Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Misc

G'day y'all. Are the three countries listed as "not recognising south sudan" in fact not, or just stated at some point they'd prefer it didnt secede?

According to the South Sudan article, they're opposed to independence but haven't explicitly said they won't recognise South Sudan. I think we have a contradiction here. And Introducing... A Leg (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Austria to recognize

[1] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Albania e Kosovo recognize South Sudan

http://info-kosova.net/lajme/4603-pacolli-ftohet-ne-sudanin-jugor-gjate-shpalljes-se-pavaresise.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.13.38 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Recognition Table

Perhaps when independence is declared we should start a table on this page something along the lines of what "foreign relations of Montenegro" has on its page. Opinions? 64.115.19.42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC).

Agreed. It's 9 July already local time, so I would assume we can take the "effective 9 July" notations off. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

India recognizes South Sudan

The Republic of India recognizes South Sudan. The Indian Prime Minister has already sent greetings to the new nation. Please reflect that on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.62.117.4 (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

main in section

We have a paragraph on recognition here for which a main article exists: International recognition of South Sudan. As per the style handbook I have placed it under a {{main}} template which was removed with edit summary: "link within the article is better than external attention grabber )and pov". I miss the pov and thought the paragraph content is perfectly adressed in the article in "main". What am I missing? L.tak (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad, deceptive edit summary. but if the link can be merged into the article then its generally (by precedent) better used there. although in this case it wasnt overlink, it could theoretically be overlink as its usually put in only 1 place.Lihaas (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

good to hear the edit summary was not ok. Still, I think in virtually every place where a main template is placed, it could also be linked in the first line. However (by precendent ;-)), generally IMO the main template is used. It fits also perfectly the description on {{main}}. It seems not a too important point however... L.tak (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

either/or not both(Lihaas (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)).

I agree there; and will leave it a single link indeed! L.tak (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

New U.S. state?

What on earth is the last sentence of the "Foreign Policy" section talking about? Although it is cited from an established news outlet, the cited document itself appears to be nonsense. South Sudan is not to become a new state of the United States! Evzob (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Xinhua is normally a pretty good news source, but I think quoting that guy rambling about how the U.S. wants to take over South Sudan without commentary or counterpoint was a big mistake on their part. It's obviously utter drivel. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

did you read it? iots an analytical pievce from anotable source and RS at that. if you have a counter sour ec to say his opinion that his RS analysis then add it. its not pov b/c editors dont like it.(Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)).

I agree it could be in, although it is clearly a strongly stated opinion. Maybe in due time we can balance it with others (which certianly will exist as well). The US state is not something to take literally and I think therefore not suitable for inclusion here and I have removed. The first sentence (unganda, kenia, US as focus) is clearly facutal and relevant. L.tak (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis. As for the Xinhua article, yes, I read it - and I live in the US and there is absolutely no talk of annexing South Sudan or anything of the sort. In fact, US energy companies can't even deal with South Sudan because it uses Sudanese oil infrastructure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No one thinks its gospel truth, its just analysis. At any reate, we can pick and choose pieces of quotes b/c that WP:CENSORSHIP(Lihaas (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)).

It's a thin line indeed between selection and sensorship ;-). But the point is that if 'we write it (even if we quote) it tends to be taken literally as this is an encyclopedia context. And if I am not mistaken, that was not even the intention of the quoted person... L.tak (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Finland recognizes independent South Sudan

http://www.sttinfo.fi/pressrelease/detail.do?pressId=38148
"President Tarja Halonen decided on Friday 22 July to grant Finnish recognition of the world's newest independent state, the Republic of South Sudan. At the same time she approved the establishment of diplomatic relations between Finland and South Sudan. The recognition was granted in a presidential session at Kultaranta, the President's official summer residence." Ape89 (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Per Talk:International_recognition_of_South_Sudan#What's the plan here? discussion. Delusion23 (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As discussed there, there is opposition. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

YOU ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS!! BECAUSE OF YOUR "MERGER" THE LIST AND THE ACTUAL MAP ARE GONE!!! VERY CLEVER,YOU JERKS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.4.25 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sascha, stop this. You used 4 invented names to contribute to the discussion, which doesn't suit you. Now drop the stick, and start editing nicely, or you're not welcome on this project! L.tak (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

BOSNIA,GEORGIA;AZERBAIJAN,MAROCCO AND THAILAND DECLARED IN JULY,THAT THEY WILL NEVER RECOGNIZE SOUTH SUDAN!!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.36.185 (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sascha, according to which sources? L.tak (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sascha's IP address should be blocked - he never signs his posts, does not contribute meaningfully to discusions, and does not reveal his sources, but more importantly he is a sockpuppeteer and uses abusive and shouting language.

In response to his earlier points, the list has not gone anywhere, it's just been hidden - simply click show to see it. And yes, the map has gone - but who really needs a map where almost all of the countries are coloured green? Bazonka (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

Equatorial Guinea has granted official recognition for the South Sudan! It´s the 108th country,which has recognized South Sudan. However, 85 states still refuse to recognize South Sudan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.90 (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sascha: I will not react to any of your suggestions anymore, unless you add a source. We have told you over 10 times now, that you should support your views by sources. If you don't know how, just copy the website url in where appropriate.

- WHAT DO YOU THINK???

- - What do you think,why are many of these 85 remaining states not recognizing South Sudan so far??? If we take a closer look at these 85 states,then we see,that many of them have separatism-problems in their own countries,could this be a reason for their refusal??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.2.90 (talk • contribs)

-

It doesn't matter what we think (unless we're having a beer and discuss it). It matters what sources think. Otherwise we're going into original research. Sources please! L.tak (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

YEMEN

Yemen has officially recognized South Sudan!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Documents will be signed today,on September 8,according to a spokesman in Sanaa!! Official diplomatic relations will be established today!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.36.12 (talk • contribs)

Sacha, please do not delete other users' posts. Also, use correct formatting for section headers, and remember to sign your threads. If you delete any more posts, or pretend to be anyone else, then I will report you to admins and get you blocked. Bazonka (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem,Bazonka? I never pretended to be anyone else, i am always signing in with Sascha,Germany,so what´s going on with you??? Are you suffering from conspiracy theories???? It´s simply a fact,that Yemen recognized South Sudan,it´s even included in the list with an official link. Today i saw it in a german version,that Sanaa will acknowledge Yemen officially today on thursday and today diplomatic relations will be established as well. I think,that this happened in the morning or at lunchtime. Furthermore i cannot sign my threads because i simply don´t know how to do it. And some others users are also not signing their posts. Furthermore I am NOT responsible for the "Equatorial Guinea"-topic,i saw it this morning and not before!!

Sascha,Germany— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.36.12 (talk • contribs)

SURINAME

Suriname also recognized South Sudan today,it´s in the list!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.21.71 (talk • contribs)

MAP AND NUMBERS!!!

I urge the moderators to make an updated number-field and a map again!!! Without an updated number it´s chaotic,because we must always count again to find out the actual number of recognizers. At the moment these are 110 states! A map would also be helpful again!!

Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.21.71 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note the discussion at Talk:International_recognition_of_South_Sudan#Number_field, where there was a WP:consensus (only you disagreed) that the numbers have no meaning (as not being in the list means we have no formal record of recognition; it might however have recognized; or choose not to issue for recognitions). L.tak (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT TRUE! I AM STILL OPPOSING THE FACT,THAT YOU REMOVED THE NUMBERS AND THE MAP!!! WE NEED THEM BOTH FOR A BETTER VIEW!!!!!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.21.71 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am still saying you (and your "friends on the same IP), were the main opposers, Consensus is not the same as unamity... (btw: STOP THE CAPITALIZATION, IT FEELS LIKE SCREAMING L.tak (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Signing posts

Dear Sascha, as you do not log on (which is your right), we can not put things on your talk page. your I.P. identifies you though. Unfortunately your computer changes ip a lot (not something you can do much about) and we therefore can also not place messages on your ip talk page. I want to reiterate however few ground rules, which have been told over and over. If you do not follow them, (and I am very tired because we all told you repeatedly) I will ask page protection (so only registered users can edit) as this is becoming disruptive:

1. do never remove posts from a talk page!
2. sign your posts; not (only) with "Sascha", but also by pushing the fourth button on top of the edit screen (look up when you are editing, and you will see a "B" (for bold") icon, followed by a I (for italics) icon, followed by a picture, followed by a pictogram of "pen which is signing". If you put your mouse over it, it will show "signature and time stamp". Press that button at the end, and your done!
3. no full words in capitals
4. no swearing
5. if you make a statement about a recognition, also give a source (just copy paste it in)

This is all not planned to be biting newcomers, but there is a moment when it patience runs out... L.tak (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

LET`S DISCUSS!!!!

If this is really a democratic and free platform,then let´s discuss about the more than 80 states,which have not yet recognized South Sudan! What are the motives? Let´s talk about it! I personally think,that states like Bosnia,Georgia,Azerbaijan,Marocco,Iraq and some others will not recognize South Sudan soon,because they have separatism-problems in their countries. Furthermore i think,that many small island-states in the Pacific,Caribbean Sea,Indian Ocean etc.... are not interested in the South Sudan-topic,because it´s far away and economically and politically not interesting for them.Maybe the small island-states will recognize South Sudan after signing a small oil-deal,well? LOL

Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.21.71 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

L.tak's comments about sum it up. My main problem with you Sascha is the deletion of other people's posts, which you did here, here, and here. This is totally unacceptable behaviour - see WP:TPO.

Also it is almost certainly not correct for to say that you "never pretended to be anyone else" - lots of people with a similar editing style to you (Brian from USA, Alex from USA, Bryan from UK) were all using your IP address (this was discussed at Talk:International recognition of South Sudan#Panama Recognized). Read WP:SOC.

And there is no excuse for not knowing how to sign your posts. Not only are you told how to do it at the top of most Talk pages and under all edit forms, but I specifically explained what to do here: Talk:International recognition of South Sudan#Other recognition and SineBot left you a message here: User talk:79.233.2.77. And despite L.tak telling you exactly what to do above, you're still not doing things right.

You are very welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but please follow the guidelines. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you constantly quarreling with me??? I have opened a new theme,so you should tell something about my points above,why 83 states have still not recognized South Sudan!! Let´s talk about it,it´s more important than your constant threats and negative points about me.If you are interested in the recognition-process for the South Sudan,you should talk about it,that´s the reason why we are here. Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.21.71 (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Those 83 states have all recognised it; they voted for its admission into the UN. If I had to say why we have no reports of some signed paper, I would suggest that they honestly couldn't really care. South Sudan is probably irrelevant, and they've already voted it into the UN. No need to waste time with formalities unless you are establishing relations. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sacha, I am not quarrelling with you - I was merely answering the question that you posed above: "What the hell is your problem,Bazonka?". Oh, and you didn't open a new theme - you just wrote "Let's Discuss" in capitals within the "Signing posts" theme. You should start new discussions by properly marking section headings. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Headings. Bazonka (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeating myself here, but i) I care about the process, and think it culminated in the vote in the UN (unanimous). There is no indication any country does explicitly refuse to recognize, so our lists (and hte absolute number) is more and more a non-issue. Sascha's suggestion seems to be that there is a big problem with not having a report on a specific recognition (say: Tuvalu-South Sudan), but there is good reason to believe it is mere negligence/indifference. That's not harmful for both countries, and they probably will consider eachother as states when it comes to it. There is a reason we have no recognition articles on (say) Germany: just because we have no sources, but no everyone does recognize! (pressing the signature button now): L.tak (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NIGER AND CHAD

Do you know something about a possible recognition by Niger and Chad?? These are two neighbour-countries of South Sudan,but so far i couldn´t find any official recognition. Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.37.101 (talk • contribs)

if I had known sources of recognition, I would have added them.... L.tak (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

redlinked subsections on specific bilateral relationships

I am much in favour of writing in depth articles on individual relationships between countries, with paragraphs (including the "main" template) on this page. I do not think however that making such paragraphs here if there is no content (yet) and only a redlink-main exists; and I have therefore removed them (twice actually now, so this is the last time, and I am bringing this here per WP:BRD) L.tak (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. There's no need to have red links for stuff like this. If a page for it exists, it should be linked here; otherwise, there's no point. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Map

Why someone deleted map with countries which recognized South Sudan? It was very useful. Can someone add it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerTatoo (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was also missing the map.Tomeasy _{T C} 09:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is meaningless. All countries have recognised. Bazonka (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA

http://haler.blogger.ba/arhiva/2011/08/24/2847203

Bosnia-Herzegovina will not recognize South Sudan on September 20,like announced on the list. Bosnia already recognized South Sudan on August 24!!!!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.38.100 (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remove this mistake with "september 20". it´s simply wrong!!! And a new map would be useful indeed. This unknown user is right,i support him!

What´s going on with the recognition of Tunisia?? I am surprised,that the interim government in Tunis has not yet recognized South Sudan.Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.38.100 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

WE NEED TO WORK HARDER!!!!

We should all combine our efforts and search harder and longer for the recognition-sources of the remaining 82 states!!! Furthermore someone should renew the map,it was very cool. Let´s work and search,guys, i am sure,that some of these 82 states already recognized South Sudan,like Bosnia on august 24. We must search harder,come on,guys,:) Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.34.238 (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please change the recognition date of Bosnia. It was not september 20,but august 24. Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.34.238 (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

LITHUANIA!

Lithuania has recognized South Sudan! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.5.109 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Three things: please give a source for this information; use proper section headings rather than just writing a title in capitals; and for the umpteenth time... sign your posts! Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bazonka,my friend,Lithuania has been included into the official list with two links of official sources! Therefore i don´t have to add one more link! Sascha,Germany ( i don´t know how to sign my post,sorry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.5.109 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If Lithuania's recognition has already been added to the article, then why are you telling us about is? This talk page not a forum. We have explained to you numerous times how to sign your posts - read the "Signing Posts" section above. There is no excuse for this. Bazonka (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, i am a FREE MAN and i don´t take orders from you Wannabe-forum-dictator!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.5.109 (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have raised your behaviour at the Administrators' noticeboard. Bazonka (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for registering an account, but you have not yet taken on board any of the other points that have been raised here and at User talk:79.233.5.109. Please - I am trying to help you to become a better Wikipedian.

In response to your specific post, all countries have recognised South Sudan, following the unanimous decision to admit it as a United Nations member. However, not all countries have explicitly released a statement to this effect, and the majority are unlikely to do so. Bazonka (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong!!! In case of Montenegro we see,that five years after the UN-admission circa 50 countries still do not maintain diplomatic relations with the government in Podgorica. And as long as these 80 states are not officially recognizing South Sudan,we cannot talk about a recognition. The UN-recognition and the biliteral recognition are two different things. Countries like Georgia or Azerbaijan with serious seccession-problems in their own countries may have agreed,that South Sudan will become a member of the UN,but they may not recognize South Sudan as an independent country,which means,that they will not recognize South Sudan outside the UN and that they will not establish diplomatic relations. Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sascha30 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations and recognition are not the same thing and do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. PS don't forget to press the sign button or insert four tildes before submitting your posts. Bazonka (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Establishing diplomatic relations costs money, which is probably why these smaller faraway countries haven't. How do you figure they can let it in without recognising it as independent? Agreeing a country fulfills the requirements for the UN means you accept it is an independent state. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

MACEDONIA

http://www.mfa.gov.mk/default1.aspx?ItemID=318&id=1314

Macedonia has also recognized South Sudan!!!! Sascha,Germany

79 STATES REMAIN

This is the list of the 79 states,who have not yet recognized South Sudan!

Iceland,Monaco,San Marino,Andorra,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan, Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Mongolia, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea, New Zealand,Palau,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands, Niger,Chad, Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar,Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland,Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,Jamaica,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Sambia,Vanuatu,Nauru, Congo,Gambia,Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea-Bissau Sascha,Germany

Please learn some Talk-page etiquette. This [2] edit messed up the order of the previous posts, and I can't easily put it right without removing what you've just added. I find your conduct here unacceptable. You are still not adding section headings or signing your posts. You are infuriating. Bazonka (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Bazonka,i ask you to leave this discussion about South Sudan. You are not contributing anything useful for this topic. The only thing you are doing is posting bureaucratic nonsense!! While i and other users are daily searching for more official recognition-statements of the remaining 80 countries,you are daily posting your same stupid stuff!! You are a useless bureaucrat,no one needs you. If you want to do something useful,then take part in our search for more official biliteral recognitions of the remaining 80 countries and do not post your everyday-nonsense again. Thank you for your attention!! Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sascha30 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was tetchy before. I am just trying to help you become a better Wikipedian. Bazonka (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sascha, knowing who makes what comments is absolutely essential to the functioning of talk pages. You must sign EVERY comment by typing ~~~~ at the end of your talk page contributions, no exceptions. If you have other questions, please read WP:SIGN. Note especially that refusal to sign talk page contributions is considered disruptive editing, and users can and have been blocked for such. Bazonka is completely appropriate to ask that you follow talk page policy. Please take a look at WP:TALK and WP:TPL for more information on proper conduct and formatting on talk pages. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 12:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

test 79.233.35.25 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC) Sascha,Germany

DISCUSSION IN GERMANY NOT ENDING

Here in Germany the discussion about the sense of recognizing South Sudan is not ending. Many politicians from different parties still oppose the german government´s decision to recognize South Sudan on july 9! Many politicians are convinced,that South Sudan is already a "failed state in advance" and that german taxpayers will pay a high price for a criminal and corrupt mafia-style government in South Sudan! A poll among ordinary germans in late july showed following result

- i support the independence of South Sudan = 28% - i do not support the independence of South Sudan = 69% - i do not care = 3%

Can you tell something about the situation in your own countries??? How big is the support for South Sudan´s independence??

Sascha,Germany 79.233.35.25 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not appropriate discussion for an article talk page. Unless you have a link to it and the poll can be inserted into the article in some way that is relevant. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in your opinion,it´s irrelevant!!!! Sascha,Germany 79.233.35.25 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not opinion I'm afraid. It's policy. Please read WP:CIVIL as well. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 18:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

LET`S WORK AND NOT DISCUSS ANY LONGER!!!!!!!!

ok guys,in this case let´s start and search and work,this is the list of the remaining countries!!! Good luck

This is the list of the 79 states,who have not yet recognized South Sudan!

Iceland,Monaco,San Marino,Andorra,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan, Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Mongolia, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea, New Zealand,Palau,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands, Niger,Chad, Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar,Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland,Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,Jamaica,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Sambia,Vanuatu,Nauru, Congo,Gambia,Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea-Bissau

Sascha,Germany 79.233.35.25 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Sascha, please remember that there is no deadline. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 16:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sacha, it is good to see that you are now signing your posts. Thank you. Regarding the states you've listed above, as I have said before, all countries recognised South Sudan on its unanimous admission to the United Nations. The countries above, however, have not entered into diplomatic relations with it. This is not the same thing as recognition. Bazonka (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But to check the biliteral recognition-sources is the sense and reason for this page and our discussion,Bazonka. Sascha,Germany 79.233.35.25 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Relations, yes. Recognition, no. It is likely that the vast majority of the countries that you've listed won't enter into diplomatic relations, at least not any time soon - you'll probably end up waiting for a very long time. Bazonka (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so sure??? Just today Macedonia was added to the list. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.35.25 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And good for Macedonia, glad to know they have money to spare! Many countries probably don't see an advantage, shown by the number who still don't have direct relations with Montenegro. I personally reckon South Sudan will have more diplomatic links though, due to countries wanting in on its untapped economic potential. Still, that's in the future, not for us to guess at in relation to the article. Another note on talk page etiquette, you'll notice our comments have colons in front of them. When posting a comment that is a direct reply to another, you should place it immediately below with one more colon then they had, to create an indent. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm not absolutely sure. But most of these countries are small, poor, and/or nowhere near South Sudan. They probably have no trade with, or any real reason to converse with, the South Sudanese. This does not mean that they oppose South Sudan though - it's just not relevant to them. Bazonka (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OIL OIL OIL,guys!!!! South Sudan has oil and thus is attractive even for small pacific islands!!! But well,let´s wait and see. However we should continue to search,come on,guys,don´t be lazy, LOL. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.35.25 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sure,that there are more recognitions. But we must work harder,guys,come on!!! Sascha,Germany, 79.233.13.117 (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Calm down. We can't make things happen. (And please note Chipmunkdavis' comment above about colons.) Bazonka (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations established with Slovenia

[3] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That´s not important,because Slovenia already recognized South Sudan. Nothing new!! Sascha,Germany 79.233.13.117 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in these days more of the remaining 80 countries will recognize and establish diplomatic relations with South Sudan because of the UN-general assembly in New York. Maybe some nations will use this opportunity to recognize South Sudan! So i ask you to watch out for news,thank you. Sascha,Germany 79.233.13.117 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is about foreign relations, not recognition, so yes it is relevant. Bazonka (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations is something new considering every country has recognised South Sudan. Can I propose we uncollapse the UN country list (and maybe the nonUN too)? It is a major focus of this page, with there being little to note about long term policies or anything like that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Bazonka (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Relations with Israel

I already added a while back (in its main article) that South Sudan will open its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. That's notable and should be included here. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 16:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Bazonka (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. [4] [5] Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 26 Elul 5771 16:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal announcement by 79.233.23.167

Should you remove the list and stop the search for the recognition of the 79 remaining countries,i will finally leave this discussion. I do not agree with you to remove the list.79.233.23.167 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What? No-one is proposing to remove any lists. Bazonka (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Vanuatu recognises

here, but it doesn't give a date sephia karta | dimmi 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being dim, but I can't see anything about South Sudan on that page, or even elsewhere on the site. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was being dim... it's in the newspaper article. It doesn't really tell us much though - they're just congratulating the country on its independence. Bazonka (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew those new light bulbs regulations were a bad idea! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Elul 5771 21:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The PM explicitly says Vanuatu recognises South Sudan's sovereignty. sephia karta | dimmi 10:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but all countries recognised its sovereignty when it was unanimously accepted into the United Nations. Bazonka (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

True. So why does the article currently list all kinds of states that recognised South Sudan after July 14th? sephia karta | dimmi 15:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell are you waiting for? Include Vanuatu to the list!!!!!!!!! 79.233.16.120 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Some politeness wouldn't go amiss. Anyway, the page isn't protected, so you could add it yourself. Bazonka (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes,because of your ignorance,incompetence and bureaucratism i have done it myself! 79.233.16.120 (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you made a right mess of that. [6] Please, your attitude is totally unacceptable. Unless you can learn some manners, you are not welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to assume bad faith, especially in rookie editors, but...did you honestly think that was the proper way to add information to the article? Honestly? And your personal attacks on the Talk page are completely over the line. Chill out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sascha, benehmen Sie sich doch bitte, Dieses Verhalten ist ganz schlect und unannehmbar. Sein sie ein bisschen netter bitte. (English translation for the rest of you if I said it right: Sascha, behaviour yourself please (politest possible imperative in fact), This behaviour is completely bad and unacceptable. Please be a bit nicer.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 2 Tishrei 5772 23:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yemen recognizes South Sudan

[7] - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

JAMAICA RECOGNIZED SOUTH SUDAN!!!! Why are you not including Vanuatu to the official list as well???

This is the list of the 78 states,who have not yet recognized South Sudan!

Iceland,Monaco,San Marino,Andorra,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan, Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Mongolia, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea, New Zealand,Palau,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands, Niger,Chad, Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar,Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland,Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Sambia,Vanuatu,Nauru, Congo,Gambia,Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea-Bissau

Sascha,Germany, 79.233.21.151 (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sascha, warum wöllen Sie Vanatu an der Liste so viel? Könnten Sie doch bitte ein bisschen ruhig sien? Mehr Personen tunen was Sie wöllen, wenn Sie netter sind. (Translation if I said it right: Sascha, why do you want Vanatu on the list so much? Could you please be a bit calmer? More people will do what you want if you are nicer.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 23:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Vanuatu has recognized the South Sudan,as mentioned in the article above by another user. But the country is still not included in the official list. This is a real scandal!!! 79.233.5.130 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please add Vanuatu into the official list,with the date of 09/27!!! I don´t know how to do it! And please remove the Libyan Arab Jamahariya,it´s history. The new libyan government still has to recognize South Sudan again. Thank you. 79.233.5.130 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This website is "dead". No fresh recognitions. You should either delete this thread or make a new one based on the example of the "Recognition of Montenegro".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Montenegro

The actual state of this thread is unacceptable,because it´s chaotic.Sascha,Germany, 79.233.25.104 (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Now it´s time to add Vanuatu to the list of "Recognizers". They have no diplomatic relations,but Vanuatu recognized the independence of South Sudan. Please add them to the list,that they have recognized South Sudan. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.22.42 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Every country has recognised south sudan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And why are these 79 states missing in the list???

Iceland,Monaco,San Marino,Andorra,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan, Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Mongolia, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea, New Zealand,Palau,Vanuatu,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands, Niger,Chad, Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar,Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland,Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Sambia,Vanuatu,Nauru, Congo,Gambia,Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea-Bissau

Sascha,Germany, 79.233.22.42 (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether they thought it necessary to publish a formal declaration of recognition depends on the bureaucracy within their governments. They recognised it by default when they voted to admit it as a member state at the UN. The rest is simply bureaucracy, paperwork. That column should probably be removed to make way for some notable information on bilateral relations. Nightw 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There's basically a consensus to remove that column in the section above Night, if you agree I suggest you go ahead with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you so sure because of the UN-vote? I seriously doubt,that countries like Georgia,Azerbaijan,Moldova,Iraq,Afghanistan,Marocco,Sri Lanka,Ivory Coast etc.... recognized South Sudan so far!! All these states with their own separatism-problems may never recognize South Sudan in the nearest future. I am personally in opposition to your removal-plans. I would like to make it like in the case of Montenegro,two sections with official recognitions and another field with diplomatic relations. But it seems,that so far only 10-20 states have established relations with South Sudan. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.22.42 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The independence of South Sudan is not in any way controversial since Serbia Sudan [oops!] accepts it. The countries you named may not have publicly said anything either way about South Sudan, but that does not mean that they don't accept its existence. Bazonka (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan is not Kosovo!! But however i am willing to make a compromise! Remove this thread and make a new one with the list of states with diplomatic relations to South Sudan. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.22.42 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a completely different situation to Kosovo, and recognition is not a big deal. We already agreed in the thread above to replace the list with diplomatic relations only, but no-one's done it yet. Bazonka (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It´s your job,Bazonka,LOL. I will help you in the coming days by searching for diplomatic relations. Maybe the true number of states with relations is above these 15-20 in the official list. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.22.42 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's done. Nightw 08:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition of South Sudan

I see that the content of International recognition of South Sudan that was merged in this article was recently deleted.[8] I object and propose to either restore the content here or at its own page where it was before. Having a sourced list with the dates of diplomatic recognition and/or establishment of diplomatic relations does not imply that a particular state is "against" South Sudan or something like that. Many states around the world haven't gone trough the formal procedures for diplomatic recognition/relations with all others, but this is not a reason for us to delete this content. It's notable, sourced and we have similar lists for other countries, especially recently independent ones (even such similar to South Sudan that are already UN members and nobody is "against" their independence). Japinderum (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How is it notable that a country recognises South Sudan? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, South Sudanese recognition is virtually universal at this point, and unlike, say, international recognition of Libya's National Transitional Council, it was never controversial. Some countries just took longer than others to formalize ties. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The recognition list was almost certainly incomplete and was inconsistent. We had formal recognitions mixed with welcoming statements, etc. At least now we can have more confidence in the quality of the information that we're portraying. Bazonka (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, diplomatic recognition is notable - it officially shows interest of one country to another, "acknowledge existence", etc. It's not a coincidence that many country MFAs publish such lists on their websites.

Kudzu1, nobody questions "virtually universal" recognition of South Sudan. But this doesn't mean that everybody has gone trough the process of formally issuing diplomatic recognition. This hasn't happened even for much older states. This is the common situation for all countries.

Bazonka, if the list was incomplete (having sources for additional states) or inconsistent (listing somebody without a source or with a source not about diplomatic recognition) - these few cases can be sorted out individually, no need to delete a well sourced notable section. Japinderum (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think, that in the coming year 2012 many states around the globe will establish diplomatic relations with South Sudan!!! The reason: Oil!!! It´s attractive to make business with South Sudan,especially in times,when the global oil-reserves are slowly becoming less. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.10.51 (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the article "Foreign relations of Montenegro" should serve as an example for this one! We should make a double list here as well. Let´s make a list with all other 193 officially recognized states and then one field with "Recognitions" and another field with "diplomatic relations". But i know it´s a lot of hard work and it´s also hard to find sources in case of many countries. Sascha,Germany 79.233.10.51 (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea - having a common list with separate columns - for diplomatic recognition, for diplomatic relations. It's not so hard to do and we can start by using the plenty of sources that are already here - in the version before the deletion of the said section. Japinderum (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes,it´s a good idea,but no one will do this hard and long work without being paid,LOL. I am honest,i am not willing to do it. And i think,that all of you others are also unwilling. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.33.133 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Make up your mind Sascha. In the thread above, you agreed that we should remove recognitions from this article and include in the list just those that have established diplomatic relations. As you said yourself, South Sudan is not Kosovo - it's an uncontested UN member, recognised by all countries. A list of diplomatic relations is much more useful and relevant. Bazonka (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about,Bazonka? it was the proposal of Japinderum. I am not interested in this topic any longer,in 2012 people will not even talk about South Sudan any longer,including myself. And i will also leave this discussion soon. I personally think,that the South Sudan will fail with it´s independence. Led by mafia-politicians,this country will have no glamorous future. Sascha,Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.20.211 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On 1 December you said, "Remove this thread and make a new one with the list of states with diplomatic relations to South Sudan. Sascha,Germany". Regards, Bazonka (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's separate the issue of South Sudan governance from the issue of what information we delete from the page. Having a structure with both diplomatic recognitions and diplomatic relations requires a minor change (addition of a column) and is easy to do and we have plenty of sources (see the history before the deletion). Kosovo example is irrelevant here - much more relevant are other examples of states that gained independence and are now "fully welcomed" in the international community with no caveats or problems with recognition. See the examples of Montenegro[9] (and here), Croatia[10], Bosnia[11]. All of these show both diplomatic recognitions and diplomatic relations. I don't see any reason South Sudan to be different in this regard and it's recognitions or relations to be less notable than those of the other states. I suggest restoring the column for recognitions as it was in this recent version prior the deletion. Japinderum (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Croatian ministry of foreign affairs is on something, as somehow states have established relations with them without recognising it. I notice most dates are identical for the other pages too. Dates of recognition are unnotable for all of these countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Croatian and what about the others? Anyway, we can follow the same convention here if you insist - listing only that date that we have source for, no problem. Whether the dates are the same in some cases is irrelevant - some dates are the same and some aren't - I don't agree with your "most" adjective, but this isn't the main point.

The fact is that all these MFAs (and others) consider diplomatic recognition an important issue and do not "ignore" it like some editors here propose that we should do. Your claim that "Dates of recognition are unnotable" is directly contradicted by those and many other sources. Japinderum (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact a couple of states have published their own list of recognition dates doesn't directly contradict anything I have said. If you want to use those sources, I suggest you go and note that Monaco has not recognised Croatia, and see how far that gets. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you say? I gave these MFA sources not to contradict something you said, but to show you that both diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations are important.

Please understand that diplomatic recognition is not the same as diplomatic relations and also that not having issued statement about diplomatic recognition doesn't mean "they do not recognize" - the opposite information is the notable one - when such statement is issued this shows "interest" toward the state and is often a first step followed afterwards by establishing of diplomatic relations.

So, I don't suggest to add text like "Monaco doesn't recognize Croatia/South Sudan/etc." I suggest restoring sourced content that was deleted. I suggest simply restoring both columns - diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations. Just like we have elsewhere, just like MFAs have, just like we had here until recently. Japinderum (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is leading to nowhere. Two months ago we had the quarrel because of Vanuatu. Vanuatu "welcomed" the independence of South Sudan,without issuing an official recognition-document. The same situation with states like Mali,Iran,Central African Republic etc.... It´s chaotic and therefore we should simply close this topic. As long as the South Sudanese Government and Foreign ministry have no official websites with recognition-lists,we will never know,which states recognize South Sudan and have diplomatic relations. We will simply don´t know it. My personal opinion is,that South Sudan as an independent state will fail,because it has no infrastructure,no economy and no money. Furthermore this pseudo-state is run by mafia-gangsters and warlords,who are driving expensive US-jeeps,while the civilian population is rotting and dying. Without money-infusions from the government in Khartoum the South Sudan will suffer serious dilemmas. You will see,South Sudan will fail!!! But this is already another discussion!!! Sascha,Germany, 79.233.37.176 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"We will simply don´t know it" - No, we "know" (write) what sources show - if we don't have source for Vanuatu, then we won't list it. Japinderum (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well,Japinderum,but are you willing to search all 193 states for official documents concerning the recognition and diplomatic relations with South Sudan???? Good luck,it will take weeks and it´s boring. I did a lot of search-work in August-September,but it was useless! Furthermore No One was helping me and now i am not interested any longer.

Montenegro is a good example. The Wikipedia-list as well as the website of the Foreign ministry are updating instantly,when Montenegro is establishing new diplomatic relations. Two days ago Montenegro established relations with Burkina-Faso.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Montenegro http://www.mip.gov.me/en/ http://www.mip.gov.me/en/index.php/Press-Releases/pr-21122011-1.html http://www.mip.gov.me/en/images/stories/press2011/scepo21122011.jpg

Sascha,Germany, 79.233.37.94 (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to refocus the article on diplomatic relations instead of recognition dates

Some countries have made formal announcements of recognition of South Sudan, whereas others have given statements congratulating the country on its independence. The Chronology of Relations table in this article is a bit of a mixture of these. It is my opinion that, following its unanimous admission to the United Nations, all countries now de facto recognise the independence of South Sudan. Some countries (such as Vanuatu) are still making congratulatory statements, but these are largely meaningless pleasantries, especially as South Sudan's existence is in no way controversial - it cannot be compared to other recent secessions such as Kosovo and South Osettia, which are very much in dispute.
I just don't see the benefit of stating when countries recognised, given that a) many of the "recognitions" are informal statements, b) all countries de facto recognise South Sudan, and c) the list that we have is inconsistent and quite possibly incomplete.
I therefore propose removing the "date of recognition" column from the table. Instead we should concentrate on the diplomatic relations which are important, and more relevant to the article's title.
I think I can predict what our friend Sascha is going to say (some abuse probably), but what do others think? Bazonka (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Bickering over which countries have recognized South Sudan and when is pointless. South Sudanese independence was and is noncontroversial. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WHEN WILL YOU ADD VANUATU TO THE LIST??? 79.233.38.2 (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Please don't shout. As you can see from what I wrote above, I do not think it is necessary to show which countries have recognised, because they all have. In fact I have proposed removing recognitions from the list to make it a table showing diplomatic relations only. I don't expect you will be happy with my suggestion, but if you can politely give your side of the argument then it will be taken into consideration. Bazonka (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems right, absolutely pointless date. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

its not "pointless because of de facto recognistion" no one is either fighting over who recognises, the point is this is an encyclopedia NOT a news outlet (or social media s most use it for)...the date is THE MOST important aspect of encyclopaedic note when evaluating the trjaectory of state actions.(Lihaas (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)).

File:Flag African Union.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag African Union.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

INCOMPLETE LIST!!

The New list is incomplete again. Countries like Bosnia and Jamaica also recognized South Sudan and were included in the former list. You must add them and update the new list. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.16.157 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_South_Sudan&oldid=462718377

This is the old list and Yemen,Lithuania and Macedonia also recognized South Sudan,as well as Bosnia and Jamaica and possibly other countries,which are not yet updated in the new list. All people,who know anything,please update, thanks. 79.233.16.157 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The list no longer shows countries that have recognised South Sudan - because it is highly likely that all countries recognise it. It now just shows those where formal diplomatic relations have been established. If you have a source that shows that Bosnia, Jamaica, etc. have done this, then we can add them. Bazonka (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you claim that there are states, who don't recognize Montenegro, Croatia, Bhutan, Mongolia or Germany? I assume you don't. The South Sudan situation is the same - nobody has announced objections to its independence as sovereign state, nobody has announced that he doesn't recognize the South Sudan government as government of the homonymous state. Some have officially announced their diplomatic recognition of South Sudan. Some have officially established diplomatic relations with South Sudan. Some have accredited non-resident ambassadors to/from South Sudan. Some have established consulates in South Sudan. Some have established embassies in South Sudan. Some have accepted consulates/embassies from South Sudan. Some international organizations have announced that they would welcome South Sudan if it applies for membership. South Sudan has joined some international organizations. All of these are notable issues part of the foreign relations of South Sudan. The embassies and consulates are on the List of diplomatic missions.

Most of the other issues are described on this page, but you argue that we should disregard sources about the diplomatic recognition of South Sudan simply because nobody objects its independence.

Diplomatic recognition is notable in itself - separately from the establishment of diplomatic relations - as you can see in links provided above (09:09, 21 December 2011) from many MFAs that publish lists of the diplomatic recognitions their state have got. And all of those MFAs are of states, whose independence is not objected by anyone (just like South Sudan) - not MFAs of states like Kosovo, Palestine or Taiwan.

If somebody insists to keep the notable and sourced list of diplomatic recognitions separate from the notable and sourced list of diplomatic relations - fine, but then the merge should be reversed. Otherwise the merge should be completed by keeping the recognition column. Japinderum (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A statement is only notable if recognition was not granted otherwise or is somehow contested. As every state voted in into the UN, a government spokesman saying "Congratulations! :D" is not meaningful at all. CMD (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody speaks about "congratulations" statements. The official act of diplomatic recognition is very different from inauguration/independence congratulations statement. Please see the external links and Wikipedia articles provided where it's shown that diplomatic recognition is a notable foreign affairs act for all states - regardless whether those are UN or not. The UN has nothing to with that. Japinderum (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They were voted in to the UN, which is only accorded to states. Most editors here agree it's completely unnotable for these states, as it's already implicit. If it wasn't, we'd need South Sudan to recognise all the other states in the world. Obviously they won't. CMD (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"which is only accorded to states" (that's not so obvious, but anyway) - what do you refer to? Nobody is claiming that South Sudan is not a state.

"it's already implicit" - what's implicit? That South Sudan is a state or that "everybody" recognizes South Sudan? The first is fine and the second may be true in practice, but as all those sources show - the act of diplomatic recognition is important enough so that various governments around the world "bother" to do it (even for UN members) and to announce it to the public (I even gave you sources for UN member MFA websites keeping a list of diplomatic recognitions they have got). So, obviously it's notable for these governments.

"we'd need South Sudan to recognise all the other states in the world." - no, we don't "need" anything like that. Just as we don't need South Sudan (or anybody else) to establish diplomatic relations with all others. States decide on their own when and whether to issue explicit statements for diplomatic recognition and when and whether to establish diplomatic relations. Those decisions are part of the foreign policy and diplomacy they conduct.

Not having diplomatic recognition or diplomatic relations between some pair of states is not something "shameful", so that somebody "needs" such with "all the other states in the world." Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to congratulate the guy,who has finally made the new list today,which separates recognitions and diplomatic relationship. This was the topic i was talking about for months!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we have a professional list like in the case of Montenegro,Mongolia and even Kosovo. Now let´s search for the remaining states,who are not in the list. Maybe we find more recognitions etc..... Sascha,Germany, 79.233.32.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

These are the missing 78 states! Yes, i know,all these 78 states did not reject South Sudan´s independence during the UN-vote,but so far we have no official statements,and we should search for them as well as for diplomatic relation-establishments. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.32.198 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Iceland,Monaco,San Marino,Andorra,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan, Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea, New Zealand,Palau,Vanuatu,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands, Niger,Chad, Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar,Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland,Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Sambia,Vanuatu,Nauru, Congo,Gambia,Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea-Bissau

This is ridiculous. All countries have recognised South Sudan, but only some have made a (largely meaningless) proclamation about doing so. All we're doing is listing those that we've heard from. This only gives a partial view and cannot possibly be acceptable in an encyclopedia. We're giving the false impression that the other countries haven't recognised, but they have. This article should be about diplomatic relations only. Bazonka (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I don't say that countries who haven't made the official act of diplomatic recognition are opposed to South Sudan independence, statehood or something like that. My assumption is that if there were such "opposers" then the UN admission of South Sudan would have gone trough recorded voting procedure (it was admitted without a vote[12]) - like when admitting Israel (12 against, 9 abstain).

But those UN-aspects are irrelevant. The problem here is that some of the editors above approach the issue from the position of "Is South Sudan like Kosovo and Palestine or not? It's not. Then we don't care about it - which states are interested in it, its diplomacy, etc." or "Diplomatic recognition statements about UN members are redundant - it's automatically granted by voting at the UN".

The act of diplomatic recognition is a regular practice. Just like the act of establishing diplomatic relations. All these governments (sourced) wouldn't bother to do recognitions and relations if those were unimportant or redundant for UN members. You can see above also examples of MFA websites (of long time UN members - if that matters to you) keeping a list of recognitions they received from foreign states and of relations they have established with foreign states (before and after UN admission - if that matters to you).

So, there is no reason to delete this notable and sourced content. Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Longtime members? Not that long. But while it may make a nice gesture diplomatically to say hello, having it here implies to the readers that the countries not on the list don't recognise it. Which is a very disputable implication. There are reasons to remove it, which have been explained above. Simply saying "there is no reason" does not facilitate conversation. CMD (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If we take the view that international recognition of South Sudan is worldwide, as implied during the unanimous vote to admit it to the United Nations, then we do not need to mention it in this article. Agreed?

If we take an alternative view that recognition has to be formally granted by every other nation, then we probably should mention who's recognised... but only if we have a reliable, comprehensive source. We don't have a comprehensive source - we have a smattering of media reports and Foreign Ministry statements, some more reliable than others. There are undoubtedly lots of gaps. Therefore, giving a list of recognising countries is highly misleading. If there was a decent source (e.g. S.Sudan's MFA website) then fine, but there isn't.

So no matter which view you take, neither enables us to include recognisers in the article. Bazonka (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

CMD, no, having the list of diplomatic recognitions does not "implies to the readers that the countries not on the list don't recognise it." (please see below section)

"Longtime members? Not that long." It's ~20 years or slightly less that 1/3rd of the total UN lifetime, but let's disagree on what's longtime... :)

Bazonka, we don't have to take any view - there is no "need" for a state to have recognition "granted by every other nation". They (and we) don't have to choose on what to base a "worldwide international recognition" to be placed in their CV - to base it on mass-production implied recognition (by getting in the UN or another organization) or to base it on individual statements. Nobody has expressed opposition to South Sudan independence, statehood, sovereignty or whatever (or at least I haven't seen such source), including during the procedure for admission in the UN. That's actually the common case for almost all states around the world (yes we, the Wikipedia editors, have bigger affinity to focus on the few exceptions, but this one isn't such). And in the common case there are very rare (if any) cases where a state has recognitions or relations with everybody else. There's no problem with that and nobody "needs" otherwise. That's simply not how it works - recognitions and relations are "gathered" during the years depending on the interests of the different states.

So, having UN membership ("worldwide international recognition") doesn't mean that you stop getting diplomatic recognitions and stop establishing diplomatic relations. Those continue to trickle in, governments around the world continue to act, and so those are listed and announced on MFAs and here. Yes, it would be good if SS MFA publish (and update) such a list, but until they do we use other MFAs and other sources. You rise two issues - reliability and gaps. If you think some of the sources utilized is not reliable - let's discuss it (I won't object removing a sloppy source and I think we can deal with such cases pretty easy). About the gaps - of course there may be gaps (e.g. states that we haven't found a source yet) - when such gap is identified (a source found) it will be filled immediately. That's common practice on every article - nobody claims that Wikipedia is the divine source of all knowledge, there are many gaps in all subjects that are filled over time.

I find it misleading to remove the recognitions - this makes SS look much less "accepted" (like some kind of Bhutan or Pacific island state) than if we keep them. (please see below section) Japinderum (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Repeated deletions

Recently editors try to enforce a non-consensus version where notable sourced content is deleted. The last attempt is [13] with explanation "No consensus to include this misleading information". The fact is that there was and still isn't consensus to delete the information. And I don't see anything misleading in the information.

Actually, the version with the deleted information is misleading, because it makes South Sudan to look much more isolated than it is. The version with the deleted information lists only a few states (~25) that have established diplomatic relations with it and disregards (deletes) much more additional states (~100) who have issued statements about the diplomatic recognition of South Sudan.

Deleting the information is misleading, for example, because the deleted information shows how quickly has grown the number of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan - for other recent UN members it took 2-3 years more to get to the current South Sudan number.

Deleting the information is also depriving the readers from seeing the chronology of recognitions and relations and from seeing the particular states who have taken each of those acts; when they have taken those; who hasn't yet taken any of those acts (I see above that there are people interested in that information).

So, the non-consensus and misleading version is the version with the deleted information. Japinderum (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree,Japinderum. The problem is BAZONKA. He behaves like an Internet-tyrant and deletes everything he wants! He is the "Putin of Wikipedia". Yesterday´s double list with recognitions and diplomatic relations was perfect,like in the case of Montenegro and Kosovo. Sascha,Germany, 79.233.36.155 (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the version with recognition implies South Sudan has a limited international recognition, which is completely untrue. No notable content was deleted, because the statements weren't notable. Consensus was reached in a discussion above.

@Sascha: No personal attacks, or chances are you will be swiftly blocked. CMD (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I like being called the "Putin of Wikipedia". That's made my day. Thanks, Sascha. Anyway, I am merely following Wikipedia's WP:BRD process. Perhaps you should try it too, rather than just ranting. Comparisons to Kosovo are irrelevant - it's a completely different situation. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that the list is unnecessary, reflects WP:RECENTISM, and is misleading as to South Sudan's international status. Diplomatic recognition of South Sudan is noncontroversial. Even if the government of St. Lucia or Brunei or San Marino hasn't made an official statement on the matter, that doesn't mean South Sudan is only partially recognized. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

People, you are looking at it in reverse - maybe because of our bias here on Wikipedia with the well known "special cases" where we fish out each and every recognition drop and where we automatically assume "X doesn't recognize it unless proven otherwise". Of course South Sudan is noncontroversial and not "partially recognized". But this doesn't mean that diplomatic recognitions and diplomatic relations doesn't matter. Besides the legal meaning and diplomatic nuances those are indications of South Sudan interactions with and importance for the rest of the world.

Listing the recognitions doesn't imply it's "unrecognized" - on the contrary! Listing the recognitions and relations along with the chronology (dates) shows how quickly SS got involved in the "international community", how numerous its interactions with the rest are, the degree of importance others give it and who are those deeming it important to issue a recognition statement or to establish relations (chronology is important here, because in a few years it will have gathered recognitions and relations with almost everybody).

Removing the recognitions makes SS stance look too "bare", limited and isolated (many more states have issued a recognitions, and only few relations are already established) - that's misleading.

It seems that we have a disagreement in perception, that's why I tried to solve the problem by adding a paragraph clarifying that there are no objections and anti-SS positions expressed (so that we remove the suspicious mentioned above that listing recognitions implies to the readers that SS is like Kosovo and Palestine with some "recognition problem"). Please look at it and if needed we can add a footnote to the recognition column (or a text above or whatever) further clarifying that? Japinderum (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing recognitions does not make it any barer than it is. It has relations with a certain number of states, we show that number of states. The speed of South Sudans integration in the international community is amply shown in that it went from declaring independence to being a UN member in under a week.

As numerous other users have asserted here (even Sascha seems to agree somewhat, with their desire to search for the missing recognition statements), listing recognitions does imply South Sudan is unrecognised. It presents a list saying "These countries have recognised South Sudan", implying the rest haven't. The lack of objection paragraph you added now seems confused when compared the a list of countries that recognised it. CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

OK,but then please show me the recognition-statements of these remaining 78 states!! Agreeing to let South Sudan into the more or less unimportant and incompetent "United Nations", which in reality is a Farce-and Fake-community( as the actual dillema around Syria clearly shows) does not automatically mean,that these 78 states also recognize South Sudan as an independent state outside the UN,regarding biliteral relations etc.... In the case of Kosovo there are also some states,who are ready to let Kosovo into the United Nations,but are unwilling to recognize their "full independence" from Serbia. It´s the same with Palestine and the Sahara-Republic etc..... So please show me the recognitions of these remaining 78 states. I haven´t seen them so far. And one more point. As the case of Montenegro shows (please take a look at "Foreign relations of Montenegro" here in Wikipedia) there are still 38 states,who have not yet recognized Montenegro officially,even six years after the independence-declaration and the entry into the United Nations. For example Hugo Chavez as leader of Venezuela still refuses to recognize the independence of Montenegro,because in his opinion the "division of the the serb-led old Yugoslavia is an american intrigue". Sascha,Germany, 79.233.9.73 (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here they are again.

Iceland,Monaco,San Marino,Andorra,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan, Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea, New Zealand,Palau,Vanuatu,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands, Niger,Chad, Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar,Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland,Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Sambia,Vanuatu,Nauru, Congo,Gambia,Benin, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis, Guinea-Bissau

79.233.9.73 (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a source that Venezuela "refuses" to recognise Montenegro. CMD (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

CMD, I don't agree that removing recognitions doesn't make it any barer. I explained above - having so many recognitions in so short period shows the degree of importance others put on South Sudan. Information about who has recognized/established relations is also important - it shows which states are interested in South Sudan. Nobody is "against" it and it was welcomed in the UN without obstructions, but this doesn't mean that all states have the same interest or goodwill towards South Sudan.

Lack of explicit diplomatic recognition statement by X doesn't automatically mean "X doesn't recognize it" - this was argued by some people even for Palestine and Kosovo (where the "mainstream" logic is "recognition is purposely refused unless the opposite is proven"), so I thought it's more than obvious for South Sudan.

Explicit diplomatic recognitions are simply a fact that we report, just like the diplomatic relations - when we have a source for a particular state. As explained above it's not "needed" and certainly not expected recognitions or relations to reach 100% (I doubt that even the biggest countries have 100%). But those are to gradually increase with time - that's why we have a chronology section in the first place.

About the clarifying paragraph - it says "many states have issued official explicit statements about its diplomatic recognition". I thought this combined with the previous "UN admission without any objections" should be enough to reduce potential confusion, but if you want - then why not add some further clarification note or sentence? Japinderum (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't show the importance at all. If any country becomes uncontroversially independent, of course many countries will note it. Again, we all agree the date of established relations is important.

If we present a definite list of countries recognising South Sudan, it implies all those not on the list don't. Some countries will purposefully maintain ambiguity on Kosovo and Palestine, the same situation doesn't exist with South Sudan. It's the obviousness of the fact that no explicit recognition doesn't mean nonrecognition that makes the list pointless. Explicit recognition just isn't notable, for South Sudan, or for those biggest countries you mention. They are 100% recognised. CMD (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations. Bazonka (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Al, please stop inserting non-notable data in this page. As was agreed before, dates of recognition on a foreign relations article is undue. On a foreign relations article of a country that's universally accepted? It's not notable anywhere. Nightw 08:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Pal, there was and isn't consensus to delete recognitions. They are obviously notable - the governments around the world prove that with their actions - please look at the discussions above for links and elaborations. The act of diplomatic recognition is part of the foreign policies of states regarding South Sudan. If you think that the current article will become too long we can put the dates of recognition and establishment of relations in a separate "chronology" article. About the "universally accepted" - again please look at the discussions above - it seems you approach the issue from the position of our editorial darlings here - Kosovo, Palestine, etc. that have a "recognition problem". Nobody questions that South Sudan isn't one of those. Here the issue is the opposite - recognitions and relations show the stance of others in regards to South Sudan. Lacking a particular recognition or relations doesn't mean that this particular state is "against" South Sudan. But having a particular recognition or relations means that this particular state gives in its policies a certain degree of importance to South Sudan. Japinderum (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

CMD, both date of diplomatic recognition and date of establishment of diplomatic relations are important. And here, where there are only few relations established the recognitions are even more important, because otherwise the list gives a misleading picture of too few.

We present a definite list of countries that issued an explicit statement of diplomatic recognition. This is a specific diplomatic act. And we these facts are backed with sources. We don't claim (unsourced) that others not present in the list "do not recognize". We don't even claim that those not present "haven't issued explicit statement of diplomatic recognition" (this is different from "do not recognize"). We report simply what the sources show.

Explicit diplomatic recognition is notable, just like diplomatic relations - it's a foreign policy act done by the governments, publicized and reported on (that's why we have sources). As you see above some MFAs keep on their websites a list of the diplomatic recognitions they got.

"100% recognition" is different from "a set of 100%/whatever% diplomatic recognition/relations statements". The former is implied/assumed from lack of explicit "opposition" statements and/or UN admission without a vote/objections. The latter is a fact backed up by official explicit acts of governments. Both are notable.

"it implies all those not on the list don't" - if you think so, then we can add a further note clarifying that the listed below are those states, for witch a source about explicit diplomatic recognition is found and that the best information for the others is the lack of objections at the UN admission. I think this is obvious from the recently inserted paragraph, but I don't object clarifying it further. Japinderum (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop, Alinor. There was a consensus in the above threads to refocus the article under the general premise of the title. What you're trying to add is insignificant and irrelevant. And all of your assertions (e.g., "having a particular recognition or relations means that this particular state gives in its policies a certain degree of importance to South Sudan") are unsourced, probably false and (once again) irrelevant to the article's topic. Nightw 10:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ali again? Whatever. The links you give [14] don't show any consensus for deletion, on the contrary - they show that some editors agree and others don't. Please stop your deletions.

Diplomatic recognition is an act part of the foreign policies around the world. You can see the MFA links given above. If you think the explanation I gave about why MFAs do what they do is wrong, then you can ask the MFAs themselves. But the fact is that they do it. We have sources and we add material to the article only based on these sources.

If you have concern similar to CMD's that listing explicit diplomatic recognitions "implies" that SS has "recognition problem" (I think editors here have this concern, because they are too focused on and accustomed with cases that really have a "recognition problem". For the general reader who is aware of the various diplomatic acts and policies it's obvious that this isn't the case and it's quite common not to have 100% explicit diplomatic recognitions) - then we can add further clarification about it. If you think the article is becoming too big - we can move the table to a separate "chronology" article. We can also do both of these. Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It cuts both ways. You need consensus for inclusion too, which you clearly don't have. The list of recognition dates is based on a mish-mash of incompatible and incomplete sources. Without a full and comprehensive source, the inclusion of this information is misleading at best. We don't have a list of dates of "Recognition of South Sudan", we have a list of dates of "Statements welcoming the new country that have been reported on the internet that we know about", which, despite each individual case being sourced, holistically is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bazonka (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the consensus for removing recognition dates from the article can be found here. Bazonka (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DISASTER!!!

The actual list is a complete disaster,because it´s creating the impression,that circa 170 countries have not even recognized South Sudan. We only have some countries in the list with diplomatic relations,this is pretty pretty bad. Again i urge you to make a list like in case of Montenegro "Foreign relations of Montenegro". There we can clearly see two different lists. Watch the example of Togo! Togo has recognized Montenegro,but so far not established diplomatic relations with Montenegro. This actual list here is completely unacceptable!!!!!!!!! Sascha,Germany, 79.233.36.56 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you please calm the heck down? I know English isn't your first language, but I doubt you are completely unaware of how incivil, rude, demanding, aggressive, and unhelpful you have been on this page in the past. Shouting at people and making a huge deal out of this issue is no way to win over support. Take a look at User:Japinderum in the above discussion if you actually want to contribute in a meaningful, constructive way here. He takes a similar stance as you. I don't agree with him. But at least he bothers to argue instead of just screaming and berating people. I respect that. What I don't respect is you continuing to come here, lob insults at fellow editors, and never contribute anything of your own. Maybe you need to take a break from this website and reevaluate your approach. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also are you suggesting that if people view Foreign relations of France they will think France in unrecognised by a massive number of countries? I have faith people will know that the list is about countries that have established relations, since we title it with relations. The sentence "On 13 July 2011, South Sudan was admitted as a member of the United Nations, following a unanimous vote from all other member states" also notes "Unanimous...all...member states", showing they're recognised by all UN states. CMD (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 79.233.36.19 (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bazonka, the link you give doesn't show consensus to delete the information, on the contrary - it shows disagreement about such a move. And we don't report "welcome" statements, we report statements about diplomatic recognition. It's different.

CMD, nobody claims that South Sudan has a recognition problem. I have explained this multiple times already. Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. We report which countries have made it. Not having diplomatic recognition or diplomatic relations by/with a particular state DOESN'T equal to that state being against South Sudan or something like that.

As I said above - it's fine to extend the clarification text to describe this or to move the list of recogntions/relations to a separate chronology page. But there is no consensus to delete notable sourced information. Japinderum (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Japinderum, you keep saying that diplomatic recognition is a specific act, yet you still hold that a country isn't not recognised (if that double negative makes sense) even if some countries have not offered this act of recognition. You also keep combining diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations in your argument for some reason, despite the fact that not a single user has ever disputed diplomatic relations. There was consensus to remove the information, and you have failed to convince any users otherwise. It's sad you decided to recreate the deleted page against the consensus here. CMD (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan for deletion. The recognition part is unnecessary and the relations part is duplicative. Bazonka (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bazonka, MFAs around the world disagree with the notion "recognition is unnecessary". See multiple sources above and in the article.

CMD, first - there WASN'T consensus to delete the notable sourced information. And the page I created (not re-created) is, because of its specific focus on the chronology of taking the acts. And diplomatic recognitions and relations are combined, because in the real world (see the multiple government sources) those are closely related acts.

Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. It's different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections, "warm welcome in the international community", etc.) such as "lack of objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of X". South Sudan has 100% "obvious recognitions" (as far as we know - no sources show any objections) and less-than-100% diplomatic recognitions - just like most (all?) states around the world, who also don't have 100% diplomatic recognitions. To further clarify that I added the remark "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition." Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read this: Wikipedia:Content forking? Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a fork, but a split to reduce the lenght. That's why there is a "Main article: Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations" in the chronology section. The duplicate relations list here can be deleted, if you want, but I don't think it's needed.

Regarding your [15] untimely deletion (wait for the AfD) "This article is about foreign relations (see title), therefore the section on "Chronology of relations" is also about foreign relations... not diplomatic recognitions. This *is* the main article." - diplomatic recognition is an act in the realm of foreign relations. Receiving diplomatic recognition and establishing diplomatic relations are closely related - as you can see the MFAs keep them in two columns on the same list - and so is their chronology. That's why the article Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan was created. See the model according to which it's made at this MFA website. Of course the full chronology table can be placed inside the main "foreign relations" article, but keeping it separate reduces article lenght.

Another solution is to have a separate (main) article about the chronology of recognitions and relations and to present a reduced snippet of it in the foreign relations article (that's how the "main: ..." navigation tag is used) - showing only the relations (as currently) or only the initial 20-30 recognitions/relations or only the most recent 5-10 recognitions/relations. Japinderum (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unanimous vote by all member states or without a vote

The UNGA source clearly states "without a vote". Besides the date is 14th, not 13th. Also, "unanimous vote from all member states" is wrong - not all member states representatives are present at all times - some are simply "absent". South Sudan was admitted without a vote/with "unanimous" acclamation of the states present in the room/without objections risen, but certainly not from "all member states" (sources utilized for that also state only "unanimous" and not "from all member states"). Japinderum (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)