Talk:International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 31 days

Africa: Western Sahara High‑importance

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

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Foreign relations of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic was copied or moved into International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with this edit on 7 August 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Liberia doesn't recognise SADR

Liberia is planning to open a consulate in Dakhla recognising de facto Moroccan sovereignty in Western Sahara. https://www.mapnews.ma/en/actualites/politics/liberia-open-consulate-dakhla-fm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegeta228 (talk • contribs)

May 2025

Morocco has a habit of alleging all kind of nonsense about SADR and its relations, none of which belongs in this or any article (Wikipedia is neither a newspaper peddling the latest hearsay, nor a vehicle for propaganda).

Uruguay didn't suspend its relations with SADR (the source that was used doesn't say that). In any case, this official source says otherwise.
The Moroccan claim about Syria is baseless and has been debunked by multiple sources, including the SPS.
The recent Moroccan claim about Kenya is also baseless, if not asinine given that Kenya has diplomatic relations with SADR. Here's what the official Kenyan sources say about the opening of the embassy in Morocco and the Kenya-Morocco Relations (not a word about what Morocco claims).

This is why we have been sticking to what the official sources say about the countries' own positions with regard to SADR. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate your help! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

@WikiEdWoq: please refrain from adding content that has nothing to do with the primary topic. Those two countries recognise and have diplomatic relations with SADR. That's all that matters as far as this article is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the primary list should remain focused on formal recognition/diplomatic ties. However, I placed the Ghana and Kenya developments under the "Further details" section precisely because they are not formal withdrawals but still constitute diplomatically significant shifts, especially as they describe Morocco’s autonomy plan as the only credible and realistic solution. Similar contextual developments are already present under other entries in that section. I believe this provides readers with a fuller picture while maintaining the structure and scope of the article. WikiEdWoq (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

they are not formal withdrawals but still constitute diplomatically significant shifts that's inadmissible WP:OR. This article is about the International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and as long as those countries recognise it, then there is nothing to talk about, much less engage in some baseless OR. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not WP:OR. I’m not interpreting unsourced claims, I’m citing official government statements, reported by Reuters and Jeune Afrique, where these countries explicitly back Morocco’s autonomy plan as the only credible solution. That’s not original research, it’s factual, verifiable, and relevant. Removing sourced material without discussion and calling it OR doesn’t hold up to WP standards. WikiEdWoq (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to what this article is about (the International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this material is being included in the article. It has nothing to do with formal recognition of SADR. Interpreting it as evidence of a shift in recognition status constitutes WP:OR. Skitash (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEdWoq: I don't understand. How can you cite WP:ONUS and do the exact opposite of what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added properly sourced material to the "Further details" section, and you removed it without any consensus. WP:ONUS says challenged material needs to be discussed, not unilaterally removed, especially when it's properly sourced and consistent with existing entries. That’s exactly what you did by reverting without discussion. WikiEdWoq (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says: the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (that's you). M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I’m doing exactly that, seeking consensus on the talk page for content that is verifiable, properly sourced, and in line with comparable entries already present in the article. What WP:ONUS doesn’t mean is that you get to unilaterally decide what stays or goes without discussion. If you're challenging the inclusion, you're part of the consensus building process too, not the final word on it. WikiEdWoq (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you (for the reasons that I explained), which means that you don't have consensus for its inclusion. The fact that you know what WP:ONUS means (since you cited it) helps a lot. M.Bitton (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

The attempted addition is irrelevant to the table. The topic of Ghana's recognition of SADR would warrant inclusion, per WP:DUE. The topic of Ghana's opinion of another state's solution to a related issue does not belong in the table. Interpreting it as Ghana's official stance on recognition or a significant shift is WP:OR. I would suggest that this level of detail would be better placed in Foreign relations of Ghana. I also believe M.Bitton is correct on what WP:ONUS represents. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, there was only the page Political status of Western Sahara, where everything was incoherently tangled. We established the current page International recognition of the SADR precisely to monitor the formal issue of diplomatic recognition. For questions of countries' opinions on the current and, above all, future status of Western Sahara, we left the page Political status of the Western Sahara. I therefore agree with M.Bitton that these comments should not be posted here (but on the Political status of Western Sahara) Jan CZ (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, they refuse to include it in the Political status of Western Sahara too. there is ongoing talk to include Ghana and Kenya's new stance there too, but with no consensus whatsoever (same editors who refuse it here btw), I'm curious as what would be your take there. But anyway, because of this WP:OWN, I guess that this piece of information will not be anywhere in Wikipedia at all because of the , which is sad. Sayuuuto (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

@Skitash: The edits were explained. Please add reliable sources if you choose to restore the content; as they are, they violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to substantiate your claims. Start by explaining how RS about "state recognition" do not belong in article about "state recognition". M.Bitton (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]