Template talk:Western Sahara lists of positions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAfrica: Western Sahara Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect 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 articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This redirect is supported by WikiProject Western Sahara.

This template is used in Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (talk) and Legal status of Western Sahara (talk).

Yugoslavia[edit]

See here, but please reply below to keep the discussion in one place.

Sources[edit]

I see some general problem with the sources:

  1. Some are from such places that tend to become dead links later. Thus a good practice will be to put a quote in the footnote ("Prime Minister of XXX said on XX.XX.XXXX "we recognize SADR as sovereign state" or "Foreign Minister of XXX said on XX.XX.XXXX "we no longer recognize any entity such as SADR") - if the relevant paragraph is too long it can be put as hidden text. Also, material of sourced by currently dead link is better not deleted, but tagged with 'dead link' - as when it was added it was confirmed by the source, but the source is not accessible anymore.
  2. Some sources cite Moroccan or SADR officials after their meeting with another state officials and speak about what that other state position on Western Sahara is. Such should be taken only with great care - it's better if we use a direct quote from the officials of the other state - not the interpretation of Morocco/SADR officials. There are already cases were for example Morocco has a meeting, its official afterwards says "XXX supports us and announces SADR relations cancellation" - and one day later SADR has a meeting with the same country and its official afterwards says "Our excellent relations with XXX continue, they denied having canceled it yesterday" (or something like this). Maybe at the Morocco meeting XXX announced "intention to cancel SADR relations" (but not that they are already canceled) - or even announced only "intention to look into the issue of SADR relations and their potential cancellation or retaining" - it's not uncommon for states to "promise" something in vague terms (in order to have favorable relations with one of the sides), then do nothing (in order to have favorable relations with both sides) - and many of the current examples of a state that "recognized 198x, canceled 199x, reinstalled 200x, canceled again 2010" may be attributed exactly to such actions - some of the cancellations/re-installments may be just "announcement of possible future action", not real cancellation/re-installment. All this applies to both directions - recognition and non-recognition - in each case there should be clear distinction between "announcing possible future action" and "already implemented act". Alinor (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A possible solution to these problems is if we add a "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section like here. Alinor (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'not in citation given' - IMHO in such cases we should either move the state to the appropriate (according to the citation) category - or in case the citation doesn't give any relevant information - it should be replaced with 'citation needed' tag. Alinor (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues with recent changes by HCPUNXKID and general issues[edit]

  1. South Yemen/SFRY didn't disappear, they have successor states (regarding SADR relations - these have nothing to do with the positions of non-SADR/SFRY/FRY/South Yemen/North Yemen/Yemen like UN and other third parties) - Yemen, FRY - see Yugoslavia section above. Alinor (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    South Yemen and Yugoslavia disappeared, no one except Serbia recognize itself as "sucessor" of Yugoslavia; the case of Yemen is different, they merge with North Yemen, but there's no proof of cancelation of relations with the SADR. Although, browsing Wikipedia I can see them on the lists of former countries.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "no one except Serbia recognize it as SFRY successor" - do we have a source showing that SADR didn't? I know about the UN and some individual states, but I'm not sure that all UN members don't recognize Serbia as SFRY successor (this can be checked at the UN resolution vote about the issue) and even if they don't recognize it - this is no indication of SADR position (as SADR is not UN member). Also, recognition is unilateral act - Republic of China (Taiwan) recognizes Kosovo without been recognized in return as the legitimate government of China, so even if SADR position was the same as the UN position that doesn't exclude the possibility that "FRY recognizes SADR without been recognized by SADR as SFRY successor". And somebody has added the "[Recognition] canceled 28 October 2004 by Serbia and Montenegro" (maybe the source is in the edit-line history?) remark and I don't think that SiM would bother issuing any statement on the issue in 2004 if they didn't consider it relevant, e.g. if SiM considered SFRY recognition of SADR lapsed in 1992. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that if the FRY is not recognized as the successor of SFRY their withdrawn is at least dubious, but I dont mind to mention it, if it posible sourced?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have any indication that SADR doesn't recognize FRY as SFRY successor. In addition - this doesn't matter. What matters is if FRY continued SFRY recognition of SADR. As FRY claimed to be SFRY successor it recognizes all states recognized by SFRY. That's why they had to "cancel" the recognition in 2004. If they didn't recognize it they wouldn't cancel such non-existing recognition. Here is what I found as source [1] (it actually says "withdraws recognition"). Sources for other countries may be found here. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, let's put the withdrawal date of FRY but with the clarifications about SFRY, FRY and UN position on the issue.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    South Yemen. When they merged with North Yemen the unified Yemen state assumed all responsibilities of the two predecessor states ("The Republic of Yemen accepts responsibility for all treaties and debts of its predecessors"). Do we have any source showing that Yemen canceled SADR recognition after the unification (or that South Yemen canceled it before the unification)? Because if we don't then Yemen should be listed in the recognizer states. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement about assuming responsabilities is clarifying, so I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No need to list all international organizations in the "66 states and the EU" line. Positions of organizations are already explained in their own section. Only the supranational union EU conducts relations with states on its own ([2], [3], [4]) - the regular international organizations that are not supranational unions do not have such properties. That's why the supranational unions should be mentioned in the lists of relations/recognition, but the other international organizations should be mentioned only in the sections for international organizations positions/memberships. Alinor (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As it's a list of states, the EU must be out the list, for it there's a list of international organizations, where the EU should be. I don't agree with including UE, as if we did that, we had to include the CARICOM, the AU, etc..., who are also supranational unions.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The naming of the section can simply be changed to "Diplomatic recognition of and relations with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" (so that covers both states and other entities that conduct diplomatic relations and/or recognitions - so far these are EU and SMOM, but maybe there will be more in the future).
    "we had to include the CARICOM, the AU, etc..., who are also supranational unions." No, they aren't ("The only union generally recognized as having achieved the status of a supranational union is the European Union"). So far the EU is the only intergovernmental organization that utilizes supranationalism extensively and can act independently of its member states in multiple policy fields. Actually, the organizations that you cite (as 99% of the regional trade blocs) don't implement any supranational aspects, but for the time being they work instead trough intergovernmentalism. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as sure as you, according to this article UA and USAN are also supranational unions.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that article says that continental union can have one of multiple different configurations (federation, supranational, intergovernmental) - in the lead and in the map description. They mark AU and USAN only because they include the name of the continent in the name of the organization. As you can see in UNASUR Constitutive Treaty USAN is not yet ratified - it's only a proposed organization. Actually CARICOM is more advanced in its integration than AU and USAN, but still none of these acts independently of its member states, none of these conducts recognition and relations with states, etc. - as the EU does (for example [5]). Alinor (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An OR/SYNTH remark was added that "once one or more states recognize the SADR as a sovereign state, these states can not then revoke its recognition" - I would not recommend deleting that outright, but this is related to the issue of whether the number of combined "current recognizers/frozen/suspended" plus "withdrawn/canceled recognition" is relevant. Alinor (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with the OR to that paragraph, I think it only clarifies the art. 6, that literally says "Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable".--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It also adds some elaborations over government recognition revokation. Also, I'm not so sure in the interpretation that states can't withdraw recognitions - this has implications also for Israel (it also has fluid relations/recognition) and Armenia (Pakistan non-recognition). We can't simply claim that "withdraw" is impossible (but we really need some proper source here - like a juristic analysis or something - our interpretation is not enough) - especially as exactly these words (recognition withdraw) were used in previous versions of the page (and assumingly in the sources). That's why we should not automatically replace "withdraw recognition" with "cancel relations" - because canceling relations may mean only severance of relations with the government, but doesn't necessarily mean withdrawing of recognition (if it's possible). Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Im working on some juridical links about the recognition of states.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some states are listed in multiple sections (this is not a issue with the recent changes, but is related to the point right above) - it seems that it would be good if we separate "recognition and relations vs. recognition canceled/withdrawn" (here no overlaps are possible in the same moment in time) and "supports self-determination vs. supports Morocco claims" (here overlaps are possible, because of conflicting statements). Overlaps between the two things (recognition/relations vs. support position) are possible - obviously recognizers of SADR may support self-determination and non-recognizers may support either Morocco claims or self-determination (or both in case of conflicting statements). Alinor (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not every state recognizing another state has relations with it - some recognize, but not establish relations immediately (or ever), some don't do recognition and go straight for relations, some first recognize and later establish relations [6]. Alinor (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but it's difficult to find both dates of recognition and stablishment of relations, much more in a case like SADR.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but as relations are impossible without recognition, but not vice versa we should use "states that recognize SADR" and not "States having relations with SADR" in the subsection headings, etc. - and mention "relations" only when we have a source showing it. And in case of ambiguous source (unclear if it's about relations+recognition or recognition-only) we should say only "recognition". Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so sure, but for consensus I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just seen the Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority page, and there's a section titled "Not recognising the State of Palestine declared in 1988, but conducting official relations with the PLO and PNA", so if that's true, there could be diplomatic relations without recognition, so that must be reviewed.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That means that a country doesn't recognize the State of Palestine (equivalent of SADR), but conducts relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization (equivalent of Polisario) / Palestinian National Authority. I haven't seen any example of a state conducting official diplomatic relations with Polisario without recognizing SADR - actually here the opposite seems to happen more commonly - a state recognizes SADR, but hasn't established relations with it or with Polisario (actually they don't have too much to do besides recognize SADR? No imports, exports, visas, etc.).
    Inter-state (international) relations without recognition are impossible of course (a state can't have inter-state relations with entity that it doesn't recognize as state) - what the Palestine page shows is that some country may choose to have some official relations with the PLO, the UN observer entity without recognizing the state declared by it. But these are not inter-state relations and do not imply recognition of the State of Palestine. Alinor (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. GAFTA is an initiative of the CAEU of the Arab League that has a line - no need to have a GAFTA line on its own that neither shows any CAEU position nor is sourced. Alinor (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The tables should have more similar formats - the tables for recognitions/relations should have columns for number, name, dates, embassy of SADR, embassy accredited to SADR, notes/memberships (AU, AL, AMU, OIC, EU; if applicable - announced support of self-determination/Morocco-claims) - and the tables for self-determination/Morocco support should remain only with name, notes/memberships (AU, AL, AMU, OIC, EU; if applicable - current/fromer recognition of SADR). Alinor (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will try to rework the tables later. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Besides the general issues with sources (see above section) - in some cases (such as Chad) a 'citation needed' tag was removed without giving a citation. Alinor (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and think that there should be a clean-up of dead links, there are lots of them in this article, and also a lot of unsourced statements. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is based on verifiable information and sources.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of dead links on the article, that means unsourced material, I think there should be a cleaning of dead links and unsourced contents.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but let's not delete content that "was previously sourced" (dead link) - we don't have enough sources to reject such content (use 'dead link' tag instead). IMHO, for the same reason, we should not delete unsourced content too (use 'citation needed' tag instead) unless it contradicts another source. But I know that there are editors who like to delete anything with citation needed tags. I propose that such content that somebody badly wishes to be deleted is moved to a special talk page such as Template talk:Western Sahara lists of positions\removed unsourced material. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there should be a limit of time for seeking new sources, because everyone could give a statement based on an outdated source or even a unreliable one.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We should distinguish two cases - 'statement without any source'(citation needed) and 'statement with source, that later becomes inaccessible'(dead link). The first may be reverted after a while (how long time?) - and I still propose that we keep track of such cases (in such talk page), just for future reference without looking trough all the history edits. The second is a sourced statement and I think that in order to avoid such problems we should make full quotations of the relevant paragraph/sentence from all sources, so that when they become dead links we still have the relevant information. For the already dead cases - we can try to find the same statements in another source or in the web archives. If not found - I suggest that we leave it 'dead link' tagged - until a more recent source is found. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. For the international organizations section it would be good to include counts of "out of X members Y are recognizing SADR" and "out of X members Y support self-determination and Z support Moroccan claims" - like here. Alinor (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the Kosovo recognition page yesterday, and it's interesting to add the number of states of the international organizations, but what should we use, SADR relations/recognition or Sahrawi self-determination?. I think the second, as it's less polemic and the state positions are more clear, and also because the subject of the page is Western Sahara.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, I don't find the Sahrawi self-determination criteria more useful, because sometimes a state announces both this and support for Morocco. On the other hand no state can be simultaneously recognizing and non-recognizing SADR, so this criteria is more clear cut. But why don't we mention both? (a footnote in the table heading would explain that (22/30; 33/40) means (recognition/relations vs. non-recognition; self-determination vs. Morocco support) Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As we gather position of a more diverse group of international organizations the current format of the table becomes less and less appropriate - there is no need to explain that SADR is "not member" of Caricom and Rio Group, etc. I propose that in the section "recognition and relations" we put a new subsection "Participation of SADR in international organizations" (about African Union, Asian-African Strategic Partnership, Permanent Conference of Political Parties of the Latin American and the Caribbean, Central American Parliament) and in the section "positions on Western Sahara" we leave the current table (without a "membership" column - AU membership to be mentioned as first thing in the AU line in the table). Alinor (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont mind putting the international organizations in one section or another, but please avoid duplicating info.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, one of the table will describe SADR memberships/observerships/participation - the another table will describe positions expressed by the organizations (plus the numbers discussed above). Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 1970s and 1980s - Cold War period, Western Sahara War period or "in the 1970s and 1980s, during the Cold War period, while the Western Sahara War was in its active phase"? Alinor (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cant understand that intention of linking the subject with the Cold War. Is there any mention of the Cold war on the status of Israel, Palestine, etc...? It seems to me that some people try to do with that cite the dicotomy Moroccans=USA Sahrawis=USSR, wich is false and simplist. The Western Sahara war is a real local event (not a general subjetive one) involving the parts, wich I think is more appropiate.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I agree that Israel-USA, Palestine-USSR relations were strong, in contrast to the much more local nature of the WS conflict. Actually, do we have any source showing USSR support for SADR/Polisario? Maybe you are right that the Cold War is not related to this conflict. Alinor (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are sources linking POLISARIO with USSR, as there are linking Morocco with the USA (or previously Morocco with the USSR), but that happened in nearly ALL the conflicts on the 60s, 70s and 80s. Simplifying the conflict on the Cold War is a poor excuse to make that subliminal dicotomy X = USA, Y = USSR. That should be mentioned, for example, in the Western Sahara War page.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't find such sources on the Western Sahara War page, but if you have such - you can add them. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. OR tag on Canada. What is the OR? I thought that the things in the note column are supported by the source given there. If not, then a 'not in citation given' tag should be put instead. Alinor (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An OR remark was added to Canada, as in the sources given it doesn't mention Canada's support to self-determination. I would change the tag to "not in citation given".--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Canada should be removed from the list, as no reference mentions their support to self-determination.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't open the source, but in its description it's written that Canada supports MINURSO and as the aim of MINURSO is a self-determination referendum (even the name of the UN mission includes "referendum") obviously Canada supports it. Self-determination is not the same as Sahrawi independence - support of self-determination means that the country in question will support any outcome (independence or Morocco rule) that is chosen by the Sahrawi people. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Using countries support to MINURSO as a proof of support to self-determination is at least dubious. I don't know any country in the world that opposes MINURSO (even Morocco supports it). For example, France, as member of the Security council supports MINURSO, but that doesnt means that country support to self-determination. The same can be said of Morocco and other countries.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. As I said - I can't open the source, so I can't check what's written there. If there is nothing about Canada position I propose to put Canada in "conflicting or inconclusive sources" section (like the one we have here). Alinor (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Canada should be placed in that section.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. These below I couldn't attribute to the above (and please excuse me if I misplaced some of the other comments). Alinor (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As you say, it's obvious that states that recognize the SADR support the self-determination of the Sahrawis, but it's not as easy with the one that canceled relations with the SADR, as some recognize the right on self-determination (for example, Republic of the Congo or Dominican Republic).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that we have agreement on most (all?) of the points above. When I have the time I will implement the changes (if they are not already implemented). Alinor (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Western_Sahara_lists_of_positions&oldid=1141562258"