This article is within the scope of WikiProject Algeria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Algeria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AlgeriaWikipedia:WikiProject AlgeriaTemplate:WikiProject AlgeriaAlgeria articles
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 articles
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 articles
Concerning this and a similar edit on the Algeria–South Africa relations: its content obviously has nothing to do with the primary topic (the relations between the two countries, Algeria-South Sudan and Algeria-South Africa). This is all that's needed to keep it out of the article, but there is more: this is an opinion/utterly baseless claim (published in a Moroccan propaganda outlet) that is presented as a fact in wikipedia's voice.
See the the previous discussion with the IP. M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will summarize my position here too, for any interested editor. This article is about Algeria–South Sudan relations, not a summary of it. That means that is not supposed to be just about the acts that those two countries did, but should also include anything important connected to it. The effects those actions have on other international relationships (like, in this case, the ones with Morocco, especially between Morocco and South Africa that don't even share a border) definitely are relevant, and should be in it. I don't think anyone would remove the parts about what the UN, the US, Saudi Arabia or the European countries tried to do (with summits or otherwise) or said about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict from its article just because they are not one of the two parties involved, or to delete this section from the BRICS one, so I don't see why in this case (and in the Algeria–South Africa relations too, of course) the logic should be different. The sources, while Moroccan, are also definitely more than fine for what they are needed to: support the fact that the Moroccan king "intended to demonstrate how the Algeria-South Africa block feeding secessionist movements in Africa, including the Polisario Front, had failed". If the text in the paragraph said something like "and he succeded" or "he failed" then it would probably need other sources, but that's not the case. It only says that "he intended to". There is no need to search elsewhere just to say that the Moroccan king went to a place and expressed his and his country's position and opinion on something. 37.163.210.35 (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention two important facts: 1) Morocco is irrelevant to the relations between the two countries. 2) the Moroccan propaganda outlets that you're using are making baseless claims that contradict what we know about Morocco's irredentism and its illegal occupation of Western Sahara. M.Bitton (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. The reaction of Morocco to the relationship between Algeria, South Sudan and South Africa is an encyclopedic fact related to the topic, and for that reason it deserves to be included here. The western journalists talking about the BRICS in the section I mentioned are surely less important than the head of government of another country, but they are still included.
About the sources, there are no baseless claims about that specific argument they are used for. The Moroccan king did indeed go to South Sudan, and tried to politically use the visit against Algeria and South Africa in response to their support for the indipendence of Western Sahara. These are quite basic and obvious facts and there is no reason to say that those sources are not reputable about that just because they are Moroccan. Whatever the articles say about the Western Sahara status itself is irrelevant, because that's not the point they are supposed to support. If anything, if they were really propaganda outlets like you wrote, that would make the fact even more certain. Because them representing the position of the Moroccan government would mean that the king 100% wanted to do that and wanted everyone to know it, so there would be no doubts at all about his objective for the trip and what motivated him.37.163.210.35 (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the reaction of Morocco, it's the reaction of a pseudo-journalist (a nobody/self-declared cheerleader of the Moroccan propaganda). The relations between Morocco and South Sudan are irrelevant to the relations between South Sudan and other countries (like I said, You're welcome to create the Morocco-South Sudan relations article). You don't bring Western Sahara into this and decide what can and cannot be included. If we keep that nonsense, then there's a lot that I will add (per NPOV). M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the fact that you are writing a lot of accusation without sources about that newspaper (not about them being biased about that topic, but about them not being journalists. Unfortunately that's not an equivalent), that same tweet you mentioned before shows that the visit by the Moroccan king had indeed a political objective to try to separate South Sudan from Algeria and South Africa. Otherwise the South Sudanese government would not have felt the need to clarify its position. So the "pseudo-journalist" was right about that, apparently.
Regarding the inclusion of other information, if it's related to this specific topic why not, add it, I don't see any issue with it. That obviously doesn't mean that if you don't agree with the relevancy of something included in the article you can just write about anything you want even if it's not related at all. 37.161.10.254 (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again! The source I quoted is about "Morocco's 2022 request to severe relations with SADR". I don't need to tell you that Algeria is not SADR or remind you that Morocco does it all the time with every country that recognizes SADR, and therefore, such info about other countries has nothing whatsoever to do with what you're claiming and is completely irrelevant to the primary topic. I suggest you create the Morocco-South Sudan relations article where it would be appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a SADR that Moroccans consider to be supported the most by Algeria and South Africa. That they therefore tried to separate from South Sudan. You have not disproven anything. 37.161.10.254 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, relations between other countries are irrelevant to the topic (Algeria–South Sudan relation). Anyway, the offer to create the Morocco-South Sudan relations (where info such as the one I cited would be relevant) still stands. Please let me know when you start it so that I can help with the content creation. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see how this content is relevant to the article at hand, and I'm not convinced that the sources are reliable. It's probably best not to include it in the article. With that said, I would caution M.Bitton regarding how they approach this; statements like the Moroccan propaganda outlets that you're using are making baseless claims that contradict what we know about Morocco's irredentism and its illegal occupation of Western Sahara could be read as WP:ADVOCACY or WP:NATIONALIST editing. It's not our place as editors to decide whether a country's actions are or are not acceptable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: The propaganda outlets (blog like pseudo-newspapers and not the country) I'm referring to are known for their anti Algeria stance, anti South Africa and anti whomever dares to hold a view that doesn't suit their agenda (just read any of their articles and you'll see what I mean), so I won't mince my words when it comes to describing them. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien The point is to also talk about the reaction to Algerian-South Sudan relations (and Algeria-South Africa ones as well, since this discussion from the start was pretty much related to both the articles). That's why I cited the BRICS and Israel-Palestine articles for an analogy. Anyway regarding the source the author of the first one apparently wrote for openDemocracy too, so we can at least consider him a legitimate journalist, bias notwithstanding. 37.161.10.254 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from both pages. The content that the IP user wants to add is not relevant to either page and the main source used is a dubious opinion piece. Furthermore the website seems to clearly lean a certain way. "It is worth noting that the South African President-the self-proclaimed revolutionary in chief- Jacob Zuma has not visited the struggling new nation of South Sudan" and "King Mohammed’s visit to South Sudan, country ravaged by a vicious civil war where diplomats are cautious to stay, will remain historic for a Monarch who truly adores Africa," is not very subtle. Iamawesomeautomatic (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal I don't think a third country will always be inherently irrelevant to an article on the relations of two other countries (alliances and wars come up, etc.). That said, the IPs addition was clearly polemical but also just trivial. The head of state of the third country "intended to demonstrate" something on a visit to one country that somewhat involved the other country? How is that important to understanding Algeria-South Sudanese relations? -Indy beetle (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's to show how those relations caused a reaction by another country at odds with Algeria (in this case Morocco) that tried to forge closer relationships with South Sudan to try to break them. Exactly like in the Algeria–South Africa relations article case, where in my opinion it's relevant because it shows how Algeria's close relations with South Africa caused Morocco to become hostile to South Africa too. 37.160.129.49 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
