Template talk:Countries of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
  1. March 2004 – October 2006 (overlaps 2)
  2. May 2006 – Nov 2006 (overlaps 1)
  3. February 2007 – July 2007


Contents

[edit] "Republic of" again

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

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

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

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

Fair enough, I modified it slightly to attribute the dispute. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope this compromise will settle the matter. -- Jao (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What to do about Kosovo?

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

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

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

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

I've wrote at Talk:Kosovo, but for readability I've decided to rewrite here too.
Firstly, the Republic of Slovenia had perfectly legally seceded from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in 1991. Next of all, even next to that, the international community did not recognize the independence of Slovenia (or the Republic of Croatia for that matter) before SFRY officially dissolved in 1992.
Second of all, East Timor is very unrelated to Kosovo. After the Portuguese had retreated from it, it had self-declared independence. Knowing the standards practice (according to precedent law) and the general interpretation of the support of self-determination depicted in, among other acts, the UN Charter, as well as the conclusions thereof, there is absolutely no reason to doubt that Timor-Timor would not have been quickly internationally recognized as an independent country - as a former colony. The problem is that it was almost immediately invaded by the Republic of Indonesia (that is, in 1975). Kosovo was reconquered by Serbia in 1912 from the Ottoman Empire, an act supported and recognized by all parties of the world. While Indonesia had absolutely no historical claim for East Timor, Kosovo has a center of cultural and other heritage spanning 900 years. Kosovo was indeed integrated into the Serbian society, whereas the entire time period - the 1975-1999 Indonesian control of East Timor - was much like the abusive 1989-1999 Serbian control of Kosovo (a short time period). Next of all, at the Portuguese-Indonesian compromise in 1999, the eastern Timorians had refused to remain in Indonasia, which in turn withdrew its treatment of the region as its integral part. A United Nations interim administration mission was established in East Timor in 1999, on the basis of UNSCR 1264 which nowhere guarantees or affirms Indonesian sovereignty and territorial integrity. It leaves primarily to the people to decide the future of the state, which had occurred in 2002 when it became independent. On the other hand, UNSCR bases itself on Serbia's sovereignty and territorial integrity and leaves the foundations for a negotiated solution taking to granted several factors. 1. Territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia, and 2. Will of the people of Kosovo. The situation is drastically different. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

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

"Never" is a long time - I don't think anyone expected the SFRY and USSR to collapse, but they did... At any rate, we shouldn't close off that possibility. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Chris, look that this is something else. It's about a different story here. There are some states that said very clear that will not recognize Kosovo. I don't think they will change their views very soon. Even EU countries are divided. Look there are many of EU members who are against independence: Spain, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia. So, what's your point? Косовска Митровица (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
How did you manage to put Northern Cyprus in this mix? Do you really want to cause another edit war? A territory with dozens of UN and EU resolutions against its illegal occupation by Turkey is now a country for Wikipedia because the occupying country recognises it as such? Regarding Kosovo, my position is when (and if) it is recognised by international organisations as a separate country, it should be put there, with the name that it was recognised. --   Avg    13:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The "recognition" of the "TRNC" by the state that carved it out of the sovereign territory of another country that it itself occupied is hardly a good enough reason to include it in this template. On the world stage, it is effectively on the same level as the self-declared states deprecated by ChrisO (Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia). Only states with wide international recognition, by individual countries as well as international organisations, should be listed here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good point. OK, I'm happy to go along with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
In fact, Kosovo is also recognized by countries who were involved in the Kosovo War, i.e. NATO countries and the US puppet state Afghanistan.--Certh (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence#Recognition from states, you'll see that four of the eight states that have recognised Kosovo so far aren't NATO members, and most of those in the process of recognising it either aren't NATO members or weren't members at the time of the war. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyway those countries are allies of the US. And even if not, what does it change? Its legal status is the same as that of Northern Cyprus.--Certh (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo isn't a member of the UN and it is in fact recognized only by some countries, so why it is in the list of Europe's sovereign states?! --161.3.1.42 (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this issue is rather easy to settle. You seem to be focusing mostly on the recognition of Kosovo (ie, a criteria for being a »state») but even if Kosovo would be recognised by the UN, it is still hardly a »sovereign» state, as it is and will for the forseeable future be a protectorate of the UN and the European Union. Question is if Kosovo ever will be a sovereign state, as the EU wants it to have a »supervised» independence. The European Union will, with the EULEX mission, have authourities in Kosovo that is definitely mutually exclusive with the sovereignty of Kosovo as a state. This[1] article is from a respected Swedish newspaper, and among other things, it says that "... Kosovo will in practice have Brussels as the highest instance", and "The most powerful man in Kosovo will be the Dutch diplomat Peter Faith". This means that we either have to remove the word "Sovereign" from the template, or "Kosovo". I'll remove Kosovo from it now, please reply before reinserting it. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
That same point applies for Bosnia and Herzegovina. De Facto the supreme authority in BiH is Miroslav Lajcak of the OHR ( Office of High Representative ), but still, Bosnia is considered a sovereign country of Europe. So I'll add back Kosovo into the Countries of Europe list.

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

I doubt that BiH's sovereignty (or rather lack of it) is comparable to Kosovo's. But if it is true, then I suppose it would be suitable to remove BiH as well from the list of sovereign states of Europe and put it in the template "Non-sovereign territories of Europe". --82.183.224.40 (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If to add Kosovo, then the Northern Cyprys also should be added. I think better is to remove Kosovo.--Certh (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

It seems that those who want to include Kosovo here do not participate in the dicussion, but simply protected the article.--Certh (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The editor who protected the templated has no edits to this template at least recently. But anyways. We should probably discuss what is the level of recognition that should be attained to get into this template. Is it UN membership? A certain number of recognized states? A global de facto recognition, like in the case of ROC where de jure the state is recognized by only a handful of other states, but de facto it is recognized by several other states also? --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I only want the issue to be addressed equally to all such entities. If to include - then both N. Cyprus and Kosovo, if not - then both not to include without appealing to "evil Milosevic", "poor Albanians who were gonocided", "evil Russia", "evil Turkey" etc to justify inclusion of Kosovo in this template without including N. Cyprus. Both entities are partially recognized at the moment, by a minority of states. Saying that Kosovo is recognized by more powerful states such as USA and Britain also shell not justify the inclusion. --Certh (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

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

How about requiring the recognition of just one country that is uninvolved politically in the partially recognized country? That would exclude Northern Cyprus, but include Kosovo. bogdan (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The US and its allies can hardly be considered "uninvolved politically" in Kosovo; they were the ones who seized control of the province from Serbia in the first place. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
UN is really the safest bet. --   Avg    23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Since when Senegal and Malaysia are US allies? bogdan (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
But this seems like a completely arbitrary tailor made policy designed to specifically exclude one case and allow another. Furthermore, any definition of "political involvement" will be debatable. At least recognition by the UN is a widely accepted benchmark for sovereign statehood. TSO1D (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
They are overwhelmingly Muslim, ergo equally biased in favour of the Albanians. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Declarative theory of statehood vs Constitutive theory of statehood

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

International law doesn't work that way. What you're describing is the constitutive theory of statehood; most scholars (and governments) regard the declarative theory of statehood as definitive. See also Montevideo Convention. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't buy this. This way each village can DECLARE itself independent and Bush even might recognizes it for his geopolitical goals. There is much more needed in order to be a state. Kosovo is not a state. Period.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't buy it either. Some people take something out from their stomach. Косовска Митровица (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a well-established principle of international law. To quote Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." A village wouldn't qualify on (d) but a larger entity certainly could - there's no reason in theory why Belgrade couldn't decide to follow Kosovo's example and declare itself an independent state. But see my reply to TSO1D's question below. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Hurray, declarative theory of statehood, let's recognise Sealand then! Of course whoever monitors ChrisO's involvement in other issues also knows he has his reasons not to admit UN's authority.--   Avg    19:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that instead of making snide insinuations you try educating yourself about international law - then you might say something worth reading. The problem we have here is that many people are confusing statehood with international recognition. Those are two quite separate things. There's absolutely no doubt that Kosovo qualifies fully on every count of the Montevideo Convention's criteria for statehood under established international law (see above for the four criteria listed in Article 1 of the Convention). Transnistria, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia etc all meet the same criteria and we can fairly describe them as states. They are not, however, internationally recognised (or are barely recognised, in the case of Northern Cyprus). The issue we face is simply this: what criteria we apply for listing states in this template? There are three possible criteria, the Montevideo Convention definition of a state, the existence of international recognition from multiple internationally recognised states, or admission to the United Nations (which, by the way, doesn't "recognise" states). Which criteria do we use? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Chris, I agree with you fully, but it is the last part of your post that I have been trying to focus on. Indeed, which criteria for recognition do we use? I tried making the case for UN recognition above because I think we should only be including states that have been recognized internationally and a) the Montevideo Convention doesn't include this prerequisite, b) using the standard of multiple states will be arbitrary (i.e. how many states, what kind of states, etc). It is for this reason that I propose we use UN recognition as a benchmark for practical purposes. TSO1D (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan isnt independent either. The fact that USA violates the International law does not make it a rule. How about recognizing Texas as an independent country (well cowboys are different than East Coasters), or how about giving the right of secesseion to all native American tribes? --Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As a benchmark, it's worth considering how other regional templates operate. It strikes me that Kosovo's situation is quite similar to that of Taiwan - significant international recognition but not UN membership. It's listed in both Template:Countries and territories of East Asia and Template:Countries of Asia with a footnote noting its lack of UN membership. Perhaps this is a viable solution for Kosovo? It would at least be consistent with our existing practice... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that template also includes Northern Cyprus with the same caveat. So it appears that inconsistency already exists between these templates anyway. Perhaps we should have a larger debate about this issue and decide upon a common standard. TSO1D (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been also a recent edit "war" in that template and until the end of January the article had been without TRNC for at least half a year. I think we should find a place where we could discuss all of these templates in common. IMHO a state should included in the Sovereign States or Countries part of the templates, if it has been recognized by at least some countries that are not directly involved in the issue behind the dispute. This would qualify ROC and Kosovo as sovereign states, but not TRNC nor any of the completely non-recognized countries. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 08:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I find such a qualification to be rather ad hoc.
Besides, while one may find TRNC's recognision to be less genuine than others because of Turkeys relation to it, Taiwans' recognision can be considered equally questionable as the states which still does recognise Taiwan are mostly tiny states with negigible political importance globally, which means that Taiwan is practically not recognised. Point is, if we instead of formulating general criterias for what should be considered a state decide to use more practical or pragmatic methods, then there are a lot of other factors that we also must consider. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I know this is a very delicate situation. But I think that the UN membership shouldn't be a pre-requisite for a statehood in WP as at least any of the UNSC premanent members could veto the membership of any new state if they didn't like the situation. ROC case: in addition to being formally recognized by 23 minor states, it is de facto recognized by several major states, who don't formally recognize ROC anymore, because of the significance of PRC's stance in the matter. I know that is a very complicated issue. As for TRNC, I don't know if it has much dealings with any other states except Turkey. It is practically dependant on Turkey. And no other internationally recognized state has ever recognized the sovereignty of TRNC. As for Kosovo, the situation is still a bit in the open. There are at the moment 17 states that have formally recognized them. There are at least 6 other states whose formal recognition is just a matter of procedure. That takes Kosovo's level of formal recognition beyond that of ROC. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 10:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is regonised by 40+ states but is not treated as a genuine state by Wikipedia anyway (for example, see here[2] and here[3]) (note that it is the territory of Western Sahara that is included in the template link, not the SADR).
Whether 20 or 100 80 states will regonise Kosovo eventually, it's statehood will continue to be very controversial and it should therefore not be treated diffrent from other states in a similar position, I think. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Template:Non-sovereign territories of Europe

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

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

Now Kosovo is under UN control as I know. Anyway, TRNC exists in that template. If to remove Kosovo, it also should be removed.--Certh (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Kosovo is listed in this template ("Countries of Europe"), while TRNC isn't listed. In my opinion, both Kosovo and the TRNC should get the same treatment (i.e. either list both, or none).
Maybe the UN control makes Kosovo non-sovereign. Is the TRNC sovereign or not? Some people claim that the TRNC is occupied by Turkey, while some claim that it is not. Maybe a better word than "sovereign" needs to be used (in both templates). (Stefan2 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request: Kosovo (2)

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

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

[edit] Kosovo souverign state????

Admin, please see what is criteria / List_of_sovereign_states#Criteria_for_inclusion

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

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

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

Template:Countries_of_Asia does not include Northern Cyprus so why does this one include Kosovo? --Avala (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Countries of Asia shows a list of countries of Asia, whereas Template:Countries of Europe shows a list of sovereign states of Europe (see the header above the country list). I suppose that's why... (212.247.11.155 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
I agree. It is POV to include Kosovo in here right now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't the title be changed from "sovereign states" to "sovereign countries"? Then it would be clear that Kosovo (and North Cyprus) shouldn't be included. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
But they should, and are. N Cyp has nothing to do with Kosovo as no one important recognises it. Kosovo is recognised by the bulk of the world's powers and the majority of the world will follow in the coming months and days. Don't start this debate here, take it back to Talk:Kosovo. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Turkey is not important??? Which country "important" then and which is not? Which contries constitute "worlds's powers"? Is Britain world's power? Is Italy world's power? Is Turkey world's power? Is Russia world's power? Is China world's power? Is Spain world's power?--Certh (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, how dare I state what I think is obvious without first consulting the Privy Council. No one important recognises it. If you're pedantic enough to want specific states - I don't know - US, EU, China and Micronesia? I like Micronesia. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Yeah, it's not like there have been millions of words wasted on policy and precedent, a random who comes along always knows better. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Im just saying, just a random thought.Bob bobato (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, too harsh. WP:BITE. I've posted a welcome on your talk, have a look at some of those to get familiar with our policies and precedents. +Hexagon1 (t)

[edit] Kosovo, provisional agreement

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

I'm not involved in the discussion regarding inclusion, but I am concerned about the stability of the template. I'd suggest that you give this a reasonable amount of time to allow for discussion, then act. As well, what about considering an additional line for "disputed territories" (or something similar?) That way, we're not saying it is a country, nor are we saying it isn't. (Given that the Kosovo issue is very prominent right now, excluding it completely might just perpetuate the edit wars.) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, I think it's best that there is as much input as possible from other users interested in this topic, so that all can voice their opinion and understand the reasoning for any decision. However, I was only proposing a change in the short run, in order to have a more or less stable version while we have a discussion on the larger issue. I am also concerned about stability, but that shouldn't be the only factor. For instance, consistency within that template is in my opinion more important, and I believe that including Kosovo and not other unrecognized or partially recognized European entities presents a problem in that regard. However, even when it comes to stability, I believe that most people who have presented a view on this page are opposed to including Kosovo in this template in its current form. But of course there is no rush, and thankfully there is not much edit warring going on this page, so we can wait. However, I would like to point out that the inclusion of Kosovo is a relatively new change and consensus wasn't sought for its addition, and the protection of the page was not an endorsement of that version, but only an attempt to prevent edit warring, so in a way this was the "default" version, and if other users reverted to it, it seems to me unfair to place the burden of demonstrating consensus on them. 22:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSO1D (talk • contribs)
Come on people, Kosovo is an independent country recognized by most European countries. If your neighbours recognize you independent then you are INDEPENDENT. It is sad for me to see you argue over whether Kosovo is indpendent. They are and I don't belive we should argue about this anymore. We can maybe add Kosovo and under a footnote saying "recognized by 24 European countries". I think it is very childish for some of you to try to create new definitions of independence. Please don't write long answers because I and I belive most others don't have time to read that much --Noah30 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is not about independence (which Kosovo most definitely has nothing of, by the way), it's about statehood. And one of the criteria in the definition being used by Wikipedia for a »fully fledged» state is that it should be recognised by a majority of UN members (which I think is quite sensible). Being recognised by it's neighbours is a criteria that you just made up. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
anonymous I don't agree with you and you are lying when you claim that a country has to be recognized by the majority of the UN members in order to be perceived independent. But just wait and see, very soon we will have 100 countries that recognize us. Could you please provide a link for the definition you presented??? I don’t think so! --Noah30 (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Here: List of states. Template reverted again, and keep calm please. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In that list of states Kosovo is placed beside countries "that may be defined as states in the body of customary international law". Here wr also find Taiwan and they are included in the Asia template. Kosovo should also be included. Stop pushing POV edits. --Noah30 (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither the TRNC nor the ROC should be in that template and they have been removed several times. If you have a definition of the recognition-criteria for a state which is better than recognition by >50 % of UN members then you are free to present it here. Because until I'm presented with a better policy on this field I will stick with that criteria. Template reverted again. --82.183.224.40 (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The number of European countries is below 50. I counted and found out that there are only 44/45 real European countries. I did not include Georgia, Azerbdjan, Armenia, Cyprus, Kazakhstan and Turkey since they are not European but Asian. So it's true that more than 50 % of the countries have recognized Kosovo indepedent --Noah30 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I too see the double standards WP is using in this particular issue. ROC is recognized as a sovreign state in the Asia template while Kosovo is not, despite the fact that we are recognized by the most democratic countries in the world. This is happenng because Serbs, Greeks and other US-haters are creating false discussion whether Kosovo is a country or not. We Albanians are used to wait and can wait another 3 months and then will we have recogniton from a majority of the world countries--Noah30 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I would go further and say that Albania isn't a "real" European country either. I would also exclude Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey, but not Armenia, Cyprus or Georgia, which are at least culturally European. Cyprus is even a member of the EU, not to mention its participation in the ancient Hellenic civilization, the first European civilization. So, according to my definition, we have 46 "real" European countries, of which 22 have recognized the separatist régime in Priština. Still a minority. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Albania is Europe, you can not choose to be Europe, it is something you are born, but Greek-speaking people make sometimes strange comments with regard to Albania because they still believe half of Albania should be annexed to Greece, or maybe feel uncomfortable to be at the bottom of Europe?. And you also seems to forget that you have a high percentage of people in Greece that have Albanian origin.Arvanites. You comments about Kosovo are purely based on your religious believes and are supported by arguments: We Greeks are Orthodox and that’s why we should support Serbia, no matter what the reality on the ground is. Happy Eastern --Noah30 (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm an atheist, thank God. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] State it is a State

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Countries_of_Europe"
Personal tools