Talk:Sahrawis/Archive 1

What about "According to Polisario, soveriengty was also was explicitly denied by Moroccan ...", as the sourses are pro-polisario? By the way should I use this page as a source? I think that Koavf will never accept.Daryou 20:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, your wording suggests that only Polisario thinks this and this is clearly not the case. It might be worded, According to the partial texts of the following treaties...? You can use whatever sources you like for now, in order to provide a well sourced article. Personally I think its better to use less obviously biased sources (e.g. I would scrap any source from wsahara.net or the Moroccan government - unless it was explicitly being quotes, and just use sources from Amnesty, the UN, HRW, ICJ etc.). However for now a source is better than no source. -

FrancisTyers 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I must admit that it is tempting to remove this from the article until reliable links to the full text of the treaties is found. -

FrancisTyers 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

===>Let's be consistent If you look at the links on any controversial page, you will see pro- and anti-X material. For instance, abortion. I have no problem with mentioning the Moroccan position, or linking to the Moroccan government's site, but the content of the article should make it clear that the ICJ, and all states in the world deny the validity of Moroccan sovereignty in the region. Furthermore, the article is "Sahrawi", not "Moroccan government propaganda", so the interests, positions, and experiences of Sahrawis take precedence over what the Moroccan government has to say. If you can intelligibly and relevantly mention the Moroccan position, that's great. Justin (koavf) 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point I was trying to make is that in the question of sovereignty there should be so many fairly neutral sources (UN, ICJ etc.) that it really is unnecessary to have explicitly pro-Sahrawi sources. After all, the Moroccan government is pretty alone in its point of view. -

FrancisTyers 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I beleive in your good faith but I see that you used the word "pro-Sahrawi", that's the problem, there is a confusion between Western Sahara and the SADR-Polisario, the conflict isn't between Morocco and Saharawis but between Morocco and Polisario. I agree with Koavf in one thing; the article is "Sahrawi" not "Polisario Propaganda". Morocco basees his claim upon the territory on the legal ties of allegiance which linked WS to Morocco during centuries, the ICJ said that there was no Moroccan souvreinty simply because WS was occupied by Spain when the ICJ juged the issue. This page is neutrally sourced (you can check it). WP is first of all an organ of information not of moral jugement, WP must report facts not POVs. In this conflict there is two versions of the history, the Moroccan one and the Polisario one. Let's write a facts article. I agree with Francis, only fairly neutral sources should be used. I never refused to use supposed neutral soureced information ever the HRW report. wsahara.net and similar sites shouldn't be used as sources in this article. Daryou 23:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a rewording as suggested above by Francis, I think it's OK now. Daryou 16:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there has been something of an edit blitzkrieg here... I've been away for only a few days, and there's already an archived talk page :-) I'm not sure I follow what has happened so far, but I'll try to read up. Since I wrote most of this article, I would like to make one point about the last paragraph, on tribal allegiances etc.

I intentionally tried to steer this paragraph away from the sovereignty debate, for four reasons:

• 1. The article is about the whole Sahrawi people, not about the modern territory of Western Sahara. Sahrawi history is not confined to this area, and the Sahrawis are not only the people in/from modern Western Sahara, as both Polisario and Morocco will agree. The ICJ debate, however, exclusively focuses on this limited section of Sahrawis, since they were the inhabiting indigenous people and held a possible right to self-determination.
• 2. Several pages already detail the question of Western Sahara's independence, and are better suited to continue that debate. Most or all of them are referred to from this page.
• 3. The point I really wanted to make with this paragraph, which I believe is incredibly important to understanding Sahrawi history and society, is that the Sahrawis were traditionally fully tribal. They lived in a tribal system, and this shaped their society and culture, as there was no central government, and everything was related to the tribe. This does not imply anything for the sovereignty debate, but it is tremendously important for the article. It would be a shame if this was drowned out or edited to pieces by yet another debate on the ICJ ruling. I hope everyone is aware that there is a special page on that verdict, and that any conflicting interpretations of it could be described there, instead of ballooning all over this page.
• 4. Fear of edit wars that would damage the content and style of the article. QED.

Arre 17:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Feel free to split out that argument or use {{details|<pagename>}} to cut down the section and provide a link. Western Sahara soveriegnty debate might be a possible page name?

2. They should be referred to very clearly.

3. I understand.

4. Regarding edit wars, you could edit the section to how you want it in your userspace or on a subpage of this article and then we could look at it on the talk page to try and reach consensus. -

FrancisTyers 17:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

• Foreign relations of Western Sahara
• Western Sahara
• Human rights in Western Sahara (a tiny stub that I recently started)
• Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, etc.

But I'm certainly not opposed to another article, as long as it doesn't simply regurgitate the plain facts of the others. I simply mentioned the Palestinians, since they are in a largely parallel situation, being militarily occupied refugees. Justin (koavf) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sensible thing (imho) is having one article to discuss the sovereignty issue rather than many. Would you agree? -

FrancisTyers 22:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually I was thinking where

FrancisTyers 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

===>Some of those make sense For instance, "English" is a language, as well as a people. Moreover, I can understand what you're saying though, as there is apparently no standard (at least not one to which everyone is adhering.) Justin (koavf) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Francis. Daryou 20:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

===>Why? Do you care to explain your reasoning? Justin (koavf) 22:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said that I completely agree with Francis, that means that my reasoning is similar to his one. Daryou 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, the

FrancisTyers 22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is so long ("This page is 32 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see Wikipedia:Article size"). Maybe it would be better to copy-edit the human rights section into the specific article. What do you think? Daryou 19:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Wikipedia has many other Human_rights_in_X articles. -

FrancisTyers 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Cheers. Daryou 22:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article down to a more concise, historically focused and neutral article on Sahraoua Hassaniya tribes. While this may be expanded and built on for clarity, it removes the ahistorical orientation of the original text. (collounsbury 04:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

===>Wha? You haven't edited this article at all. Are you confusing this with something else? -Justin (koavf), talk 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience child, I am have not saved it as of yet. Had second thoughts. (collounsbury 05:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I note for the inevitable "wha" that I removed a block of argumentative and uncited text that merely spoke to "polisario going good secular things" as well as repitious text re tribes, etc. (collounsbury 06:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I also note I tried to merge with Arre edits interveing while I was editing but may have fucked up.

a) Behave. Koavf has done nothing to deserve your harassment. Whatever political differences you may have with him (or me), he's the reason most of the material on Western Sahara exists at all.

b) Your latest edit brings loads of valuable info to the page but deletes even more (again: we are not constrained by lack of space. If you disagree with something, edit in the opposite view or contradicting sources instead of deleting sourced info). Also, it removes fact markers and stuff like that, which are on the page because of a drawn out editing war, and shouldn't be touched. In addition to that, as it stands now it needs a massive cleanup. There are broken links, jumbled sentences and misspellings all over the page. This is the problem with the kinds of massive edits you've made; I want to keep a lot of it, remove some of it, restore a lot of what was there before, and merge other parts. But there's just too much to handle in a single reedit.

c) So, my suggestion is that you revert it yourself, save it somewhere, and start dropping it in a couple of paragraphs at the time (after a spelling check). Otherwise we'll just end up with a revert war, mediation, vote and a page that looks and reads like shit. None the happier. Arre 06:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have hardly harassed [personal attack removed -

FrancisTyers 18:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)], his interjection came, I responded. As for removing large amounts of text, I removed text that had fuck all to do with the ethnic/cultural issues and was merely special pleading for the political issue, as in e.g. the Sov. issue (which I boiled down to something relevant to ethnicity and the history at the very least). (collounsbury 18:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply

]

Oh, and also, we have to decide what perspective to use. This article was about, and I think should be about, Sahrawis. There's another page on Moors. I agree that the distinction is hard to make, and the reasons for that should be very clear from what we write in both articles. Your edit seems to be going in the direction of an article on Hassaniya speaking tribes in general, which is fine, but then the Sahrawi and Moorish pages should go. That has its merits, but it would be immensely confusing for someone trying to figure out who lives in Western Sahara (or Mauritania) today.

I think that, since there's a lot of political attention to the Western Saharan Sahrawis (as opposed to Mauritanian Moors), one solution could be to create a three-way split, to get to keep all relevant information in one easily accessible page:

• 1.
  Sahrawi people
  . A page on the political concept of a Sahrawi people as defined by the different sides in modern time, on the controversies surrounding this concept, and the differing views of its history, demographics etc. Does not extensively deal with culture, pre-modern historical background, etc, and also clearly states the difficulties in distinguishing Sahrawis from Moors, and how they are historically parts of the same community. Used as the nationality article for Western Sahara.

• 2. Moorish people. As above, but for the Mauritanian Moorish community. Used as the nationality article for Mauritania.

• 3.
  Sahrawi people and Moorish people
  .

What say ye? Arre 07:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit, and I was getting tired at the end, was trying to walk a neutral line on the issue of the politics ( nationalism). The proposed three way split bothers me as it assumes a POV. I would think covering the Hassaniya Arabic speaking Saharan tribes can be done in one spot, with a note on political aspirations of some sub grouping. If you look at the original article you see a whole set of paragraphs of "special pleading" of why the Sahrawi are not to be confused with the "Moors" (itself a term that is less used than Beidan etc., the sub div) - a distinction simply is a modern political boot-strapping of an ethnic argument for indepedence (and not needed as quite simply the political argument stands on its, while the ethnic argument needs ahistorical and illogical hand waving). That being said, one could split out. (collounsbury 18:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I should note that I tried to deliberately integrate into the existing information (which was higher quality, non-politically driven) on the Hassaniya Arabic speakers (as in the language, the Haratine which I personally upgraded, etc.), rather than have a stand-alone political article. (collounsbury 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To expand on my note re inappropriate "special pleading" let me cite this paragraph

Post-colonial concept of "people" The difficulties in separating the Moorish and Sahrawi communities by ethnic, cultural or linguistic criteria does not necessarily negate the Sahrawi claims of being a people. Shared cross-border ethnicity is in fact very common in Africa, and indeed the entire post-colonial world. For example: the Arabness of both Egypt and Libya does not imply that the concept of an Egyptian and a Libyan people are invalid; nor does the Germanness of both Germans and Austrians (and some Swiss!) deny the modern existence of the German and Austrian peoples, in a social, cultural, political and legal meaning."

The paragraph is effectively special pleading for the Polisario POV, is explicetely phrased as a POV argument and frankly was just plopped down in the midst of the collection of text (I hesitate to call it an article, as articles should have a logical flow, thus my hostility to para by para edits - that's bad authoring). I am not hostile to the information contained therin (as such, although in fact each of the examples are highly debatable, and many Egyptians and Libyans would indeed argue that their Arabness does deny a specific people - the identity situ is complex to say the least), mind you, only to its poorly written and special pleading for a POV. In my edit I integrated the thought behind this by simply mentioning that colonial rule had led to distinguishing of the populations. Thus conveying in a neutral manner similar information. (collounsbury 18:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think I once wrote that, or much of it, and I agree it wasn't very well put. My motivation for having something of the kind in the article is that I felt (back then) that I had just gone on and on about how Moors and Sahrawis are the same people really, and how this is just a modern and political distinction. Which of course raises two issues: why and how would people still talk about a Sahrawi people as opposed too Moors (answer: because that's the way Africa is, and because of politics), and why there should be two separate articles for Moors and Sahrawis at all. Which is what I raised above: should there really?

Assuming there should be two articles, they should focus on what separates these two groups or peoples (i.e. politics, modern history, group demographics & their roles in Mauritania & WS/Morocco/Algeria respectively), and stick their similarities and common history on a third page to emphasize their common heritage. That was my suggestion above. I think this position is best. The issue of nationality and/or peoplehood is as political, as historical, as non-genetical and precisely as sensitive as it is with the Palestinian people - also a product of modern colonial history.

(I further don't agree that this distinction is a Polisario POV, even though I do agree it is largely an ideological or historico-political construction: Morocco also talks about Sahrawis (as in Moroccan Sahrawis, sequestered Sahrawis, poor kidnapped Sahrawis, ungrateful demonstrating Sahrawis, fake Sahrawis - really Malian-Touareg-Algerian mercenaries - etc), so does Mauritania (as in Sahrawi refugees in Mauritania), so does a sizable chunk of citizens of northern Mauritania (WS refugees & non-refugees who self-identify as Sahrawis), so does the UN, and so does blah blah. My point is that even if they were one and the same once, and they more or less were, "Sahrawi" and "Moor" are established as separate national identities today - because of the political dispute. This concept of "peoples" may not hold much weight scientifically (distinguishing DNA strands etc, or even culture and history), but then again, neither does Palestinian, or Syrian as opposed to being Levantine Arab.)

But if we still decide we shouldn't have two/three different articles, even then do we need a new name (who looks for "Moor" under "Sahrawi"?). The present situation, with you editing this page towards a general treatment of Hassaniya tribes when it's supposed to deal only with the Sahrawi part of that population, doesn't hold. Either you start focusing on Sahrawis, starting by us defining in the article what that is, or we move it all to Hassaniya tribes. Arre 11:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wished to add returning to this after almost a year that the article is vastly improved. collounsbury 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me link to an issue that needs to be fixed with respect to Mauretania, link to the Mauritania talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mauritania#Spelling_in_Romanisation Our [personal attack removed -

I don't care which spelling is used, but we shouldn't use two spellings for the same thing on one page. Arre 11:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word Sahrawi just means "person of the Sahara", just like Marrakshi is "a person from Marrakesh" and Ifrani "a person from Ifran". The word is not restricted to a specific part of the Sahara. It does not refer exclusively to nomads or Arab speaking people either. S710 09:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Have you ever seen the word "Sah(a)rawi" used in English for anyone other than the ethnic group of Moorish Berber-Arabs that speak Hassaniya? Are you going somewhere with this? "Arab" means someone who speaks Arabic, so if a Chinese national or a Canadian citizen born in India speak Arabic that doesn't make the Semitic people group of Arabs cease to exist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 11:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the meaning of ethnic here ? of the same race ? of the same gene pool ? All Sahrawi are white/black/in between ? S710 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Early History - Part is not based on authorative sources. The two footnotes refer to anonymous texts. It is full of inaccuracies.S710 19:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word Sahrawi is not especially reserved for the nomad population of the Sahara.S710 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would have a hard time arguing this point with the Nomads who call themselves Sahrawi. I have just returned from spending a few weeks traveling with them and they do consider ONLY nomads as Sahrawi. They make a very strong point that Berbers, mountain tribes etc. are NOT Sahrawi. Only nomads. Jwphil 9 Feb 2007

What the nomadic Sahraouine consider to be proper usage is not necessarily general, I'd advise mere travellers to not to lap up everything partisan parties tell you. That being said, general usage in the Maghreb applies Sahraoui largely to Hassaniyah speaking tribes who are generally desert (Sahara) nomads. Wikipedia, whatever its low standards, should phrase it along those lines. collounsbury 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the part that says that EURGUEBAT NO ARAB IS LIE, THE ARABS ARE ERGUEBAT descendants of the Prophet. BOOKS AND MANY SAY IT. FOR EXAMPLE; History of the Spanish Sahara, Spanish Sahara: History of a colonial adventure, and also the Wikipedia article about ERGUEBAT A GREETING EThis section describes a situation that was only current in some parts of Mauretania in the 19th century. It cannot be used as a description of the current society of Western Sahara.S710 23:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wonder if you have ever spent time with the Saharawi, or are you just referencing a text of some sort. I can tell you that at least most of what is said regarding the two main distinctions of Nomad / Black man is accurate. And they do draw distinctions between tribal types. There probably could be some more refined editing for this portion but to outright say it is a 19th century phenomenon is to overstate the issue. Jwphil 8 Feb 2007

Nomad-Black Man? You mean Noble-Servile if you wish to translate. But indeed, the divisions described continue to exist, especially in rural populations. collounsbury 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although vastly improved over past versions, there are a number of queer factual errors. (i) Most queerly on the issue of Moroccan Sahraoui, the claim is made that Hassan II in 2000 refused to hold a referendum. This would be an odd occurance, insofar has Hassan II died in 1999. The cite does not appear to work. (ii)In the Demography / Ethnic section reference is made to the Tamazight berber language. The prevalent Berber dialect/language in the southern region is Chleuh (Tachelhit) or Shleuh to use anglophone transliteration. (iii) I see no basis for the dispute as to the social and ethnic hierarchy, which seems phrased in accurate and neutral terms (iv) Although not an inaccuracy as such, it would be good to conform the transliterations, which are a queer mix of English and French usages - e.g. Chorfa versus sheikh. While useful to give French and even Spanish alternatives, giving them alone for English langauge readers is likely to cause confusion. collounsbury 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (i) - right, that would be m6 or his ministers. will change if the error remains.
• (ii) - true, though "tamazight" is often used to mean "berber languages" in general. will change.
• (iii) - i agree with this. i'll remove it, but if someone insists on there being a problem, please put the tag back and explain.
• (iv) - i agree with this too. also, capitalization is very random. don't have the energy to do it myself right now, but perhaps later.

Arre 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that black African be removed, it is not an ethnic label, merely a racial demography indigenous to the African continent. Sahrawis are in large part descendents of Saharan Berber tribes (whether belonging to Sanhaja or Masmuda is debateable as both took turns invading Moroccan Sahara). Today most Sahrawis speak a form of Darija similar to the Moroccan Arabic spoken in the south (regional dialect is conditional - the Berkani dialect correlates in part with Algerian Arabic for example). Actually, I propose a revision as well as a clean up, as the article contains certain inaccuracies.

As for black African ethnic groups indigenous to the Sahara and the Sahel, you may want to look up

I am not favourable to this because

(1) Racial demography can indeed be an ethnic label as well.

(2) Listing the specific groups present will be lengthy and not the main focus of this article - I am well aware of the Wolof, Peul, and others, thank you very much (not that the Fur have anything at all to do with this, being literally tens of thousands of kilos away).

(3) As for descent, it is rather obvious that the population is rather mixed in descent, Saharan Berbers themselves not being anything remotely like a 'racial' grouping.

(4) With respect to Sahraoui dialect, it's largely Hassani. While one can get into nit-picking differentiation (as you do), that hardly seems to have a place in a general encyclopedia article intended for non-specialist readers. (collounsbury 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(1) Only in America, Africa has for a long time seen regional conflicts birthed from ethnic differences, I don't think I need to remind people of the Biafran war (a conflict between Sudanics and Bantoids, both of the same racial origin?).

(2) I was merely suggesting a premiss - something individuals could build on? And the Fur are a western Sudanic group, most likely, with historic origins in the Chad. They share similitudes to other western Sudanic speakers (that's why I included them).

(3) What do you mean by mixed? Are we talking along ethnic or racial lines? In any case most North Africans are a case of both anyway.

(4) I wasn't nit-picking, I'm trying to be politically correct. Something westerners haven't tried to be for quite some time now. Mainly why most of everyone don't consider North Africans, African, despite their status prior to Arabization. (Recently, I've even met people who didn't consider Ethiopians African, because they weren't black looking enough - whatever that means?) —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Primo: What the bloody fuck does Biafra have to do with the Sahraouine? Ethnic differences within Africa have fuck all to do with the issue of ethnic description in an English language encyclopedia (never mind the idiocy of the reference to "Sudanics" and "Bantoids" in re Biafra).

Secundo: The Fur have nothing whatsoever to do with the bloody populations of Mauretania and the Western Sahara. Sudanic is a regional appelation and not linguistic.

Further you are indeed nit-picking over issues utterly without connexion to the Western Sahara. Whatever bloody issues you have had re "Westerners" and nonesense with respect to Ethiopians, has nothing to do with this.

As to Sahraouine and Africanness, or Maghrebines and Africanness, well it all really depends on what one means by being African. If one means racially (using the term with full knowl. of the problematic of race), then obviously not.

I am reverting to the prior entry, this is knee jerking unlearned bollocks. (collounsbury 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Did you read? I'll sum it for you, it basically means, that unlike in the U.S., where Black-American can be viewed as a seperate ethnic group from other types of American, Africa doesn't conscern itself with race to divide itself ethnically. All it takes are linguistic elements as well as cultural practices, to seperate people. The Biafran war was merely a contextual referrence, I could of mentioned Rwanda or any number of "Black African" countries where ethnic conflicts have risen, to prove that black in Africa is just what it is, a color designation (and by no means an ethnic marker).

Sudanic refers to both a regional territory and linguistic branch of the Afro-Asiatic family. It originally encompassed both the Eastern Sudanic and Western Sudanic subphylums, sequentially replaced by the 'Nilo-Saharan' and 'Niger-Congo' subphylums (respectively).

Over the years, several linguists have suggested a link between Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan, probably starting with Westermann's comparative work on the 'Sudanic' family in which 'Eastern Sudanic' (now classified as Nilo-Saharan) and 'Western Sudanic (now classified as Niger-Congo) were united.

It can't be nit-picking, when clearly no frigin' sane anthropologist would ever use ethnic groups and racial categories in the same context. It's like marking Biology and Sociology as the same shit, sure they're both sciences, but other than that, they have nothing in common.

What people consider African is there problem, I concern myself with what anthropologists state, and the fact is, no anthropologist would ever use the term "African" to denote race. At least not in this day and age. Quit gripin mayne, I didn't even attack you, all I stated was that Black African is an erroneous category to relate Sahrawis to on a cultural/ethnic level. The Songhai might sit better, they're actually a Berber/Mandé mix, and there was contact between their state and Western Sahara. (66.194.104.5) 20:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I read perfectly well my snotty little kid, however your ranting does not convince. US blah blah is of no concern in this instance. The issue would be what ethnic categories are relavant to Western Sahara. Your trotting out unrelated examples - Biafra, Rwanda, etc - might impress someone else, but I am not in the least impressed. While not having written the original text, the ethnic marker there seems perfectly appropriate. Black African being the reference point for the Maghrebin & Saharans. Your overly precious trotting out of your new learning aside.

As for Sudanic usage, whatever. Again, stop trotting out terminology you clearly don't master to try to impress. The Fur remain having nothing whatsoever to do with the Western Sahara, and your hand-waving collapse the entire band of the Sahel - Sudan if you prefer archaic reference - has nothing whatsover to do with the subject of this particular article.

As for your strange little rant about "anthropologists" and the like, I fail to see what youve gotten yourself in a lather about, other than trying once again to pretend to more profound knowledge than you actually have. The question is not race or Anthropological usage (this not being I would add a specialist article for anthropologists), but ethnic categories in the context of one (rather ill-defined) ethnic group. Most certainly Black African seems a useful reference point - above all as the Sahrouaine of the Western Sahara are well above any direct contact with the Sahel populations (unlike their Mauretania cousins). Songhai also have fuck all to do with the subject. Peul, Wolof, but only in the Mauretanian context.

If you want something different, try Black African or Sub-Saharan ethnicities, pluralize. Throwing around Songhai, Mande and other such rot is mere ill-informed posturing. (collounsbury 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I will add that the more I read the article, the less I like it. Listing Berber and Arab as related ethnic groups is as a sensible (or non-sensical) as Black Africa. Listing "Moor" as a seperate ethnic group is utterly non-sensical, and merely politics. Obsessing in this context over "Black Africa," which I presume the author inserted to acknowledge the undifferentiated sub-Saharan ancestry in the population which can't clearly be drawn to a particular neighbouring sub-Saharan ethnic group, is silly. (collounsbury 14:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Lol, you seem to know me from somewhere? Where is that (I don't doubt it though, it's all good, your secret is safe with me)? In any case, little kid doesn't sit well, even if you are older. But enough regarding your attempt to ridicule, I simply stated "Black African" is a term inappropriate to refer as an ethnic group, as no ethnic group has ever been deemed "Black African". And what the hell does recent knowledge aquisition have to with this? I've been hearing Rwanda, Congo, Nigeria,... (insert country with any past civil wars) all my frigin' life. This hardly constitutes as recently aquired knowledge. Nigeria and Rwanda are old news muchacho.

Ah, whatever. The Fur in any case weren't even meant to be used in a serious pretext, if you read my original post, you'll notice me mentioning examples (that's all they were meant to be) of "Black African" ethnic groups indigenous to the Sahara and to the Sahel. All of which happen to have a "coincidental" connection linguistically and regionally. I didn't suggest for any of them to be used unless anyone could accurately prove a connection between them and the people of Western Sahara. I mean the Bambara? Yeh, I can really see it now.

My strange little rant just claims Black African can't be used to denote an ethnic group, as there is no such thing. "Black African" to allude to "Black African ethnic groups" shouldn't be used either, due to the confusing implication of its nature. And I wouldn't rule out Songhai/Sahrouine relations, they seem more likely (evidentally moreso) than Fur/Sahrouine relations. And once again, you're twisting my words, I never implied direct relation, as in Songhai influence was strong, but clearly there was contact (to an extent), and Songhai itself was influenced (to an extent), by Berber (with Manding being the base). In any case, there is no postulating, Manding influences were present in Western Sahara and the rest of NW Africa.

You make too many assumptions, I can assure you that my knowledge is neither recently aquired or made to impress, since I've already made it clear I give a shit about what others think. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

I removed the October 2010 disputed label as its placement is ambiguous. Does the editor wish a cite that Sahraoui is a term used for desert populations in southern Morocco (which is rather silly since it is, outside politics, a normal term for the Saharan nomads in Maghrebi Arabic dialects - perhaps the editor is not an Arabic speaker), or that this usage was controversial until recently (which does seem to be something requiring justification, although anecdotally this seems to be true). collounsbury (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• this people not is "indigenous" of north africa; this people descend from black females slaves marriaged with berbers and arabs males in the transaarian routes.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.202.144 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a camel doesn't represente a people, i added a new photo of a young Sahrawi men. If you have a better one.. - Dzlinker (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Do we know of any guidelines about what political symbols are allowed in infoboxes? I don't understand how we can display a people group in pictures without displaying their national symbols (e.g. Aboriginal Australians.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article must be neutral, we can' convert it in a flag war, the article is not talking about RASD, RASD flag is not a national saharaui symbol..saharauis lives in south morocco, algeria, mauritania, should we put all those country flags? --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No The Polisario Front are the sole legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people and the SADR is a Sahrawi state (Note the "S"), whereas Mauritania is not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes : the NPOV should be respected, no matters what the UN decided --Omar-toons (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right But there is no proof that this picture is somehow POV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter bollocks. Putting a picture with an explicit disputed political symbol as the picture of an ethnic representative (not even wearing traditional clothes) is absolutely POV. I'm removing this. This idiotic nonsense should stop, there are plenty of Sahraoui people pictures out there w/o putting in political symbols (hell one could put a pix of one of the Polisario leaders in a neutral context).collounsbury (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so!! especially in a time of war, WS is not for immigrantes, some HR activists certainly but not 400K. - Dzlinker (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I had pointed, the UN data refered to Western Sahara inhabitants, not Sahrawis. As the article is about the Sahrawi people, that numbers made no sense. It would be like for example, including the Israeli settler population in the Palestinians article. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara is a disputed territory claimed by Morocco as its

--Omar-toons (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV flags So I guess you think that

Palestinian flag in the infobox? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think that the question is about Palestinians (Feel free to start a discussion of the article "Palestinians").

Yes or no number 1: A picture showing a person bearing a flag of a claimant in an international dispute means that this person supports this claimant.

Yes or no number 2: Is a picture, showing a person supporting a claimant, representative of the whole ethnicity the article is about, admitting that not 100% of people support that claimant?

Yes or no number 3: Is a pisture that represents one side of a dispute NPOV.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero proper Ref to the Palestinians - no (current) dispute exists within Palestinian populations as to the issue of nationality or their membership in the same. If and when such arises, then their flag becomes relevant to this issue. It is not now. I also seem to recall KOAVF was banned from edit warring in W. Sahara articles becomes of this nonsense c. 2005-2007. When did this get rescinded? collounsbury (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now replaced the absurdly POV picture choice with the Sahroui man pix (and the rather more usefully illustrative showing of traditional clothes and camel). For an ethnic representation w/o needless promo of POV (disputed nationalist symbols, etc) this is far better than an otherwise generic person in Western clothes who sans Polisario/SADR flag could as easily be Moroccan or Mauritanian or Algerian or even Brazilian as Sahroui. Enough of the political nonsense. collounsbury (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction, it is claimed that "some (Sahrawis) still speak Berber in both of Morocco's disputed and non-disputed territories." This might be true or not - would be an interesting fact if true, but must be sourced. In the "Language" section, it does not mention this detail, it only says: "Some Sahrawis speak Tashelhit and/or Moroccan Arabic as a second language due to interaction with neighboring populations." This, nobody would put in doubt, but in the introduction, the "still speak" suggest it's their ancient mother tongue which would make sense (the ethnic Berber background of Sahrawi people is undisputed, I think), but a source is needed. I'll tag it for the moment. If no source comes up, I think we should strike it out. Ilyacadiz (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060807173118/http://www.arab.net:80/mauritainia/ma_almoravids.htm to http://www.arab.net/mauritainia/ma_almoravids.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130119042801/http://www.minorityrights.org/4885/morocco/saharawis.html to http://www.minorityrights.org/4885/morocco/saharawis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508230103/http://www.refugees.org/resources/refugee-warehousing/archived-world-refugee-surveys/2009-wrs-country-updates/mauritania.html to http://www.refugees.org/resources/refugee-warehousing/archived-world-refugee-surveys/2009-wrs-country-updates/mauritania.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+mr0017%29
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925080350/http://www.spsrasd.info/es/content/quienes-somos to http://www.spsrasd.info/es/content/quienes-somos
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims-in/north-african/western-sahara/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406032611/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/isasummary751016.htm to http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/isasummary751016.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201070323/http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/mar-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Mar-summary-eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208112215/http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/mar-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/mar-summary-eng

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) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A documentary film that deals with isolation of the Sahrawi people from territory of Morocco. imbd profile reads: "A 2,400 km wall cuts across the western Sahara, built by Morocco to contain the Sahrawi – once nomads, now condemned to immobility. More than a hundred thousand people who have been forgotten. The destruction of millennia of indigenous knowledge in a generation. Pierre-Yves Vandeweerd's revelatory documentary opens with camels behind a fence. Herodotus wrote of these camels and their keepers. In the 40 years that the Sahrawi have been living in camps, their nomadic knowledge of the desert has disappeared except in a few surviving old people. Chased off their land when Morocco demanded possession of the Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony, the Sahrawi refugees have been forgotten by the world. The last chapter in a trilogy that began with Le Cercle des noyés and Les Dormants, Territoire perdu literally brings them back to light." Fred114 04:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred114 (talk • contribs)