Wikidata:Property proposal/(not) officially recognized by
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
officially recognized by[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | which jurisdiction or international non-governmental organization officially recognizes the subject |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | items which are instances of administrative territorial entity (Q56061) or international non-governmental organization (Q1194093) |
| Example 1 | rights
|
| Example 2 | sovereignties
|
| Example 3 | religions
|
| Example 4 | atrocities
|
not officially recognized by[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | which jurisdiction or international non-governmental organization does not officially recognize the subject |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | items which are instances of administrative territorial entity (Q56061) or international non-governmental organization (Q1194093) |
| Example 1 | rights
|
| Example 2 | sovereignties
|
| Example 3 | religions
|
| Example 4 | atrocities
|
Motivation[edit]
Whether or not a country recognizes specific rights, sovereignties, religions or atrocities can have huge implications on the lives of people (or animals in the case of animal rights).
Wikipedia already has several articles that give an overview over the situations by countries (e.g. w:LGBT rights by country or territory, w:Animal rights by country or territory, w:Scientology status by country). I think it would be great if we had that data in Wikidata.
I suggest the following property constraints:
- property constraint (P2302)property scope constraint (Q53869507)
property scope (P5314)as main value (Q54828448) - property constraint (P2302)allowed-entity-types constraint (Q52004125)
item of property constraint (P2305)Wikibase item (Q29934200) - property constraint (P2302)value-type constraint (Q21510865)
relation (P2309)instance of (Q21503252) class (P2308)administrative territorial entity (Q56061) class (P2308)international non-governmental organization (Q1194093) - property constraint (P2302)citation needed constraint (Q54554025): these statements should have at least one reference
- property constraint (P2302)required qualifier constraint (Q21510856)
property (P2306)start time (P580) for "recognizes" (but not for "does not recognize")
Suggested English aliases:
- is officially recognized by / is not officially recognized by
- is recognized by / is not recognized by
- recognized by / not recognized by
- legally recognized by / not legally recognized by
- is legally recognized by / is not legally recognized by
--Push-f (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Human rights Notified participants of WikiProject LGBT Notified participants of WikiProject Religions Notified participants of WikiProject Taiwan --Push-f (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Probably several other WikiProjects should be mentioned: Notified participants of WikiProject Russia Notified participants of WikiProject Ukraine Notified participants of WikiProject Kosovo Notified participants of WikiProject Japan Notified participants of WikiProject Morocco Notified participants of WikiProject Commons Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that one of the example 2 is no longer true, Nicaragua no longer recognize and support TW independent, their govt. is now recognizing PRC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Probably several other WikiProjects should be mentioned:
Support but I'd prefer the name of the property to be "officially recognizes", to make it explicit. --Waldyrious (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea,
Done. --Push-f (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea,
- Comment I think the inverse relation "officially recognized by" makes more sense because it's more interesting too see which countries recognize same sex civil union (Q64605651) than all the things a certain country recognizes. Also, Germany (Q183) already has tons of statements, making it quite slow to fetch data from it. Dexxor (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea, Done. (I didn't like the idea of catering to fixable UI limitations initially but changed my mind when considering that it's better if these statements are on the thing that is being recognized (or not) because this lets users interested in a particular subject watch the respective item to get changes to these statements in their watchlist). --Push-f (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea,
- See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Recognition, recognized by, not recognized by, jurisdiction status, which is still open.--GZWDer (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing that proposal to my attention :) (I am a bit embarrassed that I missed it ... but seeing that the other proposal has apparently been abandoned and also suggests the creation of two other properties I personally, and apparently also other people, don't see the need for ... it's probably good that I created this proposal). I will mention this proposal in the other discussions :) --Push-f (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose in most cases official recognition in the world is about whether or not a country officially recognizes that a certain relationship holds. I would prefer to make statements like this as a qualifer and not as properties that directly apply to the subject. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I would like you to reconsider that stance. Yes we can certainly model the recognition of relationships with statement supported by (P3680) and statement disputed by (P1310), e.g:
- However any such disputed statement is likely to 1) be notable and 2) be the main subject of political movements, political parties, research etc. (e.g. Taiwan independence movement (Q708772)main subject (P921)Taiwan's independence (Q115667697) & Taiwan Independence Party (Q711428)main subject (P921)Taiwan's independence (Q115667697)), so I think it is better to model this as:
- Ainstance of (P31)B
nature of statement (P5102)disputed (Q18912752) statement is subject of (P805)X - Xofficially recognized byC
- Xnot officially recognized byD
- Ainstance of (P31)B
- because then if other items link to X e.g. Qmain subject (P921)X then the facts that C recognizes X and D doesn't recognize X are easier to discover from Q (while still being easy to discover from A).
- (I apologize for the letter salad :>)
- --Push-f (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- If you take the example of "Scientology as a religion" as a "point of view", then a country does not need to hold that view point to recognize it. Countries recognize individuals holding all sorts of view points that are not government policy.
- If you instead of Scientology instance of (P31) religion "supported by" or maybe "recognized by" country XY, the meaning is much more clear. It's easy to understand such a claim in a structured matter while understand what "Scientology as a religion (Q115672475) officially recognized by Australia (Q408)" is hard to understand both for humans and also automatically. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- You make a good point that Scientology as a religion (Q115672475)instance of (P31)point of view (Q12558574) wasn't well thought out ... I just changed it to instance of (P31)religion (Q9174)
nature of statement (P5102)disputed (Q18912752). - However your suggestion to model this with qualifiers still strikes me as unsuitable for two simple reasons:
- you cannot add references to a specific qualifier ... if a statement has a dozen "recognized by" qualifiers it would just have a dozen references which wouldn't be in any way linked to their respective qualifier
- you cannot add qualifiers to a specific qualifier ... we couldn't specify start time (P580) for when a specific country has started to recognize the thing in question
- If we want this information to be well sourced (which I think we do) and detailed, like including start time (P580) (which I also think we do), we have to use main statements.
- --Push-f (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- If a government recognizes something, there's usually a legal act involved in that recognition. Often creating items for that legal act is the best way to store all information in a well sourced way. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- You make a good point that Scientology as a religion (Q115672475)instance of (P31)point of view (Q12558574) wasn't well thought out ... I just changed it to instance of (P31)religion (Q9174)
- Support This would be very helpful in articles about "___ rights in ____'" where some places recognize something and others do not.StarTrekker (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps the name of this property could be changed to something less ambiguous. E.g "officially not recognized by", or even "officially rejected by" (whichever is used, the other should be an alias). That would avoid the ambiguity with entities that simply haven't adopted a stance either way. --Waldyrious (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl, Waldyrious, Push-f, StarTrekker, Dexxor:
Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ZI Jony. I don't mean to question your assessment of the discussion, but I'm curious as to why you consider four supportive stances (one proposer plus three favorable commenters) versus one opposing one to be a "no consensus" situation. I'm sure you're not proposing that only a unanimity result would be sufficient to deem the property worth creating, so perhaps is the low number of participants making the opposition stance hold considerable weight? If so, I'd probably suggest requesting additional feedback (e.g. pinging specific users and/or projects) to make the discussion more conclusive. Anyway, let me know what you think. --Waldyrious (talk)
- Waldyrious, thank you for your trust. It's actually 2/1, you and StarTrekker supported (didn't included proposer in this case), and ChristianKl opposed, which is really make the opposition stance hold considerable weight. However, if you would like to get additional feedback, then I'm willing to reopen for a week. Please remember that there is a similar property proposal which is pending for related RFC to close. Let me know if you want me to reopen the proposal. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, indeed Dexxor's position is not as clear cut as the others. I interpreted it as favorable since he suggested using the inverse relation "officially recognized by" as opposed to the original proposal "recognizes", and the OP did adopt his suggestion. I also don't think the OP's opinion should be discounted when weighing the discussion. But sure, the overall situation is potentially ambiguous. I don't think it's worth reopening just yet, unless additional feedback comes along. In particular, I'd like Dexxor to clarify his stance.
- Thanks also for pointing me to the ongoing discussions. Those seem to be more narrowly about recognition of states or similar political entities, by other states/political entities. IMHO this proposal is broader and would benefit the modeling of more cases, as the examples above demonstrate, so I'd argue that it still has merit on its own. Waldyrious (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see ChristianKl's point, but there really is no better way to encode a subject's recognition status: qualifiers like statement disputed by (P1310) are not flexible enough. I would wait with the creation of "not officially recognized by" since it's just a weaker version of item disputed by (P7378) and active disapproval is easier to verify than lack of recognition. I'm voting
Neutral because there's nothing wrong with the proposed properties but I doubt they will provide much value to query users. Dexxor (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see ChristianKl's point, but there really is no better way to encode a subject's recognition status: qualifiers like statement disputed by (P1310) are not flexible enough. I would wait with the creation of "not officially recognized by" since it's just a weaker version of item disputed by (P7378) and active disapproval is easier to verify than lack of recognition. I'm voting
- Waldyrious, thank you for your trust. It's actually 2/1, you and StarTrekker supported (didn't included proposer in this case), and ChristianKl opposed, which is really make the opposition stance hold considerable weight. However, if you would like to get additional feedback, then I'm willing to reopen for a week. Please remember that there is a similar property proposal which is pending for related RFC to close. Let me know if you want me to reopen the proposal. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ZI Jony. I don't mean to question your assessment of the discussion, but I'm curious as to why you consider four supportive stances (one proposer plus three favorable commenters) versus one opposing one to be a "no consensus" situation. I'm sure you're not proposing that only a unanimity result would be sufficient to deem the property worth creating, so perhaps is the low number of participants making the opposition stance hold considerable weight? If so, I'd probably suggest requesting additional feedback (e.g. pinging specific users and/or projects) to make the discussion more conclusive. Anyway, let me know what you think. --Waldyrious (talk)
