Talk:Western Sahara

Is the map outdated?

According to some sources, it seems that Morocco has extended its berm into Mauritanian territory and successfully split the previously contiguous SADR-controlled part into three separate regions.

Link: https://sovereignlimits.com/boundaries/morocco-western-sahara-land 2001:8003:9008:1301:9535:F3C8:6763:D1BC (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

United Nations disagrees with itself

This post will not ask for any changes to the article, but rather ask editors to be careful where they get their numbers from, on this article and on other articles.

The UN "Population division" gives a figure for Western Sahara's population at 587,259 in 2023 (that's mid-year, I believe).

But the UN "Statistics division" which puts out the Statistical Yearbook gives a figure of 76,425 with the note "Comprising the Northern Region and Southern Region." Clearly this is a different definition, being used in a way that is easy to miss.

Link to yearbook 2022:

Under "World Summary" see "Table 3" and click on either 'pdf' or 'xls'. Link to pdf:

Either of these sources is used in countless articles, so editors should make sure the region under discussion on Wikipedia has the same definition as whichever UN division is being sourced. Wizmut (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

July 2025

@Nice4What: the images aside, care to explain why you restored "recognizing Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara as legitimate" (something that isn't supported by a source)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It is supported in the source cited. The US and Israel have recognized Western Sahara as Moroccan. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

as legitimate is your baseless WP:OR.

You also replaced the number 84 (which is sourced) with one that isn't. Care to explain why? M.Bitton (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I will reword it then, since it seems the wording is not clear for you and you might have missed the recent news on Western Sahara in the past five years ☺️ Note that the source cited mentions nothing about autonomy, which you added. I will change it to ...and several states began recognizing Moroccoan sovereignty over the territory in the 2020s. and ...with states beginning to recognize Morocco's annexation, as supported by the cited source, which states:

Since 2020, there’s been a notable shift in support of Morocco’s claim over Western Sahara. The United States and Israel became the first States to formally recognize Moroccan annexation...

Hope this works for you! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it most certainly doesn't (given that it doesn't support what you're edit warring over).

Only two states decided to support the illegal annexation, most simply expressed some kind support for the autonomy a way to break the deadlock.

The autonomy is mentioned in the article and has an article dedicated to it, so your point is moot. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please explaining how this doesn't support what we're discussing? You removed the sentence about states recognizing Moroccan sovereignty, though this is explicitly stated in cited sources. Why are you opposed to this addition? Again, support for the autonomy plan is not unique to the 2020s. We can mention both Israel and the US' recognition and increased support for the autonomy plan, if that works for you!

As for the number 84, it's clear that many states have withdrawn recognition, but if you want to cite the Montevideo Convention, so be it! 😀 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed your OR (that you are yet to explain, much less justify).

The mention of Israel is clearly UNDUE.

The number 84 is supported by a scholarly source (I can add plenty to it if needs be). M.Bitton (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

What OR is remaining? I have dropped the word "legitimate" since its use as a synonym confused you. Adding ...several states began recognizing Moroccoan sovereignty over the territory in the 2020s is not OR, it is supported by the source cited. Please explain, thank you! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I have dropped the word "legitimate" since its use as a synonym confused you no, you dropped it because it's baseless WP:OR.

Several is misleading at best. The cherry picked source doesn’t support it either.

If you're not happy with my edits, we can go back to the stable version (prior to your recent additions and over simplification) and start over. M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey now, don't say no, you dropped it because it's baseless, I think I know better than you why I dropped the word—I'm the one who dropped it, duh! 😅 I intended to use it as a synonym, you either believe me or not but I don't plan on readding that word.

Also I'd rather not restart all the editing just because I disagree with you, that wouldn't be constructive editing, which is the point of this conversation ☺️ (Leads are meant to be simple too.) The accusation that I'm "cherry picking" is hurtful though; countries beginning to recognize Western Sahara as Moroccan is a fact, not a distortion: Reuters: "Israel recognises Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara" ... "In 2020, then-U.S. President Donald Trump recognised Morocco's claim to the territory in return for Morocco's resumption of diplomatic ties with Israel." It is not misleading! The wording could change to just say the United States and Israel, as it was before.

I hope we can stop editing warring now, I wouldn't want other material supported by cited sources removed. Thanks for the chat! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I also know better why I removed it, so don't tell me confused you.

I didn't accuse of cherry picking, I said the source is cherry picked (it's a simple fact).

countries beginning to recognize Western Sahara as Moroccan is a fact three of them in total; so saying "several" as you suggested would be indeed be misleading.

Again, the mention of Israel in the lead would be UNDUE beyond the pale as it's much less important that the content that you removed in the name of "simplification". M.Bitton (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

since you are now cherry picking what is lead worthy and what isn't, I suggest we restore the stable version (which was much better). M.Bitton (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please explain why? The "stable version" has information not in the body, so it does not serve as a summary, which is the point of a lead section. It also mentions the Israeli and American recognition, which you've opposed. I would hope we could instead build from where we're at already, and you can suggest what "most important contents" should be readded. This would be the most constructive way forward. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried to no avail. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash: Please explain your revert? Linking to the Autonomy Plan is not OR. Is using a built-in template from the "International recognition" page OR? You might want to bring your concerns to that talk page too if that's the case. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You can't add OR and justify it with a so-called "built-in template". M.Bitton (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The "38" figure is WP:OR. I don't see any sources backing it. Skitash (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The cherry picked footnote is also UNDUE (given the recent "simplification"). M.Bitton (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. If I find a scholarly source, I will add it. I might add a note that simply states that several states have "withdrawn"/"suspended" recognition to avoid misleading readers. We might also need a citation for the 84 UN member states claim, since that is not cited in the body. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We don't need a citation for the 84 since it's already sourced in the linked article.

No, you won't add it (because it's UNDUE). Claiming to simplify the lead while cherry picking what to add is the very reason why I suggest restoring the stable version (which in my view is much better). M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You can't cite other Wikipedia articles, you need to add it to the article itself, so please do so. Are you talking about the The Handbook of African Defence and Armed Forces cited in International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? The same book that explicitly states: Among those 84 states, 47 states have maintained, six have suspended, and 30 have ‘cancelled’ their recognition? The Wikipedia article / source you're referencing both include this disclaimer. Mentions of recognition should also be incorporated into the main body if it's mentioned in the lead.

Also, please don't assertively say No, you won't add it! when it could, in fact, be added if consensus is reached! Not very constructive or respectful... I am talking about a fact supported by reliable sources here.

On the "stable version"—you keep calling it "better", but it was longer than what a lead is meant to be (expected to be 250–400 words, but was at 600+) and included unnecessary details. Again, I am open to hearing suggestions as to what crucial information could be readded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash: Please take note of this reply, as it might address your earlier OR concerns. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I already explained why what you added is UNDUE (I can add plenty of RS to the 84 number, which has been stable for years, hence its mention in various scholarly sources).

Regarding the lead: the numerous editors who worked on it for years don't share your interpretation.

None of this explains why you're cherry picking what to add while claiming to "simplify" the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Please add the many reliable sources for the 84 then, and let me know how many sources about frozen recognition are needed to suit your appetite! Also, please stop using the phrase "cherry picking" over and over, it loses its meaning 😂 of course what's included in a lead is picked from the article... it's a summary. This overuse is leaning towards a personal attack, rather than a genuine engagement with the edits made.

Also, there is no Wiki policy that states that just because there's numerous editors who worked on it for years that a lead can't be improved... I ask for specifics on what should be readded, but you fail to do so.

Let me explain how I've "simplified" the lead, since it has not been made obvious for you yet:

• MOS:LEAD states that an article's lead is a summary of its most important contents, so I mostly removed information that wasn't in the main text. I removed: specific surface area information; statement that Laayoune is the largest city (infobox makes that clear); Morocco asking for Western Sahara to be listed as a NSGT (not in the source cited + not in main text, so not a summary); 1965-1966 specific details on a referendum being asked for (the date of this demand is not crucial + not in main text, so not a summary); that Russia and other states are ambiguous (extra detail on countries that aren't very involved + article doesn't mention this, so not a summary); that Morocco is supported by the Arab League (unreliable source); that Israel and US recognized Moroccan sovereignty (changed to "several" but you don't like that one); that Morocco rejoined the AU (post-2017 political developments not mentioned in main text, so not a summary).
• I made explicit that Western Sahara is a NSGT undergoing decolonization, and moved the "Africa's last colony" quote accordingly.
• Word count reduced from >600 to around 280, per MOS:LEADLENGTH.

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

there is no Wiki policy that states there is a policy that says you cannot impose your edits without consensus. If policies is all you're after, we can revert to the stable version and let you seek consensus for your so-called "simplification".

suit your appetite comments such as this usually signal the end of a time wasting exercise. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I have added a source for the 84 UN members, since this is not cited in the main text. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You did more than that: you injected as a quote (a fluctuating number) that you know full well that I object.

I will also note that you are clearly edit warring to impose your POV. M.Bitton (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash: You accidentally removed the |chapter=Mauritania, Morocco, and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic parameter from the source when removing the quote, please readd if possible. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Your concern was for a fluctuating number, which goes both ways. Adding the number 84 without a disclaimer is not in line with reliable sources / most other articles on the SADR and is misleading as it might confuse readers who could believe that 84 states currently recognize the SADR (they don't). Here are my proposals, since I hope to resolve this:

• A) The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria and has won limited international recognition for the SADR and membership in the African Union. (compromise proposal, this avoids the issue of fluctuating numbers)
• B) The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria and has won formal recognition for the SADR from 46 UN member states and South Ossetia, and membership in the African Union. (as it was for years, and similar to many other articles, before you changed it; this is straightforward as it lets readers know how many states currently recognize the SADR)
• C) The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria and has won formal recognition for the SADR from 84 UN member states—38 of which have cancelled, frozen, or suspended their recognition—and membership in the African Union. (includes both the disclaimer and the "84" number, but isn't straightforward on how many states currently recognize SADR)

Note that the book you've cited includes a disclaimer and the source it cites, the Centro de Estudos do Sahara Occidental, also includes the same disclaimer about cancellations/suspensions (and the 84 total includes the non-existent Yugoslavia). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash: See above message. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

which goes both ways no, it doesn't. The number 84 has been stable for years (that's why it's repeated in multiple RS).

the book you've cited you cited it (following a discussion). Again, there are tons of others that repeat the same information.

as it was for years the lead was stable "for years" until you changed it beyond recognition. If "stable" is what you're after we'll go back to the stable version (before your edits).

As for the disclaimer, there is more than one in the linked article (that's what wikilinks are about). For the rest, I suggest you re-read the previous discussion and this comment.

You already violated the 3R rule over it on the 10th of this month, and in hindsight, you should have been reported then, so for you to revert again with a "use the talk page" edit summary is very disruptive. Needless to say that further reverts will earn you a trip to AN3 (with no further warning). M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@M.Bitton and Skitash:, Btw an RfC has been started below. Nice4What, it’s usually best to ask people whether they want to go to DRN rather than taking it there unilaterally, as I understand it DRN is more suitable for finding compromises Kowal2701 (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Images

With regard to the above, obviously France has sided with Morocco, which has not particularly helped Franco-Algerian relations. Otherwise, I don't want to get involved in this debate. However, the idea of having some (politically neutral) illustrations in the infobox is a good one. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it is important for anyone who is reading the article and wants to see the region, not just a political map. I wanted to use four photos, two for each area of control, but please let me know what you think. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Everything about Western Sahara is politically charged, so it's hard to come up with an image that is more "politically neutral" than the current UN map. M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There are several photos of Western Sahara's landscape on Wikimedia Commons which could be uncontroversial. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

They are not needed. In fact, even the infobox is optional. M.Bitton (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you identify what you see as not being neutral in the 4 images proposed by N4W? Which of those 4 images would you accept? You have not discussed any of the images as far as I can tell above... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:39, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

None of them is representative of the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a map is more than enough for the infobox. More images would cause it to look cluttered and bloated. Skitash (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It's also in line with how infoboxes of other countries are displayed. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I was thinking about city pages and for some reason thought regions and countries worked the same way. They clearly do not. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC on number of states recognizing the SADR in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was overwhelmingly in favour for Option C, however most editors had minor issues with wording, mostly the use of "won" & "limited". V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Should the lead provide context that states have rescinded their recognition of the SADR? Possible wordings with/without context include:

• Option A: The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria and has won formal recognition for the SADR from 46 UN member states and South Ossetia, and membership in the African Union.
• Option B: The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria has won formal recognition for the SADR from 84 UN member states and membership in the African Union.
• Option C: The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria and has won limited international recognition for the SADR and membership in the African Union.
• Option D: The Polisario Front is primarily supported by Algeria and has won formal recognition for the SADR from 84 UN member states—38 of which have cancelled, frozen, or suspended their recognition—and membership in the African Union.

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 06:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C – This is the most neutral wording, and I can see it's been used in other articles for disputed polities (the first paragraph for the Kosovo article states: "Kosovo ... is a landlocked country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition", though note that elsewhere it only counts states that have currently recognizes Kosovo). Option C avoids any earlier concerns that the number will "fluctuate" (though Wikipedia covers current events anyways). If not C, then A as it is most consistent with other articles on other disputed polities. Option B is the weakest choice in my opinion, as there has never been 84 states total that have recognized the SADR concurrently, and the wording may give readers the impression that 84 states currently recognize the SADR (they do not). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 06:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• A version of Option C without the word "won". There is not a huge neutrality difference, but getting into specific numbers once the count exceeds single digits (and the academic question of whether recognition can be reversed) is unnecessary. The key points for SADR are the support of Algeria and the African Union membership. (Was there a discussion leading to this RfC?) CMD (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option C, with "won" replaced by "achieved" or smth like that. The fact that many countries suspended or withdrew their recognition is important and it's better to keep the lead a bit vague and discuss the details in the body. Alaexis_¿question? 18:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option C – But change "won" to "received" for neutral wording. Yue🌙 23:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option C with "won" replaced by "received". The details about specific numbers of given and then revoked recognitions would be too clunky for the lead.--Staberinde (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
• Comment I have edited the wording in line with option C, but I have added a footnote stating the number of states that currently recognise it, and which have withdrawn recognition, similar to both A & D. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  I reverted your edit because a) the RfC is ongoing and b) it wasn't in line with "Option C" (as claimed). You're welcome to leave an !vote. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how my wording wasn't option C (it was "...received limited international recognition for the SADR..."), and I changed it because it seemed to me like the RfC had already broadly come to a consensus, with no comments 15 days before mine. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's not: you added combination of C, A and D (i.e., an option that isn't on the table, and one that makes no sense as it goes against what option C is meant to achieve). In any case, you are now involved, and therefore, you shouldn't close the RfC (like you did earlier today). Like I said yesterday, you're welcome to leave an !vote should you wish. M.Bitton (talk) 11:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry for closing the RfC a bit too hastily yesterday, I did want to leave a few days for anyone else to reply, but I was definitely exhausted from life things and rushed it far too soon, and now I do see where I went wrong with the footnote. I will say, however, I was within my right to close the RfC, as an involved editor can close an RfC if the consensus is clear. (WP:RFCCLOSE) Finally, I won't be casting a vote because I do not have any opinions either way. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Option B for the all reasons that were mentioned in the previous discussion. That said, I don't mind "option C" as long as the word "limited" is replaced with "partial" (as discussed below). I understand that this isn't part of the RfC, so leaving it here just in case. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option B per M.Bitton. Skitash (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• not !voting yet, but some sources:
  • Britannica: The independence of the SADR has been recognized at various points by some 80 countries, although, beginning in the mid-1990s, a number of them withdrew or suspended their recognition.
  • Marsili 2024: the SADR enjoys a wide recognition by 84 nations, including AU states (55-member states excluding Morocco)
  • Hecht 2024: The SADR was at one time recognised by 84 countries, is currently recognised by 39 countries and has had 70 separate instances of derecognition.
  • Everett-Heath 2020 (tertiary): [Morocco's] annexation has not been recognized internationally and the official status of Western Sahara has yet to be decided. Its legal status remains a ‘non self-governing territory’.

Kowal2701 (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

• • Haddad 2025 (tertiary, in the article): TWL isn't accessing
  • Andrews 2023: Algeria also, in 1976, recognised Polisario's establishment of the [SADR], which is now recognised by 84 states (though of course not by Morocco, and of the 84, some 43 have suspended or withdrawn their recognition).
  • Fernandez-Moline and Porges 2019 (tertiary): While having a weaker international standing than the Polisario Front, the SADR has been recognised since its foundation by 84 or 85 UN member states, and continues to maintain diplomatic relations with approximately 40 of these.

Kowal2701 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, in general would you say this is guidance for how the topic should be covered in the body, or are these all very prominent lead-type mentions? CMD (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, some of the tertiary ones above are quite short entries so useful for the lead, but yeah one sentence in a long book chapter isn’t very useful for determining DUE. Everett-Heath 2020 above is a one paragraph entry in an Oxford Dictionary, and is the sort of overview and level of detail that seems more suitable for the lead. My issue with option C is that with limited it might underplay quite how much recognition the SADR has gotten, all member states of the AU (bar Morocco) is no mean feat. partial might be more representative? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think SADR has been explicitly recognised by all AU member states, what is crucial about the AU is specifically that the SADR has full membership in the organisation itself. I don't expect you'll find consistent understandings of "limited" vs "partial" among readers, but by that same measure I don't object to the change. CMD (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

See what others think (btw previous discussion was at "July 2025" above) Kowal2701 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand better the perceived neutrality question. CMD (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) The lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Unless I missed it, I could not find this material in the body of the article. May I suggest getting the material into the body of the article and then deciding on what to derive from that to put into the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spain's current status as Western Sahara's de jure administering power

While Morocco is the de facto administering power of Western Sahara, Spain is still the de jure administering power (at least according to the UN, the African Union, and several legal jurists) and this has actual ramifications, like the fact that Morocco has to get approval from Spain for flights that cross Western Saharan airspace. None of this is addressed in the article. See references such as International Law and the Question of Western Sahara, https://docs.un.org/S/2002/161, https://wsrw.org/files/dated/2016-04-19/audiencia_nacional_4.7.2014_-_gdeim_izik.pdf, and https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fnps.2019.34. Nosferattus (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Moroccan Sahara

Now with the UN resolution this map is wrong and the claimants on it are also wrong. Morocco was given sole control over it via the voting yesterday so many items within this needs to be updated. 205.178.19.51 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It's Western Sahara. The latest resolution (one of hundreds) is already mentioned in the article. The rest of your assertion is factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you have been on a mission to make sure the webpage isn't updated and the rest of the assertion is not factually incorrect all you need is a simple since you did not testify agaisnt the Spain de jure administiring power aspect you should make sure you look for proper evidence since the evidence within regarding the Moroccan authonomity approach was fully backed by UN Waffine (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA (I won't repeat this).

I did look and I don't see anything that remotely resembles the nonsense that is being peddled by some "new editors". M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

No personal attack was made. i did not insult you once? Waffine (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you have been on a mission to make sure the webpage isn't updated.. is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Well it is outdated, otherwise your sources are outdated, try watching the news once in a while M.Bitton. ~2025-38264-37 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

@Ideophagous: what you added is not part of the resolution (it's actually the view of the representative of the United States), so please refrain from restoring it. If you want to know about why the note of the US President Donald Trump was removed, you can read this article (see the last paragraph). M.Bitton (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @M.Bitton. I checked again, and indeed the phrasing was changed in the last draft. Nonetheless, I suggest we put the exact quote "a basis for a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution to the dispute" to avoid any interpretations or misunderstandings. Ideophagous (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I added that and a bit more to alleviate any confusion. I also removed the redundant explanation of the autonomy plan (as it's already linked and mentioned multiple times in the article). M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

You have to put that actually the Western Sahara is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Morocco according to the UN RESOLUTION 2797 (2025), so that's why you have to change the status of the Western Sahara and higlight that nowdays forms part of Morocco.

Thanks for your attention,

Best regards. EDITOR-20209 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: we don't have to introduce factually incorrect information. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2025

The UN security council has approved a US-backed resolution supporting Morocco’s claim to the disputed Western Sahara. ~2025-31836-43 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. You requested for an edit to Moroccan Sahara, which is not protected. If you mean to edit this page, feel free to reopen the request with the page specified. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2025

By a vote of 11 in favor, 3 abstaining, and 0 against, the UN have now decides that Western Sahara is going to be apart of Morocco again, and the process of integrating it back into the country is going to start. ~2025-31999-16 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: that's factually incorrect. What is said is mentioned in the article (see 2020s section). M.Bitton (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing the 'undergoing decolonization' part.

Since Western Sahara is being continuously brought under the control of Rabat with immigration from the North, increasing political recognition of Moroccan sovereignty and more. It is thus misleading to claim that it decolonization is taking place. Dominic-SS-Olofsson-Tuisku (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Extent of Moroccan occupation

This seems to have been brought up a few times on various talk pages over the years, but it never gets a response for some reason. So, I think it's time to actually have a discussion about this.

Many maps show the Berm, and thus the de facto border between Moroccan and Sahrawi-controlled territory, as extending farther inwards than the current map on this article. This splits the Sahrawi-controlled territory into several non-contiguous sections, and in places the Berm even enters Mauritanian territory.

The most reliable source is probably | this UN map from 2007, so may be outdated. I'm not sure this is a reliable source, but it is worth noting that satellite images seem to align with the course set out in the UN map. For example, see | this section that enters Mauritania territory. Though, of course, that's not definite proof because it may well be something else. But it is worth keeping in mind.

It's still somewhat debatable, but there's definitely evidence for this new/different course. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't get a response because there is nothing to respond to (we don't entertain either WP:OR or claims that older sources are somehow more reliable than the current ones). M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok, ignore the satellite images.

I'm not claiming older sources are more reliable. The exact opposite in fact. The map in this article is partially based on | this UN map from October 2006. Whereas the MINURSO map I linked is dated May 2007. Both maps are UN-produced, but one is slightly newer than the other. Surely that's worth something? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There (2023 map). Hope that helps. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That does help. I do notice that one is also slightly different than the current one, so I think it would be best to replace. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash The map I added was more up-to-date than the previous one. It wasn't the one from 2023, but I checked and they seemed identical. I recognise it's a bit blurry, but it's still legible. There is another version which is less blurry: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MINURSO_Deployment_(April_2014).png. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with this map? It's more up-to-date and comes from a reliable source.

@Skitash What is your objection to this map? TheLegendofGanon (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

@Skitash This is ridiculous. If you have an objection to the map, please express it here on the talk page. Otherwise, stop reverting and not replying. It's impossible to build consensus if you won't make your objection clear. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Judging by what other editors have said here, your proposed change clearly has no consensus (see WP:ONUS). Skitash (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Inasmuch as there are differences between maps from the same source, it seems everyone agrees that more up-to-date maps are better. I don't see the basis for reverting @TheLegendofGanon unless there's some other objection that has not been raised in this section. The 2023 version may be better still, but that's not a reason to avoid using a more accurate map than the one currently in the article. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems like circular reasoning to me. The edit doesn't have consensus. Why? Because people object to it on the grounds that it doesn't have consensus. No actual objection has been raised. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but at this point I'm tempted to call this status quo WP:STONEWALLING. This seems like such an open and shut, routine edit that I can't possibly imagine anyone opposing it, and no one has actually provided any reason for opposing it.

We have two maps from the same source, from different dates. In what world is it objectionable to replace the older map with the newer one?

@M.Bitton, @Skitash, do you have any substantive objections to this map other than "there's no consensus"? If you do, please share them. TheLegendofGanon (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Responding to the ping I will try to upload a cleaner version of the recent map and propose it once it's done (most likely, next week). M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheLegendofGanon: It makes sense to use a most up-to-date map! Would you agree it'd make sense to upload the most recent MINURSO deployment map to Commons and use that? I found January 2026. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2025

Hello I was wondering if the size of morocco could be done in a way that is is done for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic's wikepedia page in which it shows the size that they claim which in this case would be including the western sahara. Then the size that is controlled/ in this case occupied by morocco. There can also be added the other size with out the sahara or land it occupies but that seems rather redundant. Sorry if I am seeming biased to any side I am trying to approach this in the most neutral way possible to have more information be provided in this page. ~2025-40343-15 (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for, but the article already has a map that shows the respective territories controlled by Morocco and the SADR, in the "Administrative Divisions" section. Day Creature (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2025 (UTC)