Template talk:Africa topic/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template

Hope now everyone will be happy :) --tasc 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not happy with a template which can't be seen by many users. I've commented at User talk:tasc Warofdreams talk 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All the links on this template are to nations in topic (or dependencies, or territories which have declared themselves independent (Somaliland), or nations widely recognised internationally, with governments in exile (Western Sahara)). Having a link to the SADR in the middle of it implies that it will take the user to "Geography of the SADR" (or "History of...", etc), which it does not. As such, it is very confusing, and I have removed it. If you feel that SADR is unclear, it could be expanded, but not by an additional link. Warofdreams talk 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Red links

It would be greate if ther were an option that could "unlink" the header of the box. For instance, if you use it with "Foregin relations of", then you get a red link at the top, that dosent look that nice. Since theres no need for a foregin relations of Africa page, it dosent have a function. If this could be removed with an option, it would be greate. Dose anyone know how to do this?

--Screensaver 10:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there something it would be useful to link as a header? If so, you can use {{Africa in topic|Foreign relations of|Alternative link}} to produce:
Warofdreams talk 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
There must be something i can link it to. Thanks for the tip! Thats one of the good things about wikipedia - theres always someone around if you dont know how to do something. --Screensaver 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What's going on here?

Is it just me, or is this template completely broken? Esn 09:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully all in order by now. (Probably a rogue space somewhere...)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template name

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{Africa topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{Africa topic|Communications in}}, {{Africa topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Military of Africa

I just proposed Military of Réunion for deletion, quite simply because there is no such thing. The same goes for Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands, Mayotte and all the other dependencies that have an entry in this template. Still, you get these dumb red links:

Is there a way to cut these out, or will we have to create a new template? --Janneman 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just make a redirect to the article which covers the topic - for example, Military of Réunion should redirect to Military of France. Warofdreams talk 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam in Africa

I noticed that Morocco did not have it's own separate page for Islam in the country, unlike most of the other countries on this template. I just created an Islam in morocco page; would everyone be ok with it being added onto this template to replace to current link to the Demographics of Morocco article? MezzoMezzo 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone has fixed the capitalisation of your article; hopefully this will ensure that the template links to it as you would expect. If you're trying to achieve something different, please give a little more detail - there should be no need to change the template to link to your article. Warofdreams talk 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Territories that are not dependencies

If Réunion (in integral part of France that happens to be an island off Africa) is included in this list, should not the Canary Islands (Spain), Madeira (Portugal), and Socotra (Yemen) be as well? I think this template would be improved by being more comprehensive of all the states, dependencies, autonomies, and territories within and offshore of Africa. --ScottMainwaring 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added these, as there did not seem to be any objection. --ScottMainwaring 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bantustans

In the list, there is not any bantustan flags.... How about adding them? Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . -- 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you can go ahead and do it, but why are you mentioning this here? Picaroon (Talk) 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
... Dude... I have no idea why I did that (what the heck was I thinking back then) -- Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . -- 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC-5)

Militaries of Africa

Shouldn't this template be renamed "Militaries of Africa" or even "Militaries of African Countries"? Military of Africa seems to imply that the continent of Africa itself has one united military force. Ripberger 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I assume you were seeing the template as {{Africa topic|Military of}}. Note that last parameter. Unfortunately, due to the template layout, the title parameter will be the same as the links produced. So we couldn't do {{Africa topic|Militaries of}} because that would produce links to "Militaries of Benin" and such. Picaroon (t) 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, so its a technical issue? Well, how about "Armed Forces of Africa" then? Or am I still not understanding the issue? I guess in the template the link "Armed Forces of Benin" would just redirect to the article "Military of Benin"? Is this option possible? Ripberger 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
You can change the title which appears for the template by using the following format: {{africa topic|Military of|Militaries of Africa}}. Warofdreams talk 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Western Sahara/SADR

Illogical There are several "X in Western Sahara" pages; by removing the entry for this territory, you are 1.) removing the interdependent links from this template and 2.) removing one of the territories of Africa. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

the SADR is not a sovereign state. It should thus not be listed as a sovereign state. That is quite simple. What is the problem?.--A Jalil 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem The problems are exactly what I mentioned above and what you spectacularly ignored. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Revert And in the meantime, you've reverted with no reference to the talk. Anyway, these issues are still outstanding. I've put the SADR in italics and users can make up their own minds about what they think about Sahrawi independence. To say that the SADR is not a state would be POV and contrary to, for instance, the position of the African Union. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
No. The SADR is not a sovereign state. It is a gov-in-exile that claims many things, among them, to be sovereign. All sovereign states are seated on their territories. The SADR is seated in another country, Algeria. No other state in the world has that contradictory situation. So, it is completely ridiculous to try to insert it here and claim people will make their mind about it. On the other hand, Western Sahara as a territory of africa is listed under territories. So please stop your POV-pushing.--A Jalil 08:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is incredibly annoying. You're aware that this template is transcluded on hundreds of articles, right? I do not want to protect it, because then people like Toussaint and Thomas.macmillan will not be able to edit it. I see no other way to stop this disruption besides declaring that the next revert made without talk page consensus by either of you guys will result in a block. That's the only warning you will get.

Now that the edit war is over, can you consider compromising, maybe by placing it in the lower section? That, or just walk away and someone else will make a decision for you. Either way, the current long-term, slow-moving edit war is completely unacceptable. Picaroon (t) 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Picaroon, thanks for intervening to stop this nonsense. Please have a look at the other continental templates: template of Asia, template of America and template of Europe. They only contain independent, UN members, and widely recognized states. Palestine, much more widely recognized that the SADR, and seated in its territory, did not make it to the Asia template. The same thing goes for the Turkish republic of Cyprus, and so on. Why is the template of Africa should be any different?. Please note that the Asia template has a very important note: "Please note that this template is only meant to carry those countries recognized by a majority of United Nations members.". So, I suggest that you take this in hand, and decide what should be included. African subjects seem to be one of your main interests, so go ahead and decide.--A Jalil 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice example On the Asia template, the Republic of China is linked. It is recognized by less states than the SADR. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore What is the rationale for excluding Western Sahara of all entries? That's especially ridiculous and partisan. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

SADR articles There are "X of/in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" articles, so this template should include an entry for the SADR. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The list is that of sovereign states and not of the entries which have "X in ...". Western Sahara is present under territories and "X in Western Sahara" is thus covered. Listing the SADR as a sovereign state is deceiving the readers.--A Jalil (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Africa The SADR is in Africa, consequently, it should be noted in the Africa topic template. Not all "X in Western Sahara" articles are the same as all "X in the SADR" articles, as I stated before, so omitting the SADR from the template excludes readers from navigating to those articles. As you know, a majority of African states have recognized the SADR and as you may not know, it is common to put unrecognized states on these templates (e.g. Template:Europe topic.) Consequently, it is only proper to include the SADR. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Zanzibar

Zanzibar should be included on the template for various reasons: it is semi-autonomous (has its own political institutions), has its own 'national' football team (see Zanzibar national football team and Zanzibar Football Association), and was once a recognized independent nation by the United Nations. Thoughts on reincluding Zanzibar?--Thomas.macmillan 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from Thomas' talk: if Zanzibar is included, then why not the Rif, Orange Free State, Cabinda, Biafra, etc.? While it is true that Zanzibar was once a state, that is also the case for dozens and dozens of territories within Africa; to add all of them to the template would be impossible. The territories of Somalis (e.g. Puntland) are on the map because they are actually self-governing (not as autonomous entities in federacies, but like sovereign states.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Given which, why is it in as at Jan 2009? --BozMo talk 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Politics templates broken

It's quite possibly on other ones as well but all Politics boxes have been broken recently - they include the alternate link (third | thing) in every link. A bit annoying --Tombomp (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks to User:The Transhumanist! --Tombomp (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Error in template

The |suffix= parameter is adding a space at the beginning of the line. E.G. {{Africa topic |suffix=n cuisine}} produces Africa n cuisine instead of African cuisine. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS in Africa template

I want to expand the template to include African HIV/AIDS activists with "|group3 = AIDS activists |list3 = [[Zackie Achmat]] {{·w}} [[Gideon Byamugisha]] {{·w}} [[Suzanne Engo]] {{·w}} Alexandra Govere {{·w}} [[Nkosi Johnson]] {{·w}} [[Noerine Kaleeba]] {{·w}} [[Didier Lestrade]] {{·w}} [[Philly Lutaaya]] {{·w}} [[Nelson Mandela]] {{·w}} [[Elizabeth Mataka]] {{·w}} [[Ntare Mwine]] {{·w}} [[Joel Gustave Nana Ngongang]] {{·w}} [[Simon Nkoli]] {{·w}} [[Agnes Nyamayarwo]] {{·w}} [[Joseph Sonnabend]] {{·w}} [[Sheila Tlou]] ". How do I do this? NJGW (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection This template is protected because it is used in so many articles. Your proposal makes a lot of sense for articles that are about HIV/AIDS in Africa, but it is too narrow a topic to add to every article that transcludes this template. If you want to simply add this group only on articles about HIV/AIDS in Africa, you may want to ask someone on the #mediawiki IRC channel or at the Help Desk. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 05:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected, so I can edit it. That's exactly what my question is (for use on the HIV/AIDS in Africa article). I realized as I was editing it that something looked fishy, so I double checked before I hit save and figured out what you just said. Is there a way to create a meta template, or do I have to create a new template with this one as the base and change the link at HIV/AIDS in Africa? NJGW (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably There's got to be some way to add a group to this template and only display if the title includes "HIV/AIDS in X" or something like that. Again, my best guesses for assistance are listed above. You may want to consider just making a separate template, though. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 06:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, created from scratch. Please feel free to add to or give input at that template's talk page. NJGW (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Rail transport in Africa

Where an African country has no railways, I am redirecting the link to the "Transport in..." page. For example, Rail transport in Chad redirects to Transport in Chad. Biscuittin (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Puntland / Listing Somaliland

I am removing Puntland firstly because it does not appear on the List of states with limited recognition page and Secondly because Somaliland is the only state on the ground that is de facto independent AND asserting its complete independence. (in contrast to Puntland which advocates for a unified Somalia, similar to Galmudug, under their own 'leadership'.) Outback the koala (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's false. Somaliland is not recognized as "de facto independent" by any country or international organization in the world. It is recognized by all and sundry as a region in northwestern Somalia, albeit a secessionist one (African Union, CIA, the United Nations, the Somali government, the United States government, the British government). And Puntland is not featured on the List of states with limited recognition page obviously because no one put it there, not because it does or does not enjoy limited recognition (which, incidentally, Somaliland does not). It too is recognized as just another region in Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You are correct when you say, "[It] is not recognized as "de facto independent" by any country or international organization in the world." Thats what makes it an unrecognized country! And please try to add Puntland to the list, because no editor will have it because of the above stated reasons. Outback the koala (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Somaliland is not a "country" at all much less a sovereign state. It is a secessionist region in northwestern Somalia, and is recognized as such by the international community. It makes no difference whether you added "italics" or not before placing Somaliland in the sovereign states section of the template. That Wikipedia formatting change, I'm afraid, is not enough to alter reality. Puntland is likewise a region in northern Somalia. So there's no point here either in adding it to this list of sovereign states (unless, of course one, is advocating a specific "cause"; for that, please refer to WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV). Middayexpress (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I think this might just be a terminology problem. De jure countries are ones that have formal international recognition. De facto governments lack recognition but are in control on the ground and providing government services. Since Somaliland lacks recognition but is stamping passports, patrolling coastal waters, holding courts, and making mail delivery, it falls into the latter category. Saying that "Somaliland is not recognized as 'de facto independent' by any country or international organization" is true but not meaningfull because de facto doesn't require recognition, de jure does. Does that help?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (Signed Late)

I'm sorry but Somaliland does not control all the territories it 'claims' as sovereign territory (see Maakhir), which contradicts your argument of Somaliland falling in the 'de facto control' category. There are several other regions currently part of a dispute between Puntland & Somaliland, so the situation is very fluid. Somaliland is not a special case in the current political landscape of Somalia there are several other states that have parliaments and regional armies that operate independently of Somalia all but in name because of the situation in the capital. --Scoobycentric (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been claimed, the Somaliland government does not, in fact, have de facto control of the territory nor does it enjoy support from all of the territory's inhabitants. Scoobycentric has just made this clear by pointing to the existence of Maakhir & the Puntland–Somaliland disputes. To that I'd add the Awdal movement, and point out that the constitutional referendum of 2001 that the Somaliland government held to determine whether the region's inhabitants wished to secede never even reached the non-Isaaq Somali clans such as the Warsangali and Dhulbahante who inhabit the Sool and Sanaag regions. And together those areas constitute approximately 40% of the landmass of the former British Somaliland protectorate. In other words, it represents a false consensus. In fact, even within the Isaaq (Somaliland's largest Somali clan), there isn't unanimity, with people such as the great poet Hadrawi opposing Somaliland's secessionist ambitions. Bottom line, Somaliland is a separatist region in northwestern Somalia, and is only recognized as such by the international community. Middayexpress (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You are demonstrating that a country doesn't have control or exist by citing election returns from a referendum the country held in areas that it supposedly lacks control in? Although my politics make me believe the governments should only rule with the consent of the governed, that standard would preclude listing many of the countries in this region. Also Brazil may have a poet that claims it's still part of Portugal, but that wouldn't make it so.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. I, like Scoobycentric before me, am demonstrating that Somaliland does not have control over as much as 40% of its landmass nor is its authority recognized in those same regions it claims. In fact, the aforementioned Maakhir region recently officially rejoined Puntland --- a territory which, incidentally, is not attempting to secede from Somalia nor is any other region in Somalia other than Somaliland -- thereby negating any notion that Somaliland has a defined territory or political authority over much of its claimed land. You have already insinuated in your previous unsigned post that "since Somaliland lacks recognition but is stamping passports, patrolling coastal waters, holding courts, and making mail delivery", it is a "de facto" independent country rather than simply the autonomous region that it, in fact, is. This is false since, while the Montevideo Convention does indeed indicate that "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states", the actual criteria for determining de facto statehood is set out in article 1 of the convention and reads as follows:
(a) a permanent population
(b) a defined territory
(c) government
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
While Somaliland may indeed have a government, it has already been demonstrated that it has neither a defined territory nor consequently a permanent population. Somaliland also does not have any political relations with other states because actual countries just consider it a region in Somalia, not an independent state; they thus deal with its government as a regional administration. You also forget why the international community has consistently refused to recognize Somaliland as anything other than a region in Somalia: because of United Nations Security Council resolutions on the territorial integrity of nations, including Somalia (1, 2). Middayexpress (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a bit too much political analysis going on for a template. Somaliland should be listed somewhere. We have plenty of supplementary articles related to the state of Somaliland individually (Foreign relations, all of this stuff), which means it's a starting point for navigation. If there's a dispute about where to put it, what about creating a new section in the template--see the European one. Night w (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the actual political status of the Somaliland region will continue to be exposed as long as editors keep trying to find ways to circumvent both WP:NOTADVOCATE and the fact that the entire world only acknowledges Somaliland as a part of Somalia. It makes no difference whether wiki-editors have created articles and/or templates on the politics of Somaliland. Similar articles also exist for Puntland and other regions of Somalia so that's not saying much nor can the existence of such Wikipedia articles be used as an excuse to negate political reality: Somaliland is a separatist region in Somalia, it is and has only ever been recognized as such by every country & international organization in the world (e.g. the United Nations, the African Union, the United States government, the British government, and Somalia's actually recognized federal government), and it fails to meet the actual criteria for statehood set out in the Montevideo Convention. So any way you slice it, the Somaliland region of Somalia does not belong on any Wikipedia template pertaining to or alongside actual countries (such as, for instance, the tellingly-titled Template:Countries of Africa). Middayexpress (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Middayexpress, we've all read your political opinions. I don't care for them. You keep talking about external recognition, but this isn't a case where recognition makes a difference. It's a de facto state, with a stable, functioning government independent of outside authority. And whilst it doesn't enjoy full recognition of sovereignty, it does receive some support from international organisations (1, 2, 3). To not list it among other independent governments would be to violate NPOV. Night w (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Night. Those templates are not reserved for "independent governments" (which, incidentally, would also include Puntland since it too is autonomous, with its own army, Ministry of Education, Health, etc., no different than the Somaliland region). They are reserved for actual countries. I'm also afraid those links to the United Nations, the African Union, the United States government, the British government, and Somalia's actually recognized federal government stating plainly that Somaliland is a part of Somalia are not "opinions" but fact. I have just outlined above actual official criteria for determining de facto statehood -- namely, article 1 from the Montevideo Convention -- and already demonstrated how Somaliland fails not one but several of those preconditions. You now attempt to circumvent that by inventing your own limited criteria for determining de facto statehood (apparently, only a supposedly "stable" government & very limited recognition will do). But even here you fail because the African Union does not recognize Somaliland as anything other than a region in Somalia: "The African Union, which is made up of all the countries on the continent, does not acknowledge a Somaliland nation, nor does the United Nations." That's its official position. The last two links you've cited are unreliable sources (the penultimate one anyone can write for), one penned by a well-known propagandist called Abdulaziz Al-Mutairi who regularly publishes spin pieces on Somaliland & who has been called out on this and other things, ironically enough, on that very website you cite ("the ignorant and foolish propagandists paid by the Riyaale gang like Abdulaziz al Mutairi"). Similarly, the last link is from a Somaliland advocacy site i.e. straight from the horse's mouth. That's what's actually POV. Middayexpress (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely tired of Midday here throwing around WP:NOTADVOCATE when he is the biggest violator! The above comment perfectly demonstrates this. You state; "I'm also afraid those links to the United Nations, the African Union, the United States government, the British government, and Somalia's actually recognized federal government stating plainly that the Somaliland is a part of Somalia are not "opinions" but fact." That is a 'fact' from those governments', or international groups' perspective. In other words, its their opinion. Your opinion and mine differ greatly, but wikipedia is about finding that neutral middle ground, which is what all other editors have been working at. So please, we don't care that Somaliland is unrecognized, NOONE here disputes that. We are simply trying to put in all de facto independent states into this template. Please before you comment again, look over the definitions of de facto and de jure (they aren't weasel words! so don't be frightened). Thank you by the way for outlining article 1 from the Montevideo Convention for us. In reference to this you state;
"While Somaliland may indeed have a government, it has already been demonstrated that it has neither a defined territory nor consequently a permanent population. Somaliland also does not have any political relations with other states because actual countries just consider it a region in Somalia, not an independent state; they thus deal with its government as a regional administration."
This is the POV, that you have. If this were in any article it would for sure violate WP:NPOV. Its an argument, not a fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with your version of reality, doesn't mean you have to keep citing these WP pages. Lets stick to the issue at hand please. Try to put your clear bias aside.. Outback the koala (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, in order to be able to speak about any hypothetical "POV" in others with any sort of credibility, you yourself have to first not be guilty of it. Unfortunately, however, your repeatedly attempting to add sentences to various articles suggesting that the Somaliland region of Somalia is a "country" of its own fails on that front big time (1, 2). Secondly, it indeed is not my "opinion" nor is it that of the United Nations, the African Union, the United States government, the British government or Somalia's actually recognized federal government that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. It is the entire world's, which is why this New York Times article on Somaliland's secessionist movement is aptly-titled The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia. Since for some inexplicable reason you seem to have trouble understanding this, I'll let Tony Blair himself explain it:

"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community."

Sorry if this bothers you, but that's reality and acknowledging reality is not "bias", I'm afraid. You also mention above that you are "just trying to put in all de facto independent states into this template". Well if that's the case, then that automatically rules out Somaliland, as it fails to meet not just one but all but one of the Montevideo Convention's actual criteria for de facto statehood as set out in its article 1. And yes, this does include the fact that Somaliland does not meet article 1's criterion that a territory must possess the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Your indicating that "this is the POV, that [I] have" is especially ironic since 1) due to the fact that Somaliland is not recognized as sovereign by any country, no foreign embassies are located in the region, 2) similarly, none of Somaliland's representative offices abroad enjoy diplomatic status under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and 3) Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government:

"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.

This applies to the Somaliland region's president as well:

"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."

Finally, I suggest you lay off of the name-calling ("re Midday, wow what a hypocrite" -- why am I getting a strange sense of deja vu here?). Tempting as an ad hominem approach to argumentation might be, it's against WP:CIV. Middayexpress (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reaching a (Near) Consensus

Middayexpress, my secret opinions about Somaliland (or the complete lack thereof) are completely irrelevant. And, likewise, your political opinions about Somaliland don't matter.

The issue here is how to best present articles and references that touch on this controversial topic not to convince each other of our opinions. And I've been as guilty of that as you have. I've proposed listing Somaliand as "disputed" but you'e said there is no dispute; I've suggested "de facto" but you said that was too hard to define; I looked at how an area in nearly the exact same situation (Transnistria) is handled as "Unrecognized" in Europe but it turns out that my secret politics are wrong and you are right. For the sake of argument, let's say you are politically right and I'm politically wrong. Fine, but we still need to figure out how to handle a controversial topic for readers who may not agree with us.

Your position that nearly all Wikipedia references to Somaliland should be repeatedly deleted without discussion does not have a consensus and runs afoul of WP:EW. There does appear to be a near consensus that Somaliland should be listed but it's status should be notated. What notation works best for you?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but those aren't "opinions" that I, for one, have presented above nor is there anything to "figure out". They are fact. Hence, the links and your inability to disprove what I have written. I'm also not trying to "convince" you or anyone of anything. I don't need to because the facts I've presented speak for themselves. Furthermore, I have indeed clearly indicated that Somaliland is still not a "country", nor is there any dispute that it is. Every country & international organization in the world recognizes it as a part of Somalia... which is precisely why your proposal to include the region on Wikipedia templates reserved for actual countries -- including one tellingly-titled Template:Countries of Africa -- under the pretext that its status is "disputed" simply will not fly.
I also never suggested that whether or not Somaliland enjoys "de facto" status is "too hard to define". That is a strawman argument. I quite clearly stated that your suggestion that Somaliland is a "de facto" independent country is false, and then went on to actually prove it (and only after another editor already pointed out to you the absurdity of this claim).
Moreover, I'm already familiar with Transnistria, and the fact that it, ironically enough, is not featured on any of the country templates you and others have attempted to include the Somaliland region of Somalia on. And even if it had been, it would not change the fact that the Somaliland region you are comparing it to is not recognized as an independent country by the international community (or, what you would describe as "de jure" independent) nor is Somaliland even a de facto independent country for the reasons already explained in my post above dated 00:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC), citing actual official criteria for de facto statehood which the region fails to meet (as opposed to arbitrarily selected wiki-user opinions/desires).
Lastly, I'm afraid the consensus process is not a popular vote. It makes no difference how many wiki-editors say "yeah, Somaliland is an independent country!" or some variation thereof; it won't change empirical reality or Wikipedia's proscription on advocacy, as outlined above by myself and others (not who is "politically right" or "politically wrong", as you've reduced the situation down to). Middayexpress (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


Too much political talk for a template. Calm down. Nobody here is taking a vote on the status of Somaliland. We're talking about its inclusion onto a template designed for navigation, not political advocacy. It's a country/region (whatever) that people will be looking for within the context of African states. We can have clarifying footnotes (as we already have) if it makes you feel any better, but its inclusion on the list is certainly necessary. I'm in favour of adopting the same model we have elsewhere—check the European template, which includes Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh (whose sovereignty is also not recognised by any other state) in a separate section. They're areas of the world under independent governments; if we don't it under the "sovereign states" section, I don't see what the problem is. Night w (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but these aren't templates for "independent governments" but for actual countries, the latter of which the Somaliland region of Somalia is not a part of. It's not even a de facto independent country, as has already been demonstrated above. See post below for the rest. Middayexpress (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Night w's statement here. This template is for regional navigation, and since Somaliland controls significant parts of it's claimed territory (but not all as you have repeatedly pointed out, as if that an argument). It simply makes sense that we allow user to find their way around Africa. Indeed, as stated above, the European model is a perfect model to follow, in this situation. Outback the koala (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Somaliland does not control over 40% of its claimed territory nor is its authority recognized in those same regions it claims. In fact, the aforementioned Maakhir region recently officially rejoined Puntland -- a territory which, incidentally, is not attempting to secede from Somalia nor is any other region in Somalia other than Somaliland -- thereby negating any notion that Somaliland has a defined territory or political authority over much of its claimed land. And yes, this matters and a lot because one of the four criteria for statehood according to article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (as opposed to Wikipedians' own subjective criteria) is that a territory must have both a defined territory and a permanent population. While Somaliland may indeed have a government (which is just one of the criteria, not all I'm afraid), it has already been demonstrated that it has neither a defined territory nor consequently a permanent population. A fourth criterion for statehood is that a territory must possess the capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Somaliland, however, does not have any political relations with other states because actual countries just consider it a region in Somalia, not an independent state; they thus deal with its government as a regional administration. So any which way you slice it, Somaliland is neither a "de jure" independent country nor a "de facto" independent country. This is precisely why it, like the autonomous Puntland and Galmudug regions of Somalia, doesn't belong on any of these templates alongside other actual countries in Africa such as Somalia itself. Somaliland belongs on templates such as this one (which, interestingly, you attempted to collapse some time back) that lists Somalia's various regions since, for better or worse, that is indeed what Somaliland is. Middayexpress (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That is not in any way a neutral publication. You are, by citing this, saying they have control of 60% of their claim territory anyway (amounting to 82,560 square km.) And I indeed attempted to collapse that template because it appears on posted pages automatically expanded(and is the only one to do so) and takes up needless room looking very badly (my bad for trying to fix that). I find your arguments keep getting more and more challenging to comprehend. Where's the logic?? Spock would have gone mad by now.. Outback the koala (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Somaliland does not control Sanaag, as the latter region territorially overlaps with Maakhir, and Maakhir of course recently rejoined Puntland. Somaliland also does not control either Sool or Ayn, but is instead engaged in a dispute over these territories with the same Puntland administration which also claims those territories. This too has already been explained by both myself and another user. And together, Sool, Sanaag and Ayn make up over 40% of Somaliland's claimed territory. I'm sorry if this is too difficult for you to follow. Middayexpress (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I read up on the Montevideo Convention which was previously unknown to me. No African nation or colonial power actually signed the thing. Article 3 reads "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states" because the convention relies on the Declarative theory of statehood. This is in opposition to the Constitutive theory of statehood and which standard should be used is not agreed upon in international law. The permanent population requirement appears to rule out uninhabited islands as countries; requiring stable populations would rule out any country with significant emmigration/immigration or with refugees. Excluding countries that are partially occupied would not only rule out Azerbaijan as a country, but would violate this convention because factoring in forceful occupations of territory is prohibited in Article 11.
In fact, Article 10 appears to ban war in general. It would appear that all the Somali factions are violating at least that part of the convention, or they would be if Somalia had ever signed it.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
For Western Sahara, we're leaning toward listing it as a "Disputed Area". Would including Somaliland work in that grouping because "area" wouldn't indicate whether or not it was a country?RevelationDirect (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I too was not aware of the Montevideo Convention until someone some months back first brought it to my attention when he invoked it to try and prove that the same Somaliland region we are presently discussing is a sovereign country. Whatever the case, the convention's criteria for determining statehood are contained in Article 1, not in Article 3. Article 3 already presupposes statehood, as it indicates that statehood is independent of recognition by other states. It's in the first Article of the convention where the actual preconditions for de facto statehood are set out: "The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states." The permanent population criterion, of course, would not rule out any migrants (whether refugees or otherwise), since just about all actual states have populations that move in and out, including developed countries. It's when a territory such as Somaliland claims to have possession of/control regions that don't actually recognize the former's authority, and actually literally instead join other administrative entities -- as the aforementioned Maakhir, for example, has done with Puntland -- that the permanent population criterion is not met. Had Somaliland renounced its claim on Maakhir, that would've been another story. However, it hasn't; it still claims Maakhir as part of its territory.
Also, while African countries may not have signed the Montevideo Convention, the convention's Article 1 still contains actual criteria for determining de facto statehood (criteria which Somaliland does not meet, as I've already explained) and is often quoted to illustrate the Declarative theory of statehood. Similarly, if we consult the alternative Constitutive theory of statehood, we see here too that Somaliland does not meet the criteria for statehood since this theory acknowledges statehood if and only if a territory has been recognized as sovereign by other states. Somaliland, of course, has not and is instead recognized by the international community as being a part of Somalia. This is precisely why this region does not belong on any template alongside other actual countries, Somalia in particular. It belongs on templates where Somalia's various regions are cited, such as this one. Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Midday: Nobody here cares about following you because this isn't meant to be a discussion of which-state-controls-what. Your rants are, as Outback said, difficult to comprehend in this context, because they don't belong on a discussion page for a template. Your efforts would be better suited at talk pages on the main articles. Neither do any of us here care to read your article entitled The Illusory 'Somaliland': Setting the Record Straight, written by an agency advocating Somali unity. There was an expression you used before involving a horse and its mouth...? Night w (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually i do care so kindly speak for yourself and not for others. Just because the evidence presented by Midday and me is not of your liking does not in any way diminish its factualness. Several times i've seen individuals in this discussion dismiss this material because it's too 'Political' yet the same individuals had no problems dropping words such as De facto on us or completely misrepresent the real situation on the ground just so this region of Somalia could qualify and be included in the template when it most definitely doesn't belong! When the real situation was made clear, suddenly nobody wants to discuss the 101 of Somaliland? Government sources are now 'opinions'?, that has to be the most ridiculous and disingenuous argument i have ever heard. --Scoobycentric (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
To clarify my earlier statement, I am not saying that Government sources are opinions pieces. But they do represent the opinion of the issuing country. For example; Nicaragua will refer to Abkhazia as country because it recognizes it (in it's opinion ABK is a country), while the United States will not refer to it as such because in it's opinion it is not a country. In Somaliland's case no country will refer to it as a country because in their opinions it is not. That is all I meant. On Wikipedia, however, we are not a government body, we are meant to be objective and encyclopedic, which looks beyond the rhetoric and simply gives the facts. Sorry to be confusing in anyway. Outback the koala (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Citing the fact that the international community as a whole only recognizes Somaliland as being a part of Somalia is not being "subjective"; it is reality. Nor can it be dismissed as mere "opinions" of "government bodies" since the Constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. Suggesting that not ignoring this reality somehow constitutes "POV" is utterly absurd. Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that Somaliland is internationally recognised as being part of Somalia, just like Puntland and Galmudug are. It's also a fact that Somaliland does not control all the territory it claims and therefore does not have a clear defined territory under it's administration. To be objective and encyclopedic does not mean playing with, and distorting the facts until it through somekind of non-legitimate loophole can qualify for the template. --Scoobycentric (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does not controling a certain part of a territory automatically change where Somaliland has defined their border? The fact there is a dispute shows that Somaliland and Puntland have defined their borders, just htey overlap and conflict with each other CK6569 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Options

Revelation has just put a proposal forth, and I was in the process of preparing an ultimatum. So I'll list them, and I hope we can all come to an agreement. The options are:

  1. Outback's proposal: listing it alongside the other states, with italics to indicate its lack of recognition.
  2. Revelation's proposal: listing it as a disputed area (either with a footnote, or brackets; feel free to edit this if that's not what you mean, RD)

Either way, Somaliland has to go in the template, because—as an independent/autonomous entity—it fits into the second section on this template. And I'm sorry, Outback (I know that this is where all this started), but so does Puntland. In this instance, it would be listed as Somaliland (Somalia). Night w (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Both proposals are out of the question since Somaliland is not a sovereign state (not even on a de facto basis; see the above), and since there is no dispute anywhere that it is. Puntland is likewise an autonomous region in Somalia, not an independent country. Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is a cite (from the BBC) demonstrating that the Somaliland government, which is in de facto control of territory and population, considers itself independent. If the Somaliland government considers itself to be an independent sovereign state then there is dispute as to whether it is a sovereign state - with the government of the entity concerned on one hand and the rest of the international community on the other.
Unless you can produce a more reliable source that makes it clear that the Somaliland government does not consider Somaliland to be independent, we must conclude that your argument that there is "no dispute" is false.
Incidentally, here is a cite (also from the BBC) demonstrating that Puntland does not consider itself independent. The source contrasts this position with that of Somaliland.
Not to mention Somaliland would be biased against the Somaliland government's position. To mention it without marking would be biased in favour of the Somaliland government's position. Treating it in the same way as Puntland would be inaccurate. Neutrality requires that we mention Somaliland, but mark it in such a way that it is clear that it is not recognised internationally, such as in italics as per Outback's suggestion. Pfainuk talk 18:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No, Somaliland is not in de facto control of its claimed territory and population nor does that BBC article say it is. It just indicates that it has autonomous institutions and has declared independence, and that it "is in dispute with the neighbouring autonomous Somali region of Puntland over the Sanaag and Sool areas, some of whose inhabitants owe their allegiance to Puntland" -- all of which are hardly revelations since I myself have already mentioned them (neither is the fact that Puntland has not declared independence, something I've also mentioned elsewhere on this talk page). In fact, if you check the drop down menu where that same BBC article lists the actual countries in Africa, it of course does not list Somaliland. It only lists Somalia, a country which the international community as a whole only recognizes Somaliland as being a part of. The article actually lists Somaliland under the 'Territory' drop down menu, where it also, incidentally, lists Puntland. For the rest, see my post above from 03:59, 4 January 2010 (the one that begins, "Yes, I too...") for why exactly Somaliland is neither de jure nor de facto independent & which template it therefore does, in fact, belong on. Middayexpress (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources that maintain Somaliland's illegitimacy for statehood—that it doesn't meet the criteria? These here (1 2 3 4 5, 6, just the first 6 that came up in my Google search of "Montevideo" and "Somaliland") say that it does so I'd prefer something on paper to your personal analysis. Night w (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but statehood is not determined by article writers, least of all ones from kooky micronations (the "Kingdom of Talossa") and advocacy webpages (e.g. 1, 2, 3). It is determined by specific criteria (1, 2), which Somaliland in the here and now of 2010 fails to meet. One of the links was to an opinion piece from a writer with the South African Institute of International Affairs, which is a special interest group that works closely with the Somaliland government (1). That paper also quotes one Iqbal Jhazbhay who speaks glowingly about Somaliland's prospects of recognition. Tellingly, Mr. Jhazbhay also works closely with Somaliland and is, in fact, an advisor to the secessionist government. Your other source actually states what I myself have been saying, and what people actually familiar with Somalia already know:

"A number of arguments have been advanced to rebut Somaliland’s quest for recognition. One of the... critique[s] pertaining to the argument for recognition is the fact that the eastern part, including Sanaag and Sool, of Somaliland’s border is contested. Moreover, critics hold that the recognition of Somaliland may culminate in the widening of the recurrent crisis among the major clans inhabiting Somaliland."

And as for the actual level of local support for secession:

"According to reliable sources, elites in Somaliland managed to forge some sort of a consensus in order to protect or maintain the status quo, in other words the relative peace of the past eighteen years. Accordingly, these sources do not agree on the fact that about 90 per cent would opt for total independence from Somalia. They argue that there are certain clans who feel that they belong to another camp. Politically motivated co-optation plays an important role in keeping such groups in check."

Middayexpress (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
So still no sources that state Somaliland doesn't meet the criteria? My "other source" also states:

Proponents also draw from international legal instruments which support Somaliland’s position, including the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

You're yet to provide a source that states that Somaliland does not meet the criteria laid out in the Declarative theory of statehood. You maintain that it does not have a permanent population—who are the people living in Hargeisa proper? Nomads??? Where are your sources backing up your interpretation of the criterion? Where are your sources that say Somaliland has no permanent population? I'm fairly sure that "defined territory" means a territory that the state has defined—i.e. declared borders. Definition does not require actual implication of said definition. Night w (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I have, and (ironically enough) from the exact same section of the exact same source from which you yourself have drawn that quote above:

"A number of arguments have been advanced to rebut Somaliland’s quest for recognition. One of the... critique[s] pertaining to the argument for recognition is the fact that the eastern part, including Sanaag and Sool, of Somaliland’s border is contested."

That passage is critics pointing out that Somaliland doesn't, in fact, meet the defined territory criterion of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which is often used to illustrate the Declarative theory of statehood (it appears right after the source mentions the convention). You don't have to like it, but that is indeed a critique and from a source you can't disqualify as unreliable since you yourself picked it out and just quoted from it too.
Also, your quote that begins "Proponents also draw from international legal instruments..." is sourced back to a paper titled The remarkable story of Somaliland by one Seth Kaplan -- that's one of the "proponents" of an independent Somaliland which the footnote "112" in the paragraph in question links back to. That paper by Mr. Kaplan was published by the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. special interest group that, tellingly, "has been accused by both right-wing and left-wing personalities of interference in foreign regimes, and of being set up to legally continue the CIA's prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad". That, I'm afraid, is not a reliable source. It also doesn't help that Edna Adan Ismail, Somaliland's former foreign minister and one of the most vocal and active members of the Somaliland secessionist movement (she's featured & pictured in that New York Times article on the movement) -- can be found plugging one of the author's books on his website. Similarly, the other source that passage is referenced back to titled Somaliland: surviving without recognition; Somalia: recognised but failing is by a gentleman with the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR), which is a special interest group that works closely with Somaliland's secessionist government. In fact, CIIR has an office in the region that is headed by one Adan Yousuf Abokor, who, according to the Somaliland Times itself, is "very knowledgeable on the history of Somaliland in view of the fact that he took part in development initiatives even during the times of Mohammed Siad Barre. He was imprisoned (in solitary confinement) as a result." In other words, Mr. Abokor was and is a part of the secessionist movement. If that's not enough, the CIIR, which is now known as Progressio, admits on its website that "throughout its history, the organisation has sought to influence church and state, most notably to support liberation struggles" and that its "international advocacy messages are rooted in, and therefore informed and strengthened by, the experience of our partners overseas. The development programme seeks to build the capacity of partners to undertake advocacy themselves." That too is unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I read your comment. You give an interpretation based on the curious notion that a state does not exist if it "claims to have possession of/control regions that don't actually recognize the former's authority, and actually literally instead join other administrative entities".
Funnily enough, there are many states that would normally belong on templates such as this that definitively fail that criterion. Most obviously on this template, it would include Comoros, Eritrea, Morocco, Nigeria, the SADR and (ironically enough) Somalia - all would have to be removed. Other entities that would have to be removed from similar templates include the United States, Venezuela, Argentina, Spain, Poland, China (both sides), Korea (both sides), Japan, India and Pakistan. And neither of those two lists is anything close to exhaustive. Given this, you will forgive me if I find that particular piece of original research to be less than convincing
Your assertion that Somaliland is not in de facto control of territory or population contradicts your previous repeated assertion that 40% of Somaliland-claimed territory is out of its control (thereby implying that 60% is in its control). They cannot both be accurate. If Somaliland was not in control of any territory or population, one would assume you would have said so (rather than quoting the 40% figure) - and perhaps more significantly one would assume that your highly-biased source would have said so. So I will assume that the 60% figure is accurate and in passing note that 60% is significantly higher than the equivalent figures for entities such as Chile (38%), the United Kingdom (13%) and the Republic of China (less than 0.4%). Pfainuk talk 18:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Comoros, Eritrea, Morocco, Nigeria, the United States, Venezuela, Argentina, Spain, Poland, China, Korea, Japan, India and Pakistan would never be excluded from templates on countries since, unlike Somaliland, they are all recognized as sovereign nations. They thus automatically qualify as actual states per the Constitutive theory of statehood regardless of whether or not they meet any of the criteria for de facto statehood as set forth in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. Somaliland, by contrast, is not recognized by the international community as being anything other than a part of Somalia. In other words, it automatically falls short of the Constitutive theory of statehood and thus is not a state by that definition.
I also did not state that "Somaliland is not in de facto control of territory or population", but clearly that "Somaliland is not in de facto control of its claimed territory and population". Somaliland claims between 13-14 regions as part of its territory; some tiny, some rather substantial in size. The largest regions it claims happen to be the very ones it does not control, as it is in a dispute with neighboring Puntland over this land. The latter rather large disputed territories include Sool, Sanaag, Ayn and Maakhir. As I have already indicated and/or alluded to several times before, Maakhir recently rejoined Puntland after it threw all of its support behind an election bid by its de facto leader, one General Abdullahi Ahmed Jama 'Ilkajir', to become the next president of Puntland. Ilkajir wound up losing that election & was subsequently appointed Puntland's new Interior Minister, a position which he currently occupies. And that's just the defunct Maakhir. Somaliland also does not control Sool and Sanaag (though it has made inroads on Ayn). This too, I'm afraid, is not "original research" but fact. From your own BBC article:

"Somaliland is in dispute with the neighbouring autonomous Somali region of Puntland over the Sanaag and Sool areas, some of whose inhabitants owe their allegiance to Puntland."

And it doesn't end there either. There's also the secessionist movement in the Awdal region to contend with. In short, Somaliland clearly fails to meet the permanent population and defined territory criteria in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention where the actual preconditions for de facto statehood are set forth:

"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

Somaliland also fails to meet the last criterion above since 1) due to the fact that it is not recognized as sovereign by any country, no foreign embassies are located in the region, 2) similarly, none of Somaliland's representative offices abroad enjoy diplomatic status under the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and 3) Somaliland government officials are regarded and dealt with as regional representatives by actual federal governments such as the U.S. government:

"While the United States does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, we continue regularly to engage with Somaliland as a regional administration and to support programs that encourage democratization and economic development in the Somaliland region. We have consistently voted for United Nations Security Council resolutions reaffirming respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, and unity of Somalia.

This applies to the Somaliland region's president as well:

"The Somaliland president, Dahir Rayale Kahin, is regarded more as a governor by other nations, even though he considers himself to be as much a president as, say, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Mwai Kibaki of Kenya or Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, three prominent presidents on this continent."

Middayexpress (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You're attempting to disprove Somaliland's legitimacy with the fact that it has territorial disputes with neighbouring states:

I also did not state that "Somaliland is not in de facto control of territory or population", but clearly that "Somaliland is not in de facto control of its claimed territory and population".

It makes no difference if the government doesn't control part of the country it claims. A de facto state still exists in the parts that it does control. Night w (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does make a difference, as that is one of the very criteria for determining de facto statehood per Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. If a territory such as Somaliland (which, of course, does not exist on a de jure basis) also does not even control all of its claimed territory, then it does not exist as a state on a de facto basis either. This, I'm afraid is not OR, but quite real. See my latest post above. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You're mixing up your theories of statehood. The two theories cannot work together as they contradict one another. The Declarative Theory is quite clear that international recognition is irrelevant.
You are still engaging in original research. By stating that the fact that Somaliland does not control all the territory that it claims means that it does not have a "defined territory" is OR. According to your interpretation of the Declarative Theory (by which - I remind you - international recognition is irrelevant), none of the states I named earlier exist - including the United States, Somalia, Comoros, Spain, India, Pakistan, Japan etc.
Stating that the fact that some part of the population living in Somaliland-claimed territory reject the Somaliland government means that Somaliland has no "permanent population" is OR - and (I must say) requires some fairly serious mental leaps - do the people in Hargeisa not live on Somaliland-controlled territory permanently? Again, according to your interpretation of the Declarative Theory, most of the states I named earlier do not exist (the UK and Chile being the exceptions, as those parts of their claimed territory that they do not control of are not permanently inhabited).
Your suggestion that the fact that Somaliland is not internationally recognised means that it fails the fourth criterion - capacity to enter into relations with other states - is OR. The criterion is "capacity to enter into relations with other states". It is perfectly possible to have the capacity to do something without ever having done it. For example, I've never eaten guinea pig, but that doesn't mean I don't have the capacity to do it. It just means I haven't actually done it.
How other states deal with Somaliland is obviously based on their opinions as to whether it is legitimate or not, and thus whether they have recognised it or not. Both your New York Times quote and your US government quote demonstrate that Somaliland is not recognised internationally - a fact that I don't believe anyone disputes. But this is not relevant according to the Declarative Theory of Statehood.
So, are you actually going to produce any evidence that Somaliland fails Montevideo or are you just going to keep on producing OR arguments that have to be ignored per policy? Pfainuk talk 12:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
You're mixing up your theories of statehood. The two theories cannot work together as they contradict one another. The Declarative Theory is quite clear that international recognition is irrelevant.
Those aren't "my" theories of statehood nor am I attempting to get them to "work together". That is a strawman. What I am actually doing is pointing out to the users on this talk page who would like to include Somaliland in the template as a "state" that it isn't, in fact, a state by either of the two main theories on statehood: the Constitutive theory of statehood (i.e. it is not a de jure country) nor the Declarative theory of statehood (i.e. it is not a de facto country). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You're claiming that if Declarative Theory doesn't work you can use the Constitutive Theory. You seem to see them as two sides of the same coin. They are not. They contradict one another in that one says that international recognition is irrelevant, the other that it is the only relevant factor. They are utterly incompatible. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You are still engaging in original research. By stating that the fact that Somaliland does not control all the territory that it claims means that it does not have a "defined territory" is OR. According to your interpretation of the Declarative Theory (by which - I remind you - international recognition is irrelevant), none of the states I named earlier exist - including the United States, Somalia, Comoros, Spain, India, Pakistan, Japan etc.
No, it most certainly is not original research. This is an actual argument raised by critics of Somaliland's claim of de facto statehood (see my latest post above for quotes). As has also already been indicated, it makes no difference whether or not the U.S., Spain, India, Pakistan, Japan, and yes, even Somalia itself, fail to meet even so much as one criterion of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (i.e. that they fall short of meeting the Declarative theory of statehood/de facto statehood) since they would be and are automatically eligible anyway for inclusion in this and other Wikipedia templates on countries as they are already recognized as such (i.e. they pass the Constitutive theory of statehood/de jure statehood). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You haven't given any source that links the fact that the Somaliland government doesn't have authority over some of its claimed territory to Montevideo's requirement that states have a defined territory. Thus your position is original research. That said, I find it notable that you argue that critics of Somaliland's position argue this. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on what critics think, we should be allowing for both sides of the argument.
Here, you demonstrate my point above about the two theories of statehood, incidentally. Both theories intend to judge what is and is not a state, both de facto and de jure. They are competing theories, not complimentary ones. That said, I see you have just argued that the United States does not de facto exist. In other words, you are saying that the United States only exists on paper and that the Federal government has no practical authority. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Stating that the fact that some part of the population living in Somaliland-claimed territory reject the Somaliland government means that Somaliland has no "permanent population" is OR - and (I must say) requires some fairly serious mental leaps - do the people in Hargeisa not live on Somaliland-controlled territory permanently? Again, according to your interpretation of the Declarative Theory, most of the states I named earlier do not exist (the UK and Chile being the exceptions, as those parts of their claimed territory that they do not control of are not permanently inhabited).
Actually, it does not require any "mental leaps" at all much less serious ones (nor is that my interpretation) since the notion of "permanent population" refers to nationality, not to people in Hargeisa who may live in Somaliland-controlled territory permanently:

"Who belongs to the 'permanent population' of a state is determined by the internal law on nationality, which international law leaves to the discretion of states, except for a limited number of circumstances. Many states have a multinational composition as regards population. Thus, it would be absurd to legally require any ethnic, linguistic, historical, cultural or religious homogeneity in the sense of the antiquated political concept of the nation-state. Issues connected with such factors again arise under the topic of self-determination and the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples, but are not relevant as criteria to determine the existence of a state. A state exercises territorial jurisdiction over its inhabitants and personal jurisdiction over its nationals when abroad. The essential aspect, therefore, is the common national legal system which governs individuals and diverse groups in a state."

According to Article 4 of Somaliland's constitution, which governs citizenship (since Somaliland's secessionist government considers the territory to be an independent country), 1) "any person who is a patrial of Somaliland being a descendant of a person residing in Somaliland on 26th June 1960 or earlier shall be recognised as a citizen of Somaliland"; and 2) "The law shall determine the acquisition or loss of the citizenship of Somaliland." Similarly, Article 2 of Somaliland's constitution states that "the territory of the Republic of Somaliland covers the same area as that of the former Somaliland Protectorate and is located between Latitude 8’ to 11’ 30’ north of the equator and Longitude 42’ 45 to 49’ East; and consists of the land, islands, and territorial waters, above and below the surface, the airspace and the continental shelf." Since Somaliland, again, claims a great deal more territory than it actually controls -- and, in the case of the aforementioned Maakhir that recently rejoined Puntland under its de facto leader General Abdullahi Ahmed Jama 'Ilkajir', it has effectively permanently lost administration of -- it does not exercise territorial jurisdiction over those regions' inhabitants, much less personal jurisdiction over those same 'nationals' when abroad. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This is original synthesis in the beginning, but the last mental leap is your own original research. You say that a permanent population is determined by internal law on nationality - as opposed to ethnicity. You then give what Somaliland law says (which, you synthesise, determines what Somaliland's permanent population is). You then argue - based on your original research - that the fact that Somaliland does not have de facto control over every single member of what you synthesise to be its "permanent population" according to its laws, it has no permanent population at all - that no-one lives in Somaliland permanently. Which is quite a leap. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Your suggestion that the fact that Somaliland is not internationally recognised means that it fails the fourth criterion - capacity to enter into relations with other states - is OR. The criterion is "capacity to enter into relations with other states". It is perfectly possible to have the capacity to do something without ever having done it. For example, I've never eaten guinea pig, but that doesn't mean I don't have the capacity to do it. It just means I haven't actually done it.
While you may indeed have the capacity to eat a guinea pig, Somaliland does not possess the capacity to enter into relations with other states because it is not recognized as a state to begin with. And yes, this most certainly is relevant:

"The fourth criterion somewhat follows from the existence of government but also reflects the question of recognition. Having the capacity to enter into relations with other states means both being recognized as a state and having the administrative capacity to engage with others. In order to recognize other states and form diplomatic relations there has to be some form of government. There are a number of polities in the world today that have territory, population and government and may have the capacity to enter into relations with other states but, for political reasons, are not widely recognized. The lack of recognition means they cannot be deemed as being sovereign states and consequently that they lack the capacity to enter into relations with others. Examples of these include the aforementioned Northern Cyprus as well as other highly contested places such as Taiwan and the Palestinian Authority. Their existence and status is contested, especially in the case of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority is recognized by a number of states, but not by any permanent members of the United Nations Security Council."

Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Your source doesn't apply this to Somaliland and your application is original synthesis. On the other hand, several sources quote above applied this and the rest of Montevideo to Somaliland - which alone makes it clear that your synthesis is open to dispute. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How other states deal with Somaliland is obviously based on their opinions as to whether it is legitimate or not, and thus whether they have recognised it or not. Both your New York Times quote and your US government quote demonstrate that Somaliland is not recognised internationally - a fact that I don't believe anyone disputes. But this is not relevant according to the Declarative Theory of Statehood.
The Declarative theory of statehood is but one of two main theories overseeing what is and is not a state. The other is the Constitutive theory of statehood, which defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This, of course, automatically rules out Somaliland since the international community as a whole only recognizes it as a part of Somalia. So any way you slice it, Somaliland fails both the prevailing de jure & de facto theories on statehood. It therefore cannot be included in this template (at least not as a sovereign state) on either grounds. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There are two theories. No one argues that Somaliland passes the test under Constitutive theory - plainly it doesn't. But the only arguments you've given that it fails under the Declarative theory are based heavily on what is mostly very counterintuitve original research and original synthesis, both of which are disallowed. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
So, are you actually going to produce any evidence that Somaliland fails Montevideo or are you just going to keep on producing OR arguments that have to be ignored per policy?
It wasn't OR to begin with, actually. It was and is fact. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The New York times article conveyes what we have been saying all this time, so nice source Midday. The only legitimate way for Somaliland to be included in the template is in the second section but under the name Somali States, that re-directs to the States and regions of Somalia article.--Scoobycentric (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It also conveys the perspective of many in Somaliland itself, which "consider this [to be] an independent land". In addition, given the amount of pro-recognition websites I've been accused of sourcing here, it would seem that it's also a view held by a number of others around the world. As Pfainuk stated before, neutral policy demands that we represent this perspective—even if it is not that of the official majority—on the condition that it is represented in such a way that equally demonstrates the conflicting point-of-view, hence the footnote.
By not listing it, we're demonstrating that the opinion that Somaliland has achieved statehood simply doesn't exist, or that it's not valid (i.e. they haven't declared independence, and they don't control any territory or people). But the opinion is there, they have, and they do. By listing it with the attached footnote, we show that the opinion is there, but is not recognised—which couldn't be further from the truth. It's plain and neutral. Night w (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Statehood is not determined by who supports a given territory's secession or how 'popular' or unpopular a secessionist movement is. It is also most certainly not determined by the simple fact that that territory has claimed independence. The latter constitutes self-declared statehood, which counts for nothing. It is determined by two main schools of thought, namely the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood. Somaliland fails both: the first, automatically since no country recognizes it as being anything other than a part of Somalia; the other, through a process of elimination (read the discussion above). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Scoobycentric: interesting proposition. That is certainly a better way to include at least a reference to Somalia's autonomous territories, and one that's actually in-line with reality too. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. It's not about asserting that Somaliland is legitimate - I would oppose inclusion on an equal footing with generally recognised states. But equally we shouldn't be asserting that it isn't legitimate unless it is clear that no-one (including the Somaliland government) asserts that it is. Pfainuk talk 12:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not one even wanted to include it on that 'equal' basis, Somaliland could never be included in this template as a sovereign state alongside actual countries (Somalia in particular) since it is not a state by any of the two prevailing definitions of statehood the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood. And Somaliland's secessionist government is actually the very last group of people whose (obviously biased) views would be considered reliable. See WP:CONFLICT, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:QS. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would suggest that the government of Somaliland is probably the most reliable source you could get for its own position on this matter. As I say, we should not be asserting that Somaliland is not legitimate unless no-one including the Somaliland government asserts that it is. If the Somaliland government asserts that Somaliland is legitimately an independent sovereign state then there is at least a dispute over the matter, and we should be allowing for both positions per WP:NPOV.
As an aside, I find it a bit concerning that you seem to consider critics of Somaliland to be inherently more reliable than proponents. As I say, per WP:NPOV we have to allow for both sides. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would suggest that the government of Somaliland is probably the most reliable source you could get for its own position on this matter. As I say, we should not be asserting that Somaliland is not legitimate unless no-one including the Somaliland government asserts that it is. If the Somaliland government asserts that Somaliland is legitimately an independent sovereign state then there is at least a dispute over the matter, and we should be allowing for both positions per WP:NPOV.
Would you listen to yourself? This isn't about getting the Somaliland secessionist government's "own position on this matter". That's like asking a ninth grader to fill out his own report card as he sees fit, objective criteria be damned -- he'll give himself As every time. It just doesn't work that way. As has already been pointed out several times before, Wikipedia does not allow advocacy of any sort. From WP:NOTADVOCATE:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising.

The Somaliland separatists are, for obvious reasons, also unreliable sources as to whether or not Somaliland meets the criteria for de facto statehood:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

Lastly, WP:NPOV applies to reliable sources only, which of course self-serving Somaliland secessionist sources are not (especially ones from the government):

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
As an aside, I find it a bit concerning that you seem to consider critics of Somaliland to be inherently more reliable than proponents. As I say, per WP:NPOV we have to allow for both sides.
If that's a reference to that quote I highlighted earlier that was taken from this paper (a document which, incidentally, NightW himself originally produced) -- i.e. the one that goes "A number of arguments have been advanced to rebut Somaliland’s quest for recognition. One of the... critique[s] pertaining to the argument for recognition is the fact that the eastern part, including Sanaag and Sool, of Somaliland’s border is contested." -- you should know that that quote was not sourced back to anything else. In other words, it is directly from the paper itself, whereas NightW's quote indicating that Somaliland meets the criteria for de facto statehood as outlined in the Montevideo Convention is sourced back to two highly biased papers. That's not a double standard, if that's what you're insinuating; that too is fact (see my post above dated 08:22, 7 January 2010). Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who are in favour of including Somaliland and the SADR, not making a distinction between the two. Since the template uses a regional subdivision, I prefer option 1. Puntland really is different because it does not claim to be independent. If it is included, then only on the level of an autonomous territory. sephia karta | di mi 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Statehood is not determined by whether or not a territory claims independence. The latter constitutes self-declared statehood, which counts for nothing. It is determined by two main schools of thought; namely, the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood. Somaliland fails both: the first, automatically since no country recognizes it as being anything other than a part of Somalia; the second, through a process of elimination (read the discussion above). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok so everyone seems to be in agreement by now (minus midday of course, who we can ignore by now) that Somaliland is in fact a de facto state. We also agree that it should be included in this template, with a footnote or italics. Im glad this discussion could be wrapped up in such a civil manner. So as per Night w, Pfainuk, and S karta's comments we can now conclude this lively debate of whether Somaliland should be included. The only thing left to debate is if it should be listed with the rest of the sovereign states (along with its footnote/italics) or under the disputed section. Once this minor issue is cleared up we can completely conclude this debate. Outback the koala (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid no amount of canvassing other talk pages for support on your part can circumvent the discussion process, as consensus is not a popular vote. WP:CONSENSUS is also clear that "discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer." So your rude suggestions that I (or any other user, for that matter) "can be ignore[d] by now" doesn't particularly carry any weight either. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was what we were debating... As I said at the beginning of this Options section, the actual inclusion of Somaliland into the template can't be disputed...because if it doesn't fit into the first section, it fits into the second. Puntland has to go in the second section (with the rest of the autonomous entities) because nobody is arguing that it's a sovereign state. As for Somaliland, on the other hand, we need to demonstrate the idea that it is. Night w (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If Somaliland were to be included in template, it could only conceivably be under the second section, as it is not a country by either prevailing definitions of statehood. It is, however, autonomous, as is Puntland, so Puntland would indeed have to be included in that same section as well. To remove any additional confusion, the section would also need to be further formatted to differentiate the autonomies from the other sorts of territories. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As a number of us have said before, you are yet to provide any source that states--plainly and simply, without leaving it open to multiple interpretations and requiring, yes, mental leaps--that Somaliland unequivocally fails the Declarative theory of statehood.

  • The quote you used from this source:

One of the... critique[s] pertaining to the argument for recognition is the fact that the eastern part, including Sanaag and Sool, of Somaliland’s border is contested.

...merely conveys that a state might not consider recognising Somaliland for fear of picking sides in a border dispute or riling up tensions. It could also mean that a state might not want to recognise a new state that already has stability problems on one of its frontiers. It is most certainly not critics pointing out that Somaliland fails Montevideo, which the source already stated directly as being an instrument that supports its claim to statehood, in the sentence below:

Proponents also draw from international legal instruments which support Somaliland’s position, including the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

That is an example of something that doesn't require a mental leap. I also dispute your reasoning regarding the source's reliability---which was basically: because it makes reference to so-and-so, who worked at this place, which was accused of this in the 80's, and this woman had coffee with some guy who turned out to be plugging this product... Whatever.
  • Your interpretations of the criteria laid out in the Convention are unsourced. Page 11 of this report by the Internationa Crisis Group (are they okay?) goes through each criterion individually and states simply why Somaliland fulfills each. It also makes the following statement which contradicts your prior interpretation of the second criterion:

Under international law, boundary disputes do not invalidate a state’s claim to a defined territory, although they often considerably complicate recognition by other states.

It also gives the following statement:

Somaliland has entered into formal and informal cooperative arrangements with a wide variety of states and intergovernmental organisations, including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Denmark, UK, U.S. and the UN. Cooperation has covered a range of issues, including security, trade, immigration and development assistance.

Lack of recognition from other states does not negate a state's capacity to enter into relations, especially not informal relations--that is defined by administrative manpower and internal organisation.
  • Some more sources that make the direct statement that Somaliland fulfills Montevideo (you'll probably say they're biased...but they--along with the six I provided before--demonstrate the abundancy of the claim, as opposed to your claim, which has so-far relied on your synthetic interpretations: 1, 2, 3.
  • Your interpretations (yes, that is what they are--because you read it differently to how most people would) of the qualifying criteria are yet to be backed up with reliable evidence. Your claim that Somaliland does not meet the criteria is yet to be backed up with reliable evidence. Show me a source that holds that Somaliland does not have a permanent population... or a defined territory... or the capacity to enter into relations with another state.
  • And lastly, read the policy regarding canvassing before making accusations toward other editors. It is never deemed inappropriate to encourage more editors to participate in a discussion. Canvassing is the attempt to get others to join one's cause by phrasing the invitation in a biased way, or sending exclusive messages to individuals who are predisposed to joining your cause. An example would be this. When one editor invites another editor with whom he already does a fair amount of tag-teaming into a debate, that is considered canvassing. Outback made a general invitation on a relevant talk page, an act that is encouraged in order to open the discussion to more opinions. Night w (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Editors with common interests participating in the same discussions is not the same as 'tag-teaming', all of your examples have a central theme and that is they are Somali related issues, so no suprise there.
  • Secondly evidence that proves Somaliland has no permanent population or a defined territory has already been provided with this source: The Illusory 'Somaliland': Setting the Record Straight, but for some reason the latter is not sufficient enough, because unlike the articles heavily influenced by seccessionist individuals provided by Night W, this one suppossedly fails NPOV, when it's an organisation with multiple qualified representatives who have as much right to have their case heard and considered as the Somaliland government does. If a source highlights that 40% of the claimed territory is not controlled by Somaliland, this in no way takes a leap of mind, or should be considered unreliable evidence of Somaliland not having a defined territory, this is simply reality, stating so is in no way OR, or Original Synth, since neither me or Midday cooked that figure up.
  • Even if Japan, Somalia or the US were to fail under the same condition, if tested, they are still recognised by hundreds of countries in the UN, hence they by default qualify for this template, Somaliland however, which is considered by the world as nothing more than a region of Somalia, and which does not have jurisdiction of a big chunk of the territory claimed(a new reality conveniently ignored by those claiming it meets all the criteria) then it cannot by default qualify for the current template, which states:

The lists of countries included in the "Continent topic" templates are broadly those found in the "Countries of" templates. Discussions on which countries to include are best conducted on the talk pages of these latter templates

Somaliland is not by any convention wether in encyclopedia's and geographic Atlases on Africa, or the most important political body the African Union, ever considered to be a 'Country of..Africa, but instead a region of Somalia.
  • In modern International law a boundary dispute involving a non-recognised entity that has never entered an agreement with any state to define it's frontiers most definitely does not have a defined territory as is claimed above in the quote by NightW, see here from the book: Estoppel, acquiescence and recognition in territorial and boundary disputes introduction:

In contemporary international law, territorial changes can only take place prima facie, if carried out in accordance with the principle of consent. As the international Court of Justice remarked, to define a territory is to define it's frontiers and the fixing of a frontier depends on the will of the sovereign states directly concerned

Since the Somaliland entity never signed an agreement with Somalia or autonomous states such as Puntland to define it frontiers, it never had a defined territory to begin with, and therefore according to international law 'everything claimed by them is without the consent of the sovereign internationally recognised' state of Somalia, hence making their claim invalid. To claim otherwise is equivalant to saying Somalia's claims on the NFD and the Ogaden are valid, because it claims these territories, under it's constitution that state all Somali citizens of the Horn are citizens of the Somali Republic.
  • International relations with foreign countries is not unique to Somaliland alone, matter fact Puntland has a specific position called the Minister of Planning and International Relations.--Scoobycentric (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As a number of us have said before, you are yet to provide any source that states--plainly and simply, without leaving it open to multiple interpretations and requiring, yes, mental leaps--that Somaliland unequivocally fails the Declarative theory of statehood.

The quote you used from this source:

One of the... critique[s] pertaining to the argument for recognition is the fact that the eastern part, including Sanaag and Sool, of Somaliland’s border is contested.

...merely conveys that a state might not consider recognising Somaliland for fear of picking sides in a border dispute or riling up tensions.

No, it does not "merely [convey]" that nor does the source mention anything of the sort. That is, as you'd say, "OR". Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, it does...in the follwing sentence, actually.
"...including Sanaag and Sool, of Somaliland’s border is contested. Moreover, critics hold that the recognition of Somaliland may culminate in the widening of the recurrent crisis among the major clans inhabiting Somaliland."
Night w (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

...Montevideo, which the source already stated directly as being an instrument that supports its claim to statehood, in the sentence below:

Proponents also draw from international legal instruments which support Somaliland’s position, including the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

That is an example of something that doesn't require a mental leap. I also dispute your reasoning regarding the source's reliability---which was basically: because it makes reference to so-and-so, who worked at this place, which was accused of this in the 80's, and this woman had coffee with some guy who turned out to be plugging this product... Whatever.

I was not disputing the source's reliability. I was explaining the unreliability of the footnoted references which the passage that you have quoted above is sourced back to. The passage is not directly from the paper itself (it is the other passage from that same source which I quoted and which you have attempted to subsequently invalidate that actually comes from the source itself since it is not, by contrast, sourced back to anything else). But then again, no one would even know that that passage has a footnote attached to it since you neglected to include the "112" that actually tails the passage in the paper itself:

Proponents also draw from international legal instruments which support Somaliland’s position, including the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. This convention ascertains that a full-fledged state needs to have ‘a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states’.112

Here is how I actually explained why the footnoted sources for that passage above are biased (and no, it has nothing to do with any "coffee" or "the 80's" I'm afraid; see Strawman argument):

Also, your quote that begins "Proponents also draw from international legal instruments..." is sourced back to a paper titled The remarkable story of Somaliland by one Seth Kaplan -- that's one of the "proponents" of an independent Somaliland which the footnote "112" in the paragraph in question links back to. That paper by Mr. Kaplan was published by the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. special interest group that, tellingly, "has been accused by both right-wing and left-wing personalities of interference in foreign regimes, and of being set up to legally continue the CIA's prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad". That, I'm afraid, is not a reliable source. It also doesn't help that Edna Adan Ismail, Somaliland's former foreign minister and one of the most vocal and active members of the Somaliland secessionist movement (she's featured & pictured in that New York Times article on the movement) -- can be found plugging one of the author's books on his website. Similarly, the other source that passage is referenced back to titled Somaliland: surviving without recognition; Somalia: recognised but failing is by a gentleman with the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR), which is a special interest group that works closely with Somaliland's secessionist government. In fact, CIIR has an office in the region that is headed by one Adan Yousuf Abokor, who, according to the Somaliland Times itself, is "very knowledgeable on the history of Somaliland in view of the fact that he took part in development initiatives even during the times of Mohammed Siad Barre. He was imprisoned (in solitary confinement) as a result." In other words, Mr. Abokor was and is a part of the secessionist movement. If that's not enough, the CIIR, which is now known as Progressio, admits on its website that "throughout its history, the organisation has sought to influence church and state, most notably to support liberation struggles" and that its "international advocacy messages are rooted in, and therefore informed and strengthened by, the experience of our partners overseas. The development programme seeks to build the capacity of partners to undertake advocacy themselves." That too is unacceptable.

Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

*Your interpretations of the criteria laid out in the Convention are unsourced.Page 11 of this report by the Internationa Crisis Group (are they okay?) goes through each criterion individually and states simply why Somaliland fulfills each. It also makes the following statement which contradicts your prior interpretation of the second criterion:

Under international law, boundary disputes do not invalidate a state’s claim to a defined territory, although they often considerably complicate recognition by other states.

It also gives the following statement:

Somaliland has entered into formal and informal cooperative arrangements with a wide variety of states and intergovernmental organisations, including Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Denmark, UK, U.S. and the UN. Cooperation has covered a range of issues, including security, trade, immigration and development assistance.

Predictably by now, that source too is not "ok", and here's why: The International Crisis Group's groups Horn of Africa project, which oversees affairs in the region, was not only affiliated with, but actually headed by one Matt Bryden. Bryden is one of the most vocal supporters for Somaliland's secession. He regularly writes papers for the cause, is married to a woman from the region, and works very closely with Somaliland's government. He has also been called out on his bias and that very paper you have just quoted from as well:

As the Director of the African Program in the Brussel-based International Crisis Group (ICG), Matt Bryden initiated and oversaw in 2006 the preparation and publication of a notorious one-sided sub-standard ICG report (Somaliland: Time for African Union Leadership http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=4131) promoting the breakup of Somalia and the recognition of Somaliland. In a pointed critique of this report, http://www.hiiraan.com/op/2006/jun/Qarshe-Timacadde030606.aspx Omar Ali Haji and Nura K. Ali of Qarshe & Tima-Ade International Center, a Washington-based Think Tank, wrote:

“It is public knowledge that Mr. Bryden is biased and cannot be relied upon for an objective analysis of the Somali crisis. For example, he regularly attends functions that support the recognition of “Somaliland” such as the conference held by the Somaliland Policy & Reconstruction Institute, SOPRI http://www.sopri.org/gallery_0009.aspx in Los Angeles in June of 2005.”

Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of recognition from other states does not negate a state's capacity to enter into relations, especially not informal relations--that is defined by administrative manpower and internal organisation.

Actually, a state's very capacity to enter into relations with other states directly depends on whether or not it is recognized as a state to begin with:

"The fourth criterion somewhat follows from the existence of government but also reflects the question of recognition. Having the capacity to enter into relations with other states means both being recognized as a state and having the administrative capacity to engage with others. In order to recognize other states and form diplomatic relations there has to be some form of government. There are a number of polities in the world today that have territory, population and government and may have the capacity to enter into relations with other states but, for political reasons, are not widely recognized. The lack of recognition means they cannot be deemed as being sovereign states and consequently that they lack the capacity to enter into relations with others. Examples of these include the aforementioned Northern Cyprus as well as other highly contested places such as Taiwan and the Palestinian Authority. Their existence and status is contested, especially in the case of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority is recognized by a number of states, but not by any permanent members of the United Nations Security Council."Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because a country is not recognized as independent does not mean they do not have the capacity to enter into foreign relations. Iraqi Kurdistan is recognized as part of Iraq by every country, but it does have separate relations with a number of countries including Turkey. The Canadian provinces also have the ability to conduct foreign affairs separate of the national Canadian government; they just choose not to exercise this right. CK6569 (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

*Some more sources that make the direct statement that Somaliland fulfills Montevideo (you'll probably say they're biased...but they--along with the six I provided before--demonstrate the abundancy of the claim, as opposed to your claim, which has so-far relied on your synthetic interpretations: 1, 2, 3.

All of the references you have supplied are in some way or another biased and/or unreliable and have indeed already been exposed as such in detail. With regard to those three latest "sources", for example, one is from the afore-mentioned Matt Bryden, who is an integral part of the secessionist movement itself. The other is a scathing critique of an opinion piece that was originally published elsewhere, and opinion pieces are questionable sources. The third is from -- and I quote -- an "advocate for Somaliland Recognition" & is published on a website for an advocacy group of which Somaliland's secessionist government is itself a member (i.e. the "Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization"). Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

*Your interpretations (yes, that is what they are--because you read it differently to how most people would) of the qualifying criteria are yet to be backed up with reliable evidence. Your claim that Somaliland does not meet the criteria is yet to be backed up with reliable evidence. Show me a source that holds that Somaliland does not have a permanent population... or a defined territory... or the capacity to enter into relations with another state.

As you wish:

"In recent years, a new school of thought’s debate hinges on whether separatist movements can achieve their goal by creating a new “reality on the ground” has emerged. Despite international and national norms, altered “reality on the ground” makes discussions about recognition a moot subject, and simply a matter of semantics. By expanding and giving a radical interpretation to the Montevideo Convention, Alison Eggers argues that “Somaliland” has satisfied the requirements for recognition in that it has

1. established a permanent government; has

2. a defined territory;

3. a permanent population; and

4. a capacity to enter into relationship with other states are prerequisite for statehood.

Although it is plausible to argue that Somaliland has established a somewhat permanent but fragile government, it is not a government that can enter into any meaningful relationship with either bilateral governments or international bodies. Moreover, neither the population nor the territory claimed by “Somaliland” is defined. Besides, an international law presupposes that a secessionist part must do so within the framework of the “parent” state. Mogadishu’s say so in this case is all the more pivotal."

Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

*And lastly, read the policy regarding canvassing before making accusations toward other editors. It is never deemed inappropriate to encourage more editors to participate in a discussion. Canvassing is the attempt to get others to join one's cause by phrasing the invitation in a biased way, or sending exclusive messages to individuals who are predisposed to joining your cause. An example would be this. When one editor invites another editor with whom he already does a fair amount of tag-teaming into a debate, that is considered canvassing. Outback made a general invitation on a relevant talk page, an act that is encouraged in order to open the discussion to more opinions.

Sending friendly notices to users who regularly edit articles related to the discussion at hand (i.e. Somalia) is not "tag teaming". Perhaps it indeed wasn't canvassing, but if general input were indicated, Somalia's WikiProject page would seem a more logical first stop before a separate non-Somali-related article where there never even was any dispute to begin with as to whether or not Somaliland ought to be included there. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that anyone is going to think a document called The Illusory 'Somaliland': Setting the Record Straight, subtitled SOMALIA: ONE PEOPLE; ONE COUNTRY and prepared by the Research Unit of Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity (NSPU) is going to be a neutral and unbiased account of the issues here? Please don't insult our intelligence.
And yet, amusingly enough, it does not make the interpretations that you do. It does not say that the fact that Somaliland doesn't control 40% of its claimed territory implies that Somaliland does not have a "defined territory". It does not say that the fact that people in the aforesaid territories reject Somaliland implies that Somaliland has no permanent population. It does not say that the fact that Somaliland is not internationally recognised implies that Somaliland does not have the capacity for international relations. Indeed, it makes no mention whatsoever of Montevideo or the Declarative theory of statehood. So no, you can't even source your original research to this biased document.
The fact that the US is recognised by all the members of the UN does not imply anything in a theory that states that recognition is not a factor that determines statehood. You say they qualify by default - but personally I would have difficulty accepting the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which is recognised internationally but fails Montevideo on the grounds that it controls no territory) on such a template.
You point out that Somaliland doesn't control all of its claimed territory. You've done that repeatedly, but no-one argues that it does control all its claimed territory. But then you start synthesising again. You quote a source that doesn't reference the Somaliland situation and try to apply it. That's original synthesis and that argument has to be discarded as such.
And let's be clear. No-one is arguing that Somaliland's claim to independence is valid. We're arguing that there is dispute as to whether Somaliland's claim to independence is valid - dispute between the Somaliland government on one hand and the rest of the international community on the other. That is all that is necessary for WP:NPOV to kick in and require that the Somaliland government's position be allowed for (though not accepted outright - and no-one's arguing that it should be). The same would go for the NFD (which, incidentally refers to North Eastern Province (Kenya) - formerly the Northern Frontier District - and not the metal band that the link points to) and Ogaden: if Somalia claims them then neutrality requires that that claim be suitably reflected in the appropriate articles. Pfainuk talk 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No, that is not "all that is necessary for WP:NPOV to kick in and and require that the Somaliland government's position be allowed for" because WP:NPOV applies to views from reliable sources only, and Somaliland's secessionists themselves are the very last people to be included as such. See my post above for quotes from an actually reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Scooby, you and Midday both seem to be having trouble understanding what Pfainuk's been telling you since the beginning. You are arguing that all of the states in this list fail the Declarative theory of statehood (DTS), in which recognition is not a factor, under the first two criterion—that because they claim areas they don't control, they don't have a defined territory or permanent population. Thus, they're not states as far as that theory is concerned. That is what you are arguing, although as of yet it's just you're own interpretation, since it's not a conclusion that has been reached by reliable sources. I also agree with the above statement, that as long as the Somaliland government believes itself to be a valid independent state—since it, and (as my twelve sources suggest) many others, believe it to have passed the DTS—neutrality demands that we demonstrate that perspective. Therefore I also vote for Option 1. Night w (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The sources you have cited are not even close to being reliable. They are actually about as far from being reliable as one can get and have been exposed as such too. Refer to my post above for a quote from an actually reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To Pfainuk and NightW, the NSPU are a legitimate organisation advocating the unity of Somalia, and represent those who do not wish to seceed in the territory claimed by Somaliland, their viewpoint is not more biased than the multiple advocates of the Somaliland entity, whose heavy POV - though promoted here as neutral - has been laid bare by Middayexpress. The theoretical micronation; the Sovereign Military Order of Malta would not qualify for the template even if it had some territory to rule over, for the same reason why Sealand is repeatedly removed from the Europe template. As for the defined territory issue, that seems to have been taken care of by Middayexpress with a clear quote on the matter, somewhere above in the discussion, so the leap of mind, and original synth rhetoric should be put to rest. Option 1 where Somaliland is put on equal footing with Somalia is unacceptable, and no amount of italics would change the impression that wikipedia is advocating an agenda, which is not recognised by any entity in the world. --Scoobycentric (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I say that if any area meets either one of the definitions of statehood, either Declarative theory of statehood or Constitutive theory of statehood de facto or de jure then they should be listed. If the US would come out tomorrow and recognize Corsica as independent wouldn't that all we need for Constitutive theory of statehood, and there for be listed in Europe? that fact is that as long as Somaliland holds control over any land in Africa and will not and does not answer to any other government then they are de facto independent. I therefore vote for Option 1. CK6569 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the consensus process is not a popular vote. Secondly, "control over any land in Africa" and "not answer[ing] to any government" are not criteria for establishing statehood. Actual criteria for establishing statehood are found in the Constitutive theory of statehood and the alternative Declarative theory of statehood. Since Somaliland is only recognized as a part of Somalia by the international community, it automatically fails the Constitutive theory of statehood (i.e. it is not a de jure country), as the Constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. That leaves the Declarative theory of statehood (i.e. de facto statehood), which Somaliland also fails (see the above). That means that Somaliland does not belong on this template among actual countries, and certainly not alongside the Somalia of which it is a part. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)