Template talk:Numrec

asof values

Why "S" and "E" for the asof parameter values? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This allows for the "As of" text to be placed at ether the Start or the End of the output.

• {{Numrec|Pal|asof=S|Palestine has been recognized by|UN member states}}

=> As of 4 April 2024, Palestine has been recognized by 140 UN member states.

versus

• {{Numrec|Pal|asof=E|Palestine has been recognized by|UN member states}}

=> Palestine has been recognized by 140 UN member states as of 4 April 2024.

TDL (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Please check the numbers

The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour (not 131) to 9 against, with 41 abstentions. These are the official numbers (see GA/11317) --Yone Fernandes (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, but this number isn't the number of states which voted in favour of the GA resolution granting Palestine observer status. It's the number of states which have formally recognized Palestine as a sovereign state. Some of the states which supported the motion specifically stated that their vote should not be interpreted as recognition of the State of Palestine. TDL (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Danlaycock, but according to the source , "the draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions" (GA/11317).

It means that 138 states voted in favour of the UNGA GA resolution 67/19 which "accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, etc." . --Yone Fernandes (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't disagree that 138 states voted in favour of the resolution, but this is irrelevant to this template. Did you read what I wrote? This number isn't the number of states which voted to grant Palestine non-member state status in the UN. It's the number of states which have formally recognized the State of Palestine as a sovereign state which is not necessarily the same. See for instance the statements made by many states immediately after they voted in favour of the resolution: [1]

• New Zealand: "New Zealand has cast its vote accordingly based on the assumption that our vote is without prejudice to New Zealand’s position on its recognition of Palestine."
• Switzerland: "This decision does not involve a bilateral recognition of a Palestinian State, which will depend on future peace negotiations."
• Norway: "Our support of an upgraded status for Palestine in the United Nations does not prejudge the question of recognition. The national procedures to formally recognize the State of Palestine are still pending."
• Finland: "However, Finland’s vote does not imply formal recognition of a sovereign Palestinian State. That is a separate question and we will determine our national position on the matter in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution of Finland."
• Denmark: "Our vote, however, does not imply formal bilateral recognition of a sovereign Palestinian State. That is a separate question that we will continue to consider within a framework established by international law."
• Belgium: "For Belgium, the resolution adopted today by the General Assembly does not yet constitute a recognition of a State in the full sense."

None of these states recognize the Sate of Palestine's independence, even though they all voted in favour of the resolution. TDL (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

It seems to me that the numerical data used by this template could be usefully stored as a Wikidata property (which would in particular make it available to other projects). What do you think?—Emil J. 13:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

numbers

Can we get standard number output, so numbers <10 are spelled out? ie six instead of 6. Also there is a random 136 at the top of the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimandia (talk • contribs) 09:18, 27 November 2015‎ (UTC)

added template:spellnum for numbers less than 10. the 136 at the top is a demonstration for palestine. Frietjes (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn Recognition Currently not Subtracting from the Number of Recognitions

I can't help but notice on the {{Numrec/Abkhazia}}, {{Numrec/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic}}, and on {{Numrec/South Ossetia}} the number of states recognising each of the aforementioned states includes states that have withdrawn recognition from the given state. Is there any specific reason for this practice? over the practice of only listing the recognitions that have not been withdrawn. As I feel that both {{Numrec/Abkhazia}} and {{Numrec/South Ossetia}} are not being utilized for this reason. If one deducts the withdrawn recognitions from Abkhazia and South Ossetia from their current recognition total, they would each have 5 recognitions. However, this template will return 7 for Abkhazia and 6 for South Ossetia. If one navigates to International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia the tables over there list states that have withdrawn recognition separately from those that have not withdrawn recognition of either state. However, if we instead navigate to International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic the table lists them all together and simply highlights the states that have officially withdrawn recognition. Please if someone could help me to understand why the template was constructed in this way, as it seems to me to be very POV biased in favor of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic due to the large number of recognitions for that "state" that have subsequently been withdrawn (39 out of 84 total equaling 45 currently), while the very low number of withdrawn recognitions for Abkhazia (2 out of 7 total equaling 5 currently) and South Ossetia (1 out of 6 total eualing 5 currently) do not make much difference overall.
And, yes, before it is asked, I do understand the concept that withdrawing recognition of a "state" is something that may not be strictly possible. However I will point out that this concept is still open to debate.
I guess the bigger question that I am trying to ask here is why are we using a practice on one part of Wikipedia that is so different to a practice being carried out on another part of wikipeida. For the sake of the full utilization of this template, I would ask for some consistency and common practice across these similar articles. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

″N″ is the number of states which have ever recognized, of which ″W″ have withdrawn recognition. Template is working correctly. Jan CZ (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why are only 5 states listed in the table in the following section: International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia#States formally recognising Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent? Yes I am aware there is a second table well below the first in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia#States that recognised Abkhazia or South Ossetia as independent, but subsequently withdrew recognition which list the states that have 'withdrawn' recognition, however this practice is not done on International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I am simply asking for a common way of listing these entries, both here on the template, as well as in the articles, so there is no POV bias. - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jan CZ. Additionally, unlike your statement above, the template states that; "N: [is the] Number of states which have extended recognition" mentioning nothing about weather this is inclusive for the number or states that have ever recognised "state" X, or weather it is exclusive of the states that have subsequently withdrawn recognition. A big assumption is being made when you state: "″N″ is the number of states which have ever recognized". - Wiz9999 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that you can get the correct number of states currently recognizing Abkhazia using {{#expr:{{Numrec/Abkhazia|N}}-{{Numrec/Abkhazia|W}}}} but I do think changes should be made to allow for consistency across Wikipedia articles regarding states with limited recognition. Like many others, my first guess as to what "N" means would be that N is the correct number of states that recognize the state (the current number) and that if expressions were necessary, that they would be handled by the template without requiring the use of a second template. It is evident that N is the number of states which have recognized regardless of withdrawal, but this is problematic because the foreign relations article of Abkhazia does display only five, and I'm not sure whether this is unintentional or if N equals current+W (which is not beneficial). This template needs reworking to be ideal. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This method of marking N and W is valid for all articles (also for Int.recognition of Kosovo etc.), and this form ensures consistency across Wikipedia. This exists stable and long term. N is a significant number because recognition is unconditional and irrevocable according to international law. Current structure and functioning of the template is usable without any problems in all relevant articles. I see no reason to modify the template. Jan CZ (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"recognition is unconditional and irrevocable according to international law." As far as I can tell that is a matter of opinion/still up for debate. I challenge you to find a RS that states this. Note: Diplomatic recognition#Withdrawal of recognition
In fact I have just now found one that states that it can be withdrawn.[2] However, in this mentioned case, the recognition is transferred to another entity. Such a system of withdrawal directly affects cases like Taiwan's, but it is still unclear if this applies to situations like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, or Kosovo, as these are "new" states and the recognition isn't necessarily being transferred anywhere. (With Taiwan it is being transferred to the PRC). - Wiz9999 (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if what Jan CZ says is true, I find it very troubling that we would count a country as recognising a state when its most recent statement on the matter is explicit that it does not recognise that state. We would, I think, need in each individual case a source that explicitly says though Tuvalu purported to withdraw recognition from Abkhazia this is not possible under international law - i.e. naming both recogniser and recognised - before including countries that have withdrawn recognition in our tables, lists and templates.

I also believe that ignoring withdrawals of recogniton puts us significantly outside the mainstream. Look for sources discussing Syria's recent recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they list 5 states, not 6/7.

The default output of this template should be the number of countries that currently recognise a given entity as a state, discounting any country that has withdrawn recognition. Kahastok talk 17:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That "recognition is unconditional and irrevocable" is recognized by the Montevideo Convention, which codified customary international law on the subject. Of course there are contrarian views, but I think it's clear that whether a state which has withdrawn recognition "currently recognizes" is at the very least debatable and contentious. What is indisputable are two things:

1) The number of states that have extended recognition

2) The number of states that have withdrawn recognition

Whether states that have withdrawn recognition "currently recognize" is contentions. Claiming that they do not is WP:OR, and takes a particular WP:POV on a contentions debate. This is why the template doesn't treat them as "current recognizers". It's specifically designed to be agnostic on that matter. It simply provides the two indisputable figures on the matter. The template should be used in such a way to give both figures (ie As of September 2022, a total of 84 countries have recognized SADR, of which 38 have withdrawn), and let the reader decide what the "correct" answer is.

One option would be to force the template by default to return both figures in the format above, unless some override limits it to either N or W. TDL (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the statement that "recognition is unconditional and irrevocable" is that it is ridiculous. I don't see anyone proposing to add East Germany or South Yemen to any modern list of sovereign states. If recognition cannot be revoked, then they are still recognised states, surely?

Perhaps if we had a current (post-withdrawal) source affirming the claim that (for example) Tuvalu and Vanuatu still recognise Abkhazia, I would accept that they ought to be included. You say that it is WP:OR to suggest that they do not recognise or withdrew recognition - but it isn't, it is trivial to find sources that reach that conclusion both explicitly and implicitly (by enumerating the states that recognise and not including the states that have withdrawn).

Even if that were WP:OR, it is surely obvious that the worse WP:OR is the suggestion to the contrary - that recognition still exists despite a purported withdrawal, when the only thing suggesting that it does is an 85-year old treaty (a primary source) that does not mention Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Western Sahara and that most of countries in question have not even signed, let alone ratified. Kahastok talk 15:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If a state ceases to exist (ie East Germany) then there is no polity claiming sovereignty so nothing left recognize (or for that matter withdraw recognition from). This is a primary criteria of our list of sovereign states. So that's not really an equivalent comparison.

The debate is not over whether the state withdrew recognition or not, it's about the legality of the withdrawal. (Recognition is after all a legal concept.) It's not our job to determine whether international law is "ridiculous" or not. Obviously such a judgement is WP:OR. We must follow authoritative sources on the matter, without interjecting our personal opinions on those sources. The MV is certainly not the only thing suggesting this view. There is lots of literature on the subject, with diverging views. See for example "if recognition is withdrawn before loss of control, such premature withdrawal of recognition is also illegal." Again, I'm not saying that there is a consensus view on this, but certainly there is at lest debate on the point.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we claim that these recognition are currently valid, as that is also taking a POV. Quite the contrary. If you read the sentence above, it avoids making any such a claim by only specifying the states which have historically recognized, coupled with the states that have withdrawn. This avoids making any WP:OR conclusions about the legal validity of the withdrawals. TDL (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Except that we do in fact claim that these recognitions are currently valid in most instances of this template on Wikipedia. Specifically, they refer to Kosovo and use the direct output from this template, without mentioning the two states that have withdrawn recognition. Which is understandable - that's what the template format encourages you to do.

The default for Kosovo isn't "113, including two that later withdrew recognition", it's just "113". The default output of the template for Abkhazia isn't "seven, including two that later withdrew recognition", it's just "seven". But when you actually look at the sources - including Russian-biased sources such as this one - the number they give is five. That one mentions the two withdrawals (most Western sources don't), but even they treat it as five plus two withdrawn, not seven minus two withdrawn.

This template as it is likely to be used puts Wikipedia out of step with the rest of the world. We appear to be the only source on either side of that dispute that even allows that it might be seven countries recognising Abkhazia and not five. And that's really really not where we should be. Kahastok talk 19:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In terms of external sources usage, here is an example from the same source that gives the number at six (predating Syrian recognition): [3]. Abkhazia's MFA itself claims seven: [4]. Again, I'm not claiming that this is universal, but the figure itself is disputed.

If the template is being used inappropriately in some places then that's a separate problem. But if you look at say International recognition of Kosovo, it's being used as I described above. Besides, even if the template returned N-W by default, it would still be improper to use it to just report that number without the context of the withdrawals, for the reasons explained above.

As proposed above, I'm onboard with having the template default to output both numbers to avoid any sort of misuse. TDL (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Considering the values involved for the various states; 111 or 113 recognitions for Kosovo, 5 or 6 recognitions for South Ossetia, 5 or 7 recognitions for Abkhazia, and 45 or 84 recognitions for SADR. I would say whichever way this is decided it is most definitely going to impact articles that use the template for SADR the most. To be perfectly frank, 111 or 113 are not massively different figures from one another, as is also the case for 5 or 6 and 5 or 7. The difference is a drop in the ocean with respect to Kosovo, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia's figures are so low to begin with that it is clear that the majority of the world has rejected accepting these as "states". However for SADR, a potential reduction from 84 to 45 is a significant change across its articles. Thus, the POV effects of keeping the template as it is, or reducing it, will impact the various articles that use it for that purpose the most.

Now, that being said, my opinion on the matter is that the less POV biased thing to do is to reduce the number to those that have not withdrawn recognition. As has been stated before, it is not up to us to decide on this controversial subject, it should be up to the RS's. After all we are not lawyers or advocates, we are wikipedians, and we must always strive to take as neutral a POV as possible in reporting information on wikipedia. However, the RS's disagree with each other in this matter (weather withdrawing recognition is an acceptable thing for a state to do or not). But I feel it would be folly to ignore the facts. The fact is that 39 states have clearly withdrawn recognition from SADR (we have many sources on International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic demonstrating this), meaning that they consider "withdrawl of recognition" to be something that is possible to do (logic would dictate this). In addition, 2 states from the Abkhazia/South Ossetia situation, and 2 states from the Kosovo situation have also done the same thing, bringing the total number of countries in just these four cases to 43 states (ignoring any other historical occurrences of this). Meaning we have documented, reliable, sourced information telling us that 43 state governments essentially consider that you can "withdraw" recognition, despite the controversy on the action. Are we really going to decide collectively here on wikipedia to go against the opinion of 43 state governments? (Especially since we have this documented and sourced.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

On another note, I am going to elevating this discussion to WP:NPOVN, as it is a discussion that could affect values seen on hundreds and hundreds of wikipedia articles, along with the table structure on the following articles: International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and International recognition of Kosovo. Also this template (naturally). - Wiz9999 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is rather my view. When we have sovereign governments telling us they have withdrawn recognition, our telling them they're wrong feels like a WP:REDFLAG.

For the same reason, if we were to put two numbers by default (and this would not be ideal, but may be a suitable compromise in my view), I think it should be N-W and W, i.e. the number who have not withdrawn, then the number who have withdrawn. Kahastok talk 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. - Wiz9999 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, the dispute isn't over whether states have claimed to withdraw their recognition (clearly they have), the dispute is over the implications under international law. The states themselves are WP:PRIMARY sources, so can't be reliable, objective sources for the latter question since this requires a legal interpretation of their claims. As a similar example, Argentina tells us that Falkland Islands are part of its sovereign territory. Are you suggesting that we should not write that "The United Kingdom and Argentina both claim the Falkland Islands" (rather than the Falkland Islands are legally part of Argentina) since this would be telling Argentina that it is "wrong"? Argentina is a reliable source for it's claims, but can't be a reliable source for the legal validity of its claims.

The statement "X states have extended recognition, of which Y have withdrawn their recognition" in no way implies that the withdrawals are "wrong" as suggested above. States that withdraw recognition obviously do not dispute that they have previously extended recognition. Conversely, the statement "X states currently recognise, and a further Y have withdrawn their recognition" concludes in Wikipedia's voice that these notices of withdrawal have the legal consequence of invalidating their prior recognition, which as sources above demonstrate is legally debatable.

Given that we can formulate the facts in a neutral, indisputable form, it's not clear to me what advantages there is to the alternative formulation. If we can avoid OR, why shouldn't we? TDL (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@TDL "Given that we can formulate the facts in a neutral, indisputable form". This is precisely the problem. We can't.
This is because the number value is not neutral, nor indisputable. It is subject to interpretation, because of the disputed nature of "withdrawal" of recognition. It is POV to say "we will include all of the recognisers", and it is POV to say "we will include all of the recognisers that have not withdrawn". We have to choose the lesser of two evils here. You are saying that it is better to not consider the "withdrawers" because it will cause OR statements like; "X states currently recognise, and a further Y have withdrawn their recognition", while Kahastok and I are saying that the majority of UN member states are largely silent on the disputed nature of "withdrawal" EXCEPT for those that have actually performed a "withdrawal" of recognition. Kahastok and I are also saying that if we DO consider the "withdrawals" than we are at least not going directly counter to sourced statements made by 43 UN member states, thus making this option the lesser POV-y choice of the two. Now I would argue that it is far easier to fix an OR statement, like the aforementioned one, here on Wikipedia than to deal with the POV implications of choosing to not consider the "withdrawals" of recognition.
For instance, I will fix the example you have given to make it less OR; "X states currently recognise, while a further Y states currently consider their recognition withdrawn". - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I find the Falklands analogy a bit of a false equivalence because in that case we have to respect both positions and treat them fairly with an appropriate discussion of the facts - reflecting the legal arguments of the two states involved and taking account of the facts on the ground. Note that the sentence you raise does not say that the Argentine claim is incorrect or illegal or improper, only that it is one of two competing claims. The problem here is that including withdrawn recognitions in a count of recognitions does say that the withdrawers still recognise the states in question.

One thing we deliberately don't do on those articles is try and draw simple numerical comparisons of anything in particular. The problems with numbers there are a rather more extreme version of we're bumping up against here (but luckily we don't have to make the comparisons in that case). Having to give a number that (as always in these cases) hides a multitude of assumptions, many of which may not be neutral, is problematic. And a different number makes different assumptions, which may also not be neutral. There is no problem-free number that you can give. The best outcome if we can is to avoid giving a number. But here, I think we can't avoid it.

What concerns me that we are effectively saying India recognises SADR when the Indian government would say we do not recognise SADR - we are directly contradicting them in a way we don't do with Argentina and the Falklands. It concerns me that these are points where numbers are reported by external sources, and we put ourselves out of the mainstream. Yes, it's awkward that people want a simple number where there isn't one.

Perhaps we can work toward a form of words that would resolve this? We could say something like "X states currently consider Z-ia to be a state, while a further Y states have done so in the past"? This gets away from the legal implications of "recognition". Kahastok talk 21:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"Given that we can formulate the facts in a neutral, indisputable form". This is precisely the problem. We can't. Can you please explain what is disputable about the statement that "X states have extended recognition, of which Y have withdrawn their recognition"? Even if some states have subsequently withdrawn their recognition, it remains unarguably true that they have previously extended recognition. Their subsequent withdrawal does not change that. Conversely, the claim that "X-Y states currently recognize" does indeed require interpretion of primary sources to conclude that their withdrawal implies that their recognition is legally invalidated.

Consider this example. X people enter contracts to buy houses. Of these, Y subsequently enter contracts to resell their houses. However, the legality of these re-sales is disputed in court. Now we can say without any dispute that "X people have signed contracts to buy houses, of which Y have entered contracts to resell their houses." What we cannot say is "X-Y people currently own houses" because that concludes (in wikipedia's voice) that the Y resellers do not currently own their houses, even though that is disputed. X and Y are agreed by consensus. X-Y is a derived, disputed number.

The rephrase "X-Y states currently recognise, while a further Y states currently consider their recognition withdrawn" doesn't help the situation, because you are still claiming that only X-Y states "currently recognize".

we have to respect both positions and treat them fairly with an appropriate discussion of the facts - reflecting the legal arguments of the two states involved - That's why I used this example. I've provided a number of sources above showing the debate on the legality of the withdrawal of recognition. Here is a source from Kosovo, where the government explicitly says "in the international law there is no concept of withdrawing a recognition". Claiming that states that have withdrawn their recognition do not "currently recognize" ignores one side of a contentions dispute, effectively saying that one side is "incorrect" or "illegal". Listing the recognitions and withdrawals separately presents both sides of the debate and lets readers decide. Telling readers that withdrawers do not currently reocognize is taking a POV. We shouldn't decide for readers what the "right" answer is.

including withdrawn recognitions in a count of recognitions does say that the withdrawers still recognise the states in question - Except that by construction and by definition this template is not a count of states that "still recognise the states". It is a count of states which have extended recognition. This was done deliberately to avoid taking a POV on the disputed nature of withdrawals.

we are effectively saying India recognises SADR - Again, we are not saying that. We are saying that India extended recognition to SADR, and then withdrew it. I see no reason why the Indian government would in no way dispute that, since it is completely aligned with what they have said on the matter historically. India isn't pretending that that they never extended recognition, they just subsequently changed their mind and withdrew their prior recognition. (The SADR government might dispute it, because they would argue that India can't withdraw recognition.) TDL (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Threading break

Just a reminder that the number of countries that recognize Kosovo is 110, not 111. Last month Guinea-Bissau's speaker of parliament paid an official visit to Serbia and reaffirmed that his country did not recognize Kosovo's independence . 23 editor (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but that change needs to be confirmed in the article first before it is applied here, but this subject is off topic anyway. - Wiz9999 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)