Talk:Political status of Western Sahara/Archive 1

message: Anyone who disagrees with this page move, please make it known below. - FrancisTyers 21:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on, that's semantics. The territory has relations even if they're not government relations - and this article is about all those relations: to the UN, to SADR, to Morocco, etc. But i have no problems with renaming the article, if this page is kept as a redirect. Arre 05:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an organization that claims that territory which has relations, not that territory. It isn't a matter of semantics, but very much a matter of facts.--Yobaranut 06:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, really, read the page. It's about all of it, from decolonization status to Morocco's southern provinces-claim, not only SADR. Previously there was only SADR info here, and I agree that could be seen as biased, if you don't accept Western Sahara as a short form for that government. But now there should be no problem. Calling it "Foreign relations of SADR" would be extremely inappropriate, on the other hand, since all the info on Moroccan country recognitions and UN status is compiled here; that has nothing to do with SADR. Arre 06:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: It would be nice to have sources to support the recognitions. It could be an extra field in the table? - FrancisTyers 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, its not a high priority for now as I don't think any of this is disputed. If you come accross sources it might be worth while noting them. Nip possible future disputes in the bud. - FrancisTyers 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Hi, this site claims that some countries regonizes Moroccan sovereignty. I am sorry, but that is not true. Some countries support Moroccan claims, that is not the same as reconizing sovereignty. I corrected the statements at the site, but my corrections were reversed by "FayssalF". /Lorenzo 09:39 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 
Justin, it is considered quite rude to simply revert an edit as well sourced as this without discussing it on the talk page. You'll note that his edits are sourced, the ones in the table are not. Pasted list below. - FrancisTyers 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I remember reading Tunisisa is formally neutral, awaiting UN resolution, blah blah, the usual position -- but of course in practice pro-Morocco. But there may be formal recognition too, I don't know. It's worth checking. Arre 06:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of country recognitions of Moroccan sovereignty over the Western Sahara 

message: If we have two long lists or tables this page is going to get unworkable soon. I suggest making two list of articles, e.g. List of states that recognise SADR sovereignty of Western Sahara and List of states that recognise Moroccan sovereignty of Western Sahara. Then we can have these as  articles and just give an overview on this page. - FrancisTyers 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is okay with me. It'll be more work to update the articles whenever something changes, but if it can prevent conflict it's fine. Arre 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are these names ok, or are thre any other suggestions? - FrancisTyers 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for principle and readability, please don't use "SADR" in a page name, use the full Sahrawi Arabla bla. Arre 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is far more information than merely a stub on the page at the moment. I'm not suggesting splitting anything else out, just the table/bulletted list. - FrancisTyers 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: First of all!!! How come we got flags here?!!! I am removing both of them per consistency. One problem is fixed. Tackle another one guys! Cheers -- Szvest 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Why no flags here? I think showing both Morocco's and Western Sahara's flag is perfect for this page, since it covers both countries' legal and foreign policy relations to the area. Uncontroversial and informational - could it be better? I won't do anything about it, though... have it your way :-) Arre 03:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are saying is nice but it is ridiculous. Foreign relations of France, Foreign relations of Spain, Foreign relations of the United States are all flag-free. Indeed, who decided that the RASD flag to be on top? Cheers -- Szvest 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. If all other FR pages are flag-free, then so should this one. Although since this one is about two sets of foreign relations (at least), maybe it could be of more use here. Feel free to put the Moroccan one on top, if you want to; or even better, put them in the order that the respective areas are presented on the page. I'll survive either way. Arre 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are happy to present both flags, do them black & white or wiki-speaking left & right!. As I said above, it's about being consistent. If you don't want that than please respect the rule Black & White. Cheers -- Szvest 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLAGS BEFORE NEWS (caps) 

message: * okay, i've done a few now. most of the links are good (including a few to the actual embassies), but a couple are more indicative than real proof (arabicnews.com-level stuff). this is a hell of a job - there is, for example, precious little online information on what happened in lesotho in 1979. in fact, lesotho doesn't even have a functioning foreign ministry page: the only thing i could find was a bio of the minister...
* it's like that a lot, since sahrawi-friendly countries are generally a) poor, b) not good at english and c) have very bad internet access. i've posted a bunch of lists that seem to confirm the one above, though, and since most of them have recognition data i think they are fairly good proof (at least that a recognition has taken place at one point - it could have been rescinded, but if so, we'll surely find info on that somewhere). i invite you all to check and compare, the more the better; i haven't done much myself with that yet. i will also look for a book, i know i have one somewhere. Arre 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SADR recog sources

message: ===>Angola is pro-Sahrawi Here's some evidence. -Justin (koavf), talk 04:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Angola

message: Why is Iran listed twice? - FrancisTyers 15:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not. Or is it? Where? About that, we should come to a decision on Libya soon. We can't have them on both lists. Arre 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, my bad. That had already been reverted when I read the page. Now everything is back to normal, but with the extra source. Arre 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: WS has no foreign relations as it is merely a territory.
This must be corrected through the article. Western Sahara must be dropped of all this here. If n ocmments I#ll statr with the changes as soon as I have a minute. Cheers wikima 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about all kinds of foreign relations pertaining to Western Sahara, not about SADR -- which has foreign relations with any other state that considers it a sovereign state, as some do; that's not our business to judge. Some states (such as Sudan) have opened foreign relations with Morocco under which Western Sahara are included; some states have opened relations with the SADR instead (such as South Africa). Both are covered here. There are also descriptions of the UN's view on this (it views WS as a non-sovereign territory slated for decolonization, which can either end up independent or with Morocco). So, the page is not specifically about the foreign relations of the Sahrawi republic, even if that is a subset of the whole. And so, no changes should be done: it's an excellent solution, that explains the POV:s of all sides, and brings all useful facts of the matter together on one page. And as you can see, we've already been through this in a rather longish debate. Read that one, and maybe you'll agree. Arre 04:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Cheers wikima 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Sahara and "sadr" mixed-up in this article 

message: *"The United Nations views Western Sahara as a case of incomplete decolonization[1], until the Sahrawi people are able to use their right of self-determination in the form of a referendum. This makes Western Sahara the last major remaining colony in the world." This is wrong. The UN considers the territory disputed, meaning that the sovereignty is not solved, and the territory can be Moroccan or independent. The territory is on the list of non-governing territories, since the 1960s when it was under Spanish control. The UN is not obliged and has never declared that the solution should necessarily include a referendum.
*while "Kingdom of Morocco" part should have been reserved for the position of Morocco, it is twisted in the end to contradict its claims.
*The polisario front is considered by Morocco as separatist movement. That should be mentionned.
*The Polisario is not the legal representative of the Sahrawis, there is no ground for that. It has never put itself to the ballot test in competition with others.
*"The UN also considers Western Sahara an occupied territory, and a territory which should be decolonized, since the legal administrator of the territory still is Spain". This needs to be sourced or removed. Example of source, a UN document calling WS an occupied territory.
*RECOGNITION. Can anyone explain to me please what means "support" vs "recognize"?. a country supports Morocco in the WS conflict and supports its claim on the territory and considers it to be a matter of territorial integrity, BUT, it does not recognize this same WS to be part of the territory of Morocco, thus not its claim on it, thus not supporting Morocco in the conflict.
*What can a country do to be called as recognizer of WS as part of Morocco?.
*I did not check all the countries recognizing the SADR, but Syria and the US on the list?????. These need to be sourced or removed. Syria does not recognize the SADR, that is for sure. The US did not include WS in the free trade accord, but to jump and consider it a recognition of SADR is at best vandalism, at worst craziness.
*the list of countries supporting Moroccan sovereignty on WS is ridiculous. Where is Saudi Arabia, that armed Morocco in the conflict, where is the UAE and Bahrein, Jordan and Oman, France (Chirac calls WS the Moroccan Southern Provinces)... this list should not be there in the first place.
*to not initiate an edit war on the article, let's use Wikipedia spirit of neutrality and fact accuracy, and set aside own political views and attitudes on the conflict to make this article worth its name.--SteveLo 10:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and inaccuracies 

message: Hi People,
* The title of a page is an important part of it and I would like to decide on this soon.
* For this reason I also put a POV tag on it.
* In my feeling only Justin insists to keep the title.
* There seems to an understanding that WS has nor foreign relations since it is only a territory (a natural thing, but not for Justin).
* Arre's proposal seems to be reasonnable: WS and foreign relations + links to the respective parties and entities.
* A general remark though: Morocco does not seek nor collate recognistions as does SADR and Algeria for SADR. The philosophy of Moroccan FR and those of SADR/Algeria are fundamentally different.
Cheers - wikima 17:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - wikima 20:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move - A territory can not have foreign relations! 

message: *Morocco has exchanges ambassies with Vietnam: Cooperation Moroccan embassy in Hanoi to boost bilateral ties, Moroccan ambassador. 
*And Morocco does not do this with countries that recognise the "rasd". 
*Anyone has more details on this? Vietnam is listed among the countries that recognise the "sadr"
::Thanks - wikima 20:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. We'll see... wikima 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: Syria, etc. My sources are 
*Hodges, Tony. Western Sahara: Roots of a Desert War, Lawrence Hill & Company, 1983, , p. 308
*Hodges, Tony, and Pazzanita, Anthony. Historical Dictionary of Western Sahara, 2 ed., Scarecrow Press, 1994, , pp. 378-379.
not amigosdelsahara and ArabicNews.com (the latter was Jalil's source.) These are far more scholarly and reputable than the latter two mentioned, they include Syria in their lists, and the other sources do not contradict the information they present. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you paste here the text where Hodges claims Syria (and S. Yemen) recognized the SADR?--A Jalil 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text It's included in a list on those pages which is reproduced in the table; they're indentical. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly sources 

message: Rob, it looks like user Koavf has been blocked on indef. basis.
Please can you unprotect the page? Thanks - wikima 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect