Talk:International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Numbering

The text says 85, but the table 84. Also, while I understand the notion of "recognition is irrevocable" I find the current coloring and numbering arrangement unhelpful. There should be a quick way to find out who are the states that have neither suspended, nor canceled, nor withdrawn, nor frozen their recognition of or relations with SADR. There's also the argument that while legal scholars and Wikipedia editors can argue that "recognition is irrevocable" - if a government takes a decision to "cancel" it - there's nothing to practically prevent it (and the practical effects of non-recognition) - regardless if somebody agrees whether that's possible or not according to international law.

I suggest that a separate column is added for a date of "suspension, cancellation, withdraw, freeze", so that those cases can be quickly sorted out from the "no issue" ones. Japinderum (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I support the proposal of a separate column for current status of the recognition. As for the number...I think we better change the text to match the table, except possibly if there's a source to cite for the different number. Evzob (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. I also added current recognizers numbering as last column. Japinderum (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

For the Template:Numrec I think the main number should be the current recognizers instead of the sum of current+revoked. Japinderum (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the modifications. In April I had nothing against them, into the existing version (clearly distinguished recognition/no recognition from States and containing all of the data) is not applicable. Do not generate any new information, the table only complicate and make it too big and complex.

I think the template is fine and does not need to be changed. Jan CZ (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it gets too big or complex. But the current situation obfuscating the most important figure/information in the whole article - the core point/topic - the number of current recognitions. Currently you don't see the figure "50" anywhere on the article! And that's the really relevant figure. I don't object mentioning the "84" with the synthish explanation about "recognition can't be revoked", but currently it's overpresented. Japinderum (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done some tweaks with numbering. Please check.

Having revokation as second column allows sorting by it - a prelude to peeking into number of recognitions over time. Japinderum (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Number 84 is important from a legal point of view. Of course, by SADR operates, like many States, which SADR is supported, and each (and repealed) recognition still has its weight. But you're right, number 50 also has the (practical) significance and should appear in the article. I added the following numbers (50 + 34) to the explanatory notes above the table, I think the key instead. Really, this was missing here.

For revocations column - your argument for the list, I understand, but this informations be possible take in the new page History of International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which I'm preparing, and that will be in chronological order include all acts of recognition/cancellation, including interim maps and chart recognition/non-recognition. It's a lot of work, but hopefully I'll finish it in a reasonable time. In this page International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, the new column please no add. Jan CZ (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OK for the table. But for the lead sentence - UN%, AU%, OIC%, etc. the more important number is the current/practical number - not the theoretical/"legal"/synthish number. The whole Morocco-SADR game is focused on that and what matters is the current positions of the states, not whether legal scholars think they "don't have right to revoke". In practice, when it comes to actions of the UN/AU/OIC/etc. what matters will be how the states vote/what their position is - there won't be some "Recognition court" that will use Montevideo or other legal convention and that will issue a ruling about what the decisions of these organizations should be.

I propose that the tense in this sentence is changed from past to present, e.g. from "has been recognized" to "is recognized":

• As of 2011 SADR has been recognized by 85 states, notably X% of YYY members have recognised SADR.
• As of 2011 SADR is recognized by 51 states, notably X% of YYY members currently recognize SADR.

I don't object adding a sentence such as "from a legal point of view recognition can't be revoked and thus the total number of states that have recognized SADR is 85". But not to use that for the organizations % figures. Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, I understand your consideration. But this page is only on acts of diplomatic recognition, i.e.. on acts of international law rather than on practical politics of States to SADR-Morocco conflict. Number 84 is the number relevant from the standpoint of international law, and is the key in this article. In terms of practical policy, it is solved on Political status of Western Sahara page.

And also note the important fact: there is no equation 50 = practical supporters of SADR, 34 = opponents of SADR. In fact, for example: Yemen really supports Morocco. Viet Nam is tepid. And many States which have frozen the recognition continue to be fiercely supporters of the Sahrawi rights (e.g. Costa Rica, currently Zambia, and more). A de facto policy of aid to Morocco or SADR therefore often do not correspond a recognition/freezing/non-recognition. So, number 50 many does not represent the real promotion of SADR, it's just a statistic in the context of formal recognition, with the figure 84 is formally much more important.

And, above all, I really need to cherish, the main point of Division of the articles: This article is about the formal aspects of (number 84 is crucial), while Political status of Western Sahara is about real political aspects of the position of SADR in the international arena. Therefore, I support the today text. Jan CZ (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the general notion of you comment, but for the UN%/AU%/OIC%/AL% figures the "international law figure is more relevant" doesn't apply - those % are much more in the realm of politics than law. The possibility that some of the current recognizers would vote against or current non-recognizers would vote for doesn't reduce the notability of the % figures counting current recognitions. If we are going to display such "potential future event actions" (the % figures are basically that - implying what the majority opinion in certain organizations is/will be when/if challenged) - then it should be based on current, not past recognitions.

Also, see [1]: "Actually, in the political sense recognition of either type can always be withdrawn, while in the legal sense it cannot be unless a change of circumstances warrants such withdrawal." and "Because recognition is essentially a political act, no matter how circumscribed or conditioned by the law, a State has a discretionary power to determine whether a particular situation justifies a withdrawal of recognition and to take such action if it serves its national interests." - clearly the notion of "recognition can't be revoked" that the article currently portrays isn't entirely correct - there are conditions under which even a full de jure recognition can be revoked - and whether those are fulfilled is decided by the recognizer state itself. Japinderum (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In the introduction to the article is the total number of received recognition, including percent for relevant organisations. Therefore, an indication of what SADR during the whole process of recognition has achieved. In other parts of the article, it is noted that some recognition has been withdrawn. Finally, a list of all recognition with a clear resolution. I think that's quite all right. Nobody says that those 44% States would vote for the adoption of the SADR to the UN. The number 84 (as 50) is statistically interesting information, but certainly not help on possible future ballots. Article is about all recognitions, therefore it should be clear how much % of all the members of the various organizations sometimes recognized SADR. The current number (and %) of states which today recognize for specific organizations may be placed on Political status of Western Sahara. In terms of the structure and logic of the article I cannot agree with the proposed adjustment. Jan CZ (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

First, the whole notion behind the "84/85" figure is shaky at best. As you see in the source recognition can be revoked. And the article is full of sources where states themselves state that they revoke it. Now, some legal scholars may disagree whether this is "legal", but there is no "Recognition tribunal" so that this statement is proved of disproved. A few Wikipedia editors insist on over-focusing on the figure of past recognitions, but that's mostly contrary to the sources.

The % figures are meaningless if they are based on 85 current+former instead of 51 current recognitions. The 85 figure is accumulated over a period of time where there have been both new recognitions and withdrawals - at no point in time were there 85 current recognitions. So, the % doesn't even show the "peak" for the respective organizations - it's entirely imaginary. You can say "For the whole period 1976-2012 SADR has been recognized by 85 states in total, but not concurrently at the same time" - that's maybe an interesting statistical point. But you can't say "44% of UN members had recognized SADR" - the % was always different, maybe above the current 50/193, but had never been 84/193. Also, the 193 was smaller in the 1980s - so the 84/193 is comparing two uncomparable values - current UN members vs. historical SADR recognizers. Maybe there is a sense in displaying a "historical peak" of UN/AU/OIC/AL recognition - but that should be the number of current recognizers in year X vs. number of then-UN/AU/etc.-members (in year X).

And in any case the current-as-of-2012 % figures are much more notable and useful for the readers. This article isn't about "Historical peaks of SADR recognition" - it's about SADR recognition - primarily current and secondarily historical. Japinderum (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jan. The only NPOV thing to do here is to list the two indisputable facts: the total number of states who have ever recognized and the number of stats who have withdrawn their recognition. Readers can then conclude from that what they like. Focusing on the number 50 is simply spinning the facts and WP:OR. At the very least you must admit that it's no clear if states can withdraw their recognition, so claiming that "50 states currently recognize the SADR" is both not neutral and possibly false. Saying that the "SADR has been recognized by 85 states" is undisputed.

The suggestion that we should change to the present tense ("has been recognized" => "is recognized") is also highly problematic since it's speculative and unsourced at best. Can you provide a source saying that Yemen and Vietnam currently recognize the SADR? All we know is that they did recognize 30 years ago and we haven't found a press release saying they've withdrawn their recognition since. Obviously we shouldn't claim things we don't have sources for.

And all the concerns about hidden meanings behind the percentages is just wild speculation on your part. They don't imply how these organizations would vote in the future or anything else. They're simply a distribution of where the recognitions came from. TDL (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the source clearly shows that theoretically recognitions can be withdrawn.[2] (see 10:17, 16 October 2012 above). Also, we have plenty of sources that show such withdrawals in practice - official statements by 34 states. No OR, SYNTH or POV here, just facts. What's bordering on OR/SYNTH/POV is the opposite claim of "recognition can't be revoked" - it's clearly contradicted by all those sources. Nevertheless, I don't say we should remove the 84/85 figures, but that we should show the 50/51 figure and of course utilize it for the %-figures (again, historical peak % figures can also be mentioned).

We can write only what sources show, so we can't take care of notions that something written in article may be false, because maybe we haven't utilized some unseen/unpublished source. Of course maybe some 86th, 87th and so on state has at some point issued a statement of recognition and we don't have it. Of course maybe some 35th, 36th and so on state has at some point issued a statement of recognition withdrawal and we don't have it. That's not a reason to disregard those sources that we have.

We have sources for 85 recognitions and 34 withdrawals of recognition (showing also the dates of those events). It's easy to do a WP:CALC and get the 51 current recognitions and the respective current UN%, OIC%, etc. (since we also have sources for the total number of their current members) and also for the historical %-peaks (along with the year when that peak was reached, some will be "right now, as of 2012", but others will be in the past). We already do the same for Taiwan (and for the single occasions of back-and-forth for Kosovo/Mali, Abkhazia/Vanuatu), but of course the probability to have missed some Taiwan recognition/non-recognition announcement is negligible compared to that for missing an obscure SADR announcement. Japinderum (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• "the source clearly shows that theoretically recognitions can be withdrawn" - Nope, all you've done is linked to some guy on the internet's WP:BLOG. And just because some government declares that they've withdrawn their recognition, doesn't mean that it's legal. You haven't provided a single WP:RS WP:SECONDARY source to support your claim. As I said above, I fully support mentioning the number of withdrawals. But to subtract them off and give the number of "unwithdrawn" recognition based solely on your interpretation of WP:PRIMARY sources is obviously OR and doesn't respect NPOV.
• Giving the number 84 and 34 doesn't claim that "recognition can't be withdrawn". It just gives the basic facts and lets the reader draw their own conclusions.
• Saying that "85 states have recognized the SADR" isn't incorrect if we have simply missed a recognition. If in reality 86 have recognized, than obviously 85 must have reoconized. Saying that "50 states currently have recognized" when you don't have a single source supporting this is irresponsible and possibly incorrect. Claiming something in the present tense when all the sources are 30 years old isn't really an accurate reflection of the sources.
• Please read WP:CALC which only applies if it is a "meaningful reflection of the sources". In this case, it's not a meaningful reflection of the sources since neither number is sourced. We don't know how many states have withdrawn recognition, so using this number to do a calculation is OR. TDL (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

TDL, it's strange you claim that "Dr. Walid Abdulrahim Professor of Law" is an unreliable source now, but below you agree to use it for the South Ossetia recognition. And that's not a WP:PRIMARY, but WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY source.

The OR/SYNTH claim is yours that "recognition can't be revoked". What's the source for that? One WP:PRIMARY.

The whole notion of "outside judgement about legality" of an unilateral act of a state is synthish. Who does that judgement? Wikipedia editors? Somebody else outside of the structures of that state? If a state says it doesn't recognize another state, that's a fact. As you can see in the source - recognition can be revoked if special circumstances warrant that - and the decision whether this is the case is in the hands of the state who issued the recognition in the first place. Recognition granting and withdrawal are both unilateral decisions.

If you worry about the exact wording and whether we have missed some source - we can work around that. But you have to first agree that we are not the ones who will decide whether a recognition continues to the present day or not. That's a decision of the states granting the recognition and thus we can only write what the sources state.

We can mention those former recognitions, we can mention historial-%-peaks for different organizations, we can include a remark that "according to some [who?] legal scholars recognition can't be revoked" - or even place that remark as an OR/SYNTH note or as backed by WP:PRIMARY. But all of that can be only in addition to presenting the fact of 51 current recognitions and the corresponding current-% for the organizations.

WP:CALC is perfectly fine for counting from 1 to 85 and substracting from 85 to 51 based on a total of 85+34 sources for each addition/substraction. Japinderum (talk) 12:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I continue to support the marketing of the total number of recognition and percent of this number. It is undoubtedly interesting to know the members of the organization who have ever recognized SADR and their percentage, it is completely relevant to this article. This article is on the international recognition of the SADR, and not only about the current international recognition of the SADR. Placing a number of existing recognizers proposed way goes against the natural logic of the article, as I have already wrote. I support the present text, regardless of the question of the legality of revoking of recognition. Jan CZ (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Japinderum: No, you're confused. I've never agreed to use anything from Abdulrahim and you can check for yourself that he's not cited anywhere in the article. Just because someone calls themselves a doctor on their blog, doesn't make their blog postings a reliable source so please don't claim otherwise. If you can't back your opinions up with reliable secondary sources we might as well end this discussion as your unsourced interpretations of primary sources (the statements of withdrawal) don't belong in the article.

"The OR/SYNTH claim is yours that "recognition can't be revoked""; "you have to first agree that we are not the ones who will decide whether a recognition continues to the present day or not" - These are obviously straw man arguments. I've never claimed this, and if you think otherwise you'd be wise to re-read my statements before posting another WP:TL;DR response. We list the number of states who have ever recognized and the number who have withdrawn and let the reader decide how many currently recognize. You're insisting that we do the math for them and tell them how many states you think currently recognize, when you've not provided a single reliable secondary source which backs up this claim. It's in fact you who's trying to decide whether a recognition continues to this day, and you need to accept that that is not your job here.

And you've missed the point of CALC again. It's not your subtraction abilities that are in dispute, it's a question of whether your math is an fair representation of the sources. At best we are guessing at the number of withdrawals, and whether these withdrawals are legal is an open question. So your calculation isn't a fair representation of the sources.

There's clearly no consensus for your proposal, so repeating the same rejected arguments over and over again isn't going to push this discussion forward. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, it'd be best to drop the WP:STICK and move on. I'll not be responding further if you continue to fail to WP:HEAR the point, but I'm strongly opposed to your proposed changes so please don't make them. TDL (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

@Jan CZ, I'm not against presenting the historical recognitions and historical peak of recognition% for various organizations. As you say those are relevant to the article. Our disagreement is whether we should present the current recognitions and recognition%s. I think we should. What's the problem presenting both the current and the historical?

@TDL, do we have a WP:RS/SECONDARY source about "recognition can't be revoked under any circumstances"? If you don't agree to use Abdulrahim source, then why is South Ossetia included? Japinderum (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is a straw man argument. If you bothered to read my comments you'd discover that I've never claimed that "recognition can't be revoked under any circumstances", simply that it's unclear whether recognition can be withdrawn. See for example: "Whether, a recognition once granted, can be withdrawn, remains a controversial issue.". Claiming that only 50 states currently recognize when it's unclear whether recognition can be withdrawn is a POV presentation of the facts that forces your particular worldview of a controversial issue on the readers. Presenting the number of states who have ever recognized and the number of withdrawals separately is a NPOV presentation as it lets the reader decide how much weight to give to the withdrawals. For the record, I think that the details on the number of withdrawals should be mentioned in the lede.

As for South Ossetia, it was included because I found a RS (not Abdulrahim) which supported the claims. You can find it by reading the article. TDL (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

OK for SO, my bad.

If I understand you correctly - you agree that currently the article over-presents the "recognition can't be withdrawn" idea. Also, in any case I think that's the "niche" opinion, because we have 34 official statements by states that they withdraw recognition - and recognition is an unilateral act, not subject to approval by third parties, organizations or other bodies. Having somebody (legal scholar) being unsure whether recognition can be withdrawn does not bear the same weight as 34 explicit official statements by various states. I don't object to represent this "niche" opinion, but in a balanced way - at least equal to the viewpoint of the 34 states themselves, or as a paragraph+footnote after each 50/51 figure (e.g. explaining that the subtraction from 84/85 is controversial). Japinderum (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume everybody agrees with that. Japinderum (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Have you failed to even read the responses you've got? No one agrees with you!

The fact that your WP:POV is that this is a "niche" opinion is irrelevant. We have WP:RS which say otherwise, and all you've got is some guy on his WP:BLOGS supporting your "niche" opinion. States can declare whatever they like, that doesn't make it legal. And as I've explained to you several times, these statements are WP:PRIMARY sources so your interpretation of them is clearly WP:OR. Either produce a single reliable and secondary source which supports your "niche" POV or stop trying to insert it unsupported into the article.

As I've said above, I (and everyone else who has responded to this thread) am opposed to your proposed changes so please don't make them. As you've continued to beat the same WP:DEADHORSE while refusing to WP:LISTEN to the responses you've gotten, continuing this discussion is a waste of my time. I'm not going to play your usual game of posting WP:WALLSOFTEXT to exhaust the opposition so that you can slip your fringe views in when everyone has given up arguing with you. However, please don't assume that just because I've given up trying to explain this to you to that I suddenly agree with you. I don't, so please don't push your WP:OR into the article. TDL (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

TDL, you are approaching personal attack territory. Now I understand your tendentious replies/mocking to/of my comments at other articles. Pitty, since I had better opinion of yourself. Now, on subject:

How did I came to that conclusion [that you agree to equal representation of both viewpoints]? - by WP:LISTEN of your comments "I've never claimed that "recognition can't be revoked under any circumstances", simply that it's unclear whether recognition can be withdrawn. See for example[source]: "Whether, a recognition once granted, can be withdrawn, remains a controversial issue." and I think that the details on the number of withdrawals should be mentioned in the lede.

So, your source says that maybe recognition can't be withdrawn. Another source (which you think is not reliable) disagrees with your source. 34 official government statements disagree with your source. Which is the niche opinion? That of your source or that of 34 governments?

The compromise I propose is to represent both equally. Currently the 84/85 is presented multiple times in the lede (including at the organization%s) and also in the table numbering. I proposed a small change to the table making both 84/85 and 50/51 represented (with the 84/85 having the "better" spot)[3] - that wasn't accepted. Now, after you said the lede is not OK, I expressed my opinion about the general principle of how it should be changed - I didn't even proposed an exact wording/text. In reply I got attacked with multiple accusations of WP breaches and "my usual game". Japinderum (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention

According to this edition. Montevideo Convention is not international law regarding recognition of states. Definition of recognition and limitation of revoke of recognition is limited only for states that have signed this convention (only 19 from the Americas). No law that limited of revoke of any recognition for all other states of the World. Therefore recognition can be revoked. Aotearoa (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I’ve removed note about “irrevocable” recognition of states according to international law. No sources confirm this opinion, so it’s most probably OR. Aotearoa (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I concur, by the way; when I first removed it, I noted that it seemed a tad too OR/POV to be properly sourced. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Aotearoa, de jure recognition of the independence of the State is full, final and irrevocable according to the international law. There are a number of proofs of this fact. Simply open the high-quality textbooks at the Faculty of law of some the university or read the technical literature devoted to the topic of recognition of the State. In Czech it should be: MIROSLAV POTOČNÝ: Mezinárodní právo veřejné, 2. vydání Praha 1978, s. 166-170. MIROSLAV POTOČNÝ: Mezinárodní právo veřejné, Zvláštní část, Praha 1996, 20-24. VÍTĚZSLAV DAVID, PAVEL SLADKÝ, FRANTIŠEK ZBOŘIL: Mezinárodní právo veřejné, Praha 2004, ISBN 80-7201-473-0, s. 151-153. And very many other books. Many Web sources such as this: [4] with author Associate Professor cz:Zdeněk Koudelka is one of the largest legal experts in the Czech Republic, which was, by the way, nominated to the role of the Constitutional Court judge. Jan CZ (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Jan. There needs to be some text in the article explaining that the general practice under international law is the recognition is irrevocable. If you don't like the current description, you are welcome to propose changes. TDL (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbia and Yemen

Serbia and Yemen should be moved from the table. They are a new subjects of international law, these States never recognized SADR. Here are not any sources about their recognitions. The initial recognitions of Yugoslavia and South Yemen had ceased de jure with the dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro and with the unification of South Yemen with North Yemen. They are not included on page Legal status of Western Sahara, as well as on all other languages versions of this page. Jan CZ (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Both the FRY/Serbia and Yemen claimed to be the legal successor to prior states that recognized:

"The Republic of Yemen accepted responsibility for all treaties and debts of its predecessors" [5]

"Whereas the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a successor State to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" [6]

"proclamation that Serbia was the legal successor of the defunct State" [7]

and as such have accepted prior decisions made by these states.

Note that the official WS source lists the flag of Yemen (not North/South Yemen) and Serbia and Montenegro (not Yugoslavia) in the states that have recognized. [8]

Also, why would S+M withdraw recognition in 2004 if they had never recognized? [9] TDL (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, Serbia and Montenegro took over Yugoslav recognition. I don't doubt it. But S+M "withdrew" the recognition. What Serbia as successor State of S+M has taken over, "withdrawn recognition"? Here I´ve seen the problem. But if Serbia has taken over both acts (the original Yugoslav recognition and subsequent S+M withdrawn), the inclusion in the table here would be right.

Yemeni acceptance of responsibility for treaties and debts does not mean automatic acceptance of recognition granted by one of the predecessors. In addition, the position of the Yemeni States were in violation. Of-which had taken position Yemen? You're right, Dan, here is flag on the WS official list what suggests taking over the position of South. Jan CZ (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well legally Serbia (as the successor state) and S+M are the same entity (that's why they didn't have to reapply for UN membership) so they inherited all prior acts including both the recognition and the withdrawal.

As for Yemen, it's a bit more complicated but I found this joint statement from the Foreign Ministers of both countries:

"All treaties and agreements concluded between either the Yemen Arab Republic or the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and other States and international organizations in accordance with international law which are in force on 22 May 1990 will remain in effect, and international relations existing on 22 May 1990 between the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and the Yemen Arab Republic and other States will continue" [10]. So unless the recognition was withdrawn prior to unification it must have remained in effect after the merger. TDL (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, in Serbia, which is the full successor of S+M.

In the case of Yemen: do you think that this statement, which you found, also applies to the mere recognition? Anyway, if we find source that South Yemen and SADR in the past established diplomatical relations, would be the Yemen case (according to your resources) also resolved clearly. Jan CZ (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's not 100% clear whether this applies to mere recognition, but I'd say that diplomatic recognition is just the most basic form of diplomatic relations. This source from the United States Defense Intelligence Agency says they had diplomatic relations with SADR. TDL (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded a description to the Yemen. Diplomatic relations are not maintained, but the recognition is probably still in effect. Jan CZ (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Here is a source showing that the South Ossetia recognises the SADR. It is true that missing other relevant sources, but on the other hand, much of the information on this page is based on a much lower resource than this. Since this source points to an existing recognition, but we don't know clearly if SO recognized SADR by this greetings on the occasion of the anniversary of independence or by other previously Act, it would be appropriate to add text note about it. Letter with greetings (February 2011) followed the SADR recognition of South Ossetia on September 2010. I think that SO may be added (with notes) to the list. Jan CZ (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

But the source doesn't state that they've recognize SADR. While your interpretation may be correct, this is WP:OR and as per WP:PRIMARY "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." I'm not opposed to adding a sentence about this, but they shouldn't be added to the table until proper sources are found. TDL (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

With these resources, you're absolutely right. I had a good book on the relations of the States, but I can't find it. Remember that one of the typical methods of recognition of the State (now somewhat archaic) was sending a telegram/letter of congratulations to the anniversary of independence. In this way, for example, Czechoslovakia recognized Fiji, I still remember. I'll try to book or another source to be traced.

In the case of SADR, it seems that not only SO, but also a number of other States may be recognized the SADR in this way. It is not a random date recognition 27.2. on the day of the anniversary of the Declaration of independence. In this day of just 5 States recognized the SADR (Iran, Mauritania, Colombia, Antigua and Burbuda, Barbados). But also no sources about the ways of their recognitions.

If someone else can help with the sources, I'll be glad. Jan CZ (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I suspect any sources will be in Russian, which I don't speak. On the Russian wiki I found this source that states "The SADR recognized South Ossetia de facto, but the documents of recognition and diplomatic relations have not yet been signed" [11] so it's possible that they haven't yet formalized their mutual recognion. TDL (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for: [12]. According to this source, recognition may be express or implied. Express recognition indicates the acknowledgment of the recognized State by a formal declaration. Implied recognition is recognition of a State or a government through actions other than official declarations. Some actions are conclusively regarded implying recognition, while others are not. Included in the first category are the official congratulatory statements upon independence, the formal establishment of diplomatic relations and the conclusion of a bilateral treaty. Dan, do you agree now with the addition of SO? Jan CZ (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty convincing. We should use this source for a note in the article explaining the situation. Also, I think we should list SO in a separate section for non-UN member states like International recognition of Kosovo. TDL (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, add SO. But I have to admit that I'm not endear the breakdown of UN and other States. In pages about Foreign relations (as Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority) we have united table, in pages about International recognitions (as International recognition of the State of Palestine) we have two tables. Well, I don't see a reason for it too. If it is important to distinguish the UN membership (membership is important, of course), we can add UN membership to the columns "relevant membership", which would be logical, and avoid the unnecessary separate table with one or two bodies. While in the List of sovereign states and of course List of states with limited recognition the Division has a sense (in this worksheet includes just such States and sort out due to the understanding of the issues), iternational recognitions are about own acts of recognitions, and sorting into two tables by UN/non-UN States is redundant. To divide the tables should be the major reason. Why should be relations with Transnistria in a single table, while the recognition from Transnistria in the separate table? Single style may look better. Jan CZ (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important from a WP:NPOV perspective. We have to give WP:DUE weight different viewpoints, and the viewpoint of most states is that SO doesn't have the authority to engage in diplomatic relations. TDL (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan, WP:NPOV that's obvious. But I don't think it would add to one table was in conflict with these rules. Department in a special table has a sense on pages directly about States List of sovereign states (WP:DUE, on this question are different viewpoints). But on the other pages, I still see no reason for it.

For example, look African Union, member states of the African Union. SADR is between them in one table. No any sorting UN/non-UN members. I think it's quite right. Here is also different viewpoints, if SADR have authority to join international organisations. But this page is about the AU, the table says who is a member of, and the individual members do not evaluate. I think it is a neutral view. Look to List of diplomatic missions in Russia. No sorted embassy of UN/non-UN members (missions of AB+SO are in one table with others) and exist also different viewpoints on authority of AB+SO open their embassies.

So, as these States are not separated on the AU page or Mission in Russia page, but here is also many of other pages (about international organizations, sports federations or relations as Foreign relations of Abkhazia, diplomatic missions etc.) where UN/non-UN members are not separated. I think, there is no reason why it should separate the States that provide recognition of SADR. This is a page about the recognition of the SADR, page is not about the legitimacy of SO sovereignty.

If States as SO, Palestine, Kosovo should be separated because of different views on their authority (to recognize of States, to establish diplomatic relations, to enter into international organisations, to open embassies etc.), then we'd have to change the hundreds of pages. But I think that on the pages of the States to be sorted according to the sovereignty of the States (~UN and non-UN), on the pages of the Member States (of AU etc.) are to be sorted according to the membership (member, observer, associate member etc.), on the pages of recognitions to be sorted according to recognition (valid, frozen/withdrawn).. Further sorting seems redundant to me. And, I'm sorry for my bad English. Jan CZ (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on the African Union and other international organizations. Once they've been given full membership, they should be listed with all other members, whether they are UN members or not, since they are legally equivalent. If I ask the question "How many member states of the African Union are there?" there is only one possible answer: 54. Even Morocco can't dispute that the SADR is a full member of the AU, whether they like it or not.

However, recognition is more subtle. If I ask the question: "How many states recognize the SADR?" I'll get different answers depending on who I ask since most states don't recognize SO's existence and hence right to recognize other states. A complicating factor is that we don't know if the SADR has formally recognized the sovereignty of SO. If SO recognized SADR, but the SADR hasn't reciprocated, then even they don't consider SO to have the right to recognize them. For instance, the ROC has recognized Kosovo, but Kosovo doesn't recognized the ROC (they are instead courting the recognition of the PRC) so it doesn't make much sense to count them. TDL (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the recognition from States such as SO or ROC is specific, and this should be somehow in the article shows. But the Division in the tables of UN and non-UN (like Int.recogn.of Kosovo) does not address the specificities of the recognition from States with limited recognition, because in the non-UN is also the Vatican, whose recognition is completely seamless. Therefore, in the breakdown to two tables I don't see sense (Non-UN ≠ with limited recognition). But because somehow tap into this thing (recognition from States with limited recognition), I suggest we do Note the embedded directly to this State (Note: SO is state with limited recognition). Single table looks better I think, and the note tells us much more usefully than separate table of non-UN (which tell nothing about our specificities). Can I add SO with Note? Jan CZ (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds reasonable, as long as they aren't counted under the number column I could live with that. I've added them to the table, let me know what you think. TDL (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In principle, a very good, including the idea of no-numbering. When I saw the table without numbers for SO, I place the note not to SO but to the "State" and define the no-numbering in General. It would be more systematic and easier to read. So I did this, what do you think about? Jan CZ (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The only issue with that is if someone is reading the table and gets to SO they might be confused if they hadn't already read the note as their is not a direct link. TDL (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New map

I replaced the existing map, a map of Foreign relations by map of International recognition. The map is more appropriate for this article and conforms to the standard maps with international recognitions (Kosovo, Palestine, Abkhazia). The map is entirely in accordance with the table States to date. Map of the relations remains on a page Foreign relations of SADR. Jan CZ (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better! I've just enlarged it a bit and aligned the colours in the table to the map (but a bit lighter so the text was visible). TDL (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan, you're right, that there is no reason to use blue color. Blue on International recognition of State of Palestine means not to recognise Israel (but not withdrawn of recognition of Palestine), so its not against standards. Unite color of the table and the map is a great idea. I changed a little bit for the brown tint (no warm Brown color, the hue is now used from the same palette as the cold on the map, just a lighter). But I'd prefer to no use green colour. I think that a good standard for items in tables, which are smooth (members of the UN, States without a sovereignty dispute on a List of sovereign states, states recognized Palestine on Int.recognition of Paletine and the like) always leave without color fill. To those colors wasn't much, they you fully read the color table, and the reader is any worse in the end rather lost. In any case, the color blue is definitely good replacement for an idea. Perhaps, that this modified proposal is acceptable compromise? Jan CZ (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah your brown looks much better than mine did. TDL (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Guatemala, Papua New Guinea

We don't have reliable sources about the withdrawal or freezing the recognition by these States. In all other language versions of this list the freezing of recognition from those countries is not placed. There is no any declaration or expression of the representatives of this States. I think that we should either find sources with relevant evidence. Jan CZ (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the source used for Papua New Guinea in the article: [13]? Here's a source saying that Guatemala has withdrawn their recognition, but it doesn't give an exact date: [14]. TDL (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Guatemala: First problem is the reliability of this [15] source. Just claim of Honduras was a month later denied, look to the line of Honduras. And, above all, the arguments of this source is not proof by anything, no any declaration or expression of the representatives of Guatemala. I found only this [16], where SADR is not between States but between organisations, along with Palestine (which Guatemala does not recognize). This may suggest that the recognition is currently actually "frozen", but I'm not sure, whether it's proof.

Papua New Guinea: Information appears as insufficient and not credible. Notice: On picture [17] is in fact the FM of Zambia (compare with [18], behind the Minister is Zambian flag). Further, PNG is described as the African country. Further, "′more than two thirds of African countries (35) had withdrawn their recognition′ the Minister noted". But in reality, only 14 African States, freezing or withdrawn their recognition of SADR. And, in particular, information only says: "Morocco's Foreign Ministry received a verbal note in this regard". Similarly, in the past, have been added to the list (and subsequently removed) some States on International recognition of Kosovo, as Kosovo has recognition, but it subsequently did not confirm. Even in this case we have a mere problematic claim of Moroccan side which PNG not confirmed (I could not find any expression of PNG). Jan CZ (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well to be fair, we don't have any declarations by representatives of Guatemala/PNG stating that they recognized the SADR in the first place. They're included only based on claims made by the SADR here: [19].

Guatemala: Here's a statement from the government of Ecuador in 2004 stating that Guatemala had withdrawn their recognition: [20]. Here's a cable from 2009 saying that they withdrew their recognition: [21]. Here's an academic article from 2001 claiming the same: [22]. The page you found on Guatemala's site isn't proof, but certainly fits this picture.

PNG: Yeah that source doesn't seem to be very good with details (it's probably been translated to English from the original). The original from the government of Morocco is better: [23] As for 35 vs 14, I suspect that he is referring to the total number of states which don't recognize the SADR (ie # withdrawn + # never recognized). I did a rough count, and it looks like there are about 35 such states circa March 2011. TDL (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Dan, we do not have the original declaration of recognition, or consequential on the withdrawal/freezing. It's a general problem of lack of resources, we have to rely on what we have.

PNG: Your Moroccan resource for PNG is better, explains in our existing resources uncertainty. I add him to the article. In my opinion, PNG is resolved.

GU: We have still only general information about the freezing, info has taken over, their sources are not known. I know this [24] source, it is very questionable, it also claims that Iran, Laos and Vietnam withdraw recognition, which is clearly not true. In GU, here is no any concrete comments from any side. It would be good to find something. Jan CZ (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the it would be great if we could to find better sources. However, as it stands the governments of Morocco and Ecuador have both claimed that recognition has been withdrawn, and there's been no denial (at least that I can find) from either the SADR or Guatemala. If there were sources which disputed these claims I'd be less inclined to take them at face value. TDL (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I Agree. Meanwhile, let's leave the text as it is. Jan CZ (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Which organizations to list in the sentence about percentages?

Currently the list includes UN, AU, OIC, AL. I added UMA, but it was reverted with comment "undue. we don't need to list every single organization."

The logic of this sentence is to list the most notable organizations, that SADR may want to join. Those are the global UN and OIC, the continental AU and the regional AL and UMA.

Specifically for the removed UMA - all SADR neighbors are members in it and they consist 60% of the UMA membership. UMA is also one of the officially recognized "economic pillars" of the continental organization (AU). All of that makes it notable. Japinderum (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said that it wasn't notable, I simply said that it was WP:UNDUE for the lede. I fail to see how an organization that has a mere 5 members and which barely even functions ([25]) is as significant as the others which all have at least 22 members and significant activity. There are plenty of notable organizations that the SADR may wish to join, but we have to draw the line somewhere before the lede is filled with WP:LISTCRUFT. TDL (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dan. Jan CZ (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

This template has been inserted in the article, with reasons "undue weight given to the idea that recognition can't be revoked (see "Numbering")".

"IDEA" IN ARTICLE

• Idea (that recognition can't be revoked) is mentioned in the article once a brief note, which is located where it makes sense. This idea is not represented by anything else. Breakdown and the structure of the article is independent from this idea. If withdrawn will be legal, the article will looked the same, with the exception of the only "idea" note.

NEUTRALITY

• If the article from this idea, and gave it the weight, article would argue that the current number of recognizers = 85, because declared withdrawn (33) are invalid, so all recognitions continue to apply! Something like that in the article is not.

• Neutral view is to tell: have been recognized by 85, from it declare withdrawn = 33, and attach a note. Legal consequences (is current, applicable, legal number of recognizers = 52 or 85?), the article not give, and left it to the reader.

• The content of the article, however, is negative to the note and denies it. Article give the answer on this question and he says – the current number is 52. So the acts of the withdrawn are valid, regardless of legality. It is no longer neutral, but prefers the "withdrawn-legal" position.

SUMMARY

• The "idea" (that recognition can't be revoked) is mentioned in the article only by note, article not prefered this "idea", but rather denies it. Structure of the article is independent from the question of this "idea". The claim that undue weight was given to the "idea" does not correspond to the reality of the article, and, in principle, I cannot agree with him. The template should be deleted. Jan CZ (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Zambia

I think, we need the original text of the press statement. On the MFA Zambia [26] there is nothing yet. From the text on the SPS is not entirely clear whether the relations established now or the Government only made a decision that the relations will be maintained, but the relations still has not yet formally restored. Jan CZ (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So you think they should still be listed as having withdrawn recognition? TDL (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure. Relations will undoubtedly be restored, Zambia has decided. But maybe we can wait for the confirmation that relations were restored as of now? Jan CZ (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word "maintain" suggests to me that they (the new government) view the relations to have never been broken. Also, the Spanish language version of the report [27] translates to "Given Lubinda expressed the readiness of Zambia to strengthen diplomatic relations with the SADR." If they're talking about strengthening diplomatic relations, they must have diplomatic relations. TDL (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not unusual to restore cancelled relations with talk about strengthening relations. So, OK. Spanish text is more conclusive, I used it instead of English. Jan CZ (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Could someone do the archiving of old discussions? Thanks. Jan CZ (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done - the page will be archived next time the bot runs. TDL (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Panama

Panama officially only suspended relations. In declaration is nothing about suspending of recognition. [28] A Moroccan source [29] only commenting on the official declaration, but commenting it falsely. Panama on the basis of these sources cannot be moved between nonrecognizers. Jan CZ (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The official source says (as per Google): "according to the principles of international law, that a human community can aspire to be a sovereign state, which is recognized by the international community, it is necessary to collect key elements for its existence such as territory, population, government and independence. The Government of Panama considers that these elements have not been consolidated in the creation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic." That seems like a pretty clear statement that Panama does not recognize the SADR as a state. TDL (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

SADR and SoP of course do not meet the standard criteria of sovereign states. Still, even with this in mind, the other States recognized them and established diplomatic relations with them. Also Panama recognized the SADR and established relations with SADR in the past.

Now Panama released a statement. In the introductory part of the declaration Panama only describes the real situation (Your Google text), as it commonly describe also by other States, including states that recognize the SADR or SoP. Yes, SADR (and SoP) not meet criteria. Nothing news. In the second part of declaration Panama says his new reaction to this fact. The reaction is that Panama suspended diplomatic relations with SADR ("the Panamanian government decided to suspend diplomatic relations with the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic"). Nothing more. Jan CZ (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The definition of "recognition" is that the "states admit ... that they regard said political entity as a state". So it's impossible to recognize while simultaneously claiming that SADR isn't a state, these two positions are contradictory. Now Panama has said that "SADR isn't a state", perhaps because they think the facts on the ground have changed or perhaps because they've reassessed the facts. Either way, that by definition means that Panama no longer recognizes SADR as a state. TDL (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Panama says that the SADR does not have some of the key elements for the aspiration to be a sovereign State recognized by the international community. Yes, exile States like SADR, SoP or East Timor in 1975-1999 always receive only limited recognition, since only some states, but not the community as a whole, are willing to accept this type of States, which some of the key parameters are missing. Panama does not say that suspended now her recognition of SADR. Panama says that SADR in this situation cannot aspire to the recognition by the international community. And Panama says that she suspended relations with this State (and note, with SADR, no with so-called SADR or "SADR") . Jan CZ (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Panama clearly said that they do not consider the SADR to be a state. I'm really not sure how much more clear they could have been in their statement. It seems that you're attempting to argue that Panama doesn't think they're a state, but they recognize them as one anyways. That's a pretty dubious interpretation of the statement. If the statement was inverted, and say France said "France considers that the SADR meets the criteria for statehood", we would add them to the list of recognizers, because this is a clear statement of recognition. Just because the word "recognition" isn't used in the statement doesn't change that.

This article quotes the Panamanian Foreign Minister as saying: "Panama suspend its recognition of the ghostly "SADR" to fix the "error" of the military dictatorship, a decision was taken after careful consideration." That seems even clearer. TDL (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement that someone meets the criteria of statehood, it is not recognition. Pakistan clearly respects that Armenia meets the criteria for recognition, but still it refuses to recognise. Recognition is a political act that is the result of the political will of the State. There is no obligation for States to recognize or not recognize, States may not consider any criteria. The various statement or other similar expressions can be found more without meant official recognition. However, Your new source (Panama suspend its recognition) brings new light to the situation and shows that the freeze (in this particular case of Panama) actually applies not only to relations, but also to recognition. Jan CZ (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)