Talk:Global Compact for Migration

Marrakech Conference
As of 10 December, media reports that the agreement has been "affirmed" or "agreed to" by 164 nations but notably _not_ that it has been signed. Media reports say that will come later. So data should not be presented as if the compact has been "signed".

Further, we need a source for those 164 and this article should not purport to report which 164 nations have affirmed the agreement using media releases prior to the conference. If I can't find a source then I will be modifying the article to avoid describing which countries actually signed the agreement. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There won't be any signing at any point. The compact will be endorsed through a UN resolution, which countries will vote on. The vote will take place on 19 December 2018. The Marrakesh conference was for debating and the adoption/approval of the final draft of the document. Those, who approved the document in Marrakesh are also most likely going to endorse it in New York. Furthermore, any talk about backing out of the agreement at a later date (Brazil for example) is non-sensical because the compact is already legally non-binding and you can't really take back a vote you have already cast.--Estonian1885 (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification! So media reports talking about the agreement being "signed" are incorrect? I suppose the article should make reference to the text being "adopted" rather than "signed". Curiouskiwicat (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. There was no signing. You can check the daily journal of the conference to see that nothing of the sort took place. Actually, there wouldn't be any vote at the UN General Assembly either if opposing countries didn't plan to express their disapproval. The UN GA would simply endorse the compact without any voting. Again, the compact is legally non-binding and any talk about signing or backing out of it makes absolutely no sense. It is kind of similar to table etiquette. Yes, there is a set of rules (a framework) that has been agreed upon, but it is in no way formally binding. Furthermore, it can vary from place to place.--Estonian1885 (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I checked the daily journal, it was difficult to even find evidence that countries had "agreed" or "assented" in any way to the compact! The UN press releases seem to imply that simple attendance to the conference signals agreement, and I believe that, but when I looked at those daily journals, all I saw was a list of countries who had time on the agenda to speak. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much correct. There was no separate formal approval of the document during the conference. After all, it was simply a conference. Approval was expressed through speeches made during the conference. I would have to check the videos of the conference to see if there was any resolution to approve the draft. There might have been. I am not entirely sure of the process for approval. But there was definitely no vote over it (during the conference) as far as I'm aware. In this sense, the current article is quite a mess and lacks proper and clear information as to what this whole thing was about.--Estonian1885 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeeeah, the article is a mess, pretty characteristic of a highly polarized current event with editors coming from different ideological perspectives. I haven't got the knowledge or time to really do much better than already exists, but I am sure if you or another well-informed editor took some time to tidy up now that the media coverage and controversy has died down, it would be a substantial improvement! Curiouskiwicat (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, the problem is that most media outlets haven't been able to properly report on this subject. This means that there aren't any good sources to use, and relying on original research is not really allowed here. A good example is the mess with Brazilian "withdrawal". This is all clearly populist propaganda, because it is essentially like saying "I am going to withdraw from good manners". Such statements make no sense, other than to gain more support from a riled up population. Brazil already has no obligation to implement any of the points in the document. It is up to individual governments to pick and choose what to implement and how.--Estonian1885 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Global Compact on Refugees
Apparently, this Global Compact on Refugees is a separate thing, which warrants an article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Debate in asian states missing
What is the position of asian states like China Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi-Arabia or Russia ?--Quario (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

only contra-states in article
why not pro-states, except germany? --Petruz (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically this is a non-binding treaty that would have been signed by all states, except that right-wing politicians in the US, Europe, and several other places have responded to populist outrage about it. This is the only reason that media reports exist about European and other countries either signing it or not signing it. The information on this page, including the map, describes those media reports. Most states are missing just because media are not reporting their positions because there is no controversy over signing in those countries. You can expect they will sign it, but I have not been able to find a published source that actually predicts that. Ideally the article would say this, but someone would need to describe the situation in a NPOV way with sources, which I have not done here. The information will be thrown out tomorrow anyway after the actual Morocco signing and the positions countries have taken to-date will be largely superseded by what they've actually signed. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Substance of the report: illegal and legal migrants
Some confusion has arisen about whether it is appropriate to make the statement, "The agreement makes no distinction between migrants, illegal or not". They've cited this source. I'm not sure about the best way to resolve this but the compact does in fact make repeated distinctions between "regular" and "irregular" migration, including preventing "irregular" migration. There is potential for controversy here so I want to appeal to other editors to ensure the facts are well-represented. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The text itself of the Pact is WP:PRIMARY and _should_not_ be used: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". All direct references to the text of the pact should be deleted. XavierItzm (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

"Regular" and "irregular" migrants
The question is, what does it mean? Does it refer to "regulations", aka "illegal" and "legal"?

Because, according to the direct meaning, it would mean that migrations have to follow some certain pattern, like "from Poland to Germany every Tuesday" - makes no sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.209.147.150 (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It's political correctness speak - regular means legal, irregular means illegal. That's all it means. Sumorsǣte (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Correct. I inserted that text. The text has about 15 references to "irregular" migration, clearly making some distinctions. But technically the text makes no reference to "illegal" or "legal" migration, so I had to concede to another editor that claim was technically correct when that editor insisted we leave in a claim pointing that out. The only solution for me was to leave _both_ statements in, even though they seem to conflict; both are technically correct. Curiouskiwicat (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The actual WP:RS calls it illegal (nonlegal) vs legal migrants. The text itself of the Pact is WP:PRIMARY and _should_not_ be used: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources".  All direct references to the text of the pact should be deleted.XavierItzm (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, per WP:PRIMARYCARE: "Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." The article does cite the primary source, but only to make straightforward, descriptive statements that the text does in fact refer to regular and irregular migration and discuss them in different ways. This is verifiable by any person who can use a search function through the original source. I would concede and agree that any claims based only on the primary source which are not "straightforward, descriptive," "verifiable" statements should be removed. Does anything there fail that test? Curiouskiwicat (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Sending" and "Receiving Countries"
How about pointing out that this is really about migrants heading to "a shrinking pool of prime destination countries" Yonk (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies
The map doesn't seem to follow the text. Chile: map-abstained text-rejected Romania: map-abstained text-signed Slovakia: text-rejected map-Absent(which is also true but not as relevant) Etc. Szalai.laci (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)