Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Russia is a European country

Russia is classified as a European country by the United nation and the European Union. Thats official statistics. Juanochoa1234567$ (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is the largest country in Asia. To claim it is not an Asian country as well as European is absurd. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Not it’s not. Russia conquered that land is a territory of Russia. Russia always represents themselves as European. And on official website Russia is European. Juanochoa1234567$ (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Denmark in North America since 99 percent of its territory is there? No it’s just ignorance. Juanochoa1234567$ (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of Siberia it’s uninhabitable and unpopulated. Be smart please.New York has more population than Siberia. Russia is a European country. Juanochoa1234567$ (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

You can’t change someone origin by conquering other land Russia is in Europe. Juanochoa1234567$ (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Russia is located in Asia as well as Europe. Being culturally dominated by the European part does not change actual geography. Nor does being sparsely populated mean the land doesn't exist. And yes, the Danish Realm is partly in North America and is included on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in North America, though Greenland has an autonomous status so is often considered separate from European Denmark. Wikipedia really doesn't care what the Russian government thinks in its nationalist propaganda, we follow independent reliable sources that tend to recognize objective realities. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Russia and Crimea

Russian Population says "Crimea included". You cannot include the people of Crimea in that figure because no other country acknowledged the annexation that is against international law. imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.10.249.232 (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Palestine Area

Palestine's area is shown as "6,220" with no "km^2" after it. This means that if one was to order the countries of Asia by area, Palestine shows up first, instead of between Cyprus and Brunei as it should be. I cannot fix this issue as I do not have a Wikipedia account, but I hope that somebody sees this message and corrects this typo. Thank you!

Order of countries

The "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is listed in the 'T' section and the "People's Republic of China" is listed in the 'C' section. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof for details.

Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)".

Readin (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't agree with the alphabetising system, but if it's the rule then I can't dispute. From the same WP page you listed:

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."

I get that we're using short-form names on the left column, but these particular short-form names ("China" and "Taiwan") are politically disputed and ambiguous terms, so we need to stick to the long-form names to avoid antipathy from other editors. Night w (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources show a clear usage of these short form names. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sovereignty

Why the desire to separate the list into sections for sovereign and other? It will invite trouble as people bicker over which states are sovereign and which aren't. Readin (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Palestine

I am missing Palestine in this list. Why has it not been listed? If the problem is the missing full diplomatic recognition, then compare Europe, how partial recognised countries/territories could be included. FHessel (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Image:TRNC_location.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:TRNC_location.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:TRNC location.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

background colors?

What do the background colors (the light blue and green) on the table mean? Why no legend indicating the meanings? --StarGeek (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

India's map

India's map is missing........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.23.19 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia!!

I was under the impression that Australia is considered an Asian country (It is in the Asia pacific region)... Geographically this is true. Therefore why has it been omitted from the list of asian countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.116.72 (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia is a separate continent. --StarGeek (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title

There has been an extensive debate over at Talk:List of European countries and territories about what should and should not be included in the list because of the title. Most editors there support moving the page to either List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe or List of European sovereign states and territories. If the European list is moved it is likely this list will be moved as well in the next few days unless there is opposition to such a move here. It would help to avoid confusion and disputes if the all of these lists (countries and territories by continents) have the same title. Saying sovereign state rather than country is a more precise term and is in line with the fact List of countries redirects to the list of sovereign states article.

If you have thoughts on the title please raise them here or ideally join the debate at Talk:List of European countries and territories. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenia is currently a member state of Council of Europe See http://hub.coe.int/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe Then why is Armenia in list of Recognized Asian States? Where is citation, reference for the claim? Please verify. Wikiwake16 (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

How is Armenia in Europe and Asia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.124.123 (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

EGYPT

You forgot adding EGYPT, as the Sinai Peninsula is placed in ASIA.--83.39.41.244 (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Under Geographical boundaries of Asia, Armenia and Cyprus is listed as countries that "are entirely in Western Asia but are sociopolitically European countries". Israel should be added to that list too.

Approximately half of Israel's Jewish population is European or of European descent. The rest are Jews whose ancestors came from the Middle East and North Africa. Some of those of Middle Eastern and North African descent are actually speak also European languages such as French, Italian and Ladino and were connected to Europe in many ways even before immigrating to Israel. Many Israelis maintained French, Italian, Spanish, British, Polish, German or other European passports. Although Israel not "geographically" fit into the traditional geographical boundaries of Europe, Israel (and Israelis) sees itself culturally, politically and economically part thereof. The closest countries to Israel's western border are the EU countries (particularly Cyprus).

Israel considered part of Europe in all International sports events and associations including FIFA, FIBA and the Olympic games. Its is a member of the European divisions of international sport associations (such as UEFA). Just recently Israel hosted the 2013 UEFA European Under-21 Championship, the 2014 European Weightlifting Championships and the European Fencing Cadet and Junior Championships 2014. It will host the European Short Course Swimming Championships in 2015 among other European sports events in the following years.

According to Wikipedia, Israel has been represented frequently at the Eurovision Song Contest, the Israel Broadcasting Authority (IBA) being a member of the European Broadcasting Union which is responsible for the event. Israel participated for the first time in 1973. Israel has participated a total of 36 times, winning the contest on three occasions: in 1978, 1979, and 1998. As a result, Israel has hosted the contest twice, in 1979 and 1999 (in 1980 the IBA declined to host the contest for a second successive year). Israel has never finished last in the contest.

Israel is also a neighboring and associated state of the European Union. The relations between the two are framed in the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP), the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, and the Union for the Mediterranean.

Israel is a member of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). In the UN, Israel is a member of the Western European and Others Group. It is also a member of Horizon 2020 (The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation) and of many other EU programs. UNESCO World Heritage Centre listed Israel under "Europe and North America"

According to Wikipedia, various Israeli ministers have expressed that they would like to see Israel in the EU. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who visited Israel in February 2010, said that his "greatest desire" was to see Israel join the European Union. The European Union's former High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, stated in 2009 that Israel had a very significant relationship with the EU, amounting almost to full cooperation through participation in the EU's programs. Moreover, like most western European countries, Israel is a member of the OECD and from an economic perspective matches the European Union extremely well, with essentially every significant economic indicator (GDP per capita, government deficit, public debt level, current account surplus, inflation level, etc.) closely matching the overall EU average (If Israel will eventually join the EU it wont be the first country who located geographically in Western Asia. Cyprus is an EU full member and it is considered to be in Western Asia as well).--Abtalion (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Area

I recently sourced this entire article, and in doing so I used the total area given by the CIA for the entries on this table. I think it is inconsistent for just one entry not list the total area. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The feature for sorting by area wasn't working right; it would sort everything beginning with 1 together, whether it was 100 or 17 million. I just finished adding coding to each of the 48 sovereign states, to make it sort the right way. When I finished, I went back to the article and I still counted 48 countries. So I guess I did it right. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Thanks Stephen Kosciesza, your work across these articles is much appreciated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital of Israel

A dispute has arisen in the article as to whether Tel Aviv should be shown as the "recognised" capital of Israel, in addition to Jerusalem being shown as the "claimed" capital. Whilst the international community does not generally recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital, - see Positions on Jerusalem, Tel Aviv does not perform any of the functions of a capital city nor is recognised as such. A capital city is a city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government (all three arms of the Israeli government - Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are in Jeruslem). None are in Tel Aviv, apart from one government ministry. Although most (but not all) foreign embassies are situated in Tel Aviv, this does not indicate that the foreign governments concerned view Tel Aviv as Israel's capital, any more than those countries with embassies in Herzlia, Ramat Gan, Ramat Hasharon, Givataim or Mevasseret Zion view such cities as Israel's capital. It is therefore inaccurate to show Tel Aviv as an alternative capital of Israel. Davshul (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it again. It should stay out for the time being. I don't think the variety of definitions of what a capital is matter in this case. The addition is unsourced. I've removed it on that basis. If the editor can find sources that actually say that various states and/or organizations "recognize" Tel Aviv as the capital they can bring them here to be discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tricky. It's a complicated issue. Tel Aviv is treated as a capital by other countries due to its being a former capital. They explicitly don't recognise Jerusalem as the capital, without giving a specific other claim. I had placed Tel Aviv to note the opposite claim, although perhaps I was semantically too inaccurate. Would it be better to change the Jerusalem note from "claimed" to "unrecognised", with a slight expansion to explain the nonrecognition? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem was the capital of Israel since its founding in 1948. It remains the capital today. Capitals don't require foreign embassies to be located within their borders.

The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East is incredibly succinct on Jerusalem's status: "[Jerusalem is the c]apital of the State of Israel though not recognized as such by most of the international community" (491). Other reference books that explicitly denote Jerusalem as the capital of Israel include The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2007 (p. 785), The Statesman's Yearbook (2005 ed., p. 939), TIME Almanac 2005 with Information Please (p. 797), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (p. 285), The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 11, p. 94a), Atlas of World Geography (Rand McNally: 2000, p. 44), Webster's New Explorer Desk Encyclopedia (2003 ed., p. 628), and Britanica Online Encyclopedia. --GHcool (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tel Aviv was the capital for a few months in 1948, before the government shifted to Jerusalem. I'm not disputing the fact that it functions as the capital, or that Israel treats it as one, hence I placed it first in the box. Thanks for the sources though, I'll look through them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As usual, the problem with succinct statements like "Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel though..." is that much (and arguably all) of what is being referred to as "Jerusalem" isn't actually in Israel, it's occupied by Israel, hence Resolution 478. Since this has been discussed at length on various talk pages and no one is ever going to be completely happy with the wording, it's probably something that needs a project-wide standard boilerplate text+footnote agreed at WP:IPCOLL any decade now. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's Israeli under Israeli law, which is why I think the current footnote (which I took from another page) starts with that position. I feel a note of the explicit nonrecognition would be good in front of the embassy in Tel Aviv sentence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The 1949 armistice lines are recognized by much of the world as borders of sovereign Israel (for good and for bad), therefore the claim that no part of Jerusalem is in Israel is false. Beyond that, a sovereign state is not required to get permission from foreign bodies when choosing its capital. In other words, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Or...not false according to UN General Assembly Resolution 303(IV) of 1949. Ignoring the corpus separatum aspects, "Jerusalem" describes a spatial object that is only partly in Israel as you say. Therefore the thing you are calling "Jerusalem" is patently not the same as the thing that is Israel's capital. The "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" mantra confuses rather than clarifies and causes endless problems here for no good reason in my view. It's important to be clear what "Jerusalem" refers to when the term is used. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few countries have stated that they would recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital if Palestine was allowed to have its capital in East Jerusalem. Besides some Arab countries, I don't think many countries are explicitly opposed to Israel sovereignty over the west of Jerusalem. However, this too much detail for a footnote. A link to Positions on Jerusalem seems useful to me. I think that would be easily worked in. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I have never heard that Tel Aviv was declared capital of Israel for a few months in 1949. As far as I know, it is true that the Knesset met in Tel Aviv, and that some government offices were in Tel Aviv, but it was never a declared capital nor was it ever recognized as such. But then, I could be wrong. Do you have a source for that claim? --Ravpapa (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't declared one, it acted as one, as you say.

I agree with Chipmunkdavis. Jerusalem is identified as the capital of Israel, followed by a brief, but accurate footnote and a link to Positions on Jerusalem is all that is necessary. --GHcool (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sabah and Sarawak are dependencies territories

Hi Chipmunkdavis I do owe this from ANNEX B of the members of the Commonwealth
Omdo (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitions:
Dependent Territory: A territory belonging by settlement, conquest or annexation to the British Crown or to an independent Commonwealth country.

please see also:
Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 (c. 60), and
Malaysia Act 1963

Nowhere in any of those texts does it call Sabah and Sarawak dependent territories; this is because they are not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Statehood of Israel

As there is division of the states on the basis of whether international community recognize their sovereignty or not, I would propose that State of Israel must be shown in the category of "Partially recognized state", as from page International recognition of Israel, we know that there are more than 30 UN member states which do not recognize the State of Israel. Alok Bansal 10:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokagrawal8 (talk • contribs)

Partially recognised states mostly involve those cut out of the international system. Israel is a UN member and is considered a full state. CMD (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why is State of Palestine which is recognised as a sovereign state by more than 2/3 of the members of UN on January 18, 2012 still in the section of the Partially recognised state. As it is clearly evident that majority of international community has accepted its sovereign status. Alok Bansal (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Common practice on wikipedia is to use UN membership as a firm benchmark, as it means they clearly do participate fully in the international system. CMD (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Kazakhstan

How can Kazakhstan possibly be considered part of Europe??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.200.66 (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ural River, some of Kazakhstan is to the west of it. CMD (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Figures for Russia

Can we alter the figures of Russia so that it includes only the Asian part of Russia?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I kind of agree. Russia is a European country based on the United nation and the European Union. They should put that Siberia is a territory that Russia conquered. Juanochoa1234567$ (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Map of Taiwan area

The map that shows Taiwan has misleading image from pre WWII era, can we switch it with this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:People%27s_Republic_of_China_(orthographic_projection).svg

Reason:(Outer) Mongolia is included in ROC the image which is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubold (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Uncited claims

"Geographical boundaries of Asia" has no reference sources whatsoever. This is a major WP:VERIFY vio, and one that certainly needs addressing if we're calling, say, Israel an Asian country. --209.122.114.237 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of predecessors of sovereign states in Asia

Each article is excellent. Each could exist without the other. The merge target has more complete prose about the topic, the merge source has the historic countries. This needs the touch of a content expert. My view, even immediately after I reviewed and accepted this at WP:AFC is that the resultant eventual article will be a substantially better resource after this merge.

I might have performed the merge as a technical exercise in adding a column to a table, but I have a feeling that there may be a little more to it than just doing that, hence this proposal and the request for an expert. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I have invited Nick Mitchell 98, the contributing author of the proposed source of the merge to come here to comment and participate in the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I support keeping the articles separate due to the differences of information on them, the possibility of List of predecessors of sovereign states in Asia being further expanded by other users (which would make the proposed merged page too long), and the success of other separate "List of predecessors of sovereign states in ____" pages. However, I will wait to see the general consensus before making a decision. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Egypt

Why isn't Egypt on this list? The Sinai Peninsula is in Asia. Jon1901 (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509204646/http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml to http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205042947/http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/1999/leibasica/index_uk.asp to http://bo.io.gov.mo/bo/i/1999/leibasica/index_uk.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629213931/http://www.gov.mo/egi/Portal/index.htm to http://www.gov.mo/egi/Portal/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir

I have deleted Jammu and Kashmir from this list.

As to the claimed evidence: 1)"Listed independent by UN Secretariat" No it wasn't. In an index list of countries/geographical areas, it was included. With the lack of a direct link, one cannot see what other geographical areas are included. Inclusion in a index list is not declaration of a considered position on a matter of dispute.

2) "judged as sovereign by Jammu and Kashmir High Court" The summary of that decision would be an assertion of autonomy, not of sovereignty. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court itself exists by virtue of the Constitution of India, its leadership is confirmed by the Chief Justice of India, and its decisions are subject to being overturned by the Supreme Court of India. All this shows that even the court that made the declaration is not established as part of a sovereign state.

3) "Recognised by (sic) Great Britain under section 7 of Indian Independence Act" Blatantly and flagrantly disingenuous: it's status was pending for about 10 weeks in 1947, it has been acknowledged by the United Kingdom (there is no foreign affairs department, or any other government department, for Great Britain) to be part of India ever since.

No international recognition: no justification for inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Table

The table is severely messed up as the categories don't reflect the content. Someone who has worked on it before, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:5D2B:A601:F5A3:CE8C:B976:DEFF (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714023625/http://mfaabkhazia.net/en/abkhazia to http://www.mfaabkhazia.net/en/abkhazia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403211555/http://www.gio.gov.tw/ to http://www.gio.gov.tw/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829013340/http://www.malaysia.gov.my/EN/Main/MsianGov/PutrajayaFederalAdminCapital/Pages/PutrajayaFederalAdminCapital.aspx to http://www.malaysia.gov.my/EN/Main/MsianGov/PutrajayaFederalAdminCapital/Pages/PutrajayaFederalAdminCapital.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Palestine and Wikipedia

Dear oshwah

For the following reasons below, I am requesting that the number of sovereign states in all wikipedia related articles be 195- the 193 members of the UN, observer Vatican City, and observer state of Palestine (note; this was written in a fully objective and fact based basis and holds no prejudice or double standards in any of the sovereignty disputes regarding the partially recognized states);

- unlike the other states with limited recognition (abkhazia, Taiwan, North Cyprus, Kosovo, etc), all have 113 (~57%) or less recognitions by the UN, while Palestine has 136 recognitions, which amount to ~70.5% of the UN, which gives it limited recognition, but far beyond the partially recognised level. Additionally, states like China, Cyprus, Armenia, and Israel are also disputed by one or more UN members and still have sufficient enough recognition

- None of the states with partial or no recognition (including Kosovo) have neither member or observer status in the UN and do not participate in anyway while palestine is an observer (alongside Vatican City, another non member sovereign state)

- Contrary to popular belief, despite its limited recognition, no country (not even the ones that do not recognize Palestine) except Israel disputes palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem and actually support the creation of a Palestinian state in these territories, a goal also recognized and supported by the UN while the rest of the partially recognized states all are either (partly or fully) recognized as part of other countries and neither is their right to statehood.

- The UN did not fully reject Palestine, as it has granted it non member observer STATE status (along with some rights such as a permanent mission, it’s flag in its HQ, the right to join international conventions, etc), it is designated as ‘the state of palestine’ in official UN documents, and its observer status vote in 2012 ( among most votes on the issue ) witness an automatic majority. In addition, the security council did not reject the application for statehood in 2011, it just that UNSC members grew divided on the issue and was unable to muster a consensus. It is the palestinians that decided to put it on hold due to US pressure among other threats

I sincerely hope that the editing community will change Palestine’s categorization in all related Wikipedia articles, and this was all written in a neutral, objective, and fact based manner.

Talatastan (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Talatastan (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

There are several articles on Wikipedia that list sovereign states, and all of them include as sovereign states (i) the 193 members of the UN and (ii) Vatican City, an independent country whose sovereignty is held by the Holy See. This excludes de facto sovereign states with nontrivial levels of international recognition, to wit, the State of Palestine, the Republic of Kosovo and the Republic of China (Taiwan). While I believe that Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan have a better claim for being considered sovereign states than do other states with limited international recognition (such as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, and other states that are not recognized by more than a handful of UN members), I ultimately conclude that I agree with the position of Wikipedia's editing community that Vatican City should be grouped along with the 193 UN member states as fully recognized foreign states but that Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan should not be so classified.

Why treat Vatican City, which is not a UN member state, the same as UN member states? First of all, its territory is not claimed by any other country. In fact, the only country that possibly could claim its territory--Italy, which surrounds Vatican City on all sides--has signed a treaty renouncing all rights to sovereignty over Vatican City's territory and recognizing the Holy See's sovereignty and Vatican City's independence. Moreover, the main reason why Vatican City is not a member of the UN is that, to date, it never has expressed interest in becoming a member state, much less formally applied for membership. In addition, Vatican City's international recognition as an independent country is as widespread as all but a few nations: 189 of the 193 UN members recognize Vatican City as an independent country whose sovereignty is held by the Holy See, with the only exceptions being the People's Republic of China (which does not maintain diplomatic relations with countries that officially recognize Taiwan), North Korea (which Vatican City does not recognize, given its position that South Korea is the rightful government of the entire Korean Peninsula), the Kingdom of Bhutan and the Republic of the Maldives. The case for Vatican City to be treated the same as UN member states is pretty close to unassailable.

By contrast, Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan do not have anywhere near the same level of international recognition as Vatican City. It is true that the State of Palestine and the Republic of Kosovo both have been recognized by over half of UN states, and Taiwan is de facto recognized by a majority of UN states (albeit not de jure because of threats from the People's Republic of China), but they do not approach the 98%-level of recognition enjoyed by Vatican City. While Kosovo, to date, has not applied for UN membership, Taiwan is a former UN member that was expelled and replaced by the People's Republic of China, and the State of Palestine applied for and was rejected for membership (although the UN did throw it a bone by changing its designation from "non-member observer entity" to "non-member observer state"). One thing that those three de facto independent countries have in common is that they face claims upon their territory from UN members (Israel, Serbia and the People's Republic of China, respectively). These are the reasons why Palestine, Kosovo and Taiwan are listed in Wikipedia articles as de facto sovereign states with partial, or limited, international recognition.

In my opinion, the consensus that has developed to date among Wikipedia editors regarding the classification of "sovereign countries" and "de facto sovereign states with partial, or limited, international recognition" is the correct one, but I invite the rest of the editing community to provide their opinions and input on this matter. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

accuracy concerns

Hi,

I am doing an assignment for geography and one of the sources I looked at for reference is this page, specifically because I am covering contemporary Asian civilization and one aspect of it, of course is political Asian geography. However, at first glimpse, I noticed nothing wrong with the list of countries compiled, but I actually did further research (even on Wikipedia itself) and found that the list does not accurately reflect the true number of sovereign states. One reason I find inaccuracies here is that the list is over-simplified and binary. For example, in the 'Non UN' Category, Palestine is included, however, without getting into the politics and Israel (for the sake of easily triggered users), Ive done some research as to how many un countries there are and while it is true they are not a member of the UN, in 2012 they have been ranked just below that status as a 'non member observer state as opposed toentity, just like the vatican city and that its worldwide recognition as a state tantamount to nearly 140 countries, meaning their status as a state is not disputed by the majority of states, similarly to Israel (with the exception of Arab and Muslim governments, although some have clandestine ties with Israel). Furthermore, Taiwan (ROC), although being de jure recognized by a handful of states dependent on it for AID and banned from several world bodies, including the UN, their de facto recognition would tantamount to a good majority of states. Meanwhile, the rest are rebel breakaway countries who are barely recognized (for example, north Cyprus is recognized by only one country- Turkey), so they should be grouped together. Therefore, I am suggesting that either..

a) Palestine and Taiwan should be classified independent of either category b) Palestine should be in a category independent of the current two categories and Taiwan should join the TRNC and rebel breakaway caucasus states c)Palestine be grouped in the first category which will be renamed to 'UN Member and observer states' similarly to many other country related article, and the rest in the other or d) Same as C but Taiwan be in a category independent of the two, similarly to how the state departments website shows all the countries recognized by the US and a 'other' section containing Taiwan

I believe that either 4 of these options will serve in the interest of everybody (including easily triggered nationalists) and will conclude a futile, pointless, and ongoing raging debate that has disrupted the order that the wiki community works so hard to maintain. I am gladly awaiting anyone to input their feedback, thoughts or opinions on my suggestions

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 19:11 PM, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kawhilaugh42, the issue of how to classify the State of Palestine and the Republic of China (Taiwan) has been discussed previously (see prior items in the Talk page), and the consensus that was formed at the time was to limit the list of sovereign countries to those that have been admitted as member states by the UN. Of course, you have every right to raise this issue once again (facts change, and so could the consensus of the editing community), but please be assured that it is not the case that the State of Palestine and Taiwan were listed among de facto states with limited international recognition based on a whim or caprice.

Regarding the breadth of the State of Palestine's international recognition, you are correct that its sovereignty has been recognized by 137 UN members, and that it is a UN observer state (the same status as the Holy See, which incontrovertibly has sovereignty over Vatican City). However, you forgot to mention that the State of Palestine has applied for, and was rejected for, UN membership (which is not the case for Vatican City). You also forgot to mention that the list of countries that recognize the State of Palestine's sovereignty is disproportionately composed of small and/or poor countries without much international influence, and that the State of Palestine has not been recognized as a sovereign state by any of the G7 nations (US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Canada) nor by other major economies such as Australia, South Korea, Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, Denmark, Mexico, Portugal, Netherlands, Austria or Ireland. It simply is not true that there is general international recognition of the State of Palestine's sovereignty, and for this reason I believe that it should remain listed with de facto states with limited international recognition.

Taiwan is a similar case, given that it has applied and been rejected for UN membership (in fact, it actually was expelled from the UN when it recognized the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of all China). Relatively few countries formally recognize Taiwan's sovereignty, but this number is misleading: The Republic of China (Taiwan) still maintains that it is the legitimate government of all of China, and the People's Republic of China will break off diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes Taiwan, so most major economies have established a policy of not recognizing Taiwan's sovereignty formally so as to appease the People's Republic of China but having unofficial diplomatic relations with and de facto recognition of the Taiwanese government. Like the State of Palestine, Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state with limited international recognition.

I agree with you, however, that the other Asian de facto states with limited international recognition (South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and Artsakh) have virtually no international recognition, and that it would be misleading for readers to come away with the impression that those barely recognized de facto states have similar international standing to Palestine and Taiwan. Perhaps a solution to this conundrum would be to classify the State of Palestine and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as de facto states with limited international recognition and to classify South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and Artsakh as de facto states with virtually no international recognition. What do you think? And what do other editors think? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

question

Taiwan was kicked out of the UN, the four de facto states were never in the UN, and membership and observer ship in the UN guarantees statehood and "general recognition".

Arabistan (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is true that the Republic of China's government was expelled from the UN in the early 1970s (and replaced with the People's Republic of China), and I would add that the Republic of China has applied for membership and been rejected several times. However, it is de facto recognized by most UN members, including most of the world's largest economies (although not by the People's Republic of China, of course). And I would posit that being rejected for UN membership does not automatically mean that a de facto state with substantial (although not general) international recognition should be classified with de facto states with little or no international recognition; after all, the State of Palestine applied for UN membership and was rejected (or, technically, its supporters in the UN let it withdraw its application before it was voted down by the Security Council), and I certainly don't think that it should be classified with Abkhazia, etc. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

OKOK hoooold up;

number one: what do you mean by "de facto" recognized, its either you're recognized or not so no such thing as de facto recognition cuz its essentially useless

number two: the UNSC NEVER VOTED on palestines membership (and besides 8 or 9 would've voted for) smartass

number three: All country related articles on wikipedia objectively show un members, observers, then kosovo and the rest

Arabistan (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Smartass"? You've been editing for a couple of weeks and (i) you immediately jump into the Israeli-Pakestinian conflict (which is not permitted for new editors) and (ii) you start insulting fellow editors? I recommend that you read up on the rules for editing Wikipedia.

If the UN Security Council really was going to approve the State of Palestine's application for membership, why did the State of Palestine's supporters tell the Palestinian Authority into withdrawing the application for membership? The fact remains that Palestine applied for UN membership and withdrew the application before it was voted down by the Security Council.

And as for what "de facto recognition" of Taiwan means, you should read the article on international recognition of the Republic of China, which explains the nuances of government-to-government relations between Taiwan and almost all developed countries (and quite a few developing countries as well). Briefly, because the country with the second-largest economy in the world (the People's Republic of China) immediately terminates diplomatic relations with any country that officially recognizes the Republic of China, very few states formally have recognized the Republic of China, yet the maintain "nondiplomatic" relations with the Taiwanese government and have active commercial relations with the country.

In any event, your edit does not comport with NPOV, is not the result of consensus, and is riddled with orthographic and punctuation mistakes. Again, I recommend that you *discuss* the matter in the Talk page (which is different from mounting ad hominem attacks). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Well,

I believe we got off on the wrong foot, and I was not trying to insult anybody, i was just joking around, so no harm intended, i regret the lack of professionalism, so i apologize if you took offence furthermore, telling from reading previous editors' chats on the talk page, trying to reach change by consensus on this page proves futile, and PLEASE do not accuse me of being a POV Israeli or Palestinian keyboard warrior as I am simply going by the general consensus of Wikipedia and, my views and sympathies aside, I simply do not care or intend to further any political agenda. And btw how come you are the only one that gets a say and a veto of what goes on this page if we go by a consensus?

PS i also would like to show you this; "Common practice on wikipedia is to use UN membership as a firm benchmark, as it means they clearly do participate fully in the international system. CMD (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2012" which Palestine does Arabistan (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

The information on this page was the result of a consensus that resulted after participation of several editors with different points of view, and different preferences regarding how countries without generalized international recognition should be listed. This included editors who openly wanted to equate the level of recognition enjoyed by the State of Palestine with the level of recognition enjoyed by UN member states, but who eventually agreed that Palestine wasn't quite at that level of international recognition, but who nonetheless did not wish to see it grouped with de facto states with little to no international recognition (such as South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, etc.). Unlike the permanent members of the UN Security Council, I certainly do not have "veto power" on this, or any other, Wikipedia page; my edits have been made to preserve the status quo ante while the issues that you raised are debated in this article's Talk page. You say that you believe that "trying to reach change by consensus on this page" is futile, but you commenced editing on Wikipedia one or two weeks ago, so perhaps you are not the best judge on whether a consensus may be reached. So I think that you should make your arguments as to why Palestine should be grouped with Japan and Sri Lanka instead of with Taiwan, and why Taiwan (a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition) should be grouped with Abkhazia instead of with Palestine.

You claim that you "simply do not care or intend to further any political agenda." I hope that you are being honest when you say so, given that Wikipedia is not a public forum to express opinions, much less political agendas. But I must say that, in the week or two that you have been posting, you seem to have concentrated exclusively on editing articles so as to treat the State of Palestine as if it were a generally recognized sovereign state instead of as a state with substantial, but not general, international recognition and which is the subject of a raging territorial dispute with the State of Israel, which certainly could be construed as being in furtherance of a political agenda. Moreover, when the reasons for your edits include "Palestine and the occupied territories are not part of israel. It is an occupied territory and UN-recognized state," you appear to be taking an active stance in favor of one of the two sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I recommend that you take care not to cross the line between stating incontrovertible facts and posting POV positions that are more characteristic of issue advocacy, particularly when it relates to a field that Wikipedia specifically has identified as being controversial and that Wikipedia has reserved for discussion only among posters with a certain level of experience editing Wikipedia articles. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I am fixing these articles the way I am because many of wikipedias country pages list Un members and observers together, such as flags, parliaments and governments of asian states and states by continent, and even on wikipedias list of sovereign states article. I read about other editors such as Talatastan and its sock puppets as trying to install pro palestinian or pro israeli news, and even though you are right that my edits have disproportionately focused on Palestine, it is because throughout my research of this perennial and ceaseless conflict with israel (in part through wikipedia itself and both pro palestine and pro israel sources), and also comparing palestines situation with that of Kosovo, taiwan, etc (which i also read in depth about), I found that Palestine, diplomatically, is the least shut out of the international community compared to kosovo and roc (despite them functioning as countries on the ground) and, strictly speaking, all 9 other states with limited recognition. im 90% sure you will disagree with me, but these are my reasons;

the litmus test of any recognized state is the UN; Kosovo, Taiwan (since 1971), and the 7 other states have essentially zero representation in the UN, although taiwan is a WHO invited delegation and kosovos in the IMF and WB but nothing beyond that. up until 2012, Palestine was legally not a state for various historical and political reasons but out of frustration due to the stalled peace process, the phone self proclaimed Palestinian leader mahmoud abbas decided to apply for UN membership in 2011, and submitted an application to the unsc. as you know, the UNSC very diligently pondered the issue, and security council members were divided so they issues a statement saying they were unable to make a unanimous recommendation. In addition, the US would veto any application (as it is israels lackey), there would be 8 affirmative votes and apparently france was undecided and may or may not have abstained so without a us veto, the application would LIKELY succeed. In addition, part of un membership is too secure the approval of the general assembly with 2/3rds majority, which Palestine did and was admitted as an observer state instead alongside the holy see. and btw, interestingly enough, the un OVERWHELMINGLY voted affirmative with 138/193 in favour, with only US, Israel and their pacific lackeys (who will be washed up by rising tides anyways). Palestine since last august, is recognized by 137 members (however not the west, as israel is not recognized by much of the arab and islamic world). In contrast, kosovo, the second most recognized of these states, has 102 recognitions, and the rest have 47 and under, which is nothing near a majority of states. I am well aware that many of those that do not recognize palestine are influential western countries, but many other powers do to and israel would be recognized by arab and islamic countries if not for the ensuing conflict. (btw even the UN refers to palestine as occupied territories and state of palestine so im not pulling info out of my ass and being bias). interestingly enough, on diplomatic levels, Palestine is comparably as well off as its claimant state, israel- israel has 77 embassies, and two de facto embassies around the world. Palestine has 79 embassies around the world, and much of the countries that do not recognize it (i.e. EU), treat palestine more or less as a recognized state with semi official offices headed by ambassadors who perform most functions of an embassy whereas Taiwanese TECROs are not even allowed to raise the taiwanese flag and do not have diplomatic visas nor are they considered official in any capacity. and btw, if palestines not as you say a "generally recognized sovereign state", why is it allowed to be a party of treaties which the unsg is depository to, allowed to join un agencies (with ease), attend un activities that the rest of the 9 states do not, and raise its flag and that of the holy see along all 193 members in all headquarters, and have an observer of the state of palestine to the UN????? lastly, there is no un resolution that explicitly or implicitly denies palestine statehood or membership rights. even if you still disagree with me by the end of this, pls atleast reconsider given the following info

Arabistan (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

and btw i request clarifying the status of ALL states on this page as is done on the list of sovereign states list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabistan (talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to say that, for someone who claims to be interested in presenting non-controvertible facts, and not expressing a pro-Palestinian position with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you sure seem to have a lot of anger and lack of respect for opposing points of views. You refer to supporters of Israel in the UN, including the United States of America, as "Israel's lackeys," and you go as far as to express glee in thinking that Pacific Island nations that support the State of Israel "will be washed up in rising tides." That last phrase sounds almost poetic for the PLO to hire you to write propaganda for the group (remember its old boast that it would "push the Jews to the sea"?), but, again, it is not indicative of an unbiased editor seeking to provide NPOV information regarding Israel and the State of Palestine. Your statements remind me of those made by single-issue editors who joined the Wikipedia community to advocate for Palestine's side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and whose violation of Wikipedia's rules led to their eventual suspension. Again, I remind you to review Wikipedia's policies and to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for expressing particular points of view.

BTW, you mock those Pacific Island nations that support Israel for not being very large, powerful or influential, which is ironic given that your claim that Palestine is "generally recognized" rests almost entirely on the fact that a large number of states with small economies (and very little influence globally) have recognized the State of Palestine, while only 4 of the 15 highest-GDP countries recognize the State of Palestine (and, mind you, I'm talking about total GDP, not per-capita GDP, so the top-15 countries include several developing countries, such as India, China, Mexico and Brazil, the latter of which does not recognize Palestine). Oh, and you mention that those powerful countries, influential countries that do not recognize Palestine's sovereignty are "western (sic) countries" (by which I assume that you mean culturally Western), as if that makes them illegitimate or something. Well, not only do Western countries have as much dignity as countries from other regions, it should be noted that neither Japan nor South Korea are "Western countries" (under any definition of the term) yet they are among the 15 highest-GDP countries in the world and do not recognize the State of Palestine.

As for your other request--that the article be modified to provide the number of states that recognize the sovereignty of every state in Asia--please note that none of the other articles that list the sovereign states and dependent territories of a continent include such information, because, in a nutshell, such detailed information is outside the scope of such articles. Such information correctly is included in the article entitled "List of Sovereign States" because that is an article *devoted to whether a state is considered a sovereign state*. Remember, the article to which this Talk page is related is about Asian political entities, whether sovereign states or dependent territories, and is not a specialized article on sovereignty. But, as for all of your requests, you can make such change if you can gain a consensus in the Talk page to make such change. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican,

Am I one sided on this matter supposedly because of my name arabistan or b/c I am speaking in palestines favour. I certainly do not endorse the slogan of jewish people being thrown into the sea and I am not a propagandist or palestinegate of any sort as you suggest. If Israel was labelled similarly to palestine by some editors, i would advocate for its greater inclusion, because they are in a similar diplomatic situation, not recognized by some countries who take one side or the other due to the conflict between them. And yes, I did mock countries that support ONLY Israel because all countries should push for a two state solution and work with both arab states and israel to reach an acceptable solution to their differences, not side one or the other. I am not pro palestine, and i am not pro israel at all, I am pro peace, and there are many things i don't agree with that the Palestinian government does, such as corruption, refusing to reconcile and reform their leadership (which is comprised of a bunch of elderly men who should've retired a long time ago) in such desperate and calling times and then plead with the international community to help them at the palestinian peoples expense. And I never said western countries are not important and yes, i do agree that their support goes a longer way, but in the future, some will resolve to change, but others won't. Lastly, many influential countries recognize kosovo, but it is still;l slandered in the same fashion as taiwan palestine and western saharawi republic are. However, i will try to get at least 2 or 3 other editors that manage this page to agree with me and well then see if you will reconsider your stance. cheers!

and btw, you do not speak of any propagandists promoting taiwanese or kosovar causes on wikipedia Arabistan (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that your latest diatribe deserves a response, but I will respond to your accusation that I am biased against you, and unfairly have tagged you as a single-issue poster, because you have "Arab" in your screen name. In truth, the reason that I wrote that "[y]our statements remind me of those made by single-issue editors who joined the Wikipedia community to advocate for Palestine's side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" had nothing to do with your screen name and everything to do with the fact that, until you edited an article on the 2019 NBA Finals, every single one of your edits (55 of them in less than one week) advocated in favor of the State of Palestine. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Country categorization dispute

Hi editors,

I am requestin that all or any editors editing this page or any Asia related topics other than AuH20republican or pro Arab editors and their sockpuppets to state their opinion of whether Palestine should be categorized in either the “generally recognized sovereign states” or “states with limited but substantial recognition” categories. It is highly recommended that those replying have at least a substantial level of understanding of the current conflict between Arab states and Israel

Lo meiin (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lo meiin, I see that you finally have decided to ask for editors' opinions on the issue of the classification of Palestine and Taiwan in the Talk page of the article in question instead of making accusations in various and sundry noticeboards. If you recall, this is exactly what I said that you should do if you wanted to reclassify countries in the article.

I think that you should use the Talk page to make your arguments for why you believe that the State of Palestine should be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states (i.e., with the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City) while Taiwan should be grouped with the Abkhazias and Northern Cypruses of the world. In the meantime, I will present my argument as to why Palestine and Taiwan shouldn't be classified either as generally recognized sovereign states or as de facto states with little or no international recognition.

In other fora, you have argued that the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state means that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan. However, it simply is not the case that the State of Palestine must be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City. Besides, observer-state status does not give such states any voting rights that UN members enjoy; being a UN observer state does grant the state the right to join UN specialized agencies, but, then again, Kosovo and the two New Zealand associated states also have been granted membership to certain UN specialized agencies. So the fact that Palestine, but not Kosovo (for example), is a UN observer state is not much on which one can hang one's hat. I know that it's preferable to find a bright-line rule, but if such rule is contingent upon treating UN observer states as if they were UN member states it becomes arbitrary.

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

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as South Ossetia or Somaliland. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Artsakh or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.

As I said at the outset, I welcome comments from all interested editors and trust that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lo meiin: Started a WP:RFC with a closed end question (yes/no and why for example). Matthew hk (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor AuH20republican has stated his/her opinion, and was the only one to do so. I am now urging editors other than AuH20 to do so to break the monopoly. All I have to say is that, being from China, which was left in the cold by most western states for three decades, I know how embarrassing, humiliating, and racist it feels to be seen in such a manner that depicts apartheid and racial segregation. And AuH20republican, May I ask are you a proponent of the state of israel yourself and how do you feel about Ilhan Omar and rashida Tlaib? I invite the following OTHER editors to the table;

resnjari myasuda lightanddark2000 docwatson42 trialpears brownhairedgirl nickivampireheart danlaycock Ahmedo Semsurî

Once again, we welcome and need more opinions to be heard and if no other editors then AuH20 contributes to the discussion, I will be considering a WP:30 to settle the matter. Thanx.

Lo meiin (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lo meiin, what possible difference do my views on the State of Israel or on anti-Israel politicians have to do with anything? We're talking about what constitutes generalized international recognition of sovereignty, not what countries have governments that we like or don't like. Do you view the issue of the classification of the State of Palestine and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as "if I like its government, I'll say that it has general recognition, but if I don't I'll say that it has little or no recognition"? You really need to check your bias at the door if you are to become an editor. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican:@Lo meiin: How about we replace "Generally recognized sovereign states" with "UN member states" and call it a day? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 14:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

You're correct that changing the title of the first category to "UN member states," and changing the title of the second category to "Non-UN member states with substantial international recognition" would solve the categorization issue for the time being, but there may come a time at which the State of Palestine (or Taiwan, although that would be less likely to happen soon) will enjoy generalized international recognition of its sovereignty despite not yet being a UN member state. I'm old enough to remember when Switzerland, which had been generally recognized as a sovereign state for centuries and which no country disputed was a sovereign state nor claimed its territory, was not a UN member state because it preferred to remain totally neutral and did not seek membership (Switzerland finally sought UN membership in the 21st century, and was admitted). Similarly, no country claims Vatican City's territory (the only country that could--Italy--recognizes the Vatican City's sovereignty and territory pursuant to treaty), and it is recognized as a sovereign country by virtually all UN member states (the People's Republic of China being a notable exception, although the PRC's refusal to recognize Vatican City is due to tit-for-tat politics, given that Vatican City recognizes the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the rightful government of all of China, including the mainland), yet Vatican City has preferred not to seek admission as a UN member state. Were the State of Palestine to gain general international recognition of its sovereignty, with recognition from large majorities of sovereign states in all continents and of states with the largest economies, then I believe that it would violate NPOV not to group the State of Palestine with generally recognized sovereign states such as Iran or the Philippines even if it wasn't a UN member state due to disinterest or due to opposition from a single powerful country. So, while I appreciate your suggestion, I think that changing the names of the categories merely would kick the can down the road and would not treat the issue of recognition of the State of Palestine with NPOV. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Guys,

Allow me to suggest something that will make everyone sleep comfortably at night.this proposal will suit both bias and objective information. But first, I will counter argue 5 of AuH2Os arguments.

Bangladesh, at independence in 1971, applied for un membership, but was rejected by a veto by my country China, so it had to apply for observer status, yet it was considered an independent and recognized state. Eventually Bangladesh was admitted.

In 1948, Israel applied for un membership and was rejected (twice actually due to abstentions and no votes by Syria and other Arab states). It was considered independent and recognized. It was eventually admitted.

In 2011, palestine applied for un membership. After weeks of strenuous debate (such as is the case here), the unsc was undecided on the matter. When Palestine was considering to put the matter to the vote, the prospects were as follows; 6 non permanents- Lebanon, South Africa, Nigeria, Gabon, Brazil, India for, 2 permanents- my country and Russia for, 4 non permanents- Colombia, Portugal, Belgium, and Germany abstain, 2 permanents- France and Britain abstain, and of course, the US threatened to veto the application. So yes, Palestine put it on hold and was admitted as an observer as a compromise. Despite the rare occasion of 2014 where Nigeria, the decisive vote, switched to abstain and left only 8 votes in favour for ending the occupation by 2017 ( which did not happen ), it is, if put to a vote, possible for Palestine to score 9 favorable votes at any given time depending on the structuring of the unsc ( one more friendly african or other country joins ) so technically, it’s Likely, but will sometimes Not, get 9 votes in favor, for Palestine, meaning the biggest obstacle is a us veto. Until the us lifts its veto, Palestine will eventually be admitted.

As to your second argument, israel is currently not recognized by 30 un members and 0 observers. Of these, the GCC, Malaysia, Iran, and Indonesia are all major middle or large economic and/or political powers, and so economical performance has no relevance here, AuH2O. Additionally, as most western nations do not recognize Palestine, most Arab/Islamic nations do not recognize Israel, so it’s kind of an even level playing field.

As to your third argument, here is a continent to continent analysis of Palestines relations Asia: 43/48 states Africa: 52/54 states Americas: 28/35 states Europe: 16/44 states Oceania: 3/15 states

So in 3 of 5 continents, Palestine is generally recognized.

As to your fourth argument, Palestine and Vatican City are distinct from Western Sahara, Taiwan rebellious province, and Kosovo in the following ways;

• pal and vat city both marginally have much greater chances of becoming full in members in the near or distant future than do the latter 3 (Palestine even got through step 2 of the process, with a great majority yes votes in the unga
• Pal is recognized by 138/193. In fact, This figure is relatively closer to other “generally recognized” states, such as Israel (163/193, a difference of 25) and My country China (177/193, a difference of 39)

, as compared to Kosovo (which is at 102/193, and has a differences of 61 and 75 respectively). Furthermore, Palestine is at a 36 difference with Kosovo, less than that of Israel

• Palestine is a part of more organizations and experiences far less difficulty joining them due to the automatic majority give by African American and Asian states

• both pal and vat have the ability to ratify into conventions and raise their flags at in headquarters, and participate in un debates (but not vote) whereas Kosovo, Taiwan rebellious province, and Western Sahara do not (Taiwanese separatists were rejected countless times from the WHO assembly)

As to your fifth argument, you are accusing me of bias POV when I am the one going by the consensus of Wikipedia of grouping un members and observers together, and the rest together as stated in the list of sovereign states, Asia, flags of Asian sovereign states list of countries and territories by continent gallery of flags of sovereign states, whereas you and some others are the ones going on pages such as countries by land area and making changes without anyone’s consent to impose your views so don’t accuse me of bias when you fail to do as you preach

However, this is my compromise. Take it, or leave it;

193 members are grouped together

Palestine and Vatican City in their own category

Kosovo, Taiwan rebellious province, and Western Sahara as substantially recognized but with limited rec

The rest as is

Furthermore, it deeply frustrates me that only one other editor has joined the discussion other than me and AuH2O and it is even sadder that it is the fact that I have been compelled to even ask others or request alternatives such as third opinions. AuH2O, while I respect your POVs and welcome your participation, it is not fair that you alone are involved as you should give others the space to state their opinions which are just as valuable. Thank you

Lo meiin (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lo meiin, your analysis of Palestine's odds of being approved for UN membership, and your emphasis of lack of recognition of UN member state Israel, are substantially identical to those provided by banned editor Talatastan and his sock puppets (one of whom claimed to be Burmese and uninterested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). And, again, it's uncanny how your writing style, pattern of constantly re-editing your edits, and penchant for insulting, defamatory personal attacks (for which you still have not apologized) is so similar. Truly remarkable. Oh, but you're from the People's Republic of China and have no interest in spreading a pro-Palestine, anti-Israel agenda. You even go as far as to use the extremist, POV appelation of "rebellious province" to describe the Republic of China (Taiwan) so as to prove your PRC bona fides. I guess that it is more important for you to pretend not to be pushing a pro-Palestine, anti-Israel agenda than it is for you to claim to be an unbiased editor seeking to present a NPOV with respect to the PRC-Taiwan controversy. Either way, you are a POV editor pushing an agenda.

Since you started editing (or at least started under your current name) less than five weeks ago, you have made 40 edits to various administrative noticeboards and to talk pages for articles involving international recognition of Palestine or editors that have participated in such articles (heck, your VERY FIRST EDIT (at least under your current name) was a notice to my Talk page that you were filing a complaint in an administrative noticeboard), 23 edits to articles related to the State of Palestine's international recognition, and 1 solitary edit to an article about Rocky A$AP that you immediately used to claim that, unlike Talastan and his sock puppets, you weren't a single-issue editor. You aren't fooling anyone.

As for the proper classification for the State of Palestine, Taiwan, Vatican City, et al, see above for my opinion. Please note that this is *not* a negotiation between two parties, but a search for a consensus among all interested editors (as was reached on this issue several years ago). That's another similarity between you and Talastan et al (especially Kawhilaugh42, who later turned out to be Talastan's sock), thinking that Wikipedia is a place for negotiations between two editors; I constantly had to remind Talastan and Kawhilaugh42 of this, and now it's Groundhog Day again.

@User:Lo meiin, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that you accused me of having "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people." Once again, I ask for you to withdraw the ridiculous, defamatory accusation of ethnic intolerance that you lobbed against me. You need to clear the record in writing. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• My two cents - Taiwan and Palestine are different. Taiwan is a de-facto state with limited recognition. Palestine is a declared state (but de-facto - not as of yet), with quite a bit of recognition. I would split Palestine out to "Declared state with limited recognition". Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

AuH20 what is with the harsh tone of rhetoric? I am in no way like user talatastan and his sockpuppets as I have resorted to appropriate formats of resolution dispute, have not resorted to abhorrent rhetoric and personal attacks, and have CLEARLY acknowledged both sides of the argument, such as how you said that most western world states do not recognize Palestine. Yes, the information is similar but I acknowledged both sides he didn’t. I am also flabbergasted at your libellous Jibe at me that I am “not fooling anyone”. My accusations levelled towards you should be interpeted in the way Palestinians would see your stances as they may be psychologically harmed by them. You are in no position to accuse me of evading consensus when you are the one going on different country related pages and imposing your views in them, when several country pages categorize Palestine as. Nevertheless, my offer for a compromise still stands, Palestine and vatican together, Kosovo, Western Sahara and Taiwan province together, and the rest as is. Furthermore, unless you do not bring more editors into the conversation and break the monopoly, I see little use in continuing to bicker with you and will find other alternatives. Thank you

Lo meiin (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You claim that you haven't "resorted to personal attacks," yet you lobbed the ridiculous and defamatory accusation that I "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people"--several times I have demanded that you apologize for your blatant lie and cowardly insult, but you have refused to do so. And then you describe as "libellous" (sic) that I point out that you're not fooling anyone with your claim to be a neutral observer from China (not Burma this time, so you also call Taiwan a "rebellious province" like a POV editor from the PRC would do) who has not chosen sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is belied by the fact that, since you started editing (or at least started under your current name) five weeks ago, you have made 42 edits to various administrative noticeboards and to talk pages for articles involving international recognition of Palestine or editors that have participated in such articles (heck, your VERY FIRST EDIT (at least under your current name) was a notice to my Talk page that you were filing a complaint in an administrative noticeboard--quite the Wikipedia sophistication for a first-time editor!), 23 edits to articles related to the State of Palestine's international recognition, and 1 solitary edit to an article about Rocky A$AP that you immediately used to claim that, unlike Talastan and his sock puppets, you weren't a single-issue editor. And then you go all Talastan and Kawhilaugh42 in your insistence in "negotiating" instead of seeking a consensus. What can I say, except that your hystrionics are not evidence that the State of Palestine has achieved generalized international recognition of sovereignty. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Palestine categorization

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close, an RfC on the same topic has been created in the following section. Please participate there. (non-admin closure) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Should the generally recognized sovereign states section of the sovereign states heading include Palestine? Lo meiin (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

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

The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.

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

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

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as South Ossetia or Somaliland. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Artsakh or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

opinions other than AuH2O, please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo meiin (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

You cannot exclude somebody that is not serving a WP:TBAN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Palestine categorization (II)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Palestine be grouped with the generally recognized sovereign states section. All opinions welcome

Lo meiin (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin, I don't believe that it is consistent with the spirit of the Wikipedia project to exclude the views of a member of the editing community when requesting comments. I'll add my comments here for the benefit of other interested editors, since they may not have had the benefit of having read them before.

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

The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.

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

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

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as South Ossetia or Somaliland. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Artsakh or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are there two ongoing RfCs? They seem very similar: how do they differ? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64,

Please state your opinion on whether Palestine is generally or substantially recognized. AuH2O, true, it isn’t in the spirit of Wikipedia to exclude any user, but you have not given others a chance to share their opinion as you are trying to dominate the discussion. Now that isn’t in the spirit of wikipedia either, right? More editors other than AuH2O are welcome.

Lo meiin (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I cannot state my opinion until I know what it's all about. You have two RfCs going for what seem to be the same issue - did you read the first sentence of WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ll now state my fully objective opinion, which is fully NPOV. Here are my findings;

- without diving too much into the history, in simplified terms, the conflict between Israel and the Arab states essentially is rooted in most Arab states denying Israel’s rights and right to statehood, and Israel denying Palestine rights and rights to statehood. - to become a un member, one must approve their request in the unsc and unga, with the unsc having veto power. Palestine completed the latter step of this application, with 138/193 states voting yes. As of this writing, 138/193 (71.5%) (including Brazil) of un members recognize it, which is most of the un. - being disputed by a small number of states does not make one not recognized; Israel’s sovereignty is disputed by 30 countries, mostly Arab and Islamic countries, Palestines’ is disputed by 55 countries, most western states and Israel, and pacific island states, and my country, China, is disputed by 16 states and Bhutan. - the only reason palestine withdrew its application before the vote is more to do with a us veto than a lack of 9 votes. Besides, depending on the structuring of the unsc, if enough friendly countries are unsc members, then it’s technically possible to achieve 9 votes. - many large economies recognize palestine, such as Brazil, Argentina, the GCC, Sweden, my country China, Russia, India, turkey, and nigeria, and South Africa. - in 3/5 continents- the Americas, Africa, and Asia, an overwhelming majority recognizes Palestine - Taiwan, province of China is only recognized by 16 countries and is banned from the UN since 1971, which is more closer to others like Abkhazia and northern Cyrus while Palestine is closer in legal standing to Israel ( only a 25 country difference in recognition) - UN observer states are allowed to ratify conventions, participate in debates, and raise their flags at un headquarters, something Kosovo and Taiwan, province of China are not permitted to do - it is best in my opinion to classify Western Sahara as a dependent territory rather than a state as it is a un non self governing territory

I will only welcome opinions other than POV editor AuH2O’s, who is dominating the conversation

Lo meiin (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose + badly set up RfC. Just as Kosovo in the similar article for Europe, Palestine has a substantial recognition (138 UN member states, just as Kosovo's 112), but it is not a "generally recognized sovereign state". Further, it fails de facto status as sovereign state, since its territory is currently occupied by Israel. Thus, it is suitable for the "States with limited, but substantial, international recognition" (because it is a state with substantial international recognition), but not for the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section (because it is not a full sovereign state and is not generally recognized, with 71.5% recognition still meaning there is a 28.5% not recognizing it). On the specific RfC, this is violating both WP:RFCBRIEF (by deliberatively attempting to exclude one user, this fails to meet the required neutrality of a RfC's opening statement) and WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page (by opening two concurrent RfC on essentially the same issue). Impru20^talk 10:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1015#asia countries page (11:28, 23 July 2019); Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 14#Asia country page dispute (22:00, 6 August 2019); Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1016#Asia country dispute page (20:20, 21 August 2019); Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Palestine country categorization (14:43, 24 August 2019); also two earlier sections on this page, #Country categorization dispute (21:02, 22 August 2019) and #RfC on Palestine categorization (13:22, 30 August 2019). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This is very disturbing to say the least. Impru20^talk 11:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Impru20, thank you for your opinion. Other editors are welcome to state their opinions. One thing I have to say impru is that 71.5 percent vs 28.5 percent means an overwhelming majority supports Palestine, and less than a 1/3rd are against it. I now recommend red rose pick a side.

Lo meiin (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

In addition, the only thing I will agree with AuH20 republican is that Palestine would be rejected un membership, but not because. Of a lack of nine votes, it’s because of a us veto. As another user wisely pointed out, i think we are all over complicating the issue by drawing too many lines, so I think it’s best and fair that we either

A) group all generally and substantially recognized states together and in members and observers together, with the latter (substantially recognized and UN observers) at the bottom with a subheading and the former at the top

B) we separate Taiwan and Palestine into de facto and de jure states, with Palestine being recognized by over 70% of the un, having some UN membership with only less than a 1/3rd not recognizing it but it has no control over its daily affairs, while Taiwan is barely recognized as a state with essentially zero prospects of UN membership at this time, but operates as a country

C) as is the consensus on wikipedia, we group UN member and observer states together, Taiwan and Kosovo as substantially recognized and Western Sahara as a dependent territory

Thoughts? Lo meiin (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

On an additional note, impru, kosovo is now down to 102 supporters

Lo meiin (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

And AuH20, food for thought, do you hate Palestinians and Taiwanese people yourself?

Lo meiin (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin, once again resort to insults and lies directed at me. You have the gall of going to your latest administrative ploy to try to inject your particular POV to the one issue for which you signed up to post and asking me whether I hate Palestinians and Taiwanese? This comes after you lobbed the ridiculous and defamatory accusation that I "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people"--several times I have demanded that you apologize for your blatant lie and cowardly insult, but you have refused to do so. You are engaged in relentless harassment, but it isn't going to stop me from speaking out against your POV edits.

And then you describe as "libellous" that I point out that you're not fooling anyone with your claim to be a neutral observer from China (not Burma this time, so you also call Taiwan a "rebellious province" like a POV editor from the PRC would do) who has not chosen sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is belied by the fact that, since you started editing (or at least started under your current name) a bit over five weeks ago, you have made 57 edits to various administrative noticeboards or for talk pages for articles involving international recognition of Palestine or editors that have participated in such articles (heck, your VERY FIRST EDIT (at least under your current name) was a notice to my Talk page that you were filing a complaint in an administrative noticeboard--quite the Wikipedia sophistication for a first-time editor!), 29 edits to articles related to the State of Palestine's international recognition, 3 edits parroting the People's Republic of China's respective positions on Hong Kong and Taiwan (since you have to live up to your persona as a pro-PRC editor who just happens to spend 90% of his time on Wikipedia trying to change articles so as to pretend that Palestine is a generally recognized sovereign state) and 1 solitary edit to an article about Rocky A$AP that you immediately used to claim that, unlike Talastan and his sock puppets, you weren't a single-issue editor. And then you go all Talastan and Kawhilaugh42 in your insistence in "negotiating" instead of seeking a consensus--this is at least the third time that you make a Talastan/Kawhilaugh42-type "offer." What can I say, except that your hystrionics are not evidence that the State of Palestine has achieved generalized international recognition of sovereignty. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lo meiin: You've only been registered for a few weeks, but you have a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works. You cannot ask anybody to "pick a side" - we operate by discussion with a view to reaching consensus. Making people pick sides is what has caused the whole Middle East mess for the last few thousand years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose + badly set up RFC per Impru20 (talk · contribs). Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

AuH2Orepublican,

I admit that my earlier comments were in bad taste and I apologize for them, but I only said what I said out of my fear that you may have been pushing a POV for Israel. I also apologize if it came out as an attack on you. I only filed an admin complaint because that is how dispute resolution is done here up to my information. I also apologize for trying to sideline you earlier, and I welcome all opinions, including auh20republican

redrose64,

Yes, I am an editor who has a lot to learn about the art of Wikipedia and I will try to do things better on this platform. What I meant by asking you to pick a side is to see what proposal you agree on (status quo or mine) in order to reach a consensus.

I would like to know about which proposal seems the most objective and fair and one with which we can all agree with in hopes of achieving a NPOV consensus. Either...

A) generally recognized and substantially recognized states together, with the latter coming after generally recognized states

B) proposal A while moving Taiwan with Abkhazia, S Ossetia, NKR transistria north Cyprus and Somaliland since it only has 16 supporters, which is closer to the above mentioned countries

C) list Taiwan as a de facto state and Palestine as a de jure state, the rest as is

Which one of these proposals is one we can all agree on? Let me know. Have a nice evening everyone!

Lo meiin (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Lo meiin, if you wish to apologize for your lies, insults and harassing behavior, please make your apology specific. In particular, I have asked you numerous times for you to take back your defamatory claim that in my comments I "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," and if you wish to "apologize" you can start by admitting that your claim was a total fabrication.

Regarding the Republic of China (Taiwan), you have referred to it on numerous occasions as a "rebellious province" of the People's Republic of China (which statement is as far from NPOV as possible), so it is clear that you are so biased regarding Taiwan's status that you should consider staying out of the debate altogether. In any event, you forgot to mention that, while relatively few countries formally recognize Taiwan's sovereignty, the official number of states that recognize the Republic of China's sovereignty is misleading. The Republic of China (Taiwan) still maintains that it is the legitimate government of all of China, and the People's Republic of China (the second largest economy in the world) will break off diplomatic relations with any country that recognizes Taiwan, so most major economies have established a policy of not recognizing Taiwan's sovereignty formally so as to appease the People's Republic of China but having unofficial diplomatic relations with and de facto recognition of the Taiwanese government. Like the State of Palestine, Taiwan is a de facto sovereign state with limited, but substantial, international recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think it is necessary to exclude any of us in this important debate. And yes, my apology was directed for all the things you have mentioned and I already admitted (and will admit again) that my comment about auh20 hating Palestinians and depicting them as an insolent anti Semitic people was a bit of an over exaggeration and a non pragmatic way to depict users who share different views, and I take them back. It is my sincerest hope that me and him can put the past behind us and work together to end this dilemma once and for all. Unlike talatastan and his sock puppets, I fully admit where I went wrong, apologize for it, and pledge to cooperate with all stakeholders, and I only resort to formal Wikipedia procedures. Evidence of this is how I denounced Arabistans abhorrent and insensitive remarks towards pacific island nations and referring to appropriate methods of resolution dispute, and his profane jibe at AuH20 “smarta**”. Moreover, while I am not bias in the Arab Israeli conflict and wish for both the states of Israel and Palestine to live in peace and harmony together and to end all the violence between one another, and I see the wrongs of both sides, I will try, for the purposes of an NPOV debate, to suppress my personal biases and emotions on the very sensitive issues of Taiwan and Hong Kong SAR, however hard that is to do. My option of excluding Taiwan is based not on my policy or that of China, but it is a position shared by the un and international community, so that is why I suggested it. However, In the hopes of reaching a consensus, I propose the following, one of which we can all agree on and close this case once and for all. I hope that either of these proposals can satisfy everyone and the NPOV.

Either;

A) Palestine is classified as a de jure sovereign state, and Taiwan as a de facto sovereign state

B) both the generally recognized and substantially recognized states are combined together under a new heading “generally and substantially recognized states”, with the two aforementioned states at the bottom to distinguish them from the rest. This is similar to the chart on Asia#political geography

C) proposal B) with an asterisks for each state lacking 100% recognition, both substantially and generally recognized states alike

D) the status quo

Please, editors (such as AuH2O, redrose64, and impru) let me know which of these 4 proposals are the most NPOV and satisfactory to everyone so we can all reach a consensus. Thank you.

Lo meiin (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Lo meiin, you just wrote "I already admitted (and will admit again) that my comment about auh20 hating Palestinians and depicting them as an insolent anti Semitic [people was a bit of an over exaggeration and a non pragmatic way to depict users who share different views, and I take them back." "[A] bit of an exaggeration" and a "non pragmatic way" to describe my comments? So you still claim, in writing, that, essentially, I "depicted Palestinians are [sic] a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," but that your depiction was "a bit" of an exaggeration and that it was not "pragmatic" (in your attempt to seem unbiased). You really are a piece of work--you can't even apologize and take back your defamation without implying that I'm a bigot. And the fact that you published your "apology" two weeks after I demanded that you take back your cowardly, defamatory insult but less than 24 hours ater you added to this very section of the Talk page the insulting question "And AuH20, food for thought, do you hate Palestinians and Taiwanese people yourself?" belies any notion that you may be trying to create that you are remorseful for your despicable behavior since you signed up for Wikipedia under you most recent name.

And again, given that in your "apology" you once again claim to be different from the single-issue editors that made the exact sane arguments as you, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that your interests, editing style, insistence on making "offers" in "negotiations," personal insults followed by empty apologies, and bad grammar are identical to those displayed by Talastan and his sock puppets (most prominently Kawhilaugh42). The only major difference is that, in your most recent incarnation, you avail yourself of every single administrative recourse on Wikiledia to harass me (as if that will stop me from opposing your POV edits), including making your very first edit (at least under your current name) was a notice to my Talk page that you were filing a complaint in an administrative noticeboard regarding the classification of the State of Palestine--quite the Wikipedia sophistication for an alleged first-time editor. That duck is quacking louder every time. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

NO, I do not claim anymore that you said that, and I take that claim back. You never said any of that, and I had a twisted and exaggerated interpretation of what you truly. Im not trying to depict you as a bigot,I am simply trying to apologize for my actions and take back all bad remarks in order to build on from this learning curve. As a young editor, I made a lot of big mistakes, and I am willing to rectify them. my comments were an over-exaggeration and libel on MY part. Also, I am not intending to negotiate in any way, I am making proposals as to determine which one is satisfactory to everybody aid the process of reaching a consensus. I would like to know which offer you believe is the most NPOV and consistent with everyones liking- A, B, C, or D? Lo meiin (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• No. Palestine should not be grouped with the generally recognized sovereign states because it is currently not a generally recognized sovereign state. “WarKosign” 11:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Palestine should be grouped with the generally recognized sovereign states because it is currently recognized by a majority of UN members (138 out of 193 = ~71 %). That may not meet the "Nearly universal" but it certainly meets the "Generally recognized". For comparison see: China (177 out of 193 = ~91%) and Israel (163 our of 193 = ~84%). If we exclude Palestine, a similar argument can be made to exclude Israel. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
• No. While I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from sovereign states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states.

The fact that Vatican City and the State of Palestine are both "observer states" of the UN, when the former is a state whose sovereignty is not disputed by anyone and who would be a UN member but for its preference to remain as an observer (as Switzerland did from 1946 to 2002) and the latter is a disputed state whose sovereignty is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP (among the top 14 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine; the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain and Australia have yet to recognize Palestine) and whose application for UN membership was (for all practical purposes) rejected just a few years ago, is all the proof one needs that being an observer state of the UN is not tantamount to recognition of sovereignty by the members of the UN; heck, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have a veto right over any issue of importance, have refused to recognize Palestine, and one permanent member of the Security Council (China) has refused to recognize Vatican City.

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

Much is made of the State of Palestine being recognized by 71% of UN member states, but this percentage is achieved almost exclusively through recognition from countries with little influence in the international sphere, which is one of the reasons why Palestine's recent bid for UN membership was unsuccessful. As I noted above, Palestine is not recognized by 11 of the 14 countries with the highest GDP in the world. It is important to understand that I am speaking of GDP, not per-capita GDP, so the top-14 economies include not only the G7 countries (none of which recognize Palestine's sovereignty), but also developing economies such as the People's Republic of China, India and Brazil. As I already stated, among the top 14 economies, only the People's Republic of China, India and Russia recognize Palestine's sovereignty; none of the U.S., Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain or Australia have recognized the State of Palestine.

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then, and only then, should it be grouped with states with general international recognition and cease being classified as a state with limited recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• No + poor RfC AuH2ORepublican pretty much stated every reasonable assessment shows Palestine is not a generally recognized state. Buffs (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

State of Palestine "Claimed by Israel"

AuH2ORepublican, please provide a single source supporting the statement that Israel claims State of Palestine (or Palestinian Territories, for that matter). Israel does control (or "occupies") these territories, with various level controls due to Oslo Accords and Hamas takeover of Gaza, but it does not claim the territories except East Jerusalem. Please prove me wrong with a reliable source or self-revert.

Description of the level of recognition is a matter of style. In my opinion current "status" column is silly. The title of the whole section is "Generally recognized sovereign states and states with substantial, but not general, international recognition". The title is self-contradicting - are they generally recognized or not ?

The status column says for almost every state "generally recognized sovereign state". Is it generally recognized? Because the title says that it's not (or maybe it is). If the status only repeats that the title says - what's the point? If it contradicts the title - why is the state in this list ?

I think it's better to change the title to "States with partial recognition" (or "incomplete" or "non-universal", or anything else that conveys this meaning). The status column should not put a label but instead have exact list of countries that do or don't recognize the specific state, and let the reader decide whether the cup is half empty or half full. “WarKosign” 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not just East Jerusalem. The Israeli government has never legally relinquished its claims over what it calls "Judea and Samaria," although it also has refrained from annexing the territory. See The Application of Israeli Law to the West Bank: De Facto Annexation?. The word "occupation" to describe Israeli's presence in the territories claimed by the State of Palestine is controversial, and one that is strongly opposed by the Israeli government, so it would not be consistent with NPOV to describe the territorial dispute between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine as involving Israel "occupying Palestine." In similar situations involving other states without general recognition (such as Kosovo and Taiwan), we say that Kosovo is "claimed by Serbia" and Taiwan is "claimed by the People's Republic of China." For the sake of consistency, we should not vary the verb used to describe the controversy in this case.

As for why states with substantial, but not general, international recognition are listed in the same section of the article as generally recognized sovereign states, you'll have to ask Lo meiin about that. I implored him on several occasions not to make such change without first discussing it in the Talk page, and the first couple of times that he tried it I reverted it because he had included POV changes in his edit, but he eventually made the change without any POV comments and no one reverted it. Prior to Lo meiin's edits, Palestine and Taiwan were listed separately as states with substantial, but not general, international recognition—in a different section from generally recognized sovereign states and from states with little or no international recognition—which is the consensus that was reached a couple of years ago. My vote is for returning states with substantial, but not general, international recognition to their own section so as to avoid possible confusion. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: Let's deal with the first point first. Again, would you care to provide a source for the statement that Israel claims West Bank (a.k.a. Judea and Samaria)? Considers the territory "disputed" and holds it under its control - certainly. Claims that the future status of the area is yet to be determined - sure. Builds settlements - sure. The article says that Israel claims the territory, and per WP:EXCEPTIONAL such a statement needs a source.

(Please reply here regarding the first point) “WarKosign” 19:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see why the Israeli government's lack of recognition for the State of Palestine under current circumstances cannot be characterized as a "claim," particularly when Israeli law refers to much of the territory claimed by Palestine as Israeli territory, but if using "claimed by Israel" is an impediment to editing peace, I will remove it,

@AuH2ORepublican: See Military occupation: "Occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population." Israel never legally claimed West Bank, except East Jerusalem which it annexed by Jerusalem Law. “WarKosign” 06:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the second issue - there is no reason Lo meiin's changes should remain unless there is a consensus that they should. Currently there are only 2 sections:

• Generally recognized sovereign states and states with substantial, but not general, international recognition - which I understand as "partially recognized states"
• De facto states with little or no international recognition

This division makes no sense. Surely vast majority of the states have complete* recognition. Then there should be group(s) for states with partial recognition (partial = less than complete*). Status column should not make any subjective statement, but merely to provide verifiable objective facts - number or list of states that do or don't (whatever is shorter) recognize these states).

* = as complete as it get

Any objection to this? “WarKosign” 19:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that generally recognized sovereign states should not have annotations regarding how some states don't recognize them, etc., in an article about countries in Asia; such discussion may be appropriate for articles specifically about sovereignty, but if a state is generally recognized as sovereign (such as when it is admitted to membership in the UN) it really doesn't matter if some countries do not recognize it. And I also agree that it creates confusion to include states with substantial, but not general, international recognition in the same section as generally recognized states. That edit was one of many by disruptive, POV editor Lo meiin, and when he made it I implored him to take the issue to the Talk page, but he refused and instead doubled down by making his originally neutral edit increasingly POV. I will return the article to how it was before Lo meein's dramatic edit, but will make sure to leave in subsequent edits unrelated to this controversy and also will eliminate reference to Palestine being "claimed by Israel" (as discussed above). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

“Occupation is a controversial term”. Ummm, well it’s used by the uk, un, us, eu, Russia, and every country in the world so the only people who are denying the facts is you and me. Netanyahu. Secondly, it is not up to any of you to make such changes, neither is it for me. Thirdly, Taiwan is down to only 15 recognitions while Palestine, Israel, and others are 140 and above, which accounts to a majority of the worlds countries across all continents. Besides, the Arab league except jordan and Egypt claim Israel, but no one said a word about that.

Lo meiin (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC on countries classification

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed in order to not waste everybody's time. It's evident that the nominator will keep creating new RfCs until one will produce a consensus that matches their POV

---

"Should the states of Asia be classified in terms of level of UN membership (Member, Observer, non UN)?"

Lo meiin (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Question: Should the same editor keep making RfCs while his previous RfCs with the same agenda are still open? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and User:Lo meiin, you forgot to sign your comment above. Please place your signature at the end of your comment. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No, the user should not spam the talk page with multiple badly worded RfCs. Having more than one RfC on the same subject is not helpful in reaching a consensus. “WarKosign” 20:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an invalid RfC, since WP:RFCST was not followed in at least two ways - there is no statement, and no signature. As has been pointed out by AuH2ORepublican and WarKosign today, and by myself on 30 August 2019, RfCs should not overlap significantly in their subject matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

please not that I have made some corrections above so as to conform to wiki guidelines Lo meiin (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I *note* your "correction" above. But you are still making an RfC that seeks to add the State of Palestine to the same section of the article as the 49 generally recognized sovereign states in Asia, while you have at least one other RfC still open (was your original one closed?) seeking to add the State of Palestine to the same section of the article as the 49 generally recognized sovereign states in Asia. Please explain how removing "rather than general or substantial recognition" makes your simultaneous RfCs with the same agenda "conform to wiki (sic) guidelines." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Palestine and Israel

Palestine should be moved to the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section of the article. Over 70% of UN members recognize Palestine, it is an observer state and the UN treats it as a sovereign state. Qqeeaa (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then, and only then, should it be grouped with states with general international recognition and cease being classified as a state with limited, but substantial, recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Being an observer state is enough for it to be moved to the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section of the article. All that information you just posted is irrelevant and immediately disproven. Qqeeaa (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. Now, do you have any reliable source saying that State of Palestine is a "proper" mostly recognized state on par with everything else on the list? “WarKosign” 13:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why I need a reliable source to back up my claims. Having to need most major countries to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state just doesn't make sense to me. If Palestine is an observer state and that the UN treats Palestine as a sovereign state, just like with its fellow non-member observer state Vatican City, then it should be moved to the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section of the article. I hope the same applies to the template that is found at the bottom of the article as well, where it should be moved into the "Sovereign states" section of the template. If I fail to persuade this change, then I hope someone else can. Qqeeaa (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the states are recognized by all or almost all the states - hence they are under "generally recongized states". SoP has some recognition but it's far from universal, therefore it's under "States with limited, but substantial, international recognition". Vatican is not in Asia, but if it was in this list it would've been in the first category because it has universal recognition. “WarKosign” 14:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Israel is only recognized by 163 of 193, it should be in the same list as Palestine if that's the criteria you are going to use?Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Israel is a UN member state, something that, ipso facto, denotes general international recognition. If the State of Palestine were a UN member state, we would not be having this discussion, as it clearly would be a generally recognized sovereign state and would be presented as such in every article on Wikipedia. But, since the State of Palestine was (for all intents and purposes) rejected for UN membership, one must look at other factors to determine if it is generally recognized as a sovereign state despite it not being a UN member state. Switzerland certainly was generally recognized long before it applied for (and received) admission as a UN member state, and Vatican City clearly is generally recognized as well despite its preference not to become a UN member state. But the State of Palestine does not enjoy that level of broad recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Having to need most major countries to recognize Palestine as a sovereign state just doesn't make sense to me." So, @Qqeeaa, you think that the fact that "most major countries" do not recognize the State of Palestine is irrelevant when trying to determine whether or not the State of Palestine is a *generally recognized* sovereign state? That shows remarkable lack of understanding for the meaning of words.

If I may make a suggestion, you should consider, when seeking to change the consensus of the editing community that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state—which consensus was reaffirmed as recently as a few weeks ago—to provide evidence that *something has changed* since the last time that a consensus was reached or reaffirmed. That the PLO's "UN observer" status was transferred to the State of Palestine in 2012 (after the State of Palestine withdrew its application for UN membership when it was told that it surely would be voted down) is not a new development. When the State of Palestine can get a majority of the biggest economies to recognize it, then you would have a good argument that it has achieved general international recognition, but if you merely rehash the same two arguments ("Observer state!" "71% of UN members recognize it!") that have been rejected time and time again it is unlikely that you will be able to achieve a change in the consensus of the editing community. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is all true, then how come Palestine can get away with being listed as a sovereign state in the article List of sovereign states? The same can apply to the article Gallery of sovereign state flags as well, where its flag is listed within the "Member states and observers of the United Nations" section, which gives me a sign that Palestine should be moved into the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section of this article and being moved into the "Sovereign states" section of the template found at the bottom of this article. Qqeeaa (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently on List of sovereign states they decided not to create a separate category but only added a huge column "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty". It is another way to represent the same information, not too long ago someone attempted to organize this article this way and the consensus was against it. The main problem is that it adds a very wide column that is relevant only to a handful of states to all of them, wasting a lot of space and creating visual clutter. “WarKosign” 09:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This is all political and has little to do with the situation. Palestine IS generally recognized as a State, whether or not it is recognized as such by the UN is not the issue. True there is an argument about whether or not it is a state (with US, Israel and so on one one side of that argument and most others on the other side of it). The proper way to show this is to show it as recognized by majority, which is true, and then note reference that there is a dispute about status and the nature of the dispute.Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is you who are injecting politics into this by asserting that the State of Palestine needs to be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states because that is where Israel (which actually is a generally recognized sovereign state) is grouped. The most NPOV way to showcase the dispute is to list it in its current category--states with limited, but substantial, recognition--with the explanation of how it is a UN observer state and is recognized by X number of UN members. That is the compromise that was reached by consensus a couple of years ago, back when Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan were grouped with little-recognized de facto states such as Somaliland, South Ossetia and Northern Cyprus, which was just as POV as would have been grouping them with Argentina, Sri Lanka and Equatorial Guinea.

And you threw out a couple of red herrings in your characterization of the dispute. The issue isn't whether the State of Palestine is "a state," it's whether it's a generally recognized sovereign state. And it is silly to refer to countries that don't recognize the State of Palestine's sovereignty as just the U.S., Israel and a few others when the State of Palestine's sovereignty is not recognized by Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Mexico or most other large economies and that Palestine withdrew its application for UN membership when it became obvious that a majority of members of the UN Security Council were going to vote down the application (and that's even before considering whether the U.S., UK or France would use their veto).

This issue has been discussed ad nauseam in Talk pages and Noticeboard discussions, and the consensus that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state has been reaffirmed as recently as a few weeks ago. I think that it will take something more than a rehash of old arguments to change the consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

So all we need is a new article, list of recognized states (ie minus the "sovereignty"). Problem solved. The only reason that Palestine is not sovereign is because it is occupied. We could highlight that fact and its likely illegality in said new article as being the reason for lack of sovereignty.Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that must be the right way to go, after all, according to the title of this article, Palestine should not be in the list at all? As has been pointed out ad nauseum, it is not sovereign and this list purports to be a list of sovereign states (and dependant territories). So I think I will just delete it from here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Palestine is a de facto state with limited, but substantial, recognition. De facto sovereign states are included in the article even when their sovereignty isn't recognized by nearly any country. As when you say that "[t]he only reason that Palestine is not sovereign is because it is occupied," you are making a POV statement that makes clear that you are looking at this not as a neutral observer seeking to present Asian states in an unbiased manner, but as a partisan in the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Perhaps you should do a little more self studying. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The article does not purport to present Asian states, it purports to represent Sovereign Asian states (and dependant territories) and Palestine as you have pointed out is not sovereign, so why is it in the article? You would do better to stick to the matter at hand so take your sighs your allegations and your off topic suggestions somewhere else, I'm not interested in them.Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Did you read my prior comment? "Palestine is a de facto state with limited, but substantial, recognition. De facto sovereign states are included in the article even when their sovereignty isn't recognized by nearly any country." Stop it with your strawman argument that if Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state that it must not be a sovereign state. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

We are getting there slowly, so why in the article does it not say, as you yourself have just said, "de facto sovereign state" (as it does for Taiwan)? That it is de jure sovereign is not in any doubt, afaik, it was confirmed again recently by the ICC. But "de facto" means that it can exercise sovereignty in actuality and as I just pointed out above, it cannot do that while occupied. Maybe you meant something else by "de facto"?Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually Palestine is not a de-facto state. Arguably it is a de-jure state, but since it never executed effective control over the territory it claims it is not a de-facto state. "Palestine is not sovereign is because it is occupied" - kindly tell us when exactly was the state occupied. The land was occupied in 1967, the state came to existence in 1988 or 2012. The state is not and never was occupied. The lands it claims arguably are. “WarKosign” 16:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Even the Israeli Supreme Court does not dispute the fact of occupation. As matters stand, and whether or not Israel agrees being irrelevant, the UN defines the occupation as well as the territory occupied (OPT, defined equal to State of Palestine). But this has nothing to do with what we are discussing at present. I don't know the precise history of this article but I would guess that someone thought a list of "Asian" countries would be a good thing and then someone else has complicated a relatively simple matter by introducing ideas of "sovereignty", UN recognition and other such. A straightforward listing like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_United_Nations_geoscheme avoids all the politics.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OPT and SoP are most definitely not the same thing. One is a piece of land while the other is a de-jure state claiming ownership of the land without executing effective control. One is considered occupied, the other can't be occupied since the alleged occupation occurred before it existed. “WarKosign” 17:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what actually occurred historically, the legalities of which to this day are disputed, the current effect of UN decisions and resolutions is effectively to DEFINE them as equal (it's just a definition, they could just as well have defined it according to the partition resolution and it would still only be a definition) and that would have had to be the case for any kind of state recognition because you need some sort of defined territory for that. I think what you are saying is that Israel disputes the claim, while what I am saying is that the UN accepts the claim as having validity, even if it is disputed. It is as well frequently forgotten that the border, if indeed it ever moves at all, can move both ways, not just in one direction.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Which UN decision/resolution exactly defines them as equal? “WarKosign” 18:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You may refer to the explanations and edits I made to the article Palestinian territories, it's all laid out there.Ping me and we can continue the discussion at that page since it seems not directly relevant to this one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the following sources (https://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world/, https://www.thoughtco.com/number-of-countries-in-the-world-1433445 and https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/how-many-countries-are-there-in-the-world.html), it seems that Palestine is, indeed, a sovereign state, so all that wall of text that you have thrown at me are proved irrelevant over these simple, reliable sources I have found. I suggest moving Palestine into the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section of the article now. Qqeeaa (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

There are at least two problems with the logic that you set forth in your comment. Number one, that the State of Palestine is described as a sovereign state does not imply that it is a generally recognized sovereign state. Second, the fact that three websites list Palestine among the countries of the word has rather less weight than the fact that 12 of the 15 UN member states with the highest GDP do not recognize the State of Palestine's sovereignty.

There have been several RfDs on this matter during the past couple of months, and the consensus that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state was reaffirmed every time. If you wish to start a new RfD and invite all of the editors that have participated in the discussion, you may do so, but it seems a bit soon to be seeking a change in the consensus without a material change in the State of Palestine's level of international recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be most interested to see a definition/source for the term "generally recognized". Could you point me in the direction of an RfD where that was discussed?Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:List of sovereign states, where nearly the same discussion about the nearly same issue in this section of the talk page is all the way down to the bottom of that talk page. Qqeeaa (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, I can't see any discussion there about the term itself ; in fact, the expression is used 6 times on that page, in every case by editor AuH2ORepublican, so perhaps he could point me to the definition/source that he is using?Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: There are thirty UN member states that do not recognize Israel and 57 members that do not recognize Palestine, as sovereign states. Regardless of the numbers, if "generally recognized" means to be recognized by all UN members then Israel is also not "generally recognized".--SharabSalam (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed Israel as it is not generally recognized by all UN members.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It needs to go in one of the categories so it will have to go in with Palestine and Taiwan. Anyway, this is why I would like to see the definition being used.Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't make unconstructive edits just to make a WP:POINT. While it can be argued that Israel doesn't have complete recognition, it is far more recognized than SoP, so Israel *is* a "generally recognized state". “WarKosign” 14:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a new editor in this discussion I do think Palestine and Israel should not be in the fully recognized sovereign states--SharabSalam (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by far more recognized? It is not recognized by 30 members and Palestine is not recognized by 57 thats not far and this is your subjective opinion not an objective argument.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Israel is recognized by 27 more states, which happen to be all the security council members and all of the G8 countries. Israel is a full UN member and has full control over its territory. Indeed it would be nice to have an objective criteria. I suggest UN membership , since it's the main difference between the two groups listed in this article. “WarKosign” 14:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

All very well but we don't get to make up our own definitions to suit in regard to essentially political matters, we need sources and objectivity. The point was made above that "the consensus that the State of Palestine is not a generally recognized sovereign state was reaffirmed every time." and "Number one, that the State of Palestine is described as a sovereign state does not imply that it is a generally recognized sovereign state." I would like to see the definition that was used for "generally recognized".Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

WarKosign, So what if there are 27 more countries recognize Israel? Are we playing soccer ball here? which happen to be all the security council members and all of the G8 countries., How is this relevant? Dont invent rules and definitions from your mind!. Israel is not enjoying full recognition, period. --SharabSalam (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Putting Israel in the list of fully recognized states is factually wrong and misleading the reader. It is politically incorrect to countries that refuses to recognize Israel as if their membership in the UN does not count.-SharabSalam (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Israel is a member state of the United Nations. That makes it, ipso facto, a generally recognized sovereign state. The fact that the State of Israel, like the People's Republic of China, is not officially recognized by certain countries for political reasons does not change the fact thst both countries are generally recognized as sovereign. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Once more, define "generally recognized". Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

That is also not what "generally recognized" means. Israel is not fully recognized sovereign state by 30 UN members that means Israel has limited recognition so it should be "States with limited recognition". Again do not invent rules and policies from your mind. This article probably needs a tag for original research.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The truth is that we should not really have to discuss the statehood/recognition/UN status of any country in some random List article, especially not Palestine, when there is an entire article devoted to these matters already, viz International recognition of Palestine.Selfstudier (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is this debate still raging on? If Palestine is an observer state and is treated as a sovereign state by the UN, then it should be moved into the "Generally recognized sovereign states" section of the article, or maybe this article needs a major overhaul or something like that. Qqeeaa (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Imho, this article has been unnecessarily politicized. The list could have been organized/categorized in many different and uncontroversial ways if the idea was simply to have a list of "Asian" countries, instead someone decided to introduce a division scheme based on somewhat arbitrary, controversial and complex criteria related to statehoood/recognition/UN status for no good reason that I can see. The title is not well thought out either.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A distiction between generally recognized soveeign states and those that are not generally recognized must be preserved unless all sovereign states, irrespective of level of recognition (thus including Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia, etc.), are grouped together. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Generally recognized" - there is no such terminology, in law or otherwise. Nor do the (legal) prerequisites for state admission to the UN include any such requirement. If you want to maintain this distinction you need to produce a suitable RS to back it up, if you can't then there is a fundamental problem with the page that needs to be fixed.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier, can we add the template {{Definition needed|date=November 2019}} next to that term in the article? It would show the reader that there is a problem in the article. We might even get a definition if there is one.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"Generally recognized" is not an official term. In my understanding, it means "fully or almost fully recognized" and yes, it can be argued where exactly the line is. I think we have a couple of options:

1. Abandon any division and list all the entities together. It will mean that everything in "De facto states with little or no international recognition" will appear in the same list as "proper" states and would imply they have the same level of recognition and soverignly as any other state in the list, which is of course incorrect. We could add a new column to the table describing special status of each entity, resulting in something like this table, which was regarded as sub-optimal in previous decisions.
2. Define a new criteria and rename the sub-sections. One possibility is "A state fully recognized by UN members" vs "partially recognized" which would put SoP, China, Taiwan, Israel and all current "non-members" in the second category. It is correct but removes information - Taiwan is mostly recognized, North Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey, yet we would bundle them together. Another possibility is "UN member states" vs "Non-member observer states" vs "non-members", which downgrades Taiwan to the third category.
3. The simplest solution - keep current division, but come up with better names for categories. I think that current division makes sense: regular states that maintain relations with vast majority of UN members, states which are not too far from that but are not quite there and entities that claim statehood yet very few agree with that.

“WarKosign” 08:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If we are to use UN status as the basis for categorization, then we can do that, although I do not see why that basis should be chosen for this particular article as opposed to say, gnp/capita or something else, UN status seems particularly useless as a basis in the given context ("Asian"). We should do it the same way the UN does it and the sole distinction is member or non member. https://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html and https://www.un.org/en/sections/member-states/non-member-states/index.html and then some catch all for entities that have no UN status. Undefined or controversial terms ought not be used and we should avoid stepping into complex questions about sovereignty, statehood and matters subject to argument. If additional data is to be added it should be in specified columnar form ("population", "GNP",..) so that there is no room for debate about the added information. At the end of the day this is just a list it's not really an article in the ordinary way.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I see now there is yet another list List of sovereign states which although problematic in some areas might be used as a starting template for this subList.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

!Another List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent I am afraid to look for fear that I will find even more. Ah, I see, there is a nav box at the bottom so same as I said above, no need to reinvent the wheel every time, take the best of them and use it as template for the others that are similar.Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In the matter of "generally recognized", the only thing that would appear relevant is the requirement for UN admission that (apart from 9 of 15 and no veto in the UNSC) 2/3 of member states approve (129 states if my math is not wrong). Supposing that a vote were to be held in GA and that those currently recognizing Palestine voted for then on that basis, Palestine has "general recognition" (138 states).Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You are taking a completely ahistorical position, and one that is not NPOV. For decades Switzerland refused to apply for UN membership because it was concerned that it would affect its perceived neutrality, and Vatican City, for similar reasons, to this day refuses to apply for membership. However, there is no question that both Switzerland and Vatican City were generally recognized as sovereign since even before the UN was founded--they control their national territory, no other country claims their territory, and they are recognized as sovereign by almost all UN member states including almost all states that wield economic and geopolitical power. Thus, it is clear that a sovereign state can enjoy general recognition even if it chooses not to become a UN member state.

But that is not the case for the Republic of Kosovo, the State of Palestine, the Republic of China (Taiwan) or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (Western Sahara), none of which would be admitted as UN states were they to apply today (and in the cases of Palestine and Taiwan, recently have tried fruitlessly to be admitted. Please note that an affirmative vote from 2/3 of UN member states is but the final stage in the process to become a UN member state, and thus Palestine's support among countries with small economies wouldn't be enough to result in its admission, as proven by its unsuccessful candidacy of a few years ago. To become a UN member state, a candidate first must obtain a positive vote from at least 9 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council, a group in which economically powerful countries traditionally (and still) enjoy disproportionate power. Moreover, any of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council may exert a veto on motions before it, including with respect to the admission of new member states of the UN. The fact that a large majority of the world's largest economies fail to recognize Palestine's sovereignty is an impediment to its admission to the UN, and being recognized by 75% of the 178 smallest economies among UN members states does not change that reality.

I will repeat what I wrote above which you appear not to have read:

In the matter of "generally recognized", the only thing that would appear relevant is the requirement for UN admission that (apart from 9 of 15 and no veto in the UNSC) 2/3 of member states approve (129 states if my math is not wrong). Supposing that a vote were to be held in GA and that those currently recognizing Palestine voted for then on that basis, Palestine has "general recognition" (138 states).

On the other end of the spectrum, sovereign states that have been admitted as UN member states clearly have general international recognition, or else they would not have been admitted to UN membership (or would have been expelled, as in the case of Taiwan). Yes, some countries currently withhold recognition from the People's Republic of China and Israel, and a few other UN member states have a country or two that refuse to recognize their sovereignty (North and South Korea, Cyprus and Armenia), but no one seriously doubts that the PRC or the State of Israel are sovereign countries, and their UN membership is a testament to the fact that their international recognition is generalized and widespread with only pockets of politically motivated refusal to recognize their sovereignty. Placing the People's Republic of China and Israel in the same category as Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara (not to mention Abkhazia, Transnitria, Artsakh, Somaliland, Northern Cyprus and South Ossetia) would be POV and would present an incorrect picture to readers of Wikipedia.

Because it would be POV to group Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara with generally recognized sovereign states, but also would be POV were one to group them with the mostly or totally unrecognized de facto sovereign states of Somaliland, Abkhazia, Transnitria, etc., a compromise was reached by consensus several years ago to create a classification of sovereign states with limited, but substantial, international recognition. While this intermediate classification has been challenged recently by proponents of listing all states with limited recognition (whether Kosovo, Palestine, Artsakh or Northern Cyprus) within the same category, a consensus to make such change has not been achieved. I continue to believe that describing Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara as sovereign states with limited, but substantial, international recognition is the most NPOV way to classify them, so I support maintaining the current classification scheme. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a subList not an article on international relations.Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that you pointed it out, what's the point in having this article at all ? What does it have that is not covered by List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent#Asia ? “WarKosign” 13:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Separate subList articles have been created by continent (and by supercontinent and by Island status in the nav box here)and doubtless, were I to look, the lists will multiply on every conceivable basis (Middle East?). I am not really arguing for the deletion of all subLists, just that some consistency in approach might be good. If it really is a subList (that is, nothing is being added or subtracted content wise, it's just a slice through the main List), then the "top" should be the template for all the other and then one need only really argue about one list, the template for those "below".Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Assuming the content is truely duplicated (does anyone see any evidence it isn't?), it is sub-optimal because it inevitably leads to content being more up-to-date in one copy than the other. Either this article shouldn't exist at all, or the main article should replace its current Asia section by transcluding it. Ignoring this for now, having all the states and state-like entities in a single table with an extra column or two that describe their status is one of the options I offered. It has the drawback of wasting a lot of horizontal space on a column that is irrelevant for many of the states. “WarKosign” 14:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Transclusion sounds nice, one need only monitor the "top". I also agree with you about the wasting of the space, I think any columns should contain useful data for (almost) all not data applicable to only some (or one). If there is some pertinent fact that (really) needs presenting for some cases, why not do it in the usual way, with an efn type popup note or whatever. After all, I would have thought such data peripheral to the primary purpose of the list and in all likelihood discussed somewhere else (as a reader I would rather go there if interested in it).Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So I took a closer look at List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent being the "top" for this and other sublists divided up by continent. I cannot see any obvious reason why we could not just follow that and transclude as you suggest.(I would rather eliminate the final column by way of some type of popup note(s) but that could wait).Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Why not have the "Sovereign states" section of the article go like this:

"UN member states and observer state" "State with limited international recognition" "De facto states with limited or no international recognition" I hope this can clear up some confusion about Palestine's inclusion in this article. Qqeeaa (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Grouping a UN observer state with limited recognition in the same section as UN member states would be misleading. We should strive to make articles as NPOV as possible and to present readers with correct information that is not misleading. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

All we need to do is follow (and transclude) the identical format of the master/top List of which this is a subList and then this discussion can (in effect) be taken to the "top" which, apart from the benefits already discussed, will conceivably draw in more editors as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "master list" to which this article belongs. The "List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in Asia" is a stand-alone article that is unrelated to the "List of Sovereign States" article, which has a different emphasis and format. List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in Asia has the exact same format as List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in Europe, List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in Africa, List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in South America, etc., none of which are subarticles of List of Sovereign States. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You are mixing up two Lists, the List of sovereign states that you just referred to, is not the parent of this article. The List List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent is the parent article (look at the nav box at the bottom of the article page)Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, OK, got it. But such other article still has a different format than all of the articles that list sovereign countries and dependent states of particular continents.

And, as for such article's grouping of Palestine with generally recognized sovereign states, I maintain that it is POV pushing to pretend that the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state is so special that it should be grouped with the 194 generally recognized sovereign states despite it not being recognized by 12 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia in which the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinians' right to self-determination can be discussed, but a list of countries of the world is not the place for it. Wikipedia should describe the world as it is, not as editors wish it to be, and grouping with generally recognized sovereign states a country that, for all intents and purposes, was rejected for UN membership a few years ago is misleading and is not NPOV.

There is no rational reason to group Palestine with the Canadas and Papua New Guineas of the world when Kosovo, which probably is closer than is Palestine to achieving general recognition and admission as a UN member state, is (correctly) left out of such list. The consensus that was reaffirmed after several recent RfDs on this issue has been to keep politics out of lists of this article and not group Palestine with generally recognized sovereign states. Wikipedia shouldn't mislead and confuse readers just to make a political point. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Up to now, it is not considered POV in the parent List so you need to persuade the editors of the parent page (and me) that you are right and they are wrong. There is already an OR problem in this article resulting from the use of a term that has no definition or source to back it up (by the way, this invalidates the previous RFC for lack of neutrality in wording, using an OR term). I suppose you could try to set up a completely independent article with a completely new title and then try to set that up in the way that suits you but this one is a subList.Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if I explain it slightly differently. The main point and purpose of the list is mainly intended to show the geographical entities making up the given continent, I doubt very much that it was ever intended to be a way to arbitrarily distinguish between these territories on a political basis although I can understand why someone might have decided to use UN status as a basis and there is the problem, if some more usual basis had been used, say GDP/capita, the list would be serving its primary purpose and we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The business of UN status of countries and particularly Palestine is discussed elsewhere, there is no need to go over all the same ground again in a geographical list article. See Member states of the United Nations and there other proper articles devoted to it besides.Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How is this article different from List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent#Asia ? I can see the format is different, but what is the difference in emphasis? Same for other continents. Why do we need this duplication? “WarKosign” 12:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you calling that duplication? Palestine should be moved with the UN member states because it is an observer state and that the UN treats it as a sovereign state, thus giving it sovereign state status. That is a fact. I have no idea why you are all making this so hard. Qqeeaa (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Qqeeaa, if you look at the List List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent you will see what we are talking about, we are not trying to make anything hard, we are trying to make it simpler.Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

State of Palestine should not be treated as a full UN member because it is not a full UN member. It is a an observer state, and must not be misrepresented as something that it's not. We are discussing what is the best way to indicate special status of SoP and of other entities that are not full-fledged UN members. “WarKosign” 15:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's what I mean. UN member states and observer states should be grouped together, not grouped apart. Also, I noticed that some countries are grouped in with the wrong region in that article, such as Denmark being grouped in the "North America" section, East Timor being grouped in the "Oceania" section and Trinidad and Tobago being grouped in the "South America" section. Qqeeaa (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again, UN observer-state status does not signify that the state is a generally recognized soverein states, and it is silly to a state with limited recognitin such as Palestine (which applied for UN membership but withdrew it when it became clear that it was about to be rejected) with generally recognized sovereign states just because it is a UN observer state. Grouping Palestine with Japan or Kazakhstan is POV pushing. Wikipedia should be NPOV and describe the world as it is, not as editors wish that it were. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:List of sovereign states, users @Chipmunkdavis and @Kahastok have seem to disprove of the same thing you said on that talk page, which gives me a strong sign that you are wrong. Qqeeaa (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Best thing to do is make up a new list article based on UNESCO membership:)

AuH2ORepublican, continuing use of OR terminology "generally recognized" (no definition, no RS provided)indicates that you are not serious in your discussion. You are in addition, non-responsive to two other editors besides editor Qqeeaa. Do you intend to continue arguing from a minority of one?Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this article does define "generally recognized" states at the top of the section: "There are 49 Asian states or states with substantial territory in Asia in this list. All are members of the United Nations." SoP doesn't meet this definition. It does not *have* territory in Asia, it *claims* territory in Asia without actually controlling it. More importantly, it is not a UN member. Unifying List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent with the continent-specific articles seems like a good idea to me, but it should be discussed on the main article and not here. “WarKosign” 14:43, 5 November 2019

I just tested the transclusion function to here, it seems to work. I will self revert in a minute.Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If we want to define "generally recognized as being "UN member state" then that's fine, I have no objection, just label the sections the same way the UN does it (ie as in the parent List) and there is no need for any further explanations because everyone knows what UN member state means without an explanation of that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the transclusion test, I don't mind if you do not want to pursue that, we can just leave the unnecessary duplication in place.Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So I got rid of the OR terminology in the first section, now Palestine needs to be in a section called Observer State of the UN and everything else is No UN status. Alternatively, follow the procedure used in List of Sovereign States which is very similar.If the desire is to use "sovereignty" as a basis rather than UN membership, that could also be done.Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Or why not the format used in this one? List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia,it is obviously a parent of this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have just noticed that editor AuH2ORepublican has been trying in May to implement his ideas about how these lists should be over at List of Sovereign States and getting similar objections as I am making here, except there he was not able to gain consensus. Having read the arguments made there I am now now convinced more than ever that this page is simply being politicized for no good reason.Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I did seek, in May 2019, to gain a consensus in the List of Sovereign States article (which has a different format than the List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in Africa, etc., articles) for grouping generally recognized sovereign states together, as they are in most Wikipedia articles. I was unable to obtain a consensus to make the change, and I left it at that. That's the way that Wikipedia works. That being said, what you describe as "my ideas" are actually the way that most Wikipedia articles categorize sovereign states, and the consensus to keep generally recognized sovereign states together in the List of Sovereign States and Dependent Territories in Asia was challenged several times in the past few months only to see the consensus reaffirmed. You should not confuse lack of participation in informal Talk page discussions with editors agreeing with lack of support for the existing consensus, as the numerous unsuccessful RfDs have shown.

Why do you say that I am not "responsive" to two editors? Maybe I don't have time to leave 25 comments per day on the Talk page, but I believe that I have responded to all arguments made.

I will reiterate that grouping countries based solely on UN status, even if Palestine is not grouped with UN member states but is listed separately as a "UN observer state," is not an adequate representation of the world as it exists, and that grouping countries by level of international recognition is an NPOV way to present the countries of the world to people who come to Wikipedia for correct and unbiased information. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, that's your opinion, afaics, not that many agree with you, at least not in the the context of a list article. All your points are dealt with in the full articles addressing these questions of which there are several. The questions are complex and cannot be dealt via a categorization within a list article, it needs a proper presentation with sources and references. Nor do I think readers are going to rely on a list article for information about Palestine, nor should they.Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

List of sovereign states and non-sovereign territories in 2019

an alphabetical list (there is another for every year prior, list multiplication!) and Palestine is designated as a sovereign state. Spot the deliberate errors :) Selfstudier (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Those annual articles are a dog's breakfast grouping all sovereign states together irrespective of their level of international recognition. I really do not understand how grouping Abkhazia and Somaliland with Germany and Botswana is not deemed to be POV. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not so bad, its only a list. But I think describing Palestine as a sovereign state without any qualification is not right and it is also not correct that Israel has a note saying it is not recognized by....while Palestine has no such note.

Palestine and Israel(2)

That section is getting a bit lengthy.

List of ISO 3166 country codes is an official type of list. For me, the main point about these various Lists is that they are somewhat unclear as to their primary intent but this one is not bad as far as it goes.Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem here about moving Palestine in with the UN member states is that there should be more editors getting in on the discussion. Do you think you can get more editors in this discussion, @Selfstudier? Qqeeaa (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The usual way is via an RFC listing but I frankly doubt that too many will be interested at the level of this particular list, I only ended up here by accident following a chain of links, ordinarily I wouldn't bother with this sort of thing but now that I am here...:). I don't really disagree with distinguishing Palestine, it is in many ways a unique affair, the question is how. I don't agree with distinguishing it just any old way, the obvious way is to distinguish it in the way that the UN distinguishes it. Nothing wrong with being an observer state, Germany was , Finland and Switzerland were, others.Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

And now I find (again) the same/similar discussion on the talk page List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. It was listed on WP3O but removed shortly afterwards because more than 2 editors involved. It seems fairly clear based on the fact of two previous discussions on the question in other talk pages that we should either categorize UN-wise or it should be lumped in with all the others as in List of sovereign states.Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarity, we need only look at List of_sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia, the current page being the Asia part of that and List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe the other part. In the Europe page where they only need to deal with the Vatican, the expression "Near universally recognised" was introduced (its not defined, I take it to mean sovereign states missing at most 1 or 2 recognitions) and then the Vatican appears under that heading. In the Eurasia page, that scheme doesn't work because now there is Palestine and Israel to deal with as well as the Vatican, who do not count as "Near universally recognised" and so that page is organized by UN member states/UN Observer States. Personally, I would prefer to avoid the introduction of terminology that is subject to interpretation and rely on an external categorization such as that of the UN. (Originally, the Europe page did follow the UN categorization which afaics originated with the page List of sovereign states, I am not entirely clear why it was decided to move away from that).Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the Talk page for the Europe article has some discussion regarding why the classification is not based solely on UN status and why Kosovo is set apart from Transnitria but is not grouped with generally recognized sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that I added a Nav template for limited recognition at bottom of the article and Israel is included in it (not by me) so your revert of my edit to the other template has no foundation, it is you who needs consensus if you want the template like that (the alternative is to change the divisions, then you can include Israel as a UN state.Selfstudier (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The names if the categories right now are Generally recognized sovereign states and States with limited recognition. Israel is a UN member state and clearly falls under the first category. If you wish to change the categories to "UN nember states," "UN observer states" and "Non-UN states," then get a consensus for the change and then make the change. But you are not allowed to make POV edits that describe the State of Israel incorrectly. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@AuH2ORepublican: The page List of states with limited recognition and the template Template:States with limited recognition both include Israel, I am trying to correct the error in Template:Countries of Asia which as it stands following your second revert is in direct contradiction to both another template reference and a related list reference in this article, creating inconsistencies on the page. It is not true that the "The names if the categories right now are Generally recognized sovereign states", the name in the template is simply "sovereign states" and it says nothing whatever about UN membership (there are sovereign states that are not UN members so your statement "clearly falls under the first category" is not only OR, its just plain wrong).

In the matter of consensus, there IS a consensus (3/4 editors up to now) that this page is set up incorrectly as well as including OR, in fact having failed to get consensus for your POV in two other pages you came to this page to get it instead, that is the antithesis of consensus, WP:FORUMSHOP you are persisting with your POV in the face of clearcut arguments against it. I have suggested a solution that has found consensus elsewhere and you are disputing it without offering any solution to the problems yourself.Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I see from looking at connected pages that you were involved in discussions on these same or similar matters previously, if you have the time and the inclination, I would welcome your input.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier, your argument is too cute by half. The List of Sovereign States with Limited Recognition lists not only Israel, but also the People's Republic of China, Armenia, Cyprus, North Korea and South Korea, yet the State of Israel is the only UN member state that you are trying to move away from the category og Generally recognized sovereign states unless the editing community pretends that the State of Palestine also has general international recognition. Not only would such move be POV pushing, cherrypicking Israel, among all UN member states, for a downgrade in status if Palestin isn't promoted to something that it isn't raises troubling questions about your biases.

As for the "consensus" that you claim that you have achieved, you have 3 out of 5 (not ou of 4) editors who have participated in this discussion, but you haven't attempted to get more people involved such as by starting a RfD or pinging all editors who have participated in recent discussions on the matter. While it is perfectly appropriate for you to invite ChipmunkDavis (who has participated in similar debates in the past, albeit not recently) for his input, it could be characterized as inappropriate canvassing for you to ping one editor who expressed preference for a UN-based approach a year or two ago but not to ping the numerous editors who have participated in RfDs on this same subject during the past three months. For this reason, I am pinging the following editors (one of whom was suspended indefinitely due to his abusive behavior during a prior attempt at classifying Palestine as a generally recognized sovereign state, in case he is reinstated):

@Lo meiin: @Matthew hk: @Recondite Rodent: @Icewhiz: @Redrose64: @Impru20: @Me-1234567-Me: @Rosguill: @WarKosign: @Coffeeandcrumbs: @Buffs: @Deacon Vorbis: @Melmann: @Kuyabribri: @Vanilla Wizard: @Ythlev: @El C: @Serialjoepsycho: @Sir Joseph: @SharabSalam: @Jeppiz: @BushelCandle: @Dash9Z:

AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why one section is labeled "UN Member states" and the others are named "States with limited, but substantial, international recognition" and "De facto states with little or no international recognition". This appears to be designed to carve Palestine out. Move Palestine up and label the section generally recognized. Palestine is recognized by 71% of all UN member states while Israel is recognized by 84%. It is arbitrary to draw the line exactly between them when the difference is not significant. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 15:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The fact remains that, while Palestine has received substantial recognition of sovereignty, it falls far short of general international recognition, as it is not recognized by any G7 country, nor by most EU countries, nor by most major economies; by contrast, each of the 193 UN member states plus Vatican City are recognized by nearly all countries in such groups. When Palestine applied for UN membership, it withdrew its application when it became clear that it would be rejected by the UN Security Council. When Palestine is admitted as a member state of the UN, or when it has achieved recognition not just by a large majority of small countries, but also by a large majority of major economies (even if it continues to be blocked from UN membership), then, and only then, should it be grouped with states with general international recognition and cease being classified as a state with limited, but substantial, international recognition. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs, "This appears to be designed to carve Palestine out." Thats what I felt too. Omg! thank you for saying that.

I agree with Selfstudier. AuH2ORepublican, you are not making any objective argument. Israel indeed has a limited recognition just like Palestine, there is no cherry-picking here, if there is a country that has a limited recognition then I wouldn't oppose moving it. You tried to change the goalpost by saying that it is not a UN member state, and so you said that means it has no "general recognition" but you are unable to define what is a "general recognition". You seem to be accusing us of cherry-picking, bias but this only demonstrates that you are out of arguments. All left to do is to make ad hominem and strawmanned arguments.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A generally recognized sovereign country is one that, in general, is recognized by the international community. That includes all 193 UN member states. That does not include states thst had to withdraw their application for UN membership because they were about to be rejected for membership, and which are recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP. Those are neither strawman arguments nor ad hominems. And such standard applies to all states that have yet to achieve general internatiobal recognition, whether they be European, Asian or African, or whether they be Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. On the the hand, the one UN member state that comenters in this Talk page want to demote from the list of generally recognized sovereign states is the one Jewish country in the UN. Now *that* sounds like a standard intended to reach a particular result, which just happens to coincide with one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states should be NPOV, not biased in favor of a particular side of that conflict. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

OR. start to finish.Selfstudier (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Deciding that "partially recognized" applies to SoP and Israel but not to China, South Korea or Cyprus is also OR. China, South Korea and Cyprus are each unrecognized by a single country, and common sense says that it still doesn't make them unrecognized. It becomes a question of where to draw the line and what to call it. This decision is somewhat of OR, and we can avoid it by sticking to an objective definition, as I detailed in the options above. “WarKosign” 10:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a List of states with limited recognition and a template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:States_with_limited_recognition , I don't know who created these but these also use the UN division and we have the parent article Eurasia also using the UN division, the problem here is the attempted creation of an entirely new division not used anywhere else and the purpose of this new division is unclear.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I highly believe that UN member states and observer states should be grouped together, while the non-UN member states and observer states should be grouped together in a different section. It would be POV in itself to break up the sovereign states between how much recognition the states have worldwide. Qqeeaa (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No. This would be misleading. UN makes a point of this distinction, we can't just hide it. “WarKosign” 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's also worth mentioning that the distinction does not depend on the level of diplomatic recognition.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, List of states with limited recognition contains all the states with less-than-100% recognition. It is a well-defined, albeit not very useful, criteria. If we go by it, we lump states such as South Korea (recognized by everybody except North Korea) and Northern Cyprus (recognized by nobody except Turkey) into the same category. I believe that UN membership status is another well-defined criteria that is more useful and IMO makes more sense. “WarKosign” 12:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree, what seems to have happened is that over time, different lists have been created using different methodology and then created navigation templates that may be consistent with one methodology and not another.Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I'd say simplify this whole matter and start an RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho might well be correct at some point but I see that as a last resort because it is not at all clear how such an RFC should be worded.

The main problem is how to name the sections, they need to be in such a way as that it is plain which states go in which section. After that, the templates need to be made consistent with the article (at present they are inconsistent). It is helpful to look at other related lists:

In the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia (a parent of this article) the headings are UN Member States, UN Observer states and States with Limited Recognition (all under the general heading Sovereign States).

In the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe (a sister of this article) the headings are Near Universally Recognized, Substantial but limited Recognition and Little or No International Recognition.

In both the List of sovereign states and List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent(superparents?) the format is different, all states (including observer states) are listed alphabetically, detail about the UN status being given in a column.

My personal position is that we do not need to have another new scheme for dividing the states, we should use one of those that already exists, if I had to vote for one, I would vote for the scheme used in the Eurasia article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, @Qqeeaa can't participate in this discussion, as @Selfstudier reminded us all with his acknowledgment that that attempts to classify the State of Palestine (rejected for UN membership, and recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP) as if it were a generally recognized sovereign state or, in the alternative, demote the UN member State of Israel (but not the People's Republic of China) to "states with limied recognition" is related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and thus is subject to editing restrictions, such as, and I quote, "Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict." So Qqeeaa, who recently signed up as an editor and immediately began editing articles to classify the State of Palestine as if it were a generally recognized sovereign state, won't be able to continue participating in this discussion (or in the RfD if someone goes on to open yet another one on this matter). AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC which version should stay

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a weak consensus for B. Several editors also expressed support for canceling the RfC or an alternative proposal that never cohered into an actual concrete proposal. As B is identical to the status quo ante, cancelling the RfC would also result in the B revision being reinstated. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

---

which version should this article be? Please choose A, B or C and provide your rationale with the vote. See the above discussions for more context.-SharabSalam (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• A: [1]:
• B: [2]: Note: This version uses UN membership as a standard in the classification which is why Palestine is in another list, because it is an UN observer not a member.(the note was added by SharabSalam at 22:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)) this note is completely misleading, since it's option A and not option B that uses UN membership for categorization “WarKosign” 05:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• C: Another proposal

To clarify: in option B the states are divided between not exactly defined "generally recognized", "limited, but substantial, international recognition" and "De facto states with little or no international recognition". In A there are UN members, UN observers and non-members with little recognition. “WarKosign” 15:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some confusion about how to respond, I would suggest putting your choice, A,B or C with perhaps one line of commentary in the Survey section and then any further commentary in the Thread discussion section, unless someone has a better idea?Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your idea. I will express my preference, and make reference to my statement in the discussion below. May I also suggest that if one does not agree with a person's vote, one notes one's displeasure in the Discussion session instead of haranguing the editor in the Survey section. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

B or C. In particular, I don't think UN status is relevant. The article is about sovereign states, not about UN observer states. I don't like proposal A for that reason. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

B UN status is only relevant when discussing UN-related topics. Still mention UN status, but there's no need to categorize countries by it. RockingGeo (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich 19:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

RockingGeo, Adoring nanny B also uses UN status as a standard, that's why Palestine is in another list in B, is because it is not a UN member.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

UN status can be used to determine international recognition, but it isn't the only factor. RockingGeo (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RockingGeo, yea, Palestine and Israel are not internationally recognized so why do we have Israel in the internationally recognized countries?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam That is a content dispute which has nothing to do with this RfC. I’m not knowledgable enough in international politics to say either way ‘’where’’ contentious states should be categorized. Start another RfC for that.RockingGeo (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RockingGeo This is exactly the reason why we started this RfC. The B version is based on self-created rules and laws that do not exist except in Wikipedia. In version B we have one section that is labeled "UN Member states" and the other is named ("States with limited, but substantial, international recognition" and "De facto states with little or no international recognition"). As Coffeeandcrumbs said above this appears to be designed to carve Palestine out. Version A is at least more realistic and neutral and gives the reader much more insight about the status of these countries.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is a Discussion section beliw to make arguments and counterarguments; the Survey section is for interested editors to be able to vote from among the options that you presented, without any haranguing or canvassing.

In addition, please note that the first category was titled "Generally recognized sovereign states" until a few days ago, when &Selfstudier, who has exoressed vuews very similar to yours with respect to this article, changed it to "UN member states" without first obtaining a consensus, so it is rich for you to argue that there shouldn't be categories based on level of international recognition because the first category says "UN member states." AuH2ORepublican (talk)

B For the reasons I set forth in the first comment in the Discussion section below, I believe that the most NPOV way to present sovereign states is by grouping generally recognized sovereign states (such as Japan, Bulgaria and Chile) in one category, sovereign states with substantial, but not general, recognition (such as Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan) in a second category, and de facto states with little or no international recognition (such as North Cyprus, Somaliland and Abkhazia) in a third category. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican, yea but define "generally recognized". Could you?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You set up a RfC with a section titled "Survey" and one titled "Discussion." The Survey is a section in which editors express their preference, not a section for discussion. I have expressed my position in the Discussion section, so if you have any counterarguments or questions, please place them there. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican, what? No, I mean I don't know but I think thread discussion is where unrelated to a particular vote discussion takes place. Like if the RfC is not neutral or if there is something that should be considered in the RfC. I took this RfC form from this RfC Talk:5G#RfC: Russian disinformation.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My bad, it should be extended discussion not thread discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@SharanSalam, the problem with having all of the back-and-forth discussion in the Survey section is that it soon will become overly burdensome to navigate through it and see what each editor's opinion is. I agreed with Selfstudier when he wrote, in the introductiry section to the RfD, "I would suggest putting your choice, A,B or C with perhaps one line of commentary in the Survey section and then any further commentary in the Thread discussion section." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. I don't see any problem with responding in the survey section. Editors who usually vote in RfCs see the arguments in the survey. If you really think that this RfC should be organised like what you and Selfstudier said then you can cancel the whole RfC and start a clean one or maybe as what self-studier said, an impartial admin can cancel the RfC and start a new one and to be honest, I feel we need to reword the RfC because it doesn't explicitly show what the dispute is about.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

C Leave as is until there's a reason to do so. None of the original research presented offers any general justification to take any action and this RFC doesn't really seem conducive to getting any response from the greater community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

C Cancel this RfC since it's a mess. SharabSalam added a comment to the description of the options that contradicting the original meaning of options A and B after some people already responded. Now we might not know whether a person responding "A" actually meant "B" or vice versa. “WarKosign” 05:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

If the RfC is canceled, then the article should be returned to the status quo ante, that is, how it was before Selfstudier and SharabSalam edited it (prior to obtaining consensus) to become what this RfC calls "Option A," which does not appear to be receiving support in this RfC. They can then resubmit the RfC with clearer choices: (1) classification of sovereign states by level of international recognition, grouping generally recognized sovereign states (such as Japan, Bulgaria and Chile) in one category, sovereign states with substantial, but not general, recognition (such as Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan) in a second category, and de facto states with little or no international recognition (such as North Cyprus, Somaliland and Abkhazia) in a third category, and (2) classification solely by UN status, with UN member states in the first category, UN observer states (irrespective of level of international recognition) in the second category, and sovereign states with no UN status, whether having substantial (albeit not general) internatiobal recognition such as Kosovo or having no international recognition such as Somaliland, in the third category. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The simplest rationale for cancelling is that voting for B (your status quo ante) is voting for a page tagged for OR (the OR being "generally recognized" a term apparently invented by yourself) and one of the reasons why we have this RFC to begin with. My edits were intended to deal with the OR issues except that this RFC intervened midstream, so to speak.If this RFC were to continue and a "vote count" gave it to B, we would simply have to start all over again because B is tagged for ORSelfstudier (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

What a surprise: The only position that you deem acceptable is your own, not one that was achieved by consensus years ago. I guess that the editing community should just go home so that you can impose your pro-Palestine agenda.

And, by the way, it is OR to make classification by UN status the sole way to present the countries of the world, so I guess that the Option A that you imposed by consensus can't stay even if a consensus is reached in its favor. We'll just have to group all sovereign states, irrespective of whether they are generally recognized by the international community or not recognized by any country, in the same category. That it would result in children being taught that Transnitria is a sovereign state in the same sense that Egypt is would be a small price to pay, because you would have eliminated all judgment and common sense from the editing process. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Go and tell the editors of the pages that classify their lists by UN status that they have it all wrong, including the parent of this article List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia.Selfstudier (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Parent of this article"? List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia was created in 2007, while List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Eurasia was not created until 2011. That's one powerful article that was able to spawn articles from four years before. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, this list is a sublist of the Eurasia article (ie all of the countries and associated information that are in this article are present in the parent list but under different section headings (I could now start a sublist of this list (or the Eurasia list) and label it for the Middle East by simply copying out the relevant entries and omitting the OR).Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have looked back into the history of this article (reviewing your edit wars was very educational) and for a long time the first section heading was "UN member states". This [Diff] of 4 November 2018 is where the old section heading "UN member states" was changed to "Generally recognized sovereign states" with the edit comment "using more precise heading for generally recognized states".Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You should have looked a bit further back in your forensic accounting. I clarified the heading on such date because it reflected the discussion that had taken place in numerous articles and Talk pages and the information that actually was presented. The "UN States" language had been added by a new editor named "Talastan" inm May 2018 in his attempt to place Palestine in the same category as Japan and Bhutan. Talastan was a single-purpose editor who became quite abusive and eventually was banned for his behavior, as were the several sockpuppets that he created later. If you look at the last version prior to Talastan's disruotive edits, you'll see that the first category, which did not include Palestine (or Taiwan, or the little-recognized Asian states) was labeled "Recognized States." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Asia&oldid=838832483 AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I did, I highly recommend everybody do the same if they have the time and the inclination. Also to be admired are more of your walls of OR text at [List of Sovereign States] and [|List of sovereign states and dependant territories in Europe] where you were not able to gain consensus for the views you subsequently espoused in this article aka WP:FORUMSHOP Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

B (or C, depending on what "another proposal" is, exactly). It's "List of sovereign states" not "List of UN members". To base the list of sovereign states solely or primarily off UN status is WP:UNDUE. The UN is just one WP:RS; there are others. Per WP:NPOV, we should be presenting the consensus of RSes, and not the viewpoint of any single RS. So definitely not A. B seems to do a good job of it. I'm sure B can be improved, so I'm not opposed to C, depending on what the other proposal is. – Levivich 17:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

C Cancel RFC and/or Replace division of sovereign states with undivided undistinguished alphabetical list.

As two editors above and I already indicated, this RFC ought to be cancelled but since it continues to run, I will comment.

Under both Options A and B, the first section/division contain the exact same states. Option B is the result of an editor redefining UN member states as generally recognized sovereign states (unsourced OR).

Apart from that, the argument has revolved around arbitrary/OR divisions of the remaining sovereign states.

ANY division that is unsourced will involve OR and /or POV to some extent. Someone will always complain that the division does not produce their desired result, that such and such a state is in the wrong division and so on.

The only way to avoid this is a simple undivided (and undistinguished save for alphabetization) list for the sovereign states (one already implicitly exists at List of sovereign states or ISO could be used). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 08:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• C. Option B is WP:Original research, as there remains no sources, let alone a wide agreement across sources, over what constitutes "general", "substantial", or "little" recognition as presented in those lists. A does not have quite as strong a reason to avoid it, but it does feel like too much splitting of hairs in a way that detracts from the purpose of the article and doesn't really help the reader. The best option would be to follow the consensus reached in List of sovereign states, which replaced "general" recognition with recognition by the UN through a vote of its member states (a verifiable criteria), and the rest. For "the rest", a qualification of how "substantial" or "little" their recognition is is provided in the "Status" column.

Another alternative, although I don't prefer it, would be to have "UN Members" and "Others". Again, the "Status" column would provide relevant information as needed. CMD (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Thank you for starting a RfC so that we can see whether the existing consensus will be reaffirmed or whether a new consensus will be established.

When people come to Wikipedia, they seek the most correct and most NPOV information possible. Thus, a question as seemigly simple as "what are the countries of Asia" requires careful analysis and nuanced presentation that is sensitive to all points of view while being as NPOV as possible.

Over many decades, the United Nations has gone from a rather exclusive club to a union with a membership encompassing practically all sovereign states for which there is little doubt that they each are a people with a government that controls its territory. However, this occurred because practically all generally recognized sovereign states have, one by one, applied for UN membership and been admitted as such by the sovereign states that form the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, not because the UN dictates to member states what constitutes a sovereign state that it should recognize. UN member states are free to withhold recognition even from fellow UN member states, as is the case for members who, for political reasons, do not recognize the State of Israel, the People's Republic of China, Armenia, Cyprus, North Korea and South Korea as sovereign states despite their clear attributes of sovereignty and general international recognition.

Similarly, the UN may confer "observer entity" status to political organizations, and confer "observer state" status to sovereign states, that do not enjoy general international recognition. It is possible for two states with similar levels of international recognition to have a different UN status because one applied for (and received) observer-state status while the other has not applied for UN observer status or UN membership.

As is clear from the editing history and Talk page discussion for this article, the main reason why this RfD is a dispute regarding Palestine's classification as a soveeign state with substantial, but not general, international recognition. While I think that we all can agree that the State of Palestine enjoys substantial international recognition, particularly from sovereign states with developing economies, and that the UN's vote to transfer its designation of the PLO as a UN observer entity to the State of Palestine as a UN observer state was not a trivial reclassification, the State of Palestine's status as a UN observer state does not mean that, ipso facto, it should be deemed to have the same level of international recognition as Indonesia or Turkmenistan and be grouped with generally recognized sovereign states or even that it should be classified in a special category for UN observer states.

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, I share the sentiment held by proponents of the State of Palestine here in Wikipedia that it is wrong to group Palestine with de facto states with little or no international recognition such as South Ossetia or Somaliland. For this reason, I support the compromise reached by consensus several years ago of grouping Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara--each a de facto state with substantial, but not general, international recognition--together in a separate category. While these four de facto sovereign states do not come close to the level of international recognition enjoyed by, say, Slovenia or Bhutan, neither are they completely or overwhelmingly unrecognized states like Artsakh or Transnitria. I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain but I think the idea is that you put your choice, A,B or C in the survey section as well as the rationale in here, the threaded discussion section.Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

AuH2ORepublican, I think you have made a very long comment and I really don't want to read all of it. I will response to the last statement, I want Wikipedia to be a source of unbiased information to which children and adults may look to learn about the world around us, and that includes being honest when assessing the levels of recognition enjoyed by sovereign states.

30 countries do not recognize Israel as a state, yet Israel is in the generally recognized list. Palestine is not recognized by 57 countries but it is in another list. Do you find this NPOV?--SharabSalam (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Selfstudier, do you have any suggestion of what are the notes that should be next to the versions in the RFC? --SharabSalam (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the note that you added is supposed to be A, not B? In any case, responders are simply ignoring the instructions and putting comments and replies in both sections so it's already a messy. To be honest, I would prefer it if this RFC were cancelled and an impartial administrator be invited to set up the RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Admins are editors. They are free to open RFC's as any editor is. Any admin to do so would be involved, not impartial.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, by impartial I only meant someone that is not involved with IsraelPalestine editing in the usual course.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter who starts the RfC. What matters is that the options are stated in a clear way and do not change after some people already !voted on them. “WarKosign” 11:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Also true, nevertheless I don't think I am making an unreasonable request. In fact I had suggested the same thing to AutoH2ORepublican on my talk page before this RFC was put up but events overtook the discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment to Selfstudier: You claim (in your unsigned !vote in "Survey") that a simple undivided (and undistinguished save for alphabetization) list for the sovereign states exists at List of sovereign states. That is not correct. That list is divided into two parts, one for "UN member states and observer states" and one for "Other states". --T*U (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I only mean that the list of states is there (or ISO can be used); as I indicated, I am not advocating any division for this article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.