This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
With no reply I will begin adding these states in. Thank you. Outback the koala (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(I missed your first post, so long after your past actions.) Okay you propose this, but for what reason?
For "neutrality" you say we need to treat "sovereign states" the same as "states" with "limited recognition"? That is, of course, silly at best. Wikipedia-- and the whole rest of the world-- treats them different all the time. For starters, they are on separate lists, and not one list, but there would be countless example. The harder task would be finding examples of where Wikipedia does treat them the same.
Now your comment on "de facto states" vs. "de jure states" seem to imply that there is one rule or authority somewhere that and tells us which are the "de jure states," and then if we agree on what makes somthing a "de facto state," we may or may not agree to list them all alike in this tempate.
Furthermore, there is no one rule or authority somewhere that and tells us which are the de jure states-- is basiclly consensus of the other states, and these other states do not have one one rule or authority anywhere.
And even if this were also the case-- we would still need to find a measure of Somaliland being a "de jure state." Given the method of consensus or whatever used-- I would see the most obvious system as to use the list of sovereign states and whatever the system is used to agree on it. If you want to claim citing a source on its status a de jure state-- and found such a source to quote, we could look at that-- but I am sure various sources differ, and we would then need more input. Carlaude:Talk 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I at no point stated that we should treat both the same, but I did say we cannot give preference to one state over another. As far as template examples go Template:Africa topic and the discussion about this on Template talk:Africa topic. If you wish, my could italicize the affected states with a footnote at the bottom.
As far as your third point, I don't understand what you mean at all, but I think you may be confused. Wikipedia can favour neither the Constitutive theory of statehood over the Declarative theory of statehood or vice versa. We are neutral(or should be) in this regard, as a result we consider entities that fall into one of the theory's definition, and present it on our list. I must say though, we tend to favour the Declarative Theory, as we see with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta not appearing on the List of sovereign states even though it fufills the constitutive requirements. In any case, de facto or de jure states should be included on templates per my reasoning above.
On your 4th point - I moved the page you merged for now into the country article that it is relevant to.
I don't see why you selected, Somaliland out of the other states appear on this list. Could you give me some insight?
If you reject my logic (I take no offense if you do, please feel free), would you be opposed to continuing this discussion possibly on the Talk:List of states with limited recognition? I feel they might have some insight into this, that perhaps neither of us are seeing. If not this, an RfC? Lets try to talk it out here first anyhow. Outback the koala (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
While you did not say "treat both the same" you did ask to treat both the same. If you are now seeing us using italicize and footnotes, then that is different, but not much different.
I never claimed that Somaliland is treated no where as sovereign states are on Wikipedia, just that it would be a challenge to find those examples over the reverse. While we could expect Template:Africa topic to have non-sovereign states on it (somewhere)-- since the would sometimes be useful links-- a good many uses of it has non-sovereign states as red links, e.g. Template:Education in Africa.
The Wikipedia NPOV does not mean we treat all theories (of statehood, or whatever) the same. Less important theories are given less prominence. But this is not even an article about the theories of statehood, it is just about the states. There is no reason to treat non-recognized states as we do the recognized states, in this template (not even an article) on this subject.
Since you to not even address a number of my points, I think you will not gain an WP:CON on Somaliland. The only other such state I have seen added to "Christianity by country" is Kosvo, which I may or may not address when I have time.
I am glad to see we can work together on this, and I know you are not that concerned with these States with Limited Recognition per se. Since its late I will get some sleep for now and address these issues soon(hopefully). Outback the koala (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
THE NATION OF MONTENEGRO should be included on the list of countries. To my knowledge Montenegro is a fully recognized and sovereign state. Checking the wikipedia page on Montenegro I found there to be no dubiousness about its sovereignty which it has enjoyed since 2006. "Serbia, the member-states of the European Union, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council all recognised Montenegro's independence". There are 21,972 Catholics representing 3.54% of the population of Montenegro [found on the Montenegro page]. This change should be made expeditiously. July 25 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)