Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Republic of" again

(See also "Republic of" above.) The last edit summary got me thinking. I thought the reason for "Republic of Macedonia" was that we were using the country article titles for the country names here. That would void any disputes over the names here, referring them to WP:NC discussions at the actual country article talk pages. But Ireland is clearly an exception. And here's why the edit summary seems to be correct: "Ireland" can refer to several things. We can only list the country here as "Ireland" if it is unquestionably clear that we are referring to the country. It might be argued that this is unquestionably clear because it is a template of countries. But then, it is also unquestionably clear that "Macedonia" is referring to the country, and as per WP:MOSMAC#Naming conventions (country), we shall not use "Macedonia" to refer to the country unless the meaning is unquestionably clear. So it does seem to follow that if it is "Ireland", it should also be "Macedonia". There are at least four ways out:

1. Always use article titles, and so list Ireland as "Republic of Ireland" (yes, I'm aware that this is not an official name of the country) and Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia". But then, Georgia should really be listed as "Georgia (country)" as well, and that's just ugly.
2. Agree that there is no ambiguity here because the template is for countries only, which means that common names are fine, and so list Ireland as "Ireland", Georgia as "Georgia" and Macedonia as "Macedonia" (as allowed by WP:MOSMAC in the case of no disambiguity).
3. Read WP:MOSMAC so that the first time the country is mentioned (such as the first and only time in this template) it should always read "Republic of Macedonia", not just be a link to Republic of Macedonia, which is what the guideline now states (and the link target, of course, is not disputed here). But if this reading should be used, the guideline should be clarified.
4. Change WP:MOSMAC to not allow "Macedonia" to refer to the country at all. In any of the two last cases, we should list Ireland as "Ireland" and Georgia as "Georgia" (because WP:MOSMAC doesn't apply there) and Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia". (But on the other hand: if Greeks are offended by the unqualified usage, why wouldn't Northern-Irish be too?) -- Jao 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Following on from the above, you're right to say that WP:MOSMAC did already state that common names could be used (for either the country or the Greek province of the same name) where there was no likelihood of confusion. However, as originally formulated MOSMAC didn't specifically apply to templates. This omission has been fixed and the guidance does now explicitly address templates (see WP:MOSMAC#Naming conventions (country)). The relevant part of the guidelines is that "In the case of templates linking only to country articles, where there is no possibility of the Republic of Macedonia being confused with the Greek region, the short form "Macedonia" may be used. Where templates list both the Republic of Macedonia and either the Greek region or the wider geographical region, the link should read Republic of Macedonia." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As an absolute minimum I added a note on the name Macedonia. --   Avg    23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I modified it slightly to attribute the dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope this compromise will settle the matter. -- Jao (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Kosovo?

Kosovo appears certain to declare independence tomorrow, and it's also virtually certain that most EU member states, the US and (according to the Kosovo government) up to 100 more states will recognise it within days or weeks. Due to Russian opposition, however, it will not be seated at the UN in the foreseeable future. This gives us a bit of a problem - it will be a widely recognised country but won't have UN membership, so should it be listed in this template?

East Timor provides a comparable recent example. It declared independence on May 20, 2002 under UN supervision. Many countries recognised it immediately or within a couple of months - including the EU, US, Australia and Indonesia - but it wasn't admitted to the UN until September 27, 2002. Slovenia and Croatia were in a similar position (declarations of independence on June 25, 1991, widespread recognition thereafter, admission to the UN eleven months later on May 22, 1992). So were East Timor, Slovenia and Croatia not "countries" during the time between their declarations of independence and their UN accession? How would we have listed them if Wikipedia had been around then?

Our de facto definition of a country as being "a state recognised by the UN" simply isn't adequate. It ignores the fact that diplomatic recognition isn't for the UN to decide in the first place - UN membership is a separate issue from diplomatic status. (Ukraine and Belarus were founder members of the UN in 1945 with their own seats despite not being independent countries at the time.) The definition of a sovereign state under international law has nothing to do with the UN; see the Montevideo Convention, which pre-dates the UN by 12 years, and also the Declarative theory of statehood, which defines what a state is in the first place. Kosovo clearly won't be in the same category as unrecognised states such as Transnistria, as it will have major and probably quite widespread diplomatic recognition from the start. However, it also won't be in the same category as all the other countries in Europe, as it won't have universal recognition from its peers or be seated in the UN.

I suggest that the most equitable solution would be to add a new line to this template underneath the main list, titled "Partially recognised states of Europe". The criteria for inclusion in this category should be (1) full control of its claimed territory (i.e. not a virtual state); (2) a formal declaration of independence; (3) recognition by at least one UN member state. This would be a clear and stable set of criteria. Only Kosovo and Northern Cyprus would qualify, the latter on the basis of its recognition by Turkey. Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia etc. shouldn't be listed at all in this category, as nobody recognises them (and are the latter two counted as European anyway?). If and when either Kosovo or Northern Cyprus is admitted to the UN, they should be promoted to the main list. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've wrote at Talk:Kosovo, but for readability I've decided to rewrite here too.

Firstly, the Republic of Slovenia had perfectly legally seceded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in 1991. Next of all, even next to that, the international community did not recognize the independence of Slovenia (or the Republic of Croatia for that matter) before SFRY officially dissolved in 1992.

Second of all, East Timor is very unrelated to Kosovo. After the Portuguese had retreated from it, it had self-declared independence. Knowing the standards practice (according to precedent law) and the general interpretation of the support of self-determination depicted in, among other acts, the UN Charter, as well as the conclusions thereof, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that Timor-Timor would not have been quickly internationally recognized as an independent country - as a former colony. The problem is that it was almost immediately invaded by the Republic of Indonesia (that is, in 1975). Kosovo was reconquered by Serbia in 1912 from the Ottoman Empire, an act supported and recognized by all parties of the world. While Indonesia had absolutely no historical claim for East Timor, Kosovo has a center of cultural and other heritage spanning 900 years. Kosovo was indeed integrated into the Serbian society, whereas the entire time period - the 1975-1999 Indonesian control of East Timor - was much like the abusive 1989-1999 Serbian control of Kosovo (a short time period). Next of all, at the Portuguese-Indonesian compromise in 1999, the eastern Timorians had refused to remain in Indonasia, which in turn withdrew its treatment of the region as its integral part. A United Nations interim administration mission was established in East Timor in 1999, on the basis of UNSCR 1264 which nowhere guarantees or affirms Indonesian sovereignty and territorial integrity. It leaves primarily to the people to decide the future of the state, which had occurred in 2002 when it became independent. On the other hand, UNSCR bases itself on Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and leaves the foundations for a negotiated solution taking to granted several factors. 1. Territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia, and 2. Will of the people of Kosovo. The situation is drastically different. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think UN will ever agree on Kosovo to be recognized as independent. Косовска Митровица (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Never" is a long time - I don't think anyone expected the SFRY and USSR to collapse, but they did... At any rate, we shouldn't close off that possibility. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, look that this is something else. It's about a different story here. There are some states that said very clear that will not recognize Kosovo. I don't think they will change their views very soon. Even EU countries are divided. Look there are many of EU members who are against independence: Spain, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia. So, what's your point? Косовска Митровица (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

How did you manage to put Northern Cyprus in this mix? Do you really want to cause another edit war? A territory with dozens of UN and EU resolutions against its illegal occupation by Turkey is now a country for Wikipedia because the occupying country recognises it as such? Regarding Kosovo, my position is when (and if) it is recognised by international organisations as a separate country, it should be put there, with the name that it was recognised. --   Avg    13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The "recognition" of the "TRNC" by the state that carved it out of the sovereign territory of another country that it itself occupied is hardly a good enough reason to include it in this template. On the world stage, it is effectively on the same level as the self-declared states deprecated by ChrisO (Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia). Only states with wide international recognition, by individual countries as well as international organisations, should be listed here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good point. OK, I'm happy to go along with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Kosovo is also recognized by countries who were involved in the Kosovo War, i.e. NATO countries and the US puppet state Afghanistan.--Certh (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Recognition from states, you'll see that four of the eight states that have recognised Kosovo so far aren't NATO members, and most of those in the process of recognising it either aren't NATO members or weren't members at the time of the war. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway those countries are allies of the US. And even if not, what does it change? Its legal status is the same as that of Northern Cyprus.--Certh (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo isn't a member of the UN and it is in fact recognized only by some countries, so why it is in the list of Europe's sovereign states?! --161.3.1.42 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is rather easy to settle. You seem to be focusing mostly on the recognition of Kosovo (ie, a criteria for being a »state») but even if Kosovo would be recognised by the UN, it is still hardly a »sovereign» state, as it is and will for the forseeable future be a protectorate of the UN and the European Union. Question is if Kosovo ever will be a sovereign state, as the EU wants it to have a »supervised» independence. The European Union will, with the EULEX mission, have authourities in Kosovo that is definitely mutually exclusive with the sovereignty of Kosovo as a state. This[1] article is from a respected Swedish newspaper, and among other things, it says that "... Kosovo will in practice have Brussels as the highest instance", and "The most powerful man in Kosovo will be the Dutch diplomat Peter Faith". This means that we either have to remove the word "Sovereign" from the template, or "Kosovo". I'll remove Kosovo from it now, please reply before reinserting it. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That same point applies for Bosnia and Herzegovina. De Facto the supreme authority in BiH is Miroslav Lajcak of the OHR ( Office of High Representative ), but still, Bosnia is considered a sovereign country of Europe. So I'll add back Kosovo into the Countries of Europe list.

Arpagjiki (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that BiH's sovereignty (or rather lack of it) is comparable to Kosovo's. But if it is true, then I suppose it would be suitable to remove BiH as well from the list of sovereign states of Europe and put it in the template "Non-sovereign territories of Europe". --82.183.224.40 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If to add Kosovo, then the Northern Cyprys also should be added. I think better is to remove Kosovo.--Certh (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we wait for the UN recognition? I think acting too early will seem like Wikipedia is taking sides.--   Avg    19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the situation of Kosovo more akin to that of the Republic of China than the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. None of the three states are UN members, but the difference lies in the volume of recognition. ROC is fully recognized by 23 countries. TRNC is recognized by only Turkey. Kosovo will probably be recognized by more countries than ROC in near future. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that those who want to include Kosovo here do not participate in the dicussion, but simply protected the article.--Certh (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The editor who protected the templated has no edits to this template at least recently. But anyways. We should probably discuss what is the level of recognition that should be attained to get into this template. Is it UN membership? A certain number of recognized states? A global de facto recognition, like in the case of ROC where de jure the state is recognized by only a handful of other states, but de facto it is recognized by several other states also? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I only want the issue to be addressed equally to all such entities. If to include - then both N. Cyprus and Kosovo, if not - then both not to include without appealing to "evil Milosevic", "poor Albanians who were gonocided", "evil Russia", "evil Turkey" etc to justify inclusion of Kosovo in this template without including N. Cyprus. Both entities are partially recognized at the moment, by a minority of states. Saying that Kosovo is recognized by more powerful states such as USA and Britain also shell not justify the inclusion. --Certh (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the best way to settle this discussion is by using UN recognition as a prerequisite for including a country in this list. I concede that this is a somewhat arbitrary measure, but I think all the alternatives are worse. This at least sets a firm boundary, otherwise one would have to ask, what kind of recognition is needed, that of one country, two countries, three big countries, etc. TSO1D (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How about requiring the recognition of just one country that is uninvolved politically in the partially recognized country? That would exclude Northern Cyprus, but include Kosovo. bogdan (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The US and its allies can hardly be considered "uninvolved politically" in Kosovo; they were the ones who seized control of the province from Serbia in the first place. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

UN is really the safest bet. --   Avg    23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when Senegal and Malaysia are US allies? bogdan (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But this seems like a completely arbitrary tailor made policy designed to specifically exclude one case and allow another. Furthermore, any definition of "political involvement" will be debatable. At least recognition by the UN is a widely accepted benchmark for sovereign statehood. TSO1D (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

They are overwhelmingly Muslim, ergo equally biased in favour of the Albanians. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Declarative theory of statehood vs Constitutive theory of statehood

Since UN hasn't recognized it, Kosovo is still part of Serbia.--Косовска Митровица (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

International law doesn't work that way. What you're describing is the constitutive theory of statehood; most scholars (and governments) regard the declarative theory of statehood as definitive. See also Montevideo Convention. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't buy this. This way each village can DECLARE itself independent and Bush even might recognizes it for his geopolitical goals. There is much more needed in order to be a state. Kosovo is not a state. Period.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't buy it either. Some people take something out from their stomach. Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a well-established principle of international law. To quote Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." A village wouldn't qualify on (d) but a larger entity certainly could - there's no reason in theory why Belgrade couldn't decide to follow Kosovo's example and declare itself an independent state. But see my reply to TSO1D's question below. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

>>> Have you ever heard of San Marino? (if not about Monaco, Liechtentein, Andora etc...). --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view this is turning more into a theoretical discussion of international affairs than about how to practically handle this case. So Chris, whereas I understand your argument, I don't see how we wood apply it here. I mean if we were to go by the Montovideo convention, then this template should include quite a bit more states in Europe, such as Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, and the Georgian republics. I am not saying that I am necessarily opposed to this, I am only pointing out that this would be contrary to the model that we have applied so far and would require a broader discussion about Wikipedia policy in this area. In the short term though, I believe we should judge the case of Kosovo by the standard of "universal recognition" that we have used in the past, and I believe that UN recognition is probably the most definitive benchmark for this characteristic. TSO1D (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurray, declarative theory of statehood, let's recognise Sealand then! Of course whoever monitors ChrisO's involvement in other issues also knows he has his reasons not to admit UN's authority.--   Avg    19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that instead of making snide insinuations you try educating yourself about international law - then you might say something worth reading. The problem we have here is that many people are confusing statehood with international recognition. Those are two quite separate things. There's absolutely no doubt that Kosovo qualifies fully on every count of the Montevideo Convention's criteria for statehood under established international law (see above for the four criteria listed in Article 1 of the Convention). Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia etc all meet the same criteria and we can fairly describe them as states. They are not, however, internationally recognised (or are barely recognised, in the case of Northern Cyprus). The issue we face is simply this: what criteria we apply for listing states in this template? There are three possible criteria, the Montevideo Convention definition of a state, the existence of international recognition from multiple internationally recognised states, or admission to the United Nations (which, by the way, doesn't "recognise" states). Which criteria do we use? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Chris, I agree with you fully, but it is the last part of your post that I have been trying to focus on. Indeed, which criteria for recognition do we use? I tried making the case for UN recognition above because I think we should only be including states that have been recognized internationally and a) the Montevideo Convention doesn't include this prerequisite, b) using the standard of multiple states will be arbitrary (i.e. how many states, what kind of states, etc). It is for this reason that I propose we use UN recognition as a benchmark for practical purposes. TSO1D (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan isnt independent either. The fact that USA violates the International law does not make it a rule. How about recognizing Texas as an independent country (well cowboys are different than East Coasters), or how about giving the right of secesseion to all native American tribes? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As a benchmark, it's worth considering how other regional templates operate. It strikes me that Kosovo's situation is quite similar to that of Taiwan - significant international recognition but not UN membership. It's listed in both Template:Countries and territories of East Asia and Template:Countries of Asia with a footnote noting its lack of UN membership. Perhaps this is a viable solution for Kosovo? It would at least be consistent with our existing practice... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that template also includes Northern Cyprus with the same caveat. So it appears that inconsistency already exists between these templates anyway. Perhaps we should have a larger debate about this issue and decide upon a common standard. TSO1D (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been also a recent edit "war" in that template and until the end of January the article had been without TRNC for at least half a year. I think we should find a place where we could discuss all of these templates in common. IMHO a state should included in the Sovereign States or Countries part of the templates, if it has been recognized by at least some countries that are not directly involved in the issue behind the dispute. This would qualify ROC and Kosovo as sovereign states, but not TRNC nor any of the completely non-recognized countries. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I find such a qualification to be rather ad hoc.

Besides, while one may find TRNC's recognision to be less genuine than others because of Turkeys relation to it, Taiwans' recognision can be considered equally questionable as the states which still does recognise Taiwan are mostly tiny states with negigible political importance globally, which means that Taiwan is practically not recognised. Point is, if we instead of formulating general criterias for what should be considered a state decide to use more practical or pragmatic methods, then there are a lot of other factors that we also must consider. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a very delicate situation. But I think that the UN membership shouldn't be a pre-requisite for a statehood in WP as at least any of the UNSC premanent members could veto the membership of any new state if they didn't like the situation. ROC case: in addition to being formally recognized by 23 minor states, it is de facto recognized by several major states, who don't formally recognize ROC anymore, because of the significance of PRC's stance in the matter. I know that is a very complicated issue. As for TRNC, I don't know if it has much dealings with any other states except Turkey. It is practically dependant on Turkey. And no other internationally recognized state has ever recognized the sovereignty of TRNC. As for Kosovo, the situation is still a bit in the open. There are at the moment 17 states that have formally recognized them. There are at least 6 other states whose formal recognition is just a matter of procedure. That takes Kosovo's level of formal recognition beyond that of ROC. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is regonised by 40+ states but is not treated as a genuine state by Wikipedia anyway (for example, see here[2] and here[3]) (note that it is the territory of Western Sahara that is included in the template link, not the SADR).

Whether 20 or 100 80 states will regonise Kosovo eventually, it's statehood will continue to be very controversial and it should therefore not be treated diffrent from other states in a similar position, I think. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to add a new line to this template that says :partially recognized republics/state/countries (whatever) and add Kosovo and Norther Cyprus there--Cradel 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe

Take a look at this template also. Someone continiously removes Kosovo from the template. I think in this case TRNC should also be treated the same way as Kosovo is.--Certh (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrecognised countries (fully as well as partially) are not "non-sovereign territories" if they de facto hold the exclusive right to control over the area. Instead, they are "sovereign territories". So they shouldn't be in that template at all. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Now Kosovo is under UN control as I know. Anyway, TRNC exists in that template. If to remove Kosovo, it also should be removed.--Certh (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that Kosovo is listed in this template ("Countries of Europe"), while TRNC isn't listed. In my opinion, both Kosovo and the TRNC should get the same treatment (i.e. either list both, or none).

Maybe the UN control makes Kosovo non-sovereign. Is the TRNC sovereign or not? Some people claim that the TRNC is occupied by Turkey, while some claim that it is not. Maybe a better word than "sovereign" needs to be used (in both templates). (Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Request to admin: remove Kosovo from list or unlock the article

I'd like an admin to either (and preferrably) remove Kosovo from the template personally or to unlock the article.

As the burden of proof lies on those who want to include Kosovo in the template, and they have yet to explain how Kosovo's inclusion can be consequent with Wikipedia policy, it is improper to lock the current version of the template. After all, neither Northern Cyprus nor the Sahrawhi Republic is included in the country templates of Europe and Africa respectively, even despite that the latter is being recognised by a greater number of states than Kosovo. The Republic of China is also recognised by a greater number of states than Kosovo, though it seems like it is frequently being deleted and reinserted in the contries of Asia template.

Judging from this article[4], it seems like policy in the past have been that a state which isn't recognised by a majority of UN member states shouldn't be treated as a legitime state by Wikipedia. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good argument, I have to agree.Косовска Митровица (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that the title of the infobox actually is "sovereign states of Europe". This description fits to most unrecognised and partially recognised states in Europe, so I suppose that, unless anyone changes the title, TRNC, Pridnestrovie and numerous other entities need to be added. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Request: Kosovo (2)

Please, can an admin change the link international recognition of Kosovo to use the new name of the article? I'd like to check double redirects which may have arised from the move, but it is virtually impossible to do so because of the dozens of articles linking to it through this template. -- EJ (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Already done. :) BalkanFever 10:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo souverign state????

Admin, please see what is criteria / List_of_sovereign_states#Criteria_for_inclusion

Kosovo is not listed in List_of_sovereign_states article, and this is box called "Sovereign states of Europe" It's listed togather with N.Cyprus, Abkhazia, Palestine Navyworth (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

> On the basis of the above criteria, this list includes the following 203 entities: > * 193 sovereign states with general international recognition: > * 10 sovereign states lacking general international recognition:

Kosovo is one of the "10 sovereign states lacking general international recognition". Northern Cyprus is another of them. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Template:Countries_of_Asia does not include Northern Cyprus so why does this one include Kosovo? --Avala (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Asia shows a list of countries of Asia, whereas Template:Countries of Europe shows a list of sovereign states of Europe (see the header above the country list). I suppose that's why... (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

I agree. It is POV to include Kosovo in here right now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't the title be changed from "sovereign states" to "sovereign countries"? Then it would be clear that Kosovo (and North Cyprus) shouldn't be included. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

But they should, and are. N Cyp has nothing to do with Kosovo as no one important recognises it. Kosovo is recognised by the bulk of the world's powers and the majority of the world will follow in the coming months and days. Don't start this debate here, take it back to Talk:Kosovo. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is not important??? Which country "important" then and which is not? Which contries constitute "worlds's powers"? Is Britain world's power? Is Italy world's power? Is Turkey world's power? Is Russia world's power? Is China world's power? Is Spain world's power?--Certh (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, how dare I state what I think is obvious without first consulting the Privy Council. No one important recognises it. If you're pedantic enough to want specific states - I don't know - US, EU, China and Micronesia? I like Micronesia. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Soething strange I've noticed about the Kosovo argument here, that hasn't been mentioned. Wikipedia is supposed to neutral, right? And there's still a debate over Kosovo's status. It isn't written in stone. So saying Kosovo is a sovereign state is supporting one side. That's not neutral.Bob bobato (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like there have been millions of words wasted on policy and precedent, a random who comes along always knows better. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Im just saying, just a random thought.Bob bobato (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, too harsh. WP:BITE. I've posted a welcome on your talk, have a look at some of those to get familiar with our policies and precedents. +Hexagon1 ^(t)

Kosovo, provisional agreement

I looked back at some of the debates on this page on similar issue and it seems that in the past the general agreement was not to include countries that don't have full international recognition. I understand that Kosovo is perhaps unique in that it has broader recognition than northern Cyprus for example, yet many states still refuse to recognize it, so its status is murky at best. For this reason, I believe that we should omit Kosovo from this list at this moment on the basis of current policy and what I believe is a plurality of support for its non-inclusion. I realize that there is probably a need for a broader discussion on the policy and perhaps on how to make the lists used for various regions consistent with one another. However, there is an ongoing edit war here, and for the sake of stability, I propose to remove Kosovo from the list and to agree not to change this unless a consensus is reached to change it. I plan to do this unless others object. TSO1D (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the discussion regarding inclusion, but I am concerned about the stability of the template. I'd suggest that you give this a reasonable amount of time to allow for discussion, then act. As well, what about considering an additional line for "disputed territories" (or something similar?) That way, we're not saying it is a country, nor are we saying it isn't. (Given that the Kosovo issue is very prominent right now, excluding it completely might just perpetuate the edit wars.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I think it's best that there is as much input as possible from other users interested in this topic, so that all can voice their opinion and understand the reasoning for any decision. However, I was only proposing a change in the short run, in order to have a more or less stable version while we have a discussion on the larger issue. I am also concerned about stability, but that shouldn't be the only factor. For instance, consistency within that template is in my opinion more important, and I believe that including Kosovo and not other unrecognized or partially recognized European entities presents a problem in that regard. However, even when it comes to stability, I believe that most people who have presented a view on this page are opposed to including Kosovo in this template in its current form. But of course there is no rush, and thankfully there is not much edit warring going on this page, so we can wait. However, I would like to point out that the inclusion of Kosovo is a relatively new change and consensus wasn't sought for its addition, and the protection of the page was not an endorsement of that version, but only an attempt to prevent edit warring, so in a way this was the "default" version, and if other users reverted to it, it seems to me unfair to place the burden of demonstrating consensus on them. 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSO1D (talk • contribs)

Come on people, Kosovo is an independent country recognized by most European countries. If your neighbours recognize you independent then you are INDEPENDENT. It is sad for me to see you argue over whether Kosovo is indpendent. They are and I don't belive we should argue about this anymore. We can maybe add Kosovo and under a footnote saying "recognized by 24 European countries". I think it is very childish for some of you to try to create new definitions of independence. Please don't write long answers because I and I belive most others don't have time to read that much --Noah30 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about independence (which Kosovo most definitely has nothing of, by the way), it's about statehood. And one of the criteria in the definition being used by Wikipedia for a »fully fledged» state is that it should be recognised by a majority of UN members (which I think is quite sensible). Being recognised by it's neighbours is a criteria that you just made up. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

anonymous I don't agree with you and you are lying when you claim that a country has to be recognized by the majority of the UN members in order to be perceived independent. But just wait and see, very soon we will have 100 countries that recognize us. Could you please provide a link for the definition you presented??? I don’t think so! --Noah30 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here: List of states. Template reverted again, and keep calm please. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In that list of states Kosovo is placed beside countries "that may be defined as states in the body of customary international law". Here wr also find Taiwan and they are included in the Asia template. Kosovo should also be included. Stop pushing POV edits. --Noah30 (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither the TRNC nor the ROC should be in that template and they have been removed several times. If you have a definition of the recognition-criteria for a state which is better than recognition by >50 % of UN members then you are free to present it here. Because until I'm presented with a better policy on this field I will stick with that criteria. Template reverted again. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the majority of EU members, not the majority of European countries. According to this template, there are 50, of which 24 have recognized the "Republic of Kosova", i.e. a slight minority. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of European countries is below 50. I counted and found out that there are only 44/45 real European countries. I did not include Georgia, Azerbdjan, Armenia, Cyprus, Kazakhstan and Turkey since they are not European but Asian. So it's true that more than 50 % of the countries have recognized Kosovo indepedent --Noah30 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I too see the double standards WP is using in this particular issue. ROC is recognized as a sovreign state in the Asia template while Kosovo is not, despite the fact that we are recognized by the most democratic countries in the world. This is happenng because Serbs, Greeks and other US-haters are creating false discussion whether Kosovo is a country or not. We Albanians are used to wait and can wait another 3 months and then will we have recogniton from a majority of the world countries--Noah30 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and say that Albania isn't a "real" European country either. I would also exclude Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey, but not Armenia, Cyprus or Georgia, which are at least culturally European. Cyprus is even a member of the EU, not to mention its participation in the ancient Hellenic civilization, the first European civilization. So, according to my definition, we have 46 "real" European countries, of which 22 have recognized the separatist régime in Priština. Still a minority. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Albania is Europe, you can not choose to be Europe, it is something you are born, but Greek-speaking people make sometimes strange comments with regard to Albania because they still believe half of Albania should be annexed to Greece, or maybe feel uncomfortable to be at the bottom of Europe?. And you also seems to forget that you have a high percentage of people in Greece that have Albanian origin.Arvanites. You comments about Kosovo are purely based on your religious believes and are supported by arguments: We Greeks are Orthodox and that’s why we should support Serbia, no matter what the reality on the ground is. Happy Eastern --Noah30 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an atheist, thank God. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are a atheist, I´m Paps. Nevermater. Let we see what is meaning state. State is coming from "eta" a buged. Kosovo hase it oven buged, it is taken taxes from all around Kosovo. Suveren state its meaning suveren budget Kosovo hase his oven suvern bugdet.

Let we se closer the ortodox meaning of state. A budget witch is under the suveren church control. This is existing in Greece. The church cane dised for the futur of the contry without asken the peopel of thate contry. Is this eurepen state? The europens beleve in God, but State is State, Church is church. The europens wount to disede with there vote for they future. Yes, when we see Albania with "ortodox fundamentale" eyes Albania is not Europen contry, beacose is in this contry the peopel say free what they mine. And the Greec, Serbia and Rusia are Europen contyrs but, not in our time, but in darknis of the meadel age´s. The dual sistem in this countris must be destroid befor this countrys can say thate they have democratic system. Aller way, this countris are the same counris like Islamic Republics. How you can see from the name islamic and republik, it is a dual system. Inside the state is islamic out said is Republic. It is here to say thate some of this contrys call himselfs Kalifat, what is more reflectyn the reality. Yes, Rusia, Serbia and Greec at the moment have a dual system, and it is more cleare if if they call himself Ortodox Republic.

No we go back in Balkan histor. We take a King witch hase his suverenty over a teritory. He disedet to late the church to take taxes. A king himself for the marketing say thate he is a ortodox. Now, the history writers must disede to call this state als church state (hase only some rights), king´s state (hase all rights over thate territory) or peopel state (have some rights). Today, in wikipedia we see articel´s based in ortodox literatur. The kings and folks literature dont exist or is in darknis of the church power. This is the problem of ortodox Balkan peopel, they trust more the church iteratur thane scien literatur. But, scien has time mor thane a church, the scien hase begone at the time in wich the peopel hase startit to think and not from the birth of adam or somthing like this.

It is importen thate the logic of the scien peopel can not understand how sombody can love more Athine then the greece peopel. This santens can come only from ortodox fundamentalists.

The Albanians go to Athene to make ware agains the turks, and the greece? They maked ware in there contry. But who are greece, epirots, jonas, moreas all they are arvanitas. My fried if you are a atheist thane you must know what is meaning "greece", "helens", "albanians", "makedons", "bizantins" and et first what is meaning "sllave". And if you thing thate in Balkan only beacose the serbian sllavs makes a contribution to ortodox church with saying thate all west balkan is serbians (beacose they was "greece zakon") thane I congragilate you, you are living in the darknis of the meadel age. If you know gjerman l. you have a book. Read it, and studi this book with the scien eyes and yu will finde what is meaning Serbian State and Kosovo State. Even thate autor diden have a scien, kings or folks literatur from the Ballkan peopel. Kosovo it was a state during all a history till 1912 after the serbo-sllavs came to power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 88.70.184.110 (talk · contribs)- 12:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Upss!! The church literatur hase a good side. You must think a littel and finder the reale variabel (names), beacose they are in funksion of the time. Let me say is not a same like f(you)=100 and f(me)=2000, even if the funksions name is greece or bater cleare f(sllav)=100; f(shqiptar:albanians,epirots,morea,arvanitas etc)=2000 Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches Von Joseph Hammer-Purgstall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 88.70.184.110 (talk · contribs)- 12:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Upss!! You are learnig the history of my folk, my land, and you are proud thate you are "pravosllavac". This is a glory of the church literatur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 88.70.184.110 (talk · contribs)- 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

State it is a State

Never meter if a State is regotnised or not the truth is thate e State is a State even if somebody dont like it. Who dont like it, most lern to live with thate, this is a english Wikipedia.

A languge is a "minro of the real world around as" even if this is not a perfect image of the world, this is the best what the humanen peopel have.

Kosovo is a state, this is saying all countris in witch english languge is official or is dominant. For all other indicators the peopel cane read at the articel Kosovo. - Hipi Zhdripi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 88.70.184.110 (talk · contribs)- 11:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For the peopel witch are interesing for the "Rusian minro of the World [5]" they can go to the rusian wiki and work for thate for the rest of them witch iuse the glory of the english languge they must respect the orientation of the english spoket institutions (scine akademy, state ins. etc), upss this part of the planet is saying Kosovo is a state. Upss. dont forget it, Rusian Wiki is in life thanks English languge glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipi Zhdripi (talk • contribs) -using the IP 88.70.184.110 (talk · contribs)- 11:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

Would it be possible to remove the footnotes from this template? I mean, the purpose of this template is to provide navigational aid. Not to give a detailed definition of what Europe really is. I think it is totally irrelevant to inform the reader of the Sweden article that Norway has dependencies or similar territories outside Europe. That kind of information is better provided in prose in the relevant articles, and not in this navigational template. By removing these footnotes, this template get neater and uses less space. I think it would be an improvement. --Kildor (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the footnotes can be relevant even on navigational bases. And I don't see why a short explanation why certain countries that aren't always defined as European are in here. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit request: Update footnote

{{editprotect}} Could someone change footnote 5 currently reading: Declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008 and is recognised by 44 countries.. These number changed. It is now either 45 or 46 (if you count Taiwan as a country). See International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Cheers Gugganij (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not done for now: - no way am I going to make the call over whether to put 45 or 46 :D. Find me a consensus for one number or the other. Happy‑melon 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I think that for NPOV the footnote 5 should read: Declared independence from Serbia on February 17, 2008 and is recognised by 45 UN member states. That would remove the need for debate whether Taiwan is a country or not. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done That'll do. Happy‑melon 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge of this, CoE and EU templates

Nearly all European countries are in the Council of Europe, and now most CoE countries are members of the European Union. So, rather than having three separate templates: Template:Countries of Europe, Template:Council of Europe and Template:Members of the European Union (EU), why not merge them but simply better organise the entries so it is not one long confusing list; LINK REMOVED - _JLogan^t: 16:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion, but these are my concerns:

• There are other organisations people might start arguing about (CIS etc. "Why would the EU and CoE have this exclusive status?")
• There are other templates that for the sake of coherency maybe would also have to be merged into eachother (and some are already pretty intricate, with non-sovereign territories), e.g. Template:List of European capitals by region and Template:Capital cities of the European Union.
• I've got the impression that templates that are directly related to the content of one article (e.g. Template:Members of the European Union (EU) in Member State of the European Union) should be placed in the See also section of the respective article, and under External links when used as a list in which the sub-article is listed (e.g. Template:Members of the European Union (EU) in the Sweden article). I know it's a trifle WP:MOS issue, but if we merge these templates, where in the Member State of the European Union article should the new super-template be placed? I just don't like MOS confusion.
• Other continents have corresponding templates (not that we shouldn't dare be bold here).

- SSJ ☎ 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do admit that CIS etc would be a problem, I was thinking about people adding EU candidates, potential candidates etc etc but I figured that given the level of protection over this template already, agreed lines could be enforced. As for an argument for EU / CoE: they have a dominant membership. We could just do a CoE & Europe template, which would also get around the MOS point on the EU member page. As for other templates, I don't think it would add any coherence, it can be done on a case by case basis.- _JLogan^t: 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote update

Kosovo footnote (5) should be updated as Malta recognized Kosovo making it 46 UN member states.

Source?  Sandstein  21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Malta recognizes Kosovo as an independent State (Maltese Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Gugganij (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Malta was the 46th state. May I refer you to International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, where all recognitions are referenced with a source. Gugganij (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please update the sandbox and then re-enable the editprotected request so that the changes can more easily be synced. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the figure from 45 to 46 in the sandbox. Gugganij (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated in the template. Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

{{editprotected}} As Russia now has officially recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they should be added to this template, like Kosovo. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If we are to list territories recognized by only one country, then Northern Cyprus should be included as well (as long as the geographically Asian Cyprus is). But on the other hand, there's Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe for this kind of entity. That's not to say I don't see the obvious problem with including Kosovo (recognized by 46 UN members) as a country but not Abkhazia (recognized by 1 UN member). Where are we drawing the line? Wherever we draw it, it will come off as OR. -- Jao (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We could have drawn the line at recognition by >50% of UN member states as have been proposed, as it makes some sense. That would disqualify Kosovo though.

Drawing the line at recognition from 5, 20 or 40 UN member states is just unacceptably ad hoc, so if Kosovo should be on this template then Abkhazia and South Ossetia should as well. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no choice, really: we now must include Abkhazia and South Ossetia among the Wikipedia list of European countries. International law cares only about the existence of diplomatic links, regardless of their quantity. Kosovo is recognized by 46 UN members and not recognized by 146; therefore, it has partial international recognition. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus are recognized by one State each, and this also qualifies as partial international recognition. There is absolutely no legal difference between these four European countries. It's also the case of Taiwan (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Countries_of_Asia ), another country which is not a member of the United Nations.201.83.165.226 (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, one recognition is equal to 50 or 100. We either have Kosovo with Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus or do not include any country that is not recognised by every single UN member.- _J.Logan`^t: 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Then we do not include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Luxembourg and People's Republic of China. Colchicum (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean Liechtenstein? --83.249.240.108 (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the same thing at all. South Ossetia/Abkhazia are now in exactly the same position as Northern Cyprus: recognized only by one country which has intervened militarily in their support, and which is in effect their patron and protector. Kosovo is currently in much the same position as some of the former Soviet and Yugoslav republics not long after their declarations of independence - recognized by a substantial number (but not a majority) of UN member states, including, importantly, the large majority of its peers in Europe. One recognition is certainly not equal to 50 or 100. As things stand, no other countries have even indicated that they will recognize the two breakaways - again, completely unlike Kosovo. The concept of recognition in international law is a fuzzy thing, but it requires multiple states and preferably the UN to do the recognizing, not a single state as in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually it is quite clear that Russia is playing the Kosovo card. They do exactly what the West has done in Kosovo. I expect some more peripheral recognitions from Russian satellites and possibly China. The question is, where is the limit? I can agree with the >50% rule, which of course disqualifies Kosovo as well. EU or NATO countries do not have any moral superiority or whatever ChrisO might be inferring by using the word "importantly". --   Avg    19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Russia has its allies too. Kosovo was just backed by a power that could get more countries on board, the practical effect is the same, we can't go around drawing arbitrary lines.- _J.Logan`^t: 19:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that any other states will recognize the breakaways. It sets too much of a precedent for their own separatists and China certainly will not, given its hostility to what it calls "splittism". As I said before, there's a big difference between Russia and "the West" (not even an accurate term anyway, given that many non-Western countries have recognized Kosovo - see International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence). In the case of Russia and South Ossetia/Abkhazia, as I said, you have a situation that is exactly parallel to that of Turkey and Northern Cyprus. No other country in the world has recognized NC. In the case of Kosovo, recognition was initially granted by seven countries (two of which are non-Western) on the same day, then 39 more to date. It wasn't simply a case of being "backed by a power that could get more countries on board" - Kosovo's backing by the US was influential but was certainly not determinative (after all, many US allies have still not recognized Kosovo). In other words, South Ossetia/Abkhazia are following precisely the example set by NC, but Kosovo is following a different path - there isn't a precise equivalent, but the example of Lithuania in 1991 is probably the closest comparison. A mechanistic approach such as a 50% cutoff simply isn't appropriate - as I said, the criteria for "international recognition" are fuzzy anyway. All we can really do is be pragmatic about it and list a state when it has attained a meaningful level of recognition, i.e. by a significant number of other states, not just by one or two. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree or alternatively add Kosovo, TRNC, Abkhazia etc. to a footnote. Even according to tge Russian TV news - fully fledged independence is gained only once the country is recognized by the UN. --Avala (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Would UN recognition be more meaningful then? It has been proposed here on Wiki quite a few times. I don't expect Kosovo or S.Ossetia/Abkhazia to pass that hurdle (or NC for that matter).--   Avg    20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well for a good reason. They are not independent countries. Kosovo independence was declared as "supervised independence" per Ahtisaari plan which is a contradicting phrase itself.--Avala (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Having one or two recognitions doesn't not make it a country Ijanderson (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

UN recognition is not determinative. You might be interested in having a look at International recognition and Declarative theory of statehood. It was very much a live issue during the Yugoslav breakup in 1991 - there was a substantial period between Slovenia and Croatia declaring independence and their receiving UN recognition. During the interim period a substantial number of mostly European states recognized their independence (somewhat controversially). The bottom line is that countries that have been recognized as independent by only one or two other countries are not, in a general sense, recognized internationally as bona fide independent states, particularly if those states happen to be wholly dependent on their recognizers - as in the case of TRNC, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, none of which would even exist if it wasn't for the economic and military support of their patrons. Obviously there is a degree of hypocrisy at work here (I accept that you could make some similar arguments for Kosovo) but the general rule is that recognition must involve more than a single or even a handful of states for it to "stick". -- ChrisO (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I repeat what I mentioned earlier. Kosovo independence is so called "supervised independence". It is at least to the US and EU (for Serbia it's not independence at all). So it means that per independence declaration Kosovo must have international presence and supervision.--Avala (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Are partially recognized countries allowed in this template or not? If they are then Abkhazia, Northern Cyprus, and South Ossetia belong here. If no partially recognized countries are allowed then Kosovo needs to be removed immediately. --Tocino 20:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. In brief, it depends on how "partial" their recognition is. We only added Kosovo once a significant number of states (the figure currently stands at 47) had recognized it. TRNC has never featured on the template, given that only one country recognizes it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything below 96 countries is the same whether it's 1 or 95. You can't become the president if you have 25 votes and your opponent has 75. The same goes for independence. If you don't even have the majority it's not much of an independence as the majority considers it not to be one. I stay with my footnote proposal for TRNC, Kosovo, Abkhazia and Ossetia.--Avala (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, you are definitely contradicting yourself. Considering Kosovo, and why Kosovo should be included on this template, you said this:

"I suggest that the most equitable solution would be to add a new line to this template underneath the main list, titled "Partially recognised states of Europe". The criteria for inclusion in this category should be (1) full control of its claimed territory (i.e. not a virtual state); (2) a formal declaration of independence; (3) recognition by at least one UN member state. This would be a clear and stable set of criteria." (this was copied from here: Template_talk:Countries_of_Europe/Archive_4#What_to_do_about_Kosovo.3F)

Quite remarkable. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that plan whenever it was made.--Avala (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with it, as I would prefer only states beyond question when it comes to international recognition in this list, but he should at least follow his own policy. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We dig a hole for the future if we try to set limits. Personally, I think we should just decide to either include states with any recognition, or, limit it only to UN members (hence de facto widely recognised by int. community). That woiuld be the only legitimate division.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

People seem to be approaching this from a binary point of view - recognised vs non-recognised. In fact, there's a spectrum of recognition - from none at all (e.g. Transnistria) to minimal (TRNC, South Ossetia, Abkhazia) to partial (Kosovo, Taiwan) and finally to full (any country that has UN recognition). In addition a few entities have a special diplomatic status even though they aren't generally recognised internationally (Palestine, Western Sahara). As a general rule, though, the international community does not accept the legitimacy of states with a minimal level of recognition. It didn't in the case of TRNC and it won't in the case of South Ossetia and Abkhazia because of the TRNC precedent. Likewise, as we've followed the general approach of the international community in not listing TRNC as a "country of Europe" since this template was created over four years ago, we should continue that approach now. If South Ossetia and Abkhazia gain anything more than minimal recognition - i.e. more than a handful of recognitions - then we can of course revisit the issue, but it's premature to list them at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This is incredible hypocrisy. A few questions:

1) Was your earlier post considering Kosovo not to be taken seriously?

2) Who are the international community that decide which states that are legitimate or not? You seem to consider the international community to consist out of the EU and USA.

3) Exactly how many recognitions are a handful of recognitions? Don't you think this a-handful-of-recognitions-criteria is a bit ad hoc? --83.249.240.108 (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Silly question, doesn't deserve a response.

2) It's a vague term, but it's generally taken to mean a consensus of the UN's member states - not just particular power blocs. "The West" was not the international community by itself, nor was the old Warsaw Pact when it existed. The UN position has always been that TRNC is an illegal state and it has refused to recognise it on that basis.

3) Not really - we've always taken the approach that states with minimal recognition don't qualify for listing here (hence the omission of TRNC, which has been the case from the date this template was created). States with partial recognition do get listed in country templates: Kosovo in this one, Western Sahara in Template:Countries of Africa, Taiwan in Template:Countries of Asia. I don't think that it's necessarily helpful to define cut-off points between the various levels of recognition. Let's just see how many countries end up recognising the breakaways. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Let me clarify: I want to know why your three point criteria for inclusion on this template, that was applicated on Kosovo, was suddenly obsolete when Abkhazia and South Ossetia was recognised by Russia.

2) So, your earlier point was that the 23 UN member states that recognise RoC or the 46 that recognise Kosovo are more than the single one that recognises Abkhazia and South Ossetia? I can see that as well. But there are 146 and 169 UN member states that does not recognise Kosovo and RoC respectively, and in the case of Kosovo quite a few of them have expressed that they consider the statelet downright illegitimate. Do you include them when talking of the views of the international community?

3) I believe there is great value in policy - it lessens arbitrary rule. Would you mind explaining in what span a handful of states are? 5, 10, 25? --83.249.240.108 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1) I see what you're saying now. I proposed originally that there should be a "partially recognised states" subsection, but that suggestion didn't get widespread support, so I abandoned the idea. It's not that it's "obsolete", it's simply that people didn't feel it was workable.

2) Obviously the international community is substantially divided over Kosovo, less so over RoC. (Bear in mind that the two are not directly analogous. Recognising RoC necessarily means not recognising PRC, and vice-versa; recognising Kosovo has no implications for recognising Serbia, which is in any case a far less important country than China). On the other hand, there's an overwhelming consensus on TRNC and currently at least the same is true for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If that consensus breaks down and more countries start to recognise the breakaways, that potentially changes the situation as far as we're concerned. Don't think that I'm dogmatically opposed to adding them to the template - it would certainly be appropriate if they receive more than minimal recognition. It's just that they haven't reached that point yet, and there's no sign so far that they will.

3) As I already said, I don't think specific numbers are particularly useful. But I think that if the number of recognitions gets into double figures, that will be significant. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined, no consensus yet. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus is achieved.  Sandstein  21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: it seems like Belarus is about to regonise both republics too, according to Swedish national radio[6]. Plus, both republics recognise each other. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia is not part of Europe, even if it is member state of the Council of Europe (also the US are member of the Council of Europe, with observer status). Geographically, Georgia is in Asia. --Bachforelle (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is transcontinental, and hence it is in both. And it is a full member, US is observer as non-european countries can only be observers.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this map showing the border, and note the valid geographical (not political or cultural) definition since Philip Johan von Strahlenberg. --Bachforelle (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that map just doesn't seem to depict all the POVs of the border between Europe and Asia. See Map of Europe for yet another view. It is widely accepted that the Bosporus and the watershed at the Ural Mountains and Ural river are definite borders. As of the border between Black Sea and the Caspian Sea there are many competing definition, of which no one certain correct one has been established. One of the more widely accepted definitions is the watershed of Caucasus Mountains. That would put Azerbaijan and Georgia partially into Europe. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I can find many Google hits underlying your position, but no scientific literature. --Bachforelle (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have no quick access to actual scientific literature concerning the subject. In Wikipedia articles List of countries spanning more than one continent and Borders of the continents the most widely used western definition is stated to be the Greater Caucasus watershed. In Botc articles it is also mentioned that in German speaking and Slavic countries a more northern definition is used more often. I cannot, at least quickly, find any concrete scientific research to back the view I share with e.g. European Union, Oxford Reference Online, BBC, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and National Geographic Society. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking the NGS is scientific... point is, it is commonly held that these are the geographical borders of Europe, and it is stated that they are partly in Asia. politically, Georgia is seen as European, albeit in on the edge. It is accepted by the Council of Europe (which seems to to now be the modern political authority on the boundaries of Europe (and as we are dealing with states....), and similar international bodies. It also has a certain amount of self identity with Europe which is important from the cultural connections. Besides, why are you so bothered by this?- _J.Logan`^t: 10:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

NGS is a publisher of popular magazines etc., not exactly a scientific resource. I am concerned, because WP should not push non-established theories. Why are we always quoting websites, politicians etc, rather than a simple undergraduate textbook? --Bachforelle (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is hardly non-established, and even if this were disputed there is nothing wrong in choosing the wider theory for the purposes of inclusion. As I have said we are dealing with states so we need to look at the political reality. Furthermore, National Geographic Society is hardly just a publisher! It is an extremely respected institution and authority that has simply made use of media outlets. - _J.Logan`^t: 12:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This "extremely respected institution and authority" claims that Gibraltar is an island ... (National Geographic Desk Reference, p. 660) --Bachforelle (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also according to CNN, it is in Asia [7] --Bachforelle (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And according to to these sources, it is:European Union [8], the Council of Europe [9], British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [10], World Health Organization [11], World Tourism Organization [12], UNESCO [13], UNICEF [14], UNHCR [15],European Civil Aviation Conference [16], Euronews [17], BBC [18], NATO [19], Russian Foreign Ministry [20], the World Bank [21], Assembly of European Regions [22], International Air Transport Association [23],Oxford Reference Online, OSCE [24], ICRC [25], Salvation Army [26], International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [27],Council on Foreign Relations [28], United States European Command [29], Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary [30] and www.worldatlas.com.

Kosovo

Hmmm. I can't comment on the discussion above, but Kosovo clearly doesn't belong in the template. All of the rest are UN member states (or observers - Vatican). A couple are UN member states which are not recognised by a small number of countries, but UN nevertheless. The List of unrecognized countries gives a good breakdown. There's a reason we haven't included Northern Cyprus (and why there is no consensus for South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and it's the same reason why we shouldn't have Kosovo. I suspect that Kosovo sneaked through without full discussion. Perhaps the inclusion of Kosovo should be reviewed and included if a consensus is supportive? PolScribe (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Against inclusion. A partially-recognised state with de facto and not de jure independence, not a UN member state. Inclusion would open up a can of worms and undermine the very good case for not including every partially-recognised bit of land which some superpower would like to see independent. PolScribe (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, it has had extensive discussion (check out Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe/Archive 4). I should point out that there isn't really such a thing as "de jure" independence - the predominate declarative theory of statehood holds that statehood is independent of recognition by other states, per the Montevideo Convention of 1933. States may or may not choose to recognise a self-declared state; that doesn't in itself make the self-declared state a legal or illegal entity. International law in this instance effectively amounts to what other countries say it is. In the case of partially-recognised states, we do already list some of these in our country templates - see Template:Countries of Africa (which lists Western Sahara) and Template:Countries of Asia (which lists Taiwan) - so your Rubicon has already been crossed. As you'll see from the discussion about the Georgian breakaway regions, I've argued that we should list only partially recognised states with a significant degree of recognition. Kosovo actually has considerably more recognition (46 states) than Taiwan (23) and about the same level as Western Sahara (~45 or so). The Georgian breakaways only have a minimal level of recognition, with only 2 states recognising them. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The various theories of statehood aren't really relevant here. Kosovo is a state, just as the UK or Abkhazia (all three having population, territory, government and international relations). States of the World 101. This is a question of classification amongst those various states. Does Kosovo belong in the set of states in Europe which we would like to include in this template, or does it belong in a group of states which we are going to exclude. The critical question is: what is the deciding factor? I am proposing membership of the United Nations as the cut-off for this European template; you are proposing a 'significant degree of recognition'. My cut-off has the benefit of being objective and yielding a set of states which is uncontroversial; your cut-off is subjective ('Significant'? Is 42 the ultimate answer?! Whose votes count more - surely the Western and NATO votes should count double?) and leads to justified claims of inconsistency and bias. You yourself assert immediately above that two states have recognised South Ossetia - ergo you think Abkhazia and Transdnestria are states, and round and round we go again. Of course, you do have a deep knowledge of Kosovo having been a very regular contributor to debates on the various Kosovo pages, so perhaps you have some deeper insight for us which reveals Kosovo to be a special case: if in doubt, claim your subject to be sui generis! It is very clear that Kosovo does not belong in this group, or that if Kosovo stays in, so too must South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus. Check out the List of unrecognized countries for a very useful breakdown, fitting my cut-off, which yields a clear and unbiased split. PolScribe (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a useful compromise: a state is included if it recognised by at least half of UN member states. This is not as objective as my solution, but it yields an uncontroversial outcome and is in keeping with international law. If we are going to pick a magic number (I don't think we should, but hey) then that number should not be 46 but 98, half of the number of UN member states. This then also supports your contention on 'minimal recognition': by definition, any state only recognised by only a minority of UN member states is minimally recognised. Kosovo and South Ossetia stay out and everybody's happy. Do you have a good reason to choose 46 over 98? PolScribe (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, though, we already list partially recognised states with significant levels of recognition in other country templates. Listing Kosovo is merely following the precedent set a long time ago with the inclusion of Western Sahara and Taiwan. A UN recognition criterion doesn't work because, first, UN admission is not really determinative of anything (would you have excluded the People's Republic of China prior to 1971?); second, a substantial amount of time may elapse between international recognition and UN admission - in the case of the western Yugoslav republics there was a delay of about a year, likewise with the Baltic states; third, it doesn't reflect political realities - in the case of Kosovo, the majority of its immediate peers, the other states of Europe, accept Kosovo as a fellow state. As for the degree of recognition, as I argued above with regard to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I don't think numerical cutoffs are useful. What matters is the extent of recognition. Nobody recognises Transnistria; Northern Cyprus is recognised by only one country (representing 0.5% of UN member states); the Georgian breakaways by two countries (1% of UN member states); Taiwan is recognised by 11% of member states; Kosovo and Western Sahara by about 24%. 11%, 24% and your 50% are all arbitrary numbers, but they represent a significant number of recognitions. 0.5% and 1%, by contrast, are insignificant by any description. The criterion for inclusion should therefore be that they are recognised by a significant number of UN member states. Don't forget, this template isn't a "Template:States recognised by the UN", in which case your criteria would be appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Chris0. Removing Kosovo from this template would require us also to remove Republic of China from {{Countries of Asia}}, which would just start another edit war. And adding states with only minimal recognition wouldn't work, because next all the non-recognized states would want to be included. Significant recognition should be good enough criteria. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 04:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The real problem here is that you're defining minimal and significant recognition for your own purposes. Subjective limits allow POV to creep into the selection of states (as seems to have happened here) and gives rise to inconsistency. Kosovo, South Ossetia and Taiwan all have only minority recognition (minority being an objective not a subjective number: less than half of UN member states). As Chris O makes clear, you need to look at how statehood is treated. One recognition by a UN member is enough to consider a state recognised, or else we have to treat all of those minimally-recognised (i.e. less than half of states) equally. Less than half is not somehow 'significant'; it is minimal. Where is you boundary? 10? 15? 22? Who gets to decide this number? An arbitrary and objective view that the number of states recognising Kosovo is somehow 'significant', whereas some other number is not, is poor practice. We need to work on verifiable and broadly-accepted facts: the number of UN states recognising, and whether or not that number is more or less than a majority of UN members. Anything else is open to POV pushing, as has been the case with Kosovo. PolScribe (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And just for emphasis, Kosovo is the only state in the entire template which is only de facto independent. All of the rest are accepted as de jure independent states, not claimed by any other state. Kosovo is a glaring exception. You need consistent treatment, or else you're presenting a biased Point of View on the status of other, comparable states. PolScribe (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And, to treat Kosovo and South Ossetia differently is to be inconsistent with both List of European countries and List of unrecognized countries, which put both in the same category (and rightly so). I don't notice you argue there that Kosovo should be moved to some other category (and I see you're active in those pages). Please address directly why we should include a state with minority recognition, and only de facto independence, when not including others, and in conflict with standards on other established Wikipedia articles. You'll need a stronger argument than 'we've decided it's significant' to justify inclusion. PolScribe (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a precedent set in the {{Countries of Asia}}, where Republic of China (23 recognitions) is included and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (1 recognition) is not included. So by that precedent Kosovo definitely should be on this template. Although that precedent is no longer fully valid with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they are still much closer to TRNC situation than to ROC situation, which is why I would oppose them being in here. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 18:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no precedent set for states with two recognitions. Kosovo was added to the template with fewer than ten recognitions. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the question of Western Sahara serves only as a precedent to why Kosovo should NOT be included in this template. Western Sahara is not a state - it is a territory claimed by both Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognised by about the same number of states as Kosovo, but is not included in the Countries of Africa template. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is - see the bottom of Template:Countries of Africa - and Western Sahara is also listed under "North Africa" in the same template. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's included in the template as an unrecognised state, yes. And it is put together with Puntland and Somaliland, both lacking international recognition. So we should either put Kosovo in a section for partial- and unrecognised states on this template, together with Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, or remove it. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please change the Kosovo text I created {{Kosovorecognition}} to fix problems with syncing up numbers of recognition across articles, so please change:

"[[2008 Kosovo declaration of independence|Declared independence]] from Serbia on [[February 17]], [[2008]] and is recognised by 46 [[UN member states]]."

to:

"[[2008 Kosovo declaration of independence|Declared independence]] from Serbia on February 17, 2008 and is recognised by {{Kosovorecogition}} [[United Nations member states]]."

Note that I also de-linked dates per WP:DATE and avoided a redirect. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

Non UN members belong in their own section or not in it at all. Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia all share the same status in the world. the UN recognized owner does not control it, it is not a UN member and is recognised by at least 1 member state of the UN. Outside Europe, Taiwan and SADR do not control in full the territory they claim. This thing must be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Spain

Since when has Spain has part of its territory outside Europe?? It may have dependencies outside Europe but then it should be listed under the footnote of 3, which states part of that country's territory is outside Europe, not 1 where it has dependecies. It should not even have a footnote, I would edit it myself but it is protected. - RoyalMate1 02:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I feel stupid; I forgot about the Canary Islands, but are they a dependency or territory or any of that? RoyalMate1 02:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Canary Islands is one of the Autonomous Communities of Spain, so in administrational divisions it is equal to e.g. Andalusia, Catalonia and Murcia. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus

Hi all

It has been brought to my attention that Cyprus has been incorrectly listed as "2 Entirely in West Asia but having socio-political connections with Europe."

I am concerned that this statement is not correct. Cyprus is partly in Asia, and partly on the European continent.

I am proposing that this is discussed and the correction made by striking that footnote.

First consider this from the Cyprus university. [Geology of Cyprus]

Secondly this from the Cyprus geological unit cyprus geological unit

Thirdly this book - "Encyclopedia of European and Asian Regional Geology" by Eldridge M. Moores, Rhodes Whitmore Fairbridge pp 160-170

All three clearly state that Cyprus was formed when the African plate collided with the European plate and pushed Cyprus up from the seabed and then continued to push it against the Asian plate after turning it through 90%

These state that Cyprus is on the European plate from the Southern edge of the island to the middle of the Kyrenia mountains, and from there northwards it is the Asian plate.

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Greece

Greece has part of its territory outside Europe. --Kirov Airship (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Do you think that this island is in Europe? --Kirov Airship (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Link fixes

{{editprotect}} Some minor link fixes need to be made please (link fixes are allowed as an exemption to the guideline):

|title = [[List of European countries|Countries]] of [[Europe]]
² Entirely in [[Western Asia]] but having socio-political connections with Europe. 
[[List of United Nations member states|United Nations member states]].

Thank you. TJ Spyke 04:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is "part of Europe"?

Central Asia is not Europe. Please, be real. Jimtaip (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost regardless of the definition of Europe used, the north western corner of Kazakhstan lies in Europe. That's why Kazakhstan is included in this template with a note that only a part of its territory lies in Europe. See List of countries spanning more than one continent#Asia and Europe --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. It is transcontinental by geography, even if culturally and politically it is central asia.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As Kazakhstan#Geography says, "While located primarily in Asia, a small portion of Kazakhstan is also located west of the Urals in Eastern Europe." The Urals are traditionally considered to be the eastern border of Europe. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia, part 2

With the recent recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Nicaragua (which is hardly their "patron", to employ the term used by ChrisO), these two Caucasian States now have more than "minimal recognition". The above discussion is therefore moot. Now there is absolutely no legal difference between the standings of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, Taiwan and Western Sahara, all of which are non members of the United Nations with partial (albeit minority) international recognition. On these grounds, I would like to call for the inclusion of the two aforementioned post-Georgian republics on this Wikipedia list.201.83.165.226 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should wait a bit more before editing this template. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 19:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's still minimal recognition. Kosovo and Western Sahara have 46 recognisers and Taiwan has 23; that's a different league from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara is not a state, it is a territory. It is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which claims the land of Western Sahara. The republic is recognised by 43 states but is not included in the countries of Africa template. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, yes it is - both as Western Sahara (look at the North Africa line of Template:Countries of Africa) and as the SADR at the bottom of the template. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied in the following section. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Africa_topic#Removing_Puntland_.2F_Listing_Somaliland. The question of whether or not and how to incorperate partial or fully unrecognized states was resolved. Wikipedia was to remain neutral by including them, but under a seperate section. The finding there needs to be reflected here, with Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, the TRNC, Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.166.199 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

A request has been made to change the template to the consensus made at that template talk - see this section below. Outback the Koala (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2010 (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) 04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Including States with limited recognition as on the Europe topic

{{editrequest}} For consistency, could we please make the change. It would be modeled like on the Template:Countries of Africa. Thanks! Outback the koala (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

this was per the discussion afore mention directly above. Outback the koala (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I forgot to include the edit request, sorry. Consensus was formed at the above discussion. Please contact me on my talk page if anything is unclear. Outback the Koala (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please make the necessary changes to the /sandbox copy and then replace the request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I might have to do it after Easter though. busy, busy... Outback the Koala (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequest}}  Done made all changes to the /sandbox copy, and is ready to be moved in. Outback the koala (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

deployed —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands vs Kingdom of the Netherlands

Is it correct the link to the KoN page from this template? It sounds strange. The kingdom is also composed by semi-sovereign states and this page is like a double page of Netherlands. I don't think it's necessary a page with a link from this template from pages, in KoN-style, about the United Kingdom of the British Isles and the Commonwealth or Republic of France and the TOM. Regards --95.247.31.247 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a sovereign state. The Netherlands is apart of the KoN as an administrative division(one of three countries within the KoN), similar to England's relation within the Untied Kingdom. Outback the koala (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brambo, 1 July 2010

{{editprotected}} "Nagorno-Karabakh" should be changed to "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" (the article for the actual country)

Brambo (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

France

{{editprotected}} Should have the 3 footnote as well (New Caledonia, Mayotte et al aren't overseas departments like French Guiana or Martinique). VEO15 (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur strongly. However, note that footnote one should not be removed. Outback the koala (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have given France footnote "13" rather than 1 and 3. Note that there is a minute dot between the numbers for all the other countries with multiple qualifiers. --erachima talk 11:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there is, almost invisible.  Fixed Perhaps a comma would be clearer? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

I assume there must be a good reason why the countries that comprise the United Kingdom are not noted in this template, as they are all verifiably countries. So, rather than simply adding England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I though it best to discover why they aren't there. Has there been any previous discussion about their exclusion? Daicaregos (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

They are included, in the form of United Kingdom. As for seperate appearance, my guess 'cuz they aren't independant. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite a lot of countries would be included if you deleted them and just added European Union. But what would be the point of a template called 'Countries of Europe' that didn't include the Countries of Europe? As for "'cuz they aren't independant:" - if the template were called 'Independent Countries of Europe', Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England would have no place here, but it isn't. The template is called 'Countries of Europe' and Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are all verifiably countries and the are in Europe. So, is there any WP:NPOV reason why they should not be included? Daicaregos (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm merely speculating as to why they're excluded. Such exclusions in the past on other related articles, have followed the same pattern (not independant). GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Daicaregos, 11 October 2010

{{edit protected}} Please add Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England to the template. All are verified as countries by many reliable sources, some of which are noted on this page. Please note that no cogent argument has been made against their inclusion on the template talk page. Many thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This has been discussed at great length, for instance at Talk:List of sovereign states (check the archives). In that list, the constituent countries are listed as part of the United Kingdom list item. This template doesn't have room for that level of detail, so Scotland et al. are left out. Favonian (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do not agree with your decision. This is not a template of sovereign states. It is a template of countries. It is not our place to decide whether we think of these places as countries or not. The fact is that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are all verified as countries by reliable sources. Including areas of Europe, which are reliably sourced as countries, on the countries of Europe template conforms to the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of NPOV. Not including these countries here is a demonstrating a POV that they are not countries. Daicaregos (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Favonian's response seems to be irrelevant. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are not sovereign states, but they are countries, according to some definitions, including those used within the UK. If this template covers sovereign states, it should be named Sovereign states of Europe. If it is named Countries of Europe, it should include Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

E/S/W/NI aren't equal to the UK. If you wish to include them? you'll have to put them under the UK entry. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no suggestion, by anyone, that they are "equal to the UK". But, they are countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle if they appear simply in alphabetical order with France and the United Kingdom then the template will be suggesting they are equal. If they appear in brackets after the UK like my example below, then they get mentioned and the template does not mislead people about their status. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

They are verified as countries by many reliable sources. An editor's opinion on some perceived level of quality is worthless. They are countries,which are in Europe: they belong on a template showing countries in Europe. If there is any Wikipedia policy superseding Verify and NPOV please provide it here. Daicaregos (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose their inclusion in alphabetical order on this template. If they are to be added it should be after the United Kingdom in brackets, I have seen a template that does it that way which atleast includes them on the list, but makes clear they are part of the UK still which is vital. One moment whilst i hunt for the template example BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I cant find the template ive seen that does it for the UK countries, but here is an example.. Template:Countries of North America. The way parts of France/Netherlands is handled is how England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland should be shown in the template if at all. When this was last discussed centrally, it was agreed that just because a title has country in it does not mean it must include every entity in the world some may describe as countries. To many people the definition of country is a sovereign state. As i say, im fine with them appearing in brackets after the UK and i think thats how we could handle this issue on many templates and in some articles. But it is absolutely not appropriate for England to be in line with France and the United Kingdom. It will simply cause more confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think they need to be included at all. As separate historical entities, they have many of the hallmarks of "countries" and it is not entirely wrong to call them such, but they have no place in an overall list of world or European countries. In modern political terms, E/S/W/NI have less autonomy than a great many other subentities of nation states so I personally think it would be silly to include them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 12:14, 12 October 2010

Really good that editors feel able to share their personal opinions about what is or isn't a 'proper' country (even those who prefer to remain anonymousbot signed now), thanks. I ask that any further discussion trying to justify the exclusion of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England from a template of European countries be policy-based, and contain reasons why it is acceptable to ignore Neutral point of view, which (just in case they prefer not to follow the link) says: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Daicaregos (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy and rules are not a matter of point of view but the application and interpretation of those rules inevitably is. An analagous situation is the constitution and laws of the United States, which are clearly written and not subject to opinion. However, the application and interpretation of those rules is down to personal opinion, hence why there are nine supreme court justices who do not always agree on every decision. So that's why I tagged the above comments with a "personally" - others may not agree with me.

Regarding the issue at hand, you can quote as many Wikipedia policies as you like, but (and again, this is my interpretation of the rules) it does not seem in the spirit of NPOV to make an exception of one nation state within Europe by listing its subnational entities, just because for historical reasons those entities happen to be called countries. If the Polish government carved the country into 1 km square blocks and called each one a "country" would you include those in the list as well? Anyway, let me sign this time. Apolgies for forgetting this earlier:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

We could always do what has been done a few times when this annoying little problem comes up thanks to the UKs internal politics which causes trouble for the rest of the world. Rename the template to Sovereign states in the same way List of countries was simply redirected to the sovereign states page, when the problem came up there. That way there is no confusion about what exactly is being listed or not. Same thing was recently done at List of European countries which was moved to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. The definition of "country" has different meanings, it is sadly a very weak term these days. I am sorry it is usually always sparked by a UK issue, these are very troubled times. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked that editors discuss how this relates to policy. Whatever our view of "country" may be is irrelevant. They are verified as countries by many reliable sources. Please read Neutral point of view then discuss why you think does not apply in this case. Daicaregos (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It would not be neutral to give England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the same WP:Weight as other entities. Yes there are sources that describe these entities as countries, but as has been shown on many occasions, international listings do not always state every entity under the sun that can be called a country. There is a HUGE difference between France and England. We should not mislead or confuse people by having in a single table or template England, France, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, United Kingdom. You know this is a highly controversial issue and has led to huge problems in the past, resulting in many long discussions about why they can not be treated the same way. I am happy to support this template name being changed, that would take the template in line with "country" articles that have already had to be moved thanks to this very issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing sovereign state and country (I have linked them for your convenience). With respect to country: There is a HUGE difference between the USA and Andorra, and between San Marino and China, but they are each verified by reliable sources as countries, so they are rightly shown on this template. Daicaregos (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Andorra, USA, China and San Marino are all sovereign countries and members of the United Nations. Something England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not as they are part of another country already in the list, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As has already been pointed out, these "countries" have less autonomy than American states. England does not even have a government lol. As i said before, when this was last discussed centrally, when we invited people from all over wikipedia (over 100 lists / wikiprojects were canvassed), it was clear there was no support for the position that any entity known as a country MUST be listed. It would be misleading and confusing for England / Scotland / Wales / Northern Ireland / France / United Kingdom to be in line. If you are concerned about this then we should rename the template, something that was suggested the last time this came up here. And would take this template into line with the articles, which have already been changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that Andorra, USA, China and San Marino are all sovereign countries and members of the United Nations is irrelevant (yet again), as this is not a template of sovereign countries and members of the United Nations of Europe. And 'lol'ing that England has no government and comparing its autonomy would only be relevant if you were either attempting to define a country (rather than the NPOV way by using reliable sources) or soapboxing. Please do neither. It is a country; it is in Europe; it should be on a template of Countries of Europe. Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion they belong in this template, others feel differently. As i said im prepared to support their inclusion provided it is done like.... United Kingdom (England · Northern Ireland · Scotland · Wales). But for the sake of stability and to keep the template in line with articles which have already been changed to deal with this problem. Country has different definitions, lets change it to sovereign states to avoid any confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is only my opinion that we should use reliable sources to verify the term ... and they do. Daicaregos (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is your opinion that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be added to this template. That insertion if not done in the way i suggested would result in misleading and confusing many people when they see United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland, France, England and Northern Ireland all in line together as equals. They are in no way equals. France and the United Kingdom are equal. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are only equal to each other not to all the other countries on the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course they should be added to this template: reliable sources verify they are countries, and they are in Europe. It is called WP:NPOV on Wikipedia, which has a lot to recommend it. There can be no NPOV reason to exclude these countries. There is no reason for people to be confused. This is an encyclopaedia, people should expect to discover things they weren't aware of previously. That is why they come here: to be informed. Daicaregos (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO (which isn't worth much, I suppose) E/W/S/NI don't belong on this article or any simliar articles. However, at this point, I'm more anxious for consistancy across these articles, templates etc etc (whether that be inclusion or exclusion). So please, let's try & work this out at WP:COUNTRIES. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't. Editor (any editor) opinion is not what is required, especially when the editor does not even bother to provide a reason for that 'HO'. Should you get around to giving reasons, please also explain why you think Neutral point of view, a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia, should be ignored. Daicaregos (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If we want consistency, we should certainly rename this template "Sovereign states in Europe". In line with the other country pages that have been renamed or redirected for this very same reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No argument here. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:COUNTRIES

I left a note at that WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion at WikiProject, we need to make a choice on all these related articles & templates. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Note

This template has been unprotected. It is contrary to our policies to restrict editing privileges to admins on a permanent basis. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone is bold and places England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland as countries in line with France and Germany, they should be reverted. Whilst this debate is ongoing they should not be added at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming this template

There appears to be a lot of editors prepared to support the renaming of this template to

. This would take the template in line with List of countries and List of European countries, both of which now either redirect or have been moved to a title with sovereign state in. It would also bring it into line with the other template {{Non-sovereign territories of Europe}} and of course would resolve the issue of what is or is not a country and what does or does not belong on this template.

What exactly do we have to do to get a template moved, does it require a standard RM? There seems to be support here and over at WP:Countries for this change to be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be submitted to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Though the proposal has received support over the last day or so, it's my experience that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial move when countries/nations are involved. Favonian (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)