Talk:International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vietnam

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Dan, the claim about the alleged withdrawn of recognition (which should happen in 2010 or earlier) come from the Moroccan sources and from the Moroccan side. We have no official confirmation from Vietnam. Both SADR and Morocco are masters at propaganda, and often supply the world considerably colourfull claims (Morocco-Honduras, SADR-Chad, etc.). Vietnam de facto supports Moroccan claims and maybe de facto no recognize SADR (perhaps due to economic and political interests). But probably without formally withdrew recognition and relations, Vietnam is pretty conservative. The source documenting the continuation of diplomatic relations is the official list of the MFA, regularly updated (Bhutan, 2012). The official update is at least three years after the alleged withdrawal of recognition. I see no relevant reason to question this official source. And I see no reason why this source delete and deny him the readers. I cannot agree with that. Indeed, let the reader reads all the resources and make an opinion yourself whether the alleged cancellation of relations believe it or not. I think that we should not present claims as fact and delete (official) sources which told something else. Jan CZ (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, virtually every source in the article relies on either Morrocan or Sahrawi sources, either directly or indirectly. We have no official confirmation from Zambia, Vanuatu, or Paraguay, etc. that they've resumed recognition. These claims are based entire on Sahrawi claims. I agree that ideally everything should be based on neutral sources, but trust me I've spent a significant amount of time searching for sources the last couple of weeks (as evidence by the large number which I've added to the article) and it's quite difficult to find neutral sources.

The official MFA list isn't convincing because it doesn't explicitly support the claim. It could simply be an error of omission. As a counter example, the SADR embassy to Algeria claims that Albania, Guatemala, Dominican Republic still maintain relations with SADR. The site was updated 22/10/2006, years after these recognitions were allegedly withdrawn by these countries. By your logic we'd need to claim that they still maintain relations even though other sources contradict this and suggest that the list just wasn't properly updated.

If you can find a source which explicitly says "Vietnam maintained diplomatic relations with the SADR as of 2013" I agree that this should be included. But a summary list that hasn't been updated since our most recent sources saying they withdrew recognition isn't convincing. TDL (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note the difference in position. SADR and Morocco, of course, have no interest in updating the unwanted information. It is fairly common and lists from these countries cannot be taken as a major source. In our case, but it is completely different. Here we have a government source of Vietnam, who is not a participant in the conflict, and due to his de facto support of Morocco certainly it has no interest in deliberately conceal information, like withdrawal of recognition of the SADR. The omission is highly unlikely. Vietnam is not a banana Republic. And the pages are proven to be updated. In addition, the text clearly and explicitly says that Vietnam now (may 2013) maintains diplomatic relations with 180 States. And SADR is one of them. I think it's completely relevant evidence, which should be recorded, not denied. The theory of a bad update is POV, no substantive reason for it.

Your new source does not bring anything new, rather the contrary. Notice: a journalist commenting that Vietnam supports the territorial integrity of Morocco, but then admits that the Vietnamese politician said (only) that they supports Morocco in its efforts to solve this problem.

For major countries we have fairly compelling evidence of withdrawal of recognition of the SADR, confirmed these countries directly, and certainly no lists with SADR. It is fact that we have nothing about Vietnamese withdrawal from Vietnam. Vietnam continue to formally maintains relations with SADR, precisely it says official site of MFA Vietnam with the date 05/2013. Jan CZ (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"have no interest in updating the unwanted information" - well they did. They've updated India, Madagascar, Nicaragua, etc with "bad" information that took place AFTER other bad information that they didn't update. Your theory that they updated some states, but not others, because the information was "bad" is equally POV. You can't have it both ways.

I'm certainly not suggesting the Vietnam is intentionally concealing info. I'm suggesting that a list that was made many years ago, and occasionally updated, should not be taken as definitive proof that everything on the list is up to date when we have contradicting sources.

What is this "compelling evidence" of withdrawal of recognition you speak of for Guatemala as an example? Right now the only source in the article is the Moroccan ministry of foreign affairs and cooperation. I don't find that very compelling myself.... What about Vanuatu? Zambia? Ghana? Nicaragua? None of these have been officially confirmed. I understand your desire to wait for confirmation, but if we're going to do that then we need to be consistent about it.

I'm not sure what your point about "journalists" is. The article quotes anybody, the whole thing is a journalist's interpretation of the conversation. But "Le président de la délégation du Parti communiste du Vietnam (PCV) en visite au Maroc du 2 au 5 juin, à l’invitation du Parti du progrès et du socialisme (PPS) a réaffirmé, lundi 3 juin 2013 à Rabat, la position de soutien de son pays et de son parti à l’intégrité territoriale du Royaume" is pretty clear. Unless you're suggesting that the journalist is lying, I'm not sure how else the statement can be interpreted.

I've started a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a list that is occasionally updated good evidence that everything on the list up to date? to see what others think about this dispute. Feel free to comment. TDL (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Is it by my bad English? I'm saying that SADR and Morocco (as Your example, the SADR embassy to Algeria ) are not interested in updating the "bad" information, because they are the parties of the conflict. Their (SADR, Morrocan) lists are unreliable sources. And I'm saying that the lists CREATED BY DIFFERENT countries (as by MFA Vietnam) are more credible, because they (Vietnam etc.) are not a participants in the SAR-Morroco conflict. What is illogical on it?

Dan, the cases which you assert are different. In any of these countries, years after the withdrawal of recognition, SADR is not on any lists of MFA as country that maintains diplomatic relations with this countries. Guatetemala? SADR does not figure on MFA Guatemala list of countries that maintain diplomatic relations with Guatemala. So your comparison is not at all adequate.

In addition to Vietnam, article is inconsistent right now, by totally ignoring the page of the MFA Vietnam. Or are we ignoring the other lists of other MFA? I don't know about them. I'm not saying at all that the lists (as MFA Vietnam) are very reliable, but we should not ignore them.

In article, politician says „La République socialiste du Vietnam...continueront d’appuyer le Maroc dans ses efforts visant à régler ce problème“. A journalist from it concludes that Vietnam supports Moroccan territorial integrity. But what does it mean? Politician talks about the efforts of the FUTURE solution, but any support of solution as integration of Western Sahara by accepting the Autonomy plan, future "territorial integrity of Morroco" does not mean de iure recognition of WS as part of Morroco now and does not mean withdrawal of recognition of SADR now.

Personally, I think the Vietnamese positions to SADR is maybe similar to the Czech position on Palestine. Czech Rep. is strongly behind the Israel, it does not recognize Palestine de facto, it talks exclusively about the Palestinian autonomy, never about the SoP, in UNGA it votes against the Palestinian status of observer, but formally with SoP still maintains diplomatic relations. It's the same for Vietnam. It supports the Moroccan proposals for the future resolution of the conflict, expressing his support, de facto ignores SADR, but probably (purely formally) still maintains relationships with SADR.

I still think the source of the MFA Vietnam cannot be ignored. Jan CZ (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be ignored. The question is, how much weight do we give this source in the face of contradicting information. Is the list alone enough to justify classify them as still recognizing? My argument is no based on the reasons explained about, but I agree that it should be mentioned in the article.

Have you read the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_list_that_is_occasionally_updated_good_evidence_that_everything_on_the_list_up_to_date.3F? What do you think of my suggestion there to create a separate category of states who's status is "unclear"? This might be the best way to deal with the situation because there are several states who's position isn't 100% clear, and making a definitive statement on their position, one way or the other, probably isn't a NPOV way of presenting the information. TDL (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Soon I'll add a comment both here and in the discussion Reliable_sources, please be patient, I don't have free time. Jan CZ (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

As regards the proposed group of countries "unclear". I understand the reasons for, the maximum efforts to NPOV. But be aware of the following: a similar incongruity and the ambiguity in the classification, there are a lot of similar cases in a lot of similar articles with lists. Niue between sovereign countries belongs to, or is it unclear? Uganda acknowledges Kosovo or is it unclear? Repeal of Vanuatu, the de jure recognition of Abkhazia or is it unclear? Etc. Always occurs to either the inclusion or non-inclusion of the item in a particular list. A new category of unclear would be completely at odds with the past practice for all articles with lists. Sometimes it's hard to find a consensus on the classification of items to lists. But in the end it always succeeds. What would be the criteria for inclusion in the subroup of "unclear"? Even the slightest differences in the sources? Big contradictions? How to determine the border? Here it will be impossible to reach agreement, and eventually ends up here half the items. I think it was a very unfortunate precedent.

How to decide the dispute about inclusion? The weight of the sources in the case of Vietnam: Diplomatic relations 100% means the official, de jure recognition. And for this State recognition we have completely relevant and reliable source which speaks quite clearly that both countries maintain relations (=Vietnam recognizes the SADR). We have no reason to call into question in any way relevant to this source.

On the other hand, the source of the withdrawn of recognition are somewhat hazy. Withdrawn of recognition described in the sources may be in fact the only de facto (as in the case of Czech Rep.-Palestine, where Czech Rep. de-facto does not recognize Palestine, but still maintains diplomatic relations with it), so these sources may but may not prove de jure withdrawn of recognition of the SADR. In addition, they are the source of one of the parties to the conflict. For these sources, then we have a problem with both: the credibility and the interpretation of their content. I think the above reasons are insufficient to reclassification of Vietnam to a subset of "non-recognizers".

In terms of the sources that we have. Personally, I think that our resources are not, in breach together. They reveal more about the inconsistency of Vietnamese policy: formally honored the old agreement (formal relations with SADR, for legal reasons), but de facto no recognize (the de facto support of Morocco for economic and political reasons).

I think it should remain Vietnam between recognizers. What I suggest as the compromise solution? We can use two existing precedent. On the International recognition of Kosovo: for unclear countries added comments "Disputed". On Foreign relations of SADR is the number of former relations of SADR followed by "Note" about this number and problems with sources.

We have a unique number of countries that recognise the SADR (84 + 1). This article is about this list. And we have an ambiguous sub list of countries which have recognized, but later cancelled. This number can be used to insert a comment about the lack of reliable sources and the problem of their interpretation. (the real total may vary). For countries which we have included/non-included with a high degree of uncertainty, we can insert a note "Disputed" (Vietnam).

To solve the case of Vietnam, we have suitable precedents (general Note for numbers of withdrawal and a notes Disputed for unclear country). We can use them. To be consistent. Is it possible for You? Regards. Jan CZ (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for just getting back to this discussion, and the length of the response.

The fact that a certain classification is use on other articles isn't a very strong argument for making similar classifications here. There is lots of WP:OTHERCRAP on Wikipedia. We should be making a policy based decision on what to do in this specific case.

"Diplomatic relations 100% means the official, de jure recognition." - No it doesn't. States maintain diplomatic relations with the EU but don't recognize it: [1] [2]. States maintain diplomatic relations with Palestine but don't recognize it: [3] [4] [5].

The Vietnamese source is dated (older than the most recent Moroccan source) and doesn't directly support the claim. That is merely your interpretation of the source. One first has to assume that diplomatic relations imply recognition (which I have disproved above). The claim that Vietnam and SADR established relations is undisputed. But do they still recognize? You are arguing that the absence of evidence on this list is evidence that relations have not been canceled. But the absence of evidence doesn't prove that recognition has not been withdrawn. Conversely, we have numerous sources which explicitly state that they no longer recognize.

One must also assume that since this isn't a new source, but rather an old source that has been sporadically updated over the years, that the Vietnam MFA has always been rigorous in maintaining the source. Maintaining a dynamically updated list over many years without errors creeping in is incredibly difficult to do. (Just ask anyone who has ever had to do a warehouse inventory.) Want a perfect example of this? Look at the equivalent table from the MFA of Montenegro. The sources says "Number of countries that have established diplomatic relations with Montenegro: 165". They are wrong. In September 2012 the MFA put out a press release stating that they had established diplomatic relations with Ghana. (The link is dead but you can see a preview here). However, in spite of the list being regularly updated (as recently as yesterday for Lesoto), Ghana is not listed as having diplomatic relations with Montenegro. Obviously someone forgot to add them at the time, and since then people have been happily updating the list, assuming it was completely up to date, all the while not realizing that it was wrong because Ghana wasn't listed. Is this evidence that Ghana hasn't established diplomatic relations with Montenegro? No, of course not. The absence of evidence doesn't prove that something hasn't happened.

For all we know, some high school intern is keeping the MFA source up to date. Conversely, the Moroccan sources attribute (but doesn't quote) the statements to the high ranking Hoàng Bình Quân, head of the Foreign Relations Committee.

While we can debate Vietnam, there are other cases that are even more unclear. I've found sources which cite Iranian authorities saying they withdrew recognition 20 years ago, and other sources that cite Iranian authorities saying they have never withdrawn recognition. It seems even the Iranians don't know whether they recognize or not. (I've got a big backlog of sources I want to add to the article which will clarify the position of a number of states, but have been mostly holding off until this dispute is resolved.)

If, as you are arguing , there is an "inconsistency of Vietnamese policy", that is all the more reason why we certainly should NOT be trying to pretend that their policy is consistent. If they are inconsistent, we should report that they are inconsistent (ie unclear) rather than trying to pigeonhole them into one of two overly simplistic criteria. Your hypothesis that they still formally retain relations but de facto don't recognize is just that, a hypothesis unsupported by any sources.

I disagree with your compromise solution. I could, likewise, propose that we list them as non-recognizing, with a "disputed" footnote. I suspect that you will disagree with this compromise for the same reasons that I disagree with your proposed compromise. The only neutral solution is to tell readers that we don't know whether they still recognize or not, because the truth is that we don't.

Both editors which responded to the RS/N discussion endorsed my compromise solution, so it seems like there is a WP:Rough consensus to utilize this approach. If you like, I can ask them to comment here further on your response, to see if you've convinced them? Otherwise, the next options for dispute resolution would be to ask for a WP:3O or start a WP:RFC. TDL (talk) 05:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Dan, diplomatic relations between the two States, of course, always mean the mutual recognition of these States, the evidence is sufficient. The example of Palestine, it also proves, not denies it. All States that maintain diplomatic relations with the SoP shall recognise the SoP. Those who do not recognise the SoP, maintain diplomatic relations only with the PLO.

The line about Vietnam is inconsistent with the others. Denies key credible source, and builds on the vague observations relating to some unknown past. I cannot agree with that. Jan CZ (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And I can't agree with ignoring credible sources either. As I said above, the only neutral solution is to say that the sources are contradictory. The RS/N compromise seems like the best option for that. Do you have any alternatives? TDL (talk) 06:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The third category – unclear, represents a problematic precedent to all articles of this type. Do we create a special category for unclear recognition in article International recognition of Kosovo (for 3 States having note "Disputed")? Etc? How much states will be in this category "unclear" in this article? I prefer inclusion into existing categories and, where appropriate, to add explanatory notes. If you insist in this case, the inclusion of Vietnam into the non-recognizers (with notes), OK. I disagree, but it's better than creating a special category. What with diplomatic relations column? I thing should be Yes here (with note). We have a clear source that says so. The alleged cancellation of the recognition may be the only de facto, no source thus maintaining relations, even indirectly.

It might not be bad to send to the MFA of Vietnam, a query on the existence of diplomatic relations with SADR. I recently posted similar question to Switzerland because of relations with Niue, and I got the answer, including ample thanks to that I drew attention to the lack of clarity in their position. Right now I don't have time. Do you want to try it, Dan? I hope that we can find not only a compromise, but also new information that prove the fact. Jan CZ (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that ideally we'd find more sources so that the situation is clarified, one way or the other. I actually sent the MFA of Vietnam (as well as vietnamembassy-morocco.org) an email back in September, but didn't get a response. I just forwarded the message to vietnamembassy-algerie.org, perhaps they'll have some insight on the matter. Another option would be to try and find someone who speaks Vietnamese to help in the quest to find sources or send emails in the native language. Latin based languages I can do, but I'm useless at Vietnamese. Users in Category:User_vi would be a good place to start looking.

I think there's a difference between Kosovo's situation and SADR's. In Kosovo's case, the situations are unclear only because the facts themselves are unclear. Here, it isn't the facts that are unclear, it's that we lack sufficient sources to even know what the facts are. So for example, I can tell you exactly what happened with STP & Kosovo: Parliament/Government/PM recognizes without Presidential approval, subsequently the President publishes a decree that invalidates recognition. We deal with that situation by looking at whether RS conclude that these facts constitute recognition or not. Here, we just don't have enough sources to make an informed, conclusive evaluation of whether recognition has been withdrawn or not. As I mentioned above, Iran's situation is even more unclear. Sometimes, the only neutral way to deal with a lack of information is to say that we don't know.

PS: Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to hear what the outcome of your discussion with the Swiss was, as this is a perpetual issue at Talk:List of sovereign states. Perhaps drop me a summary on my talk page, or forward me the email via the "Email this user" if you don't mind, so that we don't clutter this already lengthy discussion. TDL (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the situation in the cases of Kosovo and the recognition of the SADR is different. Yet in these cases is the essence of the same – we do not know for sure whether the recognition is valid or not. I try to made a compromise, please check if it is OK. Thank You. Jan CZ (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All the sources are Moroccan. According to them "withdrawal" was announced by Moroccan Foreign Minister during his meeting with his Zambian colleague, who declared that his country also stops SADR recognition but was later accused of being bribed by Moroccans, whereupon Zambian recognition of SADR was resumed. Furthermore, PNG is called "latest African country to withdraw its recognition of Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" in the only accessible English-language source. Qbli2mHd (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are several sources in article, all speaking the same: PNG "withdraw" recognition of SADR. Yes, they based only on the information about the note verbale. But it is unfortunately a reality: we have only a very weak sources for most cases of "withdrawal", "freezing" or renewal of recognition of the SADR. Jan CZ (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The definition of a 'state' is open to interpretation, and so any count based on a 'number of states' is open to misunderstanding. On the other hand, 'United Nations member' is incontrovertible, so communicates much more clearly to the reader. I am not sure what agenda is being served by the apparent determination of one editor to include South Ossetia, but it does not seem to be the uncontroversial presentation of facts to the reader. Kevin McE (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In all the articles "International recognition of…" recognition from States with limited recognition are included. There is a general consensus. There is no one author's position (why You told it?). No any reason for the disposal of recognitions granted from States with limited recognition (from articles). The inclusion of recognition from S.Ossetia is, therefore, perfectly fine.

States with limited recognition are described as States (with limited recognition), as non-UN member states, or as other states in all articles „International recognition of…“ and in many other articles or templates. If link from the word "states" is here to List of sovereign states, then I really don't know what is controversial or incorrect on it.

Try to read the whole article, not just half of the first sentence. What's the sense to write: "SADR has been recognized by 84 UN member states.. .. Notably, 84 out of 193 (43.5%) United Nations (UN) member states.. ..have recognised SADR." ?

Is it not more logical (and I think also a completely fair) to write: "SADR has been recognized by 85 states (Note: Including one state with limited recognition (South Ossetia)).. .. Notably, 84 out of 193 (43.5%) United Nations (UN) member states.. ..have recognised SADR." ? What is controversial on this view? Jan CZ (talk) 10:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You really ask what is controversial about including South Ossetia as a state when 'state' is linked to a list of sovereign states? I really cannot fathom how you make such a comment.

Your claim that "States with limited recognition are described as States (with limited recognition), as non-UN member states, or as other states in all articles" is neither true nor relevant. Irrelevant because precedent is not authoritative in Wikipedia, and untrue because there are numerous microstates that claim to meet the same criteria of statehood but are not included.

I would refer you to our article on states and the recognition thereof, and in particular the following: State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign state... There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood... recognition of tatehood is a matter of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes ... there are several theories of when a state should be recognized as sovereign.

A very small proportion of world authorities consider South Ossetia to be a state: to claim that it is a state is to take a position on that matter. No-one in the world believes that South Ossetia is a UN member, so enumerating UN members is uncontroversial. It does not prejudice or make assumptions about the validity of anyone's opinion on the status of South Ossetia: it maintains a neutral point of view, which is incumbent upon us all. Kevin McE (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial on the link to the List of sovereign states in which S. Ossetia is included as a State. This list includes only States and provides information about them. All the entities involved here are repeatedly and generally referred as States. S. Ossetia is in her line described as "de facto independent state".

Again, I went through each articles "International recognition of..". And again, there are countries such as Kosovo, Taivan, SADR or Abkhazia describes as States (with limited recognition, others, etc.). Exactly as I wrote. Because some claims from microstates exist, so is it not true that the Taivan, Kosovo or Abkhazia are in those articles described as States? Are you really serious about this argument?

The vast majority of the world's perception of entities such as S. Ossetia, Somaliland or Northern Cyprus as the de facto States. I don't know anyone who would say that these States do not exist. The question of diplomatic recognition is a question of degree of legitimacy or legality of these bodies, not their existence.

We have articles about South Ossetia, we have List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition. Those directly involved in the issue. Of course, precedent is not authoritative in Wikipedia. But this isn't a question of precedent. This is the question of the use of data from this specialized articles in other articles that draw from them.

Is theorem "South Ossetia is state with limited recognition" POV? I think that the discussion about the inclusion of the entities under the term "States" should be conducted on the relevant talk pages like Talk:List of sovereign states or Talk:List of states with limited recognition, not here. Maybe you're right, and the contents of the entire series of articles, and the title of the article List of states with limited recognition, the need for rework. But I don't think so. Jan CZ (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It really is incredibly simple. If very few authorities recognise SO as a state, then the description of SO as a state is not only an opinion, but a very isolated opinion. Wikipedia has a clear policy on maintaining a neutral POV, and that can only be served by avoiding the term 'state', and using instead a qualified term such as 'UN member state' which is entirely non controversial. Please explain what is erroneous or offensive in the phrasing I have applied: if there is nothing in what I have put into the article, leave it as it is. Kevin McE (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, the discussion about the use of the term "states" belong to other talk pages. I don't understand why this your personal opinion, which is similar to old disputes about "widely recognised state", You constantly advocate right here. Using of the term "states" for the entities included in the List of sov.states certainly don't consider any violation of NPOV. Especially if it is accompanied by explanatory note.

There is no any reason why delete the total number of recognitions. It is a logical first information in the intro. On the contrary, there is no reason why the number of UN members in acknowledging the intro article placed twice. In addition, we can of course mention the limited recognition of S.O., I had suggested a comment about it. Indicating of the number of recognition of S. Ossetia here is redundant, this is an article about the recognition of the SADR, but not of S.Ossetia. Who cares about the recognitions of S.Ossetia, makes use the link or template, and peeks at the appropriate page.

Article should be logically structured, concise and easy to read. To clear the total number of received recognition, duplication of information about UN members, detailed information about one peripheral recognizer – it's not a meaningful editing, which would have contributed to this. Please stop your edit war, and repeated aggressive rewriting the total number of received recognitions etc. under false pretenses. This is not a good way to improve the article. Jan CZ (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Jan CZ is right. There is a consensus across many related articles that South Ossetia is a state (albeit of a different type than UN members), based on broad support from secondary sources and the facts that it is both controlled by its proclaimed government and diplomatically recognized by several UN member countries. WP:NPOV means fairly representing "views that have been published by reliable sources", not views that are held by diplomatic missions of UN member countries (primary sources with obvious political agendas). And in any case, a single editor cannot be the final arbiter of what is NPOV - that comes from consensus. GeoEvan (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)