Africa
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Well you can go ahead and do it, but why are you mentioning this here? Picaroon (Talk) 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... 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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given which, why is it in as at Jan 2009? --BozMo talk 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Precisely. Middayexpress (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]