Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe

Archives

---

1. March 2004 – October 2006 (overlaps 2)
2. May 2006 – Nov 2006 (overlaps 1)
3. February 2007 – July 2007
4. August 2007 – May 2008

Footnotes

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

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

Edit request: Update footnote

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

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

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

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

Merge of this, CoE and EU templates

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

(User:JLogan/Sandbox 2) - _JLogan^t: 16:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

- SSJ ☎ 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote update

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

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

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

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update: it seems like Belarus is about to regonise both republics too, according to Swedish national radio[1]. Plus, both republics recognise each other. --83.249.240.108 (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)