Jump to content

Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Murza-Zade (talk | contribs) at 12:51, 1 September 2016 (→‎Sri Lanka Botswana niger syria). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

INCOMPLETE LIST!!

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

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

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

The list no longer shows countries that have recognised South Sudan - because it is highly likely that all countries recognise it. It now just shows those where formal diplomatic relations have been established. If you have a source that shows that Bosnia, Jamaica, etc. have done this, then we can add them. Bazonka (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you claim that there are states, who don't recognize Montenegro, Croatia, Bhutan, Mongolia or Germany? I assume you don't. The South Sudan situation is the same - nobody has announced objections to its independence as sovereign state, nobody has announced that he doesn't recognize the South Sudan government as government of the homonymous state. Some have officially announced their diplomatic recognition of South Sudan. Some have officially established diplomatic relations with South Sudan. Some have accredited non-resident ambassadors to/from South Sudan. Some have established consulates in South Sudan. Some have established embassies in South Sudan. Some have accepted consulates/embassies from South Sudan. Some international organizations have announced that they would welcome South Sudan if it applies for membership. South Sudan has joined some international organizations. All of these are notable issues part of the foreign relations of South Sudan. The embassies and consulates are on the List of diplomatic missions.
Most of the other issues are described on this page, but you argue that we should disregard sources about the diplomatic recognition of South Sudan simply because nobody objects its independence.
Diplomatic recognition is notable in itself - separately from the establishment of diplomatic relations - as you can see in links provided above (09:09, 21 December 2011) from many MFAs that publish lists of the diplomatic recognitions their state have got. And all of those MFAs are of states, whose independence is not objected by anyone (just like South Sudan) - not MFAs of states like Kosovo, Palestine or Taiwan.
If somebody insists to keep the notable and sourced list of diplomatic recognitions separate from the notable and sourced list of diplomatic relations - fine, but then the merge should be reversed. Otherwise the merge should be completed by keeping the recognition column. Japinderum (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A statement is only notable if recognition was not granted otherwise or is somehow contested. As every state voted in into the UN, a government spokesman saying "Congratulations! :D" is not meaningful at all. CMD (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody speaks about "congratulations" statements. The official act of diplomatic recognition is very different from inauguration/independence congratulations statement. Please see the external links and Wikipedia articles provided where it's shown that diplomatic recognition is a notable foreign affairs act for all states - regardless whether those are UN or not. The UN has nothing to with that. Japinderum (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were voted in to the UN, which is only accorded to states. Most editors here agree it's completely unnotable for these states, as it's already implicit. If it wasn't, we'd need South Sudan to recognise all the other states in the world. Obviously they won't. CMD (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"which is only accorded to states" (that's not so obvious, but anyway) - what do you refer to? Nobody is claiming that South Sudan is not a state.
"it's already implicit" - what's implicit? That South Sudan is a state or that "everybody" recognizes South Sudan? The first is fine and the second may be true in practice, but as all those sources show - the act of diplomatic recognition is important enough so that various governments around the world "bother" to do it (even for UN members) and to announce it to the public (I even gave you sources for UN member MFA websites keeping a list of diplomatic recognitions they have got). So, obviously it's notable for these governments.
"we'd need South Sudan to recognise all the other states in the world." - no, we don't "need" anything like that. Just as we don't need South Sudan (or anybody else) to establish diplomatic relations with all others. States decide on their own when and whether to issue explicit statements for diplomatic recognition and when and whether to establish diplomatic relations. Those decisions are part of the foreign policy and diplomacy they conduct.
Not having diplomatic recognition or diplomatic relations between some pair of states is not something "shameful", so that somebody "needs" such with "all the other states in the world." Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


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

This is ridiculous. All countries have recognised South Sudan, but only some have made a (largely meaningless) proclamation about doing so. All we're doing is listing those that we've heard from. This only gives a partial view and cannot possibly be acceptable in an encyclopedia. We're giving the false impression that the other countries haven't recognised, but they have. This article should be about diplomatic relations only. Bazonka (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify - I don't say that countries who haven't made the official act of diplomatic recognition are opposed to South Sudan independence, statehood or something like that. My assumption is that if there were such "opposers" then the UN admission of South Sudan would have gone trough recorded voting procedure (it was admitted without a vote[1]) - like when admitting Israel (12 against, 9 abstain).
But those UN-aspects are irrelevant. The problem here is that some of the editors above approach the issue from the position of "Is South Sudan like Kosovo and Palestine or not? It's not. Then we don't care about it - which states are interested in it, its diplomacy, etc." or "Diplomatic recognition statements about UN members are redundant - it's automatically granted by voting at the UN".
The act of diplomatic recognition is a regular practice. Just like the act of establishing diplomatic relations. All these governments (sourced) wouldn't bother to do recognitions and relations if those were unimportant or redundant for UN members. You can see above also examples of MFA websites (of long time UN members - if that matters to you) keeping a list of recognitions they received from foreign states and of relations they have established with foreign states (before and after UN admission - if that matters to you).
So, there is no reason to delete this notable and sourced content. Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Longtime members? Not that long. But while it may make a nice gesture diplomatically to say hello, having it here implies to the readers that the countries not on the list don't recognise it. Which is a very disputable implication. There are reasons to remove it, which have been explained above. Simply saying "there is no reason" does not facilitate conversation. CMD (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we take the view that international recognition of South Sudan is worldwide, as implied during the unanimous vote to admit it to the United Nations, then we do not need to mention it in this article. Agreed?
If we take an alternative view that recognition has to be formally granted by every other nation, then we probably should mention who's recognised... but only if we have a reliable, comprehensive source. We don't have a comprehensive source - we have a smattering of media reports and Foreign Ministry statements, some more reliable than others. There are undoubtedly lots of gaps. Therefore, giving a list of recognising countries is highly misleading. If there was a decent source (e.g. S.Sudan's MFA website) then fine, but there isn't.
So no matter which view you take, neither enables us to include recognisers in the article. Bazonka (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, no, having the list of diplomatic recognitions does not "implies to the readers that the countries not on the list don't recognise it." (please see below section)
"Longtime members? Not that long." It's ~20 years or slightly less that 1/3rd of the total UN lifetime, but let's disagree on what's longtime... :)
Bazonka, we don't have to take any view - there is no "need" for a state to have recognition "granted by every other nation". They (and we) don't have to choose on what to base a "worldwide international recognition" to be placed in their CV - to base it on mass-production implied recognition (by getting in the UN or another organization) or to base it on individual statements. Nobody has expressed opposition to South Sudan independence, statehood, sovereignty or whatever (or at least I haven't seen such source), including during the procedure for admission in the UN. That's actually the common case for almost all states around the world (yes we, the Wikipedia editors, have bigger affinity to focus on the few exceptions, but this one isn't such). And in the common case there are very rare (if any) cases where a state has recognitions or relations with everybody else. There's no problem with that and nobody "needs" otherwise. That's simply not how it works - recognitions and relations are "gathered" during the years depending on the interests of the different states.
So, having UN membership ("worldwide international recognition") doesn't mean that you stop getting diplomatic recognitions and stop establishing diplomatic relations. Those continue to trickle in, governments around the world continue to act, and so those are listed and announced on MFAs and here. Yes, it would be good if SS MFA publish (and update) such a list, but until they do we use other MFAs and other sources. You rise two issues - reliability and gaps. If you think some of the sources utilized is not reliable - let's discuss it (I won't object removing a sloppy source and I think we can deal with such cases pretty easy). About the gaps - of course there may be gaps (e.g. states that we haven't found a source yet) - when such gap is identified (a source found) it will be filled immediately. That's common practice on every article - nobody claims that Wikipedia is the divine source of all knowledge, there are many gaps in all subjects that are filled over time.
I find it misleading to remove the recognitions - this makes SS look much less "accepted" (like some kind of Bhutan or Pacific island state) than if we keep them. (please see below section) Japinderum (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletions

Recently editors try to enforce a non-consensus version where notable sourced content is deleted. The last attempt is [2] with explanation "No consensus to include this misleading information". The fact is that there was and still isn't consensus to delete the information. And I don't see anything misleading in the information.

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

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

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

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

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

No, the version with recognition implies South Sudan has a limited international recognition, which is completely untrue. No notable content was deleted, because the statements weren't notable. Consensus was reached in a discussion above.
@Sascha: No personal attacks, or chances are you will be swiftly blocked. CMD (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like being called the "Putin of Wikipedia". That's made my day. Thanks, Sascha. Anyway, I am merely following Wikipedia's WP:BRD process. Perhaps you should try it too, rather than just ranting. Comparisons to Kosovo are irrelevant - it's a completely different situation. Bazonka (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in complete agreement that the list is unnecessary, reflects WP:RECENTISM, and is misleading as to South Sudan's international status. Diplomatic recognition of South Sudan is noncontroversial. Even if the government of St. Lucia or Brunei or San Marino hasn't made an official statement on the matter, that doesn't mean South Sudan is only partially recognized. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

People, you are looking at it in reverse - maybe because of our bias here on Wikipedia with the well known "special cases" where we fish out each and every recognition drop and where we automatically assume "X doesn't recognize it unless proven otherwise". Of course South Sudan is noncontroversial and not "partially recognized". But this doesn't mean that diplomatic recognitions and diplomatic relations doesn't matter. Besides the legal meaning and diplomatic nuances those are indications of South Sudan interactions with and importance for the rest of the world.
Listing the recognitions doesn't imply it's "unrecognized" - on the contrary! Listing the recognitions and relations along with the chronology (dates) shows how quickly SS got involved in the "international community", how numerous its interactions with the rest are, the degree of importance others give it and who are those deeming it important to issue a recognition statement or to establish relations (chronology is important here, because in a few years it will have gathered recognitions and relations with almost everybody).
Removing the recognitions makes SS stance look too "bare", limited and isolated (many more states have issued a recognitions, and only few relations are already established) - that's misleading.
It seems that we have a disagreement in perception, that's why I tried to solve the problem by adding a paragraph clarifying that there are no objections and anti-SS positions expressed (so that we remove the suspicious mentioned above that listing recognitions implies to the readers that SS is like Kosovo and Palestine with some "recognition problem"). Please look at it and if needed we can add a footnote to the recognition column (or a text above or whatever) further clarifying that? Japinderum (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing recognitions does not make it any barer than it is. It has relations with a certain number of states, we show that number of states. The speed of South Sudans integration in the international community is amply shown in that it went from declaring independence to being a UN member in under a week.
As numerous other users have asserted here (even Sascha seems to agree somewhat, with their desire to search for the missing recognition statements), listing recognitions does imply South Sudan is unrecognised. It presents a list saying "These countries have recognised South Sudan", implying the rest haven't. The lack of objection paragraph you added now seems confused when compared the a list of countries that recognised it. CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here they are again.

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

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

Please provide a source that Venezuela "refuses" to recognise Montenegro. CMD (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, I don't agree that removing recognitions doesn't make it any barer. I explained above - having so many recognitions in so short period shows the degree of importance others put on South Sudan. Information about who has recognized/established relations is also important - it shows which states are interested in South Sudan. Nobody is "against" it and it was welcomed in the UN without obstructions, but this doesn't mean that all states have the same interest or goodwill towards South Sudan.
Lack of explicit diplomatic recognition statement by X doesn't automatically mean "X doesn't recognize it" - this was argued by some people even for Palestine and Kosovo (where the "mainstream" logic is "recognition is purposely refused unless the opposite is proven"), so I thought it's more than obvious for South Sudan.
Explicit diplomatic recognitions are simply a fact that we report, just like the diplomatic relations - when we have a source for a particular state. As explained above it's not "needed" and certainly not expected recognitions or relations to reach 100% (I doubt that even the biggest countries have 100%). But those are to gradually increase with time - that's why we have a chronology section in the first place.
About the clarifying paragraph - it says "many states have issued official explicit statements about its diplomatic recognition". I thought this combined with the previous "UN admission without any objections" should be enough to reduce potential confusion, but if you want - then why not add some further clarification note or sentence? Japinderum (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show the importance at all. If any country becomes uncontroversially independent, of course many countries will note it. Again, we all agree the date of established relations is important.
If we present a definite list of countries recognising South Sudan, it implies all those not on the list don't. Some countries will purposefully maintain ambiguity on Kosovo and Palestine, the same situation doesn't exist with South Sudan. It's the obviousness of the fact that no explicit recognition doesn't mean nonrecognition that makes the list pointless. Explicit recognition just isn't notable, for South Sudan, or for those biggest countries you mention. They are 100% recognised. CMD (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pal, there was and isn't consensus to delete recognitions. They are obviously notable - the governments around the world prove that with their actions - please look at the discussions above for links and elaborations. The act of diplomatic recognition is part of the foreign policies of states regarding South Sudan. If you think that the current article will become too long we can put the dates of recognition and establishment of relations in a separate "chronology" article. About the "universally accepted" - again please look at the discussions above - it seems you approach the issue from the position of our editorial darlings here - Kosovo, Palestine, etc. that have a "recognition problem". Nobody questions that South Sudan isn't one of those. Here the issue is the opposite - recognitions and relations show the stance of others in regards to South Sudan. Lacking a particular recognition or relations doesn't mean that this particular state is "against" South Sudan. But having a particular recognition or relations means that this particular state gives in its policies a certain degree of importance to South Sudan. Japinderum (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, both date of diplomatic recognition and date of establishment of diplomatic relations are important. And here, where there are only few relations established the recognitions are even more important, because otherwise the list gives a misleading picture of too few.
We present a definite list of countries that issued an explicit statement of diplomatic recognition. This is a specific diplomatic act. And we these facts are backed with sources. We don't claim (unsourced) that others not present in the list "do not recognize". We don't even claim that those not present "haven't issued explicit statement of diplomatic recognition" (this is different from "do not recognize"). We report simply what the sources show.
Explicit diplomatic recognition is notable, just like diplomatic relations - it's a foreign policy act done by the governments, publicized and reported on (that's why we have sources). As you see above some MFAs keep on their websites a list of the diplomatic recognitions they got.
"100% recognition" is different from "a set of 100%/whatever% diplomatic recognition/relations statements". The former is implied/assumed from lack of explicit "opposition" statements and/or UN admission without a vote/objections. The latter is a fact backed up by official explicit acts of governments. Both are notable.
"it implies all those not on the list don't" - if you think so, then we can add a further note clarifying that the listed below are those states, for witch a source about explicit diplomatic recognition is found and that the best information for the others is the lack of objections at the UN admission. I think this is obvious from the recently inserted paragraph, but I don't object clarifying it further. Japinderum (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ali again? Whatever. The links you give [3] don't show any consensus for deletion, on the contrary - they show that some editors agree and others don't. Please stop your deletions.
Diplomatic recognition is an act part of the foreign policies around the world. You can see the MFA links given above. If you think the explanation I gave about why MFAs do what they do is wrong, then you can ask the MFAs themselves. But the fact is that they do it. We have sources and we add material to the article only based on these sources.
If you have concern similar to CMD's that listing explicit diplomatic recognitions "implies" that SS has "recognition problem" (I think editors here have this concern, because they are too focused on and accustomed with cases that really have a "recognition problem". For the general reader who is aware of the various diplomatic acts and policies it's obvious that this isn't the case and it's quite common not to have 100% explicit diplomatic recognitions) - then we can add further clarification about it. If you think the article is becoming too big - we can move the table to a separate "chronology" article. We can also do both of these. Japinderum (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It cuts both ways. You need consensus for inclusion too, which you clearly don't have. The list of recognition dates is based on a mish-mash of incompatible and incomplete sources. Without a full and comprehensive source, the inclusion of this information is misleading at best. We don't have a list of dates of "Recognition of South Sudan", we have a list of dates of "Statements welcoming the new country that have been reported on the internet that we know about", which, despite each individual case being sourced, holistically is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bazonka (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, the consensus for removing recognition dates from the article can be found here. Bazonka (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


DISASTER!!!

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

Would you please calm the heck down? I know English isn't your first language, but I doubt you are completely unaware of how incivil, rude, demanding, aggressive, and unhelpful you have been on this page in the past. Shouting at people and making a huge deal out of this issue is no way to win over support. Take a look at User:Japinderum in the above discussion if you actually want to contribute in a meaningful, constructive way here. He takes a similar stance as you. I don't agree with him. But at least he bothers to argue instead of just screaming and berating people. I respect that. What I don't respect is you continuing to come here, lob insults at fellow editors, and never contribute anything of your own. Maybe you need to take a break from this website and reevaluate your approach. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also are you suggesting that if people view Foreign relations of France they will think France in unrecognised by a massive number of countries? I have faith people will know that the list is about countries that have established relations, since we title it with relations. The sentence "On 13 July 2011, South Sudan was admitted as a member of the United Nations, following a unanimous vote from all other member states" also notes "Unanimous...all...member states", showing they're recognised by all UN states. CMD (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bazonka, the link you give doesn't show consensus to delete the information, on the contrary - it shows disagreement about such a move. And we don't report "welcome" statements, we report statements about diplomatic recognition. It's different.
CMD, nobody claims that South Sudan has a recognition problem. I have explained this multiple times already. Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. We report which countries have made it. Not having diplomatic recognition or diplomatic relations by/with a particular state DOESN'T equal to that state being against South Sudan or something like that.
As I said above - it's fine to extend the clarification text to describe this or to move the list of recogntions/relations to a separate chronology page. But there is no consensus to delete notable sourced information. Japinderum (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Japinderum, you keep saying that diplomatic recognition is a specific act, yet you still hold that a country isn't not recognised (if that double negative makes sense) even if some countries have not offered this act of recognition. You also keep combining diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations in your argument for some reason, despite the fact that not a single user has ever disputed diplomatic relations. There was consensus to remove the information, and you have failed to convince any users otherwise. It's sad you decided to recreate the deleted page against the consensus here. CMD (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan for deletion. The recognition part is unnecessary and the relations part is duplicative. Bazonka (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bazonka, MFAs around the world disagree with the notion "recognition is unnecessary". See multiple sources above and in the article.
CMD, first - there WASN'T consensus to delete the notable sourced information. And the page I created (not re-created) is, because of its specific focus on the chronology of taking the acts. And diplomatic recognitions and relations are combined, because in the real world (see the multiple government sources) those are closely related acts.
Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. It's different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections, "warm welcome in the international community", etc.) such as "lack of objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of X". South Sudan has 100% "obvious recognitions" (as far as we know - no sources show any objections) and less-than-100% diplomatic recognitions - just like most (all?) states around the world, who also don't have 100% diplomatic recognitions. To further clarify that I added the remark "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition." Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this: Wikipedia:Content forking? Bazonka (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fork, but a split to reduce the lenght. That's why there is a "Main article: Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations" in the chronology section. The duplicate relations list here can be deleted, if you want, but I don't think it's needed.
Regarding your [4] untimely deletion (wait for the AfD) "This article is about foreign relations (see title), therefore the section on "Chronology of relations" is also about foreign relations... not diplomatic recognitions. This *is* the main article." - diplomatic recognition is an act in the realm of foreign relations. Receiving diplomatic recognition and establishing diplomatic relations are closely related - as you can see the MFAs keep them in two columns on the same list - and so is their chronology. That's why the article Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan was created. See the model according to which it's made at this MFA website. Of course the full chronology table can be placed inside the main "foreign relations" article, but keeping it separate reduces article lenght.
Another solution is to have a separate (main) article about the chronology of recognitions and relations and to present a reduced snippet of it in the foreign relations article (that's how the "main: ..." navigation tag is used) - showing only the relations (as currently) or only the initial 20-30 recognitions/relations or only the most recent 5-10 recognitions/relations. Japinderum (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Chronology_of_diplomatic_recognitions_and_relations_of_South_Sudan

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chronology_of_diplomatic_recognitions_and_relations_of_South_Sudan. Japinderum (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD concluded "keep or merge". See a related discussion at Talk:International_recognition_of_South_Sudan#Redirect_target. Japinderum (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE JULY 2012! THESE 77 STATES REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE SOUTH SUDAN SO FAR!!

Iceland,Monaco,Andorra, San Marino,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan,

Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea,

New Zealand,Palau,Vanuatu,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands,Nauru

Niger,Chad,Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar, Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland, Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Sambia, Congo,Gambia,Benin,Guinea-Bissau

Venezuela,Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis,

Sascha,Germany,79.233.36.119 (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


VANUATU RECOGNIZED SOUTH SUDAN IN SEPTEMBER 2011!!

THIUS IS THE PROOF!!!

http://www.dailypost.vu/content/maintain-israel-and-palestine-peaceful-negotiations-pm-kilman

"He said Vanuatu recognises the sovereignty of South Sudan and offers a young nation full support."

Can you please update the list with Vanuatu? I don´t know how to do it. thank you! Sascha,Germany,79.233.36.55 (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


VENEZUELA RECOGNIZED THE INDEPENDENCE OF SOUTH SUDAN LAST SUMMER!! HERE IS THE LINK!!

http://www.internationali.com.br/mib/unsc2011_2.pdf

"Republic of Venezuela

The Republic of Venezuela recognized the independence of the new country and despite not having signed major links with the new republic, demonstrates commitment and support consolidation of the same pa."

PLEASE UPDATE THE LIST WITH VENEZUELA,THANK YOU

Sascha,Germany79.233.36.55 (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE UPDATE THE LIST WITH VENEZUELA AND VANUATU!!! THANK YOU! Sascha,Germany, 79.233.36.16 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]



UPDATE JULY 2012! THESE 75 STATES REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE SOUTH SUDAN SO FAR!!

Iceland,Monaco,Andorra, San Marino,Liechtenstein,Moldova,Georgia,Azerbaijan,

Syria,Iraq,Oman,Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Turkmenistan,Tadjikistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Thailand,Laos,Myanmar, Malaysia,Brunei,Papua-Neuguinea,

New Zealand,Palau,Tuvalu,Samoa, Tonga,Kiribati,Mikronesia,Marshall Islands,Salomon Islands,Fiji Islands,Nauru

Niger,Chad,Tunisia,Marocco, Sao Tome and Principe,Madagascar, Sri Lanka,Mauritius,Comores,Seychelles, Lesotho,Swaziland, Ivory Coast,Camerun,Sierra Leone, Burundi,Malawi,Sambia, Congo,Gambia,Benin,Guinea-Bissau

Paraguay, Ecuador,Bolivia, Nicaragua,El Salvador,Belize,Honduras, Guatemala, Bahamas,Barbados, Grenada,St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St.Lucia,Dominica,Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic,Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts and Nevis,

Let´s search for other recognitions from these 75 states,thank you!!

Sascha,Germany, 79.233.36.16 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha, you received an indefinite block for abusive editing last year. I have reported your sockpuppets' reappearance here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sascha30. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous vote by all member states or without a vote

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

Commonwealth member states

Vanuatu IS a Commonwealth member state. Why is this not indicated in the table? All Commonwealth member states that have recognised South Sudan needs to be indicated as such in the table. - (203.211.76.145 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Fixed. You could probably have done it yourself though. Bazonka (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial disputes

From the map it appears that South Sudan has some territorial disputes with Sudan, Kenya and possibly Uganda. These should be addressed in or just below the lead of the article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand and other states

The fact, that Thailand recognizes South Sudan (under number 110 in this article), is not reflected in the map - Thailand is still grey. But several other states (some of newly added to the list) are still grey, although they recognized South Sudan: Benin, Azerbaijan, and Fiji. Problem is that the author of the map did not any contribution on Wikipedia since May 2013, so it's not possible to rely on him. So if someone would like to create new map, it is possible and suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hejhulák (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Foreign relations of South Sudan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Foreign relations of South Sudan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations of South Sudan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreign relations of South Sudan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Botswana niger Syria Cote d'ivoure

  • Niger - didn't found in that source [8] which use in article but there is syria--Murza-Zade (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • cote d'ivoure - no informations on [www.diplomatie.gouv.ci/|mofa of state]--Murza-Zade (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_relations_of_South_Sudan&oldid=737221971"