Template talk:Countries of Asia

Cyprus
As it stands, Cyprus does not have a note indicating that it is also in Europe. Considering it appears in the European template, due to its socio-political links to the continent, and as it is a member of the European Union, should it note have the note attached to it regarding its position in both Europe and Asia? 82.45.225.4 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The notes are used only when the location is disputed. No one disputes that Cyprus is in Asia when speaking in strictly geographic sense, thus the note isn't needed in this template. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Add interwiki
Indonesia has too. Please add interwiki http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templat:Asia Reindra (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Centralised discussion
A discussion is taking place here on how best to incorporate unrecognised states into a navigation template listing sovereign states and other entities. Some editors have suggested that including such states at all is pushing an imbalanced point of view. Others have made the same argument for not including them. Various conciliatory methods have been proposed, but have not acheived consensus. Editors should note that the outcome of this discussion will most likely have implications on this template aswell. For more information, please have a look at this casefile, or see the before-mentioned discussion page. Night w (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrecognized States
The template note carries this message
 * Please note that this template is only meant to carry those countries recognized by a majority of United Nations members.

If that is the case, that's fine, but then Taiwan should not be included in this list, which strangely it is. In my opinion it would be best to remove this clause, and add the TRNC, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia (partly in Europe), and South Ossetia (partly in Europe). Either way, as it stands the template is selfcontradictory and giving Taiwan undue weight against the other countries just named. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Merging regional templates
The templates for the countries of West, Central, South, and East Asia are being proposed for deletion. I suggest that they might easily be merged into this template, using something like this:

Please include your comments below. YBG (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Please comment on this proposal. YBG (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a few things to note:
 * The regional lists generally only include items from the sovereign states list.
 * I have avoided the fuzzy boundary issues by generally following the United Nations geoscheme, which is described in detail for Asia here and illustrated at right.
 * This allowed me to omit the 'sometimes included' lists.
 * The maps are the ones used in the region articles about North, West, Central, South, East, and Southeast Asia.
 * The countries generally only appear on one map. The only exception I can see is Iran, which is included in both the west Asia and South Asia maps.  In the list, I include it in South Asia, following the UN scheme.
 * Further comments are more than welcome!! By the way, I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this discussion -- if it is not, please let me know and I'll move it to another place. YBG (talk) 09:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the right place for this discussion. The merger is an interesting idea, and the UN geoscheme is good for an arbitrary baseline. The resulting template is massive however. I'd much prefer it if the regional scheme was automatically collapsed. CMD (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to have the regional groupings collapsed by default. Let me see if I can figure out a way to do it. YBG (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Palestine
As I ask on the Asian topic template and bring here, I wonder under what criteria is Palestine included in states with limited recognition. Because although it's true that Palestine is such a case, same can be said about Israel and China. The three countries are recognized by most UN members, but not for all. And I have nothing against Israel or China, just in case, I just think we have to be fair and give the same treatment to all states. I'm not suggesting either to place Israel and China in the limited recognition section, unless that's what is agree upon, but will be easier to place Palestine upwards. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2019
Palestine should be added to the "Sovereign states" section and removed from the "States with limited recognition" section. It is recognized by the United Nations and is a member as an observer state. 2601:407:4100:87A0:E8F2:7248:6D5F:2036 (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the State of Palestine should continue to be listed with states with limited recognition and not be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states. It would be POV to describe the State of Palestine as having the same level of international recognition as Qatar or Cambodia.


 * While I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from sovereign states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.


 * The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 12 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 15 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia and Mexico have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.


 * Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.


 * Much is made of the State of Palestine being recognized by 71% of UN member states, but this percentage is achieved almost exclusively through recognition from countries with little influence in the international sphere, which is one of the reasons why Palestine's recent bid for UN membership was unsuccessful. As I noted above, Palestine is not recognized by 12 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP in the world. It is important to understand that I am speaking of GDP, not per-capita GDP, so the top-15 economies include not only the G7 countries (none of which recognize Palestine's sovereignty), but also developing economies such as the People's Republic of China, India, Mexico and Brazil. As I already stated, among the top 15 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine's sovereignty; none of the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia or Mexico have recognized the State of Palestine.


 * The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then, and only then, should it be grouped with states with general international recognition and cease being classified as a state with limited recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Marking closed as ❌, per the above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine is included in the List of sovereign states and Gallery of sovereign state flags articles as an official country, so it should be added to the "Sovereign states" section and removed from the "States with limited recognition" section of the template. 2601:407:4100:87A0:D10F:B29D:3B3B:8AFF (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:CIRCULAR. Melmann 17:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine doesn't need massive nations to recognize it in order to be an official country. It being inducted into the United Nations as an observer state is enough for it to be added to the "Sovereign states" section and removed from the "States with limited recognition" section of the template. If Vatican City gets the pass of being an official country as just an observer state, then the same can apply to Palestine. 2601:407:4100:87A0:F1D4:7D4C:9E15:4789 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again, Vatican City is a generally recognized sovereign state--its international recognition is by no means limited--while the State of Palestine is not generally recognized, and thus falls under the definition of having "limited recognition."


 * I'm curious about something. You now have made two semi-protected edit requests in two days while using three different IP addresses.  Do you currently edit, or have you recently edited, Wikipedia under another name?  You certainly seem quite knowledgeable about the inner workings of Wikipedia, such as how to make semi-protected edit requests; maybe you're just a voracious reader and quick learner, but, if so, you forgot to read about the prohibition on inappropriate canvassing, such as leaving messages at a specific editor's Talk page to ask him to join you in an edit request or other discussion.  If you're an editor who forgot to sign in, you really should sign in and stop skulking around, lest you be accused of being a sock puppet.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Palestine
Palestine should be moved to the "Sovereign states" section of the template. Over 70% of UN members recognize Palestine, it is an observer state and the UN treats it as a sovereign state. Qqeeaa (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No, the State of Palestine should continue to be listed with states with limited recognition and not be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states. It would be POV to describe the State of Palestine as having the same level of international recognition as Qatar or Cambodia.


 * While I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from sovereign states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.


 * The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 12 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 15 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia and Mexico do not recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.


 * Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.


 * Much is made of the State of Palestine being recognized by 71% of UN member states, but this percentage is achieved almost exclusively through recognition from countries with little influence in the international sphere, which is one of the reasons why Palestine's recent bid for UN membership was unsuccessful. As I noted above, Palestine is not recognized by 12 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP in the world. It is important to understand that I am speaking of GDP, not per-capita GDP, so the top-15 economies include not only the G7 countries (none of which recognize Palestine's sovereignty), but also developing economies such as the People's Republic of China, India, Mexico and Brazil. As I already stated, among the top 15 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine's sovereignty; none of the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia or Mexico recognize the State of Palestine.


 * The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then, and only then, should it be grouped with states with general international recognition and cease being classified as a state with limited recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Being an observer state is enough for it to be moved to the "Sovereign states" section of the template. All that information you just posted is immediately disproven. Qqeeaa (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is a duplicate of another one that started 5 minutes earlier. See my response there. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 13:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Being an observer state is enough for it to be moved to the "Sovereign states" section of the template. All that information you just posted is immediately disproven. Qqeeaa (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)"

Wow, that must be the most arrogant thing that I've ever read on Wikipedia. "Being an observer state is enough for it to be moved to the "Sovereign states" section of the template"? Quite a redundant assertion there, and totally devoid of any evidence. "Immediately disproven"? Certainly not by you, who did not provide an iota of evidence that the State of Palestine has general international recognition.

If you wish to argue in favor of your position that UN observer states are, ipso facto, generally recognized sovereign states, you need to refute what I wrote above:

"The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 12 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 15 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia and Mexico do not recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.

Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for duplicating the near same section as the one from Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. I thought that I had to start a different talk page section in this template in order to move Palestine into the "Sovereign states" section of this template. No further discussion should take place here. Qqeeaa (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)