Talk:Sahrawi refugee camps

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Western Sahara portal This article is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara (assessed as Mid-importance).

‹ The template below (Merged-from) is being considered for merging with Copied. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Population estimates

Please stop A single testimony given to the UN (not by the UN as claimed) made by a political defector who has an incentive to lie which is 15 years old and far lower than any other estimate made by anyone else is spurious. Including it is contrary to WP:UNDUE in addition to the fact that if it was ever accurate (it wasn't), it's certainly not now, as it is so out of date. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore See Wikipedia:SOURCE#Non-English_sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sahrawi refugee camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928010721/http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1469/ to http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/1469/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map

An ip claimed this map is false. It is based on a Openstreetmap screenshot and the camp names are verifiable from there. One thing that you may dislike is that the names are in french instead of english transcription of Arabic but this does not make the map false or useless. If it is false, then please explain how. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

@Yessgaz: you're using cherry picked primary sources to turn this into an attack article. It doesn't take a genius to do the same to any subject, but that's not what Wikipedia is about (you obviously are not new, so I don't need to remind you of that or the rules, such WP:EW and WP:ONUS). M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't understand the decision to delete everything. My intention is not at all to make an article with a charge or to take a position. But to mention the rich reports of Human Rights Watch on the state of human rights in the Tindouf camps, which was not yet the case, while adding elements of other sources, the conditions of human rights in the camps. It's only natural that a “criticisms” section should contain criticisms, even if they're not shared by everyone. I'm happy to understand if the form is disturbing or inadequate and needs to be changed, or if certain elements are out of place. However, deleting everything is not a completely legitimate action. Yessgaz (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the reason. If you're interested in the management of the camps, then a simple search for "Sahrawi refugee camps management" would get you all the secondary scholarly sources you'll ever need. M.Bitton (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the accusation of cherry picking. The information I added is actually well-documented across a variety of sources, and I made sure to incorporate a range of materials including reports from well-established international NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which are widely recognized for their seriousness and rigorous methodology.

The primary objective of my contribution was simply to summarize and include findings from their reports, which were entirely absent from the article so far. Given the importance of human rights issues when discussing the camps, this seemed like a necessary addition to ensure the page gives a comprehensive overview of the subject.

Of course, if the way this information was presented gave the impression of imbalance, I’m fully open to reworking the section to improve its tone and to add further context where needed. However, removing all sourced content under the argument of cherry picking seems excessive and unjustified, especially without indicating which specific passages were problematic.

Finally, I’d like to point out that in any criticism section, the purpose is to document criticisms that exist, not to make the section artificially neutral by pretending such criticisms do not exist. Yessgaz (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking is not an accusation, it's a statement with a defined meaning that you can look up. Is there any part of what I said about the primary and scholarly sources that you still don't understand? M.Bitton (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification, but I’m fully aware of what cherry picking means in the context of Wikipedia and sourcing standards. I also understand the distinction between primary sources and secondary scholarly sources.

However, what I still find unclear is how my contribution specifically fits this accusation (or "statement" if you prefer). The content I added was based on reports from internationally recognized organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch — which, while they could be considered primary sources in some contexts, are also frequently used on Wikipedia to document human rights situations. Moreover, the section didn’t rely solely on these reports but also referenced press articles and academic studies where relevant.

The goal was not to cherry pick certain data to push a narrative, but to fill a documented gap in the article, since human rights conditions in the camps were almost entirely missing. This is a major topic in virtually all serious discussions about the camps, and its absence was a clear content gap under WP:DUE.

If you believe that more secondary scholarly sources should be incorporated to contextualize these reports, I absolutely agree — and I’m happy to work on that. But outright removal of the entire section, without any collaborative effort to improve or balance it, does not seem to align with Wikipedia’s spirit of editorial consensus building (WP:CON) or content balancing (WP:NPOV).

So to answer your question directly: I understand your point, but I disagree with the conclusion you drew and with the chosen approach of mass deletion rather than constructive editing. I’m here to improve the content — would you be open to working together on a revised draft that addresses your concerns while preserving relevant and well-sourced information? Yessgaz (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on cherry picked primary sources, when there is no reason (none whatsoever) to do so, given the choice of plenty of scholarly sources that cover the subject (search for "Sahrawi refugee camps management" and help yourself to some recent ones). If there is a gap (as you seem to think), then you expect it to be covered by the scholarly sources, and if it's not covered by them, then it's not a gap and not our job to fill it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully point out that when it comes to documenting human rights violations specifically within the Tindouf camps, the academic literature is extremely limited and when it does exist, it tends to focus more on political or historical aspects rather than direct reporting on violations themselves.

In this context, international NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch play a central and irreplaceable role, because they are among the very few organizations conducting direct investigations, collecting testimonies, and publishing factual reports dedicated specifically to the human rights situation inside the camps.

It is also important to note that some articles from Moroccan media do cover these issues, but they could reasonably be suspected of lacking neutrality, given the political context and Morocco’s direct involvement in the Western Sahara conflict. This makes independent international NGOs even more essential as sources, since they are recognized globally for their methodological rigor and independence.

Excluding these sources on the sole basis that they are "primary" would therefore lead to a serious content gap, preventing Wikipedia from reflecting what is, in practice, the most comprehensive and up-to-date body of documentation available on this particular aspect of the camps.

To be clear: my goal is not to overrepresent these sources, but to fill an important gap, while remaining fully open to complementing them with any relevant secondary academic work you might suggest. However, ignoring the extensive work produced by these widely respected organizations would itself violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and completeness principles (WP:NPOV and WP:DUE). Yessgaz (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only reiterate what I said: the subject is properly covered in plenty of scholarly sources and I see no reason to ignore them or what they concentrate on simply because you seem to believe that they ought to concentrate on something else (based on some cherry picked old primary sources that you found). M.Bitton (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't respond to what I say and ignore my arguments... I have to strongly disagree with the underlying logic you are applying here. If we follow your reasoning to its conclusion, that would mean we are forbidden from mentioning documented facts coming from globally recognized NGOs, even when these NGOs are among the only independent actors who have investigated on the ground and published detailed, sourced reports on this specific issue. According to WP:RS, reports from internationally recognized NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are considered reliable sources when they report factual information within their area of expertise, which is precisely the case here. WP:PRIMARY does not prohibit the use of such sources, it only requires they be used with care, without interpreting them. Ignoring these sources simply because they are not academic would violate WP:DUE, because these reports are part of the significant coverage of the camps. Simply banning primary sources is inventing a rule of your own. Yessgaz (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mention all the reported daily abuses that happen in Morocco in the Morocco article, do we? Do you understand why we don't do that, much less report the past ones? M.Bitton (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly ask that we stay focused on content and sourcing policies. The question here is not about comparing this article to Morocco’s page or any other country page each article follows WP:DUE based on the sources available specifically for that topic. In the case of the Sahrawi refugee camps, human rights reports from international organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International form a substantial part of the available documented coverage. That’s a factual reality, not an editorial choice or bias. On Wikipedia, it’s perfectly legitimate to include a section covering human rights issues when reliable sources document them. In fact, on most articles dealing with territories, conflicts, or political situations, sections related to criticisms or human rights are common. This is normal editorial practice and reflects Wikipedia’s role as a platform for comprehensive information, not as a tool to sanitize or omit sensitive content. Wikipedia’s purpose is to provide access to knowledge, not to shield certain topics from well-sourced critical content. If you believe the section needs more balance or additional context, I’m more than ready to work on that. But removing all critical content solely because it reflects negatively on one party is not in line with Wikipedia’s mission. Yessgaz (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would kindly ask that you reread what I wrote in my previous comments, especially that you mentioned WP:DUE. M.Bitton (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, rather than continuing this unproductive back-and-forth, I propose we shorten the section I wrote to address your concerns about weight and prominence.

However, I strongly disagree with the idea that the documented reports from internationally recognized NGOs — and the issue of human rights violations in the camps should be treated as a minor or marginal point.

These are serious, well-documented issues, covered by reputable sources over several years, and they deserve a proper, dedicated section in the article, even if it’s concise. Ignoring them or burying them under unrelated topics would misrepresent the actual documentary record. Yessgaz (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]