Talk:Political status of Western Sahara/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Yugoslavia and Yemen

The current green color for "Countries that have disappeared as sovereign states after recognition" is ridiculous. Sovereign states don't simply disappear - in most cases they have legal successors taking over (Libya, Cambodia, Yemen, Germany, USSR, Czechoslovakia are obvious cases of clean succession; Libya and Yugoslavia are more complicated, because the states claiming to be their successors are not universally recognized as such - by Zimbabwe/Venezuela&co and by the UN respectively). See here.

FRY/SiM considered itself successor of SFRY. Whether the UN, SADR or anyone else agrees with that is irrelevant - FRY/SiM continued the SFRY recognition of SADR until 2004 when this recognition was withdrawn.[1] (it's obvious that the government wouldn't withdraw a recognition if it didn't considered it still valid until this decision)

Current "Republic of Yemen accepts responsibility for all treaties and debts of its predecessors.", so unless we have a source that it had withdrawn recognition - it should be kept in the current recognizers list.

  • So, I think that the green color should be removed, FRY/SiM should be clearly marked as recognizer until 2004 and Yemen as still recognizing - unless a source for the opposite is provided.

Also as discussed at the link - the current structure of the page is a mess. There is no list (and count) of the current recognizers and tracing current diplomatic relations or when relations/recognition was frozen or cancelled is difficult. Articles for all other cases like Taiwan, Palestine, Kosovo, etc. have much better lists of current diplomatic recognitions, diplomatic relations and dynamics over time (when relations were cancelled, restarted, etc.) if applicable (actually mostly for Taiwan, others don't have so many if any swinging cases). Japinderum (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Yugoslavia, you're absolutely right. I wanted to make this adjustment, but I had no free time.
In the case of Yemen, I am convinced that you're wrong. Yemen took over the contract and the obligations of southern Yemen, but also of northern Yemen (which not recognized SADR). South Yemen as the State ceased to exist and with it died as well as recognition. Yemen is (thanks to separatists in South Yemen) together with the Sudan (Southern Sudan), one of the strongest supporters of Morocco, including the promotion of his Moroccan "territorial integrity" include W.S. Recognition of the SADR by Yemen is unlikely. In my opinion, the takeover of the treaties and the obligations of the two former Yemeni States it doesn't prove Yemen´s recognition of SADR. Jan CZ (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Your argument seems to be that South Yemen recognition and North Yemen lack of recognition cancel each other, but I don't think state succession works in such mathematical way (also, you either recognize or don't recognize, there is no middle ground/each-other-canceled result). It's the same with treaties, conventions and memberships - Unified Yemen continues to abide by South Yemen obligations over conventions and treaties, which are not ratified by North Yemen (and vice versa).
About Yemen supporting Morocco - in the article there is a dead link about that and it's maybe true. Other states who haven't yet withdrawn/canceled/frozen/suspended SADR recognition also sometimes issue statements about "support" of Morocco. We need a more definitive source - where Yemen announces cancellation of SADR recognition (like the SiM 2004 announcement) or at least where Yemen announces that it currently doesn't recognize SADR.
I assume that in practice both FRY/SiM and Yemen have "neglected" their SADR recognitions after the 1990s, but as you see SiM eventually managed to eventually cancel it officially in 2004. Let's wait for a source about Yemen. Japinderum (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I dont see the green colour as "ridiculous", but logic. Both cases are of countries who had changed borders and political systems, so the resulting countries had little to do with the former. Everything that help people to visualize better the article is good.
In the case of Yugoslavia, whether Serbia and Montenegro claim is, the UN (supranational institution) does not recognize S&M as sucessor of Yugoslavia. The other countries that formed Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina...) also dont recognize S&M claim of being the only sucessor of Yugoslavia, neither the European Union, etc... So S&M claim is just that, a claim (For example, Spain claims that it had relinquished the administration of Western Sahara, the UN does not recognize that claim and still considers Spain as the administrative power.).
In the case of Yemen, you are teorically right, with that declaration of assumption of treaties, etc...by the unified Yemen. But the thing is that I cant find any diplomatic relationship between the SADR and Yemen, perhaps because there isnt any relation since unification. I think that adding the green colour is very good applied to that two cases, in terms of clarification and information. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yugoslavia: this is not a question of the international recognition if state is legal successor. This is a matter of accepting (some) the legal acts of the previous state. These acts may or may not assume that any of the new States, irrespective of the question of the legal successor. In the case of recognition of Palestine is also accepted that Serbia has taken over the Yugoslav recognition, Slovakia has taken over the Czechoslovak recognition (Slovakia is the new state, not full successor), etc. If you like this challenge, you'd have to do so on other pages.
Yemen: Yemen, although I have a different opinion than Japinderum, but until evidence to the contrary, we have to be based on the resources we have. You talk about the takeover of all legal obligations. As long as don't we show the opposite, we should respect the indicated source. For the demise of the recognition we have no source, it's just our assumption.
Overall: to better illustrate these cases should be (changes to the State-transition recognition of Czechoslovakia-Slovakia, Soviet Union-Russia, Yugoslavia-Serbia) displayed the same as on the page, International recognition of the State of Palestine. Jan CZ (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
HCPUNXKID, please see your comments 17:28, 28 December 2010 and 18:02, 24 December 2010
Changing borders and political systems is irrelevant. Many others have gone trough such changes too. The issue here lies in the realm of state succession and continuation of legal obligations, etc. And SiM 2004 decision to withdraw a SFRY 1984 decision is a clear example that states don't simply "disappear" when a bigger state dissolves, some territory is lost and/or a revolution brings a new government.
FRY/SiM/Serbia claim to be the SFRY successor. That's what matters - FRY/SiM/Serbia unilaterally continued all SFRY obligations, including recognition of SADR until 2004 when it was withdrawn. Position of UN or anybody else is irrelevant (it's not in the UN power to decide who is recognized by FRY/SiM/Serbia - this is an unilateral decision of FRY/SiM/Serbia itself; the UN can only decide whether FRY/SiM/Serbia can use rights given to the SFRY by/in the UN). The position of SADR (whether SADR recognize FRY/SiM/Serbia as SFRY successor) is interesting, but still irrelevant and we don't have source about it - so it's a moot point.
Yemen - as stated above I agree that most probably in practice currently Yemen doesn't support SADR. But we don't have a source showing that the recognition is withdrawn (or even a source showing that Yemen supports Morocco; and keep in mind that "support in practice" is not the same as an official de jure act such as diplomatic recognition). I would like to have such, so that the issue is clarified (as the 2004 SiM and Albania withdrawal sources). But we can't edit based on such assumptions of ourselves. Japinderum (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your views. Changing borders and/or political system irrelevant? Of course not, if they were, why making a differenced page for S. Yemen and another for unified Yemen? Same happens with Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc.... Talking about Yugoslavia, I reaffirm my position, wether what S&M claims, the rest of Balkan countries had denied S&M to be the sucessor of Yugoslavia. Same with the EU, and same with the UN. You cannot be part of a federation and when it breaks claim to be the only successor, without the opinion of the rest of the federation. As you say about Czechoslovakia, Slovakia is not a full successor, and the same happens with Serbia/Yugoslavia. I dont know how it is about Rusia/USSR, but Im sure that if Russia is the full successor of the USSR, is with the consent of the rest of former soviet republics. I dont have problems to include S&M claims on Yugoslavia, but as a claim, not as a fact.
On the Yemen case, if we adhere to theory, the Republic of Yemen recognize the SADR, although we know that they dont have diplomatic relations. But if we want to quit them from the list, we had to found a cancelation or withdrawal of relations, not only a declaration of support to Morocco, wich is not equivalent to a cancellation. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
"I dont have problems to include S&M claims on Yugoslavia, but as a claim, not as a fact." - but that's the point. What matters on this article is what's the position of FRY/SiM/Serbia about SADR (recognition or not) - it doesn't matter what somebody (be it other former fellow SFRY republics, UN, EU, SADR or somebody else) position about FRY/SiM/Serbia is (whose successor it is or it isn't). FRY/SiM/Serbia said 'we have recognized SADR for the period 1984-2004', so that's it. This is unilateral decision of FRY/SiM/Serbia.
Yes, on Yemen I agree that if we are going to remove them from the list we need a source for that. And yes, Yemen doesn't have diplomatic relations with SADR - it's not uncommon for two states to recognize each other without having established relations. Japinderum (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. While recognition of the State as a legal succesor (and the right to succession into membership in international organisations) is the responsibility of other States and international organizations, the acceptance of legal acts of the former state is the only thing of the new States. The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Russia recognise Palestine from 18.11.1988 as Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. SiM recognized SADR from 28.11.1984 as Yugoslavia. Acceptance of legal acts of the former state is individual right of all new states, not only of full successors. Jan CZ (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

STOP double standarts

I'm starting to get fed up about the politically-driven double standarts. I dont have anything about a unified list, but putting the type of regime that recognize the SADR is at least unbalanced compared with others. As long as the SADR is a unrecognized state as Palestine, Taiwan, Kosovo, etc... it had to receive THE SAME TREATMENT as the rest of states in that category. So, or remove the type of regime from the SADR page , or add it to the Palestine, Kosovo, Taiwan , etc... pages. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear HCPUNXKID

I have no double standards with regard to the SADR and the other unrecognized states you mentioned. Indeed, I'm not sure if I have worked on the list of recognizing states of the states you mentioned. I was just adding that most of the early states the recognized the SADR were communist or "third worldist" states and that one of the causes, I think, that successive US presidents backed Morocco. One can say they were right or wrong to do so, but I think showing what type of states backed the SADR gives the reader a better illustration of how the western Sahara conflict fit in with the larger ideological conflict between pro-western and third worldist and communist states during the late 1970s and 1980s, as the above comment should show.

I have been thinking that including the types of states that recognized the State of Palestine, Republic of China etc. would indeed also illustrate these (still ongoing) ideological conflicts, but I haven't had much time to devote to large scale Wikipedia projects lately as I've been going through kind of a stressful academic period right now, trying to graduate from college and enter graduate school(I hope), a situation anyone familiar with the US processes for entering grad school can relate to. Right now I only have time for small edits like this.

If you really feel that strongly about it, no one is stopping you form add the information to the ROC, Kosova etc pages yourself

Sincerely --Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think xe's commenting on the use of long-form names for the states (i.e. Islamic Republic of Mauritania as opposed to just Mauritania), which I find a bit weird also. Nightw 16:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Well you have defunct states that had relations with SADR e.g. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, People's Republic of Kampuchea and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia which might not reflect the position of their successor government/state and used different flags. This is how it's done elsewhere e.g. we don't put the flag of Russia for something that the Soviet Union did. --Tachfin (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Not that I think it's a big deal either way, but the definition of a successor state is one that upholds all treaties and laws of its predecessor (unless the relevant legal authority declares the last regime or a specific law void). So unless that's been done, whatever the Soviet Union's treaties with SADR were, they are currently treaties of Russia. Nightw 02:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with using short-form names for the states instead of long-form names (will make the appearance of the table better). If others insist - long form names can remain in the wikilink (to be shown when hovering on the name). Japinderum (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with using short-form names for the states too. Jan CZ (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to do what some one has beaten me to -- put the former states name in the notes. It is significant in the political context of the cold war, that alot of the state recognizing SADR were "Peoples Republics" or "Democratic Republics" for the above stated reasons. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Flag of the African Union.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of the African Union.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Flag of the African Union.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab League position

Contrarily to what is mentioned in the article, the Arb League doesn't support officially the Polisario claim. The references supporting the article point of view are talking about the Arab League secretary general who said that his comments were misunderstood. Moreover, the interview with the an Algerian newspaper, which brought the statements doesn't contain any support to Polisario or even self-determination (link: http://fr.elkhabar.com/?Aucun-pays-au-monde-ne-veut-vivre) Wimmiden (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Same thing could be said about the parts of the article that claim that the Arab League or the OIC see Western Sahara as a part of Morocco. No reliable source backed that statements, only pro-Moroccan occupation pages as Arabic News.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Current structure of the page

No good current structure of the page - you're right, Japinderum. Here is mixed TWO DIFFERENT things as STATE RECOGNITIONS and diplomatic relations. For Example, if state cancelled relations (of governments), it´s not means, that cancelled state recognition, but this united list suggest it! Etc.

Diplomatic relations belongs to on page Foreign relations of SADR (now almost blank list ! ) according to the models as Foreign relations of Kosovo or Foreign relations of Palestine.
State recognitions belongs to on page International recognition of SADR (to cancel redirection) according to the models as International recognition of Israel or International recognition of the State of Palestine.
And the issue of territorial status must be here on Legal status of Western Sahara, according to the models as Political status of Kosovo, Kosovo status process or Proposals for a Palestinian state, with texts, with today positions of parties and states.
Today united page of all is very no good. Let's change it. Jan CZ (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that such improvements can be made, if the following is accomplished:
list of the ~50 current diplomatic recognitions (together with dates and dates of previous withdrawals and renewals) - at International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
  • I think that there will be significantly more. Some States to cancelled the relations, but recognition still lasts.
list of withdrawn recognitions/cancelled relations (again with all dates) - at International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
  • Only withdrawal of recognition here. Cancel of relations doesn't belong here.
Everything else
Yep, the page had to be fixed, starting with the title. Legal status is ridiculous and false, as the great majority of the article is about political issues, not legal. Legal status of Western Sahara with only a few lines about the 1975 Hague Justice Court veredict??? Come on... I think its the only case of unrecognized country in WP that have that obvious mess. Let's made two differenced pages, one (this one) about the political, diplomatical, etc... status, and another different page about the legal issues of Western Sahara. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
HCPUNXKID, I agree. Legal status issues is not the same as the lists of diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations.
Jan CZ, I think the issue of "relations cancelled, but recognition not withdrawn" is very tricky one. Especially in this case here. In case of 2011 Libya civil war such position would be "obvious" - state X continues to recognize Libya as a fellow sovereign state, but doesn't recognize Gadaffi government and cancels diplomatic relations with it. In the case here (in practice a government in exile with most of the population under foreign occupation claiming sovereignty) I'm not sure we can state when diplomatic relations with SADR government are cancelled that the diplomatic recognition automatically is preserved unless explicitly withdrawn. Anyway, in order not to get in dispute we don't have info to sort out I propose that these cases are marked somehow (with a color or in separate table), e.g. cancelled relations on the recognition page.
IMHO the legal status page should deal mostly with arguments for/against SADR and Morocco positions; relations page should deal with political statements, memberships in/other participation in/decisions of international organizations, lists of established/frozen/cancelled/suspended diplomatic relations, embassies of/to SADR, lists of supporters of self-determination (this is different from SADR recognition) and of Morocco claim (this is different from recognizing Morocco sovereignty to be already in effect) - current positions subsection figures breakdown is fine (including figures for recognizers of Polisario - again a different issue from SADR recognition); recognition page should deal with granting/withdrawn/cancelled diplomatic recognitions and providing the following figures (either each figure in separate list or some figures to be distinguishable from one list trough coloring or other means):
  • number of current SADR "full" recognizers, e.g. without any frozen/suspended/cancelled/withdrawn recognition or relations
  • number of frozen/suspended relations/recognitions (e.g. "temporary measures against SADR")
  • number of withdrawn/cancelled relations/recognitions (e.g. "permanent measures against SADR")
I agree that diplomatic relations and diplomatic recognition is not the same thing, but I think that in many cases we don't have detailed enough source/information and thus in any case we should somehow mark frozen/cancelled/suspended/withdrawn relations even on the recognitions page. I don't object showing/adding the following numbers (if other people find those as useful):
  • sum of number of SADR "full" recognizers + number of SADR recognizers who had frozen/suspended relations
  • sum of number of SADR "full" recognizers + number of SADR recognizers who had frozen/suspended/cancelled/withdrawn relations
  • sum of number of SADR "full" recognizers + number of SADR recognizers who had frozen/suspended/cancelled/withdrawn relations/recognition (some people argue that diplomatic recognition of states is irreversible and legally can not be cancelled/withdrawn)
IMHO the most important metrics are current SADR "full" recognizers (~50), supporters of self-determination (~80), supporters of Morocco claim (~50), "full" recognizers of Morocco sovereignty (none?), but of course the "positions" outside of diplomatic relations/recognitions are very fluid and hard to source and count. Japinderum (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Japinderum, cancellation of diplomatic relations (and other forms of their interference) is completely normal, and never does not automatically mean the withdrawal of recognition of the State. Venezuela and Bolivia cancelled relations with Israel, Georgia cancelled the relations with Russia. It does not mean the withdrawal of the recognition of the State. But only to return to a situation where States only recognized, but their Governments do not maintain any contacts together. I think, that if there are no explicit resources on the withdrawal of recognition of the State, but only the cancellation of relations, we have no right to arbitrarily to present as a revocation of recognition of the State.
Note: many of the cases, which are described in the text of Wikipedia such as the cancelled of relations, is in fact (as is clear from the sources) withdrawal recognition of the State. Much better this is described on the Russian Wikipedia. (Sources actually often talks about the withdrawal of recognition, but the English list no reflect this.)
Note II: Under international law the recognition of State is unconditional and irrevocable. However, this does not alter the fact that some States still do it. We have to describe the reality. 84 States recognized SADR, in terms of international law the recognition of the SADR may operate a number of 84 (it is most important list from the perspective of law). Some States "withdrawn" the recognition, their position is, that do not recognise. Usually they are looking for justification in the de facto absence of SADR and in the negotiations on the referendum. (Number ~50 is most important from the perspective of reality). We do all of this we must objectively describe. Jan CZ (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
About countries and goverments, as far as I know, according to international law, you can withdraw recognition of a goverment (example, Khadafi government in Libya), but you cannot withdraw recognition of a country (Convention on the Duties of States, I think). Because of that, even when some sources talk about "withdraw recognition of the SADR", that could be a withdrawing of diplomatic relations or perhaps even of recognition of POLISARIO as a government, but not of the SADR as a country, unless the SADR looses the characteristics of a partially-recognized state: a controlled land (Free zone), a population under jurisdiction (Sahrawi refugees) and an administration (POLISARIO government). About recognition of POLISARIO (recognition as the representative of the Sahrawi people, I suppose), I think that every country that had a POLISARIO representation recognizes it, you dont let a foreign political movement open a representation in your country without permission and approval. For example, in 1982, the French government let the POLISARIO open a representation in Paris. The book "SADR: Past & present" edited by the SADR Information & Culture Ministry (in the 80's) talked in that moment of 100 countries recognizing the POLISARIO and 60 recognizing the SADR. And about recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, as far as I know, nobody does except Morocco itself (I think that Sudan thinked of it, but finally did not take the step. Perhaps something like the aborted recognition of the SADR by Chile in 1999). So, some important metrics are: recognizers of SADR as state (83, including Yemen), states having relations with SADR (47-49), states having relations with POLISARIO (~100?), states supporting self-determination -Sahrawi claim- (~85?), states supporting autonomy -Moroccan claim- (~50?), states recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara (0?). Regards to all!.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
OK, Jan CZ and HCPUNXKID, I generally agree with what's said above. It seems that everybody's favorite figure is different, but I see that we all agree that all of the figures we mention above are meaningful, so I suggest that all of them are represented if the page is reworked. Japinderum (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Also I agree with you both in principle. HCPUNXKID, you hit on an important fact, fully ignored on list: relationship with the POLISARIO FRONT. Like many States does not recognize the State of Palesine, but maintains diplomatic relations with the PNA or PLO, similarly, many States not recognized to SADR, but to establish diplomatic relations with the POLISARIO FRONT, acknowledged her as the legitimate representative of the people of Western Sahara, provided them with diplomatic immunity. This is a very interesting and not yet on Wikipedia completely uncharted. It must appear on the list Foreign relations of SADR, in a similar style as list Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Jan CZ (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Polisario relations should be mentioned. Currently there is a note that "of those 73 states recognize Polisario as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people" and that "of those 1 state and the EU don't, but nevertheless still support self-determination". But it seems during the moves and merges the actual list is lost. I see that the "1 state" is Canada, but I don't know about the rest 73. Japinderum (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, we agree on most, so we can start splintering the article into the proper new articles. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with the above consensus to split this page into 3. I'm going to get going on it. TDL (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean "3 sections" or "3 articles" and what are the 3 titles? In any case, please use some sandbox and don't rush into the article (notes on the personal talk pages of the above editors when finished would be welcome)... SADR recognitions and relations were re-formatted so many times, that it's hard to keep track of it. Japinderum (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we have managed together to create in accordance with this discussion, the relevant articles International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. At this time they are both stable version. Furthermore, in the logic of the discussion was renamed this article to Political status of Western Sahara.

First proposal: I propose now from existing page Political status of Western Sahara, completely remove Chapter State recognition and diplomatic relations with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, because everything we systematically and completely used in the remaining two articles. Political status of Western Sahara should fully focus on our work on the positions to the WS conflict. Political status of Western Sahara could has three basic chapters: Positions of the key parties (now Positions of the parties; no change), Positions of the States (now Positions on Western Sahara conflict), and the Positions of international organizations (now Status of Western Sahara according to various international organizations; no change).

The second proposal: I to consider in chapter Positions of the States: -Into the existing tables of positions of States to incorporate a column about the recognition of the SADR (Yes, "Frozen", "Withdrawn", No); -Or whether or not a incorporate column showing the vote of States, in the GA of UN, in its last resolution in favour of self-determination of WS (for, against, the vote late, absent); -Format the tables into a single form.

What do you think about that? With compliments. Jan CZ (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with everything you've proposed here. The content has already been split, so better just to summarize it here and leave the details to the specific articles. TDL (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. Jan CZ (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Canada

What is Canada's position? We are currently M.I.A. and I am unsure why.Correctron (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisions to Text

Relative to the edits just undertaken: (i) I revised the special pleading language (e.g. such as 'withdrawing recognition because of pressions [sic] of Morocco and its allies') that was unsupported and POV; (ii) Removed block of text going on and on about the Spanish gov't - this is a general overview, not a Spanish Government arty and as no other gov't was so discussed is not appropriate, whatever the provincialism of certain editors may induce them to think; (iii) cleaned up poor English usage (although more work is needed to make it read less crappily). (collounsbury (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

As a side note, I will be working soon on the rest of the prose. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Again a revision where heavy PoV edits of special pleading snuck in yet again about why countries have withdrawn recognition. I find that the implicit argument is being made for effectively undocumented rationale. (Citations to really quite trivial Moroccan TA or exchange offers is at best indirect evidence of lobbying - but unless there is comparative that this is rather different than Moroccan engagements with other states, all one has is Specal Pleading for a POV) Nor is any balanced analysis or documentation provided on the why for recognization of SADR. The obvious PoV attempt to delegit on side in favour of the other is ongoing. collounsbury (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 77 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Many mistakes in the map of positions on the status of Western Sahara?

Shouldnt it be removed or at least leave grey all the ones that are not properly sourced. I dont know how to modify the map.191.84.199.44 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 39 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 15:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 112 external links on Political status of Western Sahara. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Political status of Western Sahara. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_Western_Sahara/Archive_3&oldid=1137091252"