in Morocco.

Arre 22:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category: Are you kidding? look here! I see that you have some problems.
2. The term invasion seems somehow biased. I used "controlled" it have a similar meaning.
3. The number was 350 000 there is no place for any kind of doubt.
4. The ICJ verdict was interpreted differently. According to Morocco there was no contradiction since there was legal ties of allegiance.
5. Will you prove that?
6. Rephrased a little
7. I think its better and clearer like this.
8. I really don't see how I can add anything in this article since you simply revert all what I do. And which errors are you talking about?

I'll rephrase a little, feel free to change what you don't like, but please STOP REVERTING THE WHOLE PAGE. Daryou 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Category. I want it to say "History of Western Sahara", not just "Western Sahara", since it is a historical event. Darwinek inserted that, you keep changing it back. Why?

2. The term "invasion" is not biased, it is descriptive of the act of "invasion". And that was precisely what happened. "Control" does not have even remotely the same meaning.

3. Of course there is room for doubt, wether it is true or not. That's just the government's own figure. But, as I said, I won't dispute it until I bother to find a source.

4. Yes, and my edit said that this was Morocco's opinion, as it should. But you cannot deny that the ICJ explicitly denied Morocco's right to the territory, which was the fundamental part of the Moroccan argument.

5. See this or this, for example. Or for that matter prove otherwise - if they only laid claims to a part, what part? I've never even heard that before.

6. See 9.

7. It's not clear at all. Why did Franco all of a sudden become so squeamish about civilian lives, after 35 years of Fascist dictatorship?

8. Spelling errors mainly. I don't remember which ones, go back and check if it's important to you. See 9.

9. I have not been reverting the whole page. I have introduced a number of changes or edits of yours, or adapted to your edits. What I have been reverting or rewriting, are only the things I do not agree with, and those I think we should work out on the talk page (pts. 1-8). The reason is that the page content will become a jumble of different versions if you, me and Koavf are going to try to squeeze in our respective points at once, and it is better to discuss and agree upon each point separately on talk. We did that with some other article, I've forgotten which one, and I think it worked out beautifully. I will now again change what I don't agree with back to the starting point. Let's discuss it. And that does not mean that you should immediately change it back to your own, unapproved version, with an edit summary asking for "discussion". That will bring us no closer to nothing, because then I will just do the same, and we'll go on like that until mediation arrives; discussion, on the other hand, will. Arre 00:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to reach consensus, I hope that it will be OK now. And will you remind me my spelling arrors? it will help me to avoid them next time. Thanks. Daryou 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Daryou, you won't reach consensus like that. The changes you keep reinserting are the most controversial and objectionable of the whole edit -- there is NO WAY that an honest commentator could avoid seeing that the ICJ verdict ran directly counter to Morocco's (and Mauritania's) claims. If the ICJ had agreed with King Hassan, he would have gotten Western Sahara and there would have been no need for a green march -- you're removing vital parts of the context for political reasons, i.e. wanting to eliminate the mention of the ICJ's conclusions. That's not okay.
• The other big one, about censoring all references to military invasion, is just as bad -- it removes (highly) relevant information for what can only be purely political/nationalist reasons. Not okay.
• The spelling errors - I don't remember, it was minor stuff that anyone could have made, but more than what was okay for the edit. In the version you're pushing above there is a one sentence which is probably copy-pasted from the ICJ page somehow, which a) is incomprehensible and does not say the same as my lenghtier explanation and b) is ungrammatical in relation to the rest of the paragraph (by when? has?):

By then the court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the principle of self-determination of the peoples of the Territory.

• I've tried to rewrite these parts for maximum clarity several times now, and just deleting all of that again won't bring us any further. If there is something you believe is either wrong or missing, say what it is on the talk page, and we'll work something out. But stop removing correct, descriptive and relevant information, and replacing it with vague say-nothings like the one cited above. Arre 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To avoid any misinterpretation please let's use exactelly ICJ wordings. A honest commentator will find that there was legal ties of allegiance with Morocco. There was a need for a green march because WS was occupied by Spain. Wanting to insert the mention to ICJ conclusions is political and don't give any new information.
• Your reference to military invasion is political.
• I didn't made any spelling error so STOP YOUR ACCUSATIONS. And you said it, I just copy-edited from the ICJ verdict. If you have a best wording feel free to reword the ICJ verdict not your own interpretation.
• You see that my main concern is to reflect exactly what the ICJ said. The ICJ never said that Morocco has no ligitimate claim about WS. Daryou 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To stop this circle of reverts, I will await your response first, before restoring or rewording. That does not mean I accept your edits - quite the contrary, since the arguments you now present are even weaker than I expected. Please make no further changes to the article, until we agree upon the wording; if you insist on editing it while debating, I will of course also do that, but I hope we can avoid it.

• 1. The article says there are ties of allegiance. That was the first of three important conclusions. The others were that a) the people of WS possesses self-determination (also mentioned, if obscurely) and that b) Morocco and Mauritania were NOT allowed to annex it straight-away (this is what you are deleting again and again). All three should, or indeed must, be mentioned. I'm all for using ICJ wordings, if that makes things clearer. But your copy-pasting does not; it deletes information and replaces it with a single, grammatically ill-fitting semi-quote, taken out of its context. That reduces both the informational content and the readability of the article. If you dispute that the info you are deleting is correct, then state your case for why that would be. But if you just don't like what it says, go vent your wrath on a boxing-ball or something, instead of Wikipedia.
• 2. That's just bizarre. The annexation of Western Sahara was carried out across a recognized national border by means of tank, infantry and bomber jet offensives. That is by definition a military invasion. Should the article on Operation Barbarossa omit the words "military invasion" because some German nationalist might argue it was "liberation" or just "annexation"? Of course not. You're being completely unreasonable now.
• 3. Yes, you did, but what's the issue here?
• 4. What I see is that your main concern is to remove an explanation of what the ICJ said, and replace it with a random sentence from the verdict, thereby leaving out most of the crucial reasons for quoting it at all. (Anyone doubting this, read the verdict, and compare the edits.) The article, in my latest version, does not say "Morocco has no legitimate claim". It says Morocco -- according to the ICJ -- had claims backed by historical ties, but that these were NOT sufficient to provide legal justification for annexing the territory, and that it had to gain explicit approval from the population if it still wanted to push ahead. That is EXACTLY what the ICJ said, and that is why the Green March took place. I don't care whether you like it or not: it has to be in there.

Arre 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I repeat: We discussed the matter many times, using the ICJ wording is the best way to avoid any mis-interpretation. Your version don't bring any new information but is simply a pro-polisario interpretation. To comply with WP principles you have to report exactly the conclusions, that's what I made.
• The comparizon with German nazis is just very bizzare. By the same way will you say that "the Normandy battle" wasn't a "liberation"?
• I agree with you what's the issue here, why are always bringing the spelling errors argument to revert my edits? you can simply correct them if any.
• I agree with you, my main concern is to remove a pro-Polisario explanation of what the ICJ said, and replace it by copy-editing exactly what the verdict said. Daryou 19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 - Please answer what I wrote, instead of just calling it pro-Polisario. If you want to reformulate it, fine; or document it ONLY with ICJ quotes, well, that's odd but okay. But the information (the three main points) must be in there.
• 2 - Whatever: Soviet invasion of Finland or Afghanistan, American invasion of Grenada etc. If you feel the Allied invasion (sic) of Normandie is a good comparison for what Morocco did in 1975, fine. It's still an invasion. By contrast, the Nazis did NOT militarily invade Sudetenland: it was ceded to them peacefully, after threats and pressure, and the Germans entered unopposed. Compare that with Western Sahara, where Morocco invaded with a full army force in 1975, fought continually until 1991 to retain and expand its control, and is still in a formal state of war. Very different.
• 3 -
• 4 - An informative and correct description is better than a quote, as long as it can be backed up by a quote. Replacing a good descriptive paragraph with some chopped-up quotes rarely aids understanding of the subject; however, if you want, we could insert the quotes into the text. My only interest is that it a) gives a faithful interpretation of the ICJ's verdict, b) places that in the appropriate context for this article (the Green March) and c) is reasonably readable. That could be achieved in a number of ways, but the one you are suggesting actually removes information (and not ANY information, if I may say so). Arre 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, your 3 points are explicitly said in my version, you have to re-read it.
• Actually WS was ceded peacefully to Morocco and Mauritania by Spain, you know it. I thought that Spain left the territory in 1976, are you saying that Morocco engaged a war with Spain in 1975?
• A quote is better and better than a description which the neutrality is disputed. My version reflects exactly the ICJ verdict without partial interpretation, places it in the exact context, is perfectly readable without removing any new information. Daryou 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>So, are you in favor of the UN position, or not The UN considers the territory to not have been decolonized - is this your position? -Justin (koavf), talk 02:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What does this have to do with our discussion here???!!! Daryou 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>POV It's an example of your pro-Moroccan POV-pushing. For instance, in your newest revision, you added that Morocco historically claimed the Sahara. This is not true; Morocco never claimed it until the late 1950's. -Justin (koavf), talk 14:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until the late 1950's Morocco was occupied by France and Spain. Before the Occupation WS was an integral part of Morocco. It was by then histrorical, what are you talking about? Daryou 14:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>A perfect example of the propaganda The Sahara was never Moroccan. I personally own maps from the 1890's and 1910's that show Morocco ending at the Noun, never extending into the Sahara, and the Anglo-Moroccan treaty proves the same thing. There is no history of Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara. Show me any proof. -Justin (koavf), talk 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?, are you kidding on me? You know that there was legal ties of alliegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and the tribes of the region since the Almoravides. How do you dare to say that there is no history of Moroccan sovereignty over the Sahara??!! Daryou 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>See sovereignty There are legal ties of allegiance between America and Bulgaria. Does that mean Bulgaria is American or that America is Bulgarian? Of course not. The Sultan could not impose allegiance, so he negotiated as equals with some Saharan tribes. He was never sovereign over them, or the entire region, and certainly wasn't directly prior to colonization. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the word "allegiance" in the page you linked above. Daryou 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>So? What are you talking about? Are you going to respond to my argument, or give some glib responses? Also notice that NATO is called the "North Atlantic Alliance, Atlantic Alliance or the Western Alliance" and the word "alliance" is the same as the word "allegiance." -Justin (koavf), talk 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Here goes

• Morocco has not historically claimed the Sahara - they didn't claim it until the late '50's. In fact, they denied any sovereignty over it for centuries [1] [2] [3].
• There is nothing about a non-neutral source that makes it invalid. It's still a source. No source is ever completely non-neutral, and there is no Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality of sources.
• You took out extensive explanation of the right to determination of the Sahrawis and the invalidity of annexation by Morocco and there is no reason or justification for it.
• You took out a reference to Moroccan invasion - why? They clearly invaded the territory; they don't just "control" it. Also, they didn't just annex it, they also militarily occupy it. You are taking out these terms of aggression to make Morocco appear more pacific than they really are; readers have a right to know these relevant facts and there is no justification for deleting them. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. I again refer to my last three points posted above, since they are not answered. But to avoid a double debate, I suggest we move on from Koavf's arguments. In addition to that (and this does not affect Koavf's argument on sources and bias), the Canadian Lawyers' Association for International Human Rights (CLAIHR) doesn't seem a biased source to me. Why would it be? Arre 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answers

• Well, I think that I already answered your three questions my dear Arre :) .
• Koavf, I see that you have some problems of English :) , so I'll help you a little bit.

• Here is the definition of Alliance: n 1: the state of being allied or confederated (syn: confederation) 2: a connection based on kinship or marriage or common interest; "the shifting alliances within a large family"; "their friendship constitutes a powerful bond between them" (syn: bond) 3: an organization of people (or countries) involved in a pact or treaty [syn: coalition, alignment, alinement] (ant: nonalignment) 4: a formal agreement establishing an association or alliance between nations or other groups to achieve a particular aim 5: the act of forming an alliance or confederation (syn: confederation)
• here is the defenition of Allegiance: 1. Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause. See Synonyms at fidelity. 2. The obligations of a vassal to a lord.

• We have already discussed about those treaties. If they said what your source said, Morocco wouldn't present them as an evidence before the ICJ. If you have the original treaties I'll be very pleased to read them.
• Thank you very much for your help, since now I'll use http://www.mincom.gov.ma/english/reg_cit/regions/sahara/s_hist.htm as source since there is no Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality of sources.
• I explained many times why I took out those partial interpretations of the ICJ verdict. I really don't understand why you refuse to expose exactlly what the ICJ said.
• Excuse me! The territory was ceded paecefully to Morocco and Mauritania by Spain.

Daryou 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Q&A: No, you have not answered my questions. You answered them by saying something along the lines of "read the text again", without commenting on what I said about the three points of the ICJ's verdict. If you think that is in the text, in an understandable fashion, show me.
• Reverts: Please stop this ridiculous reverting. What's the point? Let's agree on something FIRST and then change the article.
• "Ceded peacefully": First, Spain had no right to cede the territory, any more than France could have ceded Morocco to Italy (remember the Roman empire?). That was what the ICJ said, namely in the parts that you're deleting: that it is a question of self-determination, and must be solved as such. Furthermore, as 16 years of war prove, along with thousands of dead, there was nothing "peaceful" about it. I don't understand how you expect anyone to be convinced with this kind of reasoning.
• Mincom quote: What makes you think copy-pasting ten lines of Moroccan government propaganda would conform to ANY Wikipedia standard? Is that what we're doing? This is getting plainly absurd.

Arre 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Acting like a petulant jackass again You can't have problems "of" English, Daryou, but apparently you have problems with English. :) LOL hahaha There is neither need nor excuse for your tone, and the condescending way that you address me. If you want to have a civil discussion, let's. Just because Morocco presented them, that doesn't mean they were rational or correct. In point of fact, that's precisely why the ICJ found against them. Cite whatever source you want, I don't care. But the source that you mentioned is propaganda, whereas the sources I mentioned aren't. What in the world is a "partial interpretation"? Read the ICJ's site, and they give a breif that is identical to what I put in the article. The territory wasn't peacefully ceded, or else there wouldn't have been a war. War is the exact opposite of peace. I see you have English of troublesome. :) lol hahaha Plus, you had more spelling errors in the text. You have many troubles of Englishness :) lol. -Justin (koavf), talk 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Koavf, well, I see you can't discuss without resorting to intimidation and personal attacks. I'm Moroccan, I don't speak English fluently, my English level is intermediate as I said in my personal page. But you, you are American, you are a native English speaker, but you don't know the difference between "Allegiance" and "Alliance", what a shame!! Are you really a political science major? I don't think so |o| ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! And you dare talking about my so-called spelling errors? I wonder who is acting like a stupid petulant jackass.
• Just after the Green March, Spain ceeded the territory peacefully to Morocco and Mauritania. The article talk about the Green March not the 16 years war with polisario, those are two different things.
• Your sources are polisario propaganda, Mincom isn't.

Daryou 21:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Srupid? What does that word mean? Since I'm "a native English" I should know. Whatever, Daryou. The facts remain, you are taking out information, I'm not using intimidation, you introducing spelling, grammar, and capitalization errors, and Mincom is propaganda - how isn't it? -Justin (koavf), talk 21:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts remain that you don't know the difference between Alliance and Allegiance :) I'm not taking out information, you are using intimidation and personal attacks. I'm not introducing errors in the main article, and mincom isn't propaganda, your sources are propaganda. Daryou 21:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Okay. I'll just have to involve someone for mediation. Again. :) -Justin (koavf), talk 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start over...

This is not going anywhere, except towards mediation. Though I agree more or less completely with Justin's edits, you both need to calm down. The spelling/language issue is pointless, as are the insults, as are the reverts, and the misleading and/or rude edit summaries. Who cares which version is online for two or three hours, if it's going to be reverted anyway once this debate is completed? So let's focus on the debate, and leave the page at some point where we are all familiar with the content, and then do changes step-by-step. To improve the mood here, I think Daryou should accept that there may be some spelling errors in his texts, while Koavf really needs to respect that Daryou's not a native speaker, and not harass him over this. (And I need to stop sounding like my mom.)

• Mincom, the Moroccan government's own site, is of course propaganda, by every definition of the word, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a source - for what Morocco's government thinks and says. On the other hand, pasting hole chunks of text from it as fact, is obviously not how this should be done.
• Inserting that Western Sahara was "peacefully ... liberated" by Morocco is also betraying an agenda that is far more biased than your edits have been so far, Daryou. I think you've been trying to make that point all along, consistently in all of your edits, but you used to be better at hiding it.
• Questions remain above to be answered, with arguments, not reverts or insults.
• That's my input for today, and, yes, I think mediation could be a good thing. I was hoping we could settle this one through discussion (it has worked before!), but I've lost hope by now.

Ciao, Arre 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed this page is now unprotected. Does that mean mediation is over? I hope not, I think it was the right way to go, but I can understand if it was too much work. Either way, a big hand for Francis.

In either case, and to all concerned, including both Koavf and Daryou: please do not touch the page as it is now - no reverts, no small edits, no nothing. Let us instead work with the suggested compromises below and try to reach a decision through consensus along those lines. If there are some points we can't solve or agree on, or if new disputes arise during the process, then let's save that until last, and work together on as much as we can first. THEN we can start over where we were and eventually end up asking for mediation again. I think that's the most constructive way forward right now. Okay? Arre 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Fine with me I'll abide by changes as long as they are discussed on the talk page for consensus, or aren't radical. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, I hadn't intended to unprotect the page or finish the mediation, but when there is not any ongoing discussion, there is not much I can do. I'll leave the stuff below so if it gets out of hand again you can always re-request mediation. There's no point in leaving a page protected if people aren't hashing it out though :) -

FrancisTyers 08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. I think I have responded to all I should respond to, so I was kind of waiting for something to happen. But I'm not sure what... :-) When/if Daryou okays this procedure, I suggest we go through the present list of compromises from the top down. Arre 16:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I responded too. Maybe we are waiting for Koavf's comments about the suggested compromises. Or should the discussion be between me and Arre only? Daryou 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to should participate. Are you okay with the principles I mentioned above? Not touching the page or making any edits on the controversial subjects until we reach a solution on the talk page? If so, I think we should start going through Francis's suggested compromises one by one, starting with No. 1 -- any thoughts on that one? Arre 23:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump in and give my two cents. I won't discuss what has already reached a consensus, but I'll participate on the other issues. So where do we start?--Yobaranut 01:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK for me. I think that compromize 2 is already accepted by both of us. We can move on to the others. If Yobaranut or you have any proposition about the other disputed sentences it will be fine. Cheers. Daryou 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we're all agreed. There seem to be now 4 parties for the mediation. I'm going to move in compromise two into the text and remove it. I might do some reorganising and then we can restart :) -

1. The inclusion of the phrase "which Morocco had long claimed that it was historically an integral part of its territory" is a part of a larger propaganda campaign by Morocco to claim legitimacy over the Sahara. In point of fact, Morocco made few attempts to control the Sahara prior to their independence and certainly never actaully administered it. As proof of this assertion, I've linked the treaties from wsahara.net. I also personally own over a dozen maps of northwest Africa made from the 1890's through the 1910's. Starting in 1884, Spain colonized
   Sid Ifni, Tarfaya, Río de Oro and the Saguia el-Hamra. The latter two territories make up Spanish/Western Sahara
   . Río de Oro was colonized first, and Saguia el-Hamra later. All of my maps show Morocco ending well before these territories, and its territory dimishes to simple coastline by the Noun and Draa (the region directly north of Tarfaya). In other words, outside parties to the conflict (the maps are German and British) did not recognize effective sovereignty of Morocco over either province of Spanish/Western Sahara. The article on Greater Morocco is relevant, and it would be appropriate if it was in a "See also" section. It is inappropriate to put that Morocco has historically claimed the Sahara, as it has historically claimed to not control it, and third-party sources recognize this lack of sovereignty.
2. Mauritania's claim to the Sahara was identical to Morocco's - it was already Mauritanian prior to colonization. To quote from the ICJ web site "The territory at present under Spanish administration and the present territory of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania thus together constituted indissociable parts of a single entity and had legal ties with one another." The only difference between the Moroccan and Mauritanian claims was scope: Morocco claimed the entire territory, and Mauritania a portion of it.
3. The fact is that Polisario started winning the war, defeating Mauritania in 1979, and pushing Morocco back to the upper northwest corner by 1983. See
   Moroccan Wall
   ; Morocco built a defensive wall littered with landmines around the small section that it controlled and spread it out over much of the territory as it pushed back the Polisario. The lack of the word Sahrawi is also part of a larger smear campaign by Morocco to disassociate the Polisario from the feelings and aspirations of mainstream Sahrawis (e.g. claiming that Polisario is an Algerian plot, or Polisario is imprisoning people in refugee camps.) The UN visiting mission to Spanish Sahara found that there was overwhelming support for the Polisario among Sahrawis, outside sources routinely claim that Polisario represent their interests, and the UN and OAU/AU recognize them as the legitimate representative of this nationalistic movement.
4. The dispute over this phrase "and that these contacts were not extensive enough to support either country's demand for annexation of the Spanish Sahara" is simply resolved by the ICJ breif on their site: "[T]he Court finds that neither the internal nor the international acts relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant period of either the existence or the international recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Moroccan State," and "Spain did not proceed upon the basis that it was establishing its sovereignty over terrae nullius," and lastly "[The Court] concludes that the decolonization process envisaged by the General Assembly is one which will respect the right of the population of Western Sahara to determine their future political status by their own freely expressed will." So, to whit, Morocco did not own the territory, someone did own the territory, and the Sahrawis have a right to self-determination. All three of these findings contradict a right or privelege to annexation.
5. -
6. The phrase "during its history" is identical to the historical claim above. The Sultan is not merely "Commander of the Believers," so inserting the word "as" is appropriate, considering his other duties.
7. This passage is frankly unintelligible, but I believe that it is trying to make some kind of religious motivation for annexation. The Istiqlal Party made a purely political and historical claim to the Sahara, rather than religious.
8. As I understand it, Ammoun was an ad hoc judge added by Morocco anyway, so it's not exactly surprising that he was convinced. Writing "the allegiance act is synonymous with sovereignty" is the definition of the Moroccan POV.
9. This phrase is unintelligible.
10. Ditto
11. Claiming "liberation" is totally inappropriate. They liberated them by bombing civilians and using napalm on fleeing refugees? You've got to be kidding me - they occupied the territory, kicked people out of their homes, and gave Moroccans subsidies to move there. Liberation is the opposite of what happened here; that's precisely why the vast majority of the Sahrawi population live in Algerian refugee camps. I have no idea why you would want to delete the fact that the war never ended and the UN is monitoring a cease-fire. This seems like relevant and important information.

Thanks. -Justin (koavf), talk 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion - Arre

First, my thanks to Francis for taking control of this mess once again. You will go to admin heaven one day.

I agree with most of what Koavf said, but not exactly all, and my priorities are somewhat different. I'll post a longer reply later, but right now I just want to point out that discussion points 6, 7 and 8 all revolve around a paragraph that was copied directly from the Moroccan government's site, www.mincom.com. This brings a problem of bias and of copyright. If the information on this needs to be included, it should at least be rewritten.

Personally, I don't think we need these huge amounts of information on historical claims at all, and I see something of a rerun of the Sahrawi-page conflict here. As long as there are short summaries of the intentions of each party, and they are not incorrect, I'm happy. The main subject of the article should be the march itself - its immediate causes, the way it played out, and what effects it had. Other stuff is better resolved in separate articles.

I advise everyone to look at the way this article was before this war started (Jan 9). I wrote that, and I deliberately tried to bring in as little of the medieval background as possible -- it's not relevant to the subject, and it will provoke conflict. Could we not settle for something along those lines, with whatever changes are deemed necessary? Perhaps like this:

Rabat had long demanded that Spanish Sahara, which it argued was historically a part of the country, unite with Morocco, instead of being granted independence.

I don't think it has to be more complicated than that. As for other stuff (liberation, occupation, ICJ etc), I'll get back to it. Arre 11:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My eleven:

• 1. Not important, though Option 1 needs rewording.
• 2. Not important, should be same wording as for Morocco (both argued that it "was in fact" theirs legally/morally, and had been taken from them, and "should become" theirs again officially).
• 3. "Sahrawi" can go anywhere in the sentence, as long as it's in there so that it's clear who Polisario wanted to represent. About the handover negotiations, they took place in several instances, I think most prominently between El-Ouali and Franco's Foreign Minister, Salazar, in Mahbes in late (September?) 1975. The Polisario-Spain negotiations are covered in more detail in Hodges 1983, though I don't remember the exact pages. Use that (or Hodges/Pazzanito) as reference if the wsahara-page is not considered reliable enough. Additionally, here's a Spanish page, here's a French one, and there's another Spanish (cached). (I reserve the right to have misunderstood any or all of these links ;-)
• 4. Option 2 explains what the ruling meant, while Option 1 just mystifies the reader, and so there's no question which one I prefer. But the part on Hassan's (stated) interpretation - which is present in Option 1 and discussed in Dispute 5 -- must also be there, both because it gives the context for the Green March, and to accurately represent the Moroccan POV. So, my argument for Option 2 here, assumes that Dispute 5 is resolved in favor of this statement.
• 5. See 4.
• 6, 7, 8: Remove completely. We don't need to go into detail on why Morocco believed WS is historically Moroccan, any more than we have to go into detail on why Polisario believed it was not. The important thing is that we state their opinions, and those of other important actors (Spain, UN/ICJ etc). Their detailed background arguments are covered in other articles, or should be -- for example in Greater Morocco. Also, this is essentially just a copied quote from the Moroccan government's Mincom-page, even though I noticed someone has been kind enough to modify it a little bit to fit the text. (But the heading, I just noticed, remains a parody of NPOV :-)
• 9. That there was fighting on Oct 31 is not seriously disputed by anyone, and I don't see what the point of this is. If the source is really a problem, use for example thisinstead then. It's all over the web, and in all the books.
• 10. CLAIHR is not, to the best of my knowledge, a partial source, and being posted on ARSO doesn't make it so either. The report is probably on their homepage anyway. However, I just used that report because I was asked to document that fishing rights were included in the agreement, and then transferred it to this page as source by pure routine. It is not intended as a source for the existence of the accords themselves. That the Madrid Accords carved up WS between Mauritania and Morocco, that it was (initially) secret and that it granted economic concessions to Spain, is undisputed. So, what should be sourced?
• 11. Option 2, obviously.

One more comment: Now both Daryou and Koavf have said that Mauritania from the very beginning only sought the southern half of Western Sahara. This is completely new to me, and I've heard numerous claims to the contrary. My impression, and I think that of all books/papers/pages I've read on the WS conflict, is that Mauritania settled for half only after it became clear that they couldn't get all (just like Morocco did). If this is not so, I would like to see a source just out of pure interest, and if it is suggested for inclusion in the text (is it?), then we really need one.

And a tip: this page I think could be very useful to source the whole page. Also check out the rest of the FMO's articles, links and facts on Western Sahara.

That's all for now, - Arre 19:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Compromise 11

Waitwaitwait, I'm not clear on what's going on. Is this the part where "invaded" was removed in favor of "annexed"? That I object to in the strongest possible terms, it's pure whitewashing. Arre 01:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is compromise 11.

• Invaded: To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
• Annexed: To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city.

I take your point regarding whitewashing. That is not however the only difference between the compromise and the other versions. How about something along the lines of forcibly annexed or militarily annexed? If you can think of better terms I'd be willing to hear them. -

FrancisTyers 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps it would be best to use both? "Militarily invaded and annexed" etc. But you can pick whatever sounds best to you, as long as the invasion element is not deleted. Arre 02:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, neither of the disputed versions include this.

1. Morocco claimed and liberated the northern part, i.e. Saguia el-Hamra and minor parts of Río de Oro, while Mauritania proceeded to annex the southern third of the country under the name Tiris al-Gharbiyya. However The Polisario, with Algerian backing, refused the Madrid Accords, and argued that the ICJ's opinion on Sahrawi self-determination should be respected and began a long war with Morocco and Mauritania.
2. Morocco claimed the northern part, i.e.
   UN-brokered cease-fire
   .

Could you outline how you think the paragraph should be written? How about writing what happened? e.g. Moroccan armed forces crossed the border into Western Sahara and proceeded to take control of the area by force. I'm sure you could provide a more lucid example :) -

FrancisTyers 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

use babelfish, and you'll get a good clue. i've offered you help to get around the moroccan censorship, but you say you don't want it: don't blame me for not being able to read it, then. and, btw, i thought you spoke spanish? Arre 23:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I don't speak Spanish at all. And babelfish gives bad quality traduction. The subject is very sensible and the wording is important. I hope that you understand. Can you provide a neutral French or English page please? Cheers.

Really. I still suggest you try Babelfish, since it was quite comprehensible to me, or agree to read the ARSO pages. Arre 23:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used a traduction program for the Spanish version (systranet) :). We are looking for sources better than the English ARSO pages, Remember.

Most of this (all of this?) is just documents from other sources posted via ARSO. You don't know that because you can't read them, and you can't read them because you don't want to. I have a really hard time respecting that argument. Either way, much of what you're disputing is found in other sources above. And finally: if you have a translator good enough to write with, I'm sure you could read with it too. Right? Arre 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Most of this is just documents from other sources posted via ARSO, why don't you post those documents from their original sources? I translated the spanish pages and I didn't find what you are talking about, maybe I misunderstood, can you show me exactly the sentences? Daryou 19:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the documents, you know you can have them. I've offered to help you three times. About the French/Spanish pages: If you can't find references to Polisario-Spain negotiations in those texts, I suggest you search for words like "Salazar", "Polisario", "Mahbes" or something similar. But I'm fully convinced now that you're only doing this to obstruct. You're showing no interest what so ever in what is the truth of the matter, or what the sources say, or in bringing in your own sources for what you believe is wrong or missing. You're just making up new ways to stop us editing or forcing the removal of material. I've had it with that attitude, and this is my last post in this thread. Arre 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for personal attacks, you don't have the right to prejudge my intentions. You don't have the monopoly of the truth, no-one have. At all events there is now a mediation, and I believe in the good faith of Francis. Daryou 20:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the disputed texts

1. The sentence "Morocco, to the north of the Spanish Sahara, had long claimed that the territory was historically an integral part of Morocco" is included in Koavf's version, I just copy-edited it into the introduction.
2. I agree with Koavf, Morocco claimed the entire territory, and Mauritania a portion of it. By then I think that we accept Francis compromise.
3. I agree with Francis, in such a case a better sources is necessary.
4. I just copy edited from the ICJ verdict. ICJ never said that "and that these contacts were not extensive enough to support either country's demand for annexation of the Spanish Sahara". I suggest to use ICJ verdict wording without any explanation since this verdict was interpreted differently. Let WPians make their own opinion.
5. The sentence is about what Hassan II thought about ICJ verdict, adding the sentence "with no mention...." is political and redundant since it was said before.
6. I just copy edited from Mincom and said: "according to Morocco", I don't see the similarity with the "historical" thing above.
7. similar to previous point.
8. Will koavf prove that Ammoun was the only one? And remember that he was the Vice-President of the court.
9. Similar to previous: better source needed.
10. A direct link to Lawyers association site is better, however the compromise wording seems good to me.
11. I accept the compromise if Koavf and Arre accept it.

Compromises

• Dispute 1: I really don't see any need for citations, according to Koavf: Morocco claimed at least since the 1950's the territory as an integral part.
• Dispute 11: The word "annexed" is used in the CIA fact book. There is also the word "reintegrated" used in Minurso page. Daryou 19:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daryou, I removed your votes for the other compromises as they aren't currently ready. They are merely preliminary. Regarding dispute 11, I think it needs much more work, and I don't think the others are happy with the rest... yet. -

FrancisTyers 19:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I will be collecting evidence below, please do not comment until I am finished. -

FrancisTyers 00:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

1. according to partial sources is not a reasonable way of complaining about sources, if the source is rejected - which I think in some cases there is reasonable grounds to do, a better source should be found,
2. For articles such as the CLAIHR one, the information should be attributed, for example: According to an investigation by the Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights (CLAIHR), this resulted in the November 14 Madrid Accords. The Madrid Accords were a secret pact which divided Spanish Sahara between Mauritania and Morocco, in return for a 35% concession in the phosphate mines of Bu Craa, and Spanish fishing rights offshore [4].

With the wsahara.net sources where they are not just duplicating an official report, we should find better sources. -

1. The Green March was a peaceful mass demonstration in November 1975, coordinated by the Moroccan government, to force Spain to hand over the disputed colony of Spanish Sahara (now Western Sahara) which Morocco had long claimed that it was historically an integral part of its territory.
2. The Green March was a peaceful mass demonstration in November 1975, coordinated by the Moroccan government, to force Spain to hand over the disputed colony of Spanish Sahara (now Western Sahara) to Morocco (see Greater Morocco.)

• which Morocco had long claimed that it was historically an integral part of its territory.
• (see Greater Morocco.)

Dispute 2

Oh, hold it. I'm sorry, but as I said above, I am NOT okay with this. Mauritania argued for THE WHOLE of the territory, and I have not heard anything to the contrary, despite asking both Daryou and Koavf for sources. Please just remove the words "part of" from the sentence, or source them -- I have no problem whatsoever with the rest of this.

The source we have right now for this statement (the ICJ summary) describes both Mauritania and Morocco as claiming the entire territory, but also in the final parts records that at later stages of the proceedings, they seemed to have changed their stances, so both claimed part of the territory ("Although their views appeared to have evolved considerably in that respect, the two States both stated at the end of the proceedings that there was a north appertaining to Morocco and a south appertaining to Mauritania without any geographical void in between, but with some overlapping as a result of the intersection of nomadic routes."). So, if Mauritania should be described as claiming "part of" the territory, so should Morocco. There's no difference between them here, and I can't see another possible reason for this addition than trying to portray Mauritania's demands as weaker than Morocco's.

Sorry for interrupting when we were finally making progress, but I consider this particular addition to be both factually wrong and politically motivated. Without a source stronger than the ICJ, I really can't accept it. - Arre 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man, if a jobs doing, its worth doing right. I've reverted that version. As a matter of interest what sources would be better than the ICJ? -

FrancisTyers 06:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Can't think of one. Possibly official Mauritanian government documents, but I doubt there's much of that online. Thanks for reverting and being so understanding :-) Arre 06:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The ICJ can (and should) be used as a source for this, if we remove the part about Mauritania not claiming all of WS. That's exactly what the ICJ doc says. Arre 06:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, can you supply a wording (with source) that you would be happy including verbatim, then we can check with Daryou and the other participants to see if they have any changes or comments they would like to make. -

FrancisTyers 09:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

As it is now, but with the ICJ summary as source. I only had a problem with the two words "part of", and those are now deleted. Arre 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute 3

1. Since 1973, a guerrilla war led by the Polisario Front had challenged Spanish control with some success, and in October 1975 Spain had quietly begun negotiations for a handover of power with leaders of the rebel movement, according to partial sources[5].
2. Since 1973, a Sahrawi guerrilla war led by the Polisario Front had challenged Spanish control with increasing success, and in October 1975 Spain had quietly begun negotiations for a handover of power with leaders of the rebel movement.[6]

• according to partial sources
• Sahrawi guerrilla war

Dispute 4

1. However the ICJ stated also that there was no ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory and Morocco or Mauritania at the time of Spanish colonization. By then the court stated that those legal ties don't affect the principle of
   Hassan II
   as a vindication of his position, and within hours of the ICJ verdict's release, he announced the initiative of the "Green March" to Spanish Sahara, to "reunite it with the Motherland".
2. However the ICJ stated also that there was no ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory and Morocco or Mauritania at the time of Spanish
   UN visiting mission
   had concluded on October 15, the day before the ICJ verdict was released, that Sahrawi support for independence was "overwhelming".

• and that these contacts were not extensive enough to support either country's demand for annexation of the Spanish Sahara

Dispute 5

1. ?
2. However, the reference to previous Moroccan-Sahrawi ties of allegiance was presented by
   Organization of African Unity
   in 1982. Within hours of the ICJ verdict's release, he announced the organizing of a "green march" to Spanish Sahara, to "reunite it with the Motherland".

Dispute 6

1. According to Morocco, the exercise of Sovereignty by the Moroccan State during its history which is characterized by a number of peculiarities due to the particular structure of the State. The central power is exerted by the Sultan, "Commander of the Believers".
2. According to Morocco, the exercise of sovereignty by the Moroccan state is characterized by a number of peculiarities due to the particular structure of the state. The central power was exerted by the Sultan, as "Commander of the Believers".

• during its history which
• as

Dispute 7

1. The acceptation of the Sultan's person by the believers is made through the "Beyaa", or allegiance. The obedience which, translated into inter-temporal terms, emanates from the traditional efforts binding a State to its nationals so long as the Sultan remains faithful to the precepts of the Coran.
2. Ties of allegiance to the Sultan by the believers is made through the "Beyaa", or a pledge of allegiance.

• The obedience which, translated into inter-temporal terms, emanates from the traditional efforts binding a State to its nationals so long as the Sultan remains faithful to the precepts of the Coran.

Dispute 8

1. Therefore, the allegiance act is synonymous with sovereignty. Besides, this has been confirmed by Judge Ammoun in his opinion relating to the judgment of the ICJ on the Sahara.[7]
2. It was argued that the allegiance act is consequently synonymous with sovereignty. Only one of the 15 judges, Ammoun, found this argument persuasive[8].

Dispute 9

1. In preparation for the march,
   Moroccan Army forces crossed the border to engage the Polisario on October 31, according to partial sources[9]
   .
2. In preparation for the march,
   Moroccan Army forces crossed the border to engage the Polisario on October 31[10]
   .

1. This resulted in the November 14
   Bu Craa, and Spanish fishing rights offshore, according to partial sources [11]
   .
2. This resulted in the November 14
   Bu Craa, and Spanish fishing rights offshore[12]
   .

1. Morocco claimed and liberated the northern part, i.e. Saguia el-Hamra and minor parts of Río de Oro, while Mauritania proceeded to annex the southern third of the country under the name Tiris al-Gharbiyya. However The Polisario, with Algerian backing, refused the Madrid Accords, and argued that the ICJ's opinion on Sahrawi self-determination should be respected and began a long war with Morocco and Mauritania.
2. Morocco claimed the northern part, i.e.
   UN-brokered cease-fire
   .

• and liberated, to annex the southern third of the country,
• and so began a long, still unsettled war. Currently, there is a
  UN-brokered cease-fire
  .

Suggested compromises

Dispute 1

• The Green March was a peaceful mass demonstration in November 1975, coordinated by the Moroccan government, to force Spain to hand over the disputed colony of Spanish Sahara (now Western Sahara) which Morocco had long claimed that it was historically an integral part of its territory ^{[citation needed]} (see Greater Morocco).

Dispute 9

• In preparation for the march, Moroccan Army forces crossed the border on October 31 where they met with resistance from the guerillas of the Polisario Front [13].

Dispute 10

• According to an investigation by the Canadian Lawyers Association for International Human Rights, this resulted in the November 14
  Bu Craa, and Spanish fishing rights offshore [14]
  .

• 02. Arre, Daryou
• 11. ?

In a 2005 documentary I just saw in TVE, the SADR representant and two "friends of the Sahrawi people" said that simultaneously to the well-reported mass of civilians entering through the Atlantic side of the border, there were Moroccan troops entering through the Eastern side (Mahbas), who had orders to respect Spaniards but commited atrocities against Sahrawi civilians. This Eastern column was not under press survey.

The only mention of this in the article is:

In preparation for the march, Moroccan Army forces crossed the border to engage the Sahrawi nationalist goup the Polisario Front on October 31[1] as preparations were underway for the march

If you can reach a consensus, the article should note if there was a parallel column and if the SADR accuses them of atrocities. --Error 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting This is the first I've heard of this. If you can find more information, please let me know. In the meantime, please add this to the body of the article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, what happened after the marchers reached the border? Did they marching into Spanish Sahara? If so, what happened then? The article doesn't say! EthanHerd 06:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleuos of Loyalty Nucleo de Lealtad

Could be certain, because the spanish and saharawis troop intented to dynamite emblematic bulidings, not understanding the orders of abandon and left the metroploitan province of Sahara, created from nothing with the pacts with local owners, and in process of autonomy for a transition to democratic independence, with a republc or a Kingdom, type Malaysia, turning the Chief of clans families Tribes on the Throne. comment added by ([- bonnie prince charlie yt-])

Possibly (yo.tu) said

Also are the legitimist descendent of the Blue Sultan, that became to the Throne with their pro-polisario actitude. REAL ORDEN DE LA LEGITIMIDAD PROSCRITA . Royal order

Is the name of the term on european circles, and soanish language. Marcha verte in french pro-sultan circles. Marcha verte is a simil of hasta mas ver.Sarcastic remark Marcha verte refer to the saharaui massacred civils

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green March. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304135615/http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_jeune_afrique.asp?art_cle=LIN02113hassaetreve0 to http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_jeune_afrique.asp?art_cle=LIN02113hassaetreve0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonthefox3: you inserted a ref tag with the name "Meneses", but with no definition or clues to find one. Diff is here. Please either fill it out or remove it. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i removed it. Bonthefox3 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]