Open main menu

Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia

WikiProject Asia (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Countries (Rated List-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Palestine AreaEdit

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 countriesEdit

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)

SovereigntyEdit

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)

PalestineEdit

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.pngEdit

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?Edit

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 mapEdit

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

Australia!!Edit

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 titleEdit

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)

ArmeniaEdit

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)


IsraelEdit

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)

AreaEdit

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 IsraelEdit

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 territoriesEdit

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 IsraelEdit

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

KazakhstanEdit

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 RussiaEdit

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)

Map of Taiwan areaEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 21:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Uncited claimsEdit

"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 AsiaEdit

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)

EgyptEdit

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

External links modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 KashmirEdit

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)

TableEdit

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 modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 WikipediaEdit

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 concernsEdit

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)

questionEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 disputeEdit

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 categorizationEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on Palestine categorization (II)Edit

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)

This is very disturbing to say the least. Impru20talk 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)
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"Edit

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 classificationEdit

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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return to "List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia" page.