Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep or merge. The eventual outcome for this article should be determined by editing consensus (a consensus which doesn't seem to have developed in this discussion); it seems unlikely that deletion tools should be used however. Might I suggest that the discussion continue on the talk page, perhaps in the form of an RFC? henrik • talk  10:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is a recreation of content removed (with the agreement of the majority of editors) from Foreign relations of South Sudan. See Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for the full discussion of why this content is seen to be misleading and unencyclopedic. In summary, South Sudan's independence is uncontroversial and so its international recognition is not notable (it cannot be compared to International recognition of Kosovo for example), especially because every country in the world recognised it when it was unanimously admitted to the United Nations. Some countries have published welcoming statements or more formal recognition documents, but these are not necessary for diplomatic recognition to take place. This article just lists those countries that have published some sort of statement on the Internet (directly or via a news report), that we have been able to find. There are lots of missing countries, which makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is, with all countries recognising it. The list of recognition dates here is therefore misleading and unnecessary. The details of diplomatic recognition dates are notable, but are a duplication of the data given in Foreign relations of South Sudan, and so also unnecessary in this article. Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The content was removed without consensus from Foreign relations of South Sudan in Nov2011 (present there since the August merge from here) and was now put here as compromise. The content is notable, encyclopedic and sourced. Utilized sources are from MFAs around the world or news reports about official diplomatic acts of various governments. We have such lists for other cases elsewhere (such as here) and such lists of diplomatic recognitions (and relations) are kept on official MFA websites, , , etc.
 * Nobody claims that South Sudan independence is controversial - on the contrary, this is clearly stated in the article: "South Sudan was admitted in the UN on 14 July 2011 without a vote[6] or objections risen by its members.[7][8]", "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."
 * We - Bazonka and the other editors involved in this dispute - are editors contributing to many of the articles related to the List of states with limited recognition (such as Kosovo mentioned by Bazonka) - and that's why there is such inclination to "count recognitions" and to assume that "unless a source for recognition by X is found it's assumed that X supports the opposing-claimant position, e.g. Serbia against Kosovo, etc.". The case here is different. South Sudan is not like Kosovo, it's like Montenegro, where we also keep list of diplomatic recognitions.
 * Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. It's different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections, "warm welcome in the international community", etc.) such as "lack of objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of X". South Sudan has 100% "obvious recognitions" (as far as we know - no sources show any objections) and less-than-100% diplomatic recognitions - just like most (all?) states around the world, who also don't have 100% diplomatic recognitions. See the sources provided above.
 * The list here is just like similar lists MFAs around the world publish for their states or like similar lists elsewhere in Wikipedia. The notion that "diplomatic recognition is irrelevant" contradicts the fact that this act of foreign policy is conducted by governments around the world, published on MFA websites and reported by news agencies. All of them find it relevant, but few people around don't, because they personally aren't interested in it since South Sudan doesn't have a "recognition problem" and they are only interested in cases like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. "states with limited recognition".
 * "There are lots of missing countries" - Bazonka, if you have a source for some missing country, let's add it. This isn't a reason to delete all that aren't missing. Same for the claim against the quality of some sources - if a particular source is found to be not useful, by Bazonka or others, let's remove it. This isn't a reason to delete all others.
 * "makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is" - in the eyes of editors accustomed to Kosovo maybe, but the same list on the Montenegro article doesn't do that for the general reader (and editors there). My personal opinion is that on the contrary - having so many explicit diplomatic recognitions in so short period of time (compare with the MFA sources I gave above - other countries required much more time to get to such numbers) shows how big acceptance and importance South Sudan was given by the international community. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The important bits are already produced at Foreign relations of South Sudan, so this is a duplication. The rest is a bunch of random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" the independence of South Sudan. It's useless information of no encyclopaedic value. It's also a textbook-case FORK.  Night w   22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are "random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" .." instead of dates of "diplomatic recognition" those specific items should be removed. But diplomatic recognition is of course notable and encyclopedic - see links to MFA lists I gave above. Wikipedia also has other such lists - see my comments above. It's not a fork, but an unfinished split at most. And if you stop claiming false consensus I won't object to restore/merge it back. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per, well, previous consensus really. It's a misleading article. CMD (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The linked discussion is from August 2011 about merge of two articles. The result was kept until November 2011 when Night w deleted the notable sourced information falsely claiming consensus, when there wasn't such. Few edits afterwards I restored the content with the discussion on the talk page continuing to the present day. The current new page was created as compromise (see here) so that the other article doesn't become too long. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I objected to its speedy deletion because there is likely to be someone who objects to its deletion, and it did not qualify under WP:CSD. That being said, these list-style articles, where another on the same topic already exists, is highly likely to become a POV fork.  In my experience, unless lots of people watch spin-off articles, they tend to decay into random tables, often pushing one party's point of view.  If a few editors can agree to "adopt" this article, I would not object to its being kept.  Otherwise, I am leaning towards deletion of it for that reason. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the consensus decision to merge was "hijacked" by few editors pushing to delete notable sourced information instead of merging it. They have done this months after the merge was fully completed, but are persistent in deleting without consensus. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. If that isn't successful, merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or restore relevant column of . Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: See also the previous discussion about a similar page Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan. Current AfD noted to editors who haven't yet expressed opinion above. Japinderum (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Japinderum (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge or keep. In the case of newly independent countries (compare Foreign relations of Montenegro), the order and timestamp of recognition is relevant even in non-Kosovo cases. I see no reason to delete this content. — Nightstallion 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep/ Merge It is a useful encyclopaedic list of information. It could however be merged into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". After reading through this AfD, I have not seen any compelling reasons to delete this content. IJA (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ian, the reason is that all countries have recognised South Sudan already. This is therefore not a "list of countries that have recognised"; it is a "list of countries that have released statements about South Sudan that have been published on the internet that we've been able to find". It's meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's a list of explicit official diplomatic recognition foreign policy acts. This is different from the "obvious recognition by all" (deduced from UN admission without objections or welcome statements) that you refer to. About the "that we've been able to find" part - included in the article are all presently known sources - if you have more - let's add those, but there is no reason to delete what we already have. Japinderum (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep/ Merge This is very encyclopedic and useful list. Keep per IJA and Nightstallion. Sure, it doesnt matter should be have separate article or not, i even prefer merge into Foreign relations of South Sudan, but this list should definitively be kept. Every new nation or state should have this list on wiki, if you ask me.. :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep as this was an important international event. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   13:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rationale To further expand on Bazonka's opening above, there's nothing at all notable about countries recognising South Sudan. Notable was Sudan's assertion that it would be the first country to recognise South Sudan. Notable also was the speed at which South Sudan entered the international community, joining the UN within days of independence.
 * Japinderum has been trying to create a distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country. While one statement may be relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries (although in many cases I doubt it's important at all), a list made from a mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet is not encyclopaedic or useful. South Sudan isn't in a situation where it need to go around seeking recognition, like Kosovo. Neither is it in a situation where although it is in the international community it is still legally unrecognised by some, like Israel. Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan. By creating a list of recognitions, we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan, and with this implying those on the list haven't. This is made even worse by the map, which shows countries which have granted "recognition and diplomatic relations", those who have merely granted "recognition", and of course the others, in grey.
 * Since 14 July, and very arguably since 9 July, South Sudan has been a fully recognised state. The Chronology of diplomatic relations is found on the main foreign relations page. The Chronology of recognitions is misleading and unnotable, and based on disparate internet sources. All the notable moments of recognition will go perfectly well on the main Foreign Relations page too. This article implies that countries not on the list, and grey on the map, do not recognise South Sudan, and implies all the baggage that goes with that. This article is a great disservice to readers not up to the level of political nuance Japinerdum seems to be trying to employ. CMD (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the act of diplomatic recognition is "relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries". That's why governments do it, MFAs keep such lists and news agencies report it.
 * CMD continues to avoid the issue - I don't speak about "distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country". I speak about distinction between the explicit official foreign relations act of diplomatic recognition and the "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections), "welcome notes" and similar notions he refers to.
 * "mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet" - again, it's fine if you object usage of a particular "bad" source, but requesting deletion of all sources (most of which aren't contributing to a "mishmash") isn't.
 * "Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan." (e.g. "obvious recognition") - the same for Montenegro or Croatia, but this doesn't diminish the importance of the acts of diplomatic recognition, and because of this importance for foreign relations their MFAs (and others) keep lists of the official recognitions (see above).
 * "we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan" - no, we're telling that the countries on the list have taken the explicit official act of diplomatic recognition
 * "with this implying those [not] on the list haven't." - no we're not implying anything. Just as we're not implying such thing on the Montenegro list and the MFAs I linked above aren't implying such thing on their websites. On the contrary - it's clearly stated that "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."
 * "diplomatic recognition" and "obvious recognition"/"lack of objections" are different. Lack of diplomatic recognition may be assumed to be (mistakenly or not) for lack of obvious recognition/presence of objections only for problematic cases/states with limited recognition like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. and it seems some editors, who are accustomed to working on those problematic articles try to apply that logic here.
 * Actually, removing the diplomatic recognitions (~115) from the list makes South Sudan appear "bare" and "less accepted, than it really is", because it leaves listed only the cases that already reached the next step, diplomatic relations (~40), which is much lower. Japinderum (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The recognitions we found were basically statements on websites, hardly amazing acts of foreign relations. Again, you're trying to use an extremely nuanced point here, but one I feel readers will fail to grasp and one which I don't think your sources substantiate.
 * As for the implications, their being recognised is exactly what we're implying, and I'm not just assuming this. In the past, many users have come from the Montenegro and Croatia pages trying to have them added onto the List of states with limited recognition.
 * You've provided no sources which show the difference between what you call "obvious recognition" and "diplomatic recognition". I would argue that Israel has obvious recognition from the states around it (it's quite hard to ignore), but it clearly doesn't have diplomatic recognition from all of them.
 * Removing diplomatic recognitions doesn't make it less bare. It makes it as bare as perhaps France, or Canada, which I'm sure you agree are fully accepted. Or Bhutan, if you want an example of a state with few diplomatic missions. Bhutan's diplomacy is indeed bare, but we're not going around saying how it is only recognised by this many countries.
 * In the end, if you have a map showing countries that have recognised South Sudan, it's only common sense that those not coloured haven't recognised it. And that is wrong. CMD (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The acceptable sources are government/MFA statements about diplomatic recognition and news reports about those. If some sources are of the kind "welcome note" this is a different thing and shouldn't be utilized. I think that's clear.
 * As you can see Montenegro or Croatia aren't added to the List of states with limited recognition. Somebody may "request" such a thing, but it doesn't go trough. Same for South Sudan. If you think that somebody could still mistaken obvious and diplomatic recognition or think that South Sudan has a recognition problem like Kosovo - let's add an additional clarification - it's that simple. Same for the map - it's is about diplomatic recognitions and relations, not about obvious recognitions.
 * What about Israel? It's quite clear - we have sources for countries that made explicit statements about NOT recognizing it as state at all, so they give it neither "obvious" nor diplomatic recognition.
 * Also, any source about the act of diplomatic recognition, especially after previous UN admission without objections shows the difference between "your" obvious recognition and "mine" diplomatic recognition. The MFA links I gave above are full of recognition dates after the UN admission date.
 * Not showing the diplomatic recognitions (and their dates) deprives the reader from getting the chronology picture. South Sudan gathered so many diplomatic recognitions in such a short period of time. This is seen in the chronology and wouldn't be seen otherwise. Compare this number/period to Montenegro's for example. Japinderum (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * None of those sources at all make your point about differences in recognition, not without some synth or OR. You haven't defined what you call "obvious recognition" yourself, let alone back it up with any source. The MFA links above give no context as to what they mean. They do however provide a nice source for those countries, so it may be important to them. None have yet been provided with South Sudan, and its quite easy to see that the Yugoslav MFAs are in the minority in regards to keeping a list. CMD (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources clearly show UN members, who list the recognitions on their MFA websites and some of those recognition dates are years after the UN admission. You can see also the US source that wasn't provided by me. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 out of how many? Also, the US source is about their recognitions, not about when they are recognised. The modern ones I checked, including South Sudan, didn't note the countries recognised the USA. CMD (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are examples of lists kept on website. You can find many more examples of MFAs announcing diplomatic recognition of individual states, including in the current article. The US source is an example of the notability a government puts in diplomatic recognition - contrary to "it's irrelevant, when it's obvious". Also, the US source includes dates not only for when the USA recognized another country, but also for the cases where the USA was recognized by another country (check Spain, France, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll note I said "the modern ones". Spain and France are older than the USA, back in the day before international politics became structured and formalised. The US government may keep stuff for red tape purposes, but this conversation still lacks any source which notes the importance of diplomatic recognition in Montenegro like situations. I'm sure there are some, as your argument has valid points, but the way this page is presented is still inherently misleading. CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very few states are older than the USA (it's the first colony to become independent), that's why most of the recognitions are of USA recognizing X instead of X recognizing USA. Exactly for Montenegro-like situations we have a source - the Montenegro MFA itself! And for South Sudan too - for receiving diplomatic recognitions after its UN admission. As said already - I don't object adding some further clarification notes. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, which makes it a very bad example for modern states. When this is merged or kept, we can work on clarification notes. CMD (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge Ron 1987 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge Redundant fork of Foreign relations of South Sudan, but has some encyclopedic information worth keeping. Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions  15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A record of dipolomatic recogniton for any state is notable, the US state department web page keeps a record of its own diplomatic recognitions for example.XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Link? CMD (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be found here, it is complete for all current states though some extinct states are lacking on the page. []


 * Keep or Merge --Avala (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. Relevant information with encyclopedic value that should remain, but not in a stand-alone article per rationale of nom.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. It's a rehash of the information in the Foreign Relations article, but a rehash that's been greatly appended and updated, so merging it back ("de-forking?") would also address any issues of incompleteness one might have with that article as well. ChristopherGregory (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable Th order is important (as som were at first reluctant). Furthermore all states havent done so yet. Or a transcluded template can go on the redirectd page.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - Seems like a decent compromise solution to me. I don't think this information is terribly useful, but it might be a good reference for someone else. I'm just happy to have it off the Foreign relations of South Sudan page, where it was creating a mess. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The main argument for keeping, as I see it, is the list of recognition dates. However, Wikipedia is not a place to store raw data. Encyclopedic content (all of the article's seven cohesive sentences concerning universal recognition and admission to the UN) is already present in Foreign relations of South Sudan. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (point 3) applies to everything else straight on. Whatever happens, just don't stuff this huge thing into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". --illythr (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit weakly per XavierGreen and Kudzu1. James F. (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Dufo (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per XavierGreen. This is a standard entry for any encyclopedia, much like Relations pages. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point that all countries have recognised South Sudan following it's unanimous admittance to the UN. All we're reporting is those who have published pleasantries on the internet. This is absolutely meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Again - if some source is about "pleasantries" it should be removed. The encyclopedic content here is the list of "diplomatic recognitions" - a foreign policy act different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objection, pleasantries and welcome notes, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All that is needed for diplomatic recognition is some form of diplomatic activity in which the two states or polities recognize each other as soveriegn peers. A treaty, diplomatic note, or simply the accreditation of a diplomatic agent is all that is needed to establish diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it could be anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity. Outback the koala (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does voting to accept it as a UN member count, considering that shows clear recognition the other is a equal, valid, and sovereign entity? CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on the situtation, yes. However in this case, as stated in the second paragraph of the article; there was no vote. Maybe we could clarify this in the opening paragraph to explain that these are explicit recognition? Wouldn't that cover it? I just don't see a need to delete this article. Outback the koala (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no vote because they joined through acclamation, which is equivalent to an unanimous vote. The UN only votes if it needs to (which surprises me, with the bureaucracy of the UN and everything). CMD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CMD, I (and sources I can provide if you insist) don't agree with your view of the UN as "sovereignty gatekeeper". It's just an intergovernmental organization, a politically important one, but without any such powers given to it by its members.
 * The UN admission without objections shows us the "obvious recognition". As shown in the sources - UN admission is not correlated with the issuance of diplomatic recognitions by individual states - such are issued both before and after the UN admission. And this is not only for South Sudan, this is the common practice as you can see from the sources for other states too. Governments around the world find these acts notable, but a few editors here argue that they aren't. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Both before and after South Sudan admission to the UN many states have issued official explicit statements about its diplomatic recognition and some have established diplomatic relations with it." - that's the next sentence - I propose we tweak it additionally (and/or change the existing footnote "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit official unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement doesn't necessarily mean the state has objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party. South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."), so that any CMD concers about "implying SS doesn't have obvious recognition from everybody" are addressed. I think the explicit and not one of the states with limited recognition are sufficient, but I'm OK with further tweaks to the text. Japinderum (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Japinderum, that was a question addressed specifically to Outbacks note about "anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity". It had nothing to do with statements of explicit recognition, and nothing to do with the UN being a sovereignty gatekeeper, and so your post has completely missed the point of my question to them. CMD (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan since South Sudan is a large and new country in the world. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. While a list of states which recognize South Sudan isn't notable (since presumably they all do) the dates of recognition are as per the arguments above.  TDL (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.