Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 7

Palestinian state
"'The Palestine Liberation Organization claims the right to establish a Palestinian state in territory currently held by Israel.'" If someone "claims the right to establish" something, such a statement implies that the subject has not been established yet. Therefore, linking to Proposals for a Palestinian state instead of State of Palestine would be correct. The former details all current proposals for a Palestinian state, including the 1988-declared State. The view of the PNA is that the State of Palestine has not yet established; its borders haven't been defined. I don't think that there is a WP:NPOV issue here...  Night w   14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained when I made this edit: "The PLO declared SoP in 1988, that's why it is listed in the section above in the first place. Why should we not link directly to it?"
 * I think, that the reasons we have "Palestine" on this page are the following:


 * 1) in this list of states - because of the existence of State of Palestine.
 * 2) Some states recognize it, others don't - that's why it is listed in the "states with limited recognition". These that do recognize SoP recognize PLO as its representative/Government in exile - and establish diplomatic relations with it (Palestine embassies abroad, including to the UN, are PLO offices, not PNA offices).
 * 3) it is not just mentioned as "excluded entity", because it covers the criteria for inclusion.
 * 4) *it could be argued what of the two inclusion hypotheses it covers:
 * 5) "or it must be recognized as a state by at least one state and lack recognition from at least one state." (was this added specifically for Palestine?) - this is clearly covered by SoP and all others besides Somaliland (fails, as it isn't recognized by any state)
 * 6) "have de facto control over a territory, a population, a government, a capacity to enter into relations with other states, claim statehood, and lack recognition from at least one state" - this is clearly covered by all besides SoP.
 * The SoP claims statehood and sovereignty, has relations with other states, lacks recognition from some states, has a government and claims territory/population (to raise the issue of "borders undefined" is not entirely correct - yes, the 1988 declaration doesn't include the GPS coordinates of the SoP borders, but it clearly references to "our territories", "Palestine Arabs", etc. ("in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem") Such arrangement is common for declarations of independence and even for constitutions - they seldom (if any) make specific detailed description of the territories - usually only general geographical terms are used. Yes, a term like "our Palestinian territory" is ambiguous and that's why the states around the world enter into border delimitation treaties. Yes, SoP has not entered into such treaty with anyone so far (especially Israel - they conduct negotiations since ~16 years already, right?), so all of its claimed (as it is in-exile) territory may be disputed by other states. Anyway, this does not diminish the fact that SoP claimed these territories for itself in 1988.
 * So, the PLO claims to have already established the SoP in 1988 ("... hereby proclaims the establishment ...") - I don't know where do you find "The view of the PNA is that the State of Palestine has not yet [been] established;" (its view is maybe that there is no effective control by a Palestinian state over the Palestinian territories and that the Palestinian people have the right to have their own state). In any case the PLO is claiming to have established the SoP and not some other of the "Proposals of Palestinian state" as would be implied if we link to it instead of SoP.
 * About the de-facto control. In 1988 it was ZERO, as "in exile". The things changed in 1994, when Israel allowed the PLO to exercise some control - trough the PNA, that was established by PLO specifically for this reason - to administer the territories in practice. Yes, this control is limited by Israel only to specific actions and areas (trough the PLO/Israel Oslo Agreement of 1994: some actions in Area A, others in Area B, others in Area C; trough Israel unilateral decision in 2005: other actions in Gaza). Yes, it could be argued that in the PNA-PLO-SoP triangle there is no PNA-SoP link and that this de-facto control is not exercised by SoP/in the name of SoP (it is exercised by PNA in the name of PLO - and separately the PLO claims to have established the SoP and to be its GiE; but the opposite could also be argued - that "PNA is working in the name of the SoP GiE, the PLO"). I think that this is the reason why the second hypotheses was added to the inclusion criteria ("or it must be recognized as a state by at least one state and lack recognition from at least one state.") - this is another question - if we should have such specific criteria added for a particular entity.


 * So, I propose that we change the note to:

"'The Palestine Liberation Organization claims that it has established a State of Palestine in territory currently held by Israel (...) and that it should be allowed to exercise direct sovereign rule over these territories.'"
 * Alinor (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please summarise all of that? I'm limited to internet cafes, and it's $2/hr. Also, per WP:MOSICON, don't use inline flagicons.  Night w   11:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I used inline flagicon, because such are used in the article.
 * What do you think of the proposal? Alinor (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no inline flags in the article I can see.
 * Maybe remove the "It has established", just "...claims a State of Palestine in...", which perhaps allows for more interpretations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so what about:
 * "State of Palestine, established in exile and represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims that it should be allowed to exercise direct sovereign rule over territory currently held by Israel ..."
 * Alinor (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that include the Gaza Strip? Last time I checked Israel didn't control anything there?  Night w   15:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Gaza or no Gaza - I don't propose any change to that - "..." means to keep this part as currently. Gaza was discussed above, you can explain there about it. What do you think of the rest of the sentence (outside of the "...")? Alinor (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not that it should be allowed to exercise direct sovereign rule → sovereignty ...?  Night w   13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "State of Palestine, established in exile and represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims that it should be allowed to exercise sovereignty over territory currently held by Israel ..."
 * Yes, this is OK. I just copied the other wording from some Wikipedia article (it wasn't about Palestine). Alinor (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I meant "...represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory..."  Night w   15:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I will go straight away and implement it this way. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

unofficial and non-diplomatic official relations
"Unofficial and non-diplomatic official relations: informal diplomacy is still diplomacy, avoid asserting otherwise;" - I don't think so. Diplomacy is formal. But let's see what cases do we have at hand: We have also two special cases - state hosting diplomatic mission of another state that doesn't recognize the host - maybe those classify "informal diplomatic relations"?: I think that Diplomacy, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations are related to these issues.
 * diplomatic relations - the regular case
 * unofficial (thus non-diplomatic) relations - offices/mission/delegation/etc (other than embassy/consulate) of Taiwan/Nagorno-Karabakh/Somaliland/Palestine/TRNC/etc. abroad
 * official non-diplomatic relations - offices/etc (other than embassy/consulate) of various states in Taiwan/TRNC/Palestine/Kosovo
 * official non-diplomatic relations of 6 states with SMOM (as above)
 * Russia consulate in Transnistria
 * Ethiopia consulate (with ambassadorial status) in Somaliland

"Unofficial and informal diplomatic relations: then you need to bring those citations across" - That's why I propose to have the summary table with those: of, to,of, to, of, to, of, to, of, to, of, to, of, to, of, to, of, to, of, to. Alinor (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "Articles on Wikipedia ... should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference." It doesn't matter what sources were located on those pages. From WP:LISTS, "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." "The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material."  Night w   17:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Search for "informal diplomacy". I don't see why there would be any contention towards such a simple term.  Night w   17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree, if by this (and this) you means that "informal diplomatic relations/missions/offices/representatives" = "official non-diplomatic relations/missions/offices/representatives" = "government-sanctioned non-diplomatic relations/missions/offices/representatives". Alinor (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is just silly to request to put all sources from a wikilinked articles. Also, when you remove some content/put citation flag - you could clicked/read the wikilinked articles (and instead of removing content/put citation flag - you could put the references yourself) - regardless of whose "responsibility" this is. At least that's what I try to do.
 * Anyway, I copied the sources already. Thanks for formating them! :)
 * Why have you removed this source about Transnistria and put citation flag there? The source says "Official Representation of the Prednistrovian Moldavian Republic in Abkhazia." (the other states listed in the source have "embassy of XXX"). I will put it back for the moment. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is about when states "maintain informal (officially non-diplomatic) relations with states that do not officially recognize them". Abkhazia (according to our article) recognises Transnistria. Isn't there a list somewhere, instead of just a single example?  Night w   09:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you are right - this is only "with states that do not officially recognize them". Removed Transnistria, as it is recognized by Abkhazia. Alinor (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"held by Israel" - Gaza Strip
I try to fix wrong information in this article which say that Gaza Strip is "held" by Israel. This totally wrong and harm quality of wikipedia. POV edit warrers for some reason are allow to cancel my changes and continue say that Israel "holds" Gaza Strip. There is no Israeli military or civilian in Gaza Strip, except one - Gilad Shalit held illegally kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists Hamas denied visits by Red Cross. Is this called "held by Israel"? Because one Israeli soldier is held in captivity by barbarians? No, I do not think so. So someone fix this mistake. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, tell us how you really feel. Second of all, Israel clearly thinks it exercises control over Gaza's foreign affairs, considering its interdiction of multiple ships inbound to the area. Usually, control over foreign affairs implies total control, unless there's some other intervening agreement. So what is the situation? --Golbez (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation is a naval blockade. This not equivalent to "held". Gaza people govern themselves, this is not "total control", and you are WP:OR to say what Israel does or does not think. Israel clearly has said it has no interest in controlling or ruling people or land of Gaza Strip. LibiBamizrach (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First: can you provide a source saying that "Israle has no intrest in ruling the Gaza Strip", second: I belive that both Jerusalem and Gaza deserve mention since Jerusalem is the clamed capital of Palestine (correct me if im wrong) while Gaza is a major conflict zone, Third: Pleas keep a cool head, it is POV to call someone "barbarians" and asking "tell us how you really feel" is also not a good idea either.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Who are you? You must add sign to your post so other know who you are. And you think I care it is POV to call terrorists barbarians? Terrorists are evil people. You will not convince me anything else. And your whole message ignore my point. It does not matter anything about Jerusalem or conflict zone Gaza. Gaza is not "held" by Israel. You ignore that why? Here is your source. LibiBamizrach (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK, we should call terrorists what they are, terrorists. Sadly thats not allowed in the articles though because of political correctness. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at the text in detail, but i agree to say Israel holds the Gaza strip today is totally inaccurate. It maintains a blockade which allows them an Iron grip, but that is very different to holding territory like the West Bank. HAMAS "holds" Gaza as whilst they were originally elected to power, they carried out a violent coup. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gaza is clearly not controled by Israel but it dose have a naval blockade which meens it probably wants to control it. Hamas is the de facto controler of Gaza and the wording needs to be changed from "held by Israel" to "claimed by Israel").--HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but what Wikipedia editors believe about this topic is irrelevant to what Wikipedia articles say about this topic. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not the misconceptions of random people on the internet. Here is one such source. The UN considers Gaza occupied territory. Here is a source from Amnesty International outlining the reasons why AI considers Israel to continue being the occupying power in Gaza. Here is one from HRW after Israel's "disengagement" also saying that they consider Gaza occupied as Israel retains "effective military control" of the territory. Israel controls Gaza's territorial waters and airspace and exercises almost complete control over its borders. That a few under-informed people found a way to register an account at this website does not change the fact that reliable sources report that Israel continues to occupy the Gaza Strip.  nableezy  - 03:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is rare for me to say anything on this issue, but here it goes. I do not think it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to say that Israel is in, what amounts to, effective control over the Gaza Strip. However, we must clarify that Hamas does administer significant parts of the territory on the ground, to an extent. If we say both and leave it at that, then that should make both sides less unhappy, if not grudgingly content. Outback the koala (talk) 05:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this will make this text quite long, but how about a compromise that stats the facts with sources, rather than opens it to debate? Something like "The Palestine Liberation Organization claims the right to establish a state in territory currently held or controlled by Israel, specifically the West Bank (held by Israel) and Gaza Strip (considered under Israeli control by international agencies)". Of course, this will go with sources, I'm just proposing the text. --Muhandes (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like "considered under Israeli control by international agencies despite Israeli withdrawal from the territory in 2005." But just saying "Israel holds the ultimate control[21] over all of the claimed territories" is not clear enough. At the very least adding your wording "Israel is considered by **** to hold ultimate control over all claimed territories." would be more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is their concensus to change it from "currently held by Israel" to "currently considered under Israeli control by international agencies despite Israeli withdrawal from the territory in 2005."? Are there sources to back this up?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "ultimate control" here means that PNA is allowed by Israel - trough Oslo agreement (and unilaterally by Israel for Gaza Area B/C) to act inside some areas (Gaza without its borders, Area A/B) - and that Israel is the authority held (by the UN, etc.) ultimately responsible for the territories (as occupying/administering power). Hamas overtaking Gaza from PNA/Fatah has nothing to do with that - Israel just doesn't intervene in the conflict between Fatah and Hamas. I think all this is described and sourced in the footnotes - as it would be too much for the short note in the table. But maybe we can rephrase/enlarge the footnote and/or rephrase (but not enlarge) the table note - to make it more clear.
 * PNA/Hamas has no total/de facto control over the territories - they have limited by Israel control, restricted only to such functions that Israel agreed or unilaterally decided to give them. This is more like Northern Ireland devolution (UK parliament decides what powers the NI parliament will hold) than like South Ossetia breaking away from Georgia (where S.O. has total control over the territory - contrary to the will of Georgia). Alinor (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening
The issue emerged again. In the line for Israel it was written "State of Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory currently held by Israel,[ref name israel] specifically the Gaza Strip and the West Bank." - but "territory currently held by Israel,[ref name israel] specifically" was removed with the explanation "no it doesn't".

What doesn't it? The footnote 'ref name israel' is the following: "Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification with minimal interference (retaining control of borders: air, sea beyond internal waters, land) in the Gaza strip and maximum in "Area C". See also Israeli-occupied territories." Is something wrong here? Alinor (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, Israel did not have any de facto authority in Gaza. And the footnote is unreferenced; or am I missing something?  Night w   09:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean no authority in Gaza? Israel controls its borders, what more authority do we need? Also, as you can see in the articles linked in the footnote - the sources show that Israel is still considered occupying power of both Gaza and the West Bank. Basically the Gaza disengagement just turns the whole of Gaza Strip into Area A zone. Israel doesn't engage in its internal administration, but its land/sea borders and airspace remain under Israel control. Alinor (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Alinor here. In this case I would also say that this is de facto control or "effective control" over the Gaza Strip. However, we must clarify that Hamas does administer significant parts of the territory on the ground in some areas. If we say both things, then we cover our bases and everyone can be peachy. Outback the koala (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Controlling a territory's borders and "holding" the territory are two separate things entirely. But even so, the southern border is controlled by Egypt, and as of June, it's open for people to move through. The wording needs to be adjusted, or it needs to reflect an up-to-date source. But as things on the ground change quite frequently, it'd be impractical to keep the section adequately and continuously updated—this is the same in many other cases: Somaliland, Transnistria, SADR, all of whose borders are in a constant state of fluctuation. This list is about the recognition that each state enjoys; let's stick to the topic. And that footnote still needs references.  Night w   04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * SADR situation is pretty constant and the division of Western Sahara between SADR and Morocco is monitored by UN peacekeepers (MINURSO). Transnistria has some minor clashes with Moldova in some 'disputed' areas, but the Transnistria-Ukraine border is monitored by EU mission and there are Russian army units residing inside Transnistria - and both of these provide for no quite frequent changes on the ground. Somaliland border with Puntland is the only frequently changing, but this doesn't change anything in the control of the rest of the Somaliland territory by its government. No one of these cases has any problem with updating.
 * Israel is "holding Gaza" as much as it holds any other Area A territory in the West Bank. If you claim that West Bank Area A territories are not "held by Israel" then Gaza is also not held. But otherwise - it is.
 * Footnote references (taken from the linked articles): Gaza disengagement/airspace/sea - ; Area A/B/C - ; Gaza land border with Egypt is more complicated. Egypt, Israel, PNA and EU agreed on the EUBAM Rafah regime where final approvals are still given by Israel, - but after Hamas expulsion of Fatah (and non-Hamas-run PNA institutions) from Gaza it seems that Israel does no longer have the final word on Rafah crossing. Anyway Israel keeps full air/sea borders control (and arguably IDF can enforce full Rafah crossing control at any moment - if there is such decision). See here for the different positions about whether "Israel holds Gaza" or not - basically the UN says "yes" and Israel says "no" (but also says that "Gaza does not belong to any sovereign state" - so it doesn't recognize it as SoP territory). Alinor (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel not recognising the State of Palestine??? What?! This can't be true! It all sounds very speculative. Better to leave it as it is. There's nothing incorrect about stating "claims sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank", but adding that it is "held by Israel" is both dubious and (as you've demonstrated) open to disagreement. The topic is recognition, not "who controls what".   Night w   11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnote is not open to disagreement - only its further interpretation is.
 * Currently we have the "Israel controls WB and Gaza" in the State of Palestine line anyway, what's the problem of using it in the Israel line too?
 * Also, without it the note about SoP in the Israel line seems irrelevant - it is placed in the "other claimants" column and if Israel is not controlling WB Areas A/Gaza then we should put a '&mdash;' like for Armenia other claimants. But I think it is better to just not remove the "controlled by Israel" remark. Alinor (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the sentene should be removed from the other entry as well... It's relevant because Israel "claims sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank", as Somalia claims sovereignty over Somaliland. Armenia isn't claimed by any other state; that's why it has a dash...  Night w   05:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel doesn't claim sovereignty over WB and GS - it is the controlling authority/occupying power (depending on how you ask), but it doesn't claim them. Israel position is that they are 'disputed territories currently not part of any state (e.g. no State of Palestine is recognized by Israel)'.
 * So, if Israel where neither controlling nor claiming Gaza Strip and West Bank - then a) it should not be mentioned in Palestine line and b) the Israel line should have 'dash' for 'other claimants' (but it can't be only one of those - they go together - we either have both or none of a) and b)).
 * But since Israel is holding the control of both WB and GS (e.g. even Area A - GS and parts of WB are subject to Israel decision to stick to the Oslo accords - Areas A do not constitute an independent state - they are just an interim arrangement for local administration by PLO-established structure - the PNA - but still with Israel as 'controlling authority/occupying power' ultimately responsible for the whole of WB and GS) - that's why we list it in Palestine line and vice versa - list Palestine in Israel line. Alinor (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamas takeover of Gaza is irrelevant here - it is like a civil war or secessionist movement inside PNA (e.g. two competing governments/administrations, one of them internationally recognized - the other non-recognized. This is internal PNA issue and has nothing to do with Israel - unless they decide or as asked to interfere, but so far this isn't the case)
 * Israel Gaza disengagement is also irrelevant - they don't disengage fully (retain control of air/sea and arguably even land borders); UN still considers Israel in control of Gaza; Israel itself also doesn't recognize Gaza as territory of another state; Israel doesn't even recognize the state claiming Gaza as its own territory (State of Palestine). This is just a unilateral rearrangement of Israel-PNA relations - Israel just transformed Gaza Areas C and Areas B into Area A (e.g. removed Israel military and settlers). Alinor (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're trying to say. The topic is too disputed to make such plain statements as "held by Israel". It'd be great if we could get an impartial editor with experienced up-to-date background knowledge on the subject to just rewrite both sections.  Night w   09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is disputed? What we argue is about is about the removal of a small text from the Israel line - text that is already present in the Palestine line. I say that there could not be any reason for such discrepancy.
 * Both the UN and Israel positions show the same thing - Gaza air/sea borders are still controlled by Israel and there is a EU mission established that had managed (and still has mandate to manage, but doesn't do it in practice because of Hamas) the land border according to Israel-agreed procedures/rules. That's what the footnote explains (besides the other obvious things such as giving links to Oslo Accords area classifications, etc.) Also the UN position is that Israel is still the occupying power responsible for both WB and GS.
 * If you want to say that the phrase "held by Israel" is disputed, fine, let's rephrase it, but the explanatory footnote should remain - in order not to use such 'lump phrases', but to describe the situation in a NPOV (and supported by sources - if needed these can be copied over from the linked articles) way.
 * Also, if Israel was not controlling Gaza/WB - then Palestine would not need to be mentioned in its line and also Israel would not need to be mentioned in the Palestine line.
 * Rephrasing proposals:


 * 1) State of Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory Israel is responsible for,[ref name israel] specifically the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
 * 2) State of Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory occupied by Israel,[ref name israel] specifically the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
 * The second option utilizes the name of Wikipedia article instead of the controversial "held by Israel" phrase.
 * Do you have any other objections? Alinor (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from the previous edit conflict above, there is an obvious dispute, and you are not qualified to make a judgement call on what the text should read. We need an impartial editor with experienced up-to-date background knowledge on the subject.  Night w   11:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. We just need to reach consensus here. Any editor (including you and me) is fully qualified to propose changes to the text. These have to comply with WP:V of course (but there is no need that the editors are "impartial and with experienced up-to-date background knowledge on the subject.") - as all text in Wikipedia.
 * Also, you were bold in removing the text, but it will put back in per WP:BRD - unless there is a consensus to remove it.
 * Your explanation for the removal was "no it doesn't" and from the discussion above it seems that you mean "no Israel doesn't hold Gaza". I proposed you two variants to rephrase this in order to remove "held by Israel" that you seemingly object. What is your opinion on these variants or do you have another proposal?
 * Removing all Israel references is not acceptable - as I explained above - if Israel has no involvement there then SoP should not be mentioned in the Israel line as "other claimant" and Israel should not be mentioned in the SoP line. Alinor (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall suggesting removing any references... ?? What do you mean "per WP:BRD"? You do realise WP:BRD is neither a policy nor a guideline...? But anyway, your variants are interesting: the first is nonsense of course, and the second is open to dispute: the name "Israeli-occupied territories" may have a definition, may refer to something defined, but what territories Israel actually occupies is something else entirely, which is subject to disagreement. In any case, I'm perfectly entitled to oppose modifications to an article until an expert on the subject can be solicited.  Night w   12:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't said that you removed references, but that you removed text - "territory currently held by Israel,[ref name israel] specifically". You did that without seeking consensus, a bold change. I'm refraining to revert this change so far, but sooner or later it will be reverted unless there is a consensus otherwise. WP:BRD describes this process.
 * You are entitled (as anyone else) to oppose modifications to an article, but this is irrelevant here since you are the one making modifications. And as I said - these modifications will be reverted since there is no consensus for your removal changes.
 * The variants are not nonsense - both are per UN position (shared also by most of the states). Anyway, if you have another proposal for phrasing it - OK, but if you don't the text you removed will be restored. As I explained - your version (without the Israel reference) seems out of place - why should we mention Palestine in the "other claimants" for the Israel line if Israel has no involvement there? You can't have it both ways - it is either mentioning Israel involvement (if there is such) or putting a 'dash' for "other claimants" (if Israel has nothing to do with these territories). This applies to the Palestine line too.
 * IMHO the footnote has good enough description of the situation, but if you want you can also propose some addition to the footnote - so that the things you find "disputable" can be described there.
 * So, please respond with your proposals for both the text and the footnote. Alinor (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I didn't remove any text, I reverted your "bold" edit. As I understand, it is you attempting to make the modification, not I. Or have I missed something? My proposal is, as I've said, to seek advice from a third party. Maybe Harlan wilkerson? Tiamut? RolandR?  Night w   14:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you can see for reference, , , . You are the one making modification.
 * So what do you propose to change in ? Alinor (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Otherwise you may propose to restore the "other claimants" boxes for Palestine and Israel to some of the history versions I posted above (they are fairly similar anyway). Alinor (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's me reverting this edit that you made moments prior. Is there an issue with asking for a third opinion, or can I go ahead and do that?  Night w   15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, my edit that you cite was reverting undiscussed changes made without explanation by an IP user: . As you see in all these history links here the text that you (and the IP) removed was part of the page since long time. Alinor (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We already have a third opinion above, do we really need to specifically "invite selected users"?
 * I think that it is better if you make some proposal for addition to the footnote so that it better describes the situation, if you find the current footnote insufficient. Alinor (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about -


 * State of Palestine, established in exile and represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory occupied by Israel,[ref name israel] specifically the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The footnote 'ref name israel' to be change as follows: "Israel allows the PNA to execute some functions in the Palestinian territories, depending on special area classification with maximum Israeli involvement in "Area C" and minimum Israeli interference in "Area A" and the Gaza Strip where following the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan it is retaining control only of its borders (air, sea beyond internal waters, land). Israel claims that it does no longer occupy the Gaza strip (and does not interfere in the Fatah–Hamas conflict), but the PNA, UN and many other international bodies and NGOs continue to consider Israel to be the occupying power there." Alinor (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing an alternative. I don't see an issue with the current wording. I'm asking permission to seek the advice of editors with in-depth knowledge on the subject. Can I do this or not?  Night w   10:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By "current" you mean the status quo before your changes or your revision? Because there is no consensus for your changes - and they will be reverted. That's why I ask you to explain what you want to change and why. Alinor (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not against hearing other opinions (we already have such above), but what worries me is your judgments about who is experienced, knowledgeable, etc. and whether this is not another way of saying "Can I invite users to support my opinion" (WP:CANVASS). Alinor (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case - let's first clarify the main thing - please describe the changes you propose to make, so that the other editors could clearly see what we argue about. Currently you continue to insist that you are not proposing anything - and as you can see in the history links above - this is incorrect. Alinor (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC):::
 * Don't accuse me of trying to "canvass". That's a serious accusation, and a entirely baseless one. If you have a different user in mind, by all means provide their name. I've explained why I reverted your revision above; if you haven't read it, that's your fault. Don't ignore what I've said, and then tell me I haven't said anything. You do this consistently, and I refuse to deal with you one-on-one anymore because of it. It is my belief that there are serious WP:CIR issues with you; that's why I'm requesting advice from uninvolved editors.  Night w   12:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Asked User:RolandR for an opinion.  Night w   12:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have replied that I agree with those editors arguing that the Palestinian territories remain under Israeli occupation. RolandR (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After discussion, I'm supporting this proposed version: "State of Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, claims sovereignty over territory occupied by Israel, specifically the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."  Night w   13:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Night w, I'm not accusing you of canvassing - I said that I worry about making "judgments about who is experienced, knowledgeable, etc." (whether you, I or someone else makes them) and that such judgments may approach on canvassing. Excuse me, if you feet offended by this.
 * "I've explained why I reverted your revision above" - you have said that you are reverting my edit - but I shown you the history link where it is clear that my edit was just restoring the previous version after an IP user has edited without any explanation. And you didn't reply anything to that.
 * "Don't ignore what I've said, and then tell me I haven't said anything. You do this consistently." - as you can read above - I haven't ignored what you've said - you had ignored what I have asked you - and that's the reason I am cautious of your "judgments about who is experienced, knowledgeable, etc."
 * On top of all this you accuse me of WP:CIR - and then agreed with my position on the subject (after hearing the same from another user). You ignored Outback the koala opinion above, you refused to elaborate on your proposal for changes any further than basically "no it doesn't" and "it is disputed", you ignored my attempts to formulate the change proposal that you were making without acknowledging that it's a change. Finally, when RolandR stated his opinion - you again didn't provide any explanation why he's wrong - on the contrary, you accepted it right away. So you choose to ignore Outback the koala and mine opinions, but accept the same from RolandR.
 * Now I'm offended - you make undiscussed changes, insist that you didn't change anything and ignore edit history links I provide, refuse to discuss your changes (you had gone into silence mode on another occasion too) and finally accuse me of serious WP:CIR issues over my opinion - that you accept right away when it came from another user. Alinor (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know we had multiple disagreements, but I still try to discuss with you, to understand your concerns, to reach consensus. Sometimes, following a discussion, I accepted your proposals, sometimes you accepted mine - and all this is fine. I think we jointly did a good job with the table for SoP recognition and I appreciated your 'constructive criticism', but your attitude seems negative and uncooperative. Alinor (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * RolandR has been editing on Palestinian-related topics for years, and he is demonstratably knowledgeable on the subject. I knew he was educated on the subject, and trusted his opinion, which unfortunately I couldn't say for you. If I've offended you in any way, please accept my apologies, as that wasn't my intention. I don't think anything more needs to be said.  Night w   14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

On subject - so, to make it clear - you select variant2 of the above, right? Alinor (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct.  Night w   14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I agree with that too. Do you have something against restoring also the "established in exile" remark in "State of Palestine, established in exile and represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization]], ..." - so that it's clear that there is no other SoP territory outside of the GS and WB? Alinor (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved in this discussion; but, following the question from Nightw, I had a look. I should point out that I specifically replied to Nightw: "The Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and East Jerusalem were occupied by Israel in 1967, and remain under Israeli occupation". Your variant 2 omits East Jerusalem, which is a major point of contention between Israel and the PNA; failing to mention it suggests that we accept Israel's claimed annexation. I thik that it should be added to the text, particularly since the PNA proclaims Jerusalem as its capital. RolandR (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All variants omit specifically referring to East Jerusalem (and the page in general), but this is only because East Jerusalem is part of the WB. The Israel-PLO dispute about EJ is whether to include it or not with the WB (but EJ is not a "separate" territory like Gaza/WB/Golan) - but this is a detail (albeit important for these two sides) more akin to a border dispute (on whose side of the border is East Jerusalem).
 * The note is already too loaded, but if you find it important to mention EJ separately from the WB maybe we can mention it in a footnote? Alinor (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Boyle sources for State of Palestine recognition number
There was a reference pointing to an offline source where Boyle (Professor Francis A. Boyle, University of Illinois) allegedly stated that 'about 130' countries recognize SoP. Night w recently added a source showing that later Boyle specified the number to be 127 - this is the source. There it is written: "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine."

UN members are 192 since 2006 and have never been 195. If such simple fact is portrayed wrongly we can't have any confidence in the number of countries having recognized Palestine. That's why I added a 'unreliable source' tag.

As a side note - I assume that Boyle is having in mind 192+Cook Islands+Holy See+Niue = the 195 states according to the "All States" formula applied by the UN Secretary General (that are also members of the Vienna list organizations). Alinor (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well that's all well and good, but if you feel strongly about the reliability of the source, I suggest you take it to WP:RS/N, where consensus will determine whether or not it's sound.  Night w   21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the "failed=yes", so it has a question mark now. If others agree (what's your opinion?) we can put back the "failed=yes". Alinor (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Palestine number
A side discussion coming from here.

Currently we have the following sources for the number of countries recognizing the State of Palestine:
 * by Anat Kurz in 2005 "117 UN member states recognized the declared State of Palestine ..." (offline source)
 * by Boyle in 2009 "As I had predicted to the PLO, the creation of [a] Palestinian State was an instantaneous success. Palestine would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. The only regional hold-out was Europe and this was because of massive political pressure applied by the United States Government." (offline source) - I interpret this as his prediction about what "would eventually" be achieved; Night w interprets it as statement about what 'has been' achieved
 * by Boyle in 2010 "Boyle: ... Currently, 127 out of 195 members of the United Nation have recognized Palestine." - I question the reliability of this source as it reports UN members as 195 (see below and here)
 * from here 103 - an exact list of 103 states, where each one of them is backed by a reliable source. You can see all the sources here.

Currently in the article is written: "Legal analyses reckon the figure between 117 and about 130." - I propose to change that to "Legal analyses reckon the figure at 117 or 127." reasoning: the "about 130" not exact number prediction or not prediction - is from 2009 and the same legal analyst has given the 127 exact number in the next year, so clearly the "about 130" is outdated and it is also not an exact number; also the legal analyses do not give a range (117 to 127/about 130), but only two unrelated points: 117 and 127 - and these are given by different analysts. We should not claim that there is a range, when in fact both statements (117 and 127) give only one value and do not claim that there is a range.

Also, the 127 number has the problem that it is reported alongside "195 UN members" (and this is incorrect) and that it doesn't explicitly state "State of Palestine" (declared 1988 by the PLO), but uses the term "Palestine" that is commonly used for Palestine Liberation Organization (non-state organization) and Palestinian National Authority (provisional administration established in 1994 by PLO-Israel agreement) and could also mean recognition of "Palestine right to exist" (e.g. the "equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment.").

So, I propose that we should also represent in the article the over 20 reliable sources that we have giving us the names (and dates for most of them) of 103 specific countries recognizing the specifically the SoP (not PLO/PNA/Palestine right to exist). Alinor (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The level of disagreement between sources about the total number means that it's best to present the situation as unclear. Publishing your total of 103 when a) it disagrees with credible legal authorities, and b) you admit yourself that there could be more you're missing, would substantially reduce the quality of the article. We should strive to present the most accurate information available. Unfortunately, this situation is unclear, and therefore it's most accurate to describe it as such.  Night w   14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop hiding behind this "unclear". If you know 104th state - OK, else I don't see how you can disregard all these reliable sources.
 * The "level of disagreement" is not so big. There are only two sources that give number without specifying the states behind it - the 117 and 127 sources. Of these the 127 source neither explicitly refers to SoP, nor is reliable as it wrongly counts UN members as 195. So that leaves one source without list/dates showing 117.
 * Also, I don't suggest that we remove 117/127 - I suggest that in addition to these we also mention the sourced list of 103 states recognizing SoP. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The two main issues here, which can't be overlooked, are that a) you don't have a reliable source to show that there isn't a "104th state", or that cites the number "103", and b) legal authorities disagree on the number. So the number remains unclear. That's it.  Night w   08:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CALC - 103 is backed by the sources available. Do you expect to find sources showing "there isn't 104th" (a negative proof)? And having in mind that state recognitions change over time (e.g. this is not constant number) - even if such sources existed they would be relevant only to the particular moment in time they refer to. That is also true for the 117/127 sources - as afterwards there could be additional recognizer states or some previous recognizer could withdraw its recognition. E.g. even if 127 is 100% correct on 6 June 2010 - maybe now it is 128 or 126.
 * The same is for the "legal authorities disagree on the number." claim - it is not clear if they disagree, we just have sources from different moments in time (and also, as some of the source do not give exact numbers, but a range they don't contradict the other sources regardless of the timing). Boyle "over 114" (1990) doesn't disagree with Anat Kurz 117 (2005). Boyle "about 130" from 2009 and the Boyle 127 from 2010 doesn't disagree. Boyle "over 114" doesn't disagree with Boyle "about 130"/127. So the only potential disagreement is between Anat Kurz 117 (2005) and Boyle 127 (2010) - but maybe 10 additional states recognized for these 5 years - the sources we have neither confirm nor deny that.
 * Actually the only source for this claim that I found is this where the relevant quote is "This Declaration was quite widely recognized by states, although often in equivocal terms."
 * This is used as source for the following texts in the articles: "The exact number of countries recognizing the 1988 proclaimed state is unknown, due to the equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment." (here), "In 1988 the PLO declared the State of Palestine, being quite widely recognised by states, although often in equivocal terms." (here), "The exact number of countries recognising the State of Palestine is unknown, due to the equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment." (here)
 * So, the source shows that the 1988 declaration was 'often recognized in equivocal terms', but not that the 'number of countries recognising the State of Palestine is unknown'. The source only shows that extra care should be applied when looking at "recognitions", because some of them are in equivocal terms. This means that it should be distinguished between 'recognizing SoP as declared in 1988' and 'recognizing PLO/PNA/Palestine state right to exist/etc. statements in support of the main aim of the 1988 declaration - to establish a state for the Palestinian people'.
 * But we don't have a source showing that the number is unknown/unclear or that legal authorities disagree on the number. This is just a conclusion reached by Wikipedia editors.
 * Anyway, my proposal is not to remove the reference to 117/127 numbers, but only that in addition to those "numbers without specific countries" we mention 103 - the number of specific countries for whom we have sources showing SoP recognition. Of course, if a 104th state recognizes SoP tomorrow (or somebody adds a source showing that such recognition was already in effect) - the value will be updated. This will happen when we have the appropriate source and it is a natural process (for such non-constant information), what is the problem with that? Alinor (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

multiple things reverted by Night w
Compare these. Some are discussed above. The rest are: Night w, will you explain what you don't like in these changes? Alinor (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Formatting of the inclusion criteria (no change to meaning) - I propose to show clearly the two hypotheses; also currently there is a repetitious part in both.
 * 2) A summary table with numerical figures and links to relevant articles. It included some entities currently excluded in the article - I won't object to remove these entities, but why remove the whole tables?


 * I see what you mean with the criteria, and I've put your version back in, but kept the refnote at the end of the sentence, so as not to interrupt flow.
 * The "summary table" was based on original research, never mind that it was also completely unnecessary. It doesn't draw its conclusions from the rest of the list, and is therefore in no way a "summary". It asserts (without reference to any source, reliable or otherwise), a) that there are "207 entities in the World that conduct ambassador-level official relations", and then proceeds to list them (again, with absolutely no reference) with poorly chosen wording and off-handed, problematic (and, you guessed it, uncited) categorisations; b) percentage calculations drawn from either an unprovided source, or your own work; c) that the People's Republic of China is "China", while using the name of an island for the other state, both of which go agains WP:NPOV and WP:NC-TW; d) includes other entries whose inclusion goes against a consensus of which you are well aware, and which you have been warned about numerous times before; and which, regardless of that, don't appear anywhere else on the list—furthering the perception that the section was not, in fact, a "summary".  Night w   14:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been warned of anything. Yes, we are currently discussing some of these entities on another related page. I added these for completeness - and as I said- you can remove them if you prefer it that way. I won't argue here about that - let's leave this debate for the List of sovereign states talk page.
 * About China/Taiwan - I don't object using other names - RoC, PRC or whatever - I put Taiwan and China, because they are shorter (and they both linked to the appropriate pages and not to some island, etc.)
 * The summary table is a summary, because it just puts all entities of the above article into a simpler table only with the number of recognitions/non-recognitions - numbers taken from the above table; and puts the links to foreign relations (present also above) and to diplomatic missions (as relevant to recognition/non-recognition). No OR here.
 * Percentages - yes, they are manually calculated. I don't need a source to see what % of 207 is 2. No OR here, just a different method of presentation of the numbers.
 * 207 number - the articles "list of diplomatic missions of/to XXX" contain many sources showing that each one of these 207 entities conduct ambassador-level official relations. We can copy these links here if you think it is necessary - maybe one link for each of the non-obvious: EU, SMOM, CI, Niue - so that we don't add too much clutter? If you think that some entity was wrongly placed (or was missing) - say so.
 * what uncited categorisations? - if you click on the wikilinks of each "category" you can see numerous citations.
 * The summary table is relevant because the issue of numerical aspect of recognitions/non-recognitions, "majority", "50%", "2/3", etc. has arisen multiple times - and I think this article is the right place for these numbers. Alinor (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You would need a source which states that there are "207 entities in the World that conduct ambassador-level official relations". Objections to specifics don't matter when you are calculating percentages. You need to draw a figure from somewhere. If it's from UN members, that's easier to verify. But I haven't seen a source that uses your vague definitions to get a figure of 207.
 * The same goes for each individual figure. Who knows where you drew those from. I certainly don't: 97 for the State of Palestine when this list claims the figure is unknown, and the main article states that it is between 117 and 130. Same goes for the "x more" column. And no, links to other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable.
 * There was plenty of WP:OR. It was a giant mess. That's my opinion. If you want to continue with the idea, post some kind of draft on the talk page, and get opinions from other editors.  Night w   13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles with sources are as reliable as their sources. You don't need to copy all sources if you add something to another article with a wikilink to the Wikipedia article containing the sources.
 * 207. Do you question that some of the UN members, 10 others, Holy See, CI, Niue, SMOM, EU conduct ambassador-level relations? I will provide sources for these that you question - just tell me which you think are necessary.
 * individual figures. Look at the "Foreign relations of XXX" articles for detailed explanations, sources, etc. If you still don't agree with something - let's discuss it.
 * The other issues you raised about China/Taiwan wording, CI/Niue/SMOM deletion, etc. - those are easily editable.
 * So, it's no "big mess/plenty of OR" - maybe you just got offended by something in particular (maybe Taiwan, maybe some special entity that you think has no place there, etc.) - but I think we can easily correct it. Alinor (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we agree to put the tables with the following changes: China/Taiwan are placed as PRC/RoC, CI/Niue/SMOM are removed from the second table (until their respective debates are concluded), sources for "ambassador-level relations" are put for EU/SMOM/CI/Niue in the 207 note? Alinor (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... no. What on Earth made you think that?  Night w   09:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't answered to "Do you question that some of the UN members, 10 others, Holy See, CI, Niue, SMOM, EU conduct ambassador-level relations?" - so I assumed that you don't question this, and that the other issues you raised are the PRC/RoC/SMOM/etc. "following changes" proposed above.
 * So, is there some other problem than those? Alinor (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Read my replies properly. You would need a source which states that there are "207 entities in the World that conduct ambassador-level official relations" (no more, no less) in order to display accurate data. Otherwise, your percentages are original research.
 * Your sourcing was also non-existant for individual figures. When I said "And no, links to other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable," you answered promptly with "Look at the 'Foreign relations of XXX' articles for detailed explanations, sources, etc." It's not acceptable because it's not reliable sourcing, and because it also dissimulates the data on this page, which means that the section would not be a summary.
 * I also suggested that if you want to continue with the idea, to post some kind of draft on the talk page, and to get opinions from other editors. That's the last of my comments on this topic.  Night w   06:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As draft you can use the history link provided in the begin of this section - plus PRC/RoC names and SMOM/CI/Niue removed - as per your request.
 * Besides this and the 207 thing is there anything else that you see as problematic? Please be specific. There is no point in making a new draft until I know all of the things you find problematic.
 * 207. Since when is counting a WP:OR violation? Since we have sources showing that UN member states, Holy See, SMOM, CI, Niue, EU, the 10 others participate in ambassador-level relations between themselves - then it is pretty straightforward to calculate that 192+1+1+1+1+1+10=207.
 * About the circular reference - I repeat - the reference is not circular - there are external sources at the linked wikipages, but anyway - let's stop this argument - I already agreed to copy these sources here. So, I ask you to tell me what entities/numbers need to have additional sources/explanations - I suppose SMOM, EU, CI, Niue - somebody else? Alinor (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So, I assume that there are no other problems and no more sources are needed in addition to those that I listed as required above. Alinor (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview
1. % of the 207 entities in the World that conduct ambassador-level official relations: Abkhazia, Kosovo, Nagorno-Karabakh, North Cyprus, Palestine, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan, Transnistria; the non-state sovereign entity Order of Malta; the sovereign entity Holy See with statehood over the Vatican City; the supranational European Union; Armenia, Cook Islands, China, Cyprus, Israel, Niue, North Korea, South Korea and the rest of the sovereign states.

2. % as sum of diplomatic recognitions and other official relations.

Night w, you continues to delete the above without responding to my question about whether you have additional objections. On my talk page you raised two issues:
 * different data from the other tables in the article. I assume that here you referred to Palestine 97 number. It is coming from here and here. I changed the article to reflect the increased range (the source I provide is a UNESCO document showing the exact list of states recognizing SoP some time ago - the benefits of this source against the other two are: web-accessible; explicit list of states and not just a number; most of the cases include date of recognition; IMHO all this makes it pretty relevant) - so there is no inconsistency now.
 * the issue of source for the 207 number. You won't find all 207 entires in a single list, because none of them conducts relations with all others. I provided sources showing that the entities listed participate in such relations. I assume that those for whom I haven't provided such are "obvious" (e.g. no need to have a source showing that UN members have ambassadors), but such can be added if required. The other objection is "Counting does not account for any possibility that there may be a higher number." - I have included all, that I find sources for, in the count - if you find some entity missing - just add it. Alinor (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a mathematician, I see two technical issues with your percentages:
 * They give false precision. Since they are based on a total of ~200, they are only meaningful up to a change of ~0.5%, writing them to four significant digits is just ridiculous. They should be rounded to whole percents.
 * They are miscalculated. Even a universally recognized country like Russia cannot achieve more than 206 recognitions out of 207 entities, because it is one of the 207. You thus have to divide by 206, not 207.—Emil J. 15:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious problem with the source you've used is that it's extremely outdated, and you've chosen to present its data as current, without any reference to the date (1989) of the document. Furthermore, this list currently states (correctly) that the figure of recognition for Palestine is unknown. But in your "overview", you've decided to ignore that, and present the figure from a two decade-old source as precise, current information.
 * Percentages are only accurate if they match the number they represent. The number here is "the entities in the World that conduct ambassador-level official relations". But since you don't know what the number is, and can't provide a reference for it, then presenting any data as a percentage is impossible.  Night w   16:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * EmilJ, yes you are right about the 207-self issue and OK, I will re-calculate and round the percentages to 0.5%. Is this OK?
 * Night w, the 1989 year can be mentioned, no problem. I explained the advantages of the source from 1989 above - the main advantage is that it is a list and not just a number, and it is web-accessible, thus easily verifiable. Also, as I put it in the lower part of the range - this resolves the issue of its age. I suppose that the 117/130 numbers are also from sources from different dates? And also most probably they do not show the number of recognitions at the moment of the writing of the sources, but show the number of recognitions that the authors of the sources "know" at that moment - maybe they referred not to the most recent (at the time of writing) list? Maybe they referred to a list that included "informal" relations? We don't know, because these sources are not accessible. So, by putting these sources for the top of the range and the UNESCO list for the bottom of the range we have a much clearer picture. I would also prefer to have an up to date source, but couldn't find such. Statements like "a few dozen" or just some number (without knowing what is behind it - diplomatic recognition of SoP, official relations with PLO, with PNA, recognition of the right of Palestinian people to have their own state - see the talk page of Foreign relations of Palestine; exact list of states, etc.) are not very helpful or informative (and also utilizing offline sources for such things doesn't help either). Also, if the 97 number is incorrect - with time editors will provide individual sources for the relations-types of countries listed as "no relations" in Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority - if any of them has such (for example by looking at their MFA sites).
 * Ambassador-level relations. I know what the number is - it is 207 - and I provided the sources for that. If you think that some of these 207 does not conduct such relations or that there is an entity conducting such relations not listed in the 207 - just tell and we will correct it. Alinor (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:V:
 * "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Wikipedia must never be a first publisher. ... Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy."
 * The figure remains original research unless you can find a source that states that there are no more, and no less than that figure. If you can't find a source, then you're making stuff up. I don't know how to explain it any simpler, and I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you disagree, inquire at WP:RSN for outside comments.
 * Also, just because a source is more easily accessible (you speak as if you'd never seen the inside of a library), it doesn't change the fact that it can still be outdated information. In this case, the source is demonstrably outdated. Again, if you disagree, take it to WP:RSN.  Night w   12:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 207. This is not an issue of source reliability. I really don't understand why you are objecting this. As I explained - there would be no list with all 207, because none of them conducts relations with all others. But this does not diminish the fact that these are the 207 entities in the world conducting such relations. Also, this does not diminish the fact that this is highly relevant to the current article. It is one thing to have 20 recognitions of 200 and another thing to have 20 recognitions of 22, right? So showing the "total" is highly relevant in order to provide context to all the numbers on the page. As I already provided sources for the "special cases" I don't see what more can be done in this regard. Again, if you like I can try to add sources for the UN members too (I will try to find one list with a maximum number of states - for example the Holy See list - and then fish out sources for the remaining cases).
 * Palestine. The problem is with the 117/130 sources, because in practice we can't verify them - I asked a couple of questions about what these sources really show - and unless someone quotes the relevant texts we are still in the dark. In any case a source showing "just a number" is much less informative and useful than a source showing the list of states with dates, etc.
 * The UNESCO source older issue date is not a problem - because we will use it only for the lower boundary of the range - the upper boundary will remain the 130 from the other sources you prefer. Also, they are not up-to-date too - they are just more recent, but changes could have happened after their issue. Alinor (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is an unreliable source - that are the "just number" sources - as in the case of Palestine such numbers could imply different things and they are commonly mixed-up. Alinor (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NightW's point, I think, is that a third party source is needed saying that there are 207 political entities conducting such relations. Otherwise, we'll never know if we're missing something here I guess. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And you can't calculate a percentage if you don't know what the denominator is.  Night w   16:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see I'm going to have to do this step-by-step.
 * Where is your source that states that there are at least "207 entities that yada yada..."?
 * Where is your source that states that there are no more than "207 entities that yada yada..."?
 * If you cannot provide for both of these with a single source, then your edits remain synthesis. If you cannot provide for  both  (I repeat, both) of these with any source(s), then your edits are still original research. That's it. Take it to WP:RSN if you want outside opinions, I'm done trying to explain it.  Night w   16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The "total" number is highly relevant for this particular article topic (limited recognition). It just isn't complete without such number - as I said already - it is totally different if X is recognized by 20 of 22 or by 20 of 202 or by 200 of 202. And so far, the best we can do to get this "total" is to have each one of its parts sourced. Something like a List of entities conducting ambassador-level relations with sources for each one of them. If you question the inclusion of a particular entity of these 207 - OK, we will try to find a source for it - and if we can't find such source - we will remove it. If you have a source for a 208th entity - OK, we will add it. If you have a better proposal - OK, tell us what it is.
 * But I don't agree that we should leave this particular article without a "total" number. Alinor (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Overview2
The following 207 entities conduct ambassador-level official relations:
 * 203 sovereign states including
 * 192 UN members
 * 10 sovereign states not members of the UN
 * the sovereign entity Holy See with statehood over the Vatican City
 * 2 associated states: Cook Islands, Niue
 * the non-state sovereign entity Order of Malta
 * the supranational European Union

1. % of the entities that conduct ambassador-level official relations. Individual numbers are taken from the respective "Foreign relations of ..." articles linked in the notes column.

2. % as sum of diplomatic recognitions and other official relations.

3. Figure for State of Palestine recognition is in the range from 105 (51.0%) to 127 (61.5%). Sources for recognition by specific states are available for 105 states and in addition there are 8 states with inconclusive or conflicting sources for a total of 113 (55.0%). The figure 127 (61.5%) comes from a source that doesn't specify the list of states that it includes.

4. Figure for SMOM non-recognition is set at 1 (0.5%), 6 (3.0%) or 11 (5.5%).

I think this addresses the concerns raised above. Alinor (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're still drawing information from other articles, which means it's not an "Overview" of this list. You've also still got a figure for Palestine that's original research. And it's also still unnecessary.  Night w   11:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The overview is not unnecessary. It shows the degree of non-recognition of each case and such context is valuable addition considering the topic of the article. Its information could be presented in another way by embedding it into the main section text and tables, but the proposal here allows for sortability and presents a quick overview to the readers (without explanations about status, other claimants, etc.).
 * What information is drawn from other articles? The numbers are already present in the tables above - only the Palestine number that you question isn't (because you question it - see below).
 * The figure for Palestine is not original research - it is coming from authoritative sources (see here and here). You see, for the more fluid cases (Kosovo, Palestine, Sahrawi, Israel, Taiwan/China and to some degree Abkhazia and South Ossetia) the recognition/non-recognition changes frequently, so that it is inevitable that in order to show up-to-date information you have to take into account multiple sources - e.g. "2009 source: Republic of China is recognized by 22 UN members (#1,2,3,4,5,6...,Nauru,...,22)" + "2008 source: Republic of China is recognized by the Holy See since 1942" + "2010 source: Nauru established diplomatic relations with PR China on 12.12.2010 and from this moment withdraws recognition of and relations with the Republic of China. It had previously switched from RoC to PRC in 2002, but in 2005 switched back from PRC to RoC." We can not just turn a blind eye to newer sources that don't match our "previous" number - we should show the most recent information that we have sources for.
 * If we have 2010 source showing that Nauru, listed in the 2009 source, has canceled relations in 2010 this means that we will reduce the number with 1 - to take account of the newer source. Alinor (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion before now. The list looks great. I am in favour of inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus you've now added SMOM, when its explicitly stated that the SMOM isn't included on the list.  Night w   20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SMOM is part of the "excluded" section of the article, it has both recognitions and non-recognitions - so I don't see why it should remain outside the overview?
 * And anyway, this can not be a reason to object the whole overview - if you don't have other objections - we can add it without SMOM and discuss about SMOM additionally. Alinor (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "What information is drawn from other articles"? Well, "here and here", apparently... And also "from the respective 'Foreign relations of ...' articles", apparently. Where did you get the information about "official relations"? Other articles, perhaps?
 * It still cites (or doesn't rather) a number for Palestine, when even legal professionals disagree about what that number is. The footnotes still claims that there is a certain number of "entities that conduct ambassador-level official relations". And I'm sure that the figure for Cyprus should be 2. Merging the information here into the main table sounds like a good idea, the links you've embedded in the "notes" column would prove useful there.  Night w   21:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only information not already present in the article are the "official relations", and yes, these are from the 'Foreign relations of ...' articles. What's wrong with that? If needed we can copy the relevant parts in the table over the overview (but I don't think it is).
 * "Cyprus should be 2"? 1 is Turkey, who is 2?
 * Turkey + Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus = 2.  Night w   09:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Palestine number - look at the footnote - it shows the full range. The lower end of the range is defined by the sources that we have, the upper end of the range is defined by the 'legal professionals statement'. Alinor (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're still using a number that is in direct disagreement with both Kurz' and Boyle's figures. Since your number relies on synthesis of multiple sources, and conflicts with the most credible sources we have on the subject, it shouldn't be used. Either display it as a range (i.e., between 117 and ~130), or (and this would be the preferable option if this section is truly to be an "overview" of the article) display it as unclear.  Night w   09:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging - what about the sortability? Also, merging will increase clutter - in contrast to this "light" overview section. Also, merging does not mean only the "notes" links, but the other data too. Alinor (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Night w, should we merge the overview information into the main text&table, or you don't have further objections to including the overview as-is? Alinor (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't think it's an improvement to add all this data. The issues with calculating a percentage I've already explained, since you don't have a source that says that "207 entities conduct ambassador-level official relations". You're relying on synthesis of multiple sources. And unless you're planning on bringing the relevant sources over from other articles, there's still a major sourcing problem with regards to the "official relations" column.  Night w   09:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The table above the overview already includes numbers without copying their sources - it just links to the appropriate Wikipedia page. Why can't we do the same for the "official relations" column? And OK, if you insist I will copy the relevant sources here.
 * I explained multiple times about the 207 entities - we 'just count', this is not SYNTH/OR (WP:CALC) - we have sources about each of these entities. Do you think that some of these 207 should be removed or that there is a 208th entity? Alinor (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, some of the other numbers are also counted from multiple sources, not only the Palestine and 207. Alinor (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop readding it. You haven't made any attempt to address the issues that have been identified.  Night w   11:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't noticed your comments above, because they break my comments (and because you posted at the bottom at the same time). Please adhere to commenting style policy and don't break into other users comments - reply at the bottom of the section with the appropriate indent.
 * Yes, I now found the TRNC position over Republic of Cyprus on its foreign relations article. I updated it to 2, but do we have a source for TRNC not recognizing it? (the foreign relations passage is without reference)
 * Palestine number. It was never reported neither as 130 nor as "about 130". The "about 130" was a prediction. In 2010 it was reported as 127 by the same person (along with the wrong number of 195 UN members). Not to mention that only the 114 and 117 sources refer to "State of Palestine". The "about 130 prediction" and 127 sources refer to "Palestine" (that could mean SoP, PLO, PNA or even 'Palestine right to exist'/'Palestine state right to exist'/'Palestinian rights to a state' or similar).
 * Anyway, the note already shows the broadest range - 103 to 127. You should not disregard the 103 number as it is backed up by reliable sources. If you have a source for a 104th state (or think that some of these 103 is unreliably sourced) - OK, let's add it (remove it), otherwise there is no reason to disregard the sources. Alinor (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually familiarise yourself with proper "commenting style policy" before blindly repremanding others.
 * "'A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies.'"
 * Don't know if there's a source for the TRNC, but if you wish for this "Overview" to be an overview of this article, then you should stick to the information it shows, and challenge that information separately. Otherwise, you may as well start a different article.
 * Anyone who took elementary English can read the source and tell you that Boyle's number wasn't a prediction. Regardless, that's not how it's portrayed in the current article, and the article says "The exact number of countries recognizing the 1988 proclaimed state is unknown, due to the equivocal nature of many official statements of acknowledgment". So, if you wish for this "Overview" to be an overview of this article, you can't deviate from the information displayed here. Otherwise, you may as well start a different article.
 * The "103 number" may be backed up by reliable sources as the minimal range, but as I've said, it's in direct disagreement with the most credible authorities we have on the subject, and you admit that there may be more. So using it as the number displayed in your "overview" would be in direct disagreement with a) what the rest of the article says, and b) what the majority of legal sources say. So it can't be used.  Night w   13:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "A response to a reply should be placed below that reply, but above all later replies." - here "reply" means the whole comment - you broke my comment into multiple parts (so it's not obvious how wrote the upper part - as it is not signed) - as a rule of thumb - reply after the signature of the post you want to reply to.
 * I already said that I will update it to 2. I ask about a source, because I couldn't find such on the page where this is described (TRNC foreign relations).
 * The overview is not a rewording of the above article, but an overview of the topic "states with limited recognition". Anyway, it doesn't contradict the above table as it includes the full range 103-127.
 * Of the various number under discussion here the 117 and the 103 numbers are backed up by sources explicitly showing "recognizing the State of Palestine". The 127 number is backed by a source wrongly reporting UN members as 195. There is no other firm number. So, between the 117 and the 103 number we have full list of states only for the 103 number. And you propose to disregard exactly this number and use instead a "would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states." statement? Alinor (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It still contradicts the rest of the article. You can't have conflicting information being recorded in the same article. Obviously. Unless you're challenging the information displayed here, then it your additions do indeed need to be "a rewording of the above article".
 * Your interpretations of the sources are either under scrutiny elsewhere, or are not shared by other editors. And the "127 number" has been dismissed only by you. If you're challenging what's recorded in this article, you need to do that before you add conflicting information.
 * I'm afraid you won't be able to add it until you address these major points of conflict, and persisting to argue with someone who obviously disagrees with you isn't going to get you anywhere.  Night w   14:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you skip general statements and explain what exactly does it contradict?
 * I assume that you speak about the Palestine numbers. They do not contradict, but are in addition to these in the article - because 117 is inside the 103-to-127 number range used in the Overview. And, OK, I will open a section specifically for this issue. Any other issues? Alinor (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plenty. The percentages. The number 207. I'm not repeating myself anymore.  Night w   14:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at my post about WP:CALC above? Alinor (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you question the sources for some of the 207 entities? Do you have a source for 208th entity? Do you question the mathematical results? Because if you don't there is no problem with the 207/percentages. Do you have any other issues? Alinor (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, it's plain as day that there is no consensus to add this table right now. Maybe if more editors commented that would be different. But, good arguments made both ways; and there is no agreement to change the page. Maybe in a few months this will change, propose it later on perhaps. :) Outback the koala (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any answer by Night w (the only opposer?) to my questions (at 11:05, 18 November 2010 above), so currently I don't see argument against the inclusion besides the dispute of the Palestine number (but this is already reflected in the footnote). I will be happy to discuss and improve, but if there are no arguments against - why should we wait? Alinor (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there is not consensus to add it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And what are the reasons? We can correct the problems only if they are known. I ask, but don't receive an answer.
 * What is your opinion? Alinor (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got plenty of answers from me above. You can refute them as you wish, but to claim that problems haven't been identified is quite obviously wrong. If you must persist with this, why don't you read over the discussion again, and then come up with possible ways of addressing the issues that have been identified...instead of saying "Nope, that's not a problem" followed by "Oh, I can't correct the problems cuz I don't know what they are..."  Night w   07:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't answered to my 11:05, 18 November 2010 comment that finishes with "Because if you don't there is no problem with the 207/percentages. Do you have any other issues?" Regarding the Palestine number you haven't answered to my 11:00, 18 November 2010 comment. Are you trying to block the discussion by keeping silence? Alinor (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not using calculations. You're claiming that there are (only) "207 entities conduct ambassador-level official relations". You admit there may be more, and therefore you don't know the total — you can't calculate a total if you don't know the denominator. Do these comments sound familiar? They should; I copied + pasted most of them from above. I haven't commented about the Palestine number because it's quite plain that we disagree. I've stated my position, and you've stated yours. Ask others for their opinion. If nobody comments, let it go.  Night w   09:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that there may be more. I just say that if you think so you can easily add such 208th entity, no problem. So, unless somebody questions some of these 207 it is a simple calculation, so you can let it go. Alinor (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, and I've said that it isn't a simple calculation. So we disagree. Therefore, there's no consensus to add it.  Night w   09:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is more simple than addition? Do you question some of the sources or not? You can't just say "I'm opposed because I'm opposed", or rather, you can, but it is irrelevant without explanation. Alinor (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given multiple "explanations" but apparently you're not hearing them. For the hundredth time, seek other opinions if you wish to persist with it.  Night w   03:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You didn't answer whether you question some of the 207 entities and whether you have a source for 208th. So, you will have to remove/add such individual entities (if there are any that you question/want to add) after the text is added to the article. But that is OK, no problem. Alinor (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. This is dead unless someone else joins the conversation. Outback the koala (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Outback the koala, I would agree that this is dead if Night w was giving some reason for his objection. Currently the reason I see in his words is only "I don't like WP:CALC, it contradicts my personal policy, I want every number to be sourced by a single source and not simply calculated" (it is a separate issue that there are some calculated numbers already in the current article). Alinor (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we add dates of separation/proclaimation?
name, proclamation, separation: For the other - independence/establishment date:
 * Abkhazia 25.8.1990, 27.9.1993
 * Kosovo 17.2.2008, (10.6.1999)
 * NKR 06.1.1992, 16.5.1994
 * TRNC 15.11.1983, 20.7.1974
 * SoP 15.11.1988, (17.5.1994)
 * SADR 27.2.1976=27.2.1976
 * Somaliland 18.5.1991=18.5.1991
 * South Ossetia 28.11.1991, 24.6.1992
 * ROC Taiwan -, 07.12.1949
 * Transnistria 02.9.1990, 21.7.1992
 * Armenia 25.12.1991
 * PR China 01.10.1949
 * Cyprus 16.8.1960
 * Israel 14.5.1948
 * South Korea 15.8.1948
 * North Korea 09.9.1948
 * SMOM 1099
 * Georgia 25.12.1991
 * Serbia 05.6.2006
 * Azerbaijan 25.12.1991
 * Moldova 25.12.1991
 * Morocco 02.3.1956
 * Somalia 01.7.1960 Alinor (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, what's the difference between the two dates in your first section? Secondly, the Republic of China has been in existence since 1912, and since the Taipei government (I believe) considers it to be part of that, rather than a descendant of it, that is the date that should be used. If we included this. And I'm not yet sure we should. --Golbez (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is the following: "proclaimation" is the date of announcing the state - "separation" is the date of gaining control of the territory. In some cases these two are the same (=). In some cases the state is announced in exile/before gaining control (Palestine, former USSR). In some cases the state is announced after gaining control (TRNC, Kosovo) - but here the "gaining control" may be in brackets, because control is initially gained by a third party (Turkey, KFOR/UNMIK) and later 'transferred' to the separated state. You can see detailed naming of the dates on the articles of the states. In brackets are dates that are not exactly "separation" - such as 1999 for UNMIK (not exactly RoK) and 1994 for PNA (not exactly SoP).
 * ROC Taiwan is listed as "proclaimation - none", "separation - 07.12.1949" exactly because of what you say - ROC has never been proclaimed as separate from China, but it effectively separated from the rest (China mainland) in 1949. We can put in "proclamation" column 1912 in brackets if needed.
 * I think that having these dates would be a good addition to the article - it would give a timeframe of the events described. Alinor (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you want to include them. Within the entry sounds ok to me, but if you want to make another column, that might be too much. Plus, a few more adjustments have to be made. Outback the koala (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The date on the ROC is incorrect. You mean rather that the PRC effectively separated from the ROC, not the other way around. And that's greatly oversimplifying it. As for the others, nobody will be able to tell the origin of either pieces of information, as none of it is sourced.  Night w   11:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Outback the koala, maybe we can replace the "conflict" column (see below section) with the dates? Conflict can be moved to the general table (below the line for foreign relations in each entity line).
 * Night w, all dates are taken from the states articles - if you want we can copy the sources from these articles to here.
 * The date on ROC separation is for the separation between ROC and PRC. It doesn't matter who separated from whom. The thing is that it was 1 and then there were 2. Of course such processes are not done in 1 day - but there are notable events in the process and that's what is given above. Do we need to copy the "History of China" article each time we mention this? A footnote with appropriate link can be added if you want. Alinor (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, with the way that you're portraying the information above, it does matter. And yes, you will need to copy those sources over, because it's unclear what you mean by "separation".  Night w   10:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so we will add the dates together with the sources when/if adding the territory/population data. Alinor (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured review nomination
I am nominating this list at WP:FLRC. Please note that this is not intended to see it removed from WP:FC, but rather to identify areas requiring improvement. The current version differs significantly from when it was promoted. Having recently gone through a WP:FLC nomination myself, I am keenly aware of certain aspects in this article that may require attention. There have also recently been several proposals for additional information, for which this review could be helpful. Please contribute to the discussion.  Night w   14:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Strange new data
Just reverted this revision, which added a section of unsourced data.
 * 1) The origins of the data in the "claimed territory" column are unknown. It was also incorrect: I don't know what the actual number is, but the Republic of China officially claims a heck of a lot more than 36 191 sq km. Are there more errors? Do the figures include internal waters, coastal waters, or just land area? Who knows? There aren't any sources. Is this information even relevant here?
 * 2) No information regarding the figures in the "population" column. Where does the data come from? What year is the data from? Are the figures estimates, or official counts? Who knows... Is this information even relevant here?
 * 3) The context for "diplomatic recognitions" and "official relations" figures isn't set. Is it UN members, or ...? Multiple unsourced footnotes.
 * 4) The second table includes an entry that is explicitly omitted from the list. The third table includes a random group of states, the association with which seems to be their claims to aforementioned items, but, again: Is this information relevant here?  Night w   11:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Explanation of questions by Night w:


 * 1) Figures for territory are taken from the states articles and here. Link added. You can read there that they include land area and internal waters (this includes also a specific part of the waters along the coasts). Taiwan figure is from its page and obviously includes only the territory they control, so OK, we can change it or add another column - Territory controlled (there would be differences only for Taiwan, Somaliland, Western Sahara) - or add a footnote where needed. See below.
 * 2) Figures for population are taken from the states articles and here. Link added. Where does the data come from and what year is it from, estimates/counts - read there.
 * 3) Figures for diplomatic recognitions. "The context isn't set" - what context? These figures just show the number of recognitions. Why do you assume it is related to UN members? What has the UN to do with this column? Footnotes are pretty obvious, but anyway - added links - see below.
 * 4) SMOM is excluded from the list of countries, because it's only sovereign, but not a state, but it has citizens and countries that deny recognition - that's why it's in the table. Made it italic - to distinguish from the states. See below. The third table - yes, it's pretty obvious and you understood it correctly - it includes the rest of the states mentioned in the above article in the "other claimant" column.

It is standard practice in Wikipedia to use population/territory statistics without adding all details (like internal waters, etc.) - just use the linked state/list articles for these details. Alinor (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The citation for SMOM pop is from 1955. I doubt this is reliable today. Outback the koala (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1955 citation describes fundamental principle - which positions in SMOM are entitled for citizenship and that the numerous members and volunteers use the citizenship of their states. The other citation is recent and shows the number of member and volunteers. If we had a more recent citation showing a different number of SMOM citizenships - OK, but until then why not use what we have? After all such fundamental principle is unlikely to be changed often. In any case we can also add a tag. Alinor (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but I don't understand your answer. Could you rephrase so what you mean to say is clearer please. Outback the koala (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not recent does not mean incorrect - unless we have a more recent conflicting source (in such case we will just use the more recent instead).
 * The 1955 source deals with a fundamental rule in SMOM (official positions in SMOM entitled to SMOM citizenship). The 2003 source  deals with the number of members/volunteers that don't get SMOM citizenship (they are citizens of their states).
 * It is not a big issue if the source for the fundamental rule is not so recent, because it's unlikely to change often. But regardless of that we can add a 'recent source needed' tag - so that the readers are aware of what you noted - that the source is not recent. Alinor (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it must be you accent (hardy har)... Well that seems fine to me then, I'll see if I can pull anything newer up on my end regarding that. Outback the koala (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Figures for territory are not taken from "the states articles and here", because, as you'll soon notice when you actually look at the article you've linked to, the figures are not the same. This is because that article's information comes from a single list, while the country articles use their own sources. If you had taken the figures from that article, then I'd know what they include. But you haven't, so you need to state where you actually got the information from.
 * The same for population: I certainly could "read there" about "where does the data come from and what year is it from, estimates/counts", had you taken the information from there, as you say you have, but you haven't. If the figures were the from country articles, you need to say so, and a) not link to other lists, b) provide the information about what year the figures are from.
 * "Context". Six out of how many? I don't assume it is related to UN members—I wouldn't have a clue what the range is, because you haven't specified it, but UN members is the only defined number I can think of.
 * SMOM is "it's only sovereign, but not a state" — this is a " list of states "... Are we to have this discussion every time you propose some table of irrelevant information?
 * You still haven't explained why this information is relevant to the subject of recognition. What has population, or surface area, etc to do with diplomatic recognition? What's the notability in this context? Should we mention their GDPs as well? How about capitals? Largest cities? This is basic data that is irrelevant to the subject, and it can be found easily by clicking on the country of interest.  Night w   10:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why this information is relevant - population and territory is the most basic data about a country and it's useful to have such statistics section in the article - so that it's clear what kind of states are these "states with limited recognition". If you have GDP info about them this would also be good to add. Capitals/cities/time zone/etc. are going too deep into details, but maybe location (by continent or region) can be added.
 * I think it is obvious why the number of recognitions/non-recognitions is relevant.
 * Figures for territory are taken from "the states articles and here" - some are taken from the states articles and some from the main list. I haven't said that they come only from one of these places (that you selected), but from both - because not all data is available in both places. Should we copy the sources here or add a footnote like "figures are taken from the state articles and/or here, depending on availability"?
 * Figures for population - same as for territory - see above.
 * "Context" - "out of how many" - do we need to define this? Previously you objected, that's why I didn't included the percentages, but yes I agree that they should be added. UN members is obviously irrelevant here - this article deals primarily with entities that are not UN members and UN membership is not a requirement for recognition, relations or anything like that. See here for "total number" (and sources) for 'context - out of how many'. Anyway, we can add percentages later.
 * What's this obsession with SMOM? It's a sovereign entity with partial recognition and it grants citizenship - so what's the problem with having it in the statistics table? I already made it italic. If you like I can color it differently from the states and put a note/legend that this color is for non-state entities. Alinor (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A few more words about the relevance - territory and population are part of the criteria for inclusion. Alinor (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually have an idea about where you can get opinions about this. See below, shortly.  Night w   14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the featured list de/nomination? I don't think this is directly related to the issue here. Anyway, I asked a few questions about your opinion. Should we copy the territory/pop sources over from the other articles or a footnote as described above is sufficient? Alinor (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that very little of the information you're proposing to add is relevant, as I said.  Night w   08:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Outback the koala and I find it relevant, so the question is whether you question its validity or not and if you are - whether using a footnote is enough for you or you want the sources copied here from the other articles. Alinor (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll humour you: No, it isn't valid. If you're taking figures from a multitude of other articles, then you either need to stick to what's on the individual country articles, or you need to find a single article to work off. Linking to single topical articles when they're not uniformly utilised (as you've done with the links on "territory" and "population") is incredibly confusing. There are also still about seven to nine entries (I see you've got Niue and the Cook Islands secretly waiting on call) that are additions, and either don't meet the inclusion criteria, or aren't actually relevant to the article. Whether you think they are or not, additions need to be proposed in a separate thread. This includes SMOM. You can keep pushing them if you wish, but they aren't helping your cause.
 * But none of that much matters, as it's questionable whether any of the information is needed. And this is not a democracy.  Night w   12:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody claims it's a democracy and we haven't done any voting, have we? I just said that there are editors other than you who find it relevant.
 * OK, so if we remove the links to territory/population lists will this be enough? Or you prefer a general footnote about the sources? Or you prefer the sources copied from the states articles here?
 * CI/Niue are not "secretly" waiting - they are added as hidden text so that when the issue at List of sovereign states is resolved they could be easily added if needed. I don't think it's a big problem to remove the hidden text if you insist.
 * The statistics section is not restricted to entries included in the list - it includes other relevant non-included entries, that are put there for comparison with the included entries/to give context. I put italics on these, but we can add a colored legend instead. Of course we can altogether remove these and discuss it separately if you insist. Alinor (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistics
Not all notes above are part of the statistics table - some come from another discussions above in the talk page. Alinor (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with Short Lead
I think that the current definition section could simply be used as the lead, with the unofficial and informal diplomatic relations section included. This is a list, it doesn't need sections of text, and it would make the lead more likely to fulfill FL requirements. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the requirement for lead sections is different for lists. Most probably that's how the article got to FL in the first place. I think that this was enough as lead of list, but your current version is also OK - I think the previous is more compliant with lead guidelines (starts with the article name, etc.) - maybe we can use your rephrasing in something like: "This list of states with limited recognition gives an overview of contemporary geopolitical entities that wish to be recognized as sovereign states have been hindered by a lack of diplomatic recognition. Most of these entities currently have de facto control of their territory with recognition ranging from almost universal to none at all and there are also historical cases of such entities that no longer exist." (reworded it somewhat - because not all have "de facto control" - see point2 of the inclusion criteria). Alinor (talk) 10:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm basing my proposal off NightW's recent almost FL, the List of current sovereign monarchs. Lists don't need to have the title included in the lead verbatim anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. What bothers me in the new version is that it implies that all of these have control of the territory, but this is just a minor glitch. Alinor (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Easily fixable if we convert the current "Definition" section into the lead. How would that be? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reads fine.  Night w   12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole definition section seems too big for a lead. Let's move only its "criteria for inclusion" subsection there (and do a small rewording of the current lead)? Alinor (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's too big? It's the perfect size for a lead. See these recently promoted lists for an example.  Night w   14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that it's too big, but of course that's not a big deal - after all, in practice, what we argue about is whether we should delete the "Definition" line or to move the "criteria for inclusion" subsection in the lead. Deleting the "definition" line (thus including this text in the lead) is fine. Alinor (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look bad at all. Ladril (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive
There is something wrong with the archiving of the talk page - archive 5 is described as "Sep2009-May2010", but includes comments after May2010 (both first and last comments in different sections). I think that some of the sections of Archive5 should go in Archive6. Alinor (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * . Thanks,  Night w   07:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Night w, I hope this omission made by you was by mistake and not intentional. Alinor (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! Yes, it was. Good catch. Apologies, I'm not on my usual computer.  Night w   07:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nightw, foiled again ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I've really got to work on my stealth ;)  Night w   09:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

North Sentinel Island
No recognized state currently enforces any law on the populated North Sentinel Island. Would this qualify the indigenous society to be an unrecognized state? Or is it necessary, for a territory to be recognized as an unrecognized state on Wikipedia, that Wikipedians know that anyone in said territory recognize it as a state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They'd have to have declared independence, and fulfill the definitions of statehood. That island is an interesting case of an uncontacted people, but not a sovereign state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The people that live in a polity have to assert that they are independent. Its possible that they consider themselves independent, the problem is no one has ever communicated with them so no one knows what they consider themselves to be. They could very well have a society structured as a rudimentary state or they could be split into several lawless bands or they could have no organized political structure at all and the society could be in total anarchy. Thats why in the note at the bottom of the page it states that societies that are to data deficent to have there status known are not included. Are they soveriegn? Yes, but the real question is whether they live in a statelike society or not. Until that question is answered, and its not likely to be answered anytime soon, they cant be included in the list. Other similar situations exist where people or entities posses soveriegnty, but are not states and not included in the list for example the SMOM and stateless persons.XavierGreen (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OTHERS
Montenegro and Macedonia are missing on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.180.234 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why would those nations not be recognised... I mean, I can probably understand Macedonia, but Montenegro is a bit far fetched.  I thought both Greece and Serbia recognises the two now respectively.  Liu Tao (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the talk archives for these cases.  Night w   06:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

PRC
Does China really belong in the image here? The graphic's comment says "not recognized by one UN member state", but the ROC is not a UN member state. Note that I'm not saying that PRC doesnt belong in the article -- rather just that the image's legend does not agree with the text in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.53.198 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Seeing that PRC is not recognised by 22 UN Member State, PRC should be in the image. It is not just ROC that doesn't recognise PRC Azizkayihan (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The PRC is not recognised by 22 member states, found here, which all recognise the ROC instead. The PRC is currently highlighted due to this, not due to not being recognised by the ROC. Hope that helps! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Seborga
Shouldn't the Principality of Seborga be on this list? It has been regognised by Burkina Faso, and there is a consulate of Burkina Faso there. Here is some reference links http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article6943215.ece and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/royalty-obituaries/6671765/His-Tremendousness-Giorgio-Carbone.html Pangeanempire (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this Burkina Faso consulate a "Consulate to the Principality of Seborga", or is it a "Consulate in Seborga, Italy"? And does it even exist or "the consul" is just a person from Burkina Faso, unrelated to the government, that is a friend of the "Prince of Seborga"? I don't find such consulate on the official Burkina Faso MFA site:, , . Alinor (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally the Principality of Sebroga does not have Italian Military or Italian Police within its limits. I agree with Pangeanempire, they do have a certain degree of extraterritoriality and their claim is undisputed to date and they do have foreign missions... so I believe they could at least fit in the Somaliland catagory if nothing else.74.142.146.80 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a source that Italy specifically ignores Seborga, or recognizes Seborga's claim? If not then there's no evidence they are de facto independent. It's like the Republic of Lakotah or Sealand - the fact that the governments in question haven't quashed the movements doesn't mean that they are independent. It just means no one cares. --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Any source for this "No Italian Police/Military in Seborga"? Maybe there is no permanently stationed police office there (because of its small size), but this is normal for small cities and villages everywhere. IMHO it seems this "Principality of Seborga" is just a local folklore thing to gain attention, tourists, etc. Totally unlike Somaliland that fights wars, raises taxes, organizes elections, etc. I think Seborga population participates in Italian elections - maybe this can be confirmed by some Italian speaker if he checks the detailed village-by-village results of the most recent elections. Alinor (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it has been recognised by B.F. then there is a case for inclusion, but I cannot find one other source either... making this very dubious. Outback the koala (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
Night w just removed from the article the section I paste here below. He claims that there is no consensus to add it, where on Talk:List of states with limited recognition/Archive 7 we see that Outback the koala and I supported even the previous version of the same content and found it to be relevant. Night w was voicing concerns about sourcing and after my reply of 15:16, 14 December 2010 including multiple variants of sourcing he didn't respond anymore.

This past discussion got archived without Night w answering which sourcing option he prefers, that's why I implemented the most thorough option - to include sources for each figure.

Night w removed all this sourced content and request talk page discussion. While I think he really should have opened this such discussion himself and explain what his objections are - because according to the previous discussion there are no problems remaining (e.g. sourcing and relevance). So, I will wait some time for his reply and I will restore the content unless Night w points out some new problem. Alinor (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * With no comment on anything else, what on earth is SMOM doing there? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Morocco?  Night w   16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * SMOM is a sovereign entity with some explicit non-recognition. It is mentioned in the article in the "excluded entities" section (because it is not a state) It is clearly marked as "not a state with limited recognition".
 * Morocco is a state mentioned in the article in the "other claimants" column. It is clearly marked as "not a state with limited recognition". Alinor (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not a state with limited recognition, then it shouldn't be in your list, since this is meant to be a "list of states with limited recognition". It's basically trivia.  Night w   08:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is "list of states with limited recognition". This statistics section includes all relevant entities mentioned in the article, not only the "states with limited recognition" - the "states claimants" and "sovereign entities with limited recognition" are also shown in the statistics section for context and comparison purposes. Alinor (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Statistics
{{Legend|#C0C0C0|State with limited recognition}} {{Legend|#FFFF80|Not a state with limited recognition, shown for comparison}}


 * Notes


 * References

Discussion
The first and foremost problem I had with the initial proposal has still not been answered: "Is is needed?" Does it improve the article? That is really a question that should be answered with a poll or something. Personally, I see more issues with it than benefits.

A couple of them here: I won't comment on any issue with the last section, or the entry for SMOM, as I wouldn't support their inclusion anyway. They have no place on this article.  Night w   16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The names should match the names used in the main table. If it's a sortable table, the name should come before the descriptive (e.g., China, People's Republic of).
 * The area figures of North Kosovo, the Free Zone and Maakhir, and the population figures for the Free Zone need to be included.
 * There is, typically, massive overlinking. The footnotes are an eyesore, and most of the conflicts in the table will have already been linked.
 * There are many grammatical errors. With permission, I can perform a copyedit. Also, the &mdashes should be zeroes.
 * I don't understand why there are notes outside the "Notes" section.
 * Lastly, recently donated his time to clean up the citations in this article. It'd be an insult if you were to add those references to the article, as hardly any of them contains an adequate description of what it is. For help, look at the citations that you've copy-pasted from other articles, like the one for the United Nations document.
 * About the relevance - the previous discussions on the subject remained on the page for very long time - Outback the koala and I voiced support for its inclusion, EmilJ made recommendations on technical corrections (that were taken into account in subsequent versions), you made recommendations on sourcing and other things (I think most of these, if not all, were taken into account) and also questioned the relevance. We can wait some more, but I propose that since it is already sourced we put it in the article and we will see whether other editors support or oppose it.
 * Names - OK, we can use the same names as in the article and arrange them as China, PR ...
 * Additional area/population figures - if you have these, let's add them. I understand why you mention North Kosovo and Free Zone, but why do we need to specifically mention Maakhir and disregard Puntland, Galmudug, Al-Shabaab, Ahlu Sunna Waljama'a and any other "administration" currently in power in the Somalia black hole civil war? Of all Somalia entities only Somaliland claims independence from Somalia.
 * overlinking - actually I don't see most of the conflicts linked elsewhere in the article. Other overlinking - I don't see too much links that are present elsewhere in the article - excluding state names. Do you speak about state names or some other links?
 * grammatical errors - I don't object you to correct such, but please refrain from making some other unexpected edit that we have to fight over later...; recognition/relations &mdash to be 0 - if you so insist, fine, but I think a dash stands out more and looks better.
 * notes outside the "Notes" section - maybe I missed moving some of these. We can move them.
 * citation formatting - most of these are copied from other articles. Anyway these can be re-formatted.
 * SMOM and others that are mentioned in the article, but that are not "state with limited recognition" - these are shown here for context and comparison. And the reason why those and not others - because those are mentioned in the article and are related to the subject (as claimant state or as non-state sovereign entity with limited recognition). Alinor (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it cannot go in looking like that. Could you adjust your proposal to accommodate some of the issues I've identified, such as the citations, names, and notes? Maakhir's area needs to be tallied because it is disputed, and is currently firmly under Puntland's control. Somaliland only controls part of its claimed territory in the east. As for note 11, I've said I won't comment on any issues with that as it pertains to an entry that shouldn't be included at all. And until consensus changes, that includes the Cook Islands
 * The state names have all been linked elsewhere in the article. Where you've used templates is an acceptable form of repetition, but the links to the state names in the footnotes are not. Also repeated are the links to UNMIK, Western Sahara, and the foreign relations articles, including those in the references.
 * Is there a conflict between what notes 1 and 9 say, or is that just me? I've performed the copyedit. The dashes, to me, normally indicate non-applicability, while a zero is explicit. There are some serious sourcing concerns also. With permission, I would like to add some tags to help your proposal.   Night w   08:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK about the names and notes. Any links about North Kosovo/Free Zone/Maakhir that you like to be added?
 * Cook Islands - they are put as hidden text, do you want this removed or you just say "don't unhide"?
 * overlinking - about most of these OK, but I will have to check that there are no additional reasons for some particular link to remain.
 * I don't see problem with note1/9.
 * Where are the citation-tags needed? I don't see any non-sourced figures... Alinor (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the names and notes, and added citation tags where needed. You can revert these changes obviously if you disagree.  Night w   13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated citation formats and some additionals that you requested, etc.
 * Somaliland-Puntland "border" changes frequently, so I don't find it useful (or possible) to give any figures for that area. Degree of North Kosovo control is also variable. If you have something specific in mind for these situations - add it. Alinor (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's all I will add it to the article. Alinor (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to include numbers, then the area figures of North Kosovo, the Free Zone and Maakhir, and the population figures for the Free Zone need to be included before it could be seen as useful information. Are there sources for notes 2 and 7? Western Sahara and UNMIK are still repeated links, as are those to foreign relations articles. There are still notes outside the notes section. Refs 17 through 27 could do with a bit more formatting, and there's no rationale for using WP:CAPS in some of them. It still contains SMOM and states with general recognition. Still a long way to go, and since I don't see the need for it, you should conduct a straw poll to get other opinions. Could you also explain note 12? Should it be "controlled" (not "claimed")?  Night w   14:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Free Zone numbers are already added. The North Kosovo and Somaliland-Puntland/SCC border regions (notes 2 and 7) situation is changing too often, so I'm not sure such figures could exist, but if you find such you are welcome to add them. Some wikilinks that are present in another sections of the article may be removed, but there are some that should remain. I see CAPS only in refs 15 and 27 and will change them. The mentioned in the article SMOM and states are included, yes, for context and comparison. They are clearly marked as "not a state with limited recognition". You may not see a need for this, but the rest of the editors commenting here and here do not object it. Other issues - I will reply/make changes to these later. Alinor (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maakhir and North Kosovo have defined boundaries. I'm not asking for figures for area of control, just the figures for those areas in general. I won't support the inclusion of this thing if SMOM and those other things are in there. If there is a consensus to, fine, but there isn't one at the moment.  Night w   11:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have to look trough some additional issues mentioned in your 14:24, 28 February 2011 comment, but will reply below about the things you write right above.
 * The figures for Republic of Kosovo and for Republic of Somaliland used are those given by the sources. The footnotes only explain that the central administrations don't have control over all of their northern and eastern territories respectively. Unlike the Western Sahara Free Zone, where Morocco build a separation barrier and doesn't make attempts to govern the outside-of-the-wall territory (and there is a UN mission observing this), in the cases of Kosovo and Somaliland both governments constantly make different attempts to "get into" these territories by different means. These are no hard border and control over various parts of these territories, villages, etc. changes with time in one or another direction. I don't find it useful to give any hard figures for territory/population in such case, even if you can find sources for these - but if you find a source that you think is useful - I don't object adding its figures to the footnote.
 * The inclusion of the statistics section is objected only by you, but supported by other users (including me).
 * "not a state with limited recognition" cases (SMOM and claimant states) are mentioned in the article because they are related to the subject - and that's why they are included in the statistics, for context and comparison. The only objection you give is "I don't like it". Alinor (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't speak for other editors. The only other editor I've seen touch on that matter is Chip, above, who asked "what on earth" SMOM was doing in there. Get a proper poll done.  Night w   13:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see a poll done. But the question(s) should be specific to this addition. Outback the koala (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I will arrange more input to be gathered. Night w, I made some changes based on your input - comment if you want. Alinor (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we might try throwing an RfC out there to see who we could attract to this discussion. What do you guys think? Outback the koala (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will file a RFC - but let's first select one of the two formats - references in front or in the back - please see below. Alinor (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus
I just realized something. We say the TRNC doesn't recognize Cyprus. Yet their very name, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus... do we have proof they don't recognize the Greek Cypriot government as controlling the southern half? Do they recognize anyone as controlling it? Because the very name of the country seems to indicate they don't claim the entire island. --Golbez (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Found this from a fairly quick Google search. I don't know what the deal with the name is...  Night w   05:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see, it's reciprocal. It would seem that the TRNC would like to coexist, but - according to that source - because Cyprus does not recognize the TRNC, the TRNC reciprocates. --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to claim a state's territory in order to not recognise them, I think. Does Pakistan recognise another state as the controller of Armenia's territory? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @All, I agree with your conclusions. I think Pakistan doesn't recognize anyone as Armenia territory sovereign, controller or authority - they just refuse to recognize Republic of Armenia government as such. Alinor (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A similar position would the the United States in relation to the Western Sahara, they simply just regard the area as terra nullis and recognize no power as controlling the area.XavierGreen (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More Azad Kashmir info
http://www.ips.org.pk/pakistanaffairs/education/1115.html Ladril (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya
This is a fun one. Libya now technically, I think, qualifies for inclusion on this list - twice. The government of the Libyan Republic is recognized by two UN members, France and Portugal, while the government of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Jamahiriya is explicitly unrecognized by the same two UN members. This is similar, I think, for the moment, to the issue with China or Korea - both sides claim the whole, but presently only control half. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. Tricky. On the other hand, I don't think it is similar to Korea as no country recognises...East Libya(?) as a country, although they recognise South and North Korea. This looks like some sort of GiE to me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GiE? And, er, yes, two countries do recognize East Libya, or rather, the Libyan Republic, which currently only controls eastern Libya but claims the whole, just as the Republic of China currently only controls Taiwan and environs but claims the whole. --Golbez (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean recognise as a separate country. Many countries recognise both Koreas. It does seem analogous to China though. Should both be included? I think Turkey still recognises the old government. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This not true. France and Portugal, like other countries, recognize there is a state called Libya. They just recognize a different government as legitimate. Libya should not be in the list. Here I am with Chipmunk (if I got his point right). Ladril (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two competing states. Both claim the whole of a territory. Each currently only controls a portion of that territory. Some countries recognize one state, some recognize the other. None, so far as I know, recognizes both. Am I describing China, Libya, or both? --Golbez (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Golbez, recognition of states is one thing, recognition of governments is a different matter. The sources we have available on Wikipedia say that some countries recognize X government as the government of a state called Libya. There is no documented dispute as to the unity and legitimacy of the state itself. Libya is not yet a divided state according to sources (as Germany and Vietnam were, and Korea is). Ladril (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically the two competing goverments are two different states, though they both claim the exact same area and common short form of name. The Qaddafi regimes state needs to be added to the bottom portion of the list as well, since now france states that they do not recognize it, i dont know if portugal recognized both or only the bengazi administration the statements about them are a bit more ambiguous. The country is divided much in the same way China is, the media supports that assertion.XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to Ladril's assertions it should be noted that the two competeing goverments claim to be different states (ie the bengazi administration does not claim to be the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), with different forms of government entirely. As such they are not two competeing governments arguing who is the legitimate ruler of a state, they are two different states fighting for control of the same area.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Xavier, to use your and Golbez's logic, there cannot be two Libyan states because neither has declared its independence from the other. Ladril (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too early to tell, lets get a good source first to figure out whats going on. Outback the koala (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They both assert that they are independent and soveriegn states, they are not secceding from one another as they each claim the entirety of each others territory in the same manner that the PRC and the ROC do.XavierGreen (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that were sourced (which it isn't), "assertions" have not been accepted as inclusion criteria in the past. Either a declaration of independence is needed or we need to revise the inclusion criteria. Ladril (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ladril on that, and I don't think we need to change inclusion. Outback the koala (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"It's too early to tell, lets get a good source first to figure out whats going on." Agree. This inclusion is way too hasty. Ladril (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A declaration of independence is not needed since France and Portugal have recognized it as independent. The reason other entities in the past were not included (hamas ruled gaza, tamil elam) where that no country recognized them as independent and there was a lack of declared independence not merely the later alone.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would like a source proving that France has recognized here you go, there are dozens upon dozens of them. [].XavierGreen (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Xavier, your source says "France recognized the council as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people." Doesn't seem to me like acknowledging there are two Libyan states. Quite the reverse, what I said before: there is one Libyan state, one Libyan people, this government is the legitimate representative of them. Ladril (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The point about Portugal seems to have been a misreporting and I have corrected it at the National Transitional Council article.

This puts Libya in an position that is exactly parallel to that of China, so far as I can tell, with the National Transitional Council in the position of the People's Republic of China and the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in the position of the Republic of China. Though I agree that it may be worth waiting a little while before making changes, to see if this is a temporary situation or whether it is relatively permanent.

I have wondered for a while whether it might be more accurate not to list China here for the same reasons why there is reluctance to include Libya. One thing that is undisputed in the China situation is that there is only one country called China, and that that country includes - at least - the entire territory controlled by both PRC and ROC. The dispute is as to which is the legal government, not as to whether China legally exists. Pfainuk talk 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

"This puts Libya in an position that is exactly parallel to that of China" Again, too early to tell. Has the UN taken a position on this? As far as I know, the Qaddafi regime still holds the seat. Ladril (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not de facto at least. The Libyan UN delegation was among the first to defect in mid-February (and that should be fairly trivial to source since it made international headlines at the time).  But even if the GSPLAJ still held the seat, the ROC held China's UN seat for over 20 years after the PRC was founded.  That didn't mean that the PRC didn't exist in parallel.


 * As I say, I'm perfectly happy to wait and see for a few weeks: if one side gains the upper hand then it's a position we don't need to worry about. But we ought to recognise that it is anomalous, at this time, to include both claimants to China but neither claimant to Libya.  The situations - as they appear now - are directly parallel.  In both cases there are two competing governments that control territory, and each has some level of international recognition as the sole legitimate government of the universally recognised state concerned (be it Libya or China).  And given this, we ought to consider the possibility that either China needs to be removed or Libya added. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Libyan UN delegation was among the first to defect in mid-February" Lol. The delegation can say that bears crap in toilets, but whether it is legally entitled to change the authority it is supposed to represent at the UN is a completely different matter. Only sources can say, given enough time.


 * "But we ought to recognise that it is anomalous, at this time, to include both claimants to China but neither claimant to Libya." Not the same situation. For starters, I don't agree with your assertion that "One thing that is undisputed in the China situation is that there is only one country called China". This is an assumption made by some Wikipedia editors, not a hard fact. Ladril (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you cite a country that officially recognises both ROC and PRC, please? This article will need changing in this case, of course, since it currently states that there aren't any.  Pfainuk talk 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there aren't any that diplomatically recognize both states. However, there are countries that, when confronted with the PRC's statement that "there is only one China in the world" have acknowledged or "taken note" of the position, not accepted it outright. And yes, there have been countries that have adopted a "two Chinas" policy in the past (such as Liberia). Ladril (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the a declaration of independence is needed for a country to be on the list, than the Peoples Republic of China should be removed from not only this list but the main list of states, since it never declared independence. Disscussions on what is legal and what is not are irrelevent when there are two different states fighting about which ones laws are to be enforced over a populace.XavierGreen (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between acknowledging the position and accepting it seems so arcane as to become impossible to quantify. And in any case, this list is based on formal recognition as demonstrated through reliable sources, not on diplomatic nuance as interpreted by Wikipedia editors.  Nor does it discuss past situations, only present ones.  Given that no country diplomatically recognises any position other than that there is only one China, and given that no country diplomatically recognises any position other than that there is only one Libya - and given that in both cases there is dispute as to which is the legal government - the two positions are fundamentally parallel.


 * As it happens, I think the solution most consistent with international opinion as officially expressed on these matters would actually be to remove both PRC and ROC from this list, and to replace the PRC and ROC listings on the List of sovereign states with a single "China" entry without the trappings of either claimant. Pfainuk talk 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The difference between acknowledging the position and accepting it seems so arcane as to become impossible to quantify." Yet diplomatically it is taken to mean that the state in question does not necessarily accept it or conform to it.
 * "Nor does it discuss past situations, only present ones." Your comment implied that recognition of two Chinas was a heuristic impossibility. This is false, as evidence demonstrates. In history, at least one state has acted as if there are two Chinas.
 * "...not on diplomatic nuance as interpreted by Wikipedia editors" I take this to mean that I'm pulling the difference between "acknowledging" and "accepting" out of my ass, but this difference is indeed referred to as such in third-party sources.
 * "Given that no country diplomatically recognises any position other than that there is only one China" Again, this is personal interpretation, not fact. Ladril (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You couldn't name a state that currently recognises both the ROC and PRC before. Unless you have evidence that this is in fact taking place at the moment, then I will take as fact the point that none does.


 * You cite as critical a difference between acknowledging a position and accepting it. One could similarly cite a difference between Russia's position on Kosovo and the Bahamas' position on Kosovo.  I would then note that we don't actually draw such a distinction on this article, because what matters for this article is not a fine diplomatic nuance but whether or not there is diplomatic recognition.  Because when it comes down to it, the only measure that is relevant on a list based on diplomatic recognition is whether there is diplomatic recognition.  And in terms of diplomatic recognition, the positions of China and Libya are identical.


 * For the record, the idea that someone argued that recognising both Chinas is a logical impossibility would appear to be yours and yours alone. But just as it is possible to recognise the legitimacy of both Chinese governments, it is possible to recognise the legitimacy of both Libyan governments.  In both cases, nobody actually does.  The situations are parallel in this sense as well. Pfainuk talk 22:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "You couldn't name a state that currently recognises both the ROC and PRC before." Nor do I need to, since (again) diplomatic recognition is derived from policy, not from truth (with all due respect, you seem to have a very hard time distinguishing one from the other). Also, not all countries have accepted the position that there is only one China in the world, hence to claim "One thing that is undisputed in the China situation is that there is only one country called China..." is a fallacy, given the available evidence. Sorry. What I sense here is your continued insistence on making the pages be based on diplomatic recognition, which amounts to them being based on the balance of power in politics, not on reality. An encyclopedia needs to be built on the latter, not the former. Ladril (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please cite the country that explicitly recognises the existence of more than one country called China. If you cannot, I must assume that your claim that such a country exists is false.


 * I see you're arguing for the WP:TRUTH. What I think is that lists such as this should actually follow the criteria that they lay out.  This list is entirely predicated on diplomatic recognition - the criteria it uses to determine inclusion include diplomatic recognition.  They don't include the sorts of diplomatic nuance you describe.  So when we decide on the level of relations, the distinction really has to be as binary as I describe - unless you want to change the entire basis of this list.  If you do, then fine - but that's another discussion.  According to the criteria we have set out, there are exact parallels between the situations in Libya and China. Pfainuk talk 13:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My dear man, your logic is indecipherable. You continue to insist that I provide an example and when I prove that your argument is fallacious because dual recognition has happened in the past, you claim that you never made this requirement. But scientific evidence works this way indeed: if I show you one pig that can speak English, the proposition "pigs cannot speak English" is falsified, and I don't need a second English-speaking pig to make my case. It doesn't matter if the pig only lived twenty years or a century ago.


 * Same with this case: recognition of both the ROC and PRC simultaneously has happened, it can be happening now (can you prove that Kiribati stopped recognizing either of them, for example?) and can happen in the future. Nothing more needs to be proven. Your requirement goes back to a previous debate, where I believe the conclusion was the following: it cannot be always be proven that a state IS recognized. What we can - and should - include here is instances where a state is *explicitly* not recognized. Thus your requirement: "to be on the list it must be proven that a state recognizes both" is just a restatement of the "all recognitions must be proven" fallacy.


 * Another logical mistake you make is conflating "non-recognition" with "non-existence". This is a very dangerous mistake because it mixes science with politics. To put it more clearly, I don't give a shit if, for political reasons, not a single state on Earth considers you to be a person (and neither does Wikipedia); if I can find enough third-party, reliable, scholarly sources arguing that Pfainuk is a person, then Pfainuk will be referred to in Wikipedia as a person. Likewise, both Chinas belong in Wikipedia as states because there is a strong scholarly consensus that there are two states in China: the ROC and the PRC, irrespective of the political positions taken by states on the matter. Conversely, I cannot find a single source saying that Libya is split into two states. Once again, this is why adding two Libyas and removing the two Chinas is unacceptable. This is not arguing for wp truth, it is arguing for scholarly standards for building an encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"If the a declaration of independence is needed for a country to be on the list, than the Peoples Republic of China should be removed from not only this list but the main list of states, since it never declared independence." I have said a million times before that the "declaration of independence" is just an absurd requirement-straitjacket adopted by consensus here. States can come into being by other means. Ladril (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been here a while and I don't recall a declaration ever being considered the only criterion. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor did I say anyone considered it the only one. But I have you, Xavier and Pfainuk on paper saying that a state cannot be in a list of states if it doesn't declare its independence (still waiting for the time I can add Canada and Australia to the list of sovereign states). Ladril (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me this paper. I believe I have said in the past that you need a declaration of independence or recognition. If you lack both, you are not a state. If you have at least one, you qualify for the list. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I could do with seeing that particular diff as well.  I have never said that a declaration of independence is necessary for statehood and I don't believe that I have ever said anything that could reasonably be taken as implying that.  Shoot, I live in a state that has never declared independence, so it'd be a pretty silly thing to say.


 * But what I am saying is that there are now two parallel situations here. In both cases we have two governments that claim to be the sole legitimate government of the same sovereign state.  In both cases, both governments have control of territory on the ground and in both cases the international community is split on which government to recognise - but all recognise that there is only one sovereign state.  And yet we treat these two parallel situations differently.  And I am saying that we should recognise that treating two parallel situations differently is inconsistent. Pfainuk talk 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Southern Sudan will not meet our inclusion criteria (specifically, the point about a state regarding itself as independent) until independence is declared. I would oppose inclusion on that basis. Pfainuk talk 18:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)"


 * In this instance, it is quite childish for you people to say that "I have never said that a declaration of independence is necessary for statehood". It is quite, very, extremely possible for a state -even a former colony - to regard itself as independent without having ever made a declaration of independence. Indeed, it is quite possible for a state to regard itself as sovereign while being in association with another state, while being confederated or while being a protectorate. It is also possible for a state to become independent by treaty, or by drafting a constitution, etc. But when one does try to raise this point with you people all one gets is I strongly oppose such and such. Ladril (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're being a bit pedantic in this; someone saying "they haven't declared independence" is in no way (and pardon if I'm reading you wrong, Pfainuk) saying that a declaration is the ONLY method by which someone would become independent. Indeed, Southern Sudan would not necessarily need a declaration of independence, as it appears the split will be bilateral. So I'm not sure what you're getting at, but there's a hostility here that I don't think is warranted. --Golbez (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hostility has been present in all sides of these debates, but I don't want to keep a tally. What I'm getting at with this? Well, what I'm getting at is that we can describe a state as sovereign when there is an academic consensus that the state as such exists. There is an academic (third-party) consensus that the PRC and ROC exist as states. We don't have such a consensus on the existence of two Libyas. Hence there is no reason to exclude the former or to include the latter. Ladril (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Southern Sudan will declare independence on 9 July 2011. Given the fact that their declaration of independence has actually been preannounced, I think that the suggestion that Southern Sudan should not be listed as independent and sovereign until that declaration has actually been made is not an unreasonable one.  The argument that we should wait for a declaration of independence in a specific case in which we know that it is going to happen most certainly does not imply that a declaration of independence is a necessary condition of statehood in general: I'm afraid I cannot follow your logic on that one at all.


 * Obviously, if you have some that Southern Sudan considers itself independent despite the fact that the declaration of independence that they have said will happen has not yet happened, I would be happy to hear it. Pfainuk talk 13:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Krishna and all the saints. Of course South Sudan might consider it necessary to declare its independence, and only from that point on would we consider it an independent state. The argument is that it could also become an independent state by some other provision. But when one does so much as raise this question, all we get in return is "I strongly oppose". Maybe we didn't communicate well at that time, or maybe I chose the wrong moment to raise the concern, but we must indeed be open to the possibility of a sovereign state being born without a declaration of independence.


 * And just to be clear once more: I was not advocating, nor am I advocating at this time, adding South Sudan to any list before July. Ladril (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ladril . I believe the consensus was "claim to be sovereign" Outback the koala (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note to editors* This is on wikipedia main page news right now. Outback the koala (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ladril do you have a source that Liberia recognized both chinas? While i dont doubt its possible (a state can say whatever it likes lol) but i just would like to know the timeframe in which it occured, as at times there were competing governments in Liberia.XavierGreen (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Sigh). Yes Xavier I have one  and I also have 46,300,000 Google hits on the subject. What's the point? Ladril (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether it was one government that recognized both (which it was), it looks like the PRC cut off the limited diplomatic relations it had with Liberia almost immediately after they decided to recognize both lol.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's standard PRC policy, yes. It doesn't preclude any state from recognizing two Chinas if they like. Besides, the government that recognized the two Chinas was the internationally recognized one (am I using that term?). It seems to have remained Liberia's policy until 2003. Ladril (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is preventing a state from recognising two Libyas right now? No state considers there to be two Chinas and no state considers there to be two Libyas, but that doesn't make either situation impossible. Pfainuk talk 21:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * depending on how the civil war turns out, it is conceivable that it could end up as a military stalemate with Gaddafi controlling Tripolitania and the rebels controlling Cyrenaica. In the event of such an outcome, we will have the classical "two Chinas" situation, with two states controlling part of a single territory they both claim as their own. But as long as there is no clear front but ongoing fighting, with cities changing hands on an hourly basis, we cannot of course say that Libya is divided in two identifiable portions. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much my point. Pfainuk wants to conflate the situation of China, which is a stalemate that has lasted for decades, with the situation of Libya, which still is very fluid and unstable. Ladril (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"One could similarly cite a difference between Russia's position on Kosovo and the Bahamas' position on Kosovo. I would then note that we don't actually draw such a distinction on this article, because what matters for this article is not a fine diplomatic nuance but whether or not there is diplomatic recognition."

We don't draw such a distinction in this article, but we should be drawing it. As I have told you before, there is quite a difference between a state explicitly declining to recognize another and one whose position is ambiguous, unclear, or simply has no position. Ladril (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What about the map? The Republic of China is shown on the map as Taiwan, which is after all just the territory it controls de facto. But this is after decades of stalemate, it can hardly be compared to the frontier in a civil war shifting on a daily basis. As it stands, nobody disputes there is a single nation of Libya. But as for the state of Libya, there are two of them, but they cannot be shown on the map because they both claim the same territory.

The problem with the map is, as so often, the implicit identification of the state with the territory. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not two "states of Libya". There is one, over which two factions are vying for control. The conflict has not resulted in a partition yet. Ladril (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have actually said, repeatedly, that we should wait and see what happens before doing anything to this article. But that does not mean that, if this position continues in the longer term, this is not an anomaly.  Because the situation between the two cases is exactly parallel according to our own criteria. Pfainuk talk 13:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not exactly parallel. It's not even clear if it will have the same outcome. Sources tell us that China is divided into two states: ROC and PRC. Since they are two states, they both ought to be in the list of states. In the case of Libya, even though a state recognizes a different government as legitimate, it's too early to say whether a partition of the country has taken place. At this stage, it's a civil war going on with no clear outcome. Sources do not tell us that Libya has been partitioned into two states, hence the portions cannot be arbitrarily added to the list. This is why Libya cannot be added to the article and why the Chinas cannot be removed.Ladril (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * China is an anomaly, as I'm sure we all know. The only real difference between China and Korea is that one China has huge power and influence and blocks all recognition of the other as a separate state. We'll have to see how Libya plays out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good way to put it. Ladril (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Libya is in more or less the same situation as China. I also think that in both cases, there are two independent states, since (to me) an independent state is a government which controls a non-trivial stretch of land with a non-trivial number of people in it and which considers itself the state government of that land and those people. But I agree with dab that the situation should stabilise before we should include the two Libyan states here. For one, the 'Cyrenaican' government isn't much of a government yet, with government officers and offices etc. sephia karta  |  dimmi  14:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ladril, are you sure you understand the term "state"? I am asking because it is rather difficult to have a discussion about the topic of "states with limited recognition" with people who aren't clear on what we mean by "state". The word has a complicated history. The meaning intended here is listed as no. 29 by OED:
 * " the body politic as organized for supreme civil rule and government; the political organization which is the basis of civil government (either generally and abstractly, or in a particular country); hence, the supreme civil power and government vested in a country or nation."

Are you sure you want to claim that there is only a single "political organization which is the basis of civil government" in Libya? Because that's what you just said. For the purposes of this list, it is irrelevant whether such a body politic controls any territory. The Tibetan government in exile is not listed not because it is in exile, but because it isn't recognized by any other state. As soon as a single state in the world decides to recognize the Tibetan government in exile, it would be fit for inclusion in this list, even if they do not control a single square inch of Tibet. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Libya ("Libyan Republic")
I just don't see enough evidence that there is a 'state' within Libya with recognition. Until we get confirmation that this is the case; we should treat it as two rival governments within a country competing for legitimacy. The parallel to the 2 Chinas situation is interesting, and should be discussed further, but we just don't have enough info(or sources) to determine that at this time. We should remove the entry until we have some significant sources added. We should rvt to the status quo. Outback the koala (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. --maxval (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The (un)recognition of a government is not the same as the recognition of a state. And there is no other state than Libya to be recognised. The support of some European countries to a rebel "transitional" government for Libya, does not make of it a rather new state (see, for example, the Hamas-Fatah divide over a single state). Lastly, if the resignation of the Libyan ambassador to the UN is to be considered a worthy argument, OMG! Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kindly read state (polity). The state is the political apparatus governing a country, it is NOT the country itself. "Libya" is not a state, it is a country which can be potentially governed in any number of forms, by any number of political apparatuses. There can be a dispute over who governs a single given state, but this would be a case such as the United States presidential election, 2000 with the lengthy recounts of who had more votes, Bush or Gore. The Fatah–Hamas conflict can be compared to that, imagine the supporters of Gore unhappy with the recount taking up arms and throwing the Republicans out of Florida, claiming they are the US Federal Government with de facto control over Florida but not the rest of the US.
 * The situation in Libya is nothing like that, it isnt't a dispute over who should be president or "brotherly leader" in Gaddafi's Jamahiriya, it is a battle over whether Gaddafi's Jamahiriya (a state) should be replaced by another state, presumably a presidental republic. --dab (𒁳) 11:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, so do you think a "presumably" state, without continuity in time nor proper or incipient institutions can be called a State? Please, this is a rebel government with no institutionalization at all. Furthermore, it hasn't declared anything regarding the replacement of the Libyan state. The rebel "transitionsl" government, which -in any case- seems to be calling for a transformation of the current Lybian state, and not for a rather new one, cannot be called a State under any definition. Unless we have a proper reliable source stating the contrary. I favor the recentism allegation, down below, regarding this anxiety for news. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Partially unrecognised UN member states
Libya should be removed from this list too. Lybia is RECOGNIZED by all UN members! Please make a distinction between state recognition and government recognition! --maxval (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree. As per above. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A little more explanation (not for you, as you seems to understand it). There are three "levels" of unrecognition: unrecognition of a state, unrecognition of a government, and lack of diplomatic relations. 3. - The USA doesnt mantain diplomatic relations with Cuba, however the USA recognizes there is a Cuban state, and recognizes its government. 2. - When in 1996 the Talibans overthrew the Afghan government, the USA didnt recognize this change in government, and continued to recognize the former, overthrown Afgan government. Afghanistan as a country continued beeing recognized, just its government wasnt recognized. 1. - The USA doesnt recognize Abkhazia, considers it as part of another country, Georgia. --maxval (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't agree. Clearly several states do not recognise Libya right now and multiple sources on the page back this up. Libya should stay the other entry should go. Outback the koala (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Which coutry doesnt recognize Libya right now? There is no such country. There is not a single source that says a country doesnt recognize Libya. --maxval (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ffs, how many times can you bring this up in a single day? Can anyone trying to contribute to this "discussion" please make sure they understand the difference between "state" (a body politic) and "country" (a territory, a piece of land)? "Libya" isn't a state any more than Africa or the Indian Subcontinent is a state. The state is the bleeding body politic, not a piece of land. The state being recognized or not recognized is not "Libya" it is the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. This state, or jamahiriya, is not recognized by France any longer. --dab (𒁳) 11:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with dab - a "state" is a political/administrative construction, not a physical territory. Territorial borders change frequently by changing owners (albeit insignificantly - a small island here, a small patch of land there). And names such as "Libya" are just convenient shorthands. "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" and "Transitional Libyan Republic" (?) are separate states claiming the same territory. Separately there is the issue of state succession (there is a convention about it) does the Republic claim to be a successor to the Jamahiriya or to the Kingdom? Alinor (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Precisely, Alinor: "Transitional Libyan Republic (?)". No one knows what this presumably state is, except from beign a rebel government that aspires to transform the existing libyan state. Until we have reliable sources defining this rebel "transitional" government as a proper state, we cannot call it a state under any circumstances. It simply has not (yet) the attributes of a state. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to suggest we remove it from the list until the situation settles, but as things are going, it looks like a direct parallel of China to me. many of the arguments here would appear to be semantic (that, or lack of understanding & confusion - hey, it's a confusing situation a changing rapidly) but as I see it, there are two states, neither recognised by all UN states which are competing for the territory of Libya.   L.J.Skinner wot 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Recentism
I'm not sure if WP:RECENT applies here, but I would suggest that we refrain from adding Libya to either group until the situation settles for a while. The possible outcomes are either "stable split" where both governments claim the whole, but control parts of it (like China and Korea - and while there are differences we include all four of these - PRC, ROC, DPRK, ROK - in one way or another; and like Afghanistan 1996-2001 - two governments - Taliban-holding-the-most-territory-and-recognized-by-few and Afghan-rump state-recognized-by-most) or one of the two will "win" (then this will be a regular Civil War outcome and a single unified state in the end). Currently the situation is in-between and changes too rapidly (both in terms of control and in terms of recognition). Alinor (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the point is recognition. Sure, it was eccentric of Sarkozy to rush to the recognition of the Transitional Council, but there you are, France officially recognizes the Transitional Council as representing Libya, and consequently does not recognize Gaddafi's Jamahiriya as representing Libya. As a result, both states have partial recognition and hence should be listed here. I don't think it was very wise of Sarkozy to do this, but your objection should be directed to the Elysée, not to Wikipedia, we are merely reporting things as they stand. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. sephia karta  |  dimmi  11:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Normal 0          false  false  false    EN-US  X-NONE  X-NONE                                       MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Why the China precedent is not valid for Libya?
I read the interesting discussion about this matter on this page.

It is true that both the PRC and the ROC government claim that there is only one China. This is the same as in the case of the two governments in Libya now. Or it was the case of Afghanistan in 1996-2001.

But there is a huge difference. In the case of China, there are international organizations, where both Chinas are part, each representing its own de facto territory. For example in the WTO both PRC and ROC are members. The same happens in the case of the International Olympic Committee.

So, if there will be any international organization, where the two Libyan governments will have membership/representation, then we can talk about two Libyas as separate countries. Until then there is only one Libya, with a civil war, where two governments fight on the power over entire country.

If we include here Libya as a de facto country, unrecognized country, then we must add also all countries with similar civil wars! For example please add Colombia! Part of the territory of Colombia is not under the control of the Colombian government, it is controlled by the FARC. So will we include now here Colombia too? It is nonsense.

--maxval (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't know any international organization where both PRC and ROC are members at the same time. There are organizations where only PRC is member. There are organizations where only ROC is member. There are organizations where PRC is member and Taiwan is represented under some special name so that it's underlined that there is only one China and that somehow Taiwan representation is similar to Hong Kong/Macao representation - as distinct entity, but still "part of" the "whole China". The same is with state recognitions - some states recognize PRC, other states recognize ROC, but I don't know any state that recognizes/has relations with both PRC and ROC at the same time. Do you have any example of organization or state that has relations with PRC and ROC simultaneously? (PRC+ROC, not PRC+some-special-name-for-Taiwan-province-of-China) Alinor (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the WTO and in the IOC both are members. --maxval (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * In the IOC, Taiwan is "Chinese Taipei", not the ROC. In the WTO, Taiwan is the "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu", not the ROC.


 * The recognition criterion for this page is simple. This page relies solely on diplomatic recognition by other states.  Membership of international organisations can be discussed in notes, but is not a determining factor.  In this sense, modern China and Libya are in exactly the same boat.  The only argument I see for waiting is on the basis of practicality (that is, there seems little point in making massive and controversial changes for an situation that might only last a month or two). Pfainuk talk 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesnt matter what is the official name of Taiwan in the WTO and in the IOC. The important is that is a member. --maxval (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong is also a member of the WTO and the IOC. Thus, by your logic there are actually THREE states within "China" and Hong Kong should also be added to our list.  TDL (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Hong Kong doesnt claim its a sovereign state, it is in teh WTO as PART OF CHINA. England, Wales and Scotland have separate membership in FIFA, however this doesnt mean they are states with limited recognition... --maxval (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. That's precisely the point that people have tried to explain to you above.  Hong Kong was admitted to the WTO as "Hong Kong, China", ie as a PART of China.  Taiwan was admitted to the WTO as "Chinese Taipei", ie as a PART of China.  You can't use this to justify that they are separate states, since the WTO considers them to be a part of the PC.  TDL (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The main point is: regardless of the claims of both the PRC and the ROC, they are two proper states, with defined institutions, territory, population, and varying degrees of internal and external legitimacy. They both were in origin competing "governments" for the Chinese State (obviously, with clearly distinct views regarding its purpoted shape) in the midst of a civil war. Only then they came to be established institutionalized states competing for recognition. Which is not the case in Libya: here we have one state and two competing governments for it in the midst of a civil war. When the rebel government comes to be recognised as a state by reliable sources, then we can talk about two competing states. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * France does. France recognises the rebel government to be the state of Libya. Similarly, the states which recognise it recognise the ROC as the state of China. Completely analogous. sephia karta |  dimmi  23:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * France recognises the "transitional council" as the legitimate government of Libya, not as a distinct state (a word that should be present in any source to start taking this issue in due consideration). We cannot call everything a state, even more so when its purpoted government hasn't stated anything near to claiming to be one. In fact, we can see that even the aparent objectives of the transitional government seem to be regime change, the revolution of the Libyan state, and not its extintion. Regime change is not the end of one state and the beginning of a new one. Likewise, we should not take a regime for a state, when referring to the Jamahiriya. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with IANVS on that. It's a fine line. Outback the koala (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point: all what you said is also true of the ROC. No one recognises the ROC as a distinct state from China. The countries that recognise the ROC consider it to be China, the consider the government of the ROC to be the sole legitimate government of China. So the situation is analogous. If you think that is not the case, you have to come forward with a crucial difference between China and Libya. The communists in China were also just attempting 'regime change', but as long as either side is not completely successful, there are two states which co-exist side by side. sephia karta  |  dimmi  14:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dab: "Ladril, are you sure you understand the term "state"? am asking because it is rather difficult to have a discussion about the topic of "states with limited recognition" with people who aren't clear on what we mean by "state". The word has a complicated history. The meaning intended here is listed as no. 29 by OED:"

This has devolved into an edit war, so it's clear not everyone agrees on what "the meaning intended here" is. I disagree with nearly if not every sentence in your post but I'll cut straight to the chase:

For starters, a topic such as the one at hand requires more specialized sources than the Oxford Dictionary. Open any textbook on international law written from the twentieth century onwards and you'll find that the scholarly consensus on what constitutes a state is: a political body consisting of 1) a defined territory, 2) a permanent population, 3) a government and 4) the capacity to enter into relations with other states. There are of course anomalies and exceptions, such as the Holy See which is the Catholic Church being given the state moniker, but I vowed not to digress.

Given this definition, it is incorrect to conflate the recognition of a state as a "body politic" with the recognition of a government as the legitimate authority over a given state that already exists. To be as illustrative as possible, you are claiming the current situation in Libya is akin to that of the Sahrawi Republic, when it isn't. Several states may recognize the SADR as a state which is independent, but France has not claimed to recognize a state that is seceding from Libya. France has recognized a new body as the legitimate government of Libya, a state that already exists. I hope the difference is clear. Ladril (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)