Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Montenegro

I remember seeing something that said that most UN member nations don't recognize Montenegro, simply because they haven't bothered to since it split with Serbia. Can anyone help me find a source for this, and if it is true add it to the list? 174.5.11.131 (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

4 years passed since its independence and currently it already has established relations with around 140 states. Also the point of the above is that Montenegro recognition is not "limited", but just "non announced yet" (in fact I don't know any state, UN member or other, that has officially declared recognition/relations with ALL UN member states - some just don't bother to do this as they don't have any relations in practice - such as Nauru-Bhutan, Niger-Palau, etc. couples). There were such discussions in the past (for example here. This example was used for contrast with the included limited recognition states. Anyway - for Montenegro see [2] and Foreign relations of Montenegro.

In summary - I don't think we should add Montenegro to the list, unless we have a source about some explicit non-recognition. Alinor (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

All states in the UN recognize Montenegro as a soveriegn state via the vote to allow Montenegro to accede to the United Nations.XavierGreen (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree Xavier, but on the other hand noone does not recognise - so I'm not for addition to the list. Also see the archive link above. Outback the koala (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. In the absence of explicit recognition or non-recognition it's best to assume nothing. Ladril (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Why Is the Libyan Republic not a State

Several people here assert that the Libyan Republic is not a state, despite the fact that it fits the definition of a state exactly. No one here as stated any concise reason why it is not a state other than issues of time. Time of existance is not an issue, many states have lasted only a few months weeks or days. The West Ukrainian People's Republic would be a good example of a short lived state. Since both Libyas fit the criteria of the list, they must be included if one wants to have a complete list.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

According to that page you are showing us, the ephemeral Ukrainian republic was intending to secede from an existing state (the Austro-Hungarian Empire). In the case of Libya this is not happening. By insisting on inclusion you are ascribing a false motive to the Libyan rebels (however commendable their true cause may be). Ladril (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ladril, I also do not see a separate state, only two competing claimants. Outback the koala (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the title, it clearly says there "List of states with limited recognition", not "list of non-ephemeral states" or something. The only question is, does the state in question have any kind of international recognition. The Libyan Republic clearly does that, thanks to Sarkozy. The recognition is limited indeed, but there it is. So, list it. The motive of the Libyan rebels is clearly to topple Gaddafi's "Jamahiriya". I don't see any rebel leader saying that he is the real "Brotherly Leader" of the Jamahiriya. Therefore, the rebels clearly try to replace Gaddafi's state with another state, i.e. a Republic. So please stop saying there is only a single state, because that's clearly not the case.

Ladril has shown complete lack of understanding of the term "state" before. I have patiently asked him to look it up. Since he clearly did not manage to do that, I ask for indulgence if my comment is now beginning to sound less patient. It is one thing to point somebody to the proper reference. It is another to be forced to repeat the exercise on a daily basis because the other party simply refuses to pay attention. Why do you keep saying that the conflict in Libya isn't a war of secession? Nobody ever claimed it was. Can we please agree that secession isn't the issue here and move on? --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

dab, regime change is not the creation of a new state. We don't have two states here, at least by now. Please, do mind read the threads in this page and stop patronizing people. Thanks, --IANVS (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I keep pointing out the Libyan conflict is not a war of secession because Xavier brought a secession as an example. I understand the parallel other people are trying to draw is with the two Chinas but it doesn't seem correct either. Ladril (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand them correctly, XavierGreen wasn't arguing that the Libyan conflict is a war of seccession, he was merely bringing up the West Ukrainian People's Republic to argue that longevity should not be a concern. The fact that the Libyan rebels don't want to create a separate state is moot as long as they are not successful in defeating Gaddafi, because until that time, they have created a separate state. By your own definition, a state is a government + a territory + a population, so I don't understand how you can argue that there can be two governments but not two states. sephia karta | dimmi 15:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gaza and the West bank have two separate governments as well. If we include two Libyas, then we should include two Palestines. And two Somalias, and two of every country where there is an ongoing civil war with rebels controlling some territory. The fact that the opposition's "government" (and I use that term loosely since there really hasn't been a government set up by the rebels as of yet) has been recognized by France is irrelevant for the purposes of inclusion on this list. We include completely unrecognized states as well (see Somaliland). TDL (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think arguments could reasonably be made for including two Palestines, several Somalias and so on - on the same basis as we now include two Chinas - if we can reasonably demonstrate Montevideo's fourth criterion (the capacity to enter into relations with other states) in every case. I'm not saying I'd necessarily accept those arguments, but I don't think the point is so cut and dried that a case could not be made. This is why I suggested earlier that a more consistent solution might actually be to remove China and Taiwan: to consider the state to be "China", and to treat the PRC and ROC governments as competing governments of the same state rather than as separate states. This is, after all, the position taken by both governments and by every other state in the world. Pfainuk talk 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"This is, after all, the position taken by both governments and by every other state in the world." I insist: you do not know this for a fact. Ladril (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So name the country that actively disputes this position. Pfainuk talk 18:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done so before: Kiribati comes to mind. Ladril (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? This article and others will need to be updated if Kiribati recognises both. Pfainuk talk 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, exactly which parts of this article would be in need of updating? Here are the current statements from the ROC and PRC entries which apply exactly to Kiribati:

"The Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan), constitutionally formed in 1912, is currently recognised as a state by 22 UN members and the Holy See."

"The PRC does not accept diplomatic relations with states that recognise the ROC (currently 22 UN member states and the Holy See)."

It doesn't say that states only recognize one or the other, as you seem to think.Ladril (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand the Palestinian situation (and I could well be wrong, so please correct me if that is the case), Hamas and Fatah both claim to be the government of the Palestinian National Authority, which no one considers to be an independent state. Crucially, as far as I know, Hamas itself does not claim to be running an independent state. If it were, we should indeed list it here. The Palestinian State listed in this article is at best a government-in-exile, and at worst a wholly theoretical enterprise, which is only featured here because it has been recognised by other states. The Libyan rebels on the other hand do claim to be the legitimate government of a state, and are recognised as such by France.

Other insurgent groups around the world typically do not exercise permanent control over a clear piece of inhabited territory and/or they do not (yet) claim to actually be the government of an independent state. If you can find counterexamples and if these two criteria can be verified, then I would not be opposed to including such rebel governments in this list.sephia karta | dimmi 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is another reason why the situation in Palestine really is different. Hamas and Fatah still operate within the same constitutional framework. Only the cabinets (Prime Minister, other Ministers) are different, both sides recognise the same Legislative Council, and at least until 2009, they both recognised Abbas as their President. (Hamas may now officially consider Council Speaker Aziz Duwaik to be Interim President, but that is unclear.) sephia karta | dimmi 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've yet to see your own criteria verified for the opposition in Libya. Do you have any sources to support the claim that they "exercise permanent control over a clear piece of inhabited territory"? It takes a pretty large leap of faith to come to this conclusion from a two week uprising.

I agree that the situation in Palestine is complicated by the technical distinction between the PLO and the state of Palestine. But I think there is a case to be made that the situation is analogous. However, in Somalia Al-Shabaab controls ~1/2 of the territory. (The internationally recognized government controls ~10%, see File:Somalia map states regions districts.png) They claim to have founded the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia". [3]. I don't see how this situation is any different from Libya (except for France's recognition, but recognition is specifically not required for inclusion on our list). I'm sure there are other examples of insurgency groups out there as well. TDL (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Not required, no, but being recognized does, I believe, in itself, qualify one for inclusion. Is there any entity in the world that is recognized as a country by a UN member that isn't on this list, except for the Libyan Republic? --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the rebels' control is shaky, and on that ground I was at first sceptical. But as dab rightly pointed out, as it currently stands, the inclusion criteria for this article require claimed independence and permanent control or recognition by at least one other state, so as long as the rebels are recognised by France, they meet the criteria.

I hadn't thought about Al-Shabaab, thanks for pointing them out, I think we should consider including them, if we have good references (I can't access that article).sephia karta | dimmi 20:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems that dab is right. I must have missed the discussion when that was changed. Previously, recognition wasn't sufficient for inclusion. I think we need to be careful what has been recognized though. As far as I can tell, France only recognized the NLC as Libya's "legitimate representative". To me that seems like less than the "recognised as a state" that we require. After all, most states recognizes the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative" of Palestine, even those states which refuse to recognize the State of Palestine. Many states recognize Ouattara as the legitimate representative of Cote d’Ivoire.

Not sure why you can't access the source. It works fine for me. Here is the relevant quote: "Islamic transnationalism is represented in Somalia by al-Shabab, which announced in mid-September the formation of the "Islamic Emirate of Somalia"..." Here is another source from the Australian government: "Al-Shabaab seeks the creation of an ‘Islamic Emirate of Somalia’" [4] TDL (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The same legitimate representative point would seem also to apply to the Chinese situation, where states recognise either the PRC or the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. Pfainuk talk 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the difference in China is that the recognitions weren't qualified like the one France made of the NLC. France seems to have gone out of it's way to make sure that they only recognized NLC as a representative of Libyan people. The actual quote was: "French authorities decided to recognize the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people" [5]. This can be interpreted in many ways (and was probably intentionally vague) like the statements recognizing the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". Nowhere do they claim that the NLC is a state or that it governs Libya. In the case of China, we see much clearer statements such as: "The Australian Government recognizes the Government of the People?s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China" [6]. TDL (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Another key point about the recognition: France recognized the National Transitional Council, not their proposed Libyan Republic. As far as I'm aware, the NTC hasn't ever claimed to be a state. They are a body formed to act as the "the political face for the revolution". They've specifically stated that "the council was not an interim government". [7]. So if the NTC doesn't consider itself a state, how could the French recognize them as such? TDL (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but that is when they first started in late February. According to the Wikipedia article on 5 March it issued a statement in which it declared itself to be the "sole representative of all Libya" and that it refers to the state as the Libyan Republic (emphasis not mine). However, I agree that there could be a distinction between France recognising the NTC as the legitimate representative of the people vs. the legitimate government of Libya. The media have widely reported the second, so the difference may be ineffectual. sephia karta | dimmi 10:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just like the PLO claims to be the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people". This doesn't mean that they claim to be a state. The fact that they avoided using the word "government" in their statement is a pretty clear indication that they don't see themselves as that. TDL (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many other examples, beyond Palestine and Côte d'Ivoire. If the French statement that they "recognize the council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people" is enough to include two states in Libya, then we'll need to included Tibet: "In October a nonbinding resolution signed by Bush recognized that the Chinese occupation of Tibet was illegal and that the Dalai Lama's government in exile is the true representative of the Tibetan people."[8]. And Kashmir: "...the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a coalition of different parties struggling for Kashmir independence. It is recognized by Pakistan as the sole representative of the people of Kashmir." [9][10]. And Bangsamoro: "MNLF, recognized by the OIC as the sole representative of the Moros."[11] The point is this isn't an issue of semantics. It was clearly a very careful choice of wording by the French. TDL (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A good point was raised about Côte d'Ivoire. Considering this discussion about Libya, what are the differences? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the opposition doesn't control any territory in Cote d'Ivoire as far as I'm aware. But that's not relevant, since those arguing for inclusion of two Libyas are basing their argument on point #2 of our inclusion criteria. TDL (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it depends on how you define "opposition", because the incumbent government has 'stopped electricity to the North' - so obviously the North/South Civil war ceasefire/divide persists. So, if "opposition" is both the newly elected president and North "former rebels" then they seem control "a hotel" (with UN protection) and "half country". Alinor (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how this evolves, I wouldn't be opposed to inclusion here. However, at the moment there are two rival executive governments, but there is still only one National Assembly of Côte d'Ivoire (recognised by both). This would have to crystallise out further before we can say that they operate trule independent of each other.sephia karta | dimmi 10:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OK but we aren't talking about the Ivory Coast, that is a completely different and separate case. If you want to discuss it, open a new section and I will engage in discussion there. As it stands, this is what I see, one partially recognised state (the Jamahiriya) and one rebel entity that is laying claim to being the legitimate government of Libya. I do not believe the rebels are a state as of late and they should not be added to the list. However we should add The Jamahiriya to the list because it is specifically and explicitly not-recognised by a number of UN members. And the imposition of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 only helps this position. Outback the koala (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The Tripoli Jamahiriya government and the Benghazi rebel government are the SAME state, they are competing governments of the SAME STATE. --maxval (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, making distinction between "government" and "state" is not so easy. "state" does not mean "physical territory claimed" (if it was so, then it would be easy). See [12] - "Definition of a state:

A territory built by conquest in which one culture, one set of ideals and one set of laws have been imposed by force or threat over diverse nations by a civilian and military bureaucracy. States are ephemeral and originate and disappear with the stroke of a pen (e.g. the end of the U.S.S.R., December 25, 1991)." and "A specialized type of political organization characterized by ... that exercises supreme political authority over a defined territory with a permanent population, independent from any enduring external political control and possessing a local predominance of coercive power ... great enough to maintain general obedience to its laws or commands within its territorial borders." - and I think the situation is changing too rapidly right now to claim either that both governments have this power or that one of them doesn't have it. I propose - let's not add any Libyas in the article until the situation settles. Alinor (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You people seem to be going completely astray. There is a clear difference between recognition of states and recognition of governments. It says so in page 25 of this text [13]. "One must not confuse recognition of States with that of governments. In itself, a change of government does not affect the state. Even when the change has been brought about by unconstitutional or violent means, the legal personality of the State is unaffected". Ladril (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "you people"??? Nightw 05:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

It was discussed above - and here is a link [14] about "Pro-Ouattara forces control the north of the country and many fear that a civil war could resume." and "district of Abobo, which is under the control of militias who back his rival, Alassane Ouattara."

Please note that I don't support adding both Libya and Ivory Coast into the list, for the moment, because it seems that both situations change rapidly. Alinor (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Limited recognition.png

Need to change this file on the page, as it shows incorrectly Libya as a state with limited recognition. --maxval (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, and the fact that it had to have lines drawn through it sorta proves it shouldn't be noted on this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistics RFC

Proposal to add in the List of states with limited recognition, above the "see also" section, a new "statistics" section showing some primary data such as population, area, recognitions, etc. for the entities mentioned in the article (states with limited recognition, respective claimant states, non-state sovereign entities with limited recognition) - see the following example: Alinor (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

Name	Territory (sq km)	Population	DR	ORO	Separation conflict
Abkhazia	&0008660 8,660	&0000215972 215,972	&007.00 7	&03.39 —	War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)
Kosovo	&0010887 10,887	&0001815048 1,815,048	&076.00 76	&39.80 6 more	Kosovo War
Nagorno-Karabakh	&0011432 11,432	&0000141400 141,400	&003.00 3	&01.45 —	Nagorno-Karabakh War
Northern Cyprus	&0003355 3,355	&0000285356 285,356	&001.00 1	&03.40 6 more	Turkish invasion of Cyprus
Palestine, State of	&0006020 6,020	&0003761646 3,761,646	&111.00	&75.24 44 more	Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic	&0266000 266,000	&0000513000 513,000	&058.00 58	&28.15 —	Western Sahara War
Somaliland	&0137600 137,600	&0003500000 3,500,000	&000.00 0	&00.49 1	Somali Civil War
South Ossetia	&0003900 3,900	&0000070000 70,000	&007.00 7	&03.39 —	1991–1992 South Ossetia War
Taiwan (Republic of China)	&0036188 36,188	&0023164128 23,164,628	&023.00 23	&34.47 48 more	Chinese Civil War
Transnistria	&0004163 4,163	&0000538800 538,800	&003.00 3	&01.94 1 more	War of Transnistria

Name	Territory (sq km)	Population	ENR	Separation conflict
Armenia	&0029734 29,734	&0003255800 3,255,800	&001.00 1	Nagorno-Karabakh War
China, People's Republic of	&9598095 9,598,095	&1249978685 1,249,978,685	&024.00 24	Chinese Civil War
Cyprus	&0005896 5,896	&0000803200 803,200	&002.00 2	Cypriot intercommunal violence
Israel	&0022072 22,072	&0007697600 7,697,600	&020.00 20	Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Korea, North	&0120538 120,538	&0024052231 24,052,231	&002.00 2	Korean War
Korea, South	&0099828 99,828	&0047278951 47,278,951	&001.00 1	Korean War
Sovereign Military Order of Malta	&0000000 0	&0000000003 3	&011.00	—

Name	Territory (sq km)	Population	Separation conflict
Azerbaijan	&0075168 75,168	&0008997400 8,997,400	Nagorno-Karabakh War
Georgia	&0057140 57 140	&0004436400 4,436,400	Georgian–Abkhazian conflict, Georgian–Ossetian conflict
Moldova	&0033846 33,846	&0003386673 3,386,673	War of Transnistria
Morocco	&0446550 446,550	&0029680069 29,680,069	Western Sahara War
Serbia	&0077474 77,474	&0007344847 7,344,847	Kosovo War
Somalia	&0500057 500,057	&0005859000 5,859,000	Somali Civil War

  State with limited recognition

  Not a state with limited recognition, shown for comparison

Notes

References

Discussion alignment

in continuation of this discussion.

Do you think it's better to align the references in this way? Alinor (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I do. Although, I still don't get why there are two notes outside the Notes section... This is a better version. In the interest of saving talk page space, I suggest you just replace your original proposal with this one. Nightw 11:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean the two notes right below the table? That's because they are instead of table numbers (not explanation/source) - so I place them near the table (here it doesn't matter, but in the article I'm not sure about the distance between the table and the notes section).

OK, maybe I'll archive the older one - but I'll wait somewhat more - maybe someone will be opposed to aligning the references in front. Alinor (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion

• I think that this information and arrangement will be a valuable addition to the article. Alinor (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Alinor (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at talk pages of editors having participated in the related archived discussions. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination has been noted at Talk:List of sovereign states. Alinor (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this. IMO there is a potential POV problem with treating recognition by states that themselves have limited recognition as equivalent to recognition by widely or universally recognised states. For example, the list gives 7 states as recognising Abkhazia, but of those seven only four would be accepted as states by most countries and two have no recognition at all from UN member states. For this reason, this is the sort of thing that is better explained in prose.

I also think that the phrase "other official relations" needs to be defined: for example, do US-Taiwan relations count? What about the official meetings that Somaliland leaders have had with British government officials (which Foreign relations of Somaliland calls "political contacts")?

My only other issue is stylistic (that we ought to delimit numbers with commas, not spaces). Pfainuk talk 18:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The "recognition" and "explicit non-recognition" column includes all recognitions by state/entity that conducts ambassador level relations. I don't think there is a POV problem - if we make arbitrary exclusion of some of these - then it would be POV. What we do is not to judge whose recognition is more important (obviously recognition by USA is more important than recognition by Nauru or South Ossetia or the Holy See) - the number simply includes all of these. And anyway, the "ranking" isn't skewed by this (in the current situation there isn't even a theoretical possibility for recognitions by "obscure" states/entities to overcrowd non-recognition by "regular" states/entities - the "obscure" are too few in comparison to the "regular" - ~10 vs. ~190 and in addition most of the "obscure" states/entities do not recognize each other).

Added clarification footnote for "other official relations" - here are counted the informal/non-diplomatic, but nevertheless official missions of foreign governments send to the state in question (see "Background" section in the article) - the opposite missions of "limited recognition" state to a "regular" state are often entirely unofficial and not acknowledged/endorsed by the host government in any form. The other more "elusive" activities are more like "official contacts" and not "official relations". Changed spaces to commas. Alinor (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with the clarifications regarding "other official relations".

The other point is one that I've argued several times before on different forums. In the same way that it is not neutral to treat Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh in the same way as we treat Tuscany or Dubai, it is also not neutral to treat them in the same way as we treat Swaziland or Syria. This latter is the effect of compiling them into a single number. By including states with limited recognition in this way, we inappropriately take sides in many of these disputes.

Incidentally, I've just done a check of this last point - searching Google for "4 countries recognise Abkhazia", and "7 countries recognise Abkhazia". Now, I'll be the first to admit that Google searches are imperfect and do not necessarily prove anything. But even if I put the "7" in there, it is easier to source four countries than for seven.

This is unsurprising. As far as the vast majority of states in the world is concerned, there are only four states that recognise Abkhazia. Even the Russians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans and Nauruans would only accept five. Saying it's seven favours the minority POV that these few are legitimate over the POV accepted by most of the world that they are not - which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Pfainuk talk 17:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: An Abkhazian government source that refers to Nauru as "the fourth UN member country to recognize independence of the Republic of Abkhazia." This is, of course, perfectly accurate according to their POV (since South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh are not UN members), but if they considered the number seven to be as significant, presumably they would have mentioned it. Pfainuk talk 17:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but at [15] for example they show South Ossetia as equal to Russia, etc. Also, in the "status" column of the main table all these things are described in more detail - IMHO we don't need to go into such detail at the "recognitions" column, that includes a simple number. See below comment too. Alinor (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. That would still only suggest five, not seven - and the source doesn't give a figure. And certainly doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of states would still say four. I'll address the rest below. Pfainuk talk 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the link I gave is not about the number of recognitions, but about Abkhazian missions abroad. I shown it to you so that you see that Abkhazia itself doesn't separate them. States where there is no such mission obviously aren't listed. And the issue is not what the vast majority of states say (they actually say "Abkhazia is part of Georgia", "We recognize Abkhazia", "We don't recognize Abkhazia" or something along these lines - they seldom "count" third party recognitions), but how many recognitions Abkhazia has. And there is no need for us to make arbitrary choices how to "filter" these recognitions. In the Abkhazia entry they are described in detail - how recognizes it, etc. and there it's clearly state how much are UN members and how much aren't. Alinor (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The information on SMOM is quite plainly irrelevant. Still don't see the purpose for having random details on any of the random states like Armenia. My only other issues are minor technical details: the regions of Sool, Sanaag and Cayn were part of Maakhir and Northland, but these states no longer exist; there are repeated links to UNMIK and Western Sahara. I'll support it if you get rid of the extra bits. Nightw 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

SMOM and states like Armenia are not "random" and "irrelevant" - as explained in the RFC opening comment the proposed statistics section includes information on all entities mentioned in the article and these are: "state with limited recognition" (Armenia), "sovereign entity with limited recognition" (SMOM), "state with claim over one of the states with limited recognition" (I assume that by "random" states you refer to these). Currently the proposal has two colors ("state with limited recognition" vs. "not a state with limited recognition") - if you want we can add more colors to distinguish between all types (but I think the "major" distinction currently presented is sufficient).

The footnote mentioning Maakhir and Northland was reworded, because of your previous comments. I will now remove Maakhir and Northland from the footnote, per your request.

I see only one link (note3) to UNMIK and two links (note5 and 13) to Western Sahara (correct me if there are more). I don't agree with you about removal of any one of these, because these three links are in three footnotes and not in the text body. Anyway, I will now remove one of the two Western Sahara links, per your request. Alinor (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Then oppose, for the reasons cited above (irrelevant and overlinked). Nightw 06:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What is overlinked? I removed the second Western Sahara link, so there is only one.

What is irrelevant? Entities already present in the article? If they are irrelevant they wouldn't be present in the article. Alinor (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If included in the article, this would be the third and second linkage to Western Sahara and UNMIK, respectively. The major issue, however, is the irrelevance of SMOM and states like Armenia. Still opposed. Nightw 07:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK - multiple links possible "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." - in this case the distance between the occurrences will be between 2 to 4 sections. 1st occurrence is in "Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member". Then there is "Partially unrecognised UN member states". Then "Excluded entities". Then "Statistics" (here are the footnote [1] tags). Then "See also". Then "Notes" where the second occurrence is.

Armenia is one of the states with limited recognition and is already present in the article. SMOM is a sovereign entity with limited recognition and is already present in the article. That's why it's included in the statistics section proposal. The statistics section proposal doesn't include any state/entity not already present in the article. Alinor (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They're not part of the list, but here you're proposing to display them as though they are. Unless some concessions are made, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree in this instance. Nightw 10:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made countless concessions already.

"They're not part of the list" - nobody claims that they are, on the contrary.

"display them as though they are" - no, I don't propose such thing - they are clearly distinguished by coloring as "Not a state with limited recognition, shown for comparison" - if you want some additional distinction marks to be added such as italics, sign, footnote or whatever - then say so. And I assume that you don't refer to Armenia, because actually it's not only present in the article, but also it's included in the list. Alinor (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I like the idea of an overview about the states in the article. These statistics go a way towards that. However, I have some issues.

• As Pfaink said above, saying Abkhazia has 7 recognitions and Nagorno-Karabkh has 3 etc. is POV.
• States currently coloured yellow have no place in this article.

As a solution, I would actually prefer it if this information was integrated into the current tables. If this is done the recognition issue is taken care of. Separation war can be included in the other claimants column, and the rest of the stats can replace the current Further information and references columns, which should be integrated into the prose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Integrating in the other table is be possible, yes.

POV is to judge the recognitions by their origin - we just give the number and as you say - the details of who recognizes are already described in the "status" column.

The yellow colored are there, because they are already present in the article and it's important to put the states with limited recognition in the context of the yellow colored for comparison with the claimants and sovereign entities with limited recognition. That will be a problem if we go the integration route - because obviously the data on these doesn't have where to go into. Alinor (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging recognition by origin is not POV, it's a good application of WP:WEIGHT.

It's not important to place them in context. I don't see how the context means anything at all. How does comparing Nagorno-karabakh to Azerbaijan add anything to the article at all? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But this "weighting" is already done in the "status" column of the main table, where it's described in more detail who the recognizers are, etc. Another problem with us judging recognition origin is the "sorting criteria" problem we have at the List of sovereign states. By simply counting all we avoid having to make arbitrary choice of "preferred organization" or some other sorting criteria.

Comparing the difference between NKR/Azerbaijan and North Cyprus/South Cyprus shows that the first are of totally different scale and the second are similar. We can analyze the data in many different ways, but I don't think this is our job here - we should just present the data as it is, and readers can reach their own conclusion about the aspects they are interested in. But this can't be accomplished if we don't place the data.

If we go into adding "recognition"/"population"/etc. columns to the main tables (thus satisfying editors that think there is a "weight"/POV problem) and integrating the other information in the claimant/status columns we will have the following disadvantages in comparison to the current proposal: sorting (the current main tables are separated so we won't be able to use a sort feature), comparison with sovereign entities with limited recognition (not possible, since these don't have rows in the main tables, but are mentioned in a separate section as prose/bullet), comparison with claimant states (not possible, since these don't have rows in the main tables, but are mentioned in a "claimant" column).

The 'integration' idea could work if we combine the 10others into a single table (with sections separated as in the status quo) and if we add SMOM there (as sovereign entity with limited recognition; with italics/color/etc). Then the problems of sorting and one of the comparison problems will be solved. The comparison with claimants will still not work, but maybe we can't have all at once (their data can be mentioned in a footnote after their names). Alinor (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary at all. Anyway, if it was integrated this whole thing would be completely solved.

How does it serve the reader to see different sizes? They can do further research by clicking the wikilinks. Why do we care whether statistics for SMOM are given? SMOM isn't on the list. We don't need the comparisons, they add absolutely nothing. Why not compare them all to Russia and Vatican city? There's really no information about either the states or the limited recognition status, which is what this article is about. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Weight is already provided in the current list by the status column. But that would be knocked out of kilter by the addition of a table that just gave a figure.

Even if we include all those listed here, the vast majority of states would look down the list of states that recognise Abkhazia and count four. Of those remaining, most would count five. For us to just state seven as though this were undisputed fact would give that POV vast undue weight. Saying seven would endorse the South Ossetian POV and reject the Georgian; it would endorse the Nagorno-Karabakh POV and reject the Azeri; it would endorse the Transnistrian POV and reject the Moldovan. If anything WP:WEIGHT would tell us to do the opposite in all three cases, since the POV of the other side in all three cases is clearly the more prominent.

And it would still be a problem if we said it was seven in an integrated list.

The way to avoid these issues is obvious. Don't try and express this as a single number. It is better that our readers read the prose descriptions provided, to get a neutral view of which states recognise which others. So that they are aware of recognitions by Transnistria or Nagorno-Karabakh (or whoever) and can count or discount them at will. Adding a number in a table discourages this. Pfainuk talk 19:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

By integration I mean that the data will be added to the current tables, which means that there will be no single number for recognition, but merely what is already in the current text. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, there is no POV in just counting the recognitions. Their "type" is already described in the "status" column. And I don't think that Azerbaijan has any position about the number of Abkhaz recognitions - whether these are 4, 5, or 7. The argument you give above sounds like "Azerbaijan doesn't recognize NKR and when Azerbaijan counts Abkhaz recognitions it doesn't take into account the NKR recognition" - but the issue is that Azerbaijan doesn't count Abkhaz recognitions in the first place. In fact, nobody besides Abkhazia itself counts Abkhaz recognitions. And in general there is no reason for any other state to count these - and even if they do it (as part of some political speech by Russia for example) - obviously they would count only states they recognize (e.g. Russia will count South Ossetia as recognizer of Abkhazia, Georgia won't).

But whether a particular state recognizes another one and counts its recognition of a third state - this is irrelevant to the number of recognitions of the third state. The recognitions of Abkhazia are 7. Yes, some of these are not "widely recognized members of the international community" (nice weasel phrase... and this is already described in the "status" column), but they are still entities conducting ambassador level diplomatic relations. Alinor (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I believe I have already demonstrated, when Abkhazia counts states that recognise Abkhazia, the number it comes up with is four UN member states, not seven states that it recognises.

If we're doing ambassador-level diplomatic relations instead of recognition, then you've already shown us the list of embassies in Sukhumi, and there are five, not seven. But if that's now the criterion there's a few pairs missing from this list.

Your contention that number of states that have recognised Abkhazia is 7 assumes that Nagorno-Karabakh has the legitimate authority to recognise other states. According to the POV of every member state of the UN, and a good majority of those entities listed here, Nagorno-Karabakh has no such authority.

As such, your contention that there is no POV in counting recognitions is false. There is certainly POV in counting recognitions if you fail to adhere to the principle of due weight when doing the counting. Giving a number that includes Nagorno-Karabakh as though it was undisputed treats Nagorno-Karabakh as a legitimate and independent sovereign state. Treating Nagorno-Karabakh as a legitimate and independent sovereign state endorses the Nagorno-Karabakh POV and rejects the Azeri POV in the dispute over that territory. WP:NPOV does not allow us to do that. Pfainuk talk 19:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't say that Abkhazia has ambassador-level relations with 7 entities. I said that the number of recognitions is counted among the entities capable of conducting ambassador-level relations - e.g. of all such entities 7 recognize Abkhazia. And I don't see any POV in that - the recognition each of these 7 has with other of these entities is irrelevant. What the figure shows is the number of such entities that recognizes Abkhazia, not what problems each of them has. Alinor (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your statement that there are seven entities capable of conducting ambassador-level relations that recognise Abkhazia is based on the POV assumption that Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and South Ossetia are capable of conducting ambassador-level relations. According to the POV of the vast majority of states in the world, they aren't. Pfainuk talk 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's based on the fact that these 7 entities recognize Abkhazia. Their recognition by third parties is irrelevant here. We don't need such cascades of A-is-recognized-by-B-that-is-recognized-by-C-that-is-recognized-by-D, etc.

Do NKR/Transnistria/South Ossetia/Nauru/Russia/Venezuela/Nicaragua satisfy the inclusion criteria for the List of sovereign states? Yes. Do they recognize Abkhazia? Yes. Are there any other entities satisfying the inclusion criteria for the List of sovereign states that recognize Abkhazia? No. Are there any other entities conducting ambassador-level diplomatic relations that recognize Abkhazia? No. So, that's it, the figure for Abkhazia is 7. But who are those 7, what type of entities are they? This is described in the "status" column. Alinor (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of entities that recognise plenty of claimed states. I note, for example, that you don't include Nakhicevan - which is an entity - on your list of entities recognising Northern Cyprus.

As you may be aware, my position on the list of sovereign states dispute is also that it is not neutral to act as though all of the entities that meet its inclusion criteria are equivalent in status. We cannot neutrally state or imply that Nagorno-Karabakh is of equivalent status to Nicaragua when that position is near-universally rejected internationally. Hence the need for a split in that list. But when it comes down to it, that's what you're arguing we should do here - counting a recognition by Nagorno-Karabakh as equivalent to a recognition by Nicaragua is essentially the same thing. It wouldn't be neutral there and it wouldn't be neutral here. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"There are plenty of entities that recognise plenty of claimed states." - maybe, but what we show here are recognitions from a specific type of entities - those conducting ambassador level diplomatic relations. Nakhicevan doesn't conduct ambassasdor-level relations. I don't know if it has any foreign relations or it just participates in such as part of Azerbaijan.

Pfainuk, the differences between NKR and Nicaragua are described in the status column. But the fact is that Abkhazia is recognized by 7 entities conducting ambassador level relations. Those can be divided into different groups (UN vs. non-UN, big vs. small, widely recognized vs. obscure secessionists, etc.) - but the total number is 7. And this figure is not an addition to the article - these recognitions are already mentioned. The "recognition" column just adds the ability to present the same information at-a-glance and in an easy to compare way. The details about what the figure includes (who/what these 7 are) are in the "status" column. Alinor (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case I refer you to my comment as of 22:59, 23 March 2011. The criterion you have just outlined is intrinsically POV for the reasons outlined therein.

The reason I object to this and not the status column is that the status column explains the situation in prose, allowing our readers to decide what entities to count and what entities not to count. Your column tells readers which position they should be taking on South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. That's something that we are not allowed to do. Pfainuk talk 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the "recognition" column is to give a quick information, at-a-glance. This is not accomplished by the prose. And there is no POV in that. On the contrary - your insistence on not counting particular recognitions is much more POVed.

In the comment you cite you say "According to the POV of the vast majority of states in the world, they aren't [capable of conducting ambassador-level relations]" - I'm not so sure about that - the vast majority of states don't recognize them and won't conduct ambassador-level relations with them because of that. But the fact is that nevertheless the states in question conduct such relations with minorities of states. See 08:49, 24 March 2011.

Actually, what you want to underscore - that the 10others have limited recognition and the vast majority of states don't consider these to be states - this is what the "recognition" column will show - having 1 or 4 or 7 recognitions out of ~200 obviously shows very limited recognition. If you have 50 or 100 recognitions - that's another thing altogether. And as I said already - whether we count recognitions by the 10others or not - this will not change significantly the figure.

But it would be POV on our side to decide recognition by whom to count and by whom not to count. Because obviously the question arises - "what is the criteria for excluding entities from the count" - and we argue about this at the List of sovereign states sorting criteria discussion. But the situation there is different - there we agreed that we need to show in the main list of states that some of them are "widely recognized by the international community" and others aren't. In the article here this is already done (IMHO in a clumsy way, but let's not argue about this) - we have different tables for different "types" of recognition.

Not to mention that by your logic we should give "0" as number for Transnistria and NKR. And your logic has another contradiction - if there was a concept of "self-recognition" all of the 10others would by default fail by your logic.

I see the insistence to apply any POV to a simple number as inappropriate - and it's strange to exclude from this number entities that are included in the same article here. This is not a figure for "recognitions only by entities widely recognized by the international community" - this is figure for "all recognitions by entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations". Alinor (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have added a word there, then, to make my meaning clearer. The vast majority of the world believes that South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh are not legally capable of conducting ambassador-level relations. Saying that the number of states (or "entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations") that diplomatically recognise Abkhazia is 7 supports the POV of those three entities that they are legally capable of conducting ambassador-level relations, and rejects the POV of most of the rest of the world, that they are not. We aren't allowed to take such a position this kind of dispute.

I'd note that it's not "all recognitions by entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations" or "recognitions only by entities widely recognized by the international community" that is being measured here. It's "diplomatic recognition". This whole "ambassador level relations" things is not mentioned by the proposal, so it's pretty irrelevant. The implication of the text is that the number of states that recognise Abkhazia is seven - but clearly, if that includes entities that most don't recognise as states, that number will be disputed.

Incidentally, are there any sources that say that the number of states that recognise Abkhazia is seven? Given that most sources seem to say four, is this not also original research? Pfainuk talk 07:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I already explained - the 10others are capable of such relations and most of them are already doing such, regardless of the opinions of the majority of states - they conduct such relations with a minority of states - and this is not surprising since they have 'limited recognition' after all. Saying that the number of Abkhazia recognitions by entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations is 7 doesn't support any POV - this is just counting of Abkhazia recognitions already mentioned in the article.

There are sources for each of the 7 recognizers - see International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - we correctly add 1 for each of these to get the result 7 (WP:CALC).

"it's not ... it's "diplomatic recognition" ...is not mentioned by the proposal" - I thought it's obvious, but OK, I will add a footnote on the column explaining that. Alinor (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CALC says that it applies "provided... its application correctly reflect the sources". Given that there is apparently no source that gives seven, but that it's pretty easy to find sources that say four, WP:CALC would not seem to justify a claim made by us that it's seven.

I'm afraid I'm struggling to make your argument about "capable of conducting ambassador level relations" make sense. If it's based on what they are legally capable of doing (as you would generally expect), then your statement is POV because the position of the vast majority of states is that South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria are not legally capable of conducting ambassador-level relations. The fact that something happens in practice does not make it legal.

If it's based on what they are physically capable of doing, then patently there is nothing to stop, say, Nakhchivan, Nebraska or Chipping Sodbury also conducting ambassador-level relations. They are all physically capable of doing so - but it's generally accepted that it's not legal so they don't try. And in the first case, that would make a difference to your list because Nakhchivan does recognise Northern Cyprus.

It has to be one or the other, but neither is consistent with your position.

You present this as "just counting of Abkhazia recognitions already mentioned in the article". Well, yes - but there's a difference because the current format allows our readers to make their own determination by explicitly mentioning South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. Readers can then count or discount them as they will, and Wikipedia doesn't take a side. Putting in a number, as you propose, removes this option and openly takes a side in the question of the legality of those three entities. Pfainuk talk 08:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CALC is used exactly in such situation, where there is no source giving the number exactly as presented, but there are sources giving parts that can be used to calculate the number by "routine mathematical calculations" (here we use addition, that is obviously routine) provided that "arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources" (again, it's hard to be wrong with addition: 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7). What you and I argue about is what we should count (e.g. whether we should use all available sources for 1+1+1+1+1+1+1=7 or we don't count some type of states for 1+1+1+1=4 or different set of countries resulting in another number between 0 and 7). What I say is that we use WP:CALC over the individual recognitions and not a single source for the total (otherwise the total will contradict the status column; and reliable sources rarely give total numbers and these are quickly outdated anyway). WP:CALC applies regardless if we count the 10others or not.

"capable of conducting ambassador level relations" is based on what they actually do already (I wouldn't call that "physically") and what they can do according to the legal frameworks that each of them operates by. So, if South Ossetia law gives this capability to its government, then it can do it (and it already does it, so I don't see a point in discussing the legality of this action). And this is not related to what Taiwan, Russia, Georgia or somebody else thinks about the South Ossetia law, whether each of these third parties recognizes South Ossetia statehood or not. These recognitions are bilateral - between Abkhazia and South Ossetia (or whatever couple), not multilateral (there is no "universal legal order" - legality and legal capabilities depend on the legal framework utilized/applied) So, the law of Nakichevan, the law of Nebraska, etc. do not include such provisions and these do not conduct ambassador-level relations - so they are not counted.

I don't propose that we remove the detailed explanation of who is recognizing from the "status" column. And I don't agree that having the 'total' number is POVed - see above. The number shows how many recognitions Abkhazia has received and doesn't give any judgment about the recognizers themselves. Actually, a number doesn't show the recognizers either - and doesn't endorse or imply anything about them - so, readers looking only at "7" can't assume anything about South Ossetia, Russia or any other of the 7 recognizers - can't assume how 'legitimate' each of these is as a state or anything else - the reader actually won't know who these 7 recognizers are or anything more than the fact that Abkhazia has 7 recognitions. If the reader wants to know who they are he will see that in the "status" column and there all required details are present for the reader to evaluate. Alinor (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's trivial to find sources that give four here. See this Google search. [16] [17] [18] all mention the point in the context of the same story, from Georgian, Abkhazian and American sources. See also [19] [20] [21] [22]. Add this one which says "Russia and three other states". Other entities that make slightly different claims but still count four include the Abkhazian government. All of these were written in or since December 2009, when Nauru recognised Abkhazia; by your criteria, and based on the dates provided by International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the number would have been six or seven in all of these sources (depending on Nagorno-Karabakh's date of recogntion).

While counting to seven is obviously trivial, it becomes less trivial (and thus original research comes into play) when there is some interpretation required in the counting. In this case, there fairly obviously is. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the sources above (which took me about ten minutes to find - there are likely many more), which are measuring the same thing but which get a different result to you. Similarly, it's pretty easy to pick two points on Google Earth and find the distance between them - but that's still original research.

By trying to treat a state's legal ability to recognise other states as independent of the wider dispute as whether those states legally exist (which it is not), the criteria you describe become POV. They take the POV that these states have the legal ability to recognise other states. You say we should ignore the entities status, but WP:NPOV does not allow us to do this. We cannot assume that South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria are legitimate and legally constituted sovereign states because that is disputed.

Saying that it is seven removes the option to discount states even if the status column remains. Because it tells the reader that the number of states that recognise Abkhazia is seven as opposed to four, five or six. This would take the position (whatever the arguments) that South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria are legitimate sovereign states, equivalent to UN member states, that just happen not to have been fully recognised. We can't do that because Wikipedia isn't allowed to take such a POV. Pfainuk talk 12:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying 7 doesn't remove anything - it just presents in a convenient way information that is already present in the article - the number of recognitions that Abkhazia has got from entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations. Yes, some of these don't recognize each other, but the number is not about them, it's about Abkhazia - as I said, the act of recognition is bilateral and the opinions of third parties are irrelevant. Of course, recognition by the USA is more important than recognition by Nauru or by NKR, and the "status" column provides enough detail for the reader to evaluate the situation.

Saying 7 doesn't take any position - this is just counting of what the article already said in the "status" column. On a side note - Wikipedia already includes NKR, Transnistria and South Ossetia in the List of sovereign states regardless of their lack of "recognition by the international community" (or whatever we call it) - in contradiction to this "majority POV" - exactly because of NPOV reasons.

You mention something about wrongly implying that all of the 7 are "equivalent to UN member states", but such claim is not mentioned anywhere in the column saying 7 - this column is not about "recognitions by UN member states" and it's not about "recognitions by entities that themselves are widely recognized by the international community". It's about both these recognitions and the "recognitions by entities that themselves are not widely recognized by the international community", e.g. by the very entities that the article here is about. If this isn't made clear enough by the current footnote descriptions I can rewrite these in order to stress the fact that the figures include recognitions from both 'widely recognized entities' and 'entities with limited recognition' as already explained in the status column. Is this OK? Alinor (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying it's seven tells the reader it's seven. If it is seven, it cannot also be four. Given the disputes involved, the reader should be able to make up his own mind and come to a conclusion that it is four - or five, or six - without this being directly contradicted by the article.

List of sovereign states does not mix the states with limited recognition with the states with the states with general recognition. It treats them separately, putting the former into a list of their own at the bottom to avoid the suggestion that they are necessarily equivalent in status to those in the main list. I do not oppose this, and similarly, I do not oppose an appropriate mention of South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh in the status column here. But you may recall that I strongly oppose attempts to remove the divide in the list of sovereign states, for precisely the same reasons as I am giving here.

I agree that saying 7 doesn't state outright that they are equivalent to UN member states. But it does imply it by treating them as equivalent to UN member states for the purposes of generating this number. And this is how it takes a position: by treating them as equivalent to UN member states, it implies that they have a status that they claim but that the vast majority don't accept that they have. And it would still imply it with a barely-noticed footnote, so that would not be sufficient for me. I would be willing to consider it if the entry was something like "4+3" or "0+3", each with footnotes; the splitting criteria to be the same as at List of sovereign states (and to change with that article when that dispute is resolved).

I notice that you don't respond on the NOR issue. It does still concern me here that saying seven relies on an interpretation not backed up by sources. Pfainuk talk 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What OR issue? We have sources for each of these 7, so clearly this is not OR. It may be POV to count all these (I don't think so), but it can't be OR.

Again, it would be POV only if we count "recognitions by entities that themselves are not widely recognized by the international community" - but we don't do this. We count "recognitions by entities conducting ambassador level relations, regardless whether they have wide recognition by the international community or not". And when we count these the figure for Abkhazia is 7. It's not 4. And looking at the status column the reader is informed that the figure for "recognitions by entities that themselves are widely recognized" is 4 and that the figure for "recognitions by entities that themselves have limited recognition" is 3. The sum of these is 7 as shown in the "DR" column. No POV here and no contradiction.

The only contradiction is between your perception of what the "DR" column shows and what it says that it shows. Initially there was no footnote explaining what it shows, so you assumed that it shows "recognitions by entities that themselves are widely recognized" (I wouldn't assume such thing, especially on the article about the states with limited recognition, but anyway) and you are right in objecting counting entities with limited recognition if this is the case. But it isn't. A footnote trying to explain this was added later, but it obviously wasn't made clear enough, so I will reword it now.

Please take a look and keep in mind what the column actually shows, not what you initially assumed that it shows before the changes to the proposal were made. Alinor (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The OR issue is the one I highlighted on previous discussion. Given your response, I'm sure you won't mind if I ask about it at WP:NORN, to satisfy my doubts.

You seem to be trying to get out of the POV problem here with finding ways of wording this. If it relies on such a precise form of words to get the point across then that demonstrates the problem.

But I see the form of words used:

"Number of diplomatic recognitions by entities capable of conducting ambassador-level relations. The number includes recognitions both by entities that are widely recognized by the international community and by such that aren't and that themselves have limited recognition."

and have to point out, as I have before, that according to the vast majority of states in the world, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria aren't "capable of conducting ambassador-level relations", any more than Nakhcivan, Nebraska or Chipping Sodbury are.

Regardless, that's not what's going in the column heading. Most of our readers aren't going to read the footnotes, so the neutrality of the article shouldn't hinge on them. What you propose is that the article say is that seven states recognise Abkhazia, when three of those seven are not accepted as states by the vast majority of the international community.

Note that I'm not arguing that we should say it's four either. I'm arguing only that it should not say seven unless that figure is based on states with general recognition. If that 7 includes states that are not generally recognised, then that is a problem. Pfainuk talk 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't object going to noticeboard discussion, but I kindly ask that first we clarify what our disagreement is about - so that such discussion can be productive.

I'm not trying to get out of a POV problem, I'm trying to explain and clarify it so that it's clear that there is no POV problem.

" according to the vast majority of states in the world, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria aren't "capable of conducting ambassador-level relations", " - this is POV. As I said before - recognitions are bilateral, so opinions of third parties are irrelevant. Regardless the "status" column and the footnote take account of differing third party opinions - so that the reader gets all information.

Footnotes are part of the article, but neutrality of the article doesn't hinge on them. If you want we can place the whole text of the footnote in the tooltip on the column heading (but this is not advisable practice). Anyway, NPOV requires that when counting bilateral diplomatic recognitions we count all of these, not only those that are by some 'privileged' entities depending on the opinions on unrelated third countries (those enjoying wide recognition by the international community) - and this is the natural thing to do, especially since this is in a list about states with limited recognition. By the POV you want to apply we should disregard the positions of these very states that are the main topic of the article.

"What you propose is that the article say is that seven states recognise Abkhazia," - yes, and the sources for these are already in the article. What I propose is that we just add a column summarizing this information included in each of the rows; "...when three of those seven are not accepted as states by the vast majority of the international community." - yes, because recognitions are bilateral and it's NPOV to count them all, not the "preferred" ones only and it would be POV to judge the "quality" of the individual bilateral recognitions.

If you don't argue for 4, then what do you propose? We need to show the main metric ("recognition") of the article topic. What about using 7 for these cases (and explaining the formula in the footnote - it already mentions the two groups)? Alinor (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The OR point was amply described in my posts of 07:45, 26 March 2011, 08:42, 27 March 2011 and 12:03, 27 March 2011. I posted to NORN shortly after my previous comment, the response was one editor saying that it is not OR but POV (though I'd note that I deliberately asked only about OR) and two saying that it is better to avoid it. I apologise if this was not made sufficiently obvious from my previous comment, and you are of course welcome to go there and make any comments you have.

It not POV to point out that the vast majority of states in the world do not recognise South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria as states - and therefore no more capable of conducting ambassador-level relations than are Nakhcivan, Nebraska or Chipping Sodbury, which they also do not recognise as states. I would go so far as to describe this as neutral fact. Do you have some evidence that this is not the case? That there is a significant number states out there that recognise these entities' ability to conduct ambassadorial relations without recognising them as sovereign?

You're saying that the footnote is there to provide neutrality, but that neutrality does not depend on the footnote? It can't be both. If neutrality does not depend on the footnote, what on earth is the footnote doing there? Regardless, saying diplomatic recognition implies states, not "entities capable of conducting ambassador-level relations".

I have no idea on what basis you say that neutrality requires that we include disputed entities in this way, without comment or separation. Shite, even the Abkhazian government excludes South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria here. As does every other source I've seen, on both sides of the dispute. The balance of sources seems fairly firmly against you on that one.

You refer to "the POV [I] want to apply". To what does this refer? My preferred position is not to include any number or indeed any column for this. I do not see how any such count does not cause far more trouble than it is worth. I do not see how listing the states in the status column and allowing to readers to count them for themselves, including or excluding whomever they will, is POV. I've given you an alternative that I would consider: replacing "7" with "4+3". That is already not ideal because it removes a lot of the nuance. But I won't accept this idea that we should make our readers' minds up for them about whether they should consider these three to be legitimate or not. Pfainuk talk 17:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would've appreciated it if you have announced and linked to this noticeboard post before.

The "status" column already explains that 3 of these are not widely recognized as the other 4. But again, recognitions are bilateral, so this is irrelevant - and the DR column shows not only recognitions by widely recognized entities, but also by entities with limited recognition (those are the subjects of the article). Counting those doesn't make them "legitimate" or anything - "7" (or "4+3") is anonymous - the number itself doesn't reveal who is counted inside of it, so first, in order for a reader to know that Transnistria (or other limited recognition state) recognizes Abkhazia he has to look in the status column, where it's explained in what 3 of the recognizers are unlike the other 4 - and the reader then can decide whether these are legitimate or not based on this difference. Second, the column footnote also explains that entities with limited recognition are included in the figure. I don't see any way for the reader to be misled that Transnistria, South Ossetia, NKR, Abkhazia are "widely recognized by the international community" or that they are UN members or anything like that. On the contrary - in all relevant places it is stressed that 'all states are not equal' and that there are differences.

The footnote is not to provide neutrality - it explains what the column shows. And here there are two points on what the number of recognitions includes: 1) Not only states, because in addition we have the EU and SMOM. Of course none of the 10others is recognized by either of these two, so in practice these don't increase the numbers. 2) Not only entities "widely recognized by the international community", but also these with limited recognition - the subjects of the article itself.

The number of recognitions is the main metric of the article topic and needs to be presented appropriately. Kosovo is in entirely different situation from Somaliland/Northern Cypurs - one has "many" recognitions, the other "very few to none". We don't have any meaningful way of putting borders and separating the 10others into groups depending on the degree of recognition, because we can't define "many" and "very few" - but we can put the total number and let the readers decide for themselves. In addition we have the 'recognition by UN/by Non-UN' sections that look at the issue from different angle (but inside the 'by UN' section we have a diversity of situations).

About "4+3" (formula meaning matches the footnote, so it can be easily explained there) - I adopted your proposal in my comment above about using a tooltip - 7 - what do you think about it? Alinor (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything that impacts on the neutrality of this article is relevant to whether the article meets WP:NPOV. Counting entities such as South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh on an equal basis to Russia, Venezuela and Nicaragua is treating them as legitimate. It implies that they have the same status. That's POV.

You say that "in all relevant places it is stressed that 'all states are not equal' and that there are differences". If you say that it's seven, this is not true. Because it treats them as equal. Relying on a footnote to explain the point is insufficient because most people won't read it.

Nor do I accept your argument that the number is "anonymous". This does not provide neutrality because you're still treating these as undisputed sovereign states, which they aren't.

This list is not a list of states by level of recognition, it is a list of states with limited recognition. The differences between cases is already amply explained by the existing text. And I do not accept that there is a fundamental difference, for our purposes, between Kosovo and Northern Cyprus, or indeed between Kosovo and Abkhazia. They differ in degree, but this is, as I say, already explained by the article. So I do not accept that there is any necessity in such a column.

I also, incidentally, oppose the inclusion of the EU and SMOM in any such numbers. For similar reasons. SMOM is disputed, but the EU is undisputedly not a sovereign state. It should not be treated as one.

Finally, I would oppose the use of "7" because it still puts South Ossetia, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh on an equal footing with Russia, Venezuela and Nicaragua - which is not neutral. Pfainuk talk 21:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, if 4+3 formula should be used as a metric of article's topic, shouldn't it be better then to completely follow the scheme represented by the categories which are presented by different tables in the article and then count _number_of_recognitions_by_"UN member states" + _number_of_recognitions_by_"Non-UN member states not recognised by any state" + _number_of_recognitions_by_"Non-UN member states recognised only by non-UN members" + _number_of_recognitions_by_"Non-UN member states recognised by at least one UN member" + _number_of_recognitions_by_"Partially unrecognised UN member states" (+ _number_of_recognitions_by_"Excluded entities" + _number_of_recognitions_by_"..." + ... ) and then have 4+0+2+1+0(+0+...) for Republic of Abkhazia? And what ordering should one use? I am honestly trying not to make a fun of you or your proposal - I am trying to address a point. Pfainuk, if Kosovo and Abkhazia, or Kosovo and Northern Cyprus really differ in degree, shouldn't the article then address such difference in degree with some metric? Again, I am honestly trying not to make fun of you or your comments, I am merely trying to present some depth to your disagreement. Now, either I will strengthen both of your positions and diverge your opinions even more, or I will alleviate the discussion with some thinking over every aspect. All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks, nobody is proposing to remove the current sections and replace these with some formulas. What I say is that we need to show 'how much is limited the recognition of the states in the list of states with limited recognition'. Some are recognized by 1 of the entities conducting ambassador-level relations, others by 70 of these entities, etc. The problem we discuss above is that Pfainuk doesn't want that we count all recognitions, but only some of the recognitions - and not the recognitions by entities that are listed in the article. Alinor (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I don't agree with you, it's POV to exclude any of the already included in the List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition. Counting these doesn't give them any legitimacy. Your claim seems like saying that the figure 203 in the List of sovereign states is POV, because it counts all of these. In the proposal here it is explicitly stated what the figures show and it's not 'recognition by entities that themselves are widely recognized by the international community', no. It's stated that figures include also recognitions by entities that themselves have limited recognition.

"Relying on a footnote to explain the point is insufficient because most people won't read it." - I don't agree that readers don't read footnotes and even if they don't read anything besides the number, then nobody would be 'misled' that all Transnistria is 'widely recognized by the international community' or something like that. And yes, a simple number is anonymous, and having a simple number doesn't treat these as "undisputed sovereign states" - again, it is explicitly stated that the number doesn't show that, so we are not treating these in such way. You can have concern that a reader that doesn't read anything besides the number (such as the status column, the number-column-heading footnotes, the article itself where these states are listed as such with limited recognition, etc.) can misinterpret the meaning of the number. Maybe. But even in such a case (highly unlikely actually) the figure 7 remains anonymous. And at any attempt by the reader to see who or what type these 7 are he will stumble upon an explicit explanation that not all of these are "undisputed sovereign states".

I don't say that this is a 'list of states by level of recognition'. I say, like you, that there is a difference in the degree of recognition each of these has. It is explained in the status column, but this is not sufficient. "How much is limited the recognition of the states in the list?" (degree of recognition) is a highly important metric for the "states with limited recognition" (the topic of the article), it's at the core of the topic - limited recognition.

EU and SMOM. Who said that EU is a sovereign state? And there is no dispute about SMOM - it's also not a sovereign state. We already agreed that we will not add the three tables as proposed above, but will add the information from these tables to the 10+6 rows of the already existing tables in the article - and there is no SMOM and no EU there. But when we count diplomatic recognitions we should count recognitions by the EU and by SMOM ([23], [24]) - and other entities conducting ambassador-level relations, if any. Anyway, these two don't recognize any of the 10others, so this doesn't change the numbers at all.

What is the difference between "7" (Alinor) and "4+3" (Pfainuk)? I don't think that any of these shows "equal treatment" or anything like that - the first fits slightly better, that's all. As I explained in this comment - I don't think any formulas, etc. are needed, but OK, if Pfainuk insists we can add such. But let's make it look nicer, shall we? Alinor (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that, say we do this, we have Northern Cyprus: 1, Nagorno-Karabakh: 3, yet there is a clear difference in the recognition levels between the two in the international context. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Alinor, since List of diplomatic missions to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta mentions European Union under "Accredited Embassy" ... "... To the Holy See (Embassy building located in Rome) unless otherwise noted...", shouldn't this also be counted as one of "all recognitions by entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations"? --Biblbroks (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks, yes, that's what I said - they are counted. If EU or SMOM recognizes some of the 10others the respective figure will be increased - but so far there is no such recognition, that's why this is more of a theoretical point currently. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, actually it can be 1 and 3. And there is no so clear difference in recognition levels - both have only a few recognitions and both are "isolated" from international relations and both are generally considered parts of their claimant states (Cyprus, Azerbaijan). Of course there are nuances. Having Turkey recognizing TRNC (at least nominally, in practice it treats it like a province or something like that) and Armenia not recognizing NKR (it also treats it like a province) is interesting detail, yes, but I think that this is more related to the issue of Turkey not recognizing Republic of Cyprus (e.g. some variant of one-Cyprus policy). And of course each situation is unique (Cyprus-TRNC difference is much smaller than NKR-Azerbaijan difference, so the possible outcomes in terms of federative and autonomy solutions are quite different). And of course, when you get into cases that are "near" to each other it's not easy to say "X is more recognized than Y", because things are blurred in so close ranges. But we don't have to make such qualifications - we just present the figures as they are. What such figures allow is to see the whole picture (the amplitude between 0/1/few recognitions and many recognitions - and we leave the readers to decide for themselves how much is "few" and how much is "many"). Alinor (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You say, "[i]n the proposal here it is explicitly stated what the figures show". Not without going to a footnote. If you're arguing neutrality based on the contents of a footnote, then you are in effect saying that neutrality require footnote. Which is inappropriate in principle: the neutrality of this article should not hinge solely on a footnote.

One difference with the list of sovereign states is that it says 203 but then immediately qualifies that. Another is that it says that the list "contains 203 entries", not that there are 203 sovereign states - IOW it does not tell the reader what to think. By contrast, you propose that we just say 7 states diplomatically recognise Abkhazia, without obvious qualification. Your point does not seem to address the point that this treats South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria in the same way as it treats Russia, Venezuela and Nicaragua, which is not neutral. Doing it in this way implies that they are all of equivalent status, which is disputed.

Points do not cease to be biased if the reader isn't aware that they're biased (if anything that makes things worse). It is biased to say that it is 7, for the reasons I have given, regardless of whether the reader can name the seven or not. If the reader goes to the status column, what he will see is that the number seven he has been given is open to significant debate - but that does not make saying that it's seven not biased either because it takes a side in that debate.

You seek to treat the EU and SMOM as though they were equivalent to independent sovereign states as well? That would be another reason to oppose, because that isn't neutral either. We can't treat any entity as directly equivalent to an independent sovereign state unless it is widely accepted that it is directly equivalent to an independent sovereign state. Which doesn't apply to the European Union and SMOM any more than it applies to South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria. However, given that it is universally accepted that the EU is not an independent sovereign state (unlike South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria), I would not accept it as part of a "4+3"-style solution either.

As per my previous comments, the difference between "7" and "4+3" is that the former gives the number as seven. It gives a the same status to entities that are not widely accepted as sovereign states and entities that are widely accepted as sovereign states, without immediately obvious qualification. The latter does not do this. Chipmunkdavis makes a very good point that this distorts the list, apparently giving Nagorno-Karabakh ("3") a larger number of recognitions than Northern Cyprus ("1") - despite the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognised by any claimed state that is not itself near-universally rejected. As I say, my preference remains for retaining the status quo and not opening the can of worms at all. Pfainuk talk 22:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Without going to the footnote - why do you assume that "diplomatic recognitions" includes only 'recognitions by entities that themselves are widely recognized by the international community'? Especially since we are in the article about 'limited recognition' states, those that AREN'T widely recognized by the international community? And in any case - that's what footnotes are for - to clarify things that may be confused.

"it says 203 but then immediately qualifies that." - yes, and here it's the same, these qualifications are all over the place - footnotes, status column, etc. I assume that you don't expect that a single number should somehow magically transfer all the article information to the user just by looking at it. That's why the article contains much more than this number. "The list "contains 203 entries", not that there are 203 sovereign states" - and in the proposal it's also clearly stated that the figures include recognitions from the states with limited recognition, the same that are the topic of the article. "just say 7 states diplomatically recognise Abkhazia, without obvious qualification." - no, there is an obvious explanation what the column shows and it clearly explains that it's not "NKR is the same as Russia", quite the contrary. Nowhere in the proposal it is said that Russia is of the same "status" as NKR or something like that. Actually the proposed column doesn't mention NKR or Russia. The column says that Abkhazia has 7 recognitions by entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations and that this figure includes both widely recognized entities and limited recognition entities. And these are listed and described in the status column.

The number 7 is not open to any debate - there are sources for each of these 7. What is open for debate is the issue of the "status of a state with limited recognition" for 3 of these 7. And actually this debate is not so important, because at the background of over 190 recognizers it's immaterial whether somebody is recognized by 4 or 7. But, in order to be as NPOV as possible we write 7, thus including all recognitions, without Wikipedia editors making selection and "preferring" some over the other, but at the same time showing the difference we consider notable.

I don't treat EU and SMOM as "equivalent to independent sovereign states". I just count their recognitions of states in the article (but there are none so far). The fact is that EU and SMOM conduct ambassador level diplomatic relations/recognitions. So, when we count these we can't disregard EU and SMOM. If we start that way, why not disregard Holy See, Liechtenstein, Nauru and Palau? Or somebody else, that we consider "not worthy for attention" (Libya Jamahiriya for example).

Pfainuk, you seem to be entrenched in the wrong assumption that the DR column is somehow related to "widely recognized sovereign states". It isn't. Yes, the bulk of the recognitions come from such entities (maybe that's why you get confused), but there is a small quantity of other entities capable of conducting ambassador level relations and recognitions: the states with limited recognition, the non-state sovereign entities and the EU (a supranational union). Yes, these other10+SMOM+EU are not such a big group like the over 190 "widely recognized sovereign states", but we can't disregard them just because they are few. And, while the other10 have "limited recognition" and you argue that we should disregard these because of that - the EU doesn't have a single non-recognition and SMOM has less non-recognizers than PRChina and Israel.

"It gives a the same status to entities that are not widely accepted as sovereign states and entities that are widely accepted as sovereign states," - no, as explained above, this isn't about "widely recognized sovereign states". Where do you see such thing in the proposal? See above for my reply to Chipmunkdavis about the TRNC/NKR comment, 1 and 3. This is not a competition, there is no reward for having immaterially/slightly higher number. We are not going to "order" or "distort" the list according to these figures or anything like that (the article will retain the current separation according to recognition by UN-members). Also, TRNC recognition by Turkey doesn't give it any meaningful advantage over NKR that isn't recognized by Armenia. And NKR recognition by few of the 10others also doesn't give it any meaningful advantage over TRNC. These are just minor details of the bigger picture in each of the cases. It just happens that the topic of the current article is limited recognition and maybe that's the only context where these minor details become at the center of a topic. There is no can of worms, it seems that there is a problem of perception, because you assign to the DR column of the proposal some exclusive relation to "widely recognized sovereign states" that it doesn't have - and subsequently you object including the 10others, EU and SMOM in a count of "widely recognized sovereign states" - which I agree that they aren't, but the column doesn't count those, so this is not a reason to object it. Alinor (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not responding to all of that because it's too long.

Counting a number of entities that are generally not recognised and adding them to a number of widely-recognised sovereign states treats the former as equivalent to the latter. And indeed, the latter as equivalent to the former - but that's far less likely to be the conclusion drawn because there are a lot more widely-recognised states, and those states are a lot more well-known.

The same goes for counting the EU and SMOM in the same way as widely-recognised sovereign states. Except that "diplomatic recognition" also rather implies states, and not non-state entities.

This inherent in saying that the number of entities that recognise Abkhazia is seven. If you are not treating the two groups as equivalent, you cannot say that 7 states recognise Abkhazia. If you say that seven states recognise Abkhazia, you are treating them as equivalent. Pretty much by defintion.

And this isn't neutral.

We're not allowed to do this because it implies that the two groups have the same status, when this point is near-universally disputed.

You say that "these qualifications are all over the place". Well, no. In your proposal there is no qualification to the number seven in the DR column that the reader does not have to look for. The status column, notably, is not a qualification to the claim that you wish to make that seven states recognise Abkhazia.

I note that you argue that it's not biased on the basis that "it's immaterial whether somebody is recognized by 4 or 7". Why, in that case, was Nauru paid $50m in aid so that it was 4 and not 3? And regardless, that would not make it neutral to treat South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh and Transnistria in the same way as we treat Russia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Pfainuk talk 08:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC) NB, sentence struck 09:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC) because it does not make sense. Noting this here because Chipmunkdavis has responded, though not to that sentence. Pfainuk talk 09:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Note on tooltips. Per WP:ACCESS we cannot allow WP:NPOV to hinge on them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't hinge on the tooltips, we use them only as additional way of showing what the status column shows. The DR column is not about "widely-recognised sovereign states." Alinor (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pfainuk, OK, let's try shorten the replies. Palau is much less known than Germany, but that doesn't mean we should disregard it.

The non-neutral approach is yours where you suggest that we make a decision who to count. The proposal is neutral in counting all of them and at the same explaining to the reader that the count includes both "regular" states, "disputed" states, non-states. I don't make any claims. There are sources for each of these 7 that recognize Abkhazia.

"in the same way as widely-recognised sovereign states." - nothing in the proposal is about "widely-recognised sovereign states". I said above - this is a problem of perception - you assign this meaning to the DR column while it doesn't have such meaning. This is understandable - because the "well known" entities are such and because the bulk of the entities are such - and other readers may also make such wrong assumption - that's why we have a footnote that describes it in more detail. Alinor (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I repeat - the DR column is not about recognitions from "widely-recognised sovereign states". It shows another thing as explained in the proposal. Thus including an entity in the DR column count does not imply in any way that it's a "widely-recognised sovereign state". Alinor (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The entities that are included in your count for Abkhazia:

• Nauru
• Nagorno-Karabakh
• Nicaragua
• Russia
• South Ossetia
• Transnistria
• Venezuela

You start at zero add one for each and make seven, regardless of any dispute surrounding any of the entities. You state that this seven "is not open to any debate". You propose to say seven, without visible qualification. Perhaps you could explain to me how exactly this doesn't treat South Ossetia in the same way it treats Russia? It seems to me that it treats them in exactly the same way. And treating them in exactly the same way is not neutral because the vast majority of states in the world do not accept that they have the same status.

As I've said several times before, my preference is and always has been not to make a decision on who to count. The opposite, I think it would be better simply not to have a "DR" column at all. You are actually making a decision about who to count in that you have decided to count entities that are generally not recognised on the same basis as those that are.

You keep saying things are "explained in the proposal" - but also that neutrality does not hinge on footnotes and tooltips. You can't have both. Either neutrality does not hinge on the tooltips and footnotes, and they could be readily removed from the proposal without loss of neutrality; or the DR column requires the footnotes and tooltips so that the reader can understand why (you feel) it's neutral. Pfainuk talk 11:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we count both South Ossetia and Russia "in the same way". Both are entities that conduct ambassador level relations. These relations are bilateral, and opinions of third parties are irrelevant. Nowhere is it written that these are "widely recognized sovereign states", on the contrary.

Footnote and tooltips are there not for the neutrality, but in order to prevent readers to get the wrong impression that you got (but you got it from the initial version of the proposal, that was redacted afterwards). I don't see anything in the proposal that associates the DR column figures exclusively with "widely recognized sovereign states". Alinor (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What is this wrong impression that you mention - sorry for butting in. :-) Anyway, if I understand you correctly - in the proposal that you mention SMOM and EU would be included in the tables with the DR column? --Biblbroks (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no, we already agreed that the data will be added to the current tables - see examples below. No entries will be added (no SMOM, no EU, no Azerbaijan/Serbia/Georgia/Somalia/Morocco/Moldova). But the up-to-date footnotes are in the proposal above - because the references box is there. What we argue with Pfainuk here is about what is shown in the DR column. He argues with the wrong perception that it's associated exclusively with "widely recognized sovereign states" - but there isn't such association and I asked where he has seen such. Alinor (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is we, in the context of "[w]hat we argue with Pfainuk here"?

Counting South Ossetia and Russia in the same way is not neutral because it implies that they are the same. That they have the same status. Which is distinctly a minority view in the international community. In the case of counting Russia and the EU in the same way, it is a POV not even accepted by the EU itself.

Your statement that the "opinions of third parties are irrelevant" is not neutral. It is impossible to neutrally consider these entities in any way without also considering the fact that they are not recognised by the vast majority of states in the world. This fact must accommodated for in any textual discussion of them and any count that includes them.

I have never argued that it said that it was "widely recognized sovereign states". But to the vast majority, I would suggest that that is what is implied by the words "diplomatic recognition". This is another point that creates bias when, for example, Nagorno-Karabakh is treated in exactly the same way as Russia. You try to alleviate this with tooltips and footnotes, but these are not adequate to resolve the problem. Saying it's seven states is biased regardless, but using "diplomatic recognition" makes it worse.

In brief, I find that this fails WP:NPOV. It is becoming clearer and clearer that this discussion is going nowhere. Do you want to go to the noticeboards again, or do you want to accept that I have listened to your arguments, not been convinced by them, and thus remain opposed? Pfainuk talk 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"We" is Alinor+Pfainuk - we both argue with each other. OK, maybe it's not grammatically correct expression as I written it above, but is this so important?

"opinions of third parties are irrelevant" - yes, the opinion of Peru is irrelevant when we count the recognition of X by Y in the number of X recognitions. Peru not recognizing X and/or Y is irrelevant to X and Y recognizing each other. That's their bilateral issue.

"This fact must accommodated for in any textual discussion of them and any count that includes them." - I don't agree (with "in any"), but regardless it is accommodated - through the "4+3" formulas in the DR column and in the "status" column text.

"But to the vast majority, I would suggest that that is what is implied" - but since such implying is wrong (we already have sources about the other10 conducting diplomatic relations/recognitions), that's why we have footnotes there - so that the reader is correctly informed what this column shows - even if he initially would have wrongly assumed something else.

Again, I don't try to alleviate "treating Abkhazia and Russia the same" by tooltips and footnotes - these are only there to inform the reader what the DR column shows, so that he doesn't wrongly assume that it's about recognitions by "widely recognized sovereign states".

There is no problem with "treating Abkhazia and Russia the same" (or any of the others) - in many aspects they are the same - they both are on planet Earth, they both were formerly part of the Soviet Union, etc. there are many similarities - one of these similarities is that they both are capable of conducting ambassador-level relations, they both are recognized as states by other states, etc. Of course Russia is "widely recognized" in contrast to Abkhazia that has "limited recognition". But this difference is not a reason to separate these two "everywhere" and "in any" case. For example, when we don't count recognitions by "widely recognized sovereign states", but when we count all diplomatic recognitions - in such case Russia and Abkhazia are treated the same and their recognitions of South Ossetia are both counted - not because Russia recognizes Abkhazia, but because Russia recognizes South Ossetia and because Abkhazia recognizes South Ossetia. And the position of Peru about Abkhazia, Palestine or somebody else is irrelevant. Of the Peru positions only that about South Ossetia is relevant when we count recognitions of South Ossetia - either Peru recognizes South Ossetia or it doesn't.

So, you basically say - because readers may wrongly assume that the DR column counts recognitions only by "widely recognized sovereign states" we should not present the core metric of the article topic, even with footnotes explaining what the DR column counts? Or you say - we should not present the core metric of the article topic, because some readers are unaware that diplomatic recognitions and relations are bilateral and that not only "widely recognized sovereign states", but also states with limited recognition (article topic) and a few other entities conduct such?

Wikipedia is not supposed to write only what all readers already know - on the contrary - its purpose is to present readers with additional information, that they maybe don't know yet. Otherwise why would anyone read it? Alinor (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me rather belatedly that my point that "diplomatic recognition" implies "widely recognized sovereign states" isn't really accurate. It doesn't imply anything about the recognition of the entities counted - rather, it implies that the entities counted are legitimate sovereign states. Of course, that makes the POV issue created worse, not better.

You once again claim that capability to conduct diplomatic relations is a fact rather than an opinion. Whether a state has the legal capability to conduct ambassador-level relations is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Stating unequivocally that it has such capability takes the Abkhazian POV over the Georgian, and is thus not neutral.

You say that the fact that these are disputed is taken into account. But that means that you are now relying on tooltips and footnotes to provide neutrality. Either they are important, or not. You can't have it both ways.

As I say, this is going nowhere. You know my position. It is not neutral to imply that entities without significant recognition are legitimate by counting them equivalently with widely recognised sovereign states, as you propose. I do not intend to carry this along since it is clear that the difference on this point is irreconcilable. Do you want this to go to WP:NPOVN or similar wider process? If not, then unless you have any overriding new arguments, you may take oppose as my final answer. Pfainuk talk 17:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I will go gather more opinions. But let me clarify the issues you raise right above.

""diplomatic recognition" implies ...that the entities counted are legitimate sovereign states."? So, how is "legitimate sovereign states" different from "widely recognized sovereign states"? Whether a state is "legitimate" depends on the opinions of the other states, e.g. on its wide or limited recognition, doesn't it? (the questions is "legitimate according to who"? Because according to the Republic of Abkhazia constitution it is legitimate and according to the Constitution of Georgia it isn't) And again, I don't agree that counting one or another in the bilateral "diplomatic recognitions" implies anything like that.

"capability to conduct diplomatic relations is a fact rather than an opinion." - yes it is a fact - maybe some (most) states would consider the bilateral Abkhazia-Venezuela relations as illegitimate, but the opinions of these third parties can not prevent the relations from being conducted and doesn't make the fact of their existence disappear - Abkhazia and Venezuela will continue to conduct relations as they seem fit and these would cease to exist only if one of the two partners decides to terminate the relations. "Stating unequivocally that it has such capability ..." - stating this only points to a fact - maybe unpleasant for, opposed by, not accepted by, considered illegitimate by, etc. somebody else/third parties, but still a fact.

"the fact that these are disputed is taken into account." - the existence of relations between Abkhazia and Venezuela is not disputed, this is a fact. Disputed is whether these relations are legitimate or more precisely disputed is the statehood of Abkhazia (and as consequence any acts that it conducts in its capacity of independent state). And the issue of Abkhazia disputed status, albeit irrelevant to the number of diplomatic recognitions, is underlined in many ways, so that the readers are informed about it. It's not underlined because it's "important" for the number of diplomatic recognitions, but because it's an issue relevant to the article topic, notable in itself and also so that readers don't assume that "diplomatic recognitions" are counted exclusively among "widely recognized sovereign states"/"legitimate sovereign states" (whatever these two phrases mean).

Counting diplomatic recognitions is not about counting only those of loosely-defined "widely recognized sovereign states"/"legitimate sovereign states", but also about counting those of states listed in the article (those with "limited recognition") and of the few other entities that conduct ambassador level diplomatic relations/recognitions. This is NPOV. We can't do any segregations inside these based on our arbitrary preferences (POV?). Again - diplomatic recognitions/relations are bilateral and opinions of third parties are irrelevant for the count of bilateral diplomatic recognitions (even if these third parties constitute a majority of all entities conducting ambassador level relations) - these "opposing opinions" are represented by the result of the count. Abkhazia has a figure of only 7 of more than 190 - so the "majority opinion" that it's not a state is very clearly represented. Maybe we should mention somewhere in the article what the "total" is (where it would be once again explained that diplomatic recognitions/relations are bilateral and that besides the majority of the entities conducting such that are "regular sovereign states" there are also "states with limited recognition" and a few other entities). Alinor (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Chipmunkdavis, about comparisons between claimants and states with limited recognition. As I said - North Cyprus/South Cyprus difference is of different scale compared to the Morocco/SADR difference.

about SMOM - as another sovereign entity with limited recognition (the states in the list are also such) it gives another example of the "degree of recognition" - for example ordering the "widely recognized, but still limited" cases by the number of explicit non-recognitions makes it obvious that there are two groups: 1) with only a few or single non-recognizers (Armenia, South Korea, North Korea, Cyprus) and 2) with a more substantial number of non-recognizers (Israel, PRChina). And having more examples (SMOM) helps the reader identify trends here.

I don't understand this objection toward mentioning claimant states and SMOM. The first are important to compare their population/territory stats to the "states with limited recognition", the latter is important to show another case of "sovereign entity with limited recognition". Alinor (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In concise summary, the objection to the other states is that they are irrelevant, there is no point making the comparisons, as they mean nothing and add nothing. Ditto with SMOM, it doesn't help give any trends, and as it is not a state then the trends it may give are meaningless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So, we can combine the first three of the main tables into a single one (sortable) with three sections, then we can integrate the data ("population", "territory", "recognition", etc.) for the states with limited recognition in the resulting two main tables (1st - 10others-with-three-sections and 2nd - UN). The data on sovereign entities with limited recognition and on claimant states can remain outside of the article - its inclusion can be discussed later, if needed. Alinor (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Support this idea. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to move forward, here's an example of the integration I propose. I've used existing information in the article and information provided by Alinor, although note that the BBC says Abkhazia declared independence in 1999, not 1992, so that has to be looked into...later. I've removed one source from the reference section, as I couldn't find what it sourced. I also don't know what the <span style="display:none">&0008660</span> are for. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Example

Name	Status	Territory	Population
Republic of Abkhazia	Abkhazia declared its independence in 1992 during the War in Abkhazia (1992–1993). It is currently recognised by four UN member-states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), and three UN non-member states (Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria). Georgia claims Abkhazia as part of its sovereign territory.	&00086608,660 km2 (3,344 sq mi)	&0000215972215,972

I could accept such an addition, given the absence of a recognition column. I'm not convinced that population and land area data are needed, nor indeed necessarily useful, but I can accept it. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't agree without the recognition column - it is the most important of the columns - this is the core topic of this list - the degree of recognition. I that "other relations" column is also added. These columns will not take too much space (their content is short) - there is one function where the column heading makes the mouse cursor into a "?" sign and when you hover over it a tooltip with the full name appears - we can use this here in order to keep the columns narrow. But I don't remember what this function name was - has anyone seen such tables with column-name-tooltips (so that we copy the wikicode from them)?

Chipmunkdavis, what is the source you found a problem in? One of the "references" column sources?

I think that we should not delete the "other claimants" column (because it's of high importance and actually the main reason for having limited recognition in the first place for most of the cases). And I don't see where the "further information" column content is moved. Alinor (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping the status column would double as a recognition and other claimant column.

There was no problem with the source, I just couldn't figure out what it was sourcing, which is a fault in reference columns. Not sure it's needed.

I moved one of the further information wikilinks into the status section. Alternatively one could actually use {{Further information|abc}} in the boxes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If the recognition column has to be included as part of this proposal, then I must oppose the proposal for the reasons outlined above. As I say, if the status column can be used instead of the recognition column, then I can accept it. Pfainuk talk 17:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the "further information" links are moved intact below the paragraph of the "status" column (maybe separated by a line) - on the place where currently is the claimant (who is better to have a separate column) - because these "further information" links are 'typical' links for all entries - thus it's better to present them in the same way. And I replied to Pfainuk above. Alinor (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is an issue with flag templates used inline, another reason to keep other claimants in separate column.

more examples

Name	Status			Other claimants	Territory (sq km)	Population	DR	ORO
Republic of Abkhazia	Abkhazia declared its independence in 1992. It is currently recognised by four UN member-states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), and three UN non-member states (Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria). Foreign relations, missions (of, to) International recognition War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)			Georgia claims Abkhazia as part of its sovereign territory.	&0008660 8,660	&0000215972 215,972	&007.00 7	&03.39 —
Republic of Abkhazia	Abkhazia declared its independence in 1992. It is currently recognised by four UN member-states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), and three UN non-member states (Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria). Foreign relations, missions (of, to); International recognition; War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)			Georgia claims Abkhazia as part of its sovereign territory.	&0008660 8,660	&0000215972 215,972	&007.00 7	&03.39 —
Republic of Abkhazia	Abkhazia declared its independence in 1992. It is currently recognised by four UN member-states (Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru), and three UN non-member states (Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria).			Georgia claims Abkhazia as part of its sovereign territory.	&0008660 8,660	&0000215972 215,972	&007.00 7	&03.39 —
	Foreign relations, missions (of, to)	International recognition	War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)

The variant with three boxes for "foreign relations", "international recognition/status" and "separation conflict" looks better, but will be more complicated to implement properly with wikicode for sortability. Alinor (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose the area and population data as unnecessary, useless. Oppose the recognition and non-recognition columns as POV. Oppose the whole thing as over-complicated and over-crowded. And you can't have rowspans and sortability. It's one or the other, I'm afraid. Nightw 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Population and territory data are not unnecessary, useless per the opinions of the other participants here besides yours. Whether recognition column is POV is discussed above. Sortability and rowspans - yes, the third variant seems not workable, we can use the second or the first arrangement instead. Alinor (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're free to dismiss my comments as many times as you like. It won't further your cause. I'm familiar with your drill: Dismiss all opinions and objections, wait a few days, then ask whether anyone has any objections. Nightw 08:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What I said is about territory/population data - a lone objection (especially with the reasons you cite) to a sourced material supported by other editors is not sufficient to prevent it from going in the article. Alinor (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think that the territory or population data are particularly relevant either. But the lack of neutrality in the diplomatic relations column is a larger concern for me. Pfainuk talk 20:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This is under discussion above the separation line. Alinor (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling Transnistria a "non U.N. member state" (or any other breakaway territory subject to disputed and/or unresolved sovereignty) is POV content. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. Pfainuk talk 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say for at least two reasons: because it's using the "state" designation and because it's using the "non U.N. member" designation. Both are designations that promote a POV. --Biblbroks (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an issue with the status quo "recognized by UN/by non-UN" separation and maybe with the "status" column also of the status quo (albeit I think UN membership is notable enough and there is no problem with mentioning it in the "status" column), not with the proposal we discuss here. The proposal doesn't add any "is a non-UN-member-state/is a UN-member-state" texts. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Libya Republic recognization.

France recognized Libya Republic as the legal government of Libya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.18.79 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source confirming this? I know they recognized the Transitional Council as sole representative of the Libyan people, but read nothing about recognition of a government. Ladril (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya again....

Okay, I have been looking at this thing since the beginning of March, and today (3/23/2011,) the Libyan Reoublic now as an interim republic. And it seems that it would now be a sperate entity. Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it described as a new state by at least one third-party, reliable source? Ladril (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Or has the Libyan Republic been recognized by any other state? If not, then it doesn't meet either of our inclusion criteria. TDL (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, it keeps being added on the page. Please discuss here before re-adding. Outback the koala (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be a case of refusing the consensus procedure. Should we ask for page protection while the situation calms down? Ladril (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - WP:RFPP. I'll file. Outback the koala (talk) 06:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Declined, and dispute resolution was suggested. The problem is, dispute resolution is an adequate process when the people in question actually care about the 'D' part of BRD, but what we have here is one or more people insisting we must only do their will through the use of ninjutsu. What are we supposed to do if talk page discussion has been attempted already? Ladril (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I must add this decision is strange. According to the protection policy page at WP:PREFER, protection is a perfectly acceptable measure to prevent edit warring. Ladril (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Continue to follow WP:BRD I suppose. I'm sensing a general consensus against conclusion right now, and definitely no consensus for adding. If it gets too bad try for RfPP again. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to file the request would be to highlight that this page has suffered from continuous edit-warring over the course of several weeks. The person at the other end is most likely overworked and does not have the time to take the contextual history into consideration. Ladril (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agreem that has a better chance of success. Until then, what chip said. Outback the koala (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the status of the Libyan Republic, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is a UN member state that is now unrecognized by France, Italy, Maldives, Qatar, and maybe Portugal (conflicting reports on that one), fellow UN member states. The party they have identified as the only representative body for the Libyan people - and Italy underscored this by outright kicking an envoy from Gaddafi's regime out of the country after telling him he had no legal grounds to negotiate on behalf of Libya - repudiates the jamahiriya and calls Libya something else entirely. Based on that criteria, I think we should add the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya as being partially recognized. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The member of the UN is Libya as a country. This country is recognized even by France. France just doesnt recognize the Khadafi government, it recognizes the rebel government! It is a question of recognition of government, not a question of recognition of state. --maxval (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The UN seat is held by Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Gadafi)[[25]]. As to whether France's action amounts even to recognition of a new government, I'm not certain. See [26] "Sarkozy promised to exchange ambassadors with the council, according to his office, which later described the move as a political gesture, not an act with international legal impact." Ladril (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You should note that the exchange of accredited ambassadors is the same as diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I "should note"? I've been saying the above for ages. The thing is, there is nothing in sources identifying a new state. This is why we cannot agree on an addition. Ladril (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Libyan Republic are two competing governments of the SAME state. If there were two different states, it would mean that in the case of the victory of the rebel goverment of the "Lybian Republic", the "Jamahiriya" would cease to be a UN member, and the "Lybian Republic" would have to apply for UN membership as a NEW state. However, this is not the case. If the the rebels win in the civil war, they will take over the UN membership of Libya. --maxval (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems likely to me. However, my point is that reaching a conclusion in this case requires original scholarship, and we should not be doing original scholarship on Wikipedia. Let outside analysts write about the subject and then, if appropriate, we can consider an addition. Ladril (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the 4th bullet in the "excluded entities" section. Alinor (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Israel recognition count

This article's text states Israel ..is not recognised by 19 UN members and one UN non-member but at Recognition of Israel#No recognition or diplomatic relations it is mentioned a number of 22 UN member states. It seems citations for Brunei, Chad and Somalia have some sort of a problem (either lack of cit or no mention in the given cit). Should this be dealt with here? --Biblbroks (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to change this article first, stay here. If you want to change that article first, go to the talk there. If you do go to that talk, please leave a note here so editors here can follow over and join the discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Modified "State of Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory occupied by Israel,[33] specifically the Gaza Strip and the West Bank." for "State of Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory occupied by Israel,[33] specifically the West Bank." given the Gaza Strip is not longer occupied since Israel's unilateral disengagement plan evacuated all Israeli citizens, military and civilians, from that territory. Did not modify "State of Palestine" even when such state does not factually exist given PLO entity is indeed recognized by factual states, just like Mexico, Argentina, Greece and Jamaica used to recognize the Republic of China before 1972. Nekamah (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to change anything. At least not prior to discussion. My question wasn't clear enough though, it should've been constructed this way: "What do you think, should this be dealt with here first?" All the best, --Biblbroks (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't looked into it, but if it's not sourced (or if the source has issues) it needs to go. This would apply at either article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone care to take the initiative? --Biblbroks (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference here doesn't source anything at all, so for a start I'm citation needing. The reference column is so pointless. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's useful for general external links on the international recognition of specific entries, but it shouldn't be used as an accumulation point for citations which only serve one particular piece of data. I've updated the citations in the linked article for the cases concerned, except for Brunei. I know they don't accept entry on an Israeli passport, but I don't have anything on non-recognition of the state. Nightw 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I based the Chad entry on the US Department of State's web site. It seemed legit at the time. I get the problem is the source has removed this text? Ladril (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Night w just linked to the "out of date" version, so I guess it's fine now (unless somebody complains at the talk page there about "missing in the current version" issue). Do you have any source on Brunei or SADR? Alinor (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It must be said I never claimed non-recognition by either of them. They are other people's additions. Ladril (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I added a source on Somalia to the Foreign Relations page, which can strengthen the 21 number. Still have to see proof about Brunei. Ladril (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Nekamah, about Gaza see here and footnote33 in the article (in the same box where the statement about occupied territories is). Alinor (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

About the number of Israel non-recognizers - at Recognition of Israel#No recognition or diplomatic relations there are sources for 19 of these. The other 3 don't have a source and Sahrawi Republic also doesn't have a source.

So, I suggest changing the text to:

• "Israel, independent since 1948, is not recognised by 19 UN members and one UN non-member, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. (see also Arab-Israeli conflict)"

If needed the sources for the 19 non-recognizers can be copied here. Alinor (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely there's a secondary source somewhere. I'd hate to have 19 citations, but a nice easy technical solution would be to just list all 19 under one ref tag. As for the reference column, I really don't see much value to it, or many of the sources in it in terms of extending my understanding. Speaking of ridiculous amounts of citations, as contentious as "Israel currently occupies the area" is, it doesn't need a line of citations after it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. About the Israel occupation - you see that this question is often asked (just above) - so I think it's better if the citations remain - but can be moved to the footnote (the first is already a ref-tag footnote). Alinor (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

References and notes

I see that references were recently split in multiple sections. Why is this? I propose that we have two sections at the bottom - one for "notes" and one for "references". Alinor (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

'Twas just a duplicate reflist. Removed. While it's here though, the only note is redundant to the text, in which we already state both China's consider themselves the sole legal government. Can it just be deleted? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the note entirely (if at all) duplicates the table - I think it was moved to a footnote exactly because of this reason- so that both PRC and ROC entries can link to it instead of duplicating the same sentence.

Actually, there are other notes, that are currently mixed among the references - I suggest that we put 'group="Note"' on these. Alinor (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Islamic Emirate of Abyan

Apparently Al-Qaeda has overrun the Abyan governate of Yemen and declared it an islamic emirate, i have very little information i havent seen anything on a capital, leadership, ect. But it is verified that they do control territory and assert independence from Yemen. I hate these people, but it appears that they meet the criteria of the list.XavierGreen (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the term "emirate" always refers to nation-states. I could be wrong, but isn't the term sometimes used for subnational demarcations as well? Ladril (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's verified then there should be links. And yes, sometimes emirates are subnational (UAE being the obvious one), and sometimes there are mixed systems (like how some states in Malaysia are sultantes). All of this is purely academic until we're provided sources and details of just what is going on. Abyan has a link but it appears to be reporting just first-party information. --Golbez (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources abound that state that the governate has fallen to Al-Qaeda, but there is very little information on the emirate they declared other than the fact that they declared it, [[27]], [[28]].XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing here about declaring independence, though, just declaring an emirate. It's semantic but until it's actually said what they mean, they can't qualify. --Golbez (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read, here and elsewhere, it doesn't seem that they declared Abyan to be a separate state. It's a good idea to post your links first and allow for discussion. Do they say what you thought they say?, etc. If instead you begin with a post like yours, you open the doors for edit-warring and talk page acrimony (as happened in the recent Libya discussion). Ladril (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Page editors are advised to read the following essay [29]. Some people seem to be in a hurry to add new entries to this and other similar articles every time a political conflict erupts in some corner of the world. There is no need for this. It's better to wait for sources to determine things first. Ladril (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Libya situation has nothing to do with this, the Republic of Libya claims to be independent via the succession of states (ie: it claims it is libya). By posting i was hoping to head people off at the pass before someone else added it in to the page (note i never added it in to the page myself or started an edit war). If i truely was in a hurry to add a new entry, i would have posted it without opening up a discussion here. This is the entire reason why talk pages exist, to collaberate and cooperate with other editors to make higher quality pages.XavierGreen (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You did begin this topic by taking a position and providing no sources. In these instances, as I said, it's better to post your sources from the start and allow for discussion. It makes life easier for all of us. Conversely, as you can see, hearsay is working terribly in the Libya thread. Ladril (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic question for another list: Xavier, any idea who the emir is? Nightw 15:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the sources ive seen i havent seen a leader listed at all.XavierGreen (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

[[30]] states the leaders name is Abu Basir.XavierGreen (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"Abu Basir also said that he and his group were ready to follow President Ali Abdullah Saleh if he ruled with Shariah – or Islamic law – according to their interpretation." settles in my mind that they have not yet declared any form of independence, merely that they currently exercise autonomy. --Golbez (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That'd just be an honorific, not his actual name, like "Abu Mazen" for Abbas. Basir would be his son's name. Thanks for looking though! The article suggests that he's not revealing his real name, so I guess this will do. Nightw 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Islamic Emirate of Abyan controls 20,380 sq km of land with a population of 433,819. That's big and significant enough for me.

SUPPORT I reckon we should add them to the list, in the same category as the Somaliland. 120.16.102.60 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Somaliland has explicitly declared independence. Abyan has done no such thing. There's a difference between controlling a territory and claiming it's politically independent. --Golbez (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Islamic Emirate of Abyan also explicitly declared their independence with full support of its people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.102.60 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Source please? TDL (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Id like to see a source as well, ive been looking and havent found anymore than i've already posted here. While they maybe defacto independent they cannot be considered so for the purposes of the page unless they have declared independence themselves. There are other entities in similar situations such as Hamas controlled gaza and Tamil Elam before the end of the Sri-Lankan civil war. Both act/acted like independent states, but since they dont consider themselves to be independent they cannot be listed on the page. It seems like the only thing preventing the inclusion of Abyan on the page is a declaration of independence. So 120.16.102.60, if you can find one show us here.XavierGreen (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"It seems like the only thing preventing the inclusion of Abyan on the page is a declaration of independence." Or - in a more abstract form - the explicit intention of being recognized as a separate state under international law. If this isn't clearly done they should not be added. A similar example would be Waziristan - some rebels have declared it an emirate, but to what extent it really claims to be a separate subject of international law is unclear. Ladril (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, until we see some thing hard - leave it alone. Outback the koala (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

that's what she said --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PRC - dubious

Recently a 'dubious tag' was added after "None of these states officially recognise the PRC as a state." - I assume that this is because of the "don't recognize PRC as the official government of China" - the current China footnote would nicely match this. I propose to move it there from the end of the PRC cell and to reword the sentence:

• ... None of these states officially recognise the PRC as the legitimate government. ...

Notes

Is this OK? Alinor (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Err... no. It was added because it is unlikely that none of the current 22 ROC recognizes the PRC. That the PRC does not accept relations with states that have relations with the ROC doesn't mean other states automatically refuse to recognize it as a state. Kiribati is a case in point. But here we're invoking Pfainuk again. Ladril (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that given the chance these ~20 states currently recognizing ROC would conduct relations with both PRC and ROC. And so would do all other ~180 that currently recognize the PRC. Here "recognize" means "recognize as the legitimate government of China", where "China" is territory controlled by PRC + territory controlled by ROC. The problem all states have with PRC/ROC is that currently it's impossible to have simultaneously relations with PRC and ROC (I assume that PRC resistance is stronger and more important here, but do we have sources that ROC would accept relations with a state recognizing the PRC?).

Anyway, we don't have a source that any of these ~20 states recognize the PRC in any way (their representative may speak about "desire" to have both, but currently this isn't the case). So what is dubious and how to correct it? Alinor (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ROC policy towards dual recognition has been variable throughout the years (I'm willing to bet many users are misled into thinking the ROC's policies mirror those of the PRC; this is not the case). There is a very interesting document here: [31]. To answer your question, what is dubious is the assertion that none of the 23 ROC recognizers recognize the PRC. Granted, there are countries who have never recognized the PRC (such as most of the Latin American ROC recognizers). Those pose no problem. But other states have a more complex history. Kiribati, for example, established relations with the ROC while having relations with the PRC. After a month, the PRC broke relations, but Kiribati, to my knowledge, never announced it stopped recognizing the PRC as a state. As to how we can accomodate this complexity in table format, I'm not sure yet. Ladril (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see, you say that "ROC+states that recognize it (unofficially?) apply a policy of 'separate China/Taiwan' instead of the 'one China' officially promoted". So, PRC breaks relations with these states, but this doesn't mean that they don't recognize PRC as a state - they just don't recognize PRC claim over the island of Taiwan - instead they recognize ROC claim over the island and don't recognize ROC claim over the mainland. I think the link you gave points in that direction, but I don't know if it's sufficient to use a source for a footnote explaining that. Alinor (talk) 07:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think both Chinas ought to be represented on this page, because there is wide agreement in the literature that they constitute two separate states. But I also think the China situation is too complex and fluid to confine it to table entries. I think the footnotes should be expanded, or maybe we could even consider a special section to explain the two Chinas situation. Ladril (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the China footnote (or adding a second one) is OK, but I don't think special China section will be useful. Alinor (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan link and reordering of the states

Hi Chipmunkdavis,

For general public with limited geopolitical knowledge, Republic of China is an even more confusing topic than Taiwan. That's why most ROC-related Wiki articles have that Taiwan link attached for clarification purpose. As for the reordering of states with limited recognition in alphabetical order with their full names, I reckon it will make the article neat and informative (since this article is mainly about these states, not those states with full or near full recognition).

Just a kindly reminder, please use your Reverting or Undid function carefully. You may not agree with me on the reordering issue but I did correct some of the obvious mistakes in this article. For example, the original article classifies the llikes of Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Transnistria as UN non-memeber states. In fact, Holy See is the only UN non-memeber state in the world, all those states with limited recognition are non-UN member states, not UN non-memeber states. If you don't check properly before using Reverting or Undid you could be nullifying people's contributions.

Cheers,

2sc945 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"... are non-UN member states, not UN non-memeber states." what --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

UN non-member states are non-member states within UN and recognised by UN as independent sovereign states. Currently, Holy See is the only UN non-memeber state in the world. Non-UN member states are states that are not part of UN and they are not recognised by UN as independent sovereign states. Thus, they are the states with limited recognition. Hope this can clarify things out for you. Cheers, 2sc945 (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Situation 1 Reader knows what the Republic of China is, and knows all about it. In this case, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" makes perfect sense.

Situation 2 Reader knows that there is an independent country which they call Taiwan. In this case, "Republic of China (Taiwan)" means that they understand that the Republic of China is another name for the country they call Taiwan. If they have "Republic of China (Taiwan)", then they may click on Taiwan and end up on an article about an island not a state, potentially confusing (although in this case the reader would probably assume something is wrong with wikipedia).

Situation 3 Reader is absolutely clueless. In this case if they see "Republic of China (Taiwan)", they could click on the link to Taiwan, and see it is an island and be completely befuddled. However, if they see "Republic of China (Taiwan)" then they can only click on the link to the state, meaning there is no chance of confusion.

In summary, a link to Taiwan is pointless as best, detrimental to the reader at worst. Only Republic of China should be wikilinked. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If "Taiwan" must be linked, it should be piped to Names of China#Republic of China. A link to an article on the island is useless. Nightw 11:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"UN non-member states" this term legally has no meaning. The United Nations cannot recognize or derecognize states. The Vatican is an observer to the UN. The UN also publishes a map which shows 3 non-member states that have some level of participation in the UN, but the UN itself clearly states that it does not have the authority to recognize states.XavierGreen (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Just a slight correction - the "3 non-member states that have some level of participation in the UN" - it's not about "some level of participation" - it shows them without specifying "participation in the UN".

Both "UN non-member states" and "non-UN member states" are wrong to a degree. The correct term is "states not members of the UN" and this covers all who are not one of the 192 member states of the UN. You can say "UN member states", but it doesn't seem correct to say "UN non-member states" (as if the UN has members/observers/non-members - no organization has "non-members" - they just don't participate there) or "non-UN member states" (member states of what? as if they are 'members of non-UN'). Alinor (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some sort of recognition within the UN, you need to be a well recognised state to be eligible for membership. That's why Palestine and Taiwan tried so hard to get in. However, Holy See is a totally different case, they are an universally recognised state but they cannot be granted a membership due to religious reasons. UN non-member state is the formal title for Holy See, not sure about the non-UN member states one, maybe non-UN-member states are more appropriate one for them. 120.16.102.60 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Holy See remains outside of the UN by its own decision (that's what they announced when their rights as observer were expanded), not because UN membership criteria include some 'non-religious' clause or something like that. I would call "UN non-member state" the formal title for Holy See - it's maybe part of a description of its UN relationship. Alinor (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No. From what I've read, the current arrangement they have at the Assembly had to do with politics. They indeed have tried to move into full membership. Ladril (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As seen here, "Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the then Holy See Permanent Observer to the United Nations, said 'We have no vote because this is our choice.' He added that the Holy See considers that its current status 'is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it.'" Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I do not claim to hold the absolute truth. I have read different versions of the story, though. You want to know one big obstacle to Holy See membership? It's called China. You want to know of another big one before 2009? It's called Russia. But I suppose I'm invoking my favourite personal stalker yet again. Ladril (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

de facto control

The article currently mentions "de facto control". This implies that these states have a "de facto" control separate from some "de jure" control - but actually this depends on POV. According to POV and Law of each of the other10 they have both de jure and de facto control. According to POV of states that don't recognize these and according to the Law of the respective claimant state (and by extension, according to the UN, whose member is that claimant state) that other10-state has only de facto control (or rather "secessionist authorities of XXX" have it), but it's illegitimate and de jure the control remains in the claimant state.

I suggest, per NPOV, that we don't use "de facto" and leave simply "control". The sovereign state article already has description of control, de jure, de facto - and can be linked if needed (control). Alinor (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

De Facto isn't POV, it's a statement. Neither does it say that these states dont have de jure control. Just control is vague. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "de facto control" implies that there is no "de jure control" - that's the POV ("de jure" by its nature is POV). Just control is not vague, especially if we link to the description of the term. Actually "de facto/de jure control" is also vague - we got accustomed to using it, because it was an easy way to refute any editor saying "but TRNC is not a state", but it needs no less explanation than "control" itself. And sovereign state contains descriptions of all three - control, de jure, de facto.

So, actually another way is to keep de facto/de jure mentioned, but with de facto control links. Alinor (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree it implies that it doesn't have de jure rule, instead it gives the basic reason they can be considered states. De jure control may be vague and hard to define, but De facto is much easier to (control on the ground). Control could either be de facto or de jure, so it's much less specific. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

So, what about the link proposed in the last sentence above? Alinor (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We already link to sovereign state. That would be WP:OVERLINKING. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What about a single footnote with the link or short description, that will be referred to on the multiple occasions? Alinor (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Description of what? I'm not sure what's lacking here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Description of de jure/de facto/control. Alinor (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why this great love of footnotes? If you can source a concise summary that can be fitted into the lead, propose it here. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Because de jure state/de facto state/sovereign control are already explained and sourced at sovereign state, why should we repeat it here? We just need to point readers to the article where these topics are explained. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

They've already been pointed towards it, in the first sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't imply in any way that de jure/de facto/control are described in the sovereign state article - using de facto control will address that, but you object it because of overlinking. Alinor (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking to sovereign state doesn't help explain de facto control at all. Why don't we instead link to Sovereign state#Declarative theory? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's overlinking and it's also an WP:EGG link. What about a wiktionary link? Nightw 22:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

Does the US recognize North Korea? As per various sources:

• "The U.S. did not extend, and has never extended, diplomatic recognition to the DPRK." [32]
• "North Korea has long advocated a package deal in its desire to trade off its nuclear weapons and missile programmes for US diplomatic recognition and economic assistance." [33]
• "Arguing that North Korea has sought American recognition and the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea..." [34]
• "North Korea has voiced repeatedly its desire for bilateral relations and a nonaggression treaty with the United States, as well as US recognition of the North." [35]
• "Under a 1994 agreement, North Korea shut down its nuclear reactors and plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon in exchange for heavy fuel oil, two light-water nuclear reactors, and movement toward diplomatic recognition." [36]

Obviously there's been some implicit recognition, but it seems that the US has refused to offer full diplomatic recognition to the DPRK. Should we add them to Japan and South Kora as non-recognizers? TDL (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks similar to the Chinas situtation, where they might only concider the South the 'sole' legitimate government of Korea as a whole. Outback the koala (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The US Department of State does list North Korea in its list of states. The only "non-internationally recognized state" (sorry about the label, but I suppose I have to keep using it if the status quo remains in force) they list is Kosovo, because the US recognizes it. This is what prompts me to assume that the US does not dispute the statehood of North Korea. I could be wrong, of course. Ladril (talk) 22:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC) And yes, for a long time the US and its Cold War bloc did not recognize North Korea as a legitimate government, much less a state - this is what prompted the Korea War. Later admission of the two Koreas into the UN as members might have assuaged the situation. Ladril (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where does the US Department of State put Taiwan in this list? Alinor (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I'd like to find that out as well. Outback the koala (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See the list here: http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/4250.htm. I'll make no comments. Returning to North Korea, I think the evidence is that although the US has never formally retracted its position that DPRK is not a legitimate state or government, there is at least some de facto recognition of North Korea. It wouldn't hurt to explain these nuances in the article. Ladril (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The US sometimes does not acknowledge the rule of any polity over disputed areas, for example the Western Saharah is regarded by the US as terra nullis and recognizes no claimant (the same in the paracel and spratly islands), the same might be true with north korea.XavierGreen (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What history suggests is that they recognize South Korea as legitimate, and not North Korea. Weren't they the first to jump into a war against the North? Ladril (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Found some more sources that seem to suggest that the US does recognize the DPRK's sovereignty over the north:

• "Three days later, on November 20, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented another carrot to Pyongyang when he expressed the United States' recognition of North Korea as a sovereign state." [37]
• "Yes, [Secretary of State] Colin Powell and the administration have gone out of their way on several occasions since early November to say explicitly, “We recognize North Korea’s sovereignty.”" [38]
• "The U.S. recognizes North Korea as a sovereign state and doesn't plan to attack the communist nation, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said." [39]

These seem to be pretty clear statements of recognition. TDL (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Since they needed to make this statement in 2002, seems to me my point was historically valid. Your sources reflect that things have changed. Ladril (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)