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]

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

Actually, I have, and (ironically enough) from the exact same section of the exact same source from which you yourself have drawn that quote above:

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

That passage is critics pointing out that Somaliland doesn't, in fact, meet the defined territory criterion of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, which is often used to illustrate the Declarative theory of statehood (it appears right after the source mentions the convention). You don't have to like it, but that is indeed a critique and from a source you can't disqualify as unreliable since you yourself picked it out and just quoted from it too.

Also, your quote that begins "Proponents also draw from international legal instruments..." is sourced back to a paper titled The remarkable story of Somaliland by one Seth Kaplan -- that's one of the "proponents" of an independent Somaliland which the footnote "112" in the paragraph in question links back to. That paper by Mr. Kaplan was published by the National Endowment for Democracy, a U.S. special interest group that, tellingly, "has been accused by both right-wing and left-wing personalities of interference in foreign regimes, and of being set up to legally continue the CIA's prohibited activities of support to selected political parties abroad". That, I'm afraid, is not a reliable source. It also doesn't help that Edna Adan Ismail, Somaliland's former foreign minister and one of the most vocal and active members of the Somaliland secessionist movement (she's featured & pictured in that New York Times article on the movement) -- can be found plugging one of the author's books on his website. Similarly, the other source that passage is referenced back to titled Somaliland: surviving without recognition; Somalia: recognised but failing is by a gentleman with the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR), which is a special interest group that works closely with Somaliland's secessionist government. In fact, CIIR has an office in the region that is headed by one Adan Yousuf Abokor, who, according to the Somaliland Times itself, is "very knowledgeable on the history of Somaliland in view of the fact that he took part in development initiatives even during the times of Mohammed Siad Barre. He was imprisoned (in solitary confinement) as a result." In other words, Mr. Abokor was and is a part of the secessionist movement. If that's not enough, the CIIR, which is now known as Progressio, admits on its website that "throughout its history, the organisation has sought to influence church and state, most notably to support liberation struggles" and that its "international advocacy messages are rooted in, and therefore informed and strengthened by, the experience of our partners overseas. The development programme seeks to build the capacity of partners to undertake advocacy themselves." That too is unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[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]

Actually, it does make a difference, as that is one of the very criteria for determining de facto statehood per Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. If a territory such as Somaliland (which, of course, does not exist on a de jure basis) also does not even control all of its claimed territory, then it does not exist as a state on a de facto basis either. This, I'm afraid is not OR, but quite real. See my latest post above. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[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]

You're mixing up your theories of statehood. The two theories cannot work together as they contradict one another. The Declarative Theory is quite clear that international recognition is irrelevant.

Those aren't "my" theories of statehood nor am I attempting to get them to "work together". That is a strawman. What I am actually doing is pointing out to the users on this talk page who would like to include Somaliland in the template as a "state" that it isn't, in fact, a state by either of the two main theories on statehood: the Constitutive theory of statehood (i.e. it is not a de jure country) nor the Declarative theory of statehood (i.e. it is not a de facto country). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming that if Declarative Theory doesn't work you can use the Constitutive Theory. You seem to see them as two sides of the same coin. They are not. They contradict one another in that one says that international recognition is irrelevant, the other that it is the only relevant factor. They are utterly incompatible. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are still engaging in original research. By stating that the fact that Somaliland does not control all the territory that it claims means that it does not have a "defined territory" is OR. According to your interpretation of the Declarative Theory (by which - I remind you - international recognition is irrelevant), none of the states I named earlier exist - including the United States, Somalia, Comoros, Spain, India, Pakistan, Japan etc.

No, it most certainly is not original research. This is an actual argument raised by critics of Somaliland's claim of de facto statehood (see my latest post above for quotes). As has also already been indicated, it makes no difference whether or not the U.S., Spain, India, Pakistan, Japan, and yes, even Somalia itself, fail to meet even so much as one criterion of Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention (i.e. that they fall short of meeting the Declarative theory of statehood/de facto statehood) since they would be and are automatically eligible anyway for inclusion in this and other Wikipedia templates on countries as they are already recognized as such (i.e. they pass the Constitutive theory of statehood/de jure statehood). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given any source that links the fact that the Somaliland government doesn't have authority over some of its claimed territory to Montevideo's requirement that states have a defined territory. Thus your position is original research. That said, I find it notable that you argue that critics of Somaliland's position argue this. We shouldn't be basing our decisions on what critics think, we should be allowing for both sides of the argument.

Here, you demonstrate my point above about the two theories of statehood, incidentally. Both theories intend to judge what is and is not a state, both de facto and de jure. They are competing theories, not complimentary ones. That said, I see you have just argued that the United States does not de facto exist. In other words, you are saying that the United States only exists on paper and that the Federal government has no practical authority. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the fact that some part of the population living in Somaliland-claimed territory reject the Somaliland government means that Somaliland has no "permanent population" is OR - and (I must say) requires some fairly serious mental leaps - do the people in Hargeisa not live on Somaliland-controlled territory permanently? Again, according to your interpretation of the Declarative Theory, most of the states I named earlier do not exist (the UK and Chile being the exceptions, as those parts of their claimed territory that they do not control of are not permanently inhabited).

Actually, it does not require any "mental leaps" at all much less serious ones (nor is that my interpretation) since the notion of "permanent population" refers to nationality, not to people in Hargeisa who may live in Somaliland-controlled territory permanently:

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

According to Article 4 of Somaliland's constitution, which governs citizenship (since Somaliland's secessionist government considers the territory to be an independent country), 1) "any person who is a patrial of Somaliland being a descendant of a person residing in Somaliland on 26th June 1960 or earlier shall be recognised as a citizen of Somaliland"; and 2) "The law shall determine the acquisition or loss of the citizenship of Somaliland." Similarly, Article 2 of Somaliland's constitution states that "the territory of the Republic of Somaliland covers the same area as that of the former Somaliland Protectorate and is located between Latitude 8’ to 11’ 30’ north of the equator and Longitude 42’ 45 to 49’ East; and consists of the land, islands, and territorial waters, above and below the surface, the airspace and the continental shelf." Since Somaliland, again, claims a great deal more territory than it actually controls -- and, in the case of the aforementioned Maakhir that recently rejoined Puntland under its de facto leader General Abdullahi Ahmed Jama 'Ilkajir', it has effectively permanently lost administration of -- it does not exercise territorial jurisdiction over those regions' inhabitants, much less personal jurisdiction over those same 'nationals' when abroad. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is original synthesis in the beginning, but the last mental leap is your own original research. You say that a permanent population is determined by internal law on nationality - as opposed to ethnicity. You then give what Somaliland law says (which, you synthesise, determines what Somaliland's permanent population is). You then argue - based on your original research - that the fact that Somaliland does not have de facto control over every single member of what you synthesise to be its "permanent population" according to its laws, it has no permanent population at all - that no-one lives in Somaliland permanently. Which is quite a leap. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that the fact that Somaliland is not internationally recognised means that it fails the fourth criterion - capacity to enter into relations with other states - is OR. The criterion is "capacity to enter into relations with other states". It is perfectly possible to have the capacity to do something without ever having done it. For example, I've never eaten guinea pig, but that doesn't mean I don't have the capacity to do it. It just means I haven't actually done it.

While you may indeed have the capacity to eat a guinea pig, Somaliland does not possess the capacity to enter into relations with other states because it is not recognized as a state to begin with. And yes, this most certainly is relevant:

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

Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your source doesn't apply this to Somaliland and your application is original synthesis. On the other hand, several sources quote above applied this and the rest of Montevideo to Somaliland - which alone makes it clear that your synthesis is open to dispute. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How other states deal with Somaliland is obviously based on their opinions as to whether it is legitimate or not, and thus whether they have recognised it or not. Both your New York Times quote and your US government quote demonstrate that Somaliland is not recognised internationally - a fact that I don't believe anyone disputes. But this is not relevant according to the Declarative Theory of Statehood.

The Declarative theory of statehood is but one of two main theories overseeing what is and is not a state. The other is the Constitutive theory of statehood, which defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. This, of course, automatically rules out Somaliland since the international community as a whole only recognizes it as a part of Somalia. So any way you slice it, Somaliland fails both the prevailing de jure & de facto theories on statehood. It therefore cannot be included in this template (at least not as a sovereign state) on either grounds. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two theories. No one argues that Somaliland passes the test under Constitutive theory - plainly it doesn't. But the only arguments you've given that it fails under the Declarative theory are based heavily on what is mostly very counterintuitve original research and original synthesis, both of which are disallowed. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you actually going to produce any evidence that Somaliland fails Montevideo or are you just going to keep on producing OR arguments that have to be ignored per policy?

It wasn't OR to begin with, actually. It was and is fact. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[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]

Statehood is not determined by who supports a given territory's secession or how 'popular' or unpopular a secessionist movement is. It is also most certainly not determined by the simple fact that that territory has claimed independence. The latter constitutes self-declared statehood, which counts for nothing. It is determined by two main schools of thought, namely the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood. Somaliland fails both: the first, automatically since no country recognizes it as being anything other than a part of Somalia; the other, through a process of elimination (read the discussion above). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scoobycentric: interesting proposition. That is certainly a better way to include at least a reference to Somalia's autonomous territories, and one that's actually in-line with reality too. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[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]

Whether or not one even wanted to include it on that 'equal' basis, Somaliland could never be included in this template as a sovereign state alongside actual countries (Somalia in particular) since it is not a state by any of the two prevailing definitions of statehood the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood. And Somaliland's secessionist government is actually the very last group of people whose (obviously biased) views would be considered reliable. See WP:CONFLICT, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:QS. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would suggest that the government of Somaliland is probably the most reliable source you could get for its own position on this matter. As I say, we should not be asserting that Somaliland is not legitimate unless no-one including the Somaliland government asserts that it is. If the Somaliland government asserts that Somaliland is legitimately an independent sovereign state then there is at least a dispute over the matter, and we should be allowing for both positions per WP:NPOV.

As an aside, I find it a bit concerning that you seem to consider critics of Somaliland to be inherently more reliable than proponents. As I say, per WP:NPOV we have to allow for both sides. Pfainuk talk 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would suggest that the government of Somaliland is probably the most reliable source you could get for its own position on this matter. As I say, we should not be asserting that Somaliland is not legitimate unless no-one including the Somaliland government asserts that it is. If the Somaliland government asserts that Somaliland is legitimately an independent sovereign state then there is at least a dispute over the matter, and we should be allowing for both positions per WP:NPOV.

Would you listen to yourself? This isn't about getting the Somaliland secessionist government's "own position on this matter". That's like asking a ninth grader to fill out his own report card as he sees fit, objective criteria be damned -- he'll give himself As every time. It just doesn't work that way. As has already been pointed out several times before, Wikipedia does not allow advocacy of any sort. From WP:NOTADVOCATE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an aside, I find it a bit concerning that you seem to consider critics of Somaliland to be inherently more reliable than proponents. As I say, per WP:NPOV we have to allow for both sides.

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

Statehood is not determined by whether or not a territory claims independence. The latter constitutes self-declared statehood, which counts for nothing. It is determined by two main schools of thought; namely, the Constitutive theory of statehood and the Declarative theory of statehood. Somaliland fails both: the first, automatically since no country recognizes it as being anything other than a part of Somalia; the second, through a process of elimination (read the discussion above). Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so everyone seems to be in agreement by now (minus midday of course, who we can ignore by now) that Somaliland is in fact a de facto state. We also agree that it should be included in this template, with a footnote or italics. Im glad this discussion could be wrapped up in such a civil manner. So as per Night w, Pfainuk, and S karta's comments we can now conclude this lively debate of whether Somaliland should be included. The only thing left to debate is if it should be listed with the rest of the sovereign states (along with its footnote/italics) or under the disputed section. Once this minor issue is cleared up we can completely conclude this debate. Outback the koala (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid no amount of canvassing other talk pages for support on your part can circumvent the discussion process, as consensus is not a popular vote. WP:CONSENSUS is also clear that "discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. If discussion turns into a polarized shouting match then there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the page will suffer." So your rude suggestions that I (or any other user, for that matter) "can be ignore[d] by now" doesn't particularly carry any weight either. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was what we were debating... As I said at the beginning of this Options section, the actual inclusion of Somaliland into the template can't be disputed...because if it doesn't fit into the first section, it fits into the second. Puntland has to go in the second section (with the rest of the autonomous entities) because nobody is arguing that it's a sovereign state. As for Somaliland, on the other hand, we need to demonstrate the idea that it is. Night w (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Somaliland were to be included in template, it could only conceivably be under the second section, as it is not a country by either prevailing definitions of statehood. It is, however, autonomous, as is Puntland, so Puntland would indeed have to be included in that same section as well. To remove any additional confusion, the section would also need to be further formatted to differentiate the autonomies from the other sorts of territories. Middayexpress (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The quote you used from this source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also gives the following statement:

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

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

• Some more sources that make the direct statement that Somaliland fulfills Montevideo (you'll probably say they're biased...but they--along with the six I provided before--demonstrate the abundancy of the claim, as opposed to your claim, which has so-far relied on your synthetic interpretations: 1, 2, 3.
• Your interpretations (yes, that is what they are--because you read it differently to how most people would) of the qualifying criteria are yet to be backed up with reliable evidence. Your claim that Somaliland does not meet the criteria is yet to be backed up with reliable evidence. Show me a source that holds that Somaliland does not have a permanent population... or a defined territory... or the capacity to enter into relations with another state.
• And lastly, read the policy regarding canvassing before making accusations toward other editors. It is never deemed inappropriate to encourage more editors to participate in a discussion. Canvassing is the attempt to get others to join one's cause by phrasing the invitation in a biased way, or sending exclusive messages to individuals who are predisposed to joining your cause. An example would be this. When one editor invites another editor with whom he already does a fair amount of tag-teaming into a debate, that is considered canvassing. Outback made a general invitation on a relevant talk page, an act that is encouraged in order to open the discussion to more opinions. Night w (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Editors with common interests participating in the same discussions is not the same as 'tag-teaming', all of your examples have a central theme and that is they are Somali related issues, so no suprise there.
• Secondly evidence that proves Somaliland has no permanent population or a defined territory has already been provided with this source: The Illusory 'Somaliland': Setting the Record Straight, but for some reason the latter is not sufficient enough, because unlike the articles heavily influenced by seccessionist individuals provided by Night W, this one suppossedly fails NPOV, when it's an organisation with multiple qualified representatives who have as much right to have their case heard and considered as the Somaliland government does. If a source highlights that 40% of the claimed territory is not controlled by Somaliland, this in no way takes a leap of mind, or should be considered unreliable evidence of Somaliland not having a defined territory, this is simply reality, stating so is in no way OR, or Original Synth, since neither me or Midday cooked that figure up.
• Even if Japan, Somalia or the US were to fail under the same condition, if tested, they are still recognised by hundreds of countries in the UN, hence they by default qualify for this template, Somaliland however, which is considered by the world as nothing more than a region of Somalia, and which does not have jurisdiction of a big chunk of the territory claimed(a new reality conveniently ignored by those claiming it meets all the criteria) then it cannot by default qualify for the current template, which states:

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

Somaliland is not by any convention wether in encyclopedia's and geographic Atlases on Africa, or the most important political body the African Union, ever considered to be a 'Country of..Africa, but instead a region of Somalia.

• In modern International law a boundary dispute involving a non-recognised entity that has never entered an agreement with any state to define it's frontiers most definitely does not have a defined territory as is claimed above in the quote by NightW, see here from the book: Estoppel, acquiescence and recognition in territorial and boundary disputes introduction:

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

Since the Somaliland entity never signed an agreement with Somalia or autonomous states such as Puntland to define it frontiers, it never had a defined territory to begin with, and therefore according to international law 'everything claimed by them is without the consent of the sovereign internationally recognised' state of Somalia, hence making their claim invalid. To claim otherwise is equivalant to saying Somalia's claims on the NFD and the Ogaden are valid, because it claims these territories, under it's constitution that state all Somali citizens of the Horn are citizens of the Somali Republic.

• International relations with foreign countries is not unique to Somaliland alone, matter fact Puntland has a specific position called the Minister of Planning and International Relations.--Scoobycentric (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The quote you used from this source:

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

No, it does not "merely [convey]" that nor does the source mention anything of the sort. That is, as you'd say, "OR". Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also gives the following statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you wish:

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

1. established a permanent government; has

2. a defined territory;

3. a permanent population; and

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

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

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

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

Sending friendly notices to users who regularly edit articles related to the discussion at hand (i.e. Somalia) is not "tag teaming". Perhaps it indeed wasn't canvassing, but if general input were indicated, Somalia's WikiProject page would seem a more logical first stop before a separate non-Somali-related article where there never even was any dispute to begin with as to whether or not Somaliland ought to be included there. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think that anyone is going to think a document called The Illusory 'Somaliland': Setting the Record Straight, subtitled SOMALIA: ONE PEOPLE; ONE COUNTRY and prepared by the Research Unit of Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity (NSPU) is going to be a neutral and unbiased account of the issues here? Please don't insult our intelligence.

And yet, amusingly enough, it does not make the interpretations that you do. It does not say that the fact that Somaliland doesn't control 40% of its claimed territory implies that Somaliland does not have a "defined territory". It does not say that the fact that people in the aforesaid territories reject Somaliland implies that Somaliland has no permanent population. It does not say that the fact that Somaliland is not internationally recognised implies that Somaliland does not have the capacity for international relations. Indeed, it makes no mention whatsoever of Montevideo or the Declarative theory of statehood. So no, you can't even source your original research to this biased document.

The fact that the US is recognised by all the members of the UN does not imply anything in a theory that states that recognition is not a factor that determines statehood. You say they qualify by default - but personally I would have difficulty accepting the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which is recognised internationally but fails Montevideo on the grounds that it controls no territory) on such a template.

You point out that Somaliland doesn't control all of its claimed territory. You've done that repeatedly, but no-one argues that it does control all its claimed territory. But then you start synthesising again. You quote a source that doesn't reference the Somaliland situation and try to apply it. That's original synthesis and that argument has to be discarded as such.

And let's be clear. No-one is arguing that Somaliland's claim to independence is valid. We're arguing that there is dispute as to whether Somaliland's claim to independence is valid - dispute between the Somaliland government on one hand and the rest of the international community on the other. That is all that is necessary for WP:NPOV to kick in and require that the Somaliland government's position be allowed for (though not accepted outright - and no-one's arguing that it should be). The same would go for the NFD (which, incidentally refers to North Eastern Province (Kenya) - formerly the Northern Frontier District - and not the metal band that the link points to) and Ogaden: if Somalia claims them then neutrality requires that that claim be suitably reflected in the appropriate articles. Pfainuk talk 22:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not "all that is necessary for WP:NPOV to kick in and and require that the Somaliland government's position be allowed for" because WP:NPOV applies to views from reliable sources only, and Somaliland's secessionists themselves are the very last people to be included as such. See my post above for quotes from an actually reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby, you and Midday both seem to be having trouble understanding what Pfainuk's been telling you since the beginning. You are arguing that all of the states in this list fail the Declarative theory of statehood (DTS), in which recognition is not a factor, under the first two criterion—that because they claim areas they don't control, they don't have a defined territory or permanent population. Thus, they're not states as far as that theory is concerned. That is what you are arguing, although as of yet it's just you're own interpretation, since it's not a conclusion that has been reached by reliable sources. I also agree with the above statement, that as long as the Somaliland government believes itself to be a valid independent state—since it, and (as my twelve sources suggest) many others, believe it to have passed the DTS—neutrality demands that we demonstrate that perspective. Therefore I also vote for Option 1. Night w (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have cited are not even close to being reliable. They are actually about as far from being reliable as one can get and have been exposed as such too. Refer to my post above for a quote from an actually reliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I say that if any area meets either one of the definitions of statehood, either Declarative theory of statehood or Constitutive theory of statehood de facto or de jure then they should be listed. If the US would come out tomorrow and recognize Corsica as independent wouldn't that all we need for Constitutive theory of statehood, and there for be listed in Europe? that fact is that as long as Somaliland holds control over any land in Africa and will not and does not answer to any other government then they are de facto independent. I therefore vote for Option 1. CK6569 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the consensus process is not a popular vote. Secondly, "control over any land in Africa" and "not answer[ing] to any government" are not criteria for establishing statehood. Actual criteria for establishing statehood are found in the Constitutive theory of statehood and the alternative Declarative theory of statehood. Since Somaliland is only recognized as a part of Somalia by the international community, it automatically fails the Constitutive theory of statehood (i.e. it is not a de jure country), as the Constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. That leaves the Declarative theory of statehood (i.e. de facto statehood), which Somaliland also fails (see the above). That means that Somaliland does not belong on this template among actual countries, and certainly not alongside the Somalia of which it is a part. Middayexpress (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a massed response here because the discussion has become increasingly fragmented. This makes the discussion particularly difficult to follow, and I suggest that all editors follow WP:INDENT to aid in clarity.

Thus far we have sources that give both sides of Montevideo. At least some of those that say that Somaliland passes can clearly be considered pro-Somaliland. The source that says that Somaliland fails is fairly obviously anti-Somaliland. Neutral sources provided by Midday and Scooby do not give any opinion on the matter without original research or synthesis. Either they do not mention the case of Somaliland or they do not tie their references to Montevideo.

The fact that we now have a source - however biased - that states outright that Somaliland fails Montevideo is evidence only of a dispute. We cannot accept that Somaliland definitively fails Montevideo based solely on a source that is biased against Somaliland. Similarly, we cannot accept that Somaliland definitively passes Montevideo. We must accept that there is dispute as to whether Somaliland passes Montevideo.

It's worth going back to the question of sourcing. Midday argues that pro-Somaliland sources are unreliable by definition, while giving the aforementioned anti-Somaliland source as an example of reliability. You said I accused you of double standards. If I wasn't before, I am now. That's a perfectly obvious double standard and you can't expect people not to flag it up. Clearly anti-Somaliland sources cannot be considered intrinsically more - or less - reliable than clearly pro-Somaliland sources. Both can be used to source the positions in the dispute, but the opinions expressed cannot generally be considered definitive - particularly when they're disputed by the other side.

That similarly goes for the position of the Somaliland government. Of course the position of the Somaliland government cannot be taken as definitive. But at the same time it cannot neutrally be dismissed out of hand.

Montevideo is, to a certain extent, a distraction. The key question is not whether Montevideo is definitively passed or failed (provided that it is at least argued that it is passed). Wikipedia editors cannot make such a judgement unless the answer is clearly beyond dispute, and this case isn't because we have sources arguing both ways. The key question here - given that it is not argued that Somaliland is a micronation but rather a state of Somalia - is whether there is dispute as to whether Somaliland is a sovereign state or not.

If any government (including that of Somaliland) considers Somaliland to be independent then we must accept that there is a dispute. Midday argues that of course the Somaliland government is going to consider itself independent. But his argument falls down when we consider the case of Puntland, which does not consider itself independent. The fact that Somaliland considers itself independent is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is legally independent but is sufficient to demonstrate that there is a dispute.

If there is dispute as to whether Somaliland is a sovereign state, WP:NPOV requires we not take sides. Not mentioning Somaliland in such a case is biased against Somaliland. Mentioning it unmarked in such a case is biased in favour of Somaliland. We must steer a middle course, by allowing for both interpretations. Pfainuk talk 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this statement to be sound, and would have to fully agree with it. It's rational and straight forward. What else can be said? Outback the koala (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far we have sources that give both sides of Montevideo. At least some of those that say that Somaliland passes can clearly be considered pro-Somaliland.

Incorrect. All of the sources that have been provided which state that Somaliland fulfills the Montevideo criteria have been exposed as biased -- it is not simply the fact that they state that Somaliland meets Montevideo which makes them as such. It is the people/publishers behind the work that makes them unreliable, as they are all in some way or another involved with the Somaliland secessionist movement & have been proven to be. Middayexpress (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral sources provided by Midday and Scooby do not give any opinion on the matter without original research or synthesis. Either they do not mention the case of Somaliland or they do not tie their references to Montevideo.

The fact that we now have a source - however biased - that states outright that Somaliland fails Montevideo is evidence only of a dispute. We cannot accept that Somaliland definitively fails Montevideo based solely on a source that is biased against Somaliland.

It's worth going back to the question of sourcing. Midday argues that pro-Somaliland sources are unreliable by definition, while giving the aforementioned anti-Somaliland source as an example of reliability. You said I accused you of double standards. If I wasn't before, I am now. That's a perfectly obvious double standard and you can't expect people not to flag it up.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of a reliable source. A source doesn't automatically become "biased" just because it asserts that Somaliland fails to meet the Montevideo Convention (or, on the flipside, it doesn't automatically become "reliable" just because it asserts that Somaliland meets the Montevideo Convention's criteria). All authors have views, so a difference in perception is to be expected. It is when the work itself is questionable (for example, if it's an opinion piece or a self-published pdf), or when it is from an author who has been proven to be non-neutral/an advocate, or when it is from a similarly partisan publisher that it becomes unreliable. From WP:RS:

"The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability."

The source I supplied, on the other hand, is a scholarly paper from a reliable, authoritative author and was originally published in a respected and relevant journal (The Horn of Africa Journal). It passes all three related criteria on what constitutes a reliable source, which, per Wikipedia, makes it reliable.

Similarly, we cannot accept that Somaliland definitively passes Montevideo. We must accept that there is dispute as to whether Somaliland passes Montevideo.

Clearly anti-Somaliland sources cannot be considered intrinsically more - or less - reliable than clearly pro-Somaliland sources. Both can be used to source the positions in the dispute, but the opinions expressed cannot generally be considered definitive - particularly when they're disputed by the other side.

Midday argues that of course the Somaliland government is going to consider itself independent. But his argument falls down when we consider the case of Puntland, which does not consider itself independent. The fact that Somaliland considers itself independent is not sufficient to demonstrate that it is legally independent but is sufficient to demonstrate that there is a dispute.

If there is dispute as to whether Somaliland is a sovereign state, WP:NPOV requires we not take sides. Not mentioning Somaliland in such a case is biased against Somaliland. Mentioning it unmarked in such a case is biased in favour of Somaliland. We must steer a middle course, by allowing for both interpretations.

Let's keep things in perspective. This isn't a matter of compromise. It is quite clearly an either/or issue: either Somaliland is included in the template as a sovereign state or it's not. There is obviously no middle ground here. A territory can't simultaneously be a region in another country and a sovereign state. Middayexpress (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That similarly goes for the position of the Somaliland government. Of course the position of the Somaliland government cannot be taken as definitive. But at the same time it cannot neutrally be dismissed out of hand.

If any government (including that of Somaliland) considers Somaliland to be independent then we must accept that there is a dispute.

The Somaliland separatists are, for obvious reasons, unreliable sources as to whether or not Somaliland itself meets the criteria for de facto statehood. Of course they will say that it is; that is what their entire campaign for recognition is about. From WP:RS:

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

Wikipedia also only allows questionable sources as sources of information about themselves so long as "the material is not unduly self-serving" and that "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Somaliland's government claiming that Somaliland is a state is obviously self-serving, and there is likewise clearly more than reasonable doubt as to Somaliland's de facto statehood.

Wikipedia, however, never allows any advocacy of any sort, and using the Somaliland government itself as a source on whether or not it meets the requirements for de facto statehood is quite clearly a form of advocacy. From WP:NOTADVOCATE:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise.

Middayexpress (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montevideo is, to a certain extent, a distraction. The key question is not whether Montevideo is definitively passed or failed (provided that it is at least argued that it is passed). Wikipedia editors cannot make such a judgement unless the answer is clearly beyond dispute, and this case isn't because we have sources arguing both ways. The key question here - given that it is not argued that Somaliland is a micronation but rather a state of Somalia - is whether there is dispute as to whether Somaliland is a sovereign state or not.

The question is whether or not Somaliland, a secessionist territory every country recognizes as a part of Somalia, belongs on this template at all alongside actual countries (Somalia in particular). Per the Constitutive theory of statehood, it automatically does not since the latter defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. That leaves the Declarative theory of statehood, whose criteria for statehood are exemplified in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. A quote from a scholarly paper by an authoritative, neutral author published in a reputable journal states unambiguously that Somaliland does not meet the criteria for de facto statehood as outlined in the Montevideo Convention. No other reliable source of comparable quality has been produced which argues otherwise; all of the ones that actually have been produced have already been exposed as biased and/or unreliable in some form or another (as already explained above). Middayexpress (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the neutrality of your source. Your source is written by Faisal Roble, who - as a quick Google search makes clear - is certainly not considered a neutral source by both sides of the dispute. Indeed, he speaks for Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity, an organisation that argues against the notion of Somaliland independence - and also is the organisation that prepared the other source. Beyond that, it's a matter of reading the document: it's clear from the first page that the author is arguing from the perspective that Somaliland independence is invalid.

You say: A source doesn't automatically become "biased" just because it asserts that Somaliland fails to meet the Montevideo Convention (or, on the flipside, it doesn't automatically become "reliable" just because it asserts that Somaliland meets the Montevideo Convention's criteria). I certainly wouldn't say that and wasn't arguing that. But equally, a source does not become biased just because it asserts that Somaliland passes Montevideo, or reliable just because it asserts that Somaliland doesn't pass Montevideo - and that appears to be your position.

Sources that are biased should be held to the same standard regardless of which side they are biased toward. They should be allowed for but not considered definitive. It is clear that those in favour of Somaliland independence claim that Somaliland argue that Somaliland passes Montevideo. It's clear that those against claim that it does not. Which means that there is dispute.

You say: This isn't a matter of compromise. It is quite clearly an either/or issue: either Somaliland is included in the template as a sovereign state or it's not. Not only is there room for compromise, we are required by policy to find one. And there are many ways of achieving it. It might mean splitting off disputed states into a separate section. Or it might mean flagging up disputed states by marking them in italics, linked to a footnote in the template. It might mean including them in brackets after the name of the appropriate sovereign state as in "Somalia (Somaliland)". There's a huge number of different ways we can allow for both sides without supporting either.

You say: The Somaliland separatists are, for obvious reasons, unreliable sources as to whether or not Somaliland itself meets the criteria for de facto statehood. Clearly they cannot be used as definitive sources, but I was not arguing that they could be. My argument is that, while the Somaliland government POV is not definitive, it is relevant and does have to be taken into account. If Somaliland didn't consider itself independent (as in the case of Puntland) then we'd have no question here - it wouldn't belong. But the fact that Somaliland claims independence is enough to imply that there is dispute. The fact that there is a dispute requires that we allow for both sides as per my previous paragraph.

So where are we now? At the moment the only thing we can say definitively about Montevideo is that whether it is met or not is disputed. We have POV sources on both sides arguing both sides, and as Wikipedia editors we cannot make a judgement. Given this, and given that there is clearly dispute between the Somaliland government on one side and the rest of the international community on the other, we must accept the fact that there is a dispute as to whether Somaliland legitimately exists or not. And as such, neutrality requires that we must include Somaliland in the template in a neutral way such as I described above. Pfainuk talk 10:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're repeating ourselves. The point has been made that many consider Somaliland to be independent—which is perfectly arguable, given the inexplicit nature of the Declarative theory, where the criteria is [1] understood—thus, automatically, that view has to represented. At this point, I'd recommend an informal mediation unless the other side is willing to let up, because I'm certainly getting over repeating myself, and don't think either side is going to get anywhere with everbody going round and round in circles. Night w (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Night w has a point here, with the sides in this debate stagnating, and since I really don't see any new arguments being brought into this, it may have to come to this. I would concur with the recommendation for informal mediation, but I think we should give it at least another day or two to see if anything new comes up, or if any of the previous arguments pans out into any kind of compromise (although at this point it seems to be unlikely). Hopefully, if all else fails, this might satisfy all sides. I should note, I discovered recently that Somaliland appears on the List of sovereign states as well where it is listed as a "De facto independent state not diplomatically recognized by any other state, claimed in whole by the Somali Republic." I wonder why Somaliland is treated with neutrality elsewhere on wikipedia, but when it comes to these templates and the actual Somaliland page, things become a bit slanted toward a certain perspective. I've placed an POV tag on the main Somaliland page pending the outcome of this discussion(I dont want multiple discussions occurring all over the place). Outback the koala (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the neutrality of your source. Your source is written by Faisal Roble, who - as a quick Google search makes clear - is certainly not considered a neutral source by both sides of the dispute. Indeed, he speaks for Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity, an organisation that argues against the notion of Somaliland independence - and also is the organisation that prepared the other source. Beyond that, it's a matter of reading the document: it's clear from the first page that the author is arguing from the perspective that Somaliland independence is invalid.

You say: A source doesn't automatically become "biased" just because it asserts that Somaliland fails to meet the Montevideo Convention (or, on the flipside, it doesn't automatically become "reliable" just because it asserts that Somaliland meets the Montevideo Convention's criteria). I certainly wouldn't say that and wasn't arguing that. But equally, a source does not become biased just because it asserts that Somaliland passes Montevideo, or reliable just because it asserts that Somaliland doesn't pass Montevideo - and that appears to be your position.

Sources that are biased should be held to the same standard regardless of which side they are biased toward. They should be allowed for but not considered definitive. It is clear that those in favour of Somaliland independence claim that Somaliland argue that Somaliland passes Montevideo. It's clear that those against claim that it does not. Which means that there is dispute.

You keep bringing up the Northern Somalis for Peace and Unity paper I linked to earlier when it was never used to establish statehood, but simply to point out that Somaliland does not control much of its territory & that its referendum was doctored -- both of which are facts that other sources brought up by other users have also borne out. Kindly let it go already. There have been mountains of non-neutral sources brought up that are clearly biased in the other direction, but those somehow haven't attracted nearly as much interest. As for Faisal Roble and his apparent connection to the NSPU, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was actually not aware that he was a part of the organization, as the scholarly journal I got his paper from did not indicate this.

The whole "dispute" issue is addressed below. Middayexpress (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say: This isn't a matter of compromise. It is quite clearly an either/or issue: either Somaliland is included in the template as a sovereign state or it's not. Not only is there room for compromise, we are required by policy to find one. And there are many ways of achieving it. It might mean splitting off disputed states into a separate section. Or it might mean flagging up disputed states by marking them in italics, linked to a footnote in the template. It might mean including them in brackets after the name of the appropriate sovereign state as in "Somalia (Somaliland)". There's a huge number of different ways we can allow for both sides without supporting either.

No, there is no room for compromise nor are we required by policy to find one and here's why: The view that Somaliland is an independent country of its own (& thus also belongs on this template alongside actual countries in Africa) is a tiny-minority view only held by people within the secessionist movement itself or by individual authors/groups (and ones that are typically affiliated in some way or another with the former). The rest of the world only recognizes Somaliland as a part of Somalia. You've indicated several times that we should include Somaliland in this template because of WP:NPOV issues. However, just because a reliable source may perhaps exist some place indicating that Somaliland is an independent country of its own doesn't mean we are obliged to include it and on par with Somalia to boot. On the contrary, WP:VER makes it clear that:

Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Adding Somaliland to this template alongside territories that are actually recognized by the world at large as actual countries is giving undue weight to what is, per that New York Times article titled The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia, a view held by a tiny minority. And per Wiki policy, we are under no obligation to include tiny-minority views. Middayexpress (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say: The Somaliland separatists are, for obvious reasons, unreliable sources as to whether or not Somaliland itself meets the criteria for de facto statehood. Clearly they cannot be used as definitive sources, but I was not arguing that they could be. My argument is that, while the Somaliland government POV is not definitive, it is relevant and does have to be taken into account. If Somaliland didn't consider itself independent (as in the case of Puntland) then we'd have no question here - it wouldn't belong. But the fact that Somaliland claims independence is enough to imply that there is dispute. The fact that there is a dispute requires that we allow for both sides as per my previous paragraph.

No one said anything about any "definitive" sources. We are talking about reliable sources here. And it has already been explained citing actual Wikipedia policy that the Somaliland separatists are indeed obviously unreliable sources as to whether or not Somaliland itself is a state. Of course they will say that it is; that is what their entire campaign for recognition is about. Middayexpress (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Somaliland didn't consider itself independent (as in the case of Puntland) then we'd have no question here - it wouldn't belong. But the fact that Somaliland claims independence is enough to imply that there is dispute. The fact that there is a dispute requires that we allow for both sides as per my previous paragraph.

So where are we now? At the moment the only thing we can say definitively about Montevideo is that whether it is met or not is disputed. We have POV sources on both sides arguing both sides, and as Wikipedia editors we cannot make a judgement. Given this, and given that there is clearly dispute between the Somaliland government on one side and the rest of the international community on the other, we must accept the fact that there is a dispute as to whether Somaliland legitimately exists or not. And as such, neutrality requires that we must include Somaliland in the template in a neutral way such as I described above.

In order to properly answer that post above, we must first define what exactly is meant by the term "dispute". Judging by the phrase "the fact that Somaliland claims independence is enough to imply that there is dispute", the dispute in question is a reference to whether or not Somaliland is an independent country. The answer to that is no, there is no real dispute that Somaliland is an independent country. On the contrary, there is complete unanimity in the international community that it is a part of Somalia. The only people that dispute this are the secessionists themselves and a few authors here and there (many of whom are in some way tied to said movement). Statehood of all things is also not determined by separatist entities or individual writers/advocacy groups or even Wikipedians; it lies in the realm of actual international law. And per the latter, Somaliland is a part of Somalia. As already explained, listing Somaliland alongside actual countries in Africa on this template (Somalia in particular) is giving an obscene amount of undue weight to what is a tiny-minority view, and in the face of a global consensus that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you accept that there is no unbiased source yet available that claims that Somaliland fails Montevideo? That means that we can both agree that there is a dispute.

You are now arguing that the view in support of Somaliland indepedence is a small minority. If you dismiss all sources that support Somaliland independence as "unreliable" because you feel their authors have a POV, while accepting sources that have a POV on the other side, then of course you're not going to get many "reliable" sources that support it. It's a fairly extreme form of selection bias: if you remove all the data that supports one side and then try and draw conclusions from the remainder, you're obviously not going to come to a balanced conclusion.

You say that there is no real dispute as to whether Somaliland is an independent country. And yet you've repeatedly dismissed sources that argue exactly that. Of course there is a dispute as to whether it is independent or not - if there wasn't then there'd be no significant movement arguing otherwise, and plainly there is - several sources have been cited supporting this viewpoint (both by you and by others). We wouldn't hear of the AU calling it a status that is "unique and self-justified in African political history" (per your NYT source). We wouldn't see entries like this or this from neutral and reliable mainstream media sources.

No-one has said that Somaliland should be included on a par with Somalia. In fact I've repeatedly said that I would oppose including Somaliland on a par with Somalia. But there are plenty of ways in which Somaliland can be included in such a template in such a way that it is not put on a par with Somalia, such as those that I described.

I have now taken this to WP:NPOVN to get outside views. Pfainuk talk 12:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you accept that there is no unbiased source yet available that claims that Somaliland fails Montevideo? That means that we can both agree that there is a dispute.

Interesting spin on something I never even said. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now arguing that the view in support of Somaliland indepedence is a small minority. If you dismiss all sources that support Somaliland independence as "unreliable" because you feel their authors have a POV, while accepting sources that have a POV on the other side, then of course you're not going to get many "reliable" sources that support it. It's a fairly extreme form of selection bias: if you remove all the data that supports one side and then try and draw conclusions from the remainder, you're obviously not going to come to a balanced conclusion.

This is not about "the view in support of Somaliland independece". It is about whether or not Somaliland is a sovereign country. And what I have done is simply point out to you reality i.e. that the world only acknowledges Somaliland as a part of Somalia (except, of course, for the secessionists themselves & a few sympathetic authors & Wikipedians here and there). I have also not dismissed "all sources that support Somaliland independence as "unreliable"". The latter is a strawman argument you also brought up earlier, and one which I already corrected you on then. Those sources have been exposed as biased & in some detail. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that there is no real dispute as to whether Somaliland is an independent country. And yet you've repeatedly dismissed sources that argue exactly that. Of course there is a dispute as to whether it is independent or not - if there wasn't then there'd be no significant movement arguing otherwise, and plainly there is - several sources have been cited supporting this viewpoint (both by you and by others). We wouldn't hear of the AU calling it a status that is "unique and self-justified in African political history" (per your NYT source). We wouldn't see entries like this or this from neutral and reliable mainstream media sources.

Yes, I did state that there is no real dispute that Somaliland is an independent country; "real" being the operative word here. The dispute is not real (i.e. significant) because there is complete unanimity in the international community that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. The only people that dispute this are the secessionists themselves and a few authors here and there (many of whom are in some way tied to said movement), and that a "dispute" does not make. Furthermore, that quote you cite from the New York Times article and which is attributed to an African Union fact-finding mission dates from 2005; in other words, it was first prepared & published long before Maakhir ever declared itself an autonomous region and neighboring Puntland eventually assumed complete control of the Sanaag region that Somaliland also still claims (1):

"After Somaliland/Puntland armed clashes in 2007, Sanaag's leaders declared their own “state” (Maakhir). Puntland eventually recaptured all of Sanaag"

You also missed the part in that NYT article that actually points out the African Union's (and the United Nation's) official position on Somaliland:

"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."

As has already also been pointed out, that BBC profile on Somaliland actually reinforces the global consensus (and international law) that Somaliland is a part of Somalia, as it is part of a series on 'territories' not 'countries' of which the similarly autonomous Puntland is a part (see the drop down menu to the right; both Somaliland & Puntland are listed under 'territories', not 'countries' where only Somalia is listed) -- Puntland also has its own page. And both Somaliland & Puntland are listed as parts of Somalia in Somalia's actual country profile (see the map of Somalia).

Bottom line, statehood of all things is not determined by separatist entities or individual writers/advocacy groups or even Wikipedians; it lies in the realm of actual international law. And per the latter, Somaliland is a part of Somalia. As already explained, listing Somaliland alongside actual countries in Africa on this template (Somalia in particular) is indeed giving an obscene amount of undue weight to what is a tiny-minority view, and in the face of a global consensus that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has said that Somaliland should be included on a par with Somalia. In fact I've repeatedly said that I would oppose including Somaliland on a par with Somalia. But there are plenty of ways in which Somaliland can be included in such a template in such a way that it is not put on a par with Somalia, such as those that I described.

Semantics. Including Somaliland in the section of the template where actual sovereign states are listed -- which is what you are arguing for -- is, for all intents and purposes, clearly indicating that it is a sovereign country (i.e. promoting a tiny-minority view contrary to international law, the latter of which does not recognize a 'Somaliland' nation). This is despite the fact that the international community only recognizes the region as a part of Somalia. The only conceivable way Somaliland could be included on this template is therefore as an autonomous region. Those are the only two real options, other than not including Somaliland at all. This is why two options were only ever presented to begin with in that draft above. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now taken this to WP:NPOVN to get outside views.

Ok. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing for Somaliland's inclusion to be "on par with Somalia"; everybody here is aware of the fact that the international community does not recognise Somaliland sovereignty—that's what the footnote is for; that's why it's included as an "unrecognised" state. That perspective will already be accounted for, and nobody here is arguing against it. But that perspective does not have the final say on whether or not an entity is included, since there are other factors: we have two theories for determining statehood, and in one of them outside recognition is irrelevant. Official recognition by foreign governments on this subject is obviously subject to political implications, although that has not stopped many bodies from initiating informal ties—France, Djibouti, Italy, Sweden, Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, the UK, the US, as well as the AU, the EU, the UN—all of which would constitute recognition of the state's de facto independence, as they're dealing with the Somaliland government, not the Somalian one.

And as any number of quick Google searches on the topic will show, the definition of Somaliland as a de facto independent state is certainly not a "tiny minority view" in the public eye—nor can it be proven that it is (altho you're welcome to try). In fact, given the current situation that it actually is a de facto independent entity (with a government that currently answers to no higher authority), I'd say it's a fairly widely held view by those not subjected to international protocol (i.e. sovereign governments). Luckily, the public is not required to ignore how a situation actually is for fear of repercussions. Many argue that it has achieved statehood, so we have to represent that view. Night w (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the those links you have produced indicate that any of those countries recognize Somaliland as anything other than a part of Somalia (that one interview with a man from the Somaliland secessionist movement itself, notwithstanding). They only indicate that various countries have political dealings with the territory, which is hardly news since the similarly autonomous Puntland region has analogous relations with foreign bodies as well (1). These dealings, however, are never on a country-to-country basis since all of those actual countries & the international community as a whole only recognize Somaliland as a part of Somalia & deal with it as such. This includes the U.S. governmet you alluded to:

"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."

The British government as well, as former Prime Minister Tony Blair explains in response to a petition that was expressly put before him by Somaliland secessionists requesting recognition:

"The Government does not recognize Somaliland as an independent state, neither does the rest of the international community. The UK has signed up to a common EU position and to many UN Security Council Presidential Statements, which refer to the territorial integrity and unity of Somalia."

In fact, Somaliland's own president 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."

The Montevideo Convention itself is also ultimately limited by/dependent on recognition since:

"an unrecognized territory soon comes to be disregarded as a state under the Convention, because it is seen as lacking the capacity to enter into foreign relations."

Furthermore, yes, people here -- yourself included -- are indeed arguing for Somaliland's inclusion on par with Somalia because they are requesting that the region ought to be listed in this template alongside actual sovereign countries in Africa. They are not asking for Somaliland to be including as an autonomous region, although that too is an option. The entire world (except, of course, the Somaliland secessionists themselves and a few writers & Wikipedians here & there) only recognizes Somaliland as a part of Somalia. This is why that New York Times article on the secessionist movement is titled The Signs Say Somaliland, but the World Says Somalia. Including Somaliland in this template as a sovereign state is thus indeed giving undue weight to what is a tiny minority view, and tiny minority views per WP:VER "need not be included, except in articles devoted to them". You have attempted to counter this and prove that the view that Somaliland is a sovereign country of its own is somehow not, in fact, a tiny-minority view by referencing random Google hits. This is when I channel you and point out that that is original research. Google hits aren't reliable sources; actually, they aren't sources at all but random links. And for every Google hit that includes the term "de facto" alongside Somaliland -- links which, incidentally, may or may not lead to sources that indicate that Somaliland is a country of its own & that's not even taking the quality of those sources into account; they could just as likely instead lead to Wiki mirrors or sources that, while mentioning Somaliland in one part of the text, actually only indicate that another territory is a sovereign state -- there are exponentially more that include the even more specific term "region in Somalia" alongside it. And that's not including the searches which already presuppose that Somaliland is a part of Somalia, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of maps produced. Google hits therefore obviously cannot be used to quantify how prominent a view is. What can is a source which explains the view's prominence or lack thereof directly and explicitly, as that New York Times article I've quoted does. And it, of course, makes it clear that the view that Somaliland is anything other than a part of Somalia is one held by a tiny minority of people, an opinion that is also outside the bounds of international law which consistently upholds the territorial integrity of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that Somaliland should not be treated the same as Somalia. I'm arguing that it should be placed on a template that currently includes sovereign states, both those with disputed status and undisputed status, and several entities that are undisputedly non-sovereign (indeed, some of them are integrated into the national structures of the states concerned). My preference at this stage would be for a third row, in between the two current ones, to include the SADR and Somaliland. Somaliland would not be placed alongside Somalia. It would not be on a par with Somalia. But such placement would allow for both sides of the dispute. Puntland could then go alongside La Réunion, the Spanish Plazas de Soberanía, the Canary Islands and so on - I would not accept Somaliland's going there because that would only allow for one side of the dispute and we must allow for both sides.

I've responded to the rest below. Pfainuk talk 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a response below. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources that highlight the status quo(i.e Somaliland being a region of Somalia, and recognised as such by the world) cannot be considered 'anti-Somaliland' sources, it's factual, which is what wikipedia is about. A source that states that Somaliland has no 'defined' territory is not 'anti-Somaliland' rhetoric, just like a John Kerry or a Al Gore supporter highlighting that Barack Obama is the current President of the United States is not anti-Bush rhetoric, it's reality.
• I have taken a look at every single source regarding so-called informal ties and nowhere in these links does it show that an actual representative of those selected countries has made a statement where the latter entities recognise Somaliland as a 'de facto state', matter fact if we start with France, the only source to state that this country recognised Somaliland as a de facto state is the Lesnouvelles Magazine interview with a Somaliland representative, not even a member of the French political scene, but an actual member of the entity that's campaigning for recognition, hence this source is not neutral because it's based on the direct words of a member of the Somaliland entity, not to forget the most important point of all, the claim is not corroborated by any other news outlet, thereby making it unverifiable. The other sources are about visits to countries such as Djibouti and Ethiopia and here also it does not show any representatives of those latter countries recognising the Somaliland entity as a 'de facto' country, these welcoming parties have been extended to other states in Somalia such as Puntland(The President Arrives in Ethiopia for an Official Visit), and aren't unique to Somaliland. I think NightW has taken the relations of a region internationally recognised as a autonomous state of Federal Somalia and confused it as sign of being a de facto state, when its not. A Google search will show you plenty of sources that refer to Somaliland as a autonomous zone or autonomous state of Somalia.--Scoobycentric (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't insult our intelligence. You have a POV here, Scooby, and you would do well to realise it. The two sources in question were written to argue that Somaliland is not legitimately independent. They clearly and obviously took a side in the dispute. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that, provided that we accept them for what they are and balance them with sources that take the opposite side. Your trying to argue that they are neutral presentations of fact is plainly absurd. Pfainuk talk 22:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's where I am confused. Why are you guys arguing about Montevideo? Montevideo Convention does not control De Facto independence. It is a necessary, crucial, vital and undeniable step towards De Jure recognition that cannot be circumvented. But it still has nothing to do with De Facto Independence. To better understand the De Facto-De Jure requirements, lets go over how the USSR went from a region of 10,000 to a UN Member with a veto seat. In 1917 the Tsarist Government no longer controlled Russia. And yet there was no government to replace it. Thus the area controlled by the Communists was De Facto Independent, despite not meeting the Montevideo Convention. They controlled the area, they managed it, they recruited from. It was a De Facto Independent Region. As the Russian Civil War progressed, the Red Army became victories. After 1921, the USSR met the Montevideo Convention, but it was still not recognized. In 1934 it finally received De Jure recognition. In 1945/1946 the USSR became a veto-holding member of the UN. Thus it has passed through at least for stages. Meeting the Montevideo Convention is necessary to be considered for De Jure recognition. It is not necessary to be considered a De Facto Independent state. IMHO, Puntland should be listed as De Facto Self-Governing Region, and Somaliland should be listed as De Facto Independent State, while it should be mentioned that both, De Jure, are a part of Somalia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note quite. Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention is indeed used to illustrate de facto statehood. And even then, it too is ultimately limited by/dependent on recognition since "an unrecognized territory soon comes to be disregarded as a state under the Convention, because it is seen as lacking the capacity to enter into foreign relations." So any way you slice it, without recognition, Somaliland (like Puntland) is not a country of its own. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally been able to find a scholarly article that is easily accessible to all (hopefully!); This is what I found. Hopefully, this will not be a 'biased' paper as well simply because it talks about Somaliland's de facto independence and what it means. HW007, we cannot say that Somaliland is de jure a part of Somalia, we must say that, "No state regards Somaliland as de jure independent," as I'm sure it regards itself as such. Outback the koala (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that paper directly and explicitly indicates that the fact that Somaliland is a part of Somalia is not the status quo & international law (it is), that is just another tiny minority view from one individual author. And WP:VER of course makes it clear that:

Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

The "de facto" device is also itself ultimately dependent on recognition; see the quotes above. Middayexpress (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just said you weren't arguing that all sources that supported Somaliland were unacceptable and all that opposed Somaliland were not. Now you've just argued exactly that. It is plain that there is dispute as to whether Somaliland passes Montevideo or not. Thus we, as editors, cannot judge the issue.

You say that your position is based on international law. Your NYT source doesn't say that. Indeed, no neutral source we've seen claims that international law definitively favours Somalia. The NYT - and BBC and Observer - say that no other state recognises Somaliland independence. You keep bringing this up as though we hadn't all repeatedly acknowledged it as one of the most basic facts in this case. But that's not the same thing as saying that Somaliland is definitively illegal under international law.

I would suggest that it is plainly obvious to any neutral observer that the viewpoint of the authorities that hold de facto control on the ground - regardless of whether they are legitimate or not - is a significant viewpoint in any given territorial dispute. Your suggestion that Somaliland doesn't count doesn't make any sense at all.

I would remind you once again that Montevideo is not a measure of the de facto only, but of both de facto and de jure according to the declarative theory of statehood. Finally, I would note that your suggestion that passing Montevideo is dependent on recognition was (when applied to this case) original synthesis, and would appear to go against Article 3 of the convention itself, which says explicitly that "[t]he political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states". Pfainuk talk 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just said you weren't arguing that all sources that supported Somaliland were unacceptable and all that opposed Somaliland were not. Now you've just argued exactly that. It is plain that there is dispute as to whether Somaliland passes Montevideo or not. Thus we, as editors, cannot judge the issue.

I never said that "all sources that supported Somaliland were unacceptable and all that opposed Somaliland were not". You did; those are your words, not mine. And the "dispute" of whether or not Somaliland passes Montevideo is, in the grand scheme of things, irrelevant because it indulges the notion that Somaliland is possibly a country to begin with, which is a view held by a tiny minority of people and not enshrined in law to boot -- the world only recognizes Somaliland as a part of Somalia. And per WP:VER, tiny-minority views need not be included at all. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say that your position is based on international law. Your NYT source doesn't say that. Indeed, no neutral source we've seen claims that international law definitively favours Somalia. The NYT - and BBC and Observer - say that no other state recognises Somaliland independence. You keep bringing this up as though we hadn't all repeatedly acknowledged it as one of the most basic facts in this case. But that's not the same thing as saying that Somaliland is definitively illegal under international law.

I never stated that "international law definitively favours Somalia". This is yet another strawman argument. I clearly said that Somaliland is only recognized as a part of Somalia per international law; a "Somaliland" country does not exist at all in international law:

"Somalia has remained a state and UN member even though for the past two decades it has lacked a national government able to control much of its territory, while the breakaway Somaliland, with a functioning government, is unrecognized and regarded by all states and the UN as part of Somalia."

And even if the Somaliland region did meet all the criteria for so-called "de facto statehood" (it doesn't), it still would not legally be a country (yes, that's from a paper that discusses Somaliland; see below):

"Claims that there are “de facto states” and “de facto independence” are “at most, de lege ferenda -- what someone wants the law to be, not what it is” [de lege lata]. That there are no “de facto states” has not kept those who fail to take international law into account from proposing that the concept be adopted... The “de facto state” concept is in fact part of a political argument that territories should have the option to become states if they have separated or may separate from a recognized state. It is an attempt to conceptually undergird separatism in general."

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that it is plainly obvious to any neutral observer that the viewpoint of the authorities that hold de facto control on the ground - regardless of whether they are legitimate or not - is a significant viewpoint in any given territorial dispute. Your suggestion that Somaliland doesn't count doesn't make any sense at all.

Somaliland does not have de facto control on the ground of much of its claimed territory. In fact, it has no control at all of Sanaag, though it certainly claims the region; neighboring Puntland administers Sanaag:

"After Somaliland/Puntland armed clashes in 2007, Sanaag’s leaders declared their own “state” (Maakhir). Puntland eventually recaptured all of Sanaag"

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind you once again that Montevideo is not a measure of the de facto only, but of both de facto and de jure according to the declarative theory of statehood.

Actually, it's the constitutive theory of statehood that is ultimately the determining factor on whether or not a territory is a country (yes, that too is from a paper that discusses Somaliland; see below):

"While recognition may be based on the criteria underlying the declaratory theory, the inability of a territory that otherwise satisfies the criteria to exercise sovereign rights indicates the constitutive theory’s continuing relevance and perhaps determinative nature"

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I would note that your suggestion that passing Montevideo is dependent on recognition was (when applied to this case) original synthesis, and would appear to go against Article 3 of the convention itself, which says explicitly that "[t]he political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states".

No, I'm afraid it is not synthesis. It is fact, and was taken from this very detailed scholarly paper on "pseudo-states", a paper which also discusses Somaliland and identifies it as such a territory:

"Present-day pseudo-states and the states from which they have attempted secession include South Ossetia and Abhazia (Georgia), Transnistria (Moldova), Nagorno-Karabakh (Armenia), the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Cyprus), Tamil Eelam (Sri Lanka) and Somaliland (Somalia)."

That paper defines a pseudo-state as follows:

"Pseudo-states is used here to emphasize that such territories are legally not states."

The forgoing means that Somaliland as anything other than a part of Somalia is not legal or enshrined in law. Quite the opposite, actually.

It's ironic you should bring up Article 3 of the convention, because the paper also takes that argument into account:

"The Montevideo Convention criteria -- a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other states -- provide an “objective” test of statehood applied without reference to whether a territory is recognized or not. Under its Article 3, statehood can exist prior to recognition, because “even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence.” A territory that declares itself a new-born state is thus not denied the right to defend itself merely because it has not had enough time to get recognized. In practice, however, an unrecognized territory soon comes to be disregarded as a state under the Convention, because it is seen as lacking the capacity to enter into foreign relations. That was the import of the Canadian Supreme Court’s statement that if an unconstitutional declaration by Quebec were to lead to a “de facto secession,” “the ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community . . . [although] such a recognition, even if granted, would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession.”"

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've just said: I never stated that "international law definitively favours Somalia"., and then immediately afterward a "Somaliland" country does not exist at all in international law. Your second statement argues the very thing that your first says you aren't arguing.

I repeat, you keep bringing up the fact that Somaliland is not recognised by any outside authority as though we hadn't all repeatedly acknowledged it as one of the most basic facts in this case. But that's not the same thing as saying that Somaliland is definitively illegal under international law.

You bring in a new source. But it's not a reliable and neutral source, arguing as it is from a pro-Chinese POV on Tibet. It is in the author's interest to portray Tibet pre-1951 as a non-state at a time when it was not under Chinese de facto control. If it was a state, it destroys his case. Equally it is in his interest to argue for the constitutive theory over the declarative theory. Constitutive theory backs up his point far better because Tibet had a case for statehood under declarative theory but not under constitutive theory. Given as it had a similar status to modern Somaliland, he could not take the opposite position on Somaliland without destroying his case. Fact is, this source is not a neutral presentation of facts, but is arguing a position. The names are different, but it's just as POV as it would be if it were modern day Somaliland and Somalia it was talking about instead of Tibet and China from 1913-51.

Your only argument against the important point that the authorities who hold de facto control on the ground would generally and not unreasonably be considered a significant viewpoint is to say - as has been repeatedly acknowledged - that the Somaliland authorities do not control all of their claimed territory. But they do have de facto control over a significant portion (indeed, a majority) of their claimed territory. They have de facto control on the ground in Hargeisa, for example. The Somaliland POV is significant enough not to be a tiny minority view, and must therefore be represented. Pfainuk talk 19:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you keep bringing up the fact that Somaliland is not recognised by any outside authority as though we hadn't all repeatedly acknowledged it as one of the most basic facts in this case. But that's not the same thing as saying that Somaliland is definitively illegal under international law.

Actually, I'm pointing out that Somaliland as a country has no legal basis -- only Somaliland as a part of Somalia does. Middayexpress (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bring in a new source. But it's not a reliable and neutral source, arguing as it is from a pro-Chinese POV on Tibet. It is in the author's interest to portray Tibet pre-1951 as a non-state at a time when it was not under Chinese de facto control. If it was a state, it destroys his case. Equally it is in his interest to argue for the constitutive theory over the declarative theory. Constitutive theory backs up his point far better because Tibet had a case for statehood under declarative theory but not under constitutive theory. Given as it had a similar status to modern Somaliland, he could not take the opposite position on Somaliland without destroying his case. Fact is, this source is not a neutral presentation of facts, but is arguing a position. The names are different, but it's just as POV as it would be if it were modern day Somaliland and Somalia it was talking about instead of Tibet and China from 1913-51.

That is WP:OR on your part. You do not know for a fact that the author of that paper on de facto states is unreliable or "pro-Chinese" let alone have you proven that he is and been able to link that to Somaliland. You've just claimed that he is, which I'm afraid is not the same thing as actually proving that he is. If you want to see how one actually proves that a given author, publisher or source is biased with regard to Somaliland, look no further than my actual exposes of the references NightW brought up such as that Bryden paper below. That should provide an object lesson as to what actually is an ureliable source. Middayexpress (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your only argument against the important point that the authorities who hold de facto control on the ground would generally and not unreasonably be considered a significant viewpoint is to say - as has been repeatedly acknowledged - that the Somaliland authorities do not control all of their claimed territory. But they do have de facto control over a significant portion (indeed, a majority) of their claimed territory. They have de facto control on the ground in Hargeisa, for example. The Somaliland POV is significant enough not to be a tiny minority view, and must therefore be represented.

My "only argument"? A brief glance at my many posts above makes an utter mockery of that claim. Legally, Somaliland as a "country" simply does not exist; it only legally exists as a part of Somalia. You realize this, so you've opted for a "de facto state" line of argument, an argument which that source you've attempted to invalidate with just your words (that is, without any actual proof) completely blows apart. This present dispute is not about any "Somaliland POV", as that vague reference could mean literally anything (Somaliland as an independent region? province? nation?). It is strictly about whether or not Somaliland is an actual country. If not, simple: it does not belong on this template alongside actual countries in Africa. And of course, in international law, no Somaliland "nation" exists; only Somalia does, and Somaliland is a part of that actual state. I believe this is something the uninvolved editor at the WP:NPOVN board you went to for mediation also already explained to you. Middayexpress (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either you are arguing that Somaliland has no legal basis (in which case international law favours Somalia) or you are not arguing that international law favours Somalia (in which case Somaliland may have a legal basis). Each of those positions implies the other to be true. In any case, your source doesn't say that Somaliland has no legal basis any more than it says that international law favours Somalia.

If you doubt that the source is pro-Chinese, I suggest you read it. Because to any neutral observer that should be obvious. It plainly takes the Chinese POV on all key points, rejecting all Tibetan claims. And it is, essentially, the educated opinion of the author - which is different from established fact. I would imagine that it would not be difficult to find sources that argue the opposite position on Tibet.

The fact is that the only sources that could reasonably be cited on either side that would definitively determine Montevideo, or whether Somaliland legally exists, would be based on an international court judgement. Anything else falls on one side or the other of the dispute. As it seems likely that the ICJ hasn't ruled on this matter, all we can say for sure is that it is disputed.

So it is not clear to me that Somaliland does not legally exist. No neutral source has claimed that Somaliland does not legally exist. That's your POV, and you're welcome to have it, but we have to be neutral. That's not to say that it does legally exist - it is to say that there is legitimate dispute over the matter.

And the fact remains that your only argument against the specific point that the fact that the Somaliland government has de facto control on the ground in most of Somaliland means that the Somaliland side is not a tiny minority viewpoint is that the Somaliland government doesn't control its entire claimed territory. No-one said it did, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have some control, and that doesn't make it a tiny minority viewpoint. Pfainuk talk 11:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midday: Instead of copy-pasting everything everybody else has written, why not take that time to read it over once more before you reply. It will save everybody time in the long-run as we won't have to keep repeating ourselves. Once again, nobody here is arguing for Somaliland's inclusion to be on par with Somalia—was that one of the two options? It's listed as an "unrecognised" state for the very arguments you're putting forth about recognition—thus, those arguments are already accounted for by the footnote. I'll say it again:

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.

Are you simply overlooking the clarifying footnote, or do you just disagree with its correspondence with Somaliland? Because the footnote will always be there anyway, and I'd say "unrecognised or partially recognised state" pretty definitively applies to this case. But, apparently, everyone here is either with you or against you:

Furthermore, yes, people here -- yourself included -- are indeed arguing for Somaliland's inclusion on par with Somalia because they are requesting that the region ought to be listed in this template alongside actual sovereign [states] in Africa. They are not asking for Somaliland to be including as an autonomous region, although that too is an option.

So apparently, we can either ask for what you want, or nothing. There's no room for neutrality or middle-ground, or for demonstrating any other contemporary view. I'm sorry not everybody agrees with you here, but there are other opinions and perspectives that a neutral encyclopaedia would have to account for. Your one-sided editing has been consistently called out in the past, and I think it's about time it were addressed properly.

You cannot prove that the majority of the global public does/does not see Somaliland as a de facto independent state, since no state has held a referendum or a poll of public opinion on the matter. No, your NYT article does not mention anything about opinion of the "people"—it's just about international recognition of sovereignty by other governments. And as for Google hits, while I'm deeply indebted to you for opening my eyes to the fact that a search engine is not a source, they are used to ascertain prominence of a perspective (see #1 on "Uses of search engine tests". And for the record: where I live, and indeed on the Internet, opinion does not lie within "the bounds of international law". Neither do, in fact, the theories on determining statehood. They're not law, they're theories. They haven't been adopted by the United Nations as policy. And its criteria is not governed by any set of rules, so no: the Montevideo Convention is not "ultimately limited by/dependent on recognition." As has already been proven in sources provided (1, 2), your interpretations are just that—altho I see you've now stopped arguing about the "defined territory" and "population" or whatever straws you were clutching at before.

I provided the links that I did to show that those states have de facto recognised Somaliland as a de facto state. Please read the source I provided alongside, which explains what kind of actions might constitute such recognition by a foreign government. An example would be Ethiopia and Djibouti's acceptance of Somaliland passports, as your NYT article mentions.

Scooby: I don't know what you're talking about. You certainly haven't provided a source that claims Somaliland does not have a defined territory. We've been over that. It's old. And, as Pfainuk has pointed out, you have a conflict of interest with this matter (perhaps you both do), and are pushing a POV. Night w (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midday: Instead of copy-pasting everything everybody else has written, why not take that time to read it over once more before you reply. It will save everybody time in the long-run as we won't have to keep repeating ourselves.

Actually, I'm copyng and pasting my responses to your comments because your comments were repetitious to begin with. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, nobody here is arguing for Somaliland's inclusion to be on par with Somalia—was that one of the two options? It's listed as an "unrecognised" state for the very arguments you're putting forth about recognition—thus, those arguments are already accounted for by the footnote. I'll say it again:

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.

Are you simply overlooking the clarifying footnote, or do you just disagree with its correspondence with Somaliland? Because the footnote will always be there anyway, and I'd say "unrecognised or partially recognised state" pretty definitively applies to this case.

The opinion that Somaliland has achieved statehood means nothing, as it is a tiny minority-view held by a few individual authors/advocacy groups & contrary to international law, which only recognizes Somaliland as a part of Somalia (see the above). This is reality, not what reality ought to be. Adding Somaliland to this template alongside actual countries -- even with what you describe as an explanatory footnote -- is giving undue weight to a tiny-minority political view, and one that is contrary to actual law to boot. WP:VER makes it clear that such views have no place in Wikipedia, and WP:NOTADVOCATE similarly forbids advocacy for any "causes", which is exactly what the Somaliland-is-an-independent-country-of-its-own movement is. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, apparently, everyone here is either with you or against you:

Furthermore, yes, people here -- yourself included -- are indeed arguing for Somaliland's inclusion on par with Somalia because they are requesting that the region ought to be listed in this template alongside actual sovereign [states] in Africa. They are not asking for Somaliland to be including as an autonomous region, although that too is an option.

So apparently, we can either ask for what you want, or nothing. There's no room for neutrality or middle-ground, or for demonstrating any other contemporary view. I'm sorry not everybody agrees with you here, but there are other opinions and perspectives that a neutral encyclopaedia would have to account for.

This isn't about what "I" or you want. That's very reductive, to put it mildly. It is about not attempting to rewrite what already is: Somaliland is legally a part of Somalia, not a "country" of its own. There is no room for compromise on this because the latter proposition (i.e. Somaliland as an independent "country") is a tiny-minority view held by a few individual authors/advocacy groups here & there and is contratry to actual international law, which only recognizes Somaliland as a part of Somalia (see the quotes above). Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your one-sided editing has been consistently called out in the past, and I think it's about time it were addressed properly.

Major WP:Wikistalking and WP:Harassment issues there, and not for the first time either. None of those old discussions you've linked to above have any bearing on this present discussion nor were you even a part of any of them (at least as far as I know). Your automatically siding with the other parties in those old disputes without knowing the first thing about those discussions let alone participating in them is actually indicative of your own desire to grasp at anything for an edge, no matter how irrelevant & petty. Do try and stay on topic & give the mud-slinging a rest. If you actually have a point, by all means, share it; don't try & make this personal for lack of one. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot prove that the majority of the global public does/does not see Somaliland as a de facto independent state, since no state has held a referendum or a poll of public opinion on the matter. No, your NYT article does not mention anything about opinion of the "people"—it's just about international recognition of sovereignty by other governments.

And as for Google hits, while I'm deeply indebted to you for opening my eyes to the fact that a search engine is not a source, they are used to ascertain prominence of a perspective (see #1 on "Uses of search engine tests". And for the record: where I live, and indeed on the Internet, opinion does not lie within "the bounds of international law". Neither do, in fact, the theories on determining statehood. They're not law, they're theories. They haven't been adopted by the United Nations as policy. And its criteria is not governed by any set of rules, so no: the Montevideo Convention is not "ultimately limited by/dependent on recognition." As has already been proven in sources provided (1, 2), your interpretations are just that—altho I see you've now stopped arguing about the "defined territory" and "population" or whatever straws you were clutching at before.

Yes, I'm afraid whether or not a territory is a country (which is the central issue here) is decided in the court of law, not in the court of public opinion as you have suggested. It is international law that Somaliland is a part of Somalia (see the quotes above). It is not "opinion" nor can digging up some individual author's actual opinion that Somaliland ought to be recognized as a country of its own because he or she believes the territory meets some or many of the attributes of a state change this basic fact. That individual author's tiny-minority view is still just that: a tiny-minority view exclusive to that one source and contrary to actual law. And yes, the Montevideo Convention most certainly is dependent on/limited by recognition (see the other quotes above). Your two sources are also irrelevant; the first doesn't even discuss Somaliland (i.e. that's synthesis) & the other is heavily biased and was called on this too (see below). Lastly, the [a search test can do, and what it can't] section of that WP:Search engine test page you linked to states, among other things, that "search engines often will not" "be neutral". It also states that "a search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show", and most importantly that "appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything". Wikipedia:Search engine test is not even a policy page either, but a how-to-guide unlike WP:VER, which most certainly is a policy page. And WP:VER still makes it clear that:

Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the links that I did to show that those states have de facto recognised Somaliland as a de facto state. Please read the source I provided alongside, which explains what kind of actions might constitute such recognition by a foreign government. An example would be Ethiopia and Djibouti's acceptance of Somaliland passports, as your NYT article mentions.

Yes, and I and others debunked that claim. No country anywhere recognizes Somaliland as anything other than a part of Somalia, and that includes Djibouti and Ethiopia. Somaliland's political relations with foreign bodies is no different to Puntland's. That New York Times article also makes this and the passport issue clear:

"The Somaliland passport — which bears the region's logo and looks as official as any other nation's — is not recognized by any country in the world, although the neighboring countries of Ethiopia and Djibouti do allow people to travel with it while still not officially recognizing Somaliland as a country."

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This other source, which identifies Somaliland as a pseudo-state, makes the situation even more plain:

"Existing pseudo-states issue passports, currency, and stamps, yet the items have no validity under international law. As to passports, for example, an unrecognized state or government is considered to have no authority to issue passports. Documents issued by unrecognized states or governments are not regarded as ‘passports.’ They are accorded no official standing; generally no visa is affixed on an unrecognized passport, or if a visa is affixed, such action is expressly said not to imply recognition of the issuing authority."

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is another source by By Fatun Mohamed Hassan (Former Charge d’affaires of the Somalia Mission to the United Nations) and Abdalla Hirad highlighting that Somaliland has no defined territory:

There is no defined boundary of any so-called “Somaliland”; and, its claimed boundary, if at all, is very much overlapping with the boundary claimed by “Puntland” to the east.

or population:

The people within the claimed “Somaliland” boundary are divided among themselves on the question. For example, the people of Sool and Sanag are divided in their sentiments between Puntland” and “Somaliland”. Indeed, a good proportion of the people of these two regions (Sool and Sanag) considers itself citizens of “Puntland”. In addition, a good percentage of the people of Awdal region, to the west of Hargeisa, are also averted to the secession. There is, even, a significant population with anti-secession sentiments in and around Hargeisa, Burao and Berbera, which are argued to harbor the core of the separatist constituency.

As has been pointed out to you none of your sources state the countries you selected 'recognised Somaliland as a de facto state', what you have done is assemble several sources and then at the end linked them to a googlebooks source about the definition of 'de facto statehood', it's ironic that after all the talk about original synth towards us, nobody here had the decency to point the same out to you, so consider this me alerting you of your OS.

Editors are allowed to have a personal POV, matter fact that is welcomed, which is why OutbackKoala can sport a template such as this:

This user recognises the independence of Somaliland.

in his userpage and still engage in this discussion, so it would be wise to stop presenting ancient discussions all centering around a central theme(Somalis/Somalia etc), and attempt to discredit/demonise us with it, when we are in our full wikipedia rights to state our opinions, and if there is a pattern, then this only a sign of common interests revolving around a central theme.--Scoobycentric (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. It was synthesis on my part. I won't be pushing the argument you noted any further... But you're doing it also with the above. Your source doesn't refer to the declarative theory. It doesn't claim that Somaliland's ill-defined borders make it fail the Montevideo criteria. And it wouldn't either, as that's not what's meant by "defined territory":

Source: Similar consent exists regarding the issue that a state needs (b) a territory. Neither is the size of the territory itself important⁵ nor do the boundaries have to be defined precisely.⁶ Thus a border dispute with another country does not cast doubt on the territorial status of a country. It is only important that a country has a clear core territory in order to be a state.⁷

and

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

Night w (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby, Absolutely! Hard to ignore that most editors have a POV, but I would never argue that the side I mostly identify with, be solely represented in any article. I only agrue here that Somaliland should be listed in italics so as to signify the fact that it's an unrecognised state, And I don't feel like that is biased at all. In regard to the other conversation, did anyone read at all the article out of the Yale Journal of International Affairs? I fear not. Outback the koala (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Night: Your first source doesn't even discuss Somaliland i.e. your posting it above is still synthesis. As for the second source, it was long ago exposed as biased:

As the Director of the African Program in the Brussel-based International Crisis Group (ICG), Matt Bryden initiated and oversaw in 2006 the preparation and publication of a notorious one-sided sub-standard ICG report (Somaliland: Time for African Union Leadership http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?l=1&id=4131) promoting the breakup of Somalia and the recognition of Somaliland.

Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midday - you cannot recognize or not recognize a state as De Facto independent. It either is De Facto independent, or it is not De Facto Independent. All De Facto independent means is that the state/region governs itself. Does Somaliland govern most of its affairs? Yes! Case closed. I gave you the USSR example between 1917 and 1921, I can give you another one: the Confederate States of America(CSA); it is considered De Facto independent according to every single history book. Name me a single difference between the CSA and the current state that Somaliland is in. Just one. A car is either green, or it is not green. You can recognize it as red. Doesn't change the fact that it is green. There are no legal constructs for De Facto Independence, because independent in fact and independent in law are two different things. According to the law established by Justice Marshall, the US Troops were supposed to protect the Native Americans. According to what actually happened, they did not protect the Native Americans, as Andrew Jackson had no respect for the Supreme Court. You cannot use a legal construct, such as the Montevideo Convention, to establish facts. You can pass a law denying the Armenian Genocide, but that does not negate the fact of the genocide taking place. You are trying to use a legal construct to argue against a factual issue. That argument is bound to be inherently incorrect. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but ultimately irrelevant analogies. What you have just defined is autonomy, not whether or not a territory is a de facto independent country (not "de facto independent"; that could refer to anything -- region? province? country?). Actual criteria for establishing statehood are found in the Constitutive theory of statehood and the alternative Declarative theory of statehood. Since Somaliland is only recognized as a part of Somalia by the international community, it automatically fails the Constitutive theory of statehood, as the Constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if and only if it is recognized as sovereign by other states. The Declarative theory of statehood, for its part, also cites criteria for statehood, but is itself ultimately dependent on the Constitutive theory of statehood. So any way you cut it, Somaliland is not a country, and certainly not legally (see the quotes above). Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the whole point of Declarative Theory is that recognition is relevant only as a means of accepting that a state has met the criteria for statehood, and not definitive in and of itself. Your source is non-neutral and in this case its support for your position is far from clear: it argues that unrecognised states in practice start to be ignored - far from saying that they cease to legally exist. You are arguing that Montevideo is definitively against Somaliland when sources are divided. We can't do that on Wikipedia. Pfainuk talk 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not proven that that source is unreliable let alone with regard to Somaliland. You've just claimed it is with no actual evidence to back this up. And that source, of course, makes it clear that Montevideo is itself ultimately dependent upon recognition & that the "de facto states" argument has no basis in law. Since Somaliland is only legally recognized as a part of Somalia, the region has no place in this template alongside actual countries. Middayexpress (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to say that a source that's one person's opinion is definitive fact. Facts are different from opinions. And in any case, your source does not make the claim that you ascribe to it. It does not claim that states cease to exist de jure if they are not recognised. It merely says that in practice people start to ignore them - something entirely different. Pfainuk talk 11:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Which is why we include it with the clarifying footnote. It's a de facto state, but its status as a state is unrecognised by the international community. It's simple. If this debate continues much further then I think we should open a MedCab case. Night w (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now feel like this is going nowhere as well, we might have to bring this to a higher power(no I don't mean God). Outback the koala (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Somaliland is a self-declared state, and a territory which doesn't even meet many of the criteria for statehood to boot. Legally, it is only recognized the world over as a part of Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

My words don't seem to be registering on some editors here, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I've filed a MedCab case to hopefully tie this up. However, given that the outcome of this debate will probably result in implications in similar cases, I think it would be most productive to broaden the discussion and thus encourage a higher level of activity from other editors. It's not just Somaliland's placement that will be affected, so other editors with interest in the matter should be alerted, starting with the talk pages of other templates. If there are any objections or comments, please add them here in this section (which is not for continued discussion of the above) as there will be time to amend the casefile, if someone wishes it, before a mediator accepts the case. Night w (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Middayexpress (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Should Somaliland, a disputed entity, that some consider to be an independent de facto state, but unrecognized by any country or international organization (as per the List of states with limited recognition and the List of sovereign states page), be included in Templates? Some editors have suggested that including such states at all is pushing an imbalanced point of view and thus have made the argument for not including them. While other editors have argued to not include them at all, is not NPOV, and would not reflect the facts, but only certain opinions. Various conciliatory methods have been proposed, but none have achieved consensus. There are many articles referenced in the above debate, almost all have had their neutrality challenged at some point(some challenges valid, while others dubious). There are also arguments ongoing regarding the application of the Declarative theory of statehood and the Constitutive theory of statehood. Commenting Editors should note that the outcome of this debate will most likely have implications upon counterpart templates elsewhere. Outback the koala (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Outback the koala, I edit almost exclusively Somali-related pages because that is a subject I am knowledgeable on. When you, on the other hand, edit Somali-related pages, it is strictly limited to Somaliland-related edits and from a position of advocacy (such as these two edits 1, 2, where you attempt to claim that the region constitutes a "country" of its own). This can readily be seen in the template featured on your user page indicating that "This user recognizes the independence of Somaliland". Middayexpress (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, this isn't about you. It's about Somaliland. It is irrelevant where Middayexpress edited. It is irrelevant what tags Koala has. Please focus your edits on the issue at hand, not on each other. Having seen one too many Ad Hominem matches, I don't want this to degenerate into an Ad Hominem contest. Focus on the arguments, not the arguer. Focus on the edits that were made, not on who made the edits.

Readers: To correct that user above, there is no dispute at all that Somaliland is a part of Somalia. It is only recognized as such the world over. Please read the discussions above as well as this other post made at WP:NPOVN already asking for mediation. You will be interested to learn that consensus had already been reached in the past on this very issue; a precedent was set suggesting that Somaliland should be excluded from the template since it is not regarded by any UN state as independent, nor does it have any status in international law as an independent entity. Middayexpress (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One does not require De Jure recognition, or even a step in that direction, if the tag suggests that the state is merely De Facto independent. The sources that you cited Midday, and called unbiased, claim that the Isaaq tribe De Facto controls 50-60% of Somaliland. That admission is enough to call Somaliland De Facto independent, as it mirrors the situation of the Confederate States of America during the vast part of the Civil War. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in those sources does it state that Somaliland 'de facto' controls anything, that's original synth. However there have been sources provided that highlight Somaliland neither has a defined territory nor a stable population, and not to forget a neutral source with no connection to Somalia states that Somaliland is a 'pseudo-state'. Other points presented to prove Somaliland being a 'de facto state' have also been refuted above in the discussion, wether it's the Camouflage passports, that are not considered official/Legal or the lavish welcoming parties that are also extended to other autonomous states of Somalia.--Scoobycentric (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our principle of neutrality requires that where there is an international dispute, we at least allow for both sides of that dispute. Removing these entities would imply that they do not legitimately exist, a notion that would take one side in every dispute and would be fairly obviously non-neutral. Including them without specific marking would do the opposite: implying that they do legitimately exist - thereby taking the other side in every dispute. Neither approach should be acceptable to an encyclopædia that aspires to neutrality.

What we need to do is include all of these entities on the templates, but in such a way that they are clearly separated from those states whose legitimate existence is generally accepted. This template is separated into two sections. We could easily separate out a third. Or we could list them in a separate line underneath the generally accepted entities.

The only entities that should not be included at all are micronations and entities that do not have sovereign-like control over any part of their claimed territory. Entities that do not claim to be legally independent could be (but do not need to be) included as in this template, separated off both from generally recognised states and entities that claim independence. Pfainuk talk 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that we need to include all of these entities on the templates in just such a separate way, but my preference would be to have all states listed with states that are partially recognized/unrecognized being italicized with a clarifying statement at the bottom of the template. This seems to be the way it is with other templates and the way it was before Somaliland was taken out of this template by Midday. Outback the koala (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I hear you other editors; no I will not descend to his level and I will no longer reply to his posts anymore because whats the point, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over again(a good chunk of his comments no one disputes still) and either he's not reading other editors' posts or the arguments don't register(or he may not understand them). I feel it is not productive(in any way) to engage with discussion with him any longer and I will not be doing so. Outback the koala (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MedCab was unneccessary, there is already a NPOV discussion ongoing, this to me resembles Forum shopping because the neutral comment in the NPOVN was not the one the other side was looking for. Somaliland is completely unique in every sense of the word when it comes to seccessionist entities, the other entities that through previous consensus have been removed from other regional templates such as the Europe template, have unlike Somaliland atleast a country or two recognising their legality, the world consensus is that Somaliland is a region part and parcel of Somalia, and in no way do we at wikipedia have to include the opinion of the Somaliland government or it's advocates because they constitute a minority and wiki-policy is quite clear on that--Scoobycentric (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing and keeping order in several of the continental templates and my POV about NPOV is that all the entities that de facto control at least some of the territory they claim sovereignty and claim themselves to be independent should be included in the templates. If the entity is not (near) universally recognized then it should be mentioned as an unrecognized or a partially recognized entity. IMHO taking any other stand would be taking sides in the dispute. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 19:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]