Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Aminatou Haidar

Untitled

I removed the reference, "She has a moroccan passport and she is visiting the world with her moroccan passport". What Wikipedia wants for references is an external source - newspaper article, book, etc. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Even though there was no external source, i did not remove the fact that Ms. Haidar is a Moroccan citizen, as it seems pretty uncontroversial. (I did move it to the second paragraph.) --John_Abbe (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place and Data of Birth

According to this, Ms. Haidar was born in El Aaiun in 1967. I've searched "Centre Akk-Mar" (as in the Police Report), but it doesn't seem to exist. There's an Akka in Morocco, but it seems too long a shot from "Centre Akk-Mar" to "Akka". Unless somebody disagrees, I'll change both the place and the data of birth. Jmgonzalez (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of her passport was published on Facebook and it mentioned that she was born in Akka. In Morocco, to get a passport the moroccan authority makes it based on official documents the owner brings. The administration applies simply what it's written in these official documents. If Aminatou has a passport with Akka as her brithday place, that simply means she brought an official document mentionning Akka as her birthday place ! --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although "Akk-Mar" in the Spanish police report reads strange, the ARSO list is no real source. The current Wikipedia text quotes (ref. 4) a report by Tomas Bárbulo in El País, a Spanish journalist covering Sahara for many years. He gives Akka as birthplace, which isn't strange at all, because the region south and east of Gulimim has been populated historically by Sahrawis, so it's not really a "long shot". Somebody had changed the given places (parents living in Tan-Tan and Aminatou born in Akka) to "Laayoune" in both cases, which made no sense at all (because Laayoune is not a "small town in former Cape Juby", whereas Tan-Tan is). The Amnesty document gives no place. So I think we should stick to Akka, which is documented by a serious newspaper and at least in some way compatible with the Spanish police form of Akk-Mar. I haven't seen the Facebook passport photo. Please don't change back without new and trustworthy sources (and add them in the text). Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This page is dealing with a lot of vandalism. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction reasons

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_Aminetu_Haidar: 26 sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aminatou_Haidar: 0 sources. Information in both articles differs a lot. Nothing else should be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.157.91 (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"even if she has benefit from her original country Morocco, thus she is currently stateless due to Morocco's denial of Sahrawi nationality" - I deleted the first phrase because it doesn't make sense / unsure what the original writer was trying to say and the second phrase because it would appear factually incorrect. She has a passport issued by Morocco; notwithstanding the question over the occupation, stateless means without nationality or citizenship, which would not be an accurate description here. 86.42.99.62 (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence?

Hey!

Where is the evidence, that Aminatou would have thrown her passport away? Nowhere, because it's not true. Why would she have done something like that, shooting her own ankle? That way she couldn't be able to travel anywhere. So, I would appreciate, if the clear lies were deleted from the text - and replaced by the fact, that Moroccan authorities confiscated her passport and identity card. That's something that Moroccan government have already admitted in public.

BR, Maiju —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.166.11.2 (talk) 08:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to find out that this article is filled with propaganda and non-sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihmisoikeudet (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some remarks on the texts. Polisario Front is not looking for self-determination. Polisario Front leaders are willing independence. Autonomy is an expression of self-determination. If Polisario Front leaders were supporting self-determination, they would have been accepted the autonomy principal.
Regarding the passport issue. In fact, she accepted voluntarily to reject her moroccan nationaliy and ID. She was not obliged to and nobody obliged her to do so. In such case, the moroccan authorities applied the international aviation law : if no paper or visa then return to the country/place of origin i.e. Spain/canary island. Anything else would be misinformation and usual propaganda.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Nobel Prize Nomination

Any association that received the Nobel Prize in the world can Propose[1] Anyone to be nominated by The Nobel Committee. The American Friends Service Committee (Peace Nobel Prize award in 1947)[2]can not Nominate someone to the Nobel Prize, it has only the right to propose/submit it.[3] [4]

After the Nobel Prize Advisors (and not the commitee) review, they choose who should be nominated : the nominations information are kept secret for 50 years[5].

There is no officiel document from the nobel Prize with Aminatu's nomination. --Energumene (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support wording proposed by you. It looks neutral and accurate enough. M0RD00R (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your last modifications seems to be fair enough. Agreed.--Big Brother Maroc (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Friends_Service_Committee
  3. ^ "The right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize shall, by statute, be enjoyed by:"
  4. ^ Nobel Prize Nomination process
  5. ^ [2]

Split proposal

Currently one incident overwhelms this entire article, so I would like to propose to split Aminatou Haidar incident into the separate article the way it is done in the Spanish Wiki. M0RD00R (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -Kylelovesyou (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personality support

I don't agree with your modifications about personality support. I think that it's good to have their declarations. I think that it's relevant. So I will add them using a neutral formulation. I prefer in general not to delete modifications whish were added by others untill I prove that they are mistaken... --Freeinternetwriter (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest taking it to the WP:BLP/N to generate some sort of community consensus. Personally I do not think that emotional language by celebrities with no academic background in political science and who are not the experts in this area is encyclopedic. M0RD00R (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive bias

Article relies heavily biased sources that support or are affiliated with the subject (a lot of blogs and self published websites) plus the usual opinions of some bigoted, neocolonialist far-right Spanish tabloids. Where is the other side of the story?

Furthermore, a lot of puffery (e.g. called the "Sahrawi Gandhi") that needs fixing. --Tachfin (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to you, all Spanish newspapers are neocolonialist and far-right (Publico, El País, El Mundo, El Día, Gara, El Norte de Castilla, Diario de Lanzarote, Las Provincias, 20 minutos, etc...), when that ones who I cited are from all ideologies, from Basque left independentism (Gara) to Spanish right nacionalism (El Mundo), passing through Spanish left (Publico) or Canarian independentism (El Día). I recommend you to leave your prejudices against Spain and your double standarts. Also, you are clearly lying when you say "a lot of blogs and self published websites", as the vast majority of sources are newspapers or official webs. The only section with much blogs as sources is the awards one, as they are sometimes the only way to reference the prizes. And finally, the term "Sahrawi Gandhi" had been used frequently in interviews and news about Haidar. If you think that's puffery, it's your personal opinion, for me, for example, the term "Arab Spring" is a clear puffery example, to some will not, so I'm not gonna impose my personal views. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the key word here: "tabloid". The blog of someone on 20minutes (and other blogs used here) does not qualify as WP:RS. Other sources used are as reliable as The Daily Mail. Sources are misquoted to favor a position when some (e.g. BBC) actually display skepticism. Overall an article should not give one side of the story. It should, properly, represent both views, until this is done the article remains biased.
More often than not Spanish sources are biased against the "Moro-ccans", they may be far-right bigots or they might not be, but I'm not judging their intentions let's just have the other side of the story somewhere.
P.S: please refrain from assertions like "You are lying, your double standards...etc", that is not helpful. --Tachfin (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re the tone, the article should use a neutral tone, "Sahrawi Ghandi" should be included if many independent sources use it (not those who are affiliated or sympathetic to the subject). Even the most brilliant alive scientist is not described on wiki as "the ... Einstein". There are other examples of non-neutral tone which should be fixed, see WP:WTW. --Tachfin (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, you are not being neutral but your POV when you talk about "bigoted, neocolonialist far-right Spanish tabloids". I could talk a bit about the blatant lies of some racist, Makhzen funded and oriented Moroccan press, but I dont do it. I recommend you to leave your POV when you edit in WP, as it is not helpful to the issue. The term "Sahrawi Gandhi" is used by several media tabloids from different countries, like Australia (SMH) or South Africa (D&M).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're not addressing the points, an article should represent all significant view points (In this case both sides of the story should be properly represented) please read WP:NPOV, as stated above there is also some WP:SYNTH, i.e. when some sources are misquoted to further a certain POV. Weasel words like "Sahrawi Ghandi" should be referenced to hardcore WP:RS that aren't affiliated with the subject in order to be used. Failing that they should be deleted and generally the article should be written in a neutral tone (which isn't the case). Birth place, as I stated below, is referenced to three hardcore reliable sources: 1) Her passport 2) The Spanish police 3) herself, by signing and approving what's written in her complaint to the Spanish police, she basically testifies (In the most official manner possible) that she was Born in Akka. Some online website would not overrule this per WP:UNDUE which you should read since it's not about NPOV, Wikipedia simply does not include whatever information that has been published somewhere. --Tachfin (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV template added

As Koavf refuses any edit making this article less POV than how it is currently, I add a POV header.
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly premature, as you've made no attempt to discuss your concerns until now. (You can see instructions for how to use this template at its instructions page: "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort.") Can you start off by providing some sources indicating that yours is the more neutral and preferred description? Discussing the content would be more persuasive than just complaining about another editor. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case NPOV = not endorsing the position of any claimant, so not endorsing Morocco's claim that WS is a Moroccan province, nor Polisario's one that WS is "occupied".
Thus the NPOV is that WS is disputed between two claimants, Morocco and SADR. As the article describes the territory as it is claimed by one side of the conflict, it is POV.
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being willing to engage, but I'm still not sure what sources you're looking at. Looking at respected news organizations like the New York Times, the BBC, and Al Jazeera ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), it seems that they're comfortable with the description of Western Sahara as "occupied". Since reputable, independent sources are regularly using this description, I'm not sure I see the POV issue here. Rather than continue to edit war over it, however, perhaps you might open an RfC? It'd be a fast way to get more comments on this without having to tag the article unnecessarily for POV for weeks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CIA Factbook : "Western Sahara is a disputed territory on the northwest coast of Africa bordered by Morocco, Mauritania, and Algeria. After Spain withdrew from its former colony of Spanish Sahara in 1976, Morocco annexed the northern two-thirds of Western Sahara and claimed the rest of the territory in 1979, following Mauritania's withdrawal" ;
  • Britannica : the term "occupation" isn't used at any sentence of the article related to post-1975 era ;
  • BBC Western Sahara profile : "A mainly desert territory in north-west Africa, Western Sahara is the subject of a decades-long dispute between Morocco and the Algerian-backed Polisario Front (...) Most of it [ie: the territory] has been under Moroccan control since 1976" ;
  • NY Times : "Legal status of territory and issue of sovereignty unresolved" (+ link to the CIA Factbook)
  • Aljazeera : "Western Sahara has been ruled by Morocco since 1975 when, after Franco's death, the Spanish left and allowed Morocco and Mauritania to enter" ;
Wanna look up for the opposite POV? You can still try with "Southern Provinces" or "Moroccan Sahara", you will find the POV claiming WS as an integral part of the Moroccan territory, thus not a disputed territory nor a distinct territorial entity.
--Omar-toons (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like either usage is acceptable per our reliable sources, then. I personally do think both are neutral: Morocco holds ("occupies") most of the territory, but its status is disputed. Anyway, thanks again for being willing to engage; hopefully other editors will too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, occupation means that the territory is (only) under military occupation, while it is claimed by Morocco as an integral part of its territory.
Per definition according to international law, a military occupation is temporary and no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, and that differs from an annexation, and since one side of the conflict claims that it is an occupation and that the other side claims that it is an annexation, giving more weight to one side or the other is not neutral, then using the word "occupation" isn't.
Btw, I agree that a global RfC would be a solution if no consensus can be reached.
--Omar-toons (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point there. Let's get see if we can get Koavf and others active here to chime in. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe should we -directly- start a RfC then there'll be no need to re-discuss the same issue for each article, as it was the case many times on articles related to the WS issue? --Omar-toons (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A centralized RfC is an excellent idea. I'm not sure the best spot for this--maybe at the talk page of the WS main article? Or at the WP:WikiProject Africa noticeboard? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Imho Talk:Western Sahara is the best, as it is directly related to the issue and probably the most consulted among all related talk pages. --Omar-toons (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth place

Her passport has it as Akka [16]. Official Spanish police document has as Akka [17]. There is nothing more reliable then that when it comes to birth place, why should we go with the nonsense of a self-published amateur website called arso.org? --Tachfin (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually suggest that this information be removed until a reliable source can be found for it per Wikipedia policy. A photograph of a passport seems far less preferable than a newspaper article, etc. Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found an Amnesty source that gave the same birthdate and cited it there. AI may be a bit borderline for reliable source by WP standards, but should do the job for this. Khazar2 (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that, for example, if Israel assures that a palestinian was born on a place and date, you would accept it like in this case. Or we have again double standards?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of the nationalities involved, but just a question of secondary vs. primary sources. It's generally better to find a reliable secondary source than use things like photographs of passports. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the three sources cited now in the text (I didn't add any), Amnesty gives no place, the Spanish police report says "Akk-mar" which is not really identifiable, but says it's Morocco, and the third one (ref 4) is a news report by Tomas Bárbulo in El País, a Spanish journalist covering Sahara for many years. He gives Akka as birthplace, which isn't strange at all, because the region south and east of Gulimim has been populated historically by Sahrawis, so it's not really a "long shot". Somebody had changed the given places (parents living in Tan-Tan and Aminatou born in Akka) to "Laayoune" in both cases, which made no sense at all (because Laayoune is not a "small town in former Cape Juby", whereas Tan-Tan is). So I think we should stick to Akka, which is documented by a serious newspaper and at least in some way compatible with the Spanish police form of Akk-Mar and also with the passport photo published by Hespress, which I wouldn't consider too reliable on its own, but El Pais is what we call a reliable secondary source. Please don't change back without new and trustworthy sources (and add them in the text). Ilyacadiz (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aminatou Haidar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Aminatou Haidar. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aminatou Haidar. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aminatou_Haidar